Pantheism and Panentheism

[Netti-Netti]

In orthodox Christian thought, when one prays it is the Holy Spirit who prays in us, with us. But the Holy Spirit is not the world, or of this world (John 8:23) ... so in asserting panentheism, one misses the profound depth of the process and Union that is theosis

Hi Thomas,

This appears to be yet another instance of you making up positions and ascribing them to panentheism in order to cast aspersions on it.

Please cite a panentheist who maintains that the Holy Spirit should be identified with the world or who has said that the Holy Spirit is "of this world."

 

[nativeastral]

I am trying to understand the schematic of synchronicity shown in post # 16, any suggestions ?

This relates to the acausal experience of gleaning ideas through dreams. Most of us have probably struggled with problems, only to wake one day, after a dream, with new ideas. Was it a coincidence or related to the original cause ?

I am still a little confused about the regions of the schematic related to "energy indestruction" (this is probably conservation of energy) and "continuous space-time" (four dimensional space-time). I suppose this relates to an understanding of hierarchical views of reality. Going from Newtonian classical physics to Einstein's quantum mechanical vision.

Any other interpretations of synchronicity ?

'Paradoxically, the nothingness of the ground state, out of which the universe is sustained, is both a vacuum and a plenum. It is a vacuum because, as in the everyday idea of empty space, matter is able to move through it without interruption. But it is also a plenum because it is infinitely full of energy. Indeed, the observable material universe is nothing more that the minor fluctuations upon this vast sea of energy. '
Synchronicity - F David Peat

 

[nativeastral]

You all write as if the western version panentheism is the only possible form of panentheism. The Orthodox Church also has a doctrine that is called "panentheism" that is not the same as the western doctrine. For us Orthodox Christians, "panentheism" is the concept that nothing can exist without God's active presence and intervention. However creation ("the universe") is not part of God. God and creation are still ontologically distinct. Creation cannot exist without God's direct presence at all times, but God and creation are still completely distinct from each other. Thus, God is "in all things", but none of those things are "part of" God. God IS the Creator in our verson of panentheism, and the creation IS NOT "the manifest part of God". The universe is not "within God" in our panentheistic model. Instead, God actively sustains every part of the universe, for nothing can exist without God's constant support, in our view.

a lovely orthodox view on panentheism that dissolves dogmatism.
Through Creation to the Creator | In Communion

 

[Dogbrain]

a lovely orthodox view on panentheism that dissolves dogmatism.
Through Creation to the Creator | In Communion

KALLISTOS at no time in his essay contradicted nor negated a single Orthodox dogma. He affirms the Orthodox dogma that the Creator and the creation are ontologically distinct. God is within all things, necessary for them to continue to exist, but these things are not God and are not "part of" God. KALLISTOS does not contradict this basic doctrine.

 

[nativeastral]

yes l know, the 'double truth', energies rather than essence; l just meant he expressed it undogmatically, [but for me the holy spirit is shakti inherent in all living things with no 'need' of 'grace']. Thomas has explained the christian position very well, which seems no different at all from the 'eastern' one; and surprising like my previous posting from a physicist, fullness and emptiness- ah convergence between science and religion!

 

[Netti-Netti]

Hi Thomas,

Nettti-Netti said: "the word "perfect" is used to signify completion and finality. However, it does not follow that G-d's nature matches a linguistic convention. In other words, He may not be in a kind of final state of completion. He is still becoming more perfect through His Creation.

To which you replied:

And If you knew your Aquinas you'd know that is nonsense.

The first part about the word "perfect" being used to signify completion and finality is probably a fairly accurate rendering of the medieval G-d concept that was based on Aquinas:

God is perfect (in the sense of) lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
​

In other words, according to Aquinas, completion is a defining characteristic of G-d's perfection. This could be reasonably deduced from Aquinas' description of the First Mover to the effect that G-d is fully realized, such that "there is no potential to be in God that God is not already in actuality."

Perhaps you've forgotten your Aquinas already, whom you quoted here:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/a-t...cal-question-concerning-10941.html#post185593

Or are you taking issue with a process theology view that involves rejecting a concept of G-d as a fully realized, static entity?

 

[Avi]

Synchronicity - F David Peat

Very nice article, NA. I find it very interesting that what he is describing sounds to me like it should be called "hierarchical design", but he never uses those words. I don't know why ??? This term is being used often now in the field of solid state physics and I think it applies very to well to the image he projects:

Reality, in this way, is pictured as a limitless series of levels which extend to deeper and deeper subtleties and out of which the particular, explicate order of nature and the order of consciousness and life emerge.

Synchronicity seems to be an acknowledgment that there is an interface between the hard science of reality and the soft nature of what is inside our minds.

So, is this another manifestation of panentheism ??

 

[Thomas]

Or are you taking issue with a process theology view that involves rejecting a concept of G-d as a fully realized, static entity?

I reject the crass use of terms.

God is outside of time and space.
God is immanently present in time and space.

