Jump to content

Panentheism


Recommended Posts

panta wrote: "Why does the Metalibrary site list Phil Clayton as a non-process panentheist? He's about as much a process thinker as you can get!"

 

Then we don't have the same definition of process. As I mentioned, I think nonprocess vs process panentheism boils down to God's Agency (how God acts in/on the world) and God's existence outside *A* universe.

 

I don't want to get into open theism vs process theology because that comes packed with other issues that either aren't issues for me one way or the other or I don't agree with them. God's Agency is what I'm really interested in, and I think perhaps you and Aletheia already bounced the ball back and forth enough for me to know your views on that.

 

I was already familiar with ctr4process website. I will take a look at Clayton's online papers as some may be more current than his two books I already have and read. In Clayton's _God and Contemporary Science_ (c. 1997) he says in his conclusions page 264: "At the same time, God also transcends the world and will exist long after the physical universe has ceased."

 

As far as I can tell Clayton did NOT differentiate between THIS vs A universe. Yes, it's possible that I'm misunderstanding him. It's pretty difficult to pull out a quote from such a weighty book filled with all kinds of qualifying statements. But I provide the specific reference for whoever wants to research this further and get the full context of the quote.

 

The other Clayton book I have _The Problem of God in Modern Thought_ is c. 2000, so shouldn't be terribly out of date with his current ideas.

 

Aletheia said: "I imagine you could have an open view of God and not be a panentheist."

 

Ah, wait a minute, rewind the tape. You said earlier: "I don't think open theism and panentheism are on a "line" where you are more one than the other. Like process philosphy fits within the umbrella of panentheism, so does open view."

 

Aletheia, are you now saying some open views are panentheistic and some are not or are you retracting your first statement or am I not understanding you?

 

des wrote: "I think I'll need that PhD to understand it."

 

That's becoming one of my pet peeves.

The typical strategies are:

1. Ignore the poster altogether

2. Get it as inaccessible as possible by using really loaded terms that have several definitions, interpretations

3. Pick someone really obscure for a reference

4. Information overload--here read 50 pages of scholarly verbosity

5. Bring in lots of other side issues so the conversation gets sidetracked

5. Use words that imply how stupid opposing views are

6. I'm too busy

 

I've been there done that so many times in so many ways with so many different people that I just got burned out and had to quit intellectualizing everything to death and go hug trees. I don't have to "figure out" hugging trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

WindDancer said: I've been there done that so many times in so many ways with so many different people that I just got burned out and had to quit intellectualizing everything to death and go hug trees. I don't have to "figure out" hugging trees.

 

I share your frustration (even though I am to you, partly responsible for it :( ).

 

I keep thinking that if we can just focus on one or two concepts we can eventually find agreement - or at least know why we disagree. As it is, the tendency is to look at things superficially and sometimes all we do is throw aporisms at one another. But I'm not ready to quit "intellectualizing" yet - if that is the same thing as ending dialog. I think it is very, very important to rise to new levels of development - individually and culturally. By "levels of development" I mean the ability to include and integrate more and more "truth". Of course, more "truth" means greater complexity - but it should also lead us to greater harmony.

 

If "truth" simply divides us, we haven't pursued it far enough. I also see the importance (if not the critical need) to include and integrate both contemplative (or mystical) knowlege and science in our development. Each approach to reality provides us with a different perspective. It's the same reality but one approach (science) views the exterior (objects), and the other views the interior of reality (subjects). The tendency is to make a "category mistake" and try to find the properties of one in the other -for instance, a scientist looking for a "mind" by examining the brain, or a mystic who looks for a neuron while meditating. Of course interpreting the experience of both the scientist and the mystic requires "intellectualizing", or the examination of concepts and ideas - and for this, I don't see how we can dispense with philosophy.

 

Now, if we can just get a philosopher, a scientist, and a mystic in a room together and not let 'em out until they all understand each other....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simple view is to reduce everything down or up to one. 

 

Soma,

 

Yes, that does seem simple. What do you mean by "one" though? In your analogy of the iceberg to the ocean, what value does the iceberg have in relation to the ocean? In other words, by reducing everything down or up to one, are we also reducing all values to (1)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlethiaRivers said: I think that's the point.  The person is saying that there is nothing in science to say or not say that electrons are events rather than entities. I think the person is saying that science does not prove Whitehead, but it does not disprove him either.

