Pantheism and Panentheism

[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.

No, I don't ignore the words at all, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of you preaching them at me, you who declare His words 'poppycock' when they don't suit your manifesto.

I mean ... who was there at the foot of the Cross and took down His words for posterity Wil? No-one, according to you ... so that phrase you quote must also come from the same source that you so easily dismiss as myth-making 'poppycock'.

I'm just holding up a mirror to the illogicality of your position. You can't have it both ways.

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

No, that proves my point ... even when man acts with an evil intent, God seeks to save His creature from himself.

Thomas

 

[wil]

No, that proves my point ... even when man acts with an evil intent, God seeks to save His creature from himself.

Thomas

Which makes it all good, time heals. And this too shall pass Thomas.

PS whenever you find me saying Jesus was poppycock tell us all. And if you insist that everything is accurate, what defense do you have against my using it? These things and more....

 

[nativeastral]

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

sorry thomas l meant that because ordinarily the creation was separated from the creator so markedly ie other sentient beings do not have the 'word' so to speak! we have 'sinned' or missed the mark in maintaining the connection, the balance. Too much emphasis on reason and rationality has disconnected us from the rest of nature who are not apparently god like or capable of divinisation. Animals are just being, are; we are becoming, what? We are making a stand on our being to the detriment of other parts of the whole; and religion which has had an immense influence over the morals and behavioural traits of humans over the history of civilisation has had nothing to say about this spiritually, because animals are said to have no soul? l think the christian fixation on individual salvation in the west has contributed to this abuse of power and negation of this life and all it holds due to the abhorrence of mortality and finitude in this transient world whilst celebrating/hankering after immortality in infinity's bosom. Panentheism seems to be a more holistic, realistic and pragmatic programme to inculcate to children for the future but the sceptic in me fears its too late to change the background radiation.

 

[nativeastral]

scary but l must be more in the hermeneutic circle than l thought; just read this article for the first time which reflects kinda what l was saying,
CONCLUSION where heidegger in using shepherd discloses his earlier theological leanings.

from an excellent goldmine of decent articles on everything we are discussing here international society for metaphysics
http://www.crvp.org/publications.htm

 

[Thomas]

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

Presumably 'natural evil' is acting in moral ignorance?

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.

Well, according to the definition of evil, you can't avoid the impression of a schizophrenic deity when you define a being that wills what it wills, and wills contrary to what it wills, simultaneously.

Moreover, you can't attribute 'contrariety' to God at all ... so logically God cannot be the source of good and evil, because their is no opposition in Him, God is One, and simple.

God is the source of good; evil is a privation of the good of another in pursuit of one's own perceived good.

Actually evil is a 'nothing' in the sense that it is a negative; good is the participation in being; evil is the participation in an action that has no ontological being or existence, so a life of evil leads to the extinction of the acting agent, that has poured out its own being into nothingness.

Hell is the experience of a thirst never slaked, a hunger never satisfied, nor can it be, because there is no 'substance' to evil, and as created natures are not self-subsisting, they unwittingly attach themselves to that which draws their being away into nothingness.

If one reads Danté carefully, for example, one can see this ontology of non-being.

In many ways one can like a black hole to evil (not to offend any black holes, mind, this is just an analogy), but like a black hole in the sense that it draws to itself, to a core which is nothing ... and once caught in its gravity there is no escape, the trapped spirit becomes so attenuated as to cease to possess any integrity in any dimension, stretched infinitely until it just passes out of being ... but that would be waxing lyrical.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

whenever you find me saying Jesus was poppycock tell us all.

Your comments on the Eucharist.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

sorry thomas l meant that because ordinarily the creation was separated from the creator so markedly ie other sentient beings do not have the 'word' so to speak!

Oh, they have their word, but there is a hierarchy, each finds its perfection in the higher ...

we have 'sinned' or missed the mark in maintaining the connection, the balance.

Yes, we wanted to be the 'word' unto ourselves.

Too much emphasis on reason and rationality has disconnected us from the rest of nature who are not apparently god like or capable of divinisation.

Well that's a rationalist way of putting it.

