Mendalla
Pantheism
Posted on: 05/07/2013 11:08
In the thread on Canons, John wrote the following:
I quibble with all of us being a part of God as that just sounds to me like pantheism and I don't agree with what pantheism promotes.
I'm curious to know what it is that pantheism promotes that you (or others here) disagree with. Not to confront you or argue with you, but as a starting point to explore the notion of pantheism further.
I self-describe as a pantheist. I didn't necessarily set out to be one. In fact, panentheism held much more appeal for me on a spiritual level for many years. Pantheism is just the term that best fits my sense of the world and where I am in it so I use it as shorthand when describing what I believe. Panentheism has argued (years ago now) that I am really a panentheist but I am still not convinced that shoe fits (though, as stated, it is a theology that I embraced/explored for a long time) and I am definitely not a classical Abrahamic monotheist, classical Trinitarian, or polytheist.
So, let's talk pantheism, folks.
Mendalla
Comments
InannaWhimsey
Posted on: 05/10/2013 10:36
I don't look at a sunset, a tree, an ocean, the stars and planets,a volcano, or an earthquake etc and think.....ah that is God. I just think that is what God is capable of and probably so much more that I haven't seen.
When I see humanity at it's best I see another glimpse of God and when I see humanity at it's worst, I can still see God working with us through this world.
Still any analysis that I attempt is simple and arrogant but the fact that I/we seek God or deny God, seems to be yet another essential component towards our understanding of our purpose for the life that we have.
keep on keepin' on
Arminius
Posted on: 05/10/2013 11:33
Yes, Kimmio, when we know that we don't know, then philosophy becomes an art rather than a desperate search or competition for absolute truth. Then we enjoy speculating, and joyously share each other's creations, without worrying about who is absolutely right or wrong.
I enjoyed your best attempt today, as I enjoyed your previous attempts, and offer my attempts in the spirit artistic sharing.
SG
Posted on: 05/10/2013 11:35
if all is in God, there is that tendency to blur the distinction between the sacred and the profane, the clean and the unclean, good and evil... That gets you into trouble.
It poses a great threat to religion. If God is in all and all is in God, what is to be made of the laws based on those distinctions? It certainly got Jesus into trouble....
Hi Stevie:
If all is God, and God is in all, what is to be made of the above distinctions?
If we want to be beyond good and evil, then we have to advance to the level of consciousness that is beyond good and evil, the consciousness of the all, and act from the viewpoint of the all, for the benefit of all.
If we are implicated in ego consciousness and unable to do that, then ordinary moral law applies. And if we are able to ascend to the level of all-consciousness, then we will not violate ordinary moral law. People who have ascended to the level of all-consiousness are not against ordinary moral law, they just don't need it to guide their moral actions. Their guidance arise directly from their level of all-consciousness.
In ancient China, there were two spiritual systems: Confucianism and Taoism. Confucianism was a strict rule of moral conduct, Taoism was a highly refined esoteric thought system for the seekers of ultimate truth. Everyone had to abide by the rules of Confucianism, but adherents to Concfucianism did not have to concern themselves with the lofty heights of Taoism. The leading Confucianists were Confucianists as well as Taoists, and all Taoists abided by the moral laws of Confucianism.
Ancient Japan was similar. The ruling class and intellectual elite were Zen Buddhists (Taoist Buddhists), the common people adhered to their indigenous Shinto religion, which had been somewhat refined by the ruling Zen Buddhists, but not fundamentally altered. Shinto had a rule of moral conduct for everyone, Zen was for seekers of ultimate truths. Shintoists did not have to concern themselves with the lofty heights of Zen Buddhism.
The most notorious recent example of someone abusing the teachings of all-consciousness was Adolf Hitler. He abused Nietzsche's stance of "beyond good and evil" for egocentric and ethnocentric purposes, and committed the worst evil of modern times.
What is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good?
And do we need anyone to tell us these things?
-From the Dialogues by Plato
According to the teachings of the Buddha, right thought leads to right action, but right thought arises from the right consciousness, which is all-consciousness. Since all-consciousness necessarily results in the practice of loving kindness and compassion, no-one is beyond practicing universal loving kindness and compassion.
I think the teachings of Jesus say pretty much the same.
Arminius,
You answered for yourself your question of "If all is God, and God is in all, what is to be made of the above distinctions?"
Personally, I never said "all is God". I am not God.
If God is in all, then the distinctions are blurred IMO.
You see, I believe in a Creator God. That is, a creator of ALL. Where I differ is I do not have an evil co-creator. I believe all is created by God. (In other words, I do not believe evil was created by another.) So, good weather and horrible, propensity for blessings and tragedies, clean and unclean.... all created by God.
Your language of "ordinary moral law" versus "consciousness of all" is fundamentally rather similiar to my language of "letter of the law" versus "spirit of the law". That does not mean, for me, they are identical.
I believe there are other valid faith paths and I have a number of close friends who practice Eastern religions. I, however, do not.
I also know some folks who seem to blend the two.
