Pantheism and Panentheism - Page 35

nativeastral · 10-20-2009, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

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 · 10-21-2009, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

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 · 10-21-2009, 05:43 AM

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 · 10-21-2009, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawn

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 · 10-21-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

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 · 10-21-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shawn

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 · 10-23-2009, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dauer

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 · 10-23-2009, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

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 · 10-23-2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

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 · 10-23-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

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)?

Quote:

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.

Dogbrain · 10-23-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

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 ?

First point: No less inconsistant than any other view.

Second point: Yes, it is possible. I can move a cart without being part of the cart. Without me, the cart is inert, with me, it moves. The cart does not become part of me nor do I become part of the cart. We remain ontologically distinct.

Dogbrain · 10-23-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

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.

And all the others have such a "right"? Evidently, they seem to think so. However, since mine is the minority view, you decide it is safest to launch an attack upon me.

I do not worship the dead material world as you do. That things EXIST is evidence that God is within creation.

wil · 10-23-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

First point: No less inconsistant than any other view.

Second point: Yes, it is possible. I can move a cart without being part of the cart. Without me, the cart is inert, with me, it moves. The cart does not become part of me nor do I become part of the cart. We remain ontologically distinct.

Ah, but some of us don't believe you are distinct. You and the cart are one. You just see yourself as seperate. It isn't uncomon.

To me it is sort of like when you scratch your left arm with your right fingernail. The cells in your fingernail don't know they are connected to the cells in your right arm...and they'll scratch away till the arm bleeds if you insist. But you know you are all one.

In the same way we cannot hurt another without hurting ourselves. If we'd all just understand this it would be a different world.

Gatekeeper · 10-23-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogbrain

Second point: Yes, it is possible. I can move a cart without being part of the cart. Without me, the cart is inert, with me, it moves. The cart does not become part of me nor do I become part of the cart. We remain ontologically distinct.

You might be able to move the cart without being the cart itself, but you cannot move the cart without first becoming a part of it. In the same way, God is part of us, and we are a part of God. In the same way, I am part of you and you are part of me. We collectively make up one body, just as all things make up the entirety of God.

The individual parts of existence are a very real a part of God, but this does not mean the individual parts are God. My being a part of you does not make me you, only a very real part of you and your reality.

Go back to Genesis and look to the fall of man. Adams sins effected us all, just as your sins and my sins effect us all. Like Wil suggested, we cannot harm others without harming ourselves. We are one, and are in this life together [as one].

The idea that we are separate from God, and separate from one another, causes us to be blind to the realities of life, just is it tends to make us selfish.

The sooner we realize that we are [one] and start learning from our mistakes and from the mistakes of others, and by putting others before ourselves, the sooner we (As a species) can begin the healing process (Collectively).

For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Romans 12:4-5 (ESV)

GK

immortalitylost · 10-23-2009, 11:23 PM

Just poppin in to say I'm still here. I just haven't found much to say that hasn't been said already, and I'm afraid it's still the case now.

Just wanted to say that I agree with wil and GK. God can be completely a part of everything in creation, and still completely distinct from it. Just because God is within all of creation does not mean that creation is God, or visa-versa, nor that creation is necessarily made up of God, woven from the same "fabric" as.

I just don't see where it becomes a problem that God is both a part of everything, and yet distinct from it. I mean, he's God. Doin the impossible is kinda his thing.

Just look at the whole free will paradox he's got goin.