 

I'm sorry, but I must be missing something in the quote. Process thought agrees with science that events (energy events - or quantum packets of energy) make up what we define as "entities". The trouble is, science continues to use terms which apply to the Newtonian concept of nature - which is a materialistic philosophy with a history going back to Democritus. According to Newton, "things" that we experience with our senses, are composed of tiny atoms which are "hard, massy, indivisible substances". In philosophical terms, these atoms would be described as separate "beings" with no internal relations. All change was described simply in terms of differences in the location of these atoms.

 

This understanding of reality is no longer held by quantum physicists- but it still uses the same terms. For instance, "particle" - what is a "particle", really? Is it like a "particle of sand"? These "particles" are now understood by physicists to be certain forms in the field of movement. If two "particles" are brought together, they will begin to gradually influence one another and eventually become one. Think of it like this: often times in a river you find these whirlpools swirling around an obstruction. As you watch these whirlpools you occasionally see one whirlpool approach the other and as they do, you begin to see changes in the patterns of their respective flows. Finally, the whirlpools merge and there is just one whirlpool. The analogy is that the "particles" are not the water, or the water molecules, but the whirlpool itself - which doesn't seem to have a "real existence" in terms of a substance.

 

I will admit that in much of the scientific community the "substance" understanding of reality still lingers on. The reason for this is probably that Newtonian physics still "works", most of the quantum field physicists only deal with it mathematically, and science has become so specialized that few can get an overall view to attempt to find out what it all means. And as a biologist friend of mine said a couple days ago, most scientists know almost nothing of philosophy or the humanities. The scientific method involves doing, seeing and reporting. It was thought only up until very recent times, that "feeling" was to be kept completely out of science - even to the point that it was denied that feelings even exist.

Edited by PantaRhea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WindDancer,

 

In Clayton's _God and Contemporary Science_ (c. 1997) he says in his conclusions page 264: "At the same time, God also transcends the world and will exist long after the physical universe has ceased."

 

I agree with Clayton's statement. Does that take me out of the process camp? What do you believe Clayton means by "God" and the "physical universe"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Des,

 

I don't think it will be possible to understand Process Theology as long as you can think of "God" only in terms of the supernatural. God, as understood by Process Theology, is not the same as the universe (that would be pantheism), and does transcend the universe. But the universe can be transcended without resorting to supernaturalism.

 

I think I may have exhausted my fair share of bytes in this forum for now, but at some point I would like to provide a list reasons why we should abandon supernaturalism if we desire an integrated worldview - or even a good approach to ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, according to Process thought, God is fully immanent in the world/universe AND fully transcendent from it. This notion is actually quite orthodox; e.g. that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm briefly popping in to say that I just read Clayton's paper:

Can Liberals Still Believe That God (Literally) Does Anything?

 

Well, Alleluia! Exactly what I was looking for and it's GOOD! Mentions a conference that took place in nov 01 so it is more current than the books I have. I don't think it's different info, but it is much easier reading that his books are.

 

Thanks Panta. I haven't read your latest posts yet, but will do that later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm briefly popping in to say that I just read Clayton's paper:

Can Liberals Still Believe That God (Literally) Does Anything?

 

Well, Alleluia!  Exactly what I was looking for and it's GOOD!  Mentions a conference that took place in nov 01 so it is more current than the books I have.  I don't think it's different info, but it is much easier reading that his books are.

 

Thanks Panta.  I haven't read your latest posts yet, but will do that later.

 

 

Don't overlook this note in his paper, btw:

 

As background for this paper I have in mind a form of process theism (in the 12 nontechnical

sense of the term), which presupposes that there is a God who is responsive to the

world, whether or not this God intervenes miraculously in the world. Of course this assumption

also needs explaining and defending — just not here.

Edited by PantaRhea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Des,

I don't think it will be possible to understand Process Theology as long as you can think of "God" only in terms of the supernatural.  God, as understood by Process Theology, is not the same as the universe (that would be pantheism), and does transcend the universe.  But the universe can be transcended without resorting to supernaturalism. 

