Panentheism

[soma]

Thank you for the link. It was enlightening. I could lable myself as a Christian Universal Dialectic. Here is why:

The Christian symbol of the Trinity is used to bring us above reason to a nonlinear experience. It serves as an exit point from the physical world of parts to the interrelated multidimensional world of consciousness. It is not possible to govern at the same time all the diverse systems of the universe with only one component so Christians show God as a Trinity. God is represented as the Father, the Creator and the all-pervading consciousness from which everything comes forth. He is revealed in human life by the Son, the individual consciousness and is forever at work in nature through the Holy Ghost.

God the Father is the subject. The Holy Ghost is the verb and the force that brings about creation. Whatever the Holy Ghost does is usually known as nature, but it is not nature. Nature is the property of the force of the Holy Ghost. God the Father is only consciousness, but He is the all-knowing entity and witnesses what the Holy Ghost does. The Holy Ghost is only suspended within the all-pervading consciousness of the Father. "And God said, Let there be light and there was light." In the beginning if there is only God, then whom is He commanding to let there be light? Remember when we talked about the primordial ocean of pure consciousness? The Holy Ghost is permitted to super-impose vibrations on the pure consciousness, it is the force that froze the water to make ice. We can say that one part of pure consciousness is directing another part to create as the subject permits the verb to act in the sentence. Now, in our sentence we have the subject and the verb, so the third part of the Trinity is the object. This is the Son. The Holy Ghost is sent forth from the Father, but the Son comes from the Father, and is made of the same material, pure consciousness. The relationship of the son and the Father is the same as between you and your hand as the microcosm is a reflection of the macrocosm. This relationship in consciousness cannot create more consciousness; therefore the goal of the object is to know the subject. The Son and the Father correspond, but they are not equal. The Father is one and is united with everything. This principle of unity is ever active in the Son, but the Son must become aware of it, and become what He was before time. Our minds are just dots in this vast universe of pure consciousness so we cannot grasp it, but must sense this union with everything.

Edited March 29, 2005 by soma

[WindDancer]

aletheia quoted me as saying:

"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."

 

Ah...rewind the tape.

 

I said: "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 don't know who believes what--about God's existence outside the universe.

And I don't care anymore either, so no biggie.

 

I said: "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."

 

This pertains to Clayton's views on God's action. Panta indicated similar views.

[PantaRhea]

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.

 

In your reading did you run across the term "Initial Aim"? If you can get a grasp on this concept, you should be able to get through the vagueness of what God actually does - at least according to Process Theology and the authors you've read.

 

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.

 

No I didn't provide any more comment on prayer. As I mentioned in the message, I thought some general questions needed to be dealt with first before dealing with the question of prayer because it was obvious that there were many hidden assumptions in the answers given by others which needed, in my opinion, to be addressed. I'm kind'a pissed that nobody attempted to answer them.

 

But then, maybe I'm just pissed because my cat died and the emotion spilled onto everything else.

 

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey! I understand! And I can't even use the PMS excuse!!

 

Don

[PantaRhea]

      God the Father is the subject....  This is the Son. The Holy Ghost is sent forth from the Father, but the Son comes from the Father, and is made of the same material, pure consciousness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Soma,

 

You didn't answer my question and I don't think it was all that difficult. In your worldview, how many values exist? If the question doesn't make sense, another way of putting it is, how many subjects exist? Only where there are subjects are there values, and if there is only one subject (God the Father as you suggest) there must be only one value. But the term value is meaningless if there is only a single instance of it, because a value, by definition, is a comparison among a plurality. It is a relational term. Your position as you've described it, is generally labeled "pantheism".

 

I have some fairly strong objections to pantheism because I believe ultimately, if one follows the logical conclusions which must be drawn if pantheism provides an accurate picture of reality, one ends up with an ethic of "IS = OUGHT". Also, our subjective experiences are illusory and false, love has no meaning, life has no ultimate purpose FOR US, and all striving for excellence is futile.

[AletheiaRivers]

Wind,

 

I can't seem to make things ok.

 

I know what your words were in reference to. The reasons there are " ... " between the sentences is to indicate that text was removed from the quote. I do it to save space. I've done it many times before.

