Pantheism and Panentheism

[wil]

Namaste Mort and Shawn, thank you for your responses, your contentions on what I was trying to say are accurate.

Where, exactly? And why, cos you say so?

OK. Rape and murder. Of an eight year old. Where's the good in that, in your philosophy?

Namaste Thomas,

LOL, you want me to define where G!d is in the sofa or sock? Always seventh thread from the end my brother. G!d is not in the sofa or sock like a raisin is in a bun. Omnipresent, everywhere present all the time. You are reminding me of the cosmonaut who said, Well no heaven or G!d up here! Do you think any of our oil drills have pierced hell yet??

Years ago, I sat on a curb after church one day with Mikal Abdul-Muhamin. He's since become a Buddhist monk. Our conversation that day revolved around the a sermon from my preacher on unconditional love. Something I had been struggling with for years. I told him I can't get beyond it, and by my actions while I think I am making strides with some of the concepts, tis obvious even with my family I place conditions on them. He said it was his thought that if we are trying to learn something we can learn it intellectually, or learn it spiritually, but if we can't come to a strong enough understanding in either of those arena's the universe just might conspire to asssist us by learning if physically. I wanted to hit him.

Now the murder and rape of an 8 year old is obviously a horrific event. (Have you read 'The Shack'?) And I am not denying in any way shape or form the pain, that occurs from such a thing. Nor am I willing to diminish it. But if it occurred, I can't reverse it, but I can control my perception and feelings about it.

There is a woman at our church whose sister was murdered by her nephew (an inlaw siblings son). Through prayer and meditation she has gotten to the point of forgiveness where she can visit the person in prison, can write him letters and communicate without hate. Now her family cannot understand her, it is not that the loss of her sister did not hurt or distress her, but that she has chosen to move on and grow from that event. And due to that she has learned forgiveness in a way not possible without the event, and has become a model for others to see what potential and possibility is out there. Countless folks have overcome anger issues at folks they previously perceived wronged them and have grown, due to her growth.

In no way justifying murder, but accepting what is, and growing from it...powerful stuff.

My mantra when drama occurs in my life. "I don't remember wanting this lesson. I don't recall standing in line to sign up for this class. But I dearly want to understand and pass this test. As I do not wish to retake it."

 

[wil]

Where is G!d in the sock?

Rip it in half, G!d is in both halves.

Shred it, G!d is in every thread.

Burn it, G!d is in the smoke and in the ashes.

Blow it all away till nothing appears remaining....

G!d is still there.

And isn't that a blessing? G!d is right there in all things. Our decision to be aware of that changes each event. (hmmmm quantum??)

 

[path_of_one]

I think there is a problem with categorically defining the world into good and evil. Good and evil are subjective quantifiers. Even though I firmly believe terrorism is evil, and limiting people's civil rights is evil, there are many people who believe these acts are good in certain circumstances. There are Christians who believe bombing an abortion clinic is good and many, many of them that believe limiting the rights of gay people is good. Yet, I've often heard in Christianity that cancer is evil. Hurricane Katrina was evil. Perfectly natural events in the ecology and atmosphere of the earth are evil. So it would seem that good and evil are a bit useless and, to most people, really boil down to whatever supports their own desires and mental construction of the world and what doesn't.

I'm more interested in what is harmonious with the beings and universe around us and what isn't. Does bombing an abortion clinic bring harmony or not? Does limiting people's rights due to their sexuality bring harmony or not? How about things that cause death and death itself?

The way I see it, if a person is determined in their spiritual development, they will increasingly be in touch with the flow of the universe, being in God and moving with Her currents. In so doing, it becomes less about quantifying and judging the world out there, and more about intuitively flowing with the spirit within that moves through oneself. Rather than approach acts in the world with anger, hatred, fear, and so on, one approaches them from the standpoint of how one can transform things (within and without) to come into harmony with the universal flow. This births ever more love, compassion, wisdom, patience, forgiveness, and so on.

