Originally Posted by Netti-Netti
"Part of" is not the same as "equivalent to."
And I was criticized for being nuanced
!!
Pantheism and Panentheism
- Thread starter Avi
- Start date
And I was criticized for being nuanced
!!
Definitely not my route.... I only believe in one G!d, and don't believe G!d has multiple personalities, just multiple interpretations.
eg You are speeding after the traffic jam finally breaks free and just want to get home from work and get pulled over.... what is your view of the cop?
Your child got away from you while shopping, you run around frantic and then you see a policeman walking toward you carrying your child....what do you tell your friends about this policeman?
You are driving home from work and get in a horrific accident and he pulls you out of your car just before it bursts into flames....how do you feel about this police officer?
You've gotten in a loud argument with your spouse, and right after you cut your hand while trying to open a can of sardines....the police show up at your door. The law says if they see bruises or blood during a domestic call the spouse goes to jail and yours is in handcuffs...what do you think of this officer?
They are all doing the exact same thing...their job. Just as there exist laws of nature/the universe that have been set into motion....
Is s-he different....or was it you? or the situation?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Re: An Interfaith view
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
Tao Te Ching 42
- Main Entry: the·ism
- Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
- Function: noun
- Date: 1678
- Main Entry: 1god
- Pronunciation: \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
- Function: noun
- Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
- Date: before 12th century
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
Tao Te Ching 25
Man takes his law from the Earth; the Earth takes its law from
Heaven; Heaven takes its law from the Tao. The law of the Tao is its
being what it is.
Heaven; Heaven takes its law from the Tao. The law of the Tao is its
being what it is.
Tao Te Ching 42
The Tao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three;
Three produced All things. All things leave behind them the Obscurity
(out of which they have come), and go forward to embrace the
Brightness (into which they have emerged), while they are harmonised
by the Breath of Vacancy.
What men dislike is to be orphans, to have little virtue, to be as
carriages without naves; and yet these are the designations which
kings and princes use for themselves. So it is that some things are
increased by being diminished, and others are diminished by being
increased.
What other men (thus) teach, I also teach. The violent and strong
do not die their natural death. I will make this the basis of my
teaching.
Three produced All things. All things leave behind them the Obscurity
(out of which they have come), and go forward to embrace the
Brightness (into which they have emerged), while they are harmonised
by the Breath of Vacancy.
What men dislike is to be orphans, to have little virtue, to be as
carriages without naves; and yet these are the designations which
kings and princes use for themselves. So it is that some things are
increased by being diminished, and others are diminished by being
increased.
What other men (thus) teach, I also teach. The violent and strong
do not die their natural death. I will make this the basis of my
teaching.
Divinization is a loaded word, especially if you are using the I Ching!
That would be the returning to the Tao, and being harmonized by the breath of the vacancy, as mentioned above in Tao Te Ching 42. Please also notice this part:
What men dislike is to be orphans, to have little virtue, to be as
carriages without naves; and yet these are the designations which
kings and princes use for themselves. So it is that some things are
increased by being diminished, and others are diminished by being
increased.
carriages without naves; and yet these are the designations which
kings and princes use for themselves. So it is that some things are
increased by being diminished, and others are diminished by being
increased.
immortalitylost
Say Meow.
I wonder if there is a God of all the universes. Like perhaps who created our God.
God, the overseer of Gods. Cause, really, if there are many universes, are there many Gods? How does panentheism work in with that? All of the Gods just come about randomly and because they are, a universe is? But that still gives no meaning.
Panentheism, like, strips away all meaning from God. Like, he's there, but even he doesn't know why, and the universe is within him, but the only thing he has to do with it is sustaining it by being. He might as well not even be in the equation. It's like having a God, without it mattering. Like, you can have God, and no God at the same time.
We're, like what then? Bacteria in God? Are we a cold?
I'd rather believe in a God that was only responsible (as in consciously) for creation and nothing else, than one who didn't create, and we're just here randomly, like him, and everyone is left looking around wondering what is the meaning of all of this? Including God, and there are no answers, just what is. And what is kinda sucks...
Yup, I definitely can't be a panentheist...
I think I'll just keep my working model, and find out the rest when I've shuffled off this mortal coil. Or not. Or whatever. I'm up for surprises, lol.
God, the overseer of Gods. Cause, really, if there are many universes, are there many Gods? How does panentheism work in with that? All of the Gods just come about randomly and because they are, a universe is? But that still gives no meaning.
Panentheism, like, strips away all meaning from God. Like, he's there, but even he doesn't know why, and the universe is within him, but the only thing he has to do with it is sustaining it by being. He might as well not even be in the equation. It's like having a God, without it mattering. Like, you can have God, and no God at the same time.
We're, like what then? Bacteria in God? Are we a cold?
I'd rather believe in a God that was only responsible (as in consciously) for creation and nothing else, than one who didn't create, and we're just here randomly, like him, and everyone is left looking around wondering what is the meaning of all of this? Including God, and there are no answers, just what is. And what is kinda sucks...
Yup, I definitely can't be a panentheist...
I think I'll just keep my working model, and find out the rest when I've shuffled off this mortal coil. Or not. Or whatever. I'm up for surprises, lol.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Ahh, from the Taoist perspective, you want the Supreme Ultimate, rather than the infinite.
