tat tvam asi wrote:I think that a belief statement would make things more understandable Robert. As an example I'll post the WPM belief statement and I'd like to see where your astrotheological Christian reformation ideas differ, if they differ at all: http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm
The belief statement of the WPM

Hi Tat, thanks. I really like the Pantheist statement of belief, but have a few points where I would like to clarify my response to it, as follows.

1. We revere and celebrate the Universe as the totality of being, past, present and future. It is self-organizing, ever-evolving and inexhaustibly diverse. Its overwhelming power, beauty and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder.

I completely endorse this statement. It raises some key themes for a mythicist view. “The universe” in my view is the finite material totality observed by science. Any ideas of an infinity beyond the universe is outside this scope, as completely speculative and unknowable, as is the traditional concept of divine entities. The point that the universe is ‘self-organising’ raises basic questions about free will and determinism, in that it sees the human exercise of freedom of intention as a local expression of a universal principle of natural causation. For our decisions and ideas to reflect a universal law is how I see the real meaning of the Biblical concept of humanity as made in the image of God.

2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.

Astrotheology expands on this insight to say that ancient myth has long understood it, and has presented stories as allegories for unity to understand how we are at one with nature, the source of the Christian doctrine of atonement. Where I would expand on this statement is to say that our interconnected unity should seek expression through institutions. Pantheists tend to regard existing institutions as irredeemably alienated and lost, whereas I have hope for their salvation through transformation into a sense of their place within a unitary cosmos. It is about developing a view on how our world can evolve by building on precedent rather than operating entirely outside existing structures.

3. We are an integral part of Nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity. We should strive to live in harmony with Nature locally and globally. We acknowledge the inherent value of all life, human and non-human, and strive to treat all living beings with compassion and respect.

Reverence for nature is something that fundamentalists cannot understand. Christians commit an epic fail regarding worship when they jump past the order of creation to claim reverence for a Creator. It is idolatrous to claim that theories about God can be advanced that are incompatible with observation of nature by science.

4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.

This is a nice piece of idealism but it is not true. Some people are more enlightened than others. The relativism inherent in the claim that everyone is an ‘equal center of awareness’ is fine in terms of inherent potential, but not in terms of reality, where in fact many people are aware and many people are deluded. A person who believes things that are not true is not ‘an equal center of awareness of the Universe and nature’.

5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.

The first sentence here is very metaphysical. The terms ‘substance’, ‘vibrant’ and ‘infinitely creative’ have a poetic ring which is evocative but far from exact. David Hume attacked the concept of substance as metaphysical, making the point that Aristotle used substance (ousia) in a way that did not accord with empirical evidence. Again, my scepticism about any use of the term ‘infinite’ applies here – real creation is finite, not infinite. Creativity opens us to an unknown, but that does not make it infinite.

The second sentence ‘Body and mind are indivisibly united’ is similarly woolly. Mind is a representation of matter through language. Words are not things. So a distinction between mind and body does have some meaning, even while we view mind as a product of matter.

6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.

My only quibble here is what it means to ‘exist as an individual’. Point 1 has already implied that the past is real. Yet here we find the suggestion that only people alive in the present moment ‘exist as individuals’. I prefer to say that dead people continue to exist through their influence on the world, both known and unknown. So I would put influence as more central than actions, ideas and memories in terms of what lives on. This goes back to the mind-matter distinction, because influence is primarily on culture and the life of the mind, establishing connections between the present and the past in ways that have quite a distant connection to the material body that enables them. For example, our discussion of ancient Egypt establishes a connection between us and them, but one that is very different from the solely material causality of us having this discussion. And the ancients, both real and mythical, continue to exist and live in us, through our discussion of their ideas.

I’m sorry if my comments confuse people on this point, but it opens the paradox that while Jesus Christ never existed as an individual historically, he nonetheless does exist as an individual in people’s perceptions, which is still a real form of existence. To some extent believing makes it so, if our belief influences our actions.

7. We honor reality, and keep our minds open to the evidence of the senses and of science's unending quest for deeper understanding. These are our best means of coming to know the Universe, and on them we base our aesthetic and religious feelings about reality.

Fully agree here.

8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.

Again, this shows the anarchic, relativist and non-conformist roots of Pantheism. Sadly, most individuals do not have direct access to reality, because they are ignorant or deluded. There is in fact a need for mediation, although the problem is that historically this function has been performed extremely badly, so people are right to view it with a hermeneutic of suspicion, as Nietzsche put it. Most people are followers. What is needed is leaders with good perception who can simplify complex vision into an accessible form in order to build new institutions that will heal the damage done by millennia of deluded institutions.

