Pantheism and Panentheism

[shawn]

The panendeist site is interesting and has a good forum.
But while I see that changing 2 letters of the word may somehow be profound to certain types of people, it really is the same as panentheism.
words are made of letters which are symbols that we use to convey meaning to each other.
But the problem inherent in us people is we tend to get caught in the law of words and miss the essence of what they mean.
this extends to religion and causes a multitude of senseless and unnecessary arguments.
( Jesus even talked about this with regularity)
Why do you think that happens?

 

[dauer]

Shawn,

Perhaps it's possible to both acknowledge similarities between ideas while recognizing and discussing the differences between them. These two statements:

"words are made of letters which are symbols that we use to convey meaning to each other.
But the problem inherent in us people is we tend to get caught in the law of words and miss the essence of what they mean."

don't quite connect. What people are discussing is differences in meaning. You seem to be changing the context of the conversation into a discussion about whether or not we should bother looking at the differences between similar ideas at all. Maybe it would be more fruitful for you to create a thread about just that.

-- Dauer

 

[shawn]

So is it a distraction to you?
It seems like all the threads kind of meander all over anyway.

 

[nativeastral]

The panendeist site is interesting and has a good forum.
But while I see that changing 2 letters of the word may somehow be profound to certain types of people, it really is the same as panentheism.
words are made of letters which are symbols that we use to convey meaning to each other.
But the problem inherent in us people is we tend to get caught in the law of words and miss the essence of what they mean.
this extends to religion and causes a multitude of senseless and unnecessary arguments.
( Jesus even talked about this with regularity)
Why do you think that happens?

an incorrigible need for distinguishing, differentiation, determination, demarcating, defining, dissecting, dividing, deducting, decreeing, deliberating, demonstrating, depicting, denoting, deriving, detecting, disprovong, diagnosing, discerning, discriminating or deconstructing for the purposes of dialectical and delightful debate,dialogue, design and discovering, or the dreadful debacle of deceit and double dealing, depreciation or destruction.
Is it desire or destiny, is it didactic or diarrhoea. We may be dualistic in our thinking and so still discussing whether or not we took a linguistic turn too far; blame it on the Word. Religion should all be about music n dancing together but it was demonised via something called revelation a long time ago and we are still living within that tradition.

 

[dauer]

There is a difference between meandering in a thread and repeated attempts by one individual to redirect the thread entirely because his own entrenched biases make theology and philosophy seem like a lot of unnecessary nitpicking. If conversations about theology and philosophy seem irrelevant to you, why not go create some discussion that does seem relevant elsewhere on the boards and let other people continue along lines of discussion that are more to do with the subject of this thread? I think you'll find it leads to more productive conversation if you do so.

 

[shawn]

There is a difference between meandering in a thread and repeated attempts by one individual to redirect the thread entirely because his own entrenched biases make theology and philosophy seem like a lot of unnecessary nitpicking. If conversations about theology and philosophy seem irrelevant to you, why not go create some discussion that does seem relevant elsewhere on the boards and let other people continue along lines of discussion that are more to do with the subject of this thread? I think you'll find it leads to more productive conversation if you do so.

I see it more as one entrenched set of biases rubbing up against another set of entrenched biases.
I'll show you my truth if you show me yours.
Besides, I find that it is more productive to be a bit cheeky in the face of rarified opinionation as it causes the true colors to show.
That is far more enlightening than being forced to read pages of intellectual prattle which is just a show boat for ego's.
(*look at how smart I am as I can string together all these really big words*)

 

[shawn]

an incorrigible need for distinguishing, differentiation, determination, demarcating, defining, dissecting, dividing, deducting, decreeing, deliberating, demonstrating, depicting, denoting, deriving, detecting, disprovong, diagnosing, discerning, discriminating or deconstructing for the purposes of dialectical and delightful debate,dialogue, design and discovering, or the dreadful debacle of deceit and double dealing, depreciation or destruction.
Is it desire or destiny, is it didactic or diarrhoea. We may be dualistic in our thinking and so still discussing whether or not we took a linguistic turn too far; blame it on the Word. Religion should all be about music n dancing together but it was demonised via something called revelation a long time ago and we are still living within that tradition.