 

It was in response to the "I don't know who believes what regarding Gods existence outside the universe" that I listed a nutshell of where I am right now in relation to panentheism and other spiritual ideas. I hoped it would open further dialogue. I guess I should have paid more attention to the "I don't care"part.

 

It was in response to saying that you haven't found anyone else that believes as you do regarding God's intervention in the world that prompted my confusion. I thought we'd had a great conversation on the Heart of Christianity thread.

 

I wasn't trying to take your words out of context. I don't think I said anything to twist them.

 

I'm sorry.

Edited March 29, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[soma]

There is one subject, one value and it is reality. It is and includes the universe, but also transcends it. Creation is not an illusion as stated, but is absolutely real and part of God. God or pure consciusness is in the one and the many.

 

Yes, we can love and can love with even more intesity, if we see God in all things. You will serve family members, co-workers and the needy with love and respect when one thinks God is dwelling in them. "Cloth me when I am naked, Feed me when I am hungry." Love is the key to expand the consciousness to supreme perfection.

 

 

one One ONe ONE

[PantaRhea]

There is one subject, one value and it is reality. It is and includes the universe, but also transcends it. Creation is not an illusion as stated, but is absolutely real and part of God. God or pure consciusness is in the one and the many.

 

Yes, we can love and can love with even more intesity, if we see God in all things. You will serve family members, co-workers and the needy with love and respect when one thinks God is dwelling in them. "Cloth me when I am naked, Feed me when I am hungry." Love is the key to expand the consciousness to supreme perfection.

 

 

one One ONe ONE

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If there is only one subject, what are "we"?

[soma]

God the Father is the subject. The Holy Ghost the verb as stated in the Trinity before. Jesus is the object that is linked to the subject and we are the object that can learn from Jesus to link to the subject. Jesus said, "I and the Father are One."

[PantaRhea]

God the Father is the subject. The Holy Ghost the verb as stated in the Trinity before. Jesus is the object that is linked to the subject and we are the object that can learn from Jesus to link to the subject.  Jesus said, "I and the Father are One."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If I say that "God loves me", and "I love God", what is the "I" and "me"?

[Guest jeep]

God the Father is the subject. The Holy Ghost the verb as stated in the Trinity before. Jesus is the object that is linked to the subject and we are the object that can learn from Jesus to link to the subject.  Jesus said, "I and the Father are One."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Soma:

 

I am not trinitarian, yet I would agree with what you affirm, with the following reservations: John 10:30 is better translated from the Greek as,"What goes for the Father,goes for me too". Unfortunately, my feeling is that Jesus said neither.The book of John, written some 100 years after Jesus'presence on Earth is a cult book IMO. BTW, I understand the cult of John still exists in the hills of Israel/Palestine.

 

Jeep

[FredP]

John 10:30 is better translated from the Greek as,"What goes for the Father,goes for me too". Unfortunately, my feeling is that Jesus said neither.The book of John, written some 100 years after Jesus'presence on Earth is a cult book IMO.

Speaking of cult followings, we have a Jesus Seminar groupie right here.

 

And please take that in good fun, as it was intended!

[darby]

Jeep-

 

I've seen you question parts of the Bible (and now the book of John). I don't mean this rudely, but to understand, what parts of the Bible DO you believe and consider "non-cult" books?

[des]

Well Darby I tend to think the word "cult" is too strong a word. But many non-literalist Bible scholars (perhaps most) do not take John as really being any attempt to describe Jesus' words or actions. Most think that the Gospel of John (which is the latest written one) was written by a follower of the Johnanian (sp?) tradition. Perhaps some of them knew people who knew John. I would argue that that would be quite a powerful thing, to know someone who knew a real disciple. I think a fair way of thinking about the Johnanian tradition would be to call it a sect, rather than a cult, much the way someone is a Methodist or Catholic-- well perhaps not so well organized or institutionalized. For example, the verses often place John as the beloved disciple, where this is not stated elsewhere. Maybe he was... and maybe not. But the sole mention of John as the 'beloved disciple" could be explained by the idea that these folks were actually followers of John (or perhaps more accurately, followers of followers), just as some were followers of Paul, for instance.

 

(Of course I tend not to like the word "cult" anyway, as it is pejorative. And would tend to save the word 'cult' for something like the UFO cults or snake handlers or something quite bizarre, something that 99% of the population would consider really really strange.)

