Pantheism and Panentheism

[dauer]

It can be distracting if it's an attempt to oversimplify. On the other and, some of the language is helpful in updating some of the obtuse Biblical language, which I've always had a hard time with.

That seems like a separate issue to me, unrelated to my issue with assertions that one theological proposition or another is true in some absolute or constant sense.

 

[shawn]

Those of the christian persuasion tend to accept that there is this gulf of separation between God and man, and so can not accept the idea that God is One with His creation, in any way shape or form.
To do so would undermine every major aspect of their belief structure, so one will get constant disagreement in such debates....it is to be anticipated.

 

[path_of_one]

Pan-entheism is a variation on traditional theism. I thought Druidity was pantheistic (G-d= nature) or at least not theistic in sense these of having a Creator g-d who transcends nature.

As far as research has illustrated, the ancient Druids were polytheistic with an established priesthood. The gods and goddesses were associated with nature but were not nature itself. It was a theistic system similar to the pantheon of the Romans, Greeks, Maya, and other polytheist systems in which the divine entities govern certain aspects of nature and/or life.

Modern Druidry has no single doctrine on the nature of the divine. There are pantheist, panentheist, atheist, monotheist, monist, polytheist, etc. Druids. I don't meet two many duotheist (this seems to be more Wiccan) but there are DruidCraft people who are both Wiccan and Druid, so I guess it's possible. Since most of the modern Druid orders are initiatory orders for spiritual development but few are churches (ADF is the one exception I can think of off the top of my head), the emphasis in most modern Druidic groups is on discussion, openness, and individual exploration in a supportive environment. Practice is something that is generally created from diverse sources within small groups or as a solitary practitioner. Most Druids are also rather into the intellectual or philosophical side of religion and read rather extensively about shamanic, mystical, Western Mystery, witchcraft, magic, and other associated stuff... most Druids I know studied another religion or two in depth before ending up in Druidry.

The order I belong to, the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids (OBOD) explains the basics of what holds folks together in that flavor of modern Druidry at www.druidry.org. It has a wide variety of good introductory materials and a Druidic forum if anyone is curious about the details. Most areas of the forum are open to non-members.

Hope that helps!

Path. You, are soooo good at coherent writing. I'm jealous. (^_^)
But I agree with what you say, and find it along the same lines as my thoughts. Just much less jumbled, and infinitely more eloquent, lol.

Aw, thanks. I try to be coherent- sometimes I miss that train, though. LOL No one sees the posts I just delete before I post them.

It does seem that your thoughts differ from my (meager) research into panentheism.
Differ in a good way, as far as I'm concerned...

What more can I say? Brava! Lol.

I think because panentheism is not a very concisely defined "belief system," but rather a vague catch-all, it's just as likely your research is correct. I just have no other word by which to describe my beliefs, and since people from a variety of traditions as well as various scholars I know have told me "you are panentheist," I figured I'd use the term to describe my beliefs.

As we can see in this thread, it means a lot of different things to different people. I guess we should coin a bunch of new "isms" and make a name for our collective self!

More later... out of time at the present.

 

[immortalitylost]

If there is a God beyond everything, and the God beyond everything lacks for nothing, then there certainly is a distinction between God and everything (else) because everything (else) possesses none of the qualities that God does.

Aww... And I don't agree with you again. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. I enjoy being agreeable, lol.

You see, my dissension lies in the distinction bit. Kind of...

It's complicated.

If God is perfect, and complete, then he holds all possibilities within himself. This created world is part of those possibilities. If everything in this world were not a part of God, he would not be complete. He would not hold all possibility. But simply being a part of God doesn't mean that this physical reality would change him by changing. After all, why would it? It is, always was, and always will be, part of God, every change would be just another possibility within God, and because God is beyond time, all changes in time would be present in God at all times. Even before time existed.

That poses an interesting question. If God is beyond time, how could he have a beginning? How can one have a beginning without time? How could there be a before time, come to think of it... It's mind boggling to think of existence without time... hurts my brain to try, lol, but that's something else all together.

Now, even if we are distinct and separate entities from God, we're still swimming around in his fish bowl, as it were, which must, by God's very nature be a part of him, as must we, because of the very idea that he is complete, holding all possibility. We are all, and this universe is all, just a number of possibilities within God.

Everything in the created world does posses qualities of God, as God himself encompasses all qualities to be had. It's just that everything else (physical world) doesn't posses all of the qualities of God. It also doesn't collectively, represent the consciousness of God.

Everything isa possibility within God, and God is connected to everything because he encompasses all, but everything is not God, as in holding all or part of the consciousness of God in every bit.