Whatever works for you, Mort.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Re: An Interfaith view
Without a conscious and intentional deity, we have no not match to panentheism, where the laws of nature are seen as being effectuated for a divine purpose. Recall in a previous posts you quoted a passage about nature being cyclical/mechanical There seems to be no supernatural activity at all. It's mechanical.
If I recall, the Taoists say if you want to undestand the world, you observe nature. I think panentheists might agree with that up to a point, but as theists they would also be open to Revelation, which is transcendental in origin.
In Taoism, there seems to be no appeal to anything transcendental. If there are spirits or deities, they are apparently not responsible for Creation.
I had always wondered whether Tao=G-d. Here's one take on it: "In no circumstances can the Tao be thought of or used as 'God'; that term is too confined, too restricted, and in any case, not permissible since Taoism is a non-theistic religion." If Taoism is non-theistic, then it can't be panentheistic.
This restates the notion of levels of organization, which have a quality of being totally impersonal. There's no deity at work and there's no ultimate divine purpose behind any of it.
Without a conscious and intentional deity, we have no not match to panentheism, where the laws of nature are seen as being effectuated for a divine purpose. Recall in a previous posts you quoted a passage about nature being cyclical/mechanical There seems to be no supernatural activity at all. It's mechanical.
If I recall, the Taoists say if you want to undestand the world, you observe nature. I think panentheists might agree with that up to a point, but as theists they would also be open to Revelation, which is transcendental in origin.
In Taoism, there seems to be no appeal to anything transcendental. If there are spirits or deities, they are apparently not responsible for Creation.
I had always wondered whether Tao=G-d. Here's one take on it: "In no circumstances can the Tao be thought of or used as 'God'; that term is too confined, too restricted, and in any case, not permissible since Taoism is a non-theistic religion." If Taoism is non-theistic, then it can't be panentheistic.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Re: An Interfaith view
I quoted:
The law of the Tao is its being what it is.
Applying a mechanistic view to it and claiming that is all it is would be violating the "undefined and yet complete" line from Tao Te Ching 25, no?
The Tao is the Way. The way (tao) of man is love and righteousness. Are you applying this to discount Christianity as theism when it says in 1 John 1 that "God is Love?" **shakes head**
Primordial creation is an interesting point. I do not see any conflict with science or the world as we know it.
There is still much we do not know about creation. How many big bangs were there: one ?, two ?, infinite ?
Did someone or something have to create the universe ? I don't see why. We have self assembly. Why couldn't the universe have self assembled ? How was the part created that self assembled ? Oh, now that is a good question
? Mort, any ideas ??
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Re: An Interfaith view
But the fact is, there 's no description of divine intention or divine agency, which is what you'd expect for a Theism. You can't very well argue that the Taoists meant for us to infer these things just because there's no mention of them!!
I'm fine with resorting to ambiguity as a way to avoid being pinned down.
But the fact is, there 's no description of divine intention or divine agency, which is what you'd expect for a Theism. You can't very well argue that the Taoists meant for us to infer these things just because there's no mention of them!! Ok, so nothing theistic here. There is no imperative to become loving and righteous because of G-d.
The Bible describes G-d as personal and as having a conscious intention toward Creation. That is basic to theism. I don't see anything like that in Taoism.
In my view panthesim represents physical reality. The universe. That is not a sufficient description of G-d. Hence panenthism.
Yes, reason is pretty important when we are trying to understand G-d.
That doesn't sound so good, but I guess it would be better than trying to reason myself into an unacceptable belief.
No complex motives here. Just trying to understand my relation to G-d. My relation is complex but my motives are simple.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Re: An Interfaith view
The Tao can't be pinned down.I'm fine with resorting to ambiguity as a way to avoid being pinned down.
The Tao Te Ching writes about those deny the agency of the Tao, and the resulting lessening of the positive transformative action of the Tao within those who deny it as such:But the fact is, there 's no description of divine intention or divine agency, which is what you'd expect for a Theism. You can't very well argue that the Taoists meant for us to infer these things just because there's no mention of them!!
What men dislike is to be orphans, to have little virtue, to be as
carriages without naves; and yet these are the designations which
kings and princes use for themselves. So it is that some things are
increased by being diminished, and others are diminished by being
increased.
carriages without naves; and yet these are the designations which
kings and princes use for themselves. So it is that some things are
increased by being diminished, and others are diminished by being
increased.
Well, if you want to become like the kings and princes of little virtue mentioned above, then that would be the way to go.
Perhaps you are only seeing the "outer fringes" mentioned in Tao Te Ching 1?
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Re: An Interfaith view
That's too bad because that means you can't compare Taoism with theisms that have Revelation to explain divine intention!!The Tao can't be pinned down.
I never denied the agency of Tao. I merely said that the passages you cited don't qualify Taoism as theism.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
This sounds good to me. References?
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
!
Yeah, except for this part, (alchemical).
I think SG was making fun of me !
Originally Posted by seattlegal
Do you mean like substituting the fundamental forces (electro-magnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, gravitational, and expansion of space forces) for the elements in creation (downward) path and applying psychological meanings to them for the upward (alchemical) path?
Yeah, except for this part, (alchemical).
I think SG was making fun of me !
In my view, miracles can't exist.
.There is always a rational explanation. It has to be consistent with what we know about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, math. We have not found any exceptions, only things we don't yet understand. And generally we find out the reason later.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0