Panentheism

[Inigo Montoya]

Panentheism (from Greek pân (all); en (in); Theós (God): "all-in-God") is the theological position that God is immanent within the Universe, but also transcends it. In panentheism, God is viewed as the Creator and/or "animating force" behind the Universe, and often also the source of universal morality. It is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe. 


In this case, "God" is viewed as creator/animating force behind the universe, immanent within it whilst also transcending it.

I notice William adopts this belief as well as our own esteemed Mithrae.

For myself, and the reason I'm asking for some clarity, I find panentheism (as I'm reading its description) manages, extraordinarily, to be even more vague than the standard "revealed" religions and philosophical worldviews we normally debate here. I mean no personal disrespect when I admit it strikes me as a sort of distancing from specific doctrines and dogmas (and the nightmare of defending conflicting attributes and shady histories) while still wanting to maintain some sort of spiritual position. A position that looks, on its face, absurdly difficult to even comprehend.

Questions for debate:

All the questions. Really. All of them. Are you able to discern whether the God of the Bible or Quran meshes with the panentheistic view, whatever that might be? This God simultaneously exists within and beyond the universe how? As a mind? A discrete agency? Which is it, animating force or creator? Says "and/or." What authority settles the matter regarding questions within panentheism? In what way does an animating force impart moral values to humankind? How is the existence of the panentheistic God deduced/verified/demonstrated? On what basis is its existence rationally justified?

And more! Chime in and help me understand. It presents as Deepak-ish woo; carefully non-commital and simultaneously sage-like, a very light (possibly empty) bag of pseudo-religious attachments just hazy enough to avoid the horrors of outright atheism.

Mithrae, you're a word-smith and you have a fan in me. Make sense of this position, how it's defined in detail, and why it's more rational than the rest of the buffet of belief or non-belief options.

[William]

Not the impossible ones. Not the married bachelor gods. Not the square circle gods. And not the merciful gods who are perfectly just.

Indeed. These gods are as rare as the gods atheists believe in, pantheistic or otherwise.



Tcg

The GOD of Panentheism envelops and imbues all that is, including Human Beings. Atheists are not excluded, other than their own beliefs want it that way.

[William]

Panentheism in relation to the Earth Entity - Gaia Hypothesis - and Human religions

[Replying to post 137 by ttruscott]

Do you think you are too enmeshed with panentheism and the earth as [strike]Gia[/strike]Gaia to give anything but short shrift to Tanagers contentions?

ftfy

Have you read my members notes to do with this subject?
Q: If so, what about my writing gives you the idea I am enmeshed with the idea?
Q: If not, why are you asking?

You should at least be aware that I understand - through the world view of Panetheism, that the Earth Entity is the activating source of all human ideas of GODs, which - for one thing - is why, regardless of whether one is a traditional Christian or a supporter of any other religion, prayers are still answered.

The Earth Entity is not enamored by any particular religion/religious tradition, but is far more interested in getting the individuals attention. She is The Father of Christianity, the YHWH of Judaism, the Allah of Islam, the Krishna of Hinduism, The Gaia of the Earth Religions etc, et al - the GOD of many names and faces, none of which portrait Her actual image. With Human Beings, she works with what she has - their beliefs and traditions, and can only go so far with the individual as the individuals beliefs allow Her to.

As for Tanagers contentions, as she has finally pointed out, they are strictly based in Christian Tradition - and as such, she is unable to immerse her thinking into other world views which are not. I suspected as much from the go-get but gave her claim that she was interested, the benefit of the doubt. Time and effort could have been saved if she had of been straight up with me to begin with.

[William]

[Replying to post 35 by Danmark]

He knew us in our depths before we were born.

A Panentheist interprets the reason to this idea as being because we are that GOD, and as GOD knows Its Self intimately as a whole, It also knows Its parts with equal intimacy.

Also in line with that thinking, 'we' were never 'created' because 'we' are aspects of GOD and GOD was never created.

What was created is form in which GOD can experience different 'selves' through.

Abrahamic (and other) religions in their evolution of understanding have - for the most part - *forced adherents to continue thinking that 'we' are the form we occupy, and this thinking has lead to the idea that 'we' are distinctly separate from GOD and are just 'creations' of GOD...and that to think ourselves as particles of GOD within form, is *blaspheme.

Panetheism knows better because it has evolved more truthfully.

[William]

[Replying to post 18 by shnarkle]

You explained your understanding of the whole ransom/payment theology. But I do not see how that answers the question, "how is mercy that demands payment still mercy"?

I may be talking past you. God doesn't demand payment. It just appears as a payment to those who are damned. When one sees the kingdom freely offered, it is impossible to resist it without throwing away one's own life. That's the "payment", but it's like tossing out your garbage AFTER you see the kingdom. Before you see the kingdom, it's like being asked to give away your prized possessions.

The gospels point out that there really is nothing more important to the damned than ourselves. Christ says, "deny yourself", and this is horrific to the ego. However, when the kingdom is revealed, the ego is seen for what it truly is, which is nothing but a silly idea. Psychology backs this up by pointing out that our identities are formed during infancy.