Just some things I've been rolling around in my head, and want to throw out to the sounding board... I wonder what everyone will make of it.

This brings us back to contiguity: A divine connection with everything, which I read as God's Immanence in creation, does not presuppose a divine essence of everything. If everything is intrinsically divine, then how can it not know its own divinity, if a marker of the divine is that which lacks for nothing, and is subject to not condition nor determination?

That God is immanently present in and to things does not adequately infer the assumption that things are divine by essence and nature — in fact I read it as quite the opposite — by being immanent presupposes a distinction of essence and nature — that the apprehending nature perceives something other than itself.

And I agree with you again. All but the distinction bit. Everything is a part of God, as God holds within himself all possibility, therefore there is and is not a distinction between God and nature. Nature is a possibility within God, therefore actually a part of God, and yet, within nature there are a vastly inadequate number of the aspects of God for God and Nature to be one and the same, or even close.

So nature is a part of God. A small part. But all of nature is not all of God. And nature, being a part of God since before it's creation, cannot in any way change God. God may consciously present himself in nature, but this doesn't mean that nature is made up of the full consciousness of God. Or that it intrinsically holds a piece of that consciousness.

I'm not sure. Does that render the individual as non-participant? God is the cause of evolution and change, the calling ... but is does not change.

One of the major distinctions between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant theologies is the idea of individual freedom, responsibility and participation. It's a given in Catholic/Orthodox theology that the 'yes' of the individual is paramount; without that yes there is no love, only obligation; no free act, only predetermination; the individual will is not-participant, and immaterial, and eventually freedom is reduced to nothing. (This is the basis of C/O Marian theology, by the way, which its critics refute without understanding.)

So God is the cause of change, but God is passive in the sense that God works by invitation, not by coercion. Man is free at any point to say 'No' and cease to participate in the divine life.

One thing to realise is theosis, divinisation, is not something that happens as the end result of a good and ascetic life ... it is an ongoing process from the very start, and proceeds by degree, but not, as you point out above, in a strictly linear manner (linearism is itself an artificial concept with few referrants in nature, I rather spirals ... )

So from the very beginning one participate in the Divine Life, or not, by degree; some along the interface, as it were, some heading deeper in, others ever further away ...

If all of creation, including man, is a part of the infinite possibilities that God holds within himself, all a part of God, but none all of God, and God, out of time, knows all in his omniscience, and because man is part of him, then we have both full free will and none at all. God created Man knowing all of mankind completely, from beginning to end simultaneously, from his position out of time. God knows all of our fates, and since we were a part of the infinite possibilities of God, even before we were created, he knew our fates before we were created. And he, knowing this, still created us regardless of what he knew we would do.

But since we do not know our fates, and we do not know ourselves as completely as God, we must use our free will to guide our own paths. We make the decisions, and they have real consequences. We are in time. God is beyond it. It does not matter from our position in time that our fate is already sealed, because we cannot know what it is. We make decisions based on our will. God knows what those decisions will lead to. God created us knowing what their ultimate end would be. He doesn't manipulates us into following a certain path, and doesn't necessarily even guide us, but by events that were set before time began. We choose which actions to take with full use of our free will. But our actions will invariably lead us to our fate, and all through our own choosing. And we have no idea what that fate may be. But God does, because we were a possibility that he held and still holds, before our creation.

And he also holds the possibilities of every alternate reality and every decision and consequence in all to them. After all, if there are multiple realities where we are going through every possible outcome of every possible action and consequence and event that could ever possibly happen, well, we're everything then, from saints to sinners, to aborted babies, to beggars, to rock stars. That's right. Somewhere, in some part of the multiverse, you are a rockstar! And so am I!

Ok... there are my thoughts on free will vs. predestination and other more... random subjects. And if that's not paradoxical thinking, then I am and am not simultaneously, a duck!

What 'unfolds' does not evolve, nor change, as a flower unfolds, the unfolding is in fact a revealing, and again I would say that this process is ongoing, a stripping away of veils, and the world and its contents, and all its being, is a veil ...

Yup, we're all pulling away veils to reveal our fate, with every thought and action, we walk the only path that we can. We are all possibilities in God, and our actions cannot change him or our fate. It is sealed by our very choices.

I guess we should coin a bunch of new "isms" and make a name for our collective self!

I'm lazy. I'll just call mine The Ism.

Lol, TheIsm, classic!

Wow... long post... I apologize for any eye strain that may occur during the reading of this post. Sorry!

