Pantheism and Panentheism

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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

Wrong. ONE FORM of panentheism makes such claims. Among Orthodox Christians, no such claims are made. Panentheism for the Orthodox means that God indwells all things to sustain their existence, but that these things ARE NOT PART OF GOD and ARE NOT A DIVINE EMANATION.

You keep ignoring the Orthodox Christian voice.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by nativeastral

sure, but l don't subscribe [dont use that frame of reference] to that concept unless it can merge with other ones that seem less arbitrary and sectarian; interestingly in the orthodox church its called synergy.

We Orthodox unequivocally and without reservation insist that Divine Grace is necessary for salvation. "Synergy" as we use the term, does not reduce the primal and necessary part of Grace. Without Grace FIRST, synergy cannot occur.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

That would mean that Christ was eternal, just as G-d the Father is eternal, in which case the Biblical idea of Christ as a "begotten son" is wrong.

The Son is simultaneously eternal AND begotten.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

The Son is simultaneously eternal AND begotten.

I'm glad you have no problem with that.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by shawn

But it is still speculation.

Of course.

What is amusing is to watch people play this game.

Instead of giving each other grout cleaning tips on an interfaith discussion forum!

But to get on the high horse and state absolutely that "such and such" is "the way it is" is vain and arrogant.... And just because it has been around for a long time does not make it any more true.

I would deduce that you have a problem with orthodox religion of any kind. Mostly all I do is discourse analysis and semantics. It's not for me to make definitive statements about anything.

So it is best to keep it simple and put it forward honestly, for what it is, which is an idea.

More along these lines?....

In the faces of men and women I see G-d, and in my own face in the glass. I find letters from G-d dropped in the street - and every one is signed by G-d's name

~ Walt Whitman

[immortalitylost]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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

Lol, and that's good. The world would be a boring place if it weren't for all of our beliefs and differences. The only reason that I don't consider myself panentheist is the idea that God didn't create the universe, or, if he did, it wasn't consciously. That's just an idea that I can't have faith in. I can see how some people would be fine with it, but it's just not for me.

Really, I'm just glad when I can make enough sense for someone to agree with me, lol.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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

That's my problem. Emergent phenomenon, not conscious creation. I can't see there being a purpose to this material plane, if God himself doesn't know what the purpose is, in his perfect knowledge. For me, purpose, even amongst all of the chaos, is something I need in my beliefs. I need to believe that God has a plan for all of this.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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

Lol, true.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by immortalitylost

Lol, and that's good. The world would be a boring place if it weren't for all of our beliefs and differences.

Too true!

Really, I'm just glad when I can make enough sense for someone to agree with me, lol.

LOL- you seem to make sense to me, even when I don't agree with you!

That's my problem. Emergent phenomenon, not conscious creation. I can't see there being a purpose to this material plane, if God himself doesn't know what the purpose is, in his perfect knowledge. For me, purpose, even amongst all of the chaos, is something I need in my beliefs. I need to believe that God has a plan for all of this.

I understand what you mean, I think. I am not sure how to describe my sense of how that works. I wouldn't say that I don't believe in the consciousness of God, or that God has a purpose. A plan is a different matter. I guess I just don't feel like I can say one way or another what God's plan and/or purpose and/or consciousness is, to be honest. I experience a sense of my own purpose that is within God's will or what I might call the flow of God manifesting into the multiverse. I sometimes experience God as a Being, with a sense of being (non-human) Person and Consciousness. I feel like there is a sort of grander design and purpose into which I try to fit my being and action.

But ultimately, I can't really understand God so I just don't really know. I feel and experience lots of things, but some of these things are quite diverse and my little brain nearly explodes just trying to figure out my rather limited field of spiritual experience!

I guess for me, over time I've come to realize more and more of what I don't know, but I've learned (or should say, am learning) to just have faith, enjoy the ride, and try my best to grow fully into my potential and spiritual development. I have very few answers, but I have made peace with that.

[shawn]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

We Orthodox unequivocally and without reservation insist that Divine Grace is necessary for salvation. "Synergy" as we use the term, does not reduce the primal and necessary part of Grace. Without Grace FIRST, synergy cannot occur.

This is based on the assumption that "salvation" is necessary in the first place.
There are many who hold to the idea that such concepts are baseless and complete rubbish designed solely for purposes of social control.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

You keep ignoring the Orthodox Christian voice.

Yes, I'm sorry for doing that.

I have been arguing the Western panentheist position particularly.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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

OK. I agree it's an artificial categorisation.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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

I agree.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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

I agree.

I would say that yours is not the common view of panentheism in the West, which holds, as I understand it, that the universe is intrinsically divine, and that changes within the universe is reflected in changes in God.

That's why I pursue Catholic theology so fervently, on the one hand its a revelation of what lies hidden beyond those barriers, and on the other it consistently seeks to pass beyond them.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

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

I am staggered by the degree of ignorance professed by someone supposedly so widely read on Christian theology!

Suffice to say, I think you'll find you're ideas on the Trinity are wrong, being founded on the assumption of a temporal procession.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

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

I'm sure you would ... if only you understood them, you might feel differently!

Thomas

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

Originally Posted by Thomas

I have been arguing the Western panentheist position particularly.

Who are your primary sources again?

My impression is that most of your objections to panentheism have relied on positions you made up on the spot that have no referent at all in panentheistic doctrine.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I would say that yours is not the common view of panentheism in the West, which holds, as I understand it, that the universe is intrinsically divine, and that changes within the universe is reflected in changes in God.

Well, these are two different propositions. The latter (that change in the universe reflects or is reflected in change in God) seems to me to be a problem of thinking time operates linearly for everyone in the multiverse, including God. I think that is faulty philosophizing, based in limitations of the human perspective.

The former, however, is a more interesting question, because if God holds every potential existence within Her/Himself, then it is a bit of a non-issue. There is no "real" separation of God from everything (that does not mean there is no God beyond everything, but that nothing exists outside of God, which means that everything's divine connection and essence is intrinsic to it, but by virtue of this being withing Being). So, the idea of intrinsic divine nature becomes a bit odd altogether, as it is grounded in this idea of false separation of God from everything else (and the Western categorical dichotomy of nature vs. supernatural).

I will say that I've encountered quite a few people in both Christianity and Druidry (as well as New Thought) who are panentheists in this way. I also know panentheists who believe God is evolving/changing as the universe is evolving/changing. Is this process theology? I can't remember.

I think God is the prime mover- that God is the evolution and change, not that God evolves or changes. That is, I embrace a paradox in which God simultaneously evolves/changes through the divine essence unfolding in manifest reality (creation, the multiverse, whatever you want to call it) but that everything that ever was, is, and will be also has always existed within God. From the vantage point of me as a human being, as a living being, I can see myself changing and the divine within me unfolding. From the proposed/philosophized vantage point of God Itself, every moment of my being has always occurred/existed within God Itself, and so it is an illusion that anything changes at all.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I will say that I've encountered quite a few people in both Christianity and Druidry (as well as New Thought) who are panentheists in this way.

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.

[immortalitylost]

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.

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.