Jump to content

Panentheism


Recommended Posts

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.

Soma:

You write beautifully, thanks for your post. The Course I am studying, "A Course in Miracles"(Foundation for A Course in Miracles,1999) IMO makes this point explicitly!

 

Jeep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're a twicky one, Soma. Let me try again.

 

Right now, right at this moment when you are reading this, how many experiencing subjects are there? Or, maybe another way of asking, is my experience of the universe different than God's experience? If so, are there at least two experiencers (subjects) or do you still insist that there is only (1)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a twicky one, Soma.  Let me try again.

 

Right now, right at this moment when you are reading this, how many experiencing subjects are there?  Or, maybe another way of asking, is my experience of the universe different than God's experience?  If so, are there at least two experiencers (subjects) or do you still insist that there is only (1)?

PantaRhea:

Can God experience the universe. I can but can God? If He can, then He can be a becoming God IMO. Can we interpret Exodus's "I am that I am" as "I am becoming that I am becoming" I think so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can God experience the universe. I can but can God? If He can, then He can be a becoming God IMO. Can we interpret Exodus's "I am that I am" as "I am becoming that I am becoming" I think so!

Well, I'd be just as careful about saying that process is the primary mode of God's existence, as I'd be about saying that substance is. Certainly, process is a really helpful way of elucidating the universe as the God's free self-manifestation; but an sich (that's for you Kantians out there), God must surely transcend these feeble conceptualizations we struggle to make. For me, the I AM has a deeply mystical sense to it, and I prefer to let it confront me in all its rawness, rather than try to tell it what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been told that a better translation of Exodus 3:14 is:

 

"And ELOHIYM said to Moses: 'I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE' "

 

Hebrew: 'EHEYEH ASHER EHEYEH'. EHEYEH should be translated as 'I will be', not 'I am'.

 

If this is true (any Hebrew scholars out there?), this clearly reflects that the ancient Hebrews conceived God as a God of becoming, not a static unchanging God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a twicky one, Soma.  Let me try again.

 

Right now, right at this moment when you are reading this, how many experiencing subjects are there?  Or, maybe another way of asking, is my experience of the universe different than God's experience?  If so, are there at least two experiencers (subjects) or do you still insist that there is only (1)?

PantaRhea:

Can God experience the universe. I can but can God? If He can, then He can be a becoming God IMO. Can we interpret Exodus's "I am that I am" as "I am becoming that I am becoming" I think so!

 

That's exactly my point, Jeep. I experience the universe and God experiences the universe and you experience the universe. That means that there are at least three subjects, doesn't it?

Edited by PantaRhea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'd be just as careful about saying that process is the primary mode of God's existence, as I'd be about saying that substance is.  Certainly, process is a really helpful way of elucidating the universe as the God's free self-manifestation; but an sich (that's for you Kantians out there), God must surely transcend these feeble conceptualizations we struggle to make.  For me, the I AM has a deeply mystical sense to it, and I prefer to let it confront me in all its rawness, rather than try to tell it what it means.

 

The difference basically boils down to whether we accept Aristotle's concept of God or Jesus'.

 

Either God is love and feels our pain, or God has no awareness of our existence. I don't think it is necessary to be careful about which side of the fence I place my faith.

 

There is a difference between the "mystical" knowing of God and that which we can know by reason. I think we are mistaken if we think theology is useless, that by reason we can't discern that which God is in general terms such as all-loving or all-inclusive. It is the conscious experience of God's essence that we can't capture through reason and which is mystical by nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had to follow up my last post with this from Duane's philosophy text (http://www.processphilosophy.com/text.htm). There are too many really good nuggets which shouldn't be missed in this topic:

 

 

Not only does our personal and social history affect how we conceive divinity, but our concept of God/dess affects how we feel, act and interpret the meaning of life. Living in a country founded on religious freedom, does not mean all religious beliefs and rituals are equally true or valuable. It only means we have agreed not to kill and torture, nor even harass, those who do not believe as we do. Uni, one name for the Goddess whose womb is filled with the universe, inspires actions that are different from Yahweh, the Lord of Hosts, who sees the world as a battleground for testing the worthy.