Various religions can bring people to this point, but it is the individual's commitment to spiritual growth and openness to learning that yields the transformation. Without this, religions (like any other social construction) become a tool for self-gratification and are used to justify all sorts of disharmonious actions and attitudes, all sorts of events that bring greater suffering and imbalance to beings.

 

[Thomas]

Nay thomas, wil seems to be saying that good can and has and will continue to come from "bad" experiences.
That is wrong to say that he is justifying those horrible things.

No, I'm clarifying. The good does not come from the acting agent, the perpetrator of the evil act. There is no good in the evil intent. There is no Divine Presence in an evil intention.

To say that God is the source of both good and evil is to say that God endorses the evil act.

Someone made the choice to do them and it does affect others and that is tragic.,,now what does the victim do????
vendetta??
self-destruct???
or make lemonade (you know....when life hands you lemons)

That lies within the will of the victim, not the aggressor. It's immaterial to the offence.
Think about it:
3 women are raped. One commits suicide. One emasculates her attacker. One starts a home for women who've suffered the same crime.

Should the judgement of the rapist be ameliorated according to the response of the victim? Is a rapist who's victim commits suicide more guilty, or more evil, than the rapist who's victim starts a care unit? I don't think so ... I think rape is rape is rape.

You are being unnecessarily contrary just because some people do not agree with your nice neat little cosmology.

No I'm not. I'm arguing the moral philosophy and a logical cosmology.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

God is said to be omniscient which is to know all things before they occur.

Yes. God is not subject to any temporal condition.

So you can argue about the fallen angels there thomas and sinful people and some kind of "evil nature" , but it will always unravel at the doctrine of the omniscience of God, who made everything and so is responsible for all His handiwork....ultimately.

No. Not is 'freedom' is an actual gift of God and not an illusion. Nor does omniscience mean predetermination, although many assume it does.

I would say God knew man would fall before he was even created ... but that does not mean God made man to fall, nor that God made man fall. Rather God man man, and by an act of his own will, he fell ... but that fall was never predetermined ... just accounted for.

But I will always say that people are accountable for what they do and so should make good and healthy choices.

So do I. But if God is responsible for everything, then 'free will' is a complete illusion, and people are puppets, and life is ontologically meaningless.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, you've never learned from evils that have happened to you? You've never grown from awful things happening to you?

That's not the point, and that's the whole problem. The evil is in the intent behind the act ... nowhere else. The act wasn't perpetrated for any 'good' other that to satiate the desire of the acting agent.

The good that might come out of evil was never intended in the act, but by the will and intention of the survivors, the witnesses, the victims ... it's immaterial to the act.

If fifty people are killed during an earthquake...

That's not evil ... that's a tragedy. There was no moral intention in nature to murder fifty people ... it's this kind of thing that obscures the issue, it's completely irrelevant, 'evil' in this sense is a sentimentalism. So the comparison is erroneous.

If God created everything, then he created evil. It's that simple.

That may be simple, but its a renouncement of individual moral responsibility.

Who am I to question what is really good and evil.

I don't know. Do you consider yourself responsible for your own actions? Do you consider that others ought to act responsibly towards you?

I've not seen this universe from God's perspective.

You should try reading the Bible.

There is no reason for it. It makes no sense, and therefore it is nonsense. I also do not believe hell is blinking out of existence. Like I said, it's wasteful and makes no sense. Not to me.

OK. But I believe in free will, and therefore the ontology of wrong choice.

See, to me, evil and good are just forces...

Well that's not the definition of either term, so you're on your own there. Good and evil are 'forces' but 'intentions', they only apply in the case of a rational nature in action ... gravity is a force, but it's neither good nor evil. You push someone off a cliff, and no-one's going to blame gravity for what happens.

A meteorite trundles for millenia round the cosmos, then blam, hits the earth, all life extinct in a second. Evil meteor? Not in my book. Just forces of nature ...

See, you believe simply that God=good, and evil comes from going against God. You won't even entertain any other role for God, so you cannot ever understand what I'm getting at.

Do you not see that for good and evil to be of the deity requires the deity to be schizophrenic?

