O’ GOD OF MAN, WOE GOD OF MAN
The DAO, e.g., as elaborated from Confucian commentaries in my article on Pre-Socratics’ Philosophy of Physis, is not what people call “God” with “His” decisions, preferences and jealousies. Men have created beautiful and elevated literature, but speak for this god, and even if we allowed the notion that this god did speak to prophets, the words men attribute to said God speaks like something finite merely arrogating to itself titles of supremacy; and the men and tribes that worship said “God” force (or persuade the adoption or adaptations of) that claim to supremacy through material, physical and political domination onto other humans.
The unique position in Theosophical literature is an insistence, that the ancient records (the ancient cosmologies) before the construction of monotheism show that the “Creator” or “Demiurge” represents the early phase of the “Birth of the Gods” (cosmogony), and that it is a collective Unity, not a singular entity “creating.” Just saying “God did it,” i.e., gets us nowhere, because there are ancient atomists and philosophical schools older than Christianity that posit more complex, layered, and impersonal processes of cosmic emergence, plural intelligences, world‑souls, formative powers, and evolutionary hierarchies rather than a single willful deity acting ex nihilo.
In my view, the concept of God is a creation of males speaking for said God and has no reality outside of its conditioned construction by man. The Absolute does not “create” as your theologians like to say.
There is the stage of the Absolute and the stage of Manifestation (the Many). As said, an Architect contracts constructors and holds the plans, and the builders’ fashion, emphasizing a task of emanative properties and co-creation on the part of forces, elements and so on working together in building life, seeding life and destroying life. This is an extremely important and fundamental distinction and argument of Theosophy as opposed to the conventional positions of theism. More problems occur by trying to force more complexities in the term “God.”
In this view, there’s no singular Being that “creates,” or to whom mortals ought to worship or the hellfire awaits! This view rejects the monotheist
What does this mean for religion, as we have historically understood it thus far?
It challenges it, definitely.
The American Minervan 
Leave a comment