Nontheistic Christianity

[path_of_one]

It's a very, very nuanced difference in Christian theism, pantheism, and panentheism ... 'God is in things, but it is not the thing it is in' ... or more precisely, I suppose, 'God is in things, but God-in-Itself is other than the things it is in' ... does that make sense?

Thomas-

Would you mind expanding on these distinctions? I can readily distinguish between pantheism and panentheism, but what you seem to be saying is properly Catholic ("God is in things, but God-in-Itself is other than the things it is in") is pretty much what I believe and thought to be panentheistic. How does it differ from panentheism, which says God is in all things and beyond all things (that is, not limited to the things God is in, and is the Something More that upholds all things and from which all things spring forth)?

I think that is where I am confused about your distinctions. Most Christians I know (granted, they are lay people) seem to fall into one of two types- those who see God as an anthropomorphic entity that is a whole lot like Zeus but with a kinder, gentler side... and those who see God in a much fuzzier and "Wow- God is big and incomprehensible and not human at all" sort of way.

The latter folks often end up recognizing that the moments of connecting to this Something More, this Ground of Being, also connects us to that in ourselves that is of God and that in every being that is of God--- we feel the unity in that moment and feel the unconditional love and grace that flows through God. We know in those moments we are in God, a part of this love and grace. For me, that is the hallmark of panentheism- the unity while still recognizing Something More is there, and I can't fathom It.

But it's a far cry from the more fundamentalist visions of an anthropomorphic God that manipulates the weather, kills or saves people, etc.- the sort of "Bruce Almighty" vision of some powerful dude organizing everyone's prayers and keeping track of our lives in a book somewhere with a heavenly secretary. Rather than think much of this stuff is done "by" God- as if God and Heaven were a bureaucracy- I see God in what is getting done. Evolution is not so much ID (God controlling the process) as being part of God itself- the process is God (though God is Something More than the process). Our journey to unity/heaven or separation/hell is not recorded by a scribe under God's watchful eye, and God doesn't send us to hell. However, we are given freedom of choice, so we can choose the illusion of separation as long as we wish. What happens to us is governed by the Universe and its workings (which we are far from fully understanding) and God is in those workings, rather than tinkering with the workings from a distant, removed place.

Perhaps these distinctions do not matter when one is well-educated in Catholic theology. But to those of us "on the ground," we see a lot of ordinary lay people in Catholicism and Protestantism that are operating with a pretty rudimentary conceptualization of God. It's Zeus in a Jesus suit, except God doesn't make any mistakes and His anger is justified rather than questionable. It's Zeus on a power trip.

While I am not entirely opposed to anthropomorphic conceptualization in the moments I need it, I am opposed to thinking I (or anyone) has effectively defined God. To me, that is putting my own intellect over the Mystery with which I am trying to engage. So while I (like wil) sometimes feel, in moments I need comfort, that God is like a Grandpa (or more frequently, that Gaia is like a Grandma) and I can crawl into His/Her lap and They tell me things will be OK... I recognize this is God's way of appearing to me in a way I need to hear Him/Her, and not God Itself. It's what happens when God and my psyche meet. When God and my spirit meet, I see something quite different- those are the moments of transcendence in which I get out of the box of being human and remember the part of myself that is of, not from, God.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Daniel —

This is a very quick and somewhat 'ragged' response from a Catholic ... so I've ignored those comments that apply to other deniminations ... and I've trimmed a lot to reduce the reading, so you get a 'feel' of it ...

The Bible was elevated in its authority as a means for the Protestants to defend their actions against the authority of the Catholic church

The point often forgotten here, is that Scripture did not produce the Tradition, rather the Tradition produced the Scripture — The Church existed as a Liturgically-orientated body before the New Testament was written ... in fact some of the assertions of the Protestants, particularly with regard to the liturgy, have subsequently been found to be false, thanks to archaeology. This does not mean that Tradition is superior to Scripture, but it certainly signifies that only the Tradition can guarantee the correct and authentic interpretation of its own Scripture.

The act of discarding outworn beliefs may not be a 'lack of faith' but rather the opposite.

Are all beliefs outworn? Are there no constants in human history and experience? This seems to assume that the content of faith — wisdom, truth, experience, love of neighbour, love of God ... has a shelf-life, and should be subject to contingency and the modes, mores, fads and fashion of culture. Please see last note ...

The modern secular world, with all of its faults and problems, represents a new but legitimate stage in the Judeo-Christian cultural stream.

