,
22 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
It’s not all about us: a non-anthropocentric theological thread for critics of religion as being human-centric (not an unwarranted criticism, mind you), as well as theologically-minded polytheists & other theists. Starting with 5 points of clarification: (1/22)
a) My religion is *not* faith-based & thus not aptly described as “a faith”. It’s an orthopraxic religion, i.e. defined by ritual practice, so I’m more accurately described as a practitioner, *not* as a believer. Abrahamic-based terminology won’t work here, folks (2/22)
b) It is also *not* faith-based because it is *not* built on an exclusionary belief in a particular pantheon. Rather, I generally accept the existence of all deities, but worship only some – for various reasons – not all of them traditionally Roman (3/22)
c) Even faith as “trust in” misses the mark, because, again I say, the deities I worship (and hence have trust in) are not limited to a particular traditional pantheon, so to define my religion as faith in the Roman gods is simply nonsensical (4/22)
d) And it is also *not* a faith-based religion because it has no orthodoxy and hence no regulated theology out of which comes a “common faith”. There are popular views & ideas, yes, but they’re not the “official” doctrine of Roman polytheism (5/22)
e) So what follows is therefore *my* theological perspective and philosophical inclination, not that of my religion as a whole and hence not that of every one of my coreligionists. And with that said, moving on to a non-anthropocentric theology: (6/22)
1) I believe there are many deities, greater & smaller, of a global or cosmic character & of a more regional or local reach, that manifest themselves as female, masculine, gender-fluid or undefined, with diverse concerns, motivations, behaviours & views (7/22)
2) I do not believe them to be actual anthropomorphic entities, but only conventionally depicted as such and I’m quite content with that. I also don’t believe the sound /a/ actually looks like an A, but it’s conventionally depicted as such (8/22)
3) I do not believe every deity is known to humans. Some – most, even – may be unknown to us, either because they have no interest in us, have chosen not to present themselves to us or we simply have not reached their corner of the cosmos – & it’s a big cosmos (9/22)
4) I do not believe every deity is particularly focused on our needs, desires & well-being or has our best interests at heart. Some normally do: e.g. gods & goddesses of arts & crafts or family ancestors, which I consider to be household gods (10/22)
5) But others can have different concerns that don’t include our priorities or are not focused on short-term individual lives, rather on the grand, long-term scheme of things. Even human-friendly gods may at times take that wider perspective (11/22)
6) And others may simply be hostile to us, for whatever reason, though that doesn’t make them any less divine, because I define deity as that which is numinous, regardless of moral standing, behaviour towards us or whether they’re great or small (12/22)
7) Hence why I place family ancestors & the dead in general as gods, even if of the domestic or family type and thus limited in their reach, but gods nonetheless. And the same goes for what others might consider mere house or local spirits. Gods! All of them! (13/22)
8) So much so that when I say dead in general, I’m including deceased animals. And if they’re pets or farm animals – e.g. a horse – they too can be a part of the family dead & hence be household or domestic gods to be included in the corresponding cult (14/22)
9) I also believe that among the gods who have an interest of some sort in biological life, several may have no interest in humans, revealing themselves only, for instance, to animals. Some of those deities may even be hostile to us (15/22)
10) There may be also an overlap, particularly in the case of gods keen on animals that are part of the human life – like dogs – though that doesn’t necessarily mean that they award the same importance to humans and canines (16/22)
11) As a result, I also don’t believe that the Earth was created for humans. Our planet, and indeed the entire cosmos, is the product of a series of on-going competing & complementary processes, of which gods, in all their diversity, are a part of (17/22)
12) This multifaceted plurality has consequences. For one, it means no deity can act freely as if it’s the only player in the game. It may be limited by the scope of its own influence or be constrained by other gods, their interests, desires & actions (18/22)
13) Which means a deity’s ability to help or act on behalf of one or more humans is not unlimited. Assuming a god is even interested in doing so, it may require negotiation with others & it’s predicated on the existence of wiggle room (19/22)
14) After all, actions have consequences that reverberate beyond an individual or group, so to assist one can easily clash with others & whatever gods are looking after them. And humans, like animals, have agency, adding another layer of complexity (20/22)
15) Another consequence is that Nature – animals, plants, rivers, mountains, etc. – are *not* mere resources created to be explored by us. Life feeds on life, but that doesn’t mean that everything was made for us, because it’s not all about us (21/22)
16) It’s also about the other life forms on Earth & the planet’s waterways, oceans, forests, soil & heights – their rights, their dignity, their gods. Animals alone make up over a million different species. Why should ours be the sole object of divine concern? (22/22)