 

[Avi]

A few additional thoughts on Spinoza:

Quote SEP:
Is Spinoza, then, a pantheist? Any adequate analysis of Spinoza's identification of God and Nature will show clearly that Spinoza cannot be a pantheist in the second, immanentist sense. For Spinoza, there is nothing but Nature and its attributes and modes. And within Nature there can certainly be nothing that is supernatural. If Spinoza is seeking to eliminate anything, it is that which is above or beyond nature, which escapes the laws and processes of nature. But is he a pantheist in the first, reductive sense?

Somehow I have a feeling not.

The issue of whether God is to be identified with the whole of Nature (i.e., Natura naturans and Natura naturata) or only a part of Nature (i.e., Natura naturans alone), which has occupied a good deal of the recent literature, might be seen as crucial to the question of Spinoza's alleged pantheism. After all, if pantheism is the view that God is everything, then Spinoza is a pantheist only if he identifies God with all of Nature. Indeed, this is exactly how the issue is often framed. Both those who believe that Spinoza is a pantheist and those who believe that he is not a pantheist focus on the question of whether God is to be identified with the whole of Nature, including the infinite and finite modes of Natura naturata, or only with substance and attributes (Natura naturans) but not the modes.

Thus, it has been argued that Spinoza is not a pantheist, because God is to be identified only with substance and its attributes, the most universal, active causal principles of Nature, and not with any modes of substance.

Now we're talking.

Other scholars have argued that Spinoza is a pantheist, just because he does identify God with the whole of nature.

Err, can't we make up our minds here folks !!

However, this debate about the extent of Spinoza's identification of God with Nature is not really to the point when the question is about Spinoza's alleged pantheism.

I love when they tell us what the discussion is not about.

To be sure, if by ‘pantheism’ is meant the idea that God is everything, and if one reads Spinoza as saying that God is only Natura naturans, then Spinoza's God is not everything and consequently he is not a pantheist, at least in the ordinary sense.

That is what I thought.

Finite things, on this reading, while caused by the eternal, necessary and active aspects of Nature, are not identical with God or substance, but rather are its effects.

But this is not the interesting sense in which Spinoza is not a pantheist.

Okay.....

For even if Spinoza does indeed identify God with the whole of Nature, it does not follow that Spinoza is a pantheist.

Ha ???

The real issue is not what is the proper reading of the metaphysics of Spinoza's conception of God and its relationship to finite modes.

Again, telling us what the article is not about !!

On either interpretation, Spinoza's move is a naturalistic and reductive one. God is identical either with all of Nature or with only a part of Nature; for this reason, Spinoza shares something with the reductive pantheist. But and this is the important point—even the atheist can, without too much difficulty, admit that God is nothing but Nature. Reductive pantheism and atheism maintain extensionally equivalent ontologies.

So was Spinoza an atheist .......


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

 

[Eudaimonist]

So was Spinoza an atheist .......

If having an ontology indistinguishable from that of an atheist makes one an atheist, then yes.

If insisting that the universe is God makes one a theist, then no.

Tough call.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Thomas]

If God is perfect, and complete, then he holds all possibilities within himself.

Yes ... the possibility of every other mode of being — not the possibilities of His own way of being — there is only one way of Being for God, for God is One, Absolute and Infinite, so there is no way of being God other than as God is.

So every possibility that exists in God is the possibility of being other than God.

This created world is part of those possibilities.

Precisely ... so it is not God.

But be careful of 'part' ... as the All-Possible is not a composite of everything than can be ... rather the principle by which all things are brought into being.

The created world is the realisation of a given possibility, just one possibility amongst all other possibilities ... the non-existence of this world is another and equal possibility — so there's a contradiction: if God needs the world to exist to be perfect, God also needs the world not to exist to be perfect ... ?

So the premise must be wrong. God does not need the world, nor not need the world ...

If the actualisation of a possibility were necessary for God's perfection, then God would have to actualise everything, everywhere, all at once, in which everything would be negated by its opposite/contrary ...

It would also assume God is a composite, something made up of the total number of things, which God is not.

+++

If everything in this world were not a part of God, he would not be complete.

I would say you're determining God by the nature of things, rather than determining the nature of things according to God. You're making God's perfection dependent upon things, rather than the perfection of things dependent upon God.

But simply being a part of God doesn't mean that this physical reality would change him by changing.

Then how is the world part of God, and yet God not part of the world?

More importantly, God is not composed of 'parts', God is not a composite.

That poses an interesting question. If God is beyond time, how could he have a beginning? How can one have a beginning without time? How could there be a before time, come to think of it... It's mind boggling to think of existence without time... hurts my brain to try, lol, but that's something else all together.