I would rather say that man sought to set himself above nature, and in so doing lost his connection to it.

Panentheism seems to be a more holistic, realistic and pragmatic programme to inculcate to children for the future but the sceptic in me fears its too late to change the background radiation.

Well that's your view. I see panentheism as surrendering reason and logical in pursuit of a romantic ideal.

I think that metaphysically Christianity is more holistic than panentheism, as it asserts to reality of a Deity that transcends nature by every degree, whilst asserting the reality and integrity of created nature in its own being, albeit a being that subsists according to the will of its Creator, and invites all created nature to participate in a Union with the Transcendent former of such intensity and intimacy that nought else compares.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

St Maximus the Confessor said words to the effect that:

Christ the Creator-Logos has implanted in each created thing a characteristic logos, a 'thought' or 'word', which is the divine presence in that thing, which makes it to be distinctively itself and at the same time draws it inexorably towards God. By virtue of these indwelling logoi, each created thing is not just an object but a personal word addressed to it by the Creator.
Bishop Kallistos, Through the Creation to the Creator (London: Friends of the Centre, 1997), p. 11.

 

[path_of_one]

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.

We can't escape expressing our experiences of God in ways that relate to ourselves, but we can help from reifying the expression.

(Personally, I fail to see how God unfolding is very human-like. I am envisioning more of an explosion of everything from singularity, not a child developing into an adult. And I don't think God learns, as God is not subject to linear time. Experience is too complicated for me to get into at the moment.)

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.

You continue to insist that panentheism limits God to the sensible domain, when it does not. It is a both/and proposition, not an either/or proposition. Christianity limits God to not-universe and pantheism limits God to universe. Panentheism says "I am not agnostic; I believe/have experienced something I will call God. But this God is in all things and also beyond my capacity to know, beyond what I can fathom."

Therefore, panentheism is inclusive of the Christian concept that God is unknowable and the pantheist concept that God is in everything, but Christianity is not inclusive in this way, saying that God is only "not-universe." It is the Christian concept of God, at least in how you present it, that is limiting.

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.

I don't think She wills harmony and disharmony at the same time. Like you, I think there is liberty. But that liberty is contained within Her. I fail to see how an infinite and eternal God can have stuff that is not contained within It.

I think there is probably a lot of confusion within Christianity about evil. I've been to many Bible studies, churches, and so forth where totally natural and necessary processes, such as death, are thought to be evil and caused not by God but rather by "the fall" of humanity and/or certain angels. Just because something is painful or uncomfortable doesn't make it unnecessary and evil. In such a case, it is our attitude toward it that makes the difference. Assigning intent to mythological or historical beings as justification for viewing certain difficult processes or events as evil isn't very useful or accurate, or even very logical or reasonable.

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

As I said before, panentheism is the position of God as things and not-things, as knowable and unknowable simultaneously. It is a position that sees divinity in everything and also admits to divinity outside of the realm of what we can experience and know. It is inclusive of the position that God is beyond all forms and all things.

As to being... that would take me a long time to discuss. I have experienced God as process, force, and being- and this is a product of God meeting me as I am with my limitations. No one can fully know God-in-Herself. I would say that the best expression I have at this time of my own experience of God is that God is the process and force of being.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

Presumably 'natural evil' is acting in moral ignorance?

Now you are merely proving my point that (natural) evil
as we experience it does not require moral intention.

Well, according to the definition of evil, you can't avoid the impression of a schizophrenic deity when you define a being that wills what it wills, and wills contrary to what it wills, simultaneously.

This impression may be due to our limited vantage point.
There may seem to be a contradiction because we don't
really understand how G-d works.

Moreover, you can't attribute 'contrariety' to God at all ... so logically God cannot be the source of good and evil, because their is no opposition in Him, God is One, and simple.

Wasn't it Anselm who proposed that God allows evil,
including natural evil? It is totally conceivable that
G-d makes natural evil possible in order to redeem
the world from it.

God is the source of good; evil is a privation of the good of another in pursuit of one's own perceived good.