You got that right nativeastral
That tradition needs a changing.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I have a question

I apologize for breaking up the discussion, but I 'think' I may either be a pantheist or a panentheist. Maybe someone here could help categorize my views on God? Here they are in a nut shell:

Could the universe have come into existence from nothing? Nothing means absolutely NOTHING in this case, so the logical answer would be no. So, I must assume that existence has always contained "something" as itself.

Call existence God, or universe, or simply existence, it cannot be denied, as "something" called existence certainly exists. We (As living beings), and as creatures of awareness are able to recognize that "something" exists as existence.

We can think, we can comprehend physical matter, and we feel emotion. [mind - matter - spirit] so it it obvious (To me) that there are both visible and invisible aspects to existence.

Having said that, nothing can exist outside of what exists, right? All things are a part of existence. It might be said/suggested that all things are eternal in nature, also. Assuming of course that existence had no point of creation.

Everything that exists is in a state of constant motion. This includes mind, matter, and spirit. Birth, rebirth, and transformation are simply the [finite] qualities of things that exist [within] the whole of existence (This is the nature of life - Change).

If all this is true, then nothing that exists can cease to exist (Only transform). The finite parts of existence simply continue in the cycles of change within the whole.

So ...

God (To me) is both the Creator, and created. Existing both as the [eternal] aspects of existence, and as the finite [parts] of existence.

Pantheism or Panentheism, or is it something else?

GK

 

[path_of_one]

GK- I can't tell you, exactly. But that is very similar to how I think about it, and I call myself a panentheist.

There is some potentiality, some existence (as you call it) that has always been and that drives the becoming, the actuality, all that exists in the multiverse.

I call that God.

 

[wil]

Namaste GK,

Sounds pantheist. If you look them up you'll see the difference, quickly pan=G!d is everything, and Panen=G!d is in everything.

There is some potentiality, some existence (as you call it) that has always been and that drives the becoming, the actuality, all that exists in the multiverse.

I call that God.

Now I think myself a panenthiestic Christian as I see/feel G!d in everything but am leaning away from the whole Theistic concept and somewhere between there and a nontheistic Chrisitianity.

Just to piss off the other Christians? No, just because that Sunday School Santa Clause/Thor/Michaelangelo combination of thought which dissappeared is now diminishing even more because of folks need to name what is G!d, it seems the naming, which has often been called diminishing in itself is part of the problem, it is a human need to define what is instead of basking in the wonder. Like our need to provide analogies between science and spiritualities, a need of third party verification, a need to be part of something. I'm a Christian because I am entrhalled, enamored, entranced with Jesus teachings, because the words speak to me. But the theism part....I just don't know.

 

[nativeastral]

Re: I have a question

I apologize for breaking up the discussion, but I 'think' I may either be a pantheist or a panentheist. Maybe someone here could help categorize my views on God? Here they are in a nut shell:

Could the universe have come into existence from nothing? Nothing means absolutely NOTHING in this case, so the logical answer would be no. So, I must assume that existence has always contained "something" as itself.

Call existence God, or universe, or simply existence, it cannot be denied, as "something" called existence certainly exists. We (As living beings), and as creatures of awareness are able to recognize that "something" exists as existence.

We can think, we can comprehend physical matter, and we feel emotion. [mind - matter - spirit] so it it obvious (To me) that there are both visible and invisible aspects to existence.

Having said that, nothing can exist outside of what exists, right? All things are a part of existence. It might be said/suggested that all things are eternal in nature, also. Assuming of course that existence had no point of creation.

Everything that exists is in a state of constant motion. This includes mind, matter, and spirit. Birth, rebirth, and transformation are simply the [finite] qualities of things that exist [within] the whole of existence (This is the nature of life - Change).

If all this is true, then nothing that exists can cease to exist (Only transform). The finite parts of existence simply continue in the cycles of change within the whole.

So ...

God (To me) is both the Creator, and created. Existing both as the [eternal] aspects of existence, and as the finite [parts] of existence.