Not really, it's absolutely fundamental. God is not subject to temporal conditioning, only created nature is subject to time and space, the necessary complement, and couplement, of its finitude. The problem here is in allowing oneself to be 'boggled', one fails to locate the core of the question. In all this, you're determining the nature of the Infinite according to finite categories.

God does not have a beginning nor an end because there is no succession, no movement, no time nor space, in God.

Now, even if we are distinct and separate entities from God, we're still swimming around in his fish bowl, as it were, which must, by God's very nature be a part of him, as must we, because of the very idea that he is complete, holding all possibility. We are all, and this universe is all, just a number of possibilities within God.

You're confusing possibility with essence. What you're saying is that God can only create things out of Himself, God cannot create ex nihilo ... which is a limitation upon God, and treats God as some kind of primordial material, a substance or substrate from which all things are made.

So that is a limitation on God, and if God is limited, then it's not the God of the philosophers, not the metaphysicians, nor the God of the orthodox Christian Traditions (I think the Mormons believe that God exists as a material being somewhere on the edge of the universe?)

Everything in the created world does posses qualities of God, as God himself encompasses all qualities to be had.

Actually no ... all virtues, yes, but not all qualities, as some qualities are negative and thus have no essential being.

Then again, virtue exists apart from human nature, else humans could not help but be virtuous. So virtue might be a quality possessed by both you and God, but God is beyond all virtues, and you might not possess that virtue tomorrow, every spritiual discipline warns of the dangerous potential of the loss of virtue ... so the virtue is not 'you' (you cannot lose what you are), it's something you participate in ...

Nature is a possibility within God, therefore actually a part of God...

Ah, see ... you're viewing possibilities like a list of things, which is not what is meant by the term. A painting is a possibility within me, but what I paint is not me ... it might bear my signature, and offer a clue to my nature, but it is not substantially co-essential with me.

... and yet, within nature there are a vastly inadequate number of the aspects of God for God and Nature to be one and the same, or even close.

Exactly ... so nature provides a myriad clues to what God might be like, but it is not in any way co-existential, co-consubtantial, co-essential, or co-equal.

I think the tendency is to mistake the sign for the thing signified.

Now if we were talking symbol, in the metaphysical and esoteric sense of the term, then yes, 'for those with eyes to see' God is immanently present in the natural form:
"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour."
Blake: Auguries of Innocence

Veils ... yes, veils ...

"God is a pure no-thing,
concealed in now and here:
the less you reach for him,
the more he will appear."
Angelus Silesius

And there's more from this master ...

"Become essential, Man! When the world fails at last,
Accident falls away, but Essence, that stands fast.

All Accident must go, all false appearances:
Put off thy specious hues—be pure as Essence is."

GOD MAKETH NOTHING NEW
God maketh no new thing, though new
It seem to us. We think we see
The act of birth, but what is born
Is birthless in eternity.

A RIGHT JUDGEMENT BRINGETH NOT SADNESS
The true and proper worth of things
Who understandeth to assay,
Will never sorrow overmuch
For aught that Time can bear away.

THE ESSENTIAL MAN
The essential Man is like unto Eternity,
Unchanged by any breath of externality.

THE SPIRITUAL ALCHEMY
Then Lead becometh Gold, then Accident is ended,
When I with God, through God, in God, am wholly blended.



Thomas

 

[shawn]

Thomas:
A painting is a possibility within me, but what I paint is not me ... it might bear my signature, and offer a clue to my nature, but it is not substantially co-essential with me.

Oh....and what are you????
You are a vibration.
You have no substance, none of us does.
It just seems like it to our perceptual mechanism.
You are a frequency, just like the colors in said painting and we all share in that same basis in which we all live, move and have our being.
All this philosophizing is like watching children play with blocks.....move on.

 

[shawn]

All too often, discussions about faith and reason quickly degenerate into heated arguments over creation versus evolution, religion versus science, and so on.
The good news is it's all avoidable.

Religion and Science By Arnie Gotfryd PhD - The Doctor of Faith and Science

 

[dauer]

Oh....and what are you????
You are a vibration.
You have no substance, none of us does.
It just seems like it to our perceptual mechanism.
You are a frequency, just like the colors in said painting and we all share in that same basis in which we all live, move and have our being.
All this philosophizing is like watching children play with blocks.....move on.

When you talk like that you come across as a dogmatist who has convinced himself that he's uncovered the truth and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

The origin of Pantheistic Hierarchy in cultures of western history are rooted in Vedic Culture of India. The Hierarchy of 'demigods' are infact a related family tree of cousins that have a commom great-great-grandfather, Brahma.

