Quote: Originally Posted by Lunitik In the same sense you think your body is you, the manifestation, the physical world is the body of God. I am not this body, this body is a small expression, just as a plant or a tree is a small expression. I do not believe most of us here (certainly Thomas) believes that "body is you" or "world is body of God". Those of us with a non-material monist point of view (who think mental and spiritual events are as real as physical ones) would point out that neither quotation is found in our responses. This is a product of your interpretation of what was said. We would probably agree with you second sentence, if the context of "plant" or "tree" as actually "a small expression of the vastness of experience" (or something like that). Quote: Originally Posted by Lunitik You say I am inconsistent with my non-duality, I simply do not limit it to the puny scopes that the mind usually works within. ALL in ALL, not just this body-mind and distinct consciousness, the sum of everything which exists to the far reaches of this Universe and beyond, as Science now believes we are a Multiverse of at least 11 Universes. I say those eleven are simply another system, that there are infinite Universes as well. Yet something pervades it all, that is God. Well, I think you pretty well speak for yourself here. "Puny scopes of the mind" denigrates the mental and spiritual experiences. "Mind" does not have to exist within... that is the point of saying mental events are real. There are some excellent references on panpsychism and panexperiencialism on "Process Philosophy" sites. See, in much the same way as I can see your physical reality (if I were there) I can see your mental reality. Where do you pick up this scientific bs you quote? There may be 11 dimensions (per string theory, a discipline within physics, within science). That does not translate into "Science now believes" or "11 Universes". Some string theorists postulate fewer, some more dimensions. Some physicists postulate an infinite number of universes (that is what "many-worlds theory is about"). While we agree that G!d pervades them all, the reasoning you use to get there is no kind of formal reasoning at all, merely a parroting back of phrases which do not really understand. Quote: Originally Posted by Lunitik In this respect, I find even the Bible to be limited in scope, it only says the Christians are part of one body, it doesn't even permit other life, let alone plants and minerals - I say everything that contains atoms consists of God. The keyboard you are typing on, the screen you reading this off of, both have atoms which are alive - they never stop moving. The very large and the very small, all is God because God is life, God is all there is. It really depends on how one reads that Bible (I presume you mean NT). There are plenty of pantheist, panentheist, panpsychic, and panexperiencial Christians (again, look up "Process Theology"). Just because you cannot interprete the Word so it applies to all life (and even sub-atomic particles) does not mean no one can. A Christian can have very very similar beliefs to yours and believe in the Word, and Christ and the Trinity. Quote: Originally Posted by Lunitik God is a Christian word though, they can keep it... it is existence itself. I have to communicate in a way people will understand, but this word has been utterly killed, it no more has a significant meaning in our language. Ah, the word predates Jesus by many, many millennia. "Existence as G!d" is pretty much a pantheistic argument. Spinoza (in Western though) came up with it (in terms of Western Philosophy) a long time ago. And most Christians equates it with atheism. Well, things have changed during the last 400 years or so. For you the word may convey nothing (in English or any other language). For most of us, theist, atheist, agnostic, pantheist or panentheist it still has a significant meaning. Hint, just because "unicorn" does not signify anything you can see or taste or feel does not mean it has no meaning.