Pantheism or Panentheism, or is it something else?

GK

Hi GK yes it is that very strand that is inclusive in any of that metaphysical
thought within mystic, theistic or logical leanings and so historically told in writings in various ways; perhaps a new kind of Natural theology or in any case a move towards an more inclusive reconciliation of all human knowlege, scientific or other wise.

 

[dauer]

Panen=G!d is in everything.

Or, as my origins of hasidism prof put it, in pantheism everything is God and God is everything. In panentheism everything is God but God is not everything. In other words, in panentheism, Everything does not define God. While everything is a part of God, God is larger than everything, if you will.

 

[shawn]

In kabbalah the upper sephirah has 3 additional levels: ain, ain soph, ain soph aur, the last in Hebrew: AIN SVP AVR, "light without limit, infinite light".

The basic idea being that while God interpenetrates the material universe, God is also far more than the Universe.
One could reasonably conclude that the mystical side of Judaism is very much in harmony with the idea of panentheism.

 

[Avi]

One could reasonably conclude that the mystical side of Judaism is very much in harmony with the idea of panentheism.

I think so is the rational side as well.

 

[Netti-Netti]

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...

I might mention that Panentheism is considered mainstream Christianity in some sectors of Christian society. I think it is quite reasonable to think of it that way

I might mention in passing that the oft repeated phrase "For in him we live and move and have our being" is Paul (Acts 17:28). Evidently you prefer some unidentified "Christian" religion over one that's informed by Scripture.

 

[dauer]

The basic idea being that while God interpenetrates the material universe, God is also far more than the Universe.
One could reasonably conclude that the mystical side of Judaism is very much in harmony with the idea of panentheism.

Some of kabbalah is in agreement with panentheism either in that formulation or in the 'everything is made up of God and God transcends everything' formulation. According to the later approach, Ayn Sof didn't go anywhere. Instead it's like a filter was put before our eyes so that we can perceive multiplicity. Other kabbalistic perspectives are acosmic.

The idea that God is both immanent and transcendent is found in all corners of Jewish thought, not just kabbalah. It's also found in a lot of Christian thought. I'm not as sure how it goes for Muslims.

 

[Dogbrain]

Or, as my origins of hasidism prof put it, in pantheism everything is God and God is everything. In panentheism everything is God but God is not everything. In other words, in panentheism, Everything does not define God. While everything is a part of God, God is larger than everything, if you will.

That is not panentheism for the Orthodox Church. For us, God is best seen as being "beside" everything. God indwells everything created for it cannot exist without God's constant support and intervention, but that does NOT mean that the created is actually part of God.

How is that necessarily an untenable use of "panentheism"?

 

[Avi]

That is not panentheism for the Orthodox Church. For us, God is best seen as being "beside" everything. God indwells everything created for it cannot exist without God's constant support and intervention, but that does NOT mean that the created is actually part of God.

Do you think this view is consistent with a scientific view of reality ? Does it matter to you ?

Also, is it possible that G-d indwell without being a part of ?

 

[Tao_Equus]

for it cannot exist without God's constant support and intervention,

This is a fundamental claim within all Christianity as far as I see it. Yet there is no evidence in the history of human observation for any intervention of any kind. If there was this "constant intervention" the signatures would be everywhere... but they are nowhere to be found. You have no right to be taken seriously without providing evidence for such a profound claim.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I often withstand panentheism because it undermines the reality of the existing being. ....G-d is present in all things everywhere and at all times ... but that does not make those things G-d

This might be an issue if you equate Creation with Creator. But wouldn't that be pantheism (not panentheism)?

God is present in all things everywhere and at all times ... but that does not accord to them any divine quality, essence or nature ...

The Biblical creation story suggests the existence of matter that antedated G-d. It is unclear who is responsible for the creation of matter. The act of Creation infuses matter with organization. One might say that the organization is divine because it is G-d's organization.

To me the idea of divine action and G-d presence in history is a key element in panentheism. Its importance is confirmed throughout the Old and New Testament, which attest to G-d's continuous involvement with Creation.