9. We uphold the separation of religion and state, and the universal human right of freedom of religion. We recognize the freedom of all pantheists to express and celebrate their beliefs, as individuals or in groups, in any non-harmful ritual, symbol or vocabulary that is meaningful to them.

Again, this is a complicated one. It derives from the problem of false religion abusing the power of the state to suppress diversity. I fully support the human right to diversity and freedom of thought and religion, but I also hold the hope of an eventual reconciliation of church and state, once religion gains enough legitimacy and integrity to be trusted. In ancient Egypt the king was a channel of divine blessing. This sense of social unity is attractive, but very distant, in view of the extreme corruption of contemporary religion. This issue also touches on eschatology, the idea of a final conflict between good and evil. I view pantheism as on the side of the angels, lining up with Saint Michael for the war in heaven against the dragon, (if you can permit an allegorical turn of phrase that I am sure many will recognize). The context of global warming driven by alienated religion means these questions of a political expression of pantheism is important and urgent. The need for institutions that are pantheist is actually important for the salvation of the planet, given that institutions of state are the source of power, and anything outside them gets ignored in terms of practical effect.

With the exception of a few points your astrotheological Christian reform ideas tread very closely to Pantheism.

2. All matter, energy, and life are an interconnected unity of which we are an inseparable part. We rejoice in our existence and seek to participate ever more deeply in this unity through knowledge, celebration, meditation, empathy, love, ethical action and art.

5. There is a single kind of substance, energy/matter, which is vibrant and infinitely creative in all its forms. Body and mind are indivisibly united.

Let's look at this point. All matter, energy, and life could not exist without space. Indeed space is the one thing common to everything as an interconnecting factor. There is more volume of space in every atom then there is particle. Energy, as we understand it, includes matter. I don't know where the author was going with this statement, but I do know that it has been expanded upon by Pantheist physicists delving into the wave structure of matter, who, have concluded that space more than likely has the properties of a continuous wave medium substance (mostly rigid / slightly elastic) and that matter derives from the wave medium properties of space ( http://www.quantummatter.com ). In this cosmology everything exists within the bounds of this continuous wave medium that we call space - the void that is no void in this case. Your body, your mind, and indeed everyone's mind is an interconnected part of the whole of this continuous space common to everything. That may not make clear sense by way of the point particle conception of matter passed along by the Greeks, but there are deeper senses in which to view this issue that have emerged during the last century that correct a lot of the old thinking and continue to gain speed and momentum.

4. All humans are equal centers of awareness of the Universe and nature, and all deserve a life of equal dignity and mutual respect. To this end we support and work towards freedom, democracy, justice, and non-discrimination, and a world community based on peace, sustainable ways of life, full respect for human rights and an end to poverty.

I've always taken this to mean equal centers of consciousness, as opposed to equal centers of aware of any particular body of knowledge. Obviously everyone is not equally aware of all knowledge. But that is besides the point made by Pantheism. The universe is aware of itself through us and through the rest of the animals that are living conscious creatures (an indeed anywhere else life may exist). There are varying levels of awareness that are all being experienced simultaneously by each and every living property of the universe. That evens out the playing field in that way. It's all the inner workings of an interconnected universe as one large scale ensemble. Along these lines of reasoning the most ignorant troll is equally a center of the awareness of the universe itself, regardless of how deluded that troll may be. And there is some truth to that insight as I see it.

6. We see death as the return to nature of our elements, and the end of our existence as individuals. The forms of "afterlife" available to humans are natural ones, in the natural world. Our actions, our ideas and memories of us live on, according to what we do in our lives. Our genes live on in our families, and our elements are endlessly recycled in nature.

This is simple, you sought to make it more complex. Only people alive at the current moment do exist as individuals who are alive at the current moment. That's all that is meant by the statement. An individual that has passed on does not exist as a conscious living individual anymore crossing from one plane of existence to another, but rather only continues to exist as the memory of an individual that once lived. And our elements are endlessly recycled in nature, that goes without saying. This is a strictly scientific analysis.

8. Every individual has direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is the Universe and Nature. There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures.

How can you even begin to suggest that every individual does not have direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is simply the Universe and Nature? You think that religious leaders are needed in order for an individual to have direct access through perception to the Universe and Nature? If I am the Universe incarnate, and you are the Universe incarnate, then we both have direct access to the Universe and Nature. It's all within the both of us. Or do we not have direct access to that which is within us in the first place?