The authors of the European Bill of Rights want to excise all mention of Europe's Christian heritage, as well as the influence of the Greek philosophical tradition ... for reasons of 'political correctness' and 'multi-culturalism' (actually just fundamental secularism). It assumes 'because this is what we think, we are right to think it'.

Christians are not actually theists, but rather trinitarians. Most Christians who try to defend theism unconsciously focus on the Father Creator third and identify him alone as God.

Depends what one means by 'most Christians' ... but this is a specious argument — most people can't explain gravity ... but that does not mean they don't believe in it.

Tertullian, who lived from 160-200 CE, wrote the earliest reference to the trinity,

Factually wrong. Tertullian coined the term 'Trinity' (he was the first major figure to write in Latin), but this was not a doctrine 'out of the blue' but in reference to orthodox Christian teaching. The Gospels, Acts and the Epistles refer to the Trinity. Baptism was tripartite by 100AD. Read Irenaeus ...

But it wasn’t until a full two centuries after him that the trinity concept received full authorization.

Again factually wrong. The Trinity was always an authentic and authorised doctrine, it's there all through the NT ... what the Councils did was formalise a doctrinal statement in the face or error.

Put in context, the Redemption and the Resurrection have never been 'authorised' ... but they are fundamental to Christianity.

Both James and Peter viewed Jesus with Jewish eyes – as Messiah but as a full human being just as themselves.

So let's ignore Peter's own confession — either affirming the Divinity of Jesus, or sheer blasphemy — we have no words of James, but we know from the history of the Jerusalem Church as detailed in Acts that this was the faith of the Church over which James presided.

They were rejected by Jews for declaring a Messiah and given a “cold shoulder” by the Gentile Christians for not accepting Jesus as divine.

Well that's just nonsense.

We hear nothing more of them after the 5th Century.

Er ... what about the Catholic Church's constant claim to Petrine succession?

Christianity’s focus shifted from its original roots – from the message to the messenger.

Another classic misrepresentation ... the messenger is the message — "I am the way, the truth and the life" ...

In ‘Christianity without God’ there is no place for the traditional figure of Christ as the divine Savior. Yet there is certainly a place for Jesus the teacher.

As long as you ignore everything He said.

Or put another way, excise every reference, direct or indirect, to God, from the words of Jesus ... I wonder what remains?

As we discussed at the gathering, Christianity (indeed many religions) has the interesting habit of changing to adapt to its time and circumstances, and often these changes would be downright heretical to previous generations of their same faith – even their same denomination.

An opinion only ... Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy can show an unbroken continuity of teaching.

+++

What’s most interesting is not so much the evolution of the faith, but the practice of covering their tracks.

See reference above ... when 'you' do it, it's discarding outworn beliefs ... when we do it, it's covering our tracks ... the duplicity is apparent.

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil,

You said,

"that's alot of assumin'"

--> Perhaps. But there are people out there who believe such things. I am only too happy to point out such belief systems on an interfaith forum.

 

[wil]

Can you point to the documents wherein such a policy was implemented by the Orthodox? Are you truly so ignorant as to think that the errors attributed to Rome are universal to all of Christianity.

I meant no insult here, I'll actually attempt to start another thread when I have more time can compose my words correctly. I do not know Greek Orthodoxy (me thinks me remembers that what you said you were) or how it is taught and administered. I obviously don't know Roman Catholic either, but I've met ton of them, practicing, sorta practicing, not practicing, and former... The thread that connects them all is that they never studied, never learned from the bible, they learned from the catechism. I am referring to contradictions in the bible that are avoided if you don't use the bible as your main reference source. I'm not attribuiting errors to Rome or Christendom in this regard.

The main error as I see it is us not updating a book when new information comes to light and is accepted by the majority of theologians....but that is another thread and not this nutty nontheistic christianity stuff.

 

[DT Strain]

Thanks for your responses Thomas. I'm not sure why or how many of them have anything to do with the quoted sections to which they seem to be referring, but I shan't go into them in detail at this time.

You also seem to be opposed to the approach of looking at pieces and parts of scriptures and backtracking likely sources, influences, and timings of them - preferring instead to consider them as one consistent whole coming from a single unified belief system constant over time. Is that correct?

You said:
"Are all beliefs outworn? Are there no constants in human history and experience? This seems to assume that the content of faith — wisdom, truth, experience, love of neighbour, love of God ... has a shelf-life..."

I don't think the word "all" was used. I would think there are probably "constants in human history and experience". Wisdom, truth, experience, love of neighbor all seem likely candidates. As to the plethora of other beliefs, each is distinct and must be addressed independently. Which are "constants" and which are not begs the question of the discussion.