 

Well actually I don't (think of God purely as supernatural). As I said, I think God "needed" to create the universe. Since God needs us, this is not an entirely "over natural/beyond natural" view. I think to think of God as purely supernatural is to deny the whole God within human history (and universe hx) and to take a sort of God is off there and we are here. Why bother with God then?

 

I'm not sure about the latter though. How can "everything that is" (or even the physical universe -- or universes) be transcended without the beyond natural? If it is everything that is, that you can see, feel, measure, extrapolate, etc. how do you get beyond it without the beyond natural?

 

Of course, I never really claimed to be into process theology and only know what I have read here. I often have a bit of frustration trying to keep up with topics. WindD, you did a lovely job of putting them into words. OTOH, I don't think that this is an intentional action of putting making anybody feel bad or making the writer feel smarter. There aren't many types of forums where anybody can discuss these sorts of things. That said, I'm trying to respond from my own interests and understandings.

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aletheia said: "I imagine you could have an open view of God and not be a panentheist." Ah, wait a minute, rewind the tape. You said earlier: "I don't think open theism and panentheism are on a "line" where you are more one than the other. Like process philosphy fits within the umbrella of panentheism, so does open view."

 

Aletheia, are you now saying some open views are panentheistic and some are not or are you retracting your first statement or am I not understanding you?

 

:(

 

I certainly didn't mean to imply with my first statement:

 

"I don't think open theism and panentheism are on a "line" where you are more one than the other. Like process philosphy fits within the umbrella of panentheism, so does open view."

 

that that's the ONLY WAY open theism and panentheism ARE. I said "I don't THINK ..." Meaning I'M NOT SURE.

 

In making the second comment:

 

"I imagine you could have an open view of God and not be a panentheist."

 

I was actually replying to something Des had said, trying to reassure her that she doesn't have to have a phD to be in on the conversation.

 

What she said made me rethink about being an open theist but not a panentheist and so I said "I IMAGINE YOU COULD". :unsure:

 

I didn't think this was a debate, but I will formally retract my previous statement as I did earlier in this thread regarding my equating process thought as a synonym for dipolar theism.

 

I started this thread because I was (and still am) confused and because you guys are the ones I like to turn to for help. I was really enjoying this thread. I'm so sad that others are not. :(

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my statement everything is one. God is everything. The water in the ocean is the collective unconscious as Jung would say I like to call it God's consciousness. The icebergs in the ocean of pure consciousness is also water so it is also pure consciousness in another form which can communicate and become one with the pure consciousness of one. Jesus said, " I and the Father are One." Nirvana the sanskrit term for enlightenment means without form (pure consciousness) . The small whirpool merges with other whirpools until there is only one. We are on the tip or crest of the wave so we wave and talk and think that there are two of us, but if we go deeper into ourselves, Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is within" We go deeper and deeper in the wave until we are connected in the ocean of pure consciousness. Everything affects everything because it is connected. God is among us within and beyond our unit mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aletheia, I'm happy you're sensitive to the fact that maybe everyone wouldn't want to get involved in this kind of intellectual discussion. There are plenty of other threads and one can always start another one. I recognize that, gosh if you have these ideas running around in your head, where the heck would you discuss them. So this is the place.

 

I for one and not entirely unhappy with it. I just wish I could understand it better. But I also recognize that I *have not* had all those kinds of ideas running around in my brain, just other ones. There are plenty of other threads where I could discuss those things (and have).

Anyone else who might be entirely happy with the thread could always promote a different one. I see WindD who has expressed some misgivings as well, isn't exactly silent on this forum either.

 

Hey I could start one labelled Panentheism 101 (or maybe Panentheism for Dummies-- now there's a topic that hasn't hit the cottage industry Dummy series :-))

 

--des

Edited by des
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panta - Yeah, I noticed Clayton's footnote mentioned a *form* of process theism in the *nontechnical* sense of the term.

 

???

 

When I say that I believe in a God that acts and that God would still exist if the world no longer was, people tell me that is *not* process theology. When I read Clayton, he also sounds like he has the same view that I do. That metalibrary website confirmed this.

 

It's been a while since I was last at the ctr4process website, and I don't think Clayton was there then. There is a discussion area now too. I do find Clayton helpful in thinking about how God acts in the world, which is really all that matters to me.