But, some people will ascribe the station of Demigod as a God all onto a sole demigod due to partiality.

Local traditions pass down a degree of devotion to a particular Diety because there had been a regional appearance of said Demigod in antiquity.

The Family Tree of all the personalities of the Veda
As found in the Bhagavata-purana:

There is an actual family tree described in approximately 563 verses.

These verses delineate the family lineages starting with Brahma [including all the Prajapatis, Manus, the Soma & the Surya Dynasties] up until the 11th Century C.E..

Approximately 2,500 names [including wives are listed]

Avataras and their family lineage is included too—which brings us to the Puranas and before that to the various Vedic Books that re-tell ancient events among the Devas in their youth.

In the Bhagavata-purana the family tree Starts with & proceeds as follows:

1) Brahma's Birth [155 Trillion B.C.] — Brahma's children — Brahma's Daughter-in-law & Son-in-laws — Brahma's grandchildren — Brahma's great-grandchildren

2) Brahma's first 50 years of his life have already passed —

3) Brahma's awakes afresh at the start of the Present Day (kalpa) — the first Manu (svayambhuva) is born — Kasyapa & his cousins re-populate the Universe (prajapatis)

4) The first to 6th Manus born, live and pass.

5) The 7th Manu is born

3) At the end of the 1st Maha-yuga of the 7th Manu— Mother Revati leaves to seek Husband (and 27 Maha-yuga later arrives to marry Balarama).

4) We are here now in the 28th Maha-yuga epoch [out of 71] of the present 7th Manu.

5) The family tree continues until the 11th Century CE.


The watch word for being given this data from Vyasadeva, IMO, is a matter of "Orientation" —as in finding our way in and around a forest and knowing where our cousins and Uncles homes are to be found.
.....................................................................................................................

Bhaktajan's point in posting the above:

The reason for various seemingly contradictory statements in the Vedas, and also, in seemingly contradictory statements in the Puranas about pastimes of persons mentioned in different puranas etc is:

The events happened in vastly different epochs and vastly different places —attended by a few most famous personalities and also attended by mutitudes of Sadhus, rishis and celestial near-do-wells —therefore the re-counting of Vedic events of antiquity contain points-of-view from sources that witnessed the same events from different vantage points.

Also, the Demigods are prone to mistakes, bad-manners, momentary lapses of judgment, lust pursuits etc —so eventhough their behavior is exemplary it contains all the variety of Celestial Soap-Operas [novellas] that spring from the Human-condition [Demigod-condition].

Remember, Daksha, Durvasa and what to speak of Big-Big Asuras who made mistakes when they could have enjoyed the good life into their dotage years.

Why would Indra not recognize the advent of Vishnu's origin incarnate, Krishna?

Because of supreme conceit. But the Devas are not self-hating soul killers —they live a polished life of opulence with their duties to perform for the good of all sentient beings and also for the maintenance of the physical structure of the cosmos.

Getting oriented,
Bhaktajan

 

[nativeastral]

Oh....and what are you????
You are a vibration.
You have no substance, none of us does.
It just seems like it to our perceptual mechanism.
You are a frequency, just like the colors in said painting and we all share in that same basis in which we all live, move and have our being.
All this philosophizing is like watching children play with blocks.....move on.

[youtube]pf6vVt0cLnM[/youtube]

 

[Thomas]

Oh....and what are you????
You are a vibration.

A vibration has no freedom, nor self-direction, nor act.

You have no substance, none of us does.
It just seems like it to our perceptual mechanism.

An interesting speculation. It is through our perceptual mechanism that the world has meaning ... if it has no substance, then you, and I, and the world, has no meaning, no point, no purpose, no value?

You are a frequency, just like the colors in said painting and we all share in that same basis in which we all live, move and have our being.

Not quite. The painting derives its colour from me, and I derive my colour from another ... [/quote]

All this philosophizing is like watching children play with blocks.....move on.

And don't play at all? Then what is the point of life?

Surely if life has no meaning, no purpose, not act, then it is futile?

Thomas

 

[path_of_one]

Path, you seem effortlessly to be able to convey these paradoxes as non contradictory and completely 'natural' or complementary [therefore not safeguarding the exclusivity of theism which has to maintain a somewhat impassible duality in demarcating and thereby negating any real notion of monism or unity in being].. the mark of a mystic or poet who can both dissolve and highlight differentiation, even simultaneously; a quantum effect that can now can be incorporated into all this 'mystery' [read absolute timeless eternal and infinite unknowabilty!] which really is the power of NOW and not some far off distant possibility or probability of a perfection that we have put on a pedestal never to attain [good carrot and stick method for a while though].