So, when one person reads John 10:30 they may see only Christianity another may see similarities... and another may see Vedantic Hinduism and see "aham Brahaman" (Sanskrit for I am Brahman"). One may even think maybe Jesus (St. Isu in India) may have joined a caravan headed East, maybe studied Hindusim or Buddhism...
The world of religion is diverse.
Arminius
Posted on: 05/10/2013 11:35
I don't look at a sunset, a tree, an ocean, the stars and planets,a volcano, or an earthquake etc and think.....ah that is God. I just think that is what God is capable of and probably so much more that I haven't seen.
When I see humanity at it's best I see another glimpse of God and when I see humanity at it's worst, I can still see God working with us through this world.
Still any analysis that I attempt is simple and arrogant but the fact that I/we seek God or deny God, seems to be yet another essential component towards our understanding of our purpose for the life that we have.
keep on keepin' on
Another thumbs up from me.
Arminius
Posted on: 05/10/2013 11:42
The world of religion is diverse.
So it is. Thank God, eh? If we all thought and believed the same, it would be a boring world indeed.
Panentheism
Posted on: 05/10/2013 12:11
Both/and. What is actual (from the smallest to the largests) is a product of relationship pf smaller wholes. In the end the actual is the product of the relationships, and now the beginning of a new actual. At the same time there is an independence of the different wholes who come into relationship with other independent wholes. Life becomes out of relationship of related and yet independent wholes. To follow this we can speculate about the nature of God. God is a reality who seeks to be related to other actual things. In the beginning were unorganized stuff and the creative action of God. Out the interrelationship a new reality come into being. This process continues. Each whole related to other wholes. There is independence of the wholes. So as is suggested we are not God however we are in conversation with God to create something new: created good and creative good.
What this suggests, based on realism and how things actually become, there are several actors in the becoming of one actual thing ( a human) and God is one of the actors. This further suggests that what we call the creative good has an interest in the becoming process, is love supreme. And that interest is always toward the beautiful and yet dependent on the response of the listener ( the human). We can let love supreme into our inner reality and it can influence our becoming. Even if we do not consiously let love supreme in, it is still there as an influence. The naming of the process increases it efficacious action.
Again it is not a matter of subtle differences but actual metaphysical understandings of the nature of reality. Thus I cannot be a pentheist because it does not reflect the metaphysical reality, and it is different from other theistic accounts. This is also true of a supernatural or diestic theories. They do not represent what is actual or how things become.
SG
Posted on: 05/10/2013 13:06
Panentheism,
What you typed is IMO more expressive of process theology than panentheism. I am aware that most process theologians are also to some degree panentheists.
I would have to say I am more one than the other.
I would say God is in ALL.... the universe, a tree, a rock, myself, the dog....
Panentheism is that everything is in God in such a way that God is immanent in it, while God is also transendent of it.
I would not say that the rock is God or essentially God.
Pantheism is that everything is God or essentially God.
I believe God is both immanent in the rock and transends the rock.
Yet, I cannot say that I believe that God evolves because of God's interaction with the rock.
I know we like ranking God's created things and seeing more God in this than that and we like being at the top of the heap. But, I try not to.
One's own ego would like to think we change God or make God evolve, I guess.
I think that we evolve and as we evolve what is considered God evolves...
I think I will sit with this today....
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 05/10/2013 13:25
If god is all-that-is can anyone avoid it whether passive or active?
If even those overly emotional sorts declare you shunned and out of it can they overcome god?
Alas some think they know better than even god and such love is a blind rage towards those that create separations ... as love God can be capricious ... why to some might seme like an old goat ... reagrdless of the buttes ... just an ac'rude collective of dumb words without a mind for interpretation in a multi-tiered layering of a strange icon as a tome of thought ... thsu the bo'que goes on as suggested in the ends of Jane, or Jah'n of the matter ... so few understand the evolution of icons into mental images ...
And if mental isn't possible is this an emotional sickness we live in? So it appears ... gheistly ... or as a gamos heist ... Gabriel's game? Now you see it now you don't ... mental illusion, or Freudian slip ...
Arminius
Posted on: 05/10/2013 13:32
Yes, Pan, "relational" is the key word. The whole thing is relational, from the largest to the smallest whole. And there is interrelationship and interdependence, but also independence. Particularly we humans, as autonomous thinkers, think and feel ourselves independent as well as interdependent.
Continuos interaction makes us ever more relational and aware. That's the direction the evolution of consciousness appears to be headed: toward ever-greater interrelationship and interrelational awareness. Then future evolution is no longer an act of God alone, or mere accident, but a co-creation between ourselves and God.
Great concept, eh? Makes me shudder with holy awe.
Panentheism
Posted on: 05/10/2013 14:47
Yes, Pan, "relational" is the key word. The whole thing is relational, from the largest to the smallest whole. And there is interrelationship and interdependence, but also independence. Particularly we humans, as autonomous thinkers, think and feel ourselves independent as well as interdependent.