 

Aletheia - I apologize if you were offended. I'm so cranky and burned out I really shouldn't even be talking theology, but I get sucked in if I read the posts. And OMG, especially panentheism, which is like my pet topic. Anyway, sorry. I like to listen to your ideas and certainly wouldn't want to stifle them.

 

Des - I'll probably never progress out of panentheism 101, and I've been studying that sucker for like years already. Mostly, I just bang my head against the wall in frustration and confusion at all the conflicting information out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WindDancer,

When I say that I believe in a God that acts and that God would still exist if the world no longer was, people tell me that is *not* process theology. When I read Clayton, he also sounds like he has the same view that I do. That metalibrary website confirmed this.

 

You may or may not consider me to be knowledgeable about process theology, but regardless of what other people have told you, the beliefs you mention *ARE* compatible with process theolgy!

 

I don't think you will find substantial disagreement between Clayton, Griffin, Harteshorne, Whitehead, Ford, Cobb, Suchocki, Epperly, Hamilton, Peters, Mesle, Jungerman, etc., and all of them would agree that God acts (in the sense described in the paper by Clayton you just read) and that God has *necessary* existence while the world has *contingent* existence.

 

I am curious about your sources, other than Clayton, for Process Theology. Who are these people who would disagree with those I've mentioned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Des,

 

I don't think it will be possible to understand Process Theology as long as you can think of "God" only in terms of the supernatural.  God, as understood by Process Theology, is not the same as the universe (that would be pantheism), and does transcend the universe.  But the universe can be transcended without resorting to supernaturalism. 

 

I think I may have exhausted my fair share of bytes in this forum for now, but at some point I would like to provide a list reasons why we should abandon supernaturalism if we desire an integrated worldview - or even a good approach to ethics.

PantaRea:

John Shelby Spong, in his book "Here I Stand"(HarperCollins,1999) IMO agrees.In his "Twelve Theses" (Luther had 95), the first affirms that such a God is dead. You may find his writings helpful in your research. I await the results with enthusiasm.

Jeep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aletheia,

 

I didn't think this was a debate, but I will formally retract my previous statement as I did earlier in this thread regarding my equating process thought as a synonym for dipolar theism.

 

"Dipolar theism" may not be synonymous with process philosophy (since there are some process philosophers who are not theists) but it is a good synonym for Process Theology. Is this your understanding?

 

You and WindDancer might also be interested in the latest issue of "Process Perspectives" (the Newsletter of the Center for Process Studies). At the first conference of the new program: "Dialogues Concerning Science and Natural Religion", Howard Van Till (Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College spoke on "From Calvinism to Claremont, Now That's Evolution! One Scientists Evolution from Calvin's Supernaturalism to Griffin's Naturalism."

 

Here's part of what was included in the Newsletter:

 

Van Till described how, as a Reformed Christian scholar in the Academy, he "knew" that "Christians were up against a tough enemy out there in the larger North American world, especially in the secular academy. That enemy's name was 'Naturalism,' the contentious problem child of the Enlightenment." Caught between the demands of his faith and his scientific studies, Van Till struggled to reconcile doctrines of creation ex nihilo and God's intervention in the world with the scientific evidence to the contrary, eventually proposing that God was able to interfere with the natural order of the world, but chose not to do so [the "Open View" position] Invoking the "formational economy of the univese," which is the sum total of all resources, structural and functional potentialities, and formational capabilities that are to be found, Van Till argued the "Right Stuff Universe Principle," which posits that the universe, at the moment of creation, contained all the resources and raw material necessary for the development of any complexity we may find. Evangelical communities, however, criticized this theory as a variety of deism because (on their view) God does not do anything.

 

Eventually, Van Till encountered David Griffin's writings, which encouraged him to dare to be consistent and reject supernaturalistic action. Embracing naturalistic theism instead, Van Till was able to describe God's action in the world as natural, enriched to include purposeful and effective, but non-coercive divine action. This way, naturalism and theism need not be enemies. Van Till suggested that he might reformulate his "Right Stuff" principle as follows: "The formational economy of the universe is sufficiently robust to make possible the actualizing, by wholly natural processes and events, of every type of physical structure and life form that has ever existed - with the understanding that natural processes and events, while they do preclude any form of coercive divine intervention, may nonetheless include non-coercive divine action as an effective factor."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PantaRea:

John Shelby Spong, in his book "Here I Stand"(HarperCollins,1999) IMO agrees.In his "Twelve Theses" (Luther had 95), the first affirms that such a God is dead. You may find his writings helpful in your research. I await the results with enthusiasm.