Thanks,
Daniel

 

[earl]

Thomas-

Would you mind expanding on these distinctions? I can readily distinguish between pantheism and panentheism, but what you seem to be saying is properly Catholic ("God is in things, but God-in-Itself is other than the things it is in") is pretty much what I believe and thought to be panentheistic. How does it differ from panentheism, which says God is in all things and beyond all things (that is, not limited to the things God is in, and is the Something More that upholds all things and from which all things spring forth)?

I think that is where I am confused about your distinctions. Most Christians I know (granted, they are lay people) seem to fall into one of two types- those who see God as an anthropomorphic entity that is a whole lot like Zeus but with a kinder, gentler side... and those who see God in a much fuzzier and "Wow- God is big and incomprehensible and not human at all" sort of way.

The latter folks often end up recognizing that the moments of connecting to this Something More, this Ground of Being, also connects us to that in ourselves that is of God and that in every being that is of God--- we feel the unity in that moment and feel the unconditional love and grace that flows through God. We know in those moments we are in God, a part of this love and grace. For me, that is the hallmark of panentheism- the unity while still recognizing Something More is there, and I can't fathom It.

But it's a far cry from the more fundamentalist visions of an anthropomorphic God that manipulates the weather, kills or saves people, etc.- the sort of "Bruce Almighty" vision of some powerful dude organizing everyone's prayers and keeping track of our lives in a book somewhere with a heavenly secretary. Rather than think much of this stuff is done "by" God- as if God and Heaven were a bureaucracy- I see God in what is getting done. Evolution is not so much ID (God controlling the process) as being part of God itself- the process is God (though God is Something More than the process). Our journey to unity/heaven or separation/hell is not recorded by a scribe under God's watchful eye, and God doesn't send us to hell. However, we are given freedom of choice, so we can choose the illusion of separation as long as we wish. What happens to us is governed by the Universe and its workings (which we are far from fully understanding) and God is in those workings, rather than tinkering with the workings from a distant, removed place.

Perhaps these distinctions do not matter when one is well-educated in Catholic theology. But to those of us "on the ground," we see a lot of ordinary lay people in Catholicism and Protestantism that are operating with a pretty rudimentary conceptualization of God. It's Zeus in a Jesus suit, except God doesn't make any mistakes and His anger is justified rather than questionable. It's Zeus on a power trip.

While I am not entirely opposed to anthropomorphic conceptualization in the moments I need it, I am opposed to thinking I (or anyone) has effectively defined God. To me, that is putting my own intellect over the Mystery with which I am trying to engage. So while I (like wil) sometimes feel, in moments I need comfort, that God is like a Grandpa (or more frequently, that Gaia is like a Grandma) and I can crawl into His/Her lap and They tell me things will be OK... I recognize this is God's way of appearing to me in a way I need to hear Him/Her, and not God Itself. It's what happens when God and my psyche meet. When God and my spirit meet, I see something quite different- those are the moments of transcendence in which I get out of the box of being human and remember the part of myself that is of, not from, God.

I see that Thomas hasn't weighed in yet. But I thought I'd share my simple (simplistic?) metaphor re panentheism. Of course, many folk know that Christ is symbolically associated with the fish. But why? The fish both is supported-in many ways as in bouyancy, respiration, etc.- by water-yet, like all beings, it's cells are primarily made up of water. It is both comprised primarily of water and surrounded/supported by water. We are fish often out-of-water: not understanidng we are both of that "substance" and always within and supported by that substance, which is God. Ever wonder why water is associated with baptism? earl

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Earl,

You asked,

"Of course, many folk know that Christ is symbolically associated with the fish. But why?"

--> I thought I'd give you the answer I like best. Jesus is said to be the Avatara of the presently-ending age, which is Pisces — The Fish. The previous age was the age of Aries, the symbol of which — the Ram — was so prominent in ancient Egypt. We are now entering the new age of Aquarius, with its symbol of the wave. The best example of this new age is the magnetic wave — electricity. The dawn of the new age has been ushered in by the amazing appearence of electricity, which makes this Internet possible.

 

[Quahom1]

Earl,

You asked,

"Of course, many folk know that Christ is symbolically associated with the fish. But why?"

--> I thought I'd give you the answer I like best. Jesus is said to be the Avatara of the presently-ending age, which is Pisces — The Fish. The previous age was the age of Aries, the symbol of which — the Ram — was so prominent in ancient Egypt. We are now entering the new age of Aquarius, with its symbol of the wave. The best example of this new age is the magnetic wave — electricity. The dawn of the new age has been ushered in by the amazing appearence of electricity, which makes this Internet possible.