FTL99 wrote:This issue of sun/son has been addressed at Acharya's FAQ's:

The Son of God is the Sun of God

English: sun son
Old English: sunne sunnu
Afrikaans: son seun
Dutch: zon zoon
German: Sonne Sohn
Slovenian: sonce sin

What about in the ancient languages in which the texts were originally written? The words would have to be homophones in those languages in order for a concealed or double meaning to be intended when either word was used.

^From the previous link on the last page:

DM Murdock wrote:The Son of God is the Sun of God

The assertion that the "Son of God" is the "Sun of God" is frequently raised as another strawman argument that detractors like to knock down. Like these other criticisms, I have already addressed this one, but like sauerkraut it keeps repeating.

The complaint about this assertion stems from the impression that I and others are claiming the words "son" and "sun" are interchangeable and that, according to mainstream etymology, these two words in fact constitute "false cognates."

In the first place, the phrase comparing "son" and "sun" is usually meant to be a PLAY ON WORDS, not to suggest that the two words are etymological cognates and are interchangeable. Hence, this complaint represents a strawman argument. I for one am well aware that, according to mainstream etymology, the two words are not cognates and are not related. Using this PLAY ON WORDS to make a point is perfectly allowable, but one that is evidently lost on the critic.

In any event, as it turns out - and I as discovered long after I knew that mainstream etymology does not allow for the two words to be cognates and related - there IS reason to suggest otherwise, per the fascinating work of Christian etymologist Jacob Bryant, who published his book A New System, or An Analysis of Ancient Mythology in 1774. In Suns of God (76), I write:

Bryant notes that the Egyptian priests were called "Sonchin," or "Son-Cohen" - priests of the sun. Thus, [in this case] the English word "son" [would not be] a false cognate with "sun," and it is truthfully said that the "son of God" is the "sun of God." This son-sun connection can also be found in the Indian language: In tracing many Indo-European and Vedic words to a common root, Roy [93] proffers, among others, the root "son," representing "sunu" in Vedic and "son" in Indo-European.

The "Roy" above refers to Indian scholar S.B. Roy, who wrote Prehistoric Lunar Astronomy, Institute of Chronology, New Delhi, 1976.

Indeed, the Old English word for "son" is sunnu, while "sun" is sunne, so again we have an apt comparison.

The linguistical connection can be found in other languages as well.

English: sun son
Old English: sunne sunnu
Afrikaans: son seun
Dutch: zon zoon
German: Sonne Sohn
Slovenian: sonce sin

However, it needs to be stated that nobody is claiming that "son" and "sun" sounding the same is proof of anything. Therefore, making videos or writing articles in order to debunk this straw man and non-issue represents not only a total misrepresentation of this point but also an utter waste of time.

Furthermore, some have pointed out the similarity between the Greek words for son, huios, and sun, helios. I have not found any evidence that this possible Greek pun was used in the ancient world, however, but that doesn't rule it out, as much literature has been destroyed since that time, and my survey was brief.

To repeat, in Greek the word for "sun" is ἥλιος or "helios."

In Hebrew, it is שמש or "shamash," while in Latin is it "sol."

It should be noted that I have known these words in Greek, Hebrew and Latin for about 30 years. As such, I have never said that these words are the same - that is a complete and utter fabrication, displaying the ridiculously poor quality of the criticisms of my work. One should be suspect of any other argument following such an absurd straw man, as it is likely to be of the same poor quality. Individuals and websites using this strawman son-sun criticism should be dismissed out of hand as inaccurate and irrelevant.

The bottom line is that even if we do not accept the etymology of Bryant and Roy, the fact will remain that the assertion that the son of God is the sun of God represents a clever play on words which reflects reality within the world of mythology.

The Sun/Son Play on Words throughout History

Also, this sun/son pun in English has been well noted in the past by many writers, poets and clergymen in the Christian world. As I relate in my ebook Jesus as the Sun throughout History - all facts are carefully cited there, so be sure to obtain my ebook for more information:

Moreover, this sun-son word play has been noted many times previously in history by a variety of individuals, including English priest and poet Robert Southwell in the 16th century and English poet Richard Crashaw in the 17th century. English poet and preacher John Donne (1572-1631) and Welsh poet and priest George Herbert (1593-1633) likewise engaged in the son/sun pun as applied to Christ. In discussing Donne, Dr. Arthur L. Clements, a professor at Binghamton University, remarks that the "Son-sun pun" is "familiar enough." Comparing Christ to the "day star," famous English poet John Milton (1608-1674) was aware of the "sun/son of God” analogy and "revel[ed] in the sun-son pun." In his book about English poet Andrew Marvell (1621-1678), Dr. Nigel Smith, a professor at Princeton University, comments that "Jesus was also thought to have been referred to in Mal. 4:2 (thereby involving a pun on Sun/Son of God)..." Puritan minister Edward Taylor (1642-1729) engaged in the same punning by describing Christ as "the onely [sic] begotten Sun that is in the bosom of the Father..."