 

Theism is not illogical, though many formulations of theism are. Religious rituals express much that is nonrational (recall that “nonrational” is not the same as “irrational”), but may also make irrational utterances. To declare God is beyond knowing is to know more than one can know. To say God is apart from the world, is to require an explanation of how they are related. God/dess must be unique but the uniqueness cannot be a “complete difference” or uniqueness of the categories used to understand God/dess. If there were such a “complete difference” between divine and worldly things, we could not know there was, and such a theistic reality would be “completely” irrelevant to us, that is, meaningless.

 

The uniqueness of theism is in the categorical application of the same categories or concepts that underlie all possible explanations: God/dess exhibits metaphysical categories without any qualification. S/he is what the categories mean. For example, God/dess is not beyond knowledge or beyond our ability to know anything about him/er, rather s/he has complete, or unsurpassable knowledge, whereas we are deficient in knowledge. Or again, s/he loves; we love some things, to some degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For businessmen the main purpose of life might be to be efficient and profitable while for the working man it could be to bring home enough money to survive, but the real purpose in life is to attain a consciousness where we are happy in just being alive. How can we stand the tension of feeling happy in just being alive, knowing that we are just earthly mammals while at the same time considering we are one with the whole universe? If we do feel ourselves to be a part of something much greater, how can we keep our feet on the ground? It is very difficult to keep these inner opposites united without going from one extreme into another extreme. We have to work and earn an honest living, and we have to be warm-hearted to our family and friends. We also have to deal with others in the commercial world where jostling and shoving are the rules, but in all these experiences there is an inner life of peaceful enjoyment. This consciousness pervades the body and the mind and can be the center for our relationships in this world where significant realities are interwoven. Each reality pertains to a certain part of the mind and its function in this world. If we look at each part of the mind separately, we can gain an understanding of who we are and our relationships on earth, but God/ess is beyond the mind where everything is united or one. We can realize how we are made in the image and likeness of God by expanding our consciousness seeing ourselves united to the parents who's son was killed in Iraq or doesn't have enough food to feed the children. In duality there is more than one subject, but in God there is only one subject.

"The Kingdom of God is inside you and all around you............ Split a piece of wood and I am there; lift a stone and you will find me." Thomas 3;77

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK guys, humor me for a minute please? I'm hoping my thought will make sense and also be understood for IDEA I'm trying to convey.

 

God is alone. God is all that is. There is no "where" God is not. There is no "thing" for God to relate to. God does not change.

 

God creates/manifests finite beings within Godself. Finite beings always change. (Finite beings are "processes".) Finite beings bring processes to God that God has never "experienced" before. Also, finite beings give God occasion/opportunity to "relate". This finite/infinite relationship brings change to God. God now changes.

 

I know this might be different than most process thought I've come across, but is there room for it? Can this idea incorporate BOTH the possibly necessary BEING-ness of God (as a ground source) and also explain how God BECOMES/CHANGES?

 

When God is alone, God does not change. When God "creates", God changes. If God was to allow finite reality to dissappear, God would no longer change.

 

In my mind there is a balance (as Fred implied) or even an ontoligical necessity for God to be both "substance" (changeless) and "process" (change) depending on whether there is an "other" for God to relate to.

 

Crap I hope some of that made sense. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes a lot of sense, intellectually, Aletheia. I still run into the experience ... I experience God as other... I feel different when I take time to let God in .... I act unlike God when I don't try. My goal is to be one with God; it seems to me that the problem of existence is that I'm not one with God. :blink: Make any sense??????

 

This fits in with the question of evil I asked earlier.... I like the idea of panentheism, but doesn't free will (which most of us seem to agree on) make us separate beings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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????
I still run into the experience ... I experience God as other... I feel different when I take time to let God in .... I act unlike God when I don't try. My goal is to be one with God; it seems to me that the problem of existence is that I'm not one with God.  Make any sense??????

 

This fits in with the question of evil I asked earlier.... I like the idea of panentheism, but doesn't free will (which most of us seem to agree on) make us separate beings?

 

Why do you think that free will would necessitate our being seperate from God? Is it because you're thinking that God's nature would prevent our free will if we were "immersed" in it? Or is it because you're thinking God cannot change?