Think of it this way: The story tells us that Adam is created in God's image. So if you want to see what God looks like, you look at Adam. Adam gets this idea that he wants to be just like God, not knowing that he couldn't be more like God than he already is. This false idea creates a false identity which he, along with the rest of humanity continues to believe. We believe that we all have our own separate identities. We do have these identities, but they are still nothing but our own cherished ideas about ourselves.

Christ comes along and points out that these ideas need to be rejected, denied, given up, etc. He also points out that the body which is associated with these ideas is God's temple which is being abused due to these false ideas taking on a life of their own. The body is where God dwells, and it is his temple, not ours. This alone should be enough to point out that the body is not who we are, and therefore it is nothing to give it up. This alone isn't enough though. We can't do this ourselves because who we think we are is nothing but an idea, and ideas, even if they believe they have a life of their own, are still just ideas. Ideas can't do anything.

Christ comes along and not only tells us what's going on, but shows us how one denies themselves. The gospel narratives are simply illustrating the point that only someone who has completely denied themselves can see that they are the image of God; God's son.

What we see is a payment made, but this is only because we still haven't been born again. We haven't discovered the kingdom which is the prerequisite to being able to set aside our lives for Christ's sake.

The other reason it is a payment is because as Christ, he already has set aside his life, but he must take it all the way to show just how pointless it is to hold onto a physical body as if it is who he is. He isn't the body so he discards it as trash. He points out that he is in everyone. e.g. "Apart from me you can do nothing"; "whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me" etc.

He has to pay with "his life" to show that it isn't really his life at all. It's God's life. He can discard it as if on a whim because he isn't discarding anything at all.

The above is wherein a Panenthiest understands 'The Christ' story and can identify from among the many words attributed to have been spoken by Jesus, wherein Panentheism/the Panenteist world view, is situated.

Being "Born Again' as one example, is the idea that since we have all been taught to view ourselves as 'The Human Instrument/form' and instructed to respond to life through that teaching, by identifying ourselves AS the form..it is necessary for each of us to drop that teaching and redefine our SELF as aspects of GOD - which - for a Panentheist, is what being "Born Again' signifies.

Not the literal naturalist mockery of the rhetorical "What are you suggesting Jesus? That we should all climb back into our Mothers wombs!", but the symbolic Panentheist acceptance that we are not actually who we have been taught that we are, and we are required in that, to change our thinking.

Naturalism tends toward encouraging the promotion of the notion that we are really ONLY the body, and in that, we require no 'spirituality', and certainly there is much superstitious belief under the heading of 'Spirituality' which makes the naturalist argument somewhat compelling, BUT one can also identify within organised religious dogma, where the naturalist world view has crept in and gained a prominent foothold position in which to continue teaching this idea that we are the body - separate from GOD, rather than we are all aspects of GOD within human form, and it is this teaching which has helped create the problems the world continues to face.

[William]

Christian Panentheists.

[Replying to post 34 by JehovahsWitness]

How does someone referring to themselves as "Son of MAN" teach one is God?

Panentheist understand that to be born a human is to be a Child of GOD. It is organised religion which has redefined being human as being separate from and not of GOD. That is why Jesus said we must start over, and ditch what religion has taught us about ourselves because what organised religion says about who we are, is not truth.

I agree with your post to a certain degree. I don't think your understanding is confined to just panentheists though. The term "sons of God" is pertinent as well. When God begets sons, they are referred to as "sons of God". We have not just Christ, but all who are "begotten of the spirit" (usually translated as "born again"). "That which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit."

Christ pointed out that "the spirit breathes where he will, you hear the sound of his voice, but you know not where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit".

To me it becomes clearer that there are Christians who do not fully understand that they are Panentheists because they understand the aspect of the biblical references which identify Panentheism.

Perhaps there is such a thing as "Christian Panentheism", but it is not recognized by Traditional Christianity as legitimate...and perhaps does not even recognize itself as coming from the Panentheist position?

In that, the understanding is at least confined to "Christian Panentheism", which is another way of my saying "I disagree that the understanding is not confined to Panentheism" in that, "only Panentheists are enabled to recognize and agree to being aspects of GOD rather than actually separate from GOD."

These are distinct positions.

What determines this for the individual, is recognition, in relation to self awareness and identity with that awareness.

[William]

Jagella: If you're not a Christian, then what is your religion? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if I encounter a person who defends Christianity, then I can safely conclude that that person is a Christian apologist. Are you hoping that Christianity's claims are true and argue for those claims trying to convince yourself that yes, you can go to heaven?

William: non-theists have from time to time also 'accused' me of being a Christian because I do not necessarily disagree with stuff which is commonly seen to be 'Christian' in nature...At first I 'minded' because I feel it is important to allow others the right to label themselves, but I have relaxed that stance now as it is not really important in the grand scheme of things.
That is why - when I feel the situation warrants it - I refer to my position as "Christian Panentheist"
Personally I do not wish to 'go to heaven' when the next phase happens. Heaven appears to be for those who require justice. I do not require justice. That is probably why I am not 'Christian' in regard to that...but in other ways I am. A Panentheist is enabled that way - the position does the enabling.
Panentheist isn't really a religion either. Certainly not an organised one, which of course Christianity most definitely is...a Panentheist can 'follow Jesus' without really 'being a Christian'.