Jeep

 

Jeep,

 

While I agree with much of Spong's writings, I find him to be in the "De-constructive Postmodernist" camp and that is not where I'm at. Process Theology on the other hand is a "Constructive Postmodernism". Part of the difference, in practical terms, is this - Process Theology allows me to believe in a God I can really be related to and who I can really believe loves me without twisting the meaning of "love". Spong's use of the term "God" does not fit what David Griffin calls the generic idea of God: "According to this generic idea or definition, the word God refers to a personal, purposive [agent], perfect in goodness and supreme in power, who created the world, acts providentially in it, is sometimes [consciously] experienced by human beings, especially as the source of moral norms and religious experiences, is the ultimate ground of meaning and hope, and is thereby alone worthy of worship."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my statement everything is one. God is everything.  The water in the ocean is the collective unconscious as Jung would say I like to call it God's consciousness. The icebergs in the ocean of pure consciousness is also water so it is also pure consciousness in another form which can communicate and become one with the pure consciousness of one.  Jesus said, " I and the Father are One." Nirvana the sanskrit term for enlightenment  means without form (pure consciousness) .  The small whirpool merges with other whirpools until there is only one.  We are on the tip or crest of the wave so we wave and talk and think that there are two of us, but if we go deeper into ourselves, Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is within"  We go deeper and deeper in the wave until we are connected in the ocean of pure consciousness. Everything affects everything because it is connected.  God is among us within and beyond our unit mind.

 

Yes, but you didn't answer my question - according to your understanding, are there more actual values in the universe than (1)?

 

The answer to this question will reveal whether you are a pantheist, or a panentheist. If the universe has only one essence (consciousness) it must have only one value, but a single value is equal to zero values, because "value" is a relational term and relationships, by definition, must have an "other".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panta wrote: "Dipolar theism" may not be synonymous with process philosophy (since there are some process philosophers who are not theists) but it is a good synonym for Process Theology. Is this your understanding?

From some websights I've read I got the impression that Process Theology and Dipolar Theism are synonyms. However, from the Meta webpage I got the impression that you CAN be a Dipolar Theist but not be a "full fledged" Process Theist. When I read that I felt the need to say "Hey, I was wrong about the two terms being completely interchangeable."

From the newsletter: Evangelical communities, however, criticized this theory (Open View) as a variety of deism because (on their view) God does not do anything.

I appreciate that some feel that because God does not intervene "supernaturally" in the world that God must then be viewed from a Deistic perspective. I personally do not feel that way.

From the newsletter: Eventually, Van Till encountered David Griffin's writings, which encouraged him to dare to be consistent and reject supernaturalistic action.

I don't think that the belief that God COULD intervene "supernaturally" if God chose to do so is an inconsistent stance to take.

 

It's also dependent upon how someone defines the term "supernatural". Most theologians define it to mean the "old man in the sky" who sits outside the universe, outside time, who watches everything and decides from time to time to "zap" the planet with supernatural miraculous divine intervention. I don't think that has to be the only definition of "supernatural". Like Des said, anything outside of the "natural" universe is "supra" natural. IMO, the transcendant mind of God could be said to be "outside the natural".

From the newsletter: Embracing naturalistic theism instead, Van Till was able to describe God's action in the world as natural, enriched to include purposeful and effective, but non-coercive divine action. This way, naturalism and theism need not be enemies.

Again, I don't think a modified Process Theology (aka Open View) makes naturalism and theism enemies. For me it solves some of the metaphysical wranglings I have regarding God's power (which seems to be different than what Process says) and God's necessary existence and ability to exist even if absolutely no universe or any other sentient life existed anywhere in any dimension (which seems to be different that what Process says).

 

I'm willing to say that I hold this view because I'm just not "getting" the full picture of Process Theology. It's possible, with there being so many schools and views of Process Theology that I might completely agree with one of them. :)

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one God that is composed of everything. Having said that He is omnipresent and sees everything within, but also without through us. He sees everything within and the duality without through our mind which can't grasp the immensity. Our eyes can't see something that is too small or too big, but do we have to see the sun or the electron to say it exist. We see a road and say it has a beginning and an end because we see one or the other, but if you see both ends simutaneously we see only one. God is everything on the table. We see a fork and think there is duality because we can't see the whole table. I said reduce everything to one, but it seems we are expanding our consciousness to one.