Thank you for the encouragement. In the vein of Lewis Carroll, I try to hold at least six impossible ideas in my mind by breakfast.

The experiences I have of the Divine make Her entirely ineffable and incomprehensible. The best I can do is approximate through paradox and try to communicate something that leads toward Her.

My own experience is that it is only "now" that I have, and every moment is an opportunity to embrace Her with all I am... and this means embracing in whatever I am doing and with whomever I am engaging. If I am washing dishes, how can I see Her in the feeling of the warm water, the swishing motion, the strength of my spine? If I am talking to someone, can I see Her in their eyes, hear Her breathe through their breath? Can I smell Her in the pine trees outside my studio window and feel Her warmth in the winter firelight?

To be honest, high-flown doctrince just never did much to or for me. It did not give me joy. It did not give me connection. I was no more patient or kind in my relations to others. I found these things in the hoofbeats of my horses, in the heartbeat of my cat, in the wrinkled hands of hospice patients, in the smell of wet earth during a thunderstorm. And I found these things in my dreams and visions- in the pureness of ever-expansive white light, the still emptiness of the night sky inside of me, in the sound I found myself to be within a great pulsating melody that washed over and through me.

When I turn it into a neatly packaged idea, it loses all its capacity to be what it is. Doctrine is interesting to me on an intellectual level, but for me, has never once transformed me. Existence... existence itself brings me to God, allows me to walk with God, and awakens God in me. In existing, I confront the paradox of non-existence, of illusion, of the tension in the space between this and that. And in this tension, I am complete in God's completeness.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Too sweet......soul sisters!!

[youtube] <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Bl3VlrO7Ak&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3Bl3VlrO7Ak&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[shawn]

When you talk like that you come across as a dogmatist who has convinced himself that he's uncovered the truth and everyone else is wrong.

I am just doing unto others as they have done unto me.
I could just let these things slide past or make a cheeky comment to get people to think a bit.
But the comment is valid regardless.
Prove it wrong.

 

[immortalitylost]

Yes ... the possibility of every other mode of being — not the possibilities of His own way of being — there is only one way of Being for God, for God is One, Absolute and Infinite, so there is no way of being God other than as God is.

So every possibility that exists in God is the possibility of being other than God.

But I thought you believed that God is three in one. That's three ways of being while still being one. Why not more?
...
Sorry, don't take that seriously, I just couldn't help myself. I believe that what you're saying is similar to the consciousness of God that I had mentioned.

But... well, obviously God holds the possibility within himself to be himself. I guess what you're saying is that nothing besides God has the possibility to be God. I agree. But I do believe that things that God creates have the possibility of possessing certain Qualities of God. In fact, Qualities of God is a much better way of putting it than 'parts' of God for what I mean. Just reassign parts as qualities in my earlier post. It's sadly, another case of not being able to find the right wording to get my ideas across.

But be careful of 'part' ... as the All-Possible is not a composite of everything than can be ... rather the principle by which all things are brought into being.

I didn't mean to make him sound like a composite being, I think a clearer way of saying what I meant, is that he isn't the physical universe, and the physical universe isn't him, but the physical universe('s) is a possibility within him, and therefore exists within him, and because of him. I don't believe that there is such a state as away from God, because I don't believe that existence is possible without God. Being completely apart from him would mean you didn't exist, or that you were no longer a possibility within God. And God holds all possibilities and is responsible for all existence.

The created world is the realisation of a given possibility, just one possibility amongst all other possibilities ... the non-existence of this world is another and equal possibility — so there's a contradiction: if God needs the world to exist to be perfect, God also needs the world not to exist to be perfect ... ?

I'd say it's not that God needs this world to exist or not to be perfect, I'd just say that since they are both possibilities, they are both possible. And since God holds all possibilities, it doesn't matter if they are made physical reality or not, they are still there. Perhaps even at the same time. (see multiple realities, and universes)

If the actualisation of a possibility were necessary for God's perfection, then God would have to actualise everything, everywhere, all at once, in which everything would be negated by its opposite/contrary ...

All I have to say to that is, who says he doesn't do that? I'm not claiming that he needs to to be complete, but there is no way of knowing if it happens or not. And If it does happen, I have no problem with it. The only reason that there would be a problem at all is if you believe that negative actions and their positive counterparts negate themselves when placed together, like negative and positives in math. I don't. I don't see negative traits as non traits like you seem to.

Then how is the world part of God, and yet God not part of the world?