Thomas

 

[wil]

That's not the point, and that's the whole problem. The evil is in the intent behind the act ... nowhere else. The act wasn't perpetrated for any 'good' other that to satiate the desire of the acting agent.

Namaste Thomas,

Ah there we have it don't we? That is exactly the blessing. Think of Jesus on the Cross, forgive them for they know not what they do!!

Think of Joseph and the 'evil' his brothers perpetrated on him, where did Joseph come from in this regard, thrown into a pit, sold into slavery, improsoned by the Pharoah as his wife set Joseph up...time afte time... that is exactly the point of what we perceive of as evil, our reaction to it.

What we resist persists, you meant it as evil but G!d meant it as good, it is all transformed with our thinking and the blessing of grace.

 

[Thomas]

LOL, you want me to define where G!d is in the sofa or sock? Always seventh thread from the end my brother. G!d is not in the sofa or sock like a raisin is in a bun. Omnipresent, everywhere present all the time.

Exactly! God is not what the sock is, nor what the sofa is. God is the reason why the sock and the sofa exist, and God keeps them, and everything in existence ... but God says, 'don't dazzle yourself in the externals, the ephemerals, the finite, the transient ... Come to Me.'

Years ago, I sat on a curb after church one day with Mikal Abdul-Muhamin. He's since become a Buddhist monk. Our conversation that day revolved around the a sermon from my preacher on unconditional love. Something I had been struggling with for years. I told him I can't get beyond it, and by my actions while I think I am making strides with some of the concepts, tis obvious even with my family I place conditions on them. He said it was his thought that if we are trying to learn something we can learn it intellectually, or learn it spiritually, but if we can't come to a strong enough understanding in either of those arena's the universe just might conspire to asssist us by learning if physically. I wanted to hit him.

OK. Nice story, but way off the point.

Now the murder and rape of an 8 year old is obviously a horrific event. (Have you read 'The Shack'?) And I am not denying in any way shape or form the pain, that occurs from such a thing. Nor am I willing to diminish it. But if it occurred, I can't reverse it, but I can control my perception and feelings about it.

OK. But that's you ... that's not the act, is it, that's your reaction to and perception of the act. I don't see why no-one seems to get the point that the evil is in the intention behind the act, not in how the victim or a witness perceives it ...

There is a woman at our church whose sister was murdered by her nephew (an inlaw siblings son). Through prayer and meditation she has gotten to the point of forgiveness where she can visit the person in prison, can write him letters and communicate without hate. Now her family cannot understand her, it is not that the loss of her sister did not hurt or distress her, but that she has chosen to move on and grow from that event. And due to that she has learned forgiveness in a way not possible without the event, and has become a model for others to see what potential and possibility is out there. Countless folks have overcome anger issues at folks they previously perceived wronged them and have grown, due to her growth.

So? That's not the point, is it? The act was still heinous act, and not lessened in any way by her coming to terms with it. Ask her if, given the choice again, she'd pay that price to learn the lesson.

This is more sentimentalism Wil, and it's way off the mark. The evil is in the acting agent, in the murderer, the rapist, the thief, the prideful ...

In no way justifying murder, but accepting what is, and growing from it...powerful stuff.

Should the dead feel pleased they've provided you an opportunity to grow? I'm horrified at what I perceive to be complacency regarding the suffering of others. Any suffering they go through is worth it if you grow from it? C'mon Wil, open your eyes, think, for the love of God, about what's tripping off your tongue.

My mantra when drama occurs in my life. "I don't remember wanting this lesson. I don't recall standing in line to sign up for this class. But I dearly want to understand and pass this test. As I do not wish to retake it."

But you aren't, are you ... others are, you're just a spectator.

The evil is in the intention, guys ... nowhere else.

A rich man gives a beggar some money.
A: If it's to alleviate the suffering of the beggar, it's a good thing.
B: If it's to make to rich man look good in front of his neighbours, it's an evil thing. He doesn't care about the beggar, he just wants to look good.