Edited by soma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soma, I'm not sure, but I think what Panta is asking is whether you believe that we are "independent" entities RELATING to God or are WE God?

 

Is God in a "give and take" with US? or Is God in a "give and take" with himself?

 

You mentioned in another thread that this is the Matrix. Do you believe then that all that we see is Maya? Illusion? God having a dream?

 

Or did God "create" the universe in order to RELATE?

 

One view is what is called "Idealistic Monism" the other is "Dialectic (Dipolar) Monism."

 

You might like to read the ideas here: Dialectic Monism

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your posts, Panta.

 

Rereading this thread, I'm REALLY confused about God's existence outside the universe, cuz there has been so many contradictions, I don't know who believes what. But I don't even care anymore.

 

I do care about how God acts in the world.

 

I've read some Cobb, Griffin, Peacocke, Clayton, then there is Borg's panentheism book too. Borg is about the only one truly accessible to the general public kind of person. But he is really vague about what God actually does. I've plowed thru countless websites, talked to hundreds of people online. I've been doing this for years already, Panta.

 

Did you ever comment about prayer in the Borg's Book thread? When I asked if God actually does anything or not, the consensus of everyone was basically no, he doesn't do anything. Maybe people just get too hung up on God being an supernatural interventionist or God doesn't do anything at all dicotomy. I just can't find people who talk about a God that acts other than the interventionist type. Clayton's paper I read is more accessible than his books and really does answer it for me. Thing is I can't find others who believe this way--except may you, now. If you know of any group discussions that do discuss the topic, please tell me. I need to spend more time at that ctr4process website.

 

Thanks for hanging in there with this cranky burned out person over here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know who believes what. But I don't even care anymore ... Thing is I can't find others who believe this way--except may you, now.

 

That's kinda funny, because I thought you and I were closer to being on the same page than others regarding Gods power, relationship and how God acts on the world.

 

If I had to pigeon hole my beliefs I guess I would say:

 

1) I am a panentheist. I believe that this and all possible universes exist within God's Being.

 

2) I am dipolar. I view God as a being that contains all polarities. I believe this makes God a "neutral" being with free will.

 

3) I am an Open or Free Will theist. I believe that free will is the very foundation of our reality. I believe free will is the greatest good. Free will is more important from an infinite perspective than anything God could do to intervene and fix our problems. I would go one step further and say that God doesn't intervene in human affairs because to do so would TAKE AWAY our free will. I believe God COULD intervene. I believe that God COULD make us robots incapable of doing evil. I believe God has the power to do so. BUT - I believe God won't (not can't).

 

4) I believe God uses PERSUASIVE power to nudge us in the direction of love, because that is what is right and is what will make us happy. I believe that Jesus was one such "nudge".

 

5) I believe we can "tap into" divine power and "use" it for self transformation and by that transform the world. We can call that divine power "the Force" (ala Star Wars), we could call it "Holy Spirit" (ala the Bible) or we could call it "magic" (ala witchcraft).

 

I could go on and on, but I won't. Perhaps I did take your comments too personally yesterday, but I was quite floored by them. I was under the impression that everything was cool and then I come back from being gone all day yesterday to find there are 1/2 dozen replies to the thread and that all is not copacetic. I'm truly sorry if I have done anything to alienate you or to contribute to your crankiness and frustration. :unsure:

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Rereading this thread, I'm REALLY confused about God's existence outside the universe, cuz there has been so many contradictions, I don't know who believes what. But I don't even care anymore.

 

WindD, I don't think God's existence outside the universe (is that the universe as in all that is or the physical universe?? Either one, imo. ) particularly matters except at the moment of Creation (or before and after it). I mean it might matter at some humoungous or philosophical level, but to us as living humans it prob. doesn't. Except , that we all have those transcendent moments-- those moments when we break out of linear time in our experiences. I have had these.

 

Maybe I mean something fuzzy here but I don't think so. It is those "thin Places" that M. Borg talks about. Like the times I have looked out at the mountains and felt different, changed, etc.

 

I think those matter.

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service