The world is a possibility within God, actualized in matter, another possibility within God, and being a possibility of God, is part of him. The world did not create God, did not hold his possibility within itself. (i just know I'm gonna get razzed by some atheist on that statement... ) Also, the world is not made up of the consciousness of God, made material. It's not like God stitched the world out of pieces of himself. That's not what I'm trying to get at, at all.

You're confusing possibility with essence. What you're saying is that God can only create things out of Himself, God cannot create ex nihilo ... which is a limitation upon God, and treats God as some kind of primordial material, a substance or substrate from which all things are made.

I'm not, but I can see how you'd think that since I used part instead of Quality. I'm not saying that God needs all things to be whole, all I'm saying is that because God holds all possibility, he holds all that he has made physical as well. Physical matter is just another possibility that God holds. It's not that physical matter is made of God, it's that physical matter itself is a possibility in God, and as such, is in God, and holds qualities of God.

Actually no ... all virtues, yes, but not all qualities, as some qualities are negative and thus have no essential being.

Here is the real crux of our disagreement methinks. I don't believe that negative qualities are non qualities. Just qualities like the rest. And I believe that God holds all qualities. Not just the virtuous ones. Or what we think of as virtuous. I believe that this is you limiting God by saying that he is only virtuous, and not anything else. I can see how you think that, with the beliefs you hold about qualities and non-qualities, and I don't mind at all that you do think that way. I just believe differently. We'll never be able to argue our case to the other in a way to change that, I think, lol.

Then again, virtue exists apart from human nature, else humans could not help but be virtuous. So virtue might be a quality possessed by both you and God, but God is beyond all virtues, and you might not possess that virtue tomorrow, every spritiual discipline warns of the dangerous potential of the loss of virtue ... so the virtue is not 'you' (you cannot lose what you are), it's something you participate in ...

I do agree with this. At least that's something.

 

[shawn]

When you talk like that you come across as a dogmatist who has convinced himself that he's uncovered the truth and everyone else is wrong.

I was what I was.
I Am that I AM.
I will be what I will be.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

Thomas wrote: I'm not even talking about Catholicism, I'm talking about philosophy.

This is a bogus distinction. Your primary source for classic theism would seem to be Aquinas, who was a priest/ideologue with the Catholic Church. for about 30 years.

The Church was very preoccupied with G-d's omnipotence of God and Acquinas was an evangelist of the Church's views and it canonized him even although the Church evidently felt he was not absolutist enough. I might mention in passing that Aquinas evidently suffered a "complete collapse" (a stroke or a nervous breakdown) when he finally confronted the inadequacy of "reason" to understand G-d. Your distinction between Catholicism and philosophy is questionable at best.

I would say the basic proposition of panentheism is that it is a modification of pantheism.
Thomas

I don't know why you'd say this. There are panentheisitic strains in the major world religions. Christian panentheism appeared as a corrective for the old 'monarchical" model of G-d that emphasized His transcendence to the exclusion of His immanence. (John MacQuarrie's book Principles of Christian Theology for a discussion starting on p. 120) Panentheism is a variation on traditional theism, with the notable primary difference being an emphasis on immanence. You seem to have missed this entirely in you blind zeal to defend classic theism.

Your dismissive comments against panentheism actually demean a fairly traditional theism with an added emphasis on G-d's presence in the world. Panenthesim is an elaboration of a traditional theistic view of divine attributes, which included certain idea about Creator versus Creation In keeping with a 'monarchical' model, G-d was portrayed as a supreme ruler with absolute powers, with all beings being subservient to Him. An entire constellation of traits was developed by philosophers who evidently were not too worried about whether their G-d concept ignored Revelation.

Let's look at how the G-d of the philosophers compares with the G-d of the Bible. It is very noteworthy that the Old Testament includes passages that help us avoid the monarchical model the philosophers tried to sell us on. Some of these passages are especially interesting when examined in light of your statement: "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? How can God be changed, altered or affected by what He already knows?" It an interesting point at face value. Let's check this out. You're making an inference about G-d's ontological potentials and His ability to surpass Himself on the basis of a traditional notion of G-d as "all knowing." Your premise is that G-d already knows. You have been unwilling to explore the merits of that premise even though it directly affects your conclusion (and even though I stressed the need to do so).

It's actually very possible (and very reasonable) to accept that G-d does not have foreknowledge of all events if you can accept that events are not fully determinate. I don't think you'll have too much trouble finding a scientific view to support that. Some of us might also accept the idea that G-d does not have absolute foreknowledge of all events because the Bible says so. I respectfully submit that the notion that the G-d has foreknowledge of all events is unBiblical invention.