A rich man gives a beggar some money. The beggar buys heroin and kills himself.
Is the rich man to blame?
If A, then no.
If B then no.
But if B he's still guilty of vainglory.

If the beggar said, give me some money for smack, and the rich man gave it, hoping the beggar would OD and kill himself and stop being a nuisance ...

Thomas

 

[seattlegal]

OK. But that's you ... that's not the act, is it, that's your reaction to and perception of the act. I don't see why no-one seems to get the point that the evil is in the intention behind the act, not in how the victim or a witness perceives it ...

The evil is in the intention, guys ... nowhere else.

I dunno. An evil act can either be intentional or unintentional--cognizant or not. Perhaps the intention or lack thereof behind the act serves as an intensifier of the evil done and an accelerator of the propagation of evil. (Hate is not overcome by hate--hate is overcome by love--to paraphrase Dhammapada 1:5)

A rich man gives a beggar some money.
A: If it's to alleviate the suffering of the beggar, it's a good thing.
B: If it's to make to rich man look good in front of his neighbours, it's an evil thing. He doesn't care about the beggar, he just wants to look good.

A rich man gives a beggar some money. The beggar buys heroin and kills himself.
Is the rich man to blame?
If A, then no.
If B then no.
But if B he's still guilty of vainglory.

If the beggar said, give me some money for smack, and the rich man gave it, hoping the beggar would OD and kill himself and stop being a nuisance ...

Thomas

So, does this mean that an ape picking fleas off of another ape is doing a good thing if it is concerned with helping his friend, but it is doing an evil thing if it is thinking, "I want to get those nasty fleas?"

Does the ape have "Buddha Nature?" (Back to panentheism.)

Mu? (With all due respect to our friend with the ape avatar.)

 

[path_of_one]

So do I. But if God is responsible for everything, then 'free will' is a complete illusion, and people are puppets, and life is ontologically meaningless.

Thomas

There is a difference between God encompassing and unfolding into all things, and God being responsible for all things.

The potential within the panentheist view is a profoundly non-anthropomorphic God, which makes concepts like "endorsement" and "responsibility" questionable (at best) as to their relevance.

As I stopped viewing God as a being that was like me, I was able to embrace some paradoxes as truthful, even if they are difficult.

I respect your position, Thomas, as one that is sound within Christian theology... but I disagree with it. The fundamental assumption that God is an anthropomorphic being (and indeed, that God is similar to living beings in general), even when we try to escape it, can slip through into our constructions of how God works. We have opinions, so God must have one. We endorse certain acts, so God does also. We have responsibility for our actions, so if God is all things then "He" is responsible for it all the way we would be.

But the problem is all this logic and defining of God rests on our understanding of ourselves... and a rather superficial understanding at that. Hence, a failure to see God in a sock or sofa. In a different worldview (i.e., a non-Roman Catholic one, and one that has no doctrine and no authority figure to make decisions), God can be understood as encompassing all that unfolds, as well as the process of unfolding.

Last winter I was waiting in the rain for my carpool, watching a tree drop individual water droplets into a small puddle below. There was God... the tree, the rain, the water droplet, the ripple, the puddle, the ground that held it and the sky that released it. How could I choose only one or a few parts of this interdependent process as the prime mover? All of it was part of one lovely unfolding, and all of it had its role... or none of it would be what it was, but something entirely else.

God is not responsible for my actions, nor is God the puppeteer of my life, nor does God endorse everything I do. But God is in me, and I am in God... I am part of Her unfolding. The actions I might take that are disharmonious and cause suffering are not Her responsibility, and yet they exist within Her Being.

Yes, it is paradoxical. But sometimes that is the closest we can get to truth.

 

[immortalitylost]

Thomas, I think your missing the point that we're trying to make. The good that comes about because of evil actions would never come about if not for those evil actions. It doesn't matter that the person doing evil did not do the evil to have that good come out of it. The persons intent behind the act changes nothing of the act. The act is but a catalyst, no matter the intent or the source. And even the intent of the act can be a lesson for the person that does the act. Evil does not always beget more evil. Sometimes evil begets good. Sometimes it causes good things to happen that would never have happened without that evil act.

