I agree that the metaphysics of afterlife don't fit quite comfortably, in large part because I haven't quite figured out exactly what questions about the afterlife are asking--they tend to pre-assume the discreteness of the ego in a way I just don't have a handle on. But any claims about the ego are going to be by nature metaphysical.
I don't really see what's problematic about the metaphysics of divinity, though. I think it depends on what one means "calling all the shots." The mere fact of God's Lordship is a transcendent claim; specific instances of shot-calling (e.g., the flood, the ascension of Elijah, the blinding of Paul, whatever) would fall into categories 4 or 5.
Eschatological claims like the Rapture existing as a historical even would indeed fall into category 4, I suppose.
Also also: I like your system, but I feel like there are probably non-Western religions out there - or hell, even some Western ones - that probably break the mold.
I really think there is a need for a feminist/postmodernist panreligious liberal metatheology, but I do think there are going to be very strong objections of cultural imperialism, that any metatheology (and really, the very idea of "theology" is pretty darn Christian) is going to be overly influenced by a particularly religious theology, is definitely going to have to be addressed.
I don't really think the claim'll be so much that certain religions don't fit the mold as that the mold distorts the reality of those religions. (Of course, to some degrees, calling some religions "religions" distorts the reality of those religions.) I really can't think of any Buddhist or Taoist claims that can't fit into one of these groups; of course, I'm not an expert on non-Christian religions (other than Discordianism, I guess).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-17 04:59 pm (UTC)I don't really see what's problematic about the metaphysics of divinity, though. I think it depends on what one means "calling all the shots." The mere fact of God's Lordship is a transcendent claim; specific instances of shot-calling (e.g., the flood, the ascension of Elijah, the blinding of Paul, whatever) would fall into categories 4 or 5.
Eschatological claims like the Rapture existing as a historical even would indeed fall into category 4, I suppose.
Also also: I like your system, but I feel like there are probably non-Western religions out there - or hell, even some Western ones - that probably break the mold.
I really think there is a need for a feminist/postmodernist panreligious liberal metatheology, but I do think there are going to be very strong objections of cultural imperialism, that any metatheology (and really, the very idea of "theology" is pretty darn Christian) is going to be overly influenced by a particularly religious theology, is definitely going to have to be addressed.
I don't really think the claim'll be so much that certain religions don't fit the mold as that the mold distorts the reality of those religions. (Of course, to some degrees, calling some religions "religions" distorts the reality of those religions.) I really can't think of any Buddhist or Taoist claims that can't fit into one of these groups; of course, I'm not an expert on non-Christian religions (other than Discordianism, I guess).