You have argued against panentheism without identifying what school of thought you are talking about. You've also neglected to be clear about the distinction between the G-d of the philosophers and the G-d of the Bible. This is potentially misleading because it gives the impression that when you are talking a Christian or Biblical G-d when you're talking about about all this wild theistic stuff those medieval philosophers came up with about divine perfection. I don't recall you citing a single passage from the Bible that converges on the philosopher's G-d concept (e.g., Aquinas). Since we are talking about G-d's nature here, I thought we might check to see what Scripture has to say on the subject of foreknowledge:

And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, “... I am sorry I made them.” (Genesis 6:6-7)
​

Why would G-d be disappointed and aggrieved about what happened if He had could have foreseen that things were going to go bad?

We see a similar reaction of disappointment elsewhere:

"I am sorry I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." (1 Samuel 15:11)
​

The above passage not only shows a lack of foreknowledge. It also shows that G-d can make mistakes: He should have picked someone other than Saul. If G-d had absolute foreknowledge, He should have known better and saved everybody grief (Saul was unhappy because G-d was unhappy with him.)

In addition to regret and disappointment, God is also seen as experiencing anger:

Forty years I loathed that generation; I said: "This people's heart goes astray; they do not know my ways." Therefore I swore in my anger: "They shall never enter my rest." (Psalms 95:10-11)
​

Why would G-d get angry if He had been able to foresee the future state of affairs? He should have known what would happen. If He had absolute foreknowledge, His expectations would not have been violated, nor would He have had cause to become angry. Yet G-d is described as angry. Apparently this was not a problem for the philosophers either. Could it be that they didn't even read these descriptions of G-d involvement with the world?

It seems to me that the notion of G-d as having absolute foreknowledge is human invention that is inconsistent with Scripture. Based on what happened with Saul, G-d did not have absolute foreknowledge. Moreover, His involvement with Creation is not perfectly predictable because He makes mistakes and regrets those mistakes later on.

Genesis 6 is another example that shows that G-d did not having absolute foreknowledge. G-d evidently didn't anticipate the misapplication of the creative possibilities of His Creation. Could it be because Creation has a life of its own and G-d's interaction with it implies that He is willing to change in order to acommodate what's going on with Creation through dynamic adaptation. Again, Panenthesm is an elaboration of a traditional theistic view of divine attributes.

The traditional monachical model is qualified by what may be called an 'organic' model of he G-d/World relation. ..G-d cannot be conceived apart from the world, for it is of His very essence (letting be) to create. G-d is affected by the world as well as affecting, for creation entails risk and vulnerability. G-d is in time and history as well as above them.
​

~John MacQuarrie

You might argue as usual that being affected by the world limits G-d's potential. My comeback is the same as it ever was: that's G-d choice. I'm not sure why anyone would deny Him the capacity to choose if the idea is to ascribe omnipotence. Which goes to show you that the idea of a static G-d is realy not well thought out. An ever-evolving G-d chooses to interact with Creation and chooses to learn from the interaction in order to perfect His involvement with His Creation, so that He can facilitate the Becoming in the direction of transcendent perfection. Perhaps G-d is willing to keep forgiving because He Himself didn't get it right the first time. Maybe the imperfection of matter is a testimony that attests to a flawed design.

What 'unfolds' does not evolve, nor change ...

Here's another way to look at it: Being includes becoming, and it seems to me that the Scripture provides us with a description of this ongoing Creator/Creation relation. Biblical imagery does not portray G-d as perfect and static. Rather, it portrays Him as evolving alongside Creation. The picture perfect composite of divine attributes those dusty old medieval philosophers came up with does not match the relational G-d of the Bible. What's extraordinary is that those philosophers apparently didn't care whether there was a match. To me the difference is quite obvious.

To sum up: The Bible contradicts the notion of a Creator who foresees everything. The choice on this matter is not necessarily simple, but I do think it for Christians it comes come down to a binary choice: whether you believe in the Biblical G-d some abstract imagery from medieval times that ignored Revelation.

 

[Netti-Netti]

That seems like a separate issue to me, unrelated to my issue with assertions that one theological proposition or another is true in some absolute or constant sense.

It would be relevant if theology is determined by linguistic parameters and the conceptual metaphors that reflect linguistic conventions shape larger analogical arguments about divine attributes, etc.

As someone put it, the Bible is written in a kind of "code." Presumably the same concepts can be described using a different code. The codes could be equally - kind of like different translations of the same original text except here we are talking about alternate renderings of the same ideas.