So, we are but one more age...the age of Pisces?

 

[Dogbrain]

Of course, many folk know that Christ is symbolically associated with the fish. But why?

Because it's a cute bit of Greek wordplay, of course!

Iesous
Christos
Theos
Yios,
Soter!

Ichthys!

Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior!

Ever wonder why water is associated with baptism?

Because water is an excellent symbol for life in general.

 

[earl]

Because it's a cute bit of Greek wordplay, of course!

Iesous
Christos
Theos
Yios,
Soter!

Ichthys!

Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior!



Because water is an excellent symbol for life in general.

I knew that. But for more use of the metaphor of water, you might want to check out the Meister Eckhart quote I just posted on the "Absolute" thread. earl

 

[sonoman]

Earl,

You asked,

"Of course, many folk know that Christ is symbolically associated with the fish. But why?"

--> I thought I'd give you the answer I like best. Jesus is said to be the Avatara of the presently-ending age, which is Pisces — The Fish. The previous age was the age of Aries, the symbol of which — the Ram — was so prominent in ancient Egypt. We are now entering the new age of Aquarius, with its symbol of the wave. The best example of this new age is the magnetic wave — electricity. The dawn of the new age has been ushered in by the amazing appearence of electricity, which makes this Internet possible.

I know some Native Americans who would take exception to that last statement about Aquarius and the Internet. They know Spider Woman is behind the Internet's success with Her creating Her worldwide web. I say this as an Aquarian, btw, so it's gospel truth 'cause it's my Age and Aquarius has the Truth in the New Age, isn't that how it works? I'm mean I got my water jug here ready full of Living Water and am waiting to show all of you the large upper room, furnished and prepared; there made ready for those invited to the mystery.

 

[taijasi]

Just as a word or two on Adepts, as well as a few choice words from one of Them ... starting with the latter:

"People will ask: 'Who is greater, Christ or Buddha?'
Answer: 'It is impossible to measure the far-off worlds. We can only be enraptured by their radiance.'" --Leaves of Morya's Garden
​

The Adept in question, having known -- and knowing -- both men, speaks words of Wisdom ... rather than speculation.

My own words may fit more into the latter category, but in sharing HPB's own account, I hope the clarification might be made between Jesus of Nazareth, and Christ/Maitreya, the current Bodhisattva or World Teacher. Please note that I am sharing Blavatsky's own understanding, as passed to her from Master M., Nick ... and not simply the teachings of Alice Bailey.

On this matter, I believe you'll find that AAB and HPB believe precisely the same thing. Further, I can quote from perhaps a half dozen additional sources, all students of the Wisdom, who make the same distinction between the Bodhisattva (`Christ') ... and the Adept Jesus, Chohan of Ray 6, just as KH is Chohan of Ray 2, or Master M. the head of Ray 1.

Blavatsky relates that she was once in a large cave-temple in the Himalayas with her Tibetan teacher, Morya ["Tibetan," here, referring to His place of residence, as Master M. is Rajputan by birth]. There were many statues of adepts and, pointing to one of them, her teacher said: 'This is he whom you call Jesus. We count him to be one of the greatest among us'
[*]. The importance of Jesus is highlighted in the following passage:

all the civilized portion of the Pagans who knew of Jesus honored him as a philosopher, an adept whom they placed on the same level with Pythagoras and Apollonius. . . . As an incarnated God there is no single record of him on this earth capable of withstanding the critical examination of science; as one of the greatest reformers, an inveterate enemy of every theological dogmatism, a persecutor of bigotry, a teacher of one of the most sublime codes of ethics, Jesus is one of the grandest and most clearly-defined figures on the panorama of human history. His age may, with every day, be receding farther and farther back into the gloomy and hazy mists of the past; and his theology -- based on human fancy and supported by untenable dogmas may, nay, must with every day lose more of its unmerited prestige; alone the grand figure of the philosopher and moral reformer instead of growing paler will become with every century more pronounced and more clearly defined. It will reign supreme and universal only on that day when the whole of humanity recognizes but one father -- the [SIZE=-1]UNKNOWN ONE[/SIZE] above -- and one brother -- the whole of mankind below. [**]
​

[*] Blavatsky Collected Writings, 8:402.
[**] Isis Unveiled, 2:150-1.
​

And I would like to add: May that DAY reach us as soon as possible ... while we still have a planet to evolve upon.