This does not address the problem of natural evil,
which you call "tragedy."

Actually evil is a 'nothing' in the sense that it is a negative; good is the participation in being; evil is the participation in an action that has no ontological being or existence, so a life of evil leads to the extinction of the acting agent, that has poured out its own being into nothingness.

Evil as the absence of good. It would seem you prefer
Acquinas' G-d over the G-d of the Bible. In case you
missed it it, here's Isaiah 45:7 again:

I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.
​

Is there a translation issue we should be aware of?
Or did we miss the memo telling us the philosophers
decided one day to make the Scriptures obsolete?

Hell is the experience of a thirst never slaked, a hunger never satisfied, nor can it be, because there is no 'substance' to evil, and as created natures are not self-subsisting, they unwittingly attach themselves to that which draws their being away into nothingness.

Hell is the inability to recognize good or an inability to incorporate good
as a resource. It is a psychological problem.

If one reads Danté carefully, for example, one can see this ontology of non-being.

Ontology or psychology?

 

[seattlegal]

Presumably 'natural evil' is acting in moral ignorance?


Well, according to the definition of evil, you can't avoid the impression of a schizophrenic deity when you define a being that wills what it wills, and wills contrary to what it wills, simultaneously.

Moreover, you can't attribute 'contrariety' to God at all ... so logically God cannot be the source of good and evil, because their is no opposition in Him, God is One, and simple.

God is the source of good; evil is a privation of the good of another in pursuit of one's own perceived good.

Wu wei.

Actually evil is a 'nothing' in the sense that it is a negative; good is the participation in being; evil is the participation in an action that has no ontological being or existence, so a life of evil leads to the extinction of the acting agent, that has poured out its own being into nothingness.

Hell is the experience of a thirst never slaked, a hunger never satisfied, nor can it be, because there is no 'substance' to evil, and as created natures are not self-subsisting, they unwittingly attach themselves to that which draws their being away into nothingness.

This sounds like "Hungry Ghost" (preta) behavior; attachment; addiction.

 

[Avi]

Poo, your observations are very grounded, so they are easy to relate to.

We can't escape expressing our experiences of God in ways that relate to ourselves, but we can help from reifying the expression.

(Personally, I fail to see how God unfolding is very human-like. I am envisioning more of an explosion of everything from singularity, not a child developing into an adult. And I don't think God learns, as God is not subject to linear time. Experience is too complicated for me to get into at the moment.)

It seems like your vision is tuned to be in harmony with what we know to be scientifically true. That is not a criticism, as I tend to do the same thing. But there are many things we do not understand. For example, how do we know there were not two singularities, three, infinite ? How do we know that we are not just one in multi-universes ? Do they superimpose ? How do we know what G-d's perception of time is ? Is it measured with respect to the speed of the observer ? How do we know whether G-d learns ? We can design robots to learn. Why can't G-d learn ?

I have started to wonder about G-d as the creator, as an alternative to our universe as a manifestation of G-d. It seems like this is the traditional view of G-d. Simultaneous views of G-d might make sense. I think that this concept is likewise compatible with the notion of panentheism.

 

[Thomas]

We can't escape expressing our experiences of God in ways that relate to ourselves, but we can help from reifying the expression.

My argument is that panentheism has so far offered no substantial philosophical argument.

(Personally, I fail to see how God unfolding is very human-like. I am envisioning more of an explosion of everything from singularity, not a child developing into an adult. And I don't think God learns, as God is not subject to linear time. Experience is too complicated for me to get into at the moment.)

God is not subject to time, nor to movement ... so 'unfolding' is an analogous term that might well be erroneously interpreted to assume that it is the Deity Itself unfolding into the finite.

You continue to insist that panentheism limits God to the sensible domain, when it does not. It is a both/and proposition, not an either/or proposition.

But then it predicates finite attributes to the Deity, and thus limits the Deity accordingly. The both/and proposition is as equally erroneous as either/or.

Christianity limits God to not-universe and pantheism limits God to universe.

No. Christianity posits that the universe exists 'by, through, in and with' the Deity, but that the universe is not God ... I suppose the question I would put is what is common to God and the universe, that one assumes the universe is God?