When I say that evil is a force, I mean that in the big picture, from all that I've seen, we will never live in a world of purely good or purely evil. We have both. We have people that do good, and those that do evil, and quite a few that do both.

Is the good man better than the evil man? Do they not merit the same unconditional love? Would the Resurrection have been possible without Judas's betrayal? Do you think that Jesus loved Judas less, knowing that he would betray him? You don't think that it was part of God's plan that Judas would betray him?

The point that I was trying to make about the natural disasters as opposed to disasters occurring because of the consequences of evil actions, was that evil is a definition, a designation. A force of nature kills someone, we call it bad luck. A man kills someone we call it evil. A person is dead either way. It's just in how we define it.

It seems as if you see good and evil as oil and water. The two shal never mix or meet. I see good and evil as ever mixing, ever reacting to each other, ever causing new reactions and shaping things at all times.

I see everything as an opportunity for growth. I don't see how you can be a purely good person without understanding and accepting all evil. Evil cannot be opposition to God. Because it is impossible to oppose God. It can't be done. The created cannot defy the creator, who made and knows every bit of them. Even if they go through all the motions of defying God, God would have known that they would take that path.

I think desperately clinging to free will is more about ego than about accepting responsibility for your own actions. It's more about feeling that you are in control of yourself whether or not your doing the right thing. It's hard to believe that God may have made someone knowing that they would fail in 'doing good' and could still love them regardless. People want to see bad men punished for doing bad things. They want to be rewarded for doing good deeds. That is where the dichotomy of good and evil stems from. The inability to accept that this world was created to be a tough place to live. This world was created to learn hard lessons that only a place where evil exists can teach. It's hard to accept that God could love an evil man regardless of the fact that he has done evil.

Love your neighbor as yourself. You don't think your going to hell. Why would you think that he is? Do you know the life story of every man that has done evil? Would you do any better walking in their shoes?

If Jesus loves evil people, why do you believe that God does not? If I would not throw a man into eternal darkness, eternal sorrow, pain and anguish, why do you believe that God would?

A man has two sons. Before they are born, he is shown that one will be a good man, and the other an evil man. Would he love his evil son any less? If he would not, why would God?

In my opinion, the person that holds the belief in hell and evil is always sure that they themselves are not evil, and would not go to hell. Hell is for others. Evil is for others.
We are never to blame. It's always someone else.

I don't believe that evil is evil. I believe that God uses it just like any other force. I believe that God loves all of his creation. But sometimes, we all need a little tough love. Because sometimes, you can't learn a lesson on your own.

 

[immortalitylost]

In post #288, All the quotes are from wil, and they're labeled as coming from me. Just thought I'd let someone know.

 

[Thomas]

Ooops, yes, my fault on 288.

Sorry.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Think of Jesus on the Cross, forgive them for they know not what they do!!

Your comment is based on more of your fireside mythology, surely?

Sorry Wil, I can't engage with you when you've made it clear you cherrypick what you like and what you don't ... the whole basis is utterly subjective, so there's no real basis for an objective discussion.

I mean, elsewhere Jesus condemns them, equally for apparently not knowing what they do ...

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I dunno. An evil act can either be intentional or unintentional--cognizant or not.

Yes, there is a distinction, but the baseline is 'evil' is in the intended outcome of the act.

Perhaps the intention or lack thereof behind the act serves as an intensifier of the evil done and an accelerator of the propagation of evil. (Hate is not overcome by hate--hate is overcome by love--to paraphrase Dhammapada 1:5)

So it is in the Christian Tradition.

So, does this mean that an ape picking fleas off of another ape is doing a good thing if it is concerned with helping his friend, but it is doing an evil thing if it is thinking, "I want to get those nasty fleas?"

Apes are not counted as rational natures, so it doesn't apply.