Sounds like HPB is saying we go too far when we seek to bash our neighbor upon the head (whether with a Bible, a Koran, a book of incantations, or even the SD itself) ... and insist to him that "God is thus-and-such." Perhaps if we started by accepting that the true God is the Lord of Ten Thousand Names ... we might have immediately enlargened our own, scrooge-like heart -- to accept the path of approach of our neighbor beside us.

Go one step farther, and consider the story of the Six Wise Men of Hindustan ... and soon we're on the right road to the above Revelation after all.

As has already been said on this thread, perhaps what some of us are really after is a non-anthropomorphic, rather than a non-theistic Christianity ... or at least the acceptance that Pan-entheism makes perfectly good sense -- as much, at least, if not more than theism.

Frankly, I cannot really understand how any view other than panentheism makes any sense at all. Pantheism negates the axiomatic, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." If we could just also accept that wholes exist upon every level of nature (or reality), then we'd be one giant step closer to understanding our being -- and God's.

Let's come back, shall we, to Alexander Pope's truism:

"All are but parts of one stupendous whole
Whose body Nature is, and God the Soul."
​

Greatest level: God, ensouling Cosmos
Much, much smaller level: Galactic Logos, ensouling Galaxy
Much, much smaller level: Solar Logos, ensouling Solar System
Immediate next level: Planetary Logos, ensouling Planetary System
Somewhat smaller scale: Monad/Spiritual Spark, ensouling human being
And a much smaller level, still: Atom (electron), ensouling component portions

Keep naming `God,' and perpetuate the misery.
Stop naming `God,' and instead embody God's Teachings ... and bring the `Kingdom of Heaven' into expression upon Earth.

 

[taijasi]

Jesus is said to be the Avatara of the presently-ending age, which is Pisces — The Fish. The previous age was the age of Aries, the symbol of which — the Ram — was so prominent in ancient Egypt. We are now entering the new age of Aquarius, with its symbol of the wave. The best example of this new age is the magnetic wave — electricity. The dawn of the new age has been ushered in by the amazing appearence of electricity, which makes this Internet possible.

I know some Native Americans who would take exception to that last statement about Aquarius and the Internet. They know Spider Woman is behind the Internet's success with Her creating Her worldwide web. I say this as an Aquarian, btw, so it's gospel truth 'cause it's my Age and Aquarius has the Truth in the New Age, isn't that how it works? I'm mean I got my water jug here ready full of Living Water and am waiting to show all of you the large upper room, furnished and prepared; there made ready for those invited to the mystery.

Yes, and surely you can see that precisely both what is said here, plus what Nick has said, are equally true. I think to miss that -- would be to miss the forest for the trees.

(not like it'd be the first time, lol)

 

[sonoman]

Well, if the adepts could have delivered the spiritual truth that Jesus did, I would go for an equality of spiritual wisdom but I just don't see it in Hinduism, Buddhism, or Theosophy. I used to live in Ojai, California, the home of Theosophy in America and I tell you theosophy and theosophists, Hinduism and Buddhism have nothing new to offer the world because truth about God and humanity did not come from them, they never learned it, or if they had, the truth had become so buried under layers of mythology and metaphysical speculations that it was lost. You see, when you have the spiritual truth, you don't go off to a cave with it, you go up to the rooftops and shout it out for all to hear. The whole concept of "adepts" and "masters" is foreign to Jesus' teachings as he tells his followers to call no man their master save the Christ and no man Father, except God.

 

[taijasi]

Well, if the adepts could have delivered the spiritual truth that Jesus did, I would go for an equality of spiritual wisdom but I just don't see it in Hinduism, Buddhism, or Theosophy. I used to live in Ojai, California, the home of Theosophy in America and I tell you theosophy and theosophists, Hinduism and Buddhism have nothing new to offer the world because truth about God and humanity did not come from them, they never learned it, or if they had, the truth had become so buried under layers of mythology and metaphysical speculations that it was lost. You see, when you have the spiritual truth, you don't go off to a cave with it, you go up to the rooftops and shout it out for all to hear. The whole concept of "adepts" and "masters" is foreign to Jesus' teachings as he tells his followers to call no man their master save the Christ and no man Father, except God.

Shouting that "truth" from the rooftops will make you very unpopular, very fast. The Adepts are not interested in popularity, and They do need to be heard ... but They are also very, very busy. They rely upon the students of the Wisdom to help disseminate the Teachings, and that is what we are doing.