Panentheism says "I am not agnostic; I believe/have experienced something I will call God. But this God is in all things and also beyond my capacity to know, beyond what I can fathom."

Then I think that's a vague definition. Christianity believes God is in all things, but not that the things themselves are God. As I understand panentheism it regards things as intrinsically divine.

Therefore, panentheism is inclusive of the Christian concept that God is unknowable and the pantheist concept that God is in everything, but Christianity is not inclusive in this way, saying that God is only "not-universe." It is the Christian concept of God, at least in how you present it, that is limiting.

Not at all. Christianity says God is ontologically the cause of all, but not that all is therefore God ... this is confusing cause and effect.

If finite nature is 'part' of the Divine Nature, then the Divine Nature is subject to change, to time and movement, to growth and decay, increase and decrease ... if you argue for the both/and position, the same still applies ... and furthermore that God is not Simple, One, and so forth, and nor that "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao" ...

I don't think She wills harmony and disharmony at the same time. Like you, I think there is liberty. But that liberty is contained within Her. I fail to see how an infinite and eternal God can have stuff that is not contained within It.

I'm not saying God does not contain everything, I'm saying God does not will everything. Liberty means the allowance for the created rational nature to accept (harmony) or defy (disharmony) the will of the Deity ... but if the rational creature chooses to deny or defy the Deity, then that is that creatures free expression and act ... God in His Providence allows for the error in His creature, but God does not will the creature to error.

I think there is probably a lot of confusion within Christianity about evil.

I'm pretty sure there's more confusion everywhere. Most of the replies I get here are not about evil, but about responses to evil, and thus miss the point entirely.

I've been to many Bible studies, churches, and so forth where totally natural and necessary processes, such as death, are thought to be evil and caused not by God but rather by "the fall" of humanity and/or certain angels.

Well that oversimplifies, but then not everyone is a philosopher.

Just because something is painful or uncomfortable doesn't make it unnecessary and evil.

No. As I keep saying, it's the intent behind the act, not the act.

As I said before, panentheism is the position of God as things and not-things, as knowable and unknowable simultaneously. It is a position that sees divinity in everything and also admits to divinity outside of the realm of what we can experience and know. It is inclusive of the position that God is beyond all forms and all things.

OK, but here's the distinction ... if panentheism says God is in things, but is not the thing itself, then it's saying nothing different to what Christianity has always said, but if it's saying that God as things, then that is where I dispute it ... again, the question then is, what bit of the thing is God?

As to being... that would take me a long time to discuss. I have experienced God as process, force, and being- and this is a product of God meeting me as I am with my limitations. No one can fully know God-in-Herself. I would say that the best expression I have at this time of my own experience of God is that God is the process and force of being.

My point is that the theologians have provided tons of evidence at every level ... most of which panentheism has not yet begun to approach philosophically, metaphysically, ontologically ... to me it's just too vague, emotive, sentimental.

Only last week I was reading Gregory of Nyssa, who makes great exegesis of Our Lord's "follow me" and the Old Testament "No one can see my face and live" and "hind parts" — the metaphysics of such texts is sublime, exquisite and profound. Wherever we go, God is there before us, and the horizon is always further away, and as we move on, the horizon moves on with us ... I see pantheism and panentheism as points along the way where man has stopped and sought to fix the Divine, whereas Christianity refuses to settle for a comfortability, but goes on and on, in pursuit of "the one thing necessary" ... the absolute pursuit of Union with the Absolute.

Perhaps it's that ... perhaps it's austerity and rigour is just too much for most.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Now you are merely proving my point that (natural) evil as we experience it does not require moral intention.

No I'm not, you're just choosing to read it that way.

This impression may be due to our limited vantage point. There may seem to be a contradiction because we don't really understand how G-d works.

Then the whole question of God is rendered void, and no-one can say anything. But not everyone holds your opinion.

Wasn't it Anselm who proposed that God allows evil, including natural evil?