Furthermore, in describing the actions of the Church fathers in adapting sun myths to Christianity, Thomas Ellwood Longshore declared in 1881, "They merely changed the visible 'Sun of God' for the invisible 'Son of God,' or for this personage they called the 'Son of God'..." while addressing the Shakespearean character Petruccio’s "arrogation of the son/sun pun" in "The Taming of the Shrew," Dr. Peter Holland, a professor of Shakespearean History at Notre Dame University, says that this play on words is "normally used to glorify Christ..." In An Introduction to English Grammar, Dr. Sidney Greenbaum, a professor of English at University College London, comments, "Religious poetry traditionally puns Sun with Son, Christ the son of God..." Dr. Stephen C. Behrendt, a professor of English at the University of Nebraska, called the pun "longstanding." The sun-son play on words as applicable to Christ has also been deemed so "common" as to represent a "devotional pun."

Obviously, this "devotional pun" was widely recognized centuries ago by the English-speaking intelligentsia and educated elite. Therefore, shallow criticisms of the statement that the son of God is the sun of God represent illogical straw men reflective of ignorance of this fact and should be dismissed as such. In reality, the repeated punning across several centuries proves once more that Christ was widely associated with the sun long before the 19th century. In any event, the idea of the sun as both God and the son of God predates the Christian era by centuries, and the ancient solar role was most obviously transferred first to Yahweh and then to his supposed son, the alleged Jewish messiah Jesus Christ.

In my ebook Jesus as the Sun throughout the Ages, I have thus recounted the history of the son-sun pun in English literature - possibly the most thorough treatment of such - and demonstrated that it has a long and venerable usage among some of the best writers and poets of the English language dating back centuries...

DWill wrote: The words [Sun and Son] would have to be homophones in those languages in order for a concealed or double meaning to be intended when either word was used.

No, that is not true. Allegory does not rely simply on puns. There are many examples of hidden meanings in the Bible where there is no play on words. What is required is that a concept is described, as in a parable, where the surface description conceals a deeper reality. Most recently, I mentioned the statement by Jesus that faith can move mountains. In literal terms this is ridiculous, but as allegory it points to a claim that belief can have power to achieve things that could never be done without belief.
Such ideas are routinely understood as parables. Jesus himself explains some hidden meanings in parables, such as the sower who casts seed on rocky, thorny and fertile ground, concealing the meaning that the word of truth can set root only in a receptive heart.

The allegory between Jesus Christ and the Sun is similar. The Bible calls Jesus the light of the world. In fact, the light of the world is the Sun. Here we have a simple and clear allegorical relationship between the Son and the Sun. The prologue to the Gospel of John continues to explain that the light through which the world was made is not recognized. If the deeper point is that we do not understand our relationship to the Sun as the giver of life, we can read the Gospel text as an allegory for the inability of humanity to relate properly to our natural situation.

Christ and the twelve disciples were originally allegory for the Sun and twelve months, as was argued by early Gnostics, showing further the natural subtext that gives the real meaning for the surface myth.

tat tvam asi wrote:With the exception of a few points your astrotheological Christian reform ideas tread very closely to Pantheism.

Yes, and I see myself as a pantheist too. The point here is to analyze the text of the Pantheist Statement of Belief. Such analysis should be exact, given that any looseness of meaning creates wiggle room for error. So I sought to read the Statement precisely as given, not assuming they meant something different from what they said.

There is more volume of space in every atom than there is particle.

That is a simple statement of physical fact. Where it gets complicated is when people introduce metaphysical concepts which seem to derive from the physical observation, but which actually are questionable. Here I am thinking especially of such a waffly idea as 'infinitely creative'.

Obviously everyone is not equally aware of all knowledge. But that is besides the point made by Pantheism.

If it is beside the point, then they should revise their creed to make that clear and remove the ambiguity. I think it is obvious that they like having this ambiguity for political reasons, in order to elide from pluralism into relativism and suggest that contradictory ideas can be equally true.

the most ignorant troll is equally a center of the awareness of the universe itself, regardless of how deluded

That is a worthy statement of respect for the human dignity of trolls, but it exaggerates their intellect. Albert Einstein was not equal as a center of awareness to creationists, who are centers of confusion, not awareness. Science reflects reality. Superstition breeds delusion.