It is true, often the Heart of the Teaching becomes lost beneath doctrines about rounds and root races ... but this does not make the latter aspects of the Dharma unimportant. It just means that sometimes we need to put things into proper perspective.

sonomon, consider, if the Adepts simply walked out onto the streetcorners, as you would appparently have Them do, what do you think would be the reaction? We who know Them at least somewhat as They are -- the immediate Disciples of the Christ, and custodians of the Plan of God -- know too well what are the consequences for speaking too frankly when and where Truth is unwelcome(d). The Adepts are not afraid to face the consequences of teaching Truth, and neither are most of Their followers. History shows what happens, however, when we do not use great discretion and tact.

The greatest of all Adepts met with a bloody death, just as have several others throughout history. The sacrifice made by Jesus of Nazareth, that His Master might appear before men and teach the spiritual Truth of which you speak ... was considerable. All esotericists honor him for that, just as they honor the other Adepts who have likewise made many sacrifices. We simply do not have the restrictions in our understanding that you seem to.

You want to make Jesus of Nazareth different, to set him apart ... and worst of all, to worship him. How is that in any way helpful? What it really does is to perpetuate what one Adept has called the "dire heresy of separateness." Instead of accepting that the Divine Spark sleeps within every human heart, and that we can all slowly awaken to our Christhood, you have made of Christ someone, and something, whom & which cannot ever really be approached. There is no hope of cooperation, there is no hope of walking side by side.

Christ called us for this, and every esotericist knows it ... even those who prefer the line of approach leading to the Buddha (which eventually leads to Christ, as well), or who follow the teachings of another exoteric religion -- or none. You yourself seem to acknowledge that it is God in the Highest that makes all things possible, yet you apparently do not understand Christ.

Christ dwells in human hearts, where room has been prepared, and in the Perfected MAN of Ephesians 4:13 -- the ADEPT -- Christ has awakened, the true Baptism has been performed, the Transfiguration has occurred, the Great Renunciation has been made (which Christians so gloomily gravitate toward) ... and the Resurrection & Ascension experience is an accomplished FACT. Every Adept thus has the Christ Principle fully awakened and functioning within his being, but this is far from the flipping of a switch that some people apparently make it out to be. We want things to be immediate, and Salvation to be effortless ... thus the greatest lies of the past 2100 years -- such as the vicarious atonement.

Know any Adept, and you Know Christ. Also vice versa. Address any Master, and you also address them all. One day, this will not be disputed. Freedom of religion will finally be realized. Eventually, this foolishness of insisting upon things like, "Only Jeeeeeezus" (or Mohammad, etc.) ... will disappear entirely.

Indeed, "Jesus SAVE ME from your followers."

 

[Thomas]

Hi Path ...

This is the second time I've delayed responding to you, and I now realise it's because you're question is so concise and searching that I have to go away and really consider my response ... then I start asking my own questions, then invariably I start looking in books ... so thanks for that.

May I also present this answer as a work-in-progress? I've got half a dozen other routes I want to check out.

... what you seem to be saying is properly Catholic ("God is in things, but God-in-Itself is other than the things it is in") is pretty much what I believe and thought to be panentheistic. How does it differ from panentheism, which says God is in all things and beyond all things (that is, not limited to the things God is in, and is the Something More that upholds all things and from which all things spring forth)?

Yes, I sound very panentheistic, don't I? In fact, one of my favourite texts is: "In him we live and move and have our being" (St Paul, Acts 17:28) — I mean, how pantheistic can you get?

So why do I hesitate?

Well, my way is to ask not whether or not God is in things, but the way God is in things.

Right off, we can agree, I think, to reject panthism and monism. So before talking about the constitution of creation, or of man (or indeed, anything), this is how we conceive of God:

1: God loves himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom.
How do we mean 'God loves himself' — simply that in the Divine self-knowing there is no want nor need of anything other; God can be no more perfect than He is; there is no movement, no passion, no desire in Him that is causative upon Him; He suffers no determination nor delineation ... He is perfectly at peace with and in Himself ... He is without attribute because such would imply a contrary that He lacks. The 'of necessity' is ours — this is the way we must think of God.

BIG TRINITARIAN ASIDE: God is God — He is at peace with Himself — He loves Himself — in the full and complete knowing of Himself, what He knows of Himself is begotten of Himself entirely and indistinguishably and absolutely; there is no difference nor distinction between Himself and how He knows Himself — He is what He knows, and He knows what He is — He is Father (origin) of the Son (that self-knowing) in the Peace of Himself — His Holy Spirit.