Dolphins play water volleyball with baby seals, is that evil? Big cats half-kill their prey, then bring them home for the kiddies to learn how to kill. There was a story about a meerkat colony in which the queen slaughtered the daughters of her sisters. The sisters ganged up and killed the queen. Then one by one they killed each other until the one who emerged as top was the one, right from the beginning, led the revolt against the old queen. True Machiavellian politics ... but moral evil?

Does the ape have "Buddha Nature?" (Back to panentheism.)

I would say no.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Path —

But the problem is all this logic and defining of God rests on our understanding of ourselves...

Can't escape that. I think the idea of a God who 'learns', who 'experiences', who 'unfolds' is profoundly anthropomorphic to me and metaphysically illogical.

Christian theology does not see God as an anthropomorphic being. In fact Christian theology asserts we can never know God as God is, and for that reason is absolutely not pantheistic, nor panentheistic, both of which bring God within the sensible domain.

The actions I might take that are disharmonious and cause suffering are not Her responsibility, and yet they exist within Her Being.

It's not the action, it's the intention that determines 'evil'. In the Christian Tradition, 'evil' is that which is contrary to the will of God, so I can't see how 'She' wills harmony and disharmony at the same time, whereas I can see how 'She' allows for disharmony in the creature, as a necessity of its freedom.

Panentheism is treating God as a thing, however discreetly it defines itself, that fact remains ... and Christian theology holds that God is beyond all forms, all things ... they receive their being from Him, but that being is their being, it is a gift of God, created and caused, but it is not God's being, because God is beyond being.

Thomas

 

[nativeastral]

Yes, there is a distinction, but the baseline is 'evil' is in the intended outcome of the act.

Apes are not counted as rational natures, so it doesn't apply.

Dolphins play water volleyball with baby seals, is that evil? Big cats half-kill their prey, then bring them home for the kiddies to learn how to kill. There was a story about a meerkat colony in which the queen slaughtered the daughters of her sisters. The sisters ganged up and killed the queen. Then one by one they killed each other until the one who emerged as top was the one, right from the beginning, led the revolt against the old queen. True Machiavellian politics ... but moral evil?


I would say no.

Thomas

l am reminded of a post by brian
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/is-christianity-too-fixated-with-102-2.html#post1694
that talks of the separation between us and animals, and l think we have contributed to 'our' seeming separation by betraying our 'husbandry' and stewardship with other creatures because they happen not share in the rational bit of the soul so lauded in the [christian] west, only in the irrational [appetite or flesh]; just as previous ignorant humans thought others as savages and 'less than' human. ok we know better now? but as far as the other life forms are concerned in connection with our 'connection' we are and still will be separated in 'tension' and out of kilter. curiously Ahimsa is a girls, not a boys name, l wonder why?!

 

[Thomas]

ok we know better now?

OK, if you want to count animals as equally culpable of moral decisions and therefore moral evil, that's down to you. Personally I think it's a particular human trait.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Your comment is based on more of your fireside mythology, surely?

Sorry Wil, I can't engage with you when you've made it clear you cherrypick what you like and what you don't ... the whole basis is utterly subjective, so there's no real basis for an objective discussion.

I mean, elsewhere Jesus condemns them, equally for apparently not knowing what they do ...

Thomas

fireside mythology, some of Jesus's last words on the cross. You crack me up Thomas. You accuse me of picking and choosing while you ignore the very words I quote? And that is not picking and choosing....such fun.

And what of Joseph, what of man meant it for evil but G!d meant it for good...you completely discount that eh?

 

[Netti-Netti]

That's not evil ... that's a tragedy.

From our Philosophy of Religion class, we are aware of Natural Evil and Moral Evil.

Do you not see that for good and evil to be of the deity requires the deity to be schizophrenic?

It seems to me that one way to avoid the impression of schizophrenia is to attribute both good and evil to G-d instead of trying to preserve G-d's perfection by excluding Him from Creation.

A meteorite trundles for millenia round the cosmos, then blam, hits the earth, all life extinct in a second. Evil meteor? Not in my book. Just forces of nature ...

I am the LORD, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other;
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
​

~Isaiah 45:5-7

You should try reading the Bible.