An individual that has passed on ... only continues to exist as the memory of an individual that once lived.

As I suggested, the influence of a person on the world is wider than the conscious memory that people have of them. An inventor continues to exist in their invention, and a thinker in their ideas, even where the people using them do not know who was responsible.

How can you even begin to suggest that every individual does not have direct access through perception, emotion and meditation to ultimate reality, which is simply the Universe and Nature? You think that religious leaders are needed in order for an individual to have direct access through perception to the Universe and Nature? If I am the Universe incarnate, and you are the Universe incarnate, then we both have direct access to the Universe and Nature. It's all within the both of us. Or do we not have direct access to that which is within us in the first place?

Enlightened people have access to reality, while deluded people do not. The challenge is to define the distinction between enlightenment and delusion in clear terms. A statement that carries the implication that deluded people are enlightened ("all have access to ultimate reality") may be nice as a statement of respect for diversity and humility, but it really does no favors to clear thinking. Most individuals don't meditate, so that rules them out as having access by meditation. Many emotions, such as hate and fear, put up barriers between us and reality. These pantheists should just cut the waffle and be more precise and logical.

Very well said, Robert!

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote: The words [Sun and Son] would have to be homophones in those languages in order for a concealed or double meaning to be intended when either word was used.

No, that is not true. Allegory does not rely simply on puns. There are many examples of hidden meanings in the Bible where there is no play on words. What is required is that a concept is described, as in a parable, where the surface description conceals a deeper reality. Most recently, I mentioned the statement by Jesus that faith can move mountains. In literal terms this is ridiculous, but as allegory it points to a claim that belief can have power to achieve things that could never be done without belief.
Such ideas are routinely understood as parables. Jesus himself explains some hidden meanings in parables, such as the sower who casts seed on rocky, thorny and fertile ground, concealing the meaning that the word of truth can set root only in a receptive heart.

The allegory between Jesus Christ and the Sun is similar. The Bible calls Jesus the light of the world. In fact, the light of the world is the Sun. Here we have a simple and clear allegorical relationship between the Son and the Sun. The prologue to the Gospel of John continues to explain that the light through which the world was made is not recognized. If the deeper point is that we do not understand our relationship to the Sun as the giver of life, we can read the Gospel text as an allegory for the inability of humanity to relate properly to our natural situation.

Christ and the twelve disciples were originally allegory for the Sun and twelve months, as was argued by early Gnostics, showing further the natural subtext that gives the real meaning for the surface myth.

Robert, I think that similar in terms of enlightenment. Few are enlightened individuals. But the Pantheist theme is that the universe is an interconnected realm. The enlightened and the deluded both have the ability to access ultimate reality if they so chose. That would be a better clarification. I agree that some of the terminology of the Pantheist credo is in need of correction.

You and I both know that Pantheism played a role in ancient astrotheological religion. Murdock points out that Polytheism, Monotheism, and Pantheism were represented in different ways in the Egyptian religion and makes several scholarly analysis's which back that up. The very idea of an omnipresent creator God hints at a Pantheistic implication. Needless to say you're astrotheological Christian reform treads closely to a Pantheistic Christian reformation. I'm sure that if you sat down and put your mind to it that you could duplicate the Pantheist belief statement to reflect an astrotheological religion belief statement. Let's see what you can manage. It's just a matter of getting 9 or 10 solid beliefs stated that are firmly true and can be defended against just about any rebuttle. If you can manage that then I think you'd have something with appeal just because it would be solid. The problem with the Pantheist belief statement is that it isn't firm enough as it stands.

I think that anyone who has seen how little I know about the topics at hand should be able to believe that I was making a simple comment about the sun/son homophony, not resorting to a jab that I didn't even know was a familiar one, and certainly not slapping around a straw man. We need to make a sharp distinction between cognates and homophones here. It would never occur to me that anyone had claimed the pair to be cognates, i.e, etymologically related. I suspect that that the objection from mythicist critics is over homophony instead, but what do I know about it. There is a valid objection to be made to the statement that son/sun punning was occurring in the ancient languages. As I said to Robert in my second post, the evidence for the son being the sun would have to come from deeper sources such as those he cited. There would be no tell-tale sign of the relationship from sound-likeness, such as occurs in punning.

I didn't take you to be resorting to a jab, but the link was in response to those who have. The point being that Murdock has actually written an entire book just on this issue because it's become so heated a topic. And it's an interesting book too. Yahweh, as it turns out, was given quite a lot of solar symbolism. And basically it was passed down the line to the Christ myth.