Because His self (Father) is Itself (Son) and loves (Holy Spirit) Itself (Father and Son) — His Son and His Spirit possess the complete freedom and autonomy that is His — this freedom and autonomy to be, to act, a freedom and autonomy both the same in essence but individual in nature — we distinguish these three natures by the highest term we can deploy, as Person, as beings of "an individual substance of a rational nature" (Boethius, from the Greeks), but only in the Trinitarian God are these three substances and natures absolutely individual and simultaneously absolutely one and the same, "of one and the same substance / consubstantial with" as we profess in the Creed. ASIDE OVER.

God's freedom then is not a freedom to choose, because there is no burden of choice upon Himself, there is nothing other than Himself to choose. God's freedom is freedom to be — the freedom to act or not to act of His own volition.

It is because God's freedom is expressed in this way — that He need not be in any way other than He is in Himself — that to act or not to act cannot be seen to be ordered to any necessity. God is not required to act, to cause, to create because He suffers no requirement, not even that of His own nature, because His own nature needs of nothing.

+++

The point I am trying to make is essential in understanding 'Christian panentheism': What is created is done under no obligation, God is not less than He might be if there were no creation, nor is God more than He is, because of it.

It is a free act.

This determines how we see creation. If the Divine Nature exists, wholly and entirely and perfectly, before creation, then creation is not by its nature Divine. If not God, then it is other than God. If other than God, it is outside of God, but there is no outside God, no other than God, from which creation might be drawn, no metaphysical substance (alongside the Divine essence) prior to creation itself. So if creation is not Divine, and did not come from somewhere, it must have come from nowhere ... or as we say, creatio ex nihilo.

... well, I'm gonna end there, for the moment. I hope I have shown that nature in itself, of its own essence, is not divine, but a created nature called into existence from nothing. Likewise and subsequently the same applies to the human soul. That the Divine is nevertheless immanently present to and in nature, I hope to demonstrate in my next post. Furthermore that each nature according to its capacity can know of its (Divine) cause, and come to know that, as its (Divine) cause had its (Divine) end in mind, that each nature finds its fulfillment, its perfection, its good and its end through itself, and in man's case through transcending itself, in, and in man's case into, the Divine.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Thomas

The point I am trying to make is essential in understanding 'Christian panentheism': What is created is done under no obligation, God is not less than He might be if there were no creation, nor is God more than He is, because of it.

Here we will always disagree. If bringing imperfect creation into existence were not a necessity, it seems an unnecessary cruel thing to do.

 

[wil]

... "In him we live and move and have our being" (St Paul, Acts 17:28) — I mean, how pantheistic can you get?....

God loves himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom.

How do we mean 'God loves himself' — simply that in the Divine self-knowing there is no want nor need of anything other; God can be no more perfect than He is; there is no movement, no passion, no desire in Him that is causative upon Him; He suffers no determination nor delineation ... He is perfectly at peace with and in Himself ... He is without attribute because such would imply a contrary that He lacks. The 'of necessity' is ours — this is the way we must think of God.

The point I am trying to make is essential in understanding 'Christian panentheism': What is created is done under no obligation, God is not less than He might be if there were no creation, nor is God more than He is, because of it.

I think this is the crux of it to me...

I no longer see the creator or any being loving itself. I see love, I see the ethers, I see the 'tissue' that connects us all. I see G!d but not a deity. To me it is like a super computer: G!d is the ethernet; Jesus is the modem; we, rocks, trees, are terminals.

to quote Eric Butterworth ~ God is in us, not like a raisin in a bun but like the ocean in a wave.

 

[taijasi]

Ex nihilo, nihil fit

Please consider:

"When the great period of the universal kosmic pralaya occurs, and the universe is indrawn (following the Oriental metaphor) into the bosom of Parabrahman, what then happens? The spiritual entities then enter into their paranirvana, which means exactly for them what is meant for us when we speak of the death of the human being. They are drawn by their spiritual gravitational attractions into still higher hierarchies of being, into still higher spiritual realms, therein still higher rising and growing and learning and living; while the lower elements of the kosmos, the body of the universe (even as does our physical body when the change called death comes . . .), follow their own particular gravitational attractions: the physical body to dust; the vital breath to the vital breath of the kosmos; dust to dust, breath to breath. So with the other kosmic principles, as with man's principles at his decease: the kama of our nature to the universal reservoir of the kamic organism; our manas into its dhyan-chohanic rest; our monads into their own higher life. Then when the clock of eternity points once again for the kosmos to the hour of 'coming forth into light' -- which is 'death' for the spiritual being, as death for us is life for the inner man -- when the manvantara of material life comes around again (the period of spiritual death for the kosmos is the material life of manifestation), then in the distant abysms of space and time the kosmic life-centers are aroused into activity once more . . ." (Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy, by G. de Purucker, 183).
​

And also, the longer entry on pralaya in de Purucker's Glossary. Another worth reading is that on mulaprakriti.