Was it, I don't know. But my point is that because God allows for error does not mean God is the source and cause of error. God's Providence and Wisdom allows for man to make mistakes, otherwise each time we made a wrong choice, we would cease to exist.

It is totally conceivable that G-d makes natural evil possible in order to redeem the world from it.

That's an anthropomorphism. As God is before and after, that would be as meaningless as playing 'eye-spy' with yourself, it seems to me.

This does not address the problem of natural evil, which you call "tragedy."

Well it does, but let me offer more. I think what you mean by 'natural evil' is that done in ignorance or error or negligence, so 'innocent' but nevertheless evil. 'Ignorance of the law' is not an excuse in law. You're into vincible and invincible ignorance, I think.

Evil as the absence of good. It would seem you prefer Acquinas' G-d over the G-d of the Bible. In case you missed it it, here's Isaiah 45:7 again

I think not. It depends on how you read Scripture. I'm not the literalist you appear to be.

Ontology or psychology?

Ontology.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Seattlegal —

Wu wei.

Makes sense to me.

This sounds like "Hungry Ghost" (preta) behavior; attachment; addiction.

Well it's my analogy, not doctrine ... but one view is those in Hell are there because they choose to be, even in the face of Christ ... but I would say yes.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

because God allows for error does not mean God is the source and cause of error.

I didn't say God is the source and cause of error. However, if you accept the idea of divine immanence, you might accept the idea that He is nevertheless involved in these things

I think what you mean by 'natural evil' is that done in ignorance or error or negligence

No, we were talking about natural disasters, which reflect the imperfection of matter rather than moral intention or ignorance. G-d made natural evil possible by using imperfect materials for the created order.

It depends on how you read Scripture. I'm not the literalist you appear to be.

Now you have my attention, Thomas. What did G-d mean when He claimed omnipotence with respect to being able to make peace and create calamity?

 

[path_of_one]

My argument is that panentheism has so far offered no substantial philosophical argument.

I suppose that is where you and I differ. I don't really need or want a substantial philosophical argument upholding a definition of God. I just want a term that describes my belief, which is maximally open-ended. So far, panentheism fits the bill.

God is not subject to time, nor to movement ... so 'unfolding' is an analogous term that might well be erroneously interpreted to assume that it is the Deity Itself unfolding into the finite.

I would say God includes time and movement, but is not subject to them. And I don't think it is problematic to think of God unfolding into the finite. It is more our limitation in perceiving how this could occur- again, the paradox issue.

But then it predicates finite attributes to the Deity, and thus limits the Deity accordingly. The both/and proposition is as equally erroneous as either/or.

I disagree. It is a paradoxical statement- the Divine has finite attributes and also does not have finite attributes. This causes a holding of myself in a position of openness and remembrance that I cannot define God.

No. Christianity posits that the universe exists 'by, through, in and with' the Deity, but that the universe is not God ... I suppose the question I would put is what is common to God and the universe, that one assumes the universe is God?

The panentheist position does not say the universe is God. It says all things are contained in God, and God is in all things. By your own definition of the Christian viewpoint here, I would say it is panentheist. It is not different from most of the Pagans I know, who generally believe all things exist by/through/in/with the Divine. The qualitative difference is how we view those prepositions. Do we exist in God like a wave in an ocean, or a raisin in a bun? I say the former, it seems you argue the latter.

Then I think that's a vague definition. Christianity believes God is in all things, but not that the things themselves are God. As I understand panentheism it regards things as intrinsically divine.

I like having a vague definition. I actually find it preferable to not define God at all, but then one has to have some way to communicate with others about one's beliefs. Panentheism is the most non-limiting definition I could have outside of agnosticism. And so, while vague, it is accurate about my beliefs.

In terms of intrinsic divinity, I see things as more subtle and complex than "God in things" vs. "things as God." The question is not so much, for me, about what God is, but rather what things are. This gets into the issue of self and its layers- what is temporary, illusory, etc. vs. what "really" is. If the only "real" (permanent) characteristics about something is that God is in it, then the "real" thing is God at its essence. The rest is just an ephemeral play, and so, like a dream, is only real while it is dreamed. I don't so much question the limitlessness of God as the permanence of things that Christianity supposes. If we can't know what things really are, it is not possible to qualify that they are not-God.