My single point is that how can one consider God to 'change' or be affected by events at any given moment in time, when God was aware of that event aeternally? How can God be changed, altered or affected by what He already knows?

+++

The point is, that panentheism claims creation to be part of God, or some order of divine emanation — if one argues that creation is in some way divine according to its nature, how then can it not be what it is?

Thomas

 

[Snoopy]

It's there in the East, too.

I'm sure.

Perhaps a geographical distinction is not the most helpful. What I was alluding to was perfect meaning that which is at the end point of development in some way or perfect as it is.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

fullness and emptiness

yes, the Diamond Sutra, almost as popular as the Kalama round these parts

...David Bohm anyone?

s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

My single point is that how can one consider God to 'change' or be affected by events at any given moment in time, when God was aware of that event eternally?

ok, well my point is that the view that God is aware of a possible event eternally is yet another example of developing a characterization that fits in with a philosophic definition.

How can God be changed, altered or affected by what He already knows?

Looks like you are trying to confirm an implication of a premise that is itself at issue. I think we need to look closer at the premise.

The point is, that panentheism claims creation to be part of God, or some order of divine emanation — if one argues that creation is in some way divine according to its nature, how then can it not be what it is?

Without a recognized panentheistic view for us to look at, we have no basis for exploring your contention.

 

[Netti-Netti]

... for me the holy spirit is shakti inherent in all living things with no 'need' of 'grace'... Thomas has explained the christian position very well, which seems no different at all from the 'eastern' one;

Isn't the Christian position that we do need Grace?

yes l know, the 'double truth', energies rather than essencel

There is no reason to equate these things. Why would you equate them ?

 

[path_of_one]

Thomas, I don't believe in a supernatural. God exists, and is therefore natural. God is supramundane, in that God exists at levels beyond ordinary consciousness and existence, but I don't believe in a categorical difference between natural entities and supernatural entities.

I believe there is stuff that exists. And this can include God, the soul, love, and other things that are not material.

But I find the categorical dichotomy of natural/supernatural to be not so useful for describing reality, at least the one I inhabit.

As for a God that is unchanging (absolute, lacking in nothing) and simultaneously manifesting as everything/creation...

As I've said before (but seems to be quite difficult to express in an understandable way)- God lacks nothing, in part because within God is all the potentialities of everything that ever has been, is, and will be. God has, within Her/Him, everything in the multiverse... every potentiality. So of course, nothing more can be and God is complete unto Her/Himself. Likewise, everything that ever has been, is, and will be has at its essence a connection to this Divine One that holds all these potential existences in Itself in one infinite and eternal absolute Something.

It is our limited perspective that puts barriers between ourselves and this Divine One, and while the divine within everything is certainly a gift of grace, this does not make it any less ubiquitous or universally given, nor does it diminish its fundamental unity with all that is in existence.

That is my view, at any rate, and it is one that I fully acknowledge is quite difficult to adequately express.

 

[nativeastral]

Very nice article, NA. I find it very interesting that what he is describing sounds to me like it should be called "hierarchical design", but he never uses those words. I don't know why ??? This term is being used often now in the field of solid state physics and I think it applies very to well to the image he projects:

Synchronicity seems to be an acknowledgment that there is an interface between the hard science of reality and the soft nature of what is inside our minds.

So, is this another manifestation of panentheism ??

his talk of a 'limitless series of levels' [The Law of Series], of enfolding, and double aspect of same reality [spinozas parallelism][the interface being our participation, subjectivity or intentionality] so as much holarchic or shawns Möbius strip, as a higher order pyramidical structure, as much as l like those!

File:Light dispersion conceptual waves.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nativeastral]

yes, the Diamond Sutra, almost as popular as the Kalama round these parts

...David Bohm anyone?

s.

does that express yet another Gordian Knot ?!

 

[immortalitylost]

What about G-d changing because He chooses to? Or are you unwilling to attribute volitional power to Him?

If God 'changes' he doesn't really change though, does he. Being perfection, ie. complete, he holds all possibilities within himself, therefore cannot really change. What could he change into, that he was not already?

Just so you know, I did understand what Thomas was getting at. I was actually quite pleased that I agreed with him on something.

And you yourself say that time, a created nature, has the ability to change God. Well, there ya go. You admit yourself that you believe that nature can change God. You also wrote that he may be growing more perfect through his creation. That would mean that nature--his creation--would be changing him. So, I can definitely see where Thomas is coming from. And I agree with him. Perfect is perfect, it can not be made more perfect, or it wouldn't have been perfect in the first place.

Thomas should tell you that humans' idea of G-d's perfection and immutability is an "anthropomorphism." But he won't. (He reserves that charge only for doctrines he doesn't like.) Since he won't, I will.

I don't see how you get that. The reality of completion is decidedly not a human trait, even if the idea is an idea had by humans, therefore calling something perfect, or complete, is in no way anthropomorphizing it.

As I write this, the question poses itself, if there was no time and no space before the universe, will there be a time and space after the universe? I should think not ... which argues against the successive theory ... ? Just a thought ...