 

[sonoman]

Shouting that "truth" from the rooftops will make you very unpopular, very fast. The Adepts are not interested in popularity, and They do need to be heard ... but They are also very, very busy. They rely upon the students of the Wisdom to help disseminate the Teachings, and that is what we are doing.

It is true, often the Heart of the Teaching becomes lost beneath doctrines about rounds and root races ... but this does not make the latter aspects of the Dharma unimportant. It just means that sometimes we need to put things into proper perspective.

sonomon, consider, if the Adepts simply walked out onto the streetcorners, as you would appparently have Them do, what do you think would be the reaction? We who know Them at least somewhat as They are -- the immediate Disciples of the Christ, and custodians of the Plan of God -- know too well what are the consequences for speaking too frankly when and where Truth is unwelcome(d). The Adepts are not afraid to face the consequences of teaching Truth, and neither are most of Their followers. History shows what happens, however, when we do not use great discretion and tact.

The greatest of all Adepts met with a bloody death, just as have several others throughout history. The sacrifice made by Jesus of Nazareth, that His Master might appear before men and teach the spiritual Truth of which you speak ... was considerable. All esotericists honor him for that, just as they honor the other Adepts who have likewise made many sacrifices. We simply do not have the restrictions in our understanding that you seem to.

You want to make Jesus of Nazareth different, to set him apart ... and worst of all, to worship him. How is that in any way helpful? What it really does is to perpetuate what one Adept has called the "dire heresy of separateness." Instead of accepting that the Divine Spark sleeps within every human heart, and that we can all slowly awaken to our Christhood, you have made of Christ someone, and something, whom & which cannot ever really be approached. There is no hope of cooperation, there is no hope of walking side by side.

Christ called us for this, and every esotericist knows it ... even those who prefer the line of approach leading to the Buddha (which eventually leads to Christ, as well), or who follow the teachings of another exoteric religion -- or none. You yourself seem to acknowledge that it is God in the Highest that makes all things possible, yet you apparently do not understand Christ.

Christ dwells in human hearts, where room has been prepared, and in the Perfected MAN of Ephesians 4:13 -- the ADEPT -- Christ has awakened, the true Baptism has been performed, the Transfiguration has occurred, the Great Renunciation has been made (which Christians so gloomily gravitate toward) ... and the Resurrection & Ascension experience is an accomplished FACT. Every Adept thus has the Christ Principle fully awakened and functioning within his being, but this is far from the flipping of a switch that some people apparently make it out to be. We want things to be immediate, and Salvation to be effortless ... thus the greatest lies of the past 2100 years -- such as the vicarious atonement.

Know any Adept, and you Know Christ. Also vice versa. Address any Master, and you also address them all. One day, this will not be disputed. Freedom of religion will finally be realized. Eventually, this foolishness of insisting upon things like, "Only Jeeeeeezus" (or Mohammad, etc.) ... will disappear entirely.

Indeed, "Jesus SAVE ME from your followers."

For an adept promoter you sure don't listen to your own advice and are quite adept at jumping to false conclusions about my Christian beliefs.

First of all, I am a Christian and you are attempting to erase Jesus' teachings about "adepts" and "masters" which are part and parcel of Christian beliefs like mine. To remind you because this isn't the first time the Hindu gurus and Buddhists have tried to swallow up Jesus Christ into their systems, here is the clear statement of Jesus refuting human master worship or service.

"But you, do not be called "Rabbi"; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren."

As for hiding your knowledge..

"You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

I worship no man on earth. I serve no man on earth as "master" for One is my Master, the Christ, and all men are equal. Your "masters" are like the Maharishi yogi who giggled his way into the American counterculture and pocket books and then told these people on Johnny Carson that they should obey President Nixon's advice about the Vietnam War because, after all, the President knew more than American citizens did..and from thence on Maharishi went quickly into the tank in American counterculture popularity..so much for "adept" knowledge..if they really had anything real to contribute they'd contribute it without worrying about what happens to their necks.

World civilization did not follow the gurus because the gurus lacked the knowledge to advance civilization which in turn advances human knowledge and eventually human ethics. Stagnating society does not advance human knowledge and wisdom kept secret almost guarantees social stagnation as the ideas do not get out to propagate and meet with resistance to be tested for truth and sustainability in the real world. Sorry, but that's my personal assessment of secret knowledge masters. They didn't show the truth about God and humanity to me that Jesus has as a living Spirit because they didn't know the truth.