 

I understand you would not agree with this explanation, but this is my effort to at least provide you a window into less literalist thinking, if you are interested.

 

 

--des

[Guest jeep]

Jeep-

 

I've seen you question parts of the Bible (and now the book of John).  I don't mean this rudely, but to understand, what parts of the Bible DO you believe and consider "non-cult" books?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Darby:

 

To answer your question directly I consider John the only cult book. The broader problem is I no longer trust the Bible, although , like Martin Luther,I am certain it contains the wisdom of God, but as one preacher said to me when I asked him "Do you preach the Bible from your pulpit?" His answer was "No, I preach my interpretation of it", and thereby hangs the tale.

 

The Bible is one of the Great Books of the Western Tradition,which I have taught for years, but as the other books in the "Great Books of the Western Tradition" they are just books.

 

Currently, I am studying "A Course in Miracles" which at this juncture IMO is a Great Book on the same subject as the Bible.

 

Jeep

[FredP]

Most historically trustworthy doesn't mean most true, either. While I regard John to be the least "historical" and most theologically "edited" of the Gospels, I also think it's the most spiritually developed and profound of them all, by a long shot. The Prologue (1.1-18 I believe) happens to be my favorite text in the entire Bible.

 

(Sorry, I meant to put this on the main line, not on des's thread.)

Edited March 30, 2005 by FredP

[AletheiaRivers]

Pssst, this is the "main" one. Or am I REALLY missing something?

 

 

Aletheia

Edited March 30, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[earl]

Logic & the intellect can only foster understanding to a certain level, then more intuitive Wisdom must take us the rest of the way-though I love to play with words & concepts myself. I believe (as probably so would Jungians) that symbols attract us from this level of consciousness. To me the perfect symbol & metaphor for panentheism is the ancient Chrisitians' choice of the fish to symbolize them. If we think of "God" as water then we are swimming in God all the time. Like the fish of the sea, water is all aroung them, supports them, even links them to all other creatures. Also, just as living things are molecularly-speaking primarily water, we, too, are "God-stuff," at essence. Take care, Earl

[des]

>FredP,Mar 30 2005, 09:34 AM

Most historically trustworthy doesn't mean most true, either. While I regard John to be the least "historical" and most theologically "edited" of the Gospels, I also think it's the most spiritually developed and profound of them all, by a long shot. The Prologue (1.1-18 I believe) happens to be my favorite text in the entire Bible.

 

 

Well we have had this sort of discussion before. I personally "trust" the Bible (comment on what Jeep said) but I don't think it is all literal. The Bible contains much truth, but not all of it actually happened. I think John is likely to be least historical (differs from the synoptics more than others-- and in many ways contradicts them). I don't think Jesus actually *said* much of what is in John, even to vastly paraphrase him. But there are great truths there. The trouble is, that taken as literal fact, the verses seem to say that Jesus described himself as the only way and the "truth".

 

Yes, in the Beginning is the Word, is very profound. Prob. could mediate on that for years... I understand that people do nothing but study John. Prob. there are worse ways to spend your time. I just don't take it literally.

 

You did put it on the "main line". :-)

>(Sorry, I meant to put this on the main line, not on des's thread.)

 

BTW, I think I misspoke about John being written by John's followers, I think I meant to describe this as followers of followers of followers or something like writing in John's tradition. As such they would rightly be a sect, though I don't think that things were that organized back then.

 

--des

[soma]

If I say that "God loves me", and "I love God", what is the "I" and "me"?

 

 

God loves me. God is the subject and me is the object. I love God. I is the subject and God is the object. The difference is that God's love is complete. He loves me competely because he knows me in my totality. I am within Him so He knows me inside and out. I love God is not a complete subject because I don't know God in His totality, but with Christ as an example when he said, "Let Thy will be done." When we are trying to bring balance in our lives, trying to solve problems, we can get positive results by thinking of Christ and his consciousness. He said, “Lord let thy will be done.” Let pure consciousness flow through my mind in the form of ideas, feelings and insights, and let the divine results appear. I love God in this instance would be a complete subject. Jesus said, "I and the Father are One."This attitude is healthy and much more relaxing than rushing about trying to force people, things and situations our way. God can only do for us what He can do through us, we our just a part of His divine plan. God’s intelligence will work out the details and work through us for our success, if we let Him. Once the ego is set aside, not annilhilated, unity is powerful because it gives us a positive attitude, the sense of peace in the midst of chaos and access to everything that is good. Health, happiness and prosperity come easily to one who knows that God's pure consciousness is operating through him. This person believes that he is not limited by anything that has happened or is happening at the moment, which gives this person the feeling of security and the ability to do anything that needs to be done.