Well, there is no time and space during the universe, unless you are subject to time and space, lol. But if there is an everlasting succession, I don't see how the universe would end, therefore, I don't see how time would stop. And like I said, which universe was the first, which before it there was no time or space? We have no way of knowing that it was this version of the matter (aka, the universe in which we reside, lol). This is really fascinating, actually...

The Incarnation represents a covenant, too - sometimes called the Covenant of Grace. The Incarnation is considered a singular event. It would have to have been an event that changed G-d because it modified the Trinity. A possible way around this is to assert that Jesus was not part of the Trinity.

If God is in time. But, being out of time, the incarnation would be a part of God from the beginning, as there would be no time when it was not a part of God, as there would be no time.

 

[nativeastral]

Isn't the Christian position that we do need Grace?

There is no reason to equate these things. Why would you equate them ?

sure, but l don't subscribe [dont use that frame of reference] to that concept unless it can merge with other ones that seem less arbitrary and sectarian; interestingly in the orthodox church its called synergy. Looking up wiki and new advent on 'grace' its no wonder l was confused with yet another knotty concept [and synchronistically, looking up 'synergy' came across another [biological] hierarchical model 'The Synergism Hypothesis ' which banged home complexity]. l wasnt equating but reiterating to myself the antimonies, paradoxes in all of these musings in all of these traditions [not just christian] using concepts that seem inadequate in describing the indescribable, the neti neti?

 

[Netti-Netti]

If God 'changes' he doesn't really change though, does he. Being perfection, i.e. complete, he holds all possibilities within himself, therefore cannot really change. What could he change into, that he was not already?

Isn't the transition from possible to actual itself a kind of change? You seem to be saying that all possibilities represent all actualities. Therefore, how can you argue G-d contains all possibilities and all actualities? A fully realized being would have no possibilities because they would all have been actualized.

You admit yourself that you believe that nature can change God.

Nature (or the evolving worlds) changes G-d to the extent that He chooses to be changed by them, which is quite different from Thomas view that G-d cannot be seen as being at the mercy of evolving words because that would mean He is not omnipotent.

The reality of completion is decidedly not a human trait, even if the idea is an idea had by humans, therefore calling something perfect, or complete, is in no way anthropomorphizing it.

Is there a "reality of completion" or is that pure abstraction? It's is anthropomorphic in the sense that a poorly developed metaphysical idea is assumed to be a match to reality.

The basic idea that has to be a incomplete earlier state that gets completed at some later point in development. The philosophers who came up with the idea of G-d's absolute perfection took this anthropomorphic idea of how creatures develop and said it does not apply to G-d because the representation portrays the Divine as less than absolutely perfect. In defense of this view, those philosophers denied the possibility of G-d as being self-surpassing. In effect, they condemned Him to a permanent static state of perfection that makes Him irrelevant to evolving worlds.

If God is in time. But, being out of time, the incarnation would be a part of God from the beginning, as there would be no time when it was not a part of God, as there would be no time.

That would mean that Christ was eternal, just as G-d the Father is eternal, in which case the Biblical idea of Christ as a "begotten son" is wrong. Maybe you may have found yet another issue where the G-d of the Bible is different from the G-d of the philosophers.

I'd say scrap the old philosopher's G-d concept entirely, but that would mean that Bro. Thomas wouldn't have anything to do on this forum.

Perfect is perfect, it can not be made more perfect, or it wouldn't have been perfect in the first place.

The argument you seem to be agreeing with is a dogmatic tautology where the conclusions repeats the premise. The premise - that G-d is perfect - is highly debatable and has in fact been debated. I already mentioned Charles Hartshorne. You might like this page which shows the issues regarding divine attributes in a nice clear way:
Charles Hartshorne (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[path_of_one]

If God 'changes' he doesn't really change though, does he. Being perfection, ie. complete, he holds all possibilities within himself, therefore cannot really change. What could he change into, that he was not already?

That is my point, also, Mort. But I still would say I am a panentheist.

It is not that God is the emergent phenomenon of creation as creation is the emergent phenomena of God.

If God is in time. But, being out of time, the incarnation would be a part of God from the beginning, as there would be no time when it was not a part of God, as there would be no time.

As would be the case with anything that ever has been, is, or will be.

 

[shawn]

People have done this trick for ages.....come up with an idea, get supporting documents and promote it as fact.
But it is still speculation.
And just because it has been around for a long time does not make it any more true.
What is amusing is to watch people play this game.
Superior and intellectual.... everything expressed in complicated ways using obscure wording to give it "the appearance of wisdom".
But boil all the superfluous away and it is a simple speculative idea which could be plainly stated, just like all the others.

In everything I say (I will make the effort in any case), I will add the disclaimer that my ideas are just that....ideas to be discussed and kicked around.
They could be true.
But to get on the high horse and state absolutely that "such and such" is "the way it is" is vain and arrogant.
A symptom of pride unchecked.
It really detracts from the debate.
So it is best to keep it simple and put it forward honestly, for what it is, which is an idea.