Not at all. Christianity says God is ontologically the cause of all, but not that all is therefore God ... this is confusing cause and effect.

I think God is beyond the dichotomy of cause and effect. We already know cause/effect don't work quite the way we thought they did (from physics). I think this issue is more about humans' limitations in perspective than truth.

If finite nature is 'part' of the Divine Nature, then the Divine Nature is subject to change, to time and movement, to growth and decay, increase and decrease ... if you argue for the both/and position, the same still applies ...

Again, my perspective is beyond dichotomy. The idea that God can be both finite and infinite at once is something I have no trouble with. God is eternal and unchanging, existing as one infinite moment, and yet is also all the change within that moment... all things spiraling in and out of existence.

I'm not saying God does not contain everything, I'm saying God does not will everything.

Then you and I agree on this point. My point is exactly that if we exist in God, yet part of this existence is the temporary capacity for liberty (so long as "we" remain), then beings can go against the greater flow of God Herself. Yet, they are still contained within God. I don't think God is a puppeteer.

No. As I keep saying, it's the intent behind the act, not the act.

Yes, I agree. I'd say disharmony can be caused through ignorance or through an informed choice- the former is error and the latter what you might call evil. However, I think it is our responsibility to overcome both ignorance and "evil" to the best of our ability.

OK, but here's the distinction ... if panentheism says God is in things, but is not the thing itself, then it's saying nothing different to what Christianity has always said, but if it's saying that God as things, then that is where I dispute it ... again, the question then is, what bit of the thing is God?

Various folks who are panentheist could answer either way. Some think God is the thing itself and others think God is in the thing.

I think God is both all-things and no-thing. As to what bit of the thing- that gets into complexity about self, essence, and what makes something what it is. It gets into what a thing really is vs. what it appears to be.

My point is that the theologians have provided tons of evidence at every level ... most of which panentheism has not yet begun to approach philosophically, metaphysically, ontologically ... to me it's just too vague, emotive, sentimental.

Well, to each their own. RC works for you, panentheism works for me. We all have to pick how to talk about God in ways that align with our personal experience.

Wherever we go, God is there before us, and the horizon is always further away, and as we move on, the horizon moves on with us ... I see pantheism and panentheism as points along the way where man has stopped and sought to fix the Divine, whereas Christianity refuses to settle for a comfortability, but goes on and on, in pursuit of "the one thing necessary" ... the absolute pursuit of Union with the Absolute.

My journey could be described as exactly that- absolute pursuit of Union with the Absolute. And it is anything but comfortable. In fact, I arrived at panentheism after giving up the comfort of doctrine. But every person is different, and what is comfortable for one person is challenging for another.

While I think God is always before me, calling me toward Her... She is also in every heartbeat, every breath. She is all around me, in me, through me. For me, God is never a fixed point- She is center and circumference, to borrow a phrase from a teacher of mine. She is the horizon and my own essence, and whether I reach into the depth of myself to discover what lies beyond this temporary form or whether I reach out to the Infinite, there God is.

As I've said before, the best thing I can give people as a reference for how I experience God is fractal geometry- the Mendelbrot set. Infinite diversity, infinite change... yet one unifying consistent pattern underlying the All.

Perhaps it's that ... perhaps it's austerity and rigour is just too much for most.

Thomas

Can't speak for most, just for me. Different ways of approaching God "click" for different people.

1 a (1) : harsh inflexibility in opinion, temper, or judgment : severity (2) : the quality of being unyielding or inflexible : strictness (3) : severity of life : austerity b : an act or instance of strictness, severity, or cruelty
3 : a condition that makes life difficult, challenging, or uncomfortable; especially : extremity of cold
4 : strict precision : exactness <logical rigor>

To address the subject of rigor, I do not want harsh inflexibility in opinion or anything else. I am a finite being, and I need to humbly acknowledge that my ideas and feelings are subject to growth and development. In terms of making life challenging; I found more challenge once I stepped away from doctrine, but every person's journey is different. In terms of strict precision, no, I do not want exactness about how I think about God. I would find that self-limiting and therefore an obstacle to my capacity to grow spiritually.