Continuos interaction makes us ever more relational and aware. That's the direction the evolution of consciousness appears to be headed: toward ever-greater interrelationship and interrelational awareness. Then future evolution is no longer an act of God alone, or mere accident, but a co-creation between ourselves and God.
Great concept, eh? Makes me shudder with holy awe.
amen
Panentheism
Posted on: 05/10/2013 14:57
Panentheism,
What you typed is IMO more expressive of process theology than panentheism. I am aware that most process theologians are also to some degree panentheists.
I would have to say I am more one than the other.
I would say God is in ALL.... the universe, a tree, a rock, myself, the dog....
Panentheism is that everything is in God in such a way that God is immanent in it, while God is also transendent of it.
I would not say that the rock is God or essentially God.
Pantheism is that everything is God or essentially God.
I believe God is both immanent in the rock and transends the rock.
Yet, I cannot say that I believe that God evolves because of God's interaction with the rock.
I know we like ranking God's created things and seeing more God in this than that and we like being at the top of the heap. But, I try not to.
One's own ego would like to think we change God or make God evolve, I guess.
I think that we evolve and as we evolve what is considered God evolves...
I think I will sit with this today....
The other thing is actual thing is a living reality and what process thinks ( in the main) do is speak of difference in degree. This is to do with understandings of consciousness and self reflective consciousness. For example we are conscious of the fact we die, yet animals probably do not, but they have awareness. We do this to affirm life all the way down but to also be true to what we know scientifically about consciousness.
Now rocks etc, God is in the details but the rock itself does not have self awareness, it is in the parts. So, yes God is "in" the rock, through the wholes that make up the rock. We make distinctions between agregates and actual things, rocks and animals for example.
This is due to the empirical turn and realism turn of process thought.
In essense we agree but the details differ, the route taken is where the difference enters, not the end of the route, which may be the same place. By that we tend to place attention to the process.
Panentheism
Posted on: 05/10/2013 16:47
For those interest in the genesis of the idea of Panentheism, in 1970 there was a phd thesis that used the word panentheism. After that it was more common, in what Philip Caylton called the panentheistic turn in theology. There are many theologians use use the word to describe themselves. like Borg and there many outside the process school who use the term, like Matt Fox Mcfague, Ruther, Carol Christ.
It first was used in the late 1800;s however some claim one can trace the understanding ( not the word) back to the early mystics.
John Wilson
Posted on: 05/10/2013 18:12
In matter of fact that particular father of a certain part of English was illiterate ... sorry to shoot holes in your clouds HG.
I nowhere said he was not.
Do you really understand the reasons he thought the bible was so important?
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 05/11/2013 07:49
Yes he wished to keep the masses as confused as himself as God's representative on earth ... and we've been stupified by powers ever since ... a one upmanship thing we have trouble getting by like Sisyphus on the point! They believe it is kohl up there in the ethereal spaces ... keeps the wadis white and pure, or so they believed ... an extraction of myth of the Bablonian Storm Gods ... perhaps just Ba Loonie ... a singylar soul that ahs been broke up by alien humours? A bit sick if you observe from outside the system ... a song to understand from that perspective ... the lesson in getting beyond yourself ... into the vast myth ...
Such is natural in the religion of not knowing ... and yet they will argue the non-existence of the unconscious soul ... passive intellectualism ... for those that didn't wish IT! Just lies there as lyre ... nun to pluck the strings? Some don't even believe in string theory and the stuff of interstial medium ... sort of Eire ah rite ... thinner than wadis! Them's depressive icons in the mounds of san ... what's out there!
To get a grasp one must learn a lot of alien word ... and you know how mortal feel about Semitics and Icon ... crude signs ... disturbing the becalmed soul as it lies there ... passive ... or just waiting for the spitting ... that Lord from Transylvania that stuck everyone he could with a wee bit of emote ... small moving word? Sort of like m'n 've let Eire ... so the stoics would believe your freely Luce'n dupe to process'n! A form of rapine as often misunderstood by grasping an alien thought.
Disrespected mind will react to those that don't revere Ur as psychic daemon! The numbing down of an overly emotional class ... brings the ship of fooles about ... close to evolution ...
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 05/11/2013 08:01
Is co-operative civilization better than the battles of the gods to bring everything down to baseline Runes?
In competitive destructive trends equivocation cuts everything down to size so the Gods have nut'n to work with but raw desire not to know beta ... is that like "i" a double negative that gives rhodes to a beginning shock as root rapine ... a spiritual grip like Nous, or Q?
Did you know that HJ (or was that G)? Read Aaron James' philosophy on the theory of as shuels ... that he spells: As'holes for to humour the understanding daemons about staying warm and tending the fires of th' aughts ... nut'n to that either ... but it is a fairly profound tome ... you might not like it!
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 05/11/2013 08:06
Co creation between us and God ... a celestial imagination for those that would like to better god in that struggle of one-up-mans' heft ...
I'll support that and carry on as if I didn't know ... the realm of the excessively godly (passions) devoid of thought? The romantics started this trend and few know how to get out of the failing mode ... like belle lying up to the bare soul ... Rye?