[WindDancer]

Panta (Don) - Thanks for making me laugh. I needed that. I'll google on "Initial Aim" and see what kind of deep blankety blank I can get into.

 

I'd revisit the prayer conversation and answer those questions if you want to dialogue. I agree about the hidden assumptions. I'd like to hear about the hidden assumptions you see there. Maybe I just want people to talk straight and get to the point FIRST and THEN IF it sounds interesting I'll "philosophize" and "intellectualize" it. I'm too tired otherwise.

 

Aletheia - I still like ya. Don't worry about it.

[Cynthia]

I just posted on another thread about being right...

 

If we are all connected to/part of God.... then we are all connected to each other. Godliness will always bring us together; humanness will always divide into us and them. That's the way to tell if you're on the right path.

 

It's so very easy to see us and them... especially in the U.S. right now. Just remember that most people, day to day, are trying to live their lives as best they can. Most spiritual people are trying to do what they perceive as right. The best thing we as progressives and/or liberals can do is to go into discussions with a full awareness of our existence within God. To work diligently at dialogue; to preach the gospel.... with and especially without words.

 

 

It occurs to me that there is a part of me/a force I eperience regularly that does not strike me a being part of God... the drive to do wrong/to exclude/to pride/etc... what does panentheism make of this????

[PantaRhea]

I just googled "initial aim" to see what came up and saw this:

Initial Aim

 

 

 

There is so much confusion and vagueness about panentheism and Process Theology and Alan Anderson's site is (at least it seems to me) probably one of the most complete sources on the internet. Even though he labels it "Process New Thought", it could also be labeled Process Buddhism, or Process Mysticism, or Process Panentheism, depending upon what background you bring to it. I don't see anything in his "Characterization of Process New Thought" that is different from, or in addition to anything in the writings of Harteshorne, Griffin, Suchocki, or other Process Theologians. The differences are in the finer details which would probably bore everybody to death.

 

Anyway, it seems to me that a lot of the confusion can be cleared up if everyone can at least get on the "same page". In the end, there will continue to be disagreement, I'm sure, but isn't it better to have understanding before disagreement?

[PantaRhea]

Soma wrote: "Health, happiness and prosperity come easily to one who knows that God's pure consciousness is operating through him."

 

I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does. When I read this, I get this surreal picture of someone "tip-toeing thru the tulips" blissfully ignoring the gardener in the background weak from hunger, slowly dying from cancer, grieving the loss of his son from a soldier's bullet. Is the gardener failing to let God's pure consciousness operate through him?

 

I think this is related to Cynthia's question: "It occurs to me that there is a part of me/a force I eperience regularly that does not strike me a being part of God... the drive to do wrong/to exclude/to pride/etc... what does panentheism make of this????"

 

The simple answer, from a Process perspective, is that evil exists because the "Initial Aim" from God/dess rarely becomes our "Subjective Aim". The more complicated answer can be found in David Griffin's book, Evil Revisited.

[Guest jeep]

Most historically trustworthy doesn't mean most true, either.  While I regard John to be the least "historical" and most theologically "edited" of the Gospels, I also think it's the most spiritually developed and profound of them all, by a long shot.  The Prologue (1.1-18 I believe) happens to be my favorite text in the entire Bible.

 

(Sorry, I meant to put this on the main line, not on des's thread.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fred P:

I Would agree with you.

Do you know that the first 6 verses of John 1-18 were not written by John. They are actually the words of a popular hymn of the period. While that may not revise the profundity of these verses, isn't it a factor in their interpretation by us today?

 

Jeep

[FredP]

I Would agree with you.

Do you know that the first 6 verses of John 1-18 were not written by John. They are actually the words of a popular hymn of the period. While that may not revise the profundity of these verses, isn't it a factor in their interpretation by us today?

John who? Actually yes, I did know they came from another source, as does the great kenosis hymn in the Epistle to the Phillippians. Another of my favorite texts.