1 a : stern and cold in appearance or manner b : somber, grave <an austere critic>
2 : morally strict : ascetic
3 : markedly simple or unadorned <an austere office> <an austere style of writing>
4 : giving little or no scope for pleasure <austere diets>

Ah, austerity. Well, let's see- no, I don't want to be stern and cold. I like to be warm and open. My own views are morally strict, but then everyone defines morality differently, so what is strict to one person is remarkably lax to another. You seemed to argue that Christianity had more depth and complexity than panentheism, so #3 would make no sense. Historically, it wouldn't be accurate either- Christianity has layer upon layer of doctrine, so it is hardly simple or unadorned. And as for having no scope for pleasure... well, I think life should be pleasurable. I don't feel God wants us to be miserable, and I doubt you do, either.

Sorry to be nit-picky, but the implication was "Christianity is the high road, and most of you people are simply not up for the challenge."

I fail to see how either austerity or rigour is necessary for spiritual growth. In fact, I can see many ways in which both of these qualities would thwart one's development (not to mention ruin one's enjoyment of life).

 

[Thomas]

I didn't say God is the source and cause of error. However, if you accept the idea of divine immanence, you might accept the idea that He is nevertheless involved in these things

But God is not the acting agent in these things. Man is always the acting agent, either drawn to God, or drawn to something else.

No, we were talking about natural disasters, which reflect the imperfection of matter rather than moral intention or ignorance. G-d made natural evil possible by using imperfect materials for the created order.

Well I'd say that's a complete misuse of the term 'evil' which is traditionally associated with a moral dimension, and the idea of God using imperfect materials seems to me to be a illogical idea based born from an erroneous assumption.

Now you have my attention, Thomas. What did G-d mean when He claimed omnipotence with respect to being able to make peace and create calamity?

I am never inattentive Ndetti-netti, although you seem inattentive to my replies. I refer you to my previous answer: it's a matter of Scriptural interpretation.

Throughout Scripture qualities are ascribed to God — such as anger, jealousy — which are used to render the text intelligible to the volitive nature of man, not because the scribe believes that God loses His temper or grows envious of someone or something else.

So often a contrary attribute is accorded to God which would be explained by an informed commentary, and are often the trigger of deeper insight ... curiously, Eriugena deals with this too, as does the Areopagite.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

I suppose that is where you and I differ. I don't really need or want a substantial philosophical argument upholding a definition of God. I just want a term that describes my belief, which is maximally open-ended. So far, panentheism fits the bill.

OK. For me theology is defined as 'faith seeking understanding' (St Anselm), in that sense I always seek to understand what I believe. The more I understand, the more the Mystery unfolds. I suppose I view panentheism, like pantheism and most other theisms, as stopping points.

I disagree. It is a paradoxical statement - the Divine has finite attributes and also does not have finite attributes. This causes a holding of myself in a position of openness and remembrance that I cannot define God.

We say the Divine is beyond all attributes — hence definitions — like panentheism — are ruled out. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

The attributes we predicate of the Divine are born of our understanding. So I do not uphold the either/or, or the both/and ... they are both wrong.

We say the closest you can get is analogy ... always remembering that analogy is the transference of meaning, not that one is the other.

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

We say the Divine is beyond all attributes — hence definitions — like panentheism — are ruled out.

I'm curious - isn't a core part of Panentheism that God is beyond all definitions and human constructs?

In which case, how does therefore attributing God as beyond our understanding somehow against Panentheism?

Isn't it organised religion that very clearly defines God according to clear cultural sets and precepts?

Of course Panentheism does not offer a structured philosophical view - a core part of it would be that how can you describe the undescribable? How can you limit something beyond human comprehension to nothing more than a set of human constructs?

However, many people want some degree of certainty or assurance of uncertainty - Panentheism as I understand it offers neither, but instead, offers uncertainty - a key for spiritual growth IMO.