 

(I had a huge reply that I decided not to post until I asked those questions, just to make sure we were actually discussing the same thing. :D )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had to follow up my last post with this from Duane's philosophy text (http://www.processphilosophy.com/text.htm).  There are too many really good nuggets which shouldn't be missed in this topic:

 

 

Not only does our personal and social history affect how we conceive divinity, but our concept of God/dess affects how we feel, act and interpret the meaning of life. Living in a country founded on religious freedom, does not mean all religious beliefs and rituals are equally true or valuable. It only means we have agreed not to kill and torture, nor even harass, those who do not believe as we do. Uni, one name for the Goddess whose womb is filled with the universe, inspires actions that are different from Yahweh, the Lord of Hosts, who sees the world as a battleground for testing the worthy.

 

Theism is not illogical, though many formulations of theism are. Religious rituals express much that is nonrational (recall that “nonrational” is not the same as “irrational”), but may also make irrational utterances. To declare God is beyond knowing is to know more than one can know. To say God is apart from the world, is to require an explanation of how they are related. God/dess must be unique but the uniqueness cannot be a “complete difference” or uniqueness of the categories used to understand God/dess. If there were such a “complete difference” between divine and worldly things, we could not know there was, and such a theistic reality would be “completely” irrelevant to us, that is, meaningless.

 

The uniqueness of theism is in the categorical application of the same categories or concepts that underlie all possible explanations: God/dess exhibits metaphysical categories without any qualification. S/he is what the categories mean. For example, God/dess is not beyond knowledge or beyond our ability to know anything about him/er, rather s/he has complete, or unsurpassable knowledge, whereas we are deficient in knowledge. Or again, s/he loves; we love some things, to some degree.

PantaRhea:

 

Your language of discourse is not mine, But IMO you are philosophising much like the Jesus who scribed "A Course in Miracles" which was published last year by the Foundation for the Course in Miracles(Viking Penguin,1996). I'm finding the material much clearer than the Bible, and much more useful theologically.

Jeep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes a lot of sense, intellectually, Aletheia.  I still run into the experience ... I experience God as other... I feel different when I take time to let God in .... I act unlike God when I don't try.  My goal is to be one with God; it seems to me that the problem of existence is that I'm not one with God.  :blink:  Make any sense??????

 

This fits in with the question of evil I asked earlier.... I like the idea of panentheism, but doesn't free will (which most of us seem to agree on) make us separate beings?

Cynthia:

IMO the Bible clearly implies our "separation" from God. That's my problem with it. It's a problem because I am convinced we cannot be separated from our creator. Luther was onto this when he wrote his greatest work,"The Bondage Of The Will". Paul Tillich in his book, "The New Being" advanced this idea, and "A Course in Miracles" affirms it.

 

Jeep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think that free will makes us separate from God because, at the simplest level, if we were the same as God how could we have a different will?

 

If I am part of God how can I be unGodly? If God is indwelling in me, as a separate being, then parts of me can be unGodly and parts of me Godly dependent on my choices and behaviors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post has been mostly too deep for me, but I thought I would chime in here. I believe a Christian, after conversion, is a "new creature in Christ." The old has passed away, etc. This all relates to our new identity.

 

However, as Paul talks about, we still have some portion of ourselves that is unredeemed...i.e. the flesh. This is what is at war with our "new spirit," and why we don't always do the things indicative of our new spirit. While there are different thoughts on why God would leave a portion (the flesh) unredeemed after conversion, I think it keeps us from being God, as we are constantly aware of our old sinful nature (and can certainly still sin).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nice stattment re panentheism & its interelationship with Christian mysticism can be found at, (needless to say, also references Eckhart):

http:www/frommin.com/faith/godinall.html

 

Take care, Earl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think that free will makes us separate from God because, at the simplest level, if we were the same as God how could we have a different will?

 

My thought is: "Who says they are different? What if human will IS the same as God's will? - FREE."

 

Can God choose NOT to love? Does God have free will? Is "Will" something that is objectively possitve or negative or is it a neutral state that gives the ABILITY to choose?

 

If God is indwelling in me, as a separate being, then parts of me can be unGodly and parts of me Godly dependent on my choices and behaviors.

 

I'm not quite sure what that means, but it did make me think:

 

1) Are the "parts" of you that are Godly (good) only Godly because God makes it so?

2) Are the "parts" of you in which God does NOT indwell bad because of God's not dwelling there?

3) Wouldn't God's indwelling force God's will upon you DESPITE God being seperate from you?

4) How is it POSSIBLE for God to indwell in humanity and still call humanity SEPERATE? Either way, God is IN creation.

 

These are questions my hubby and I have been pondering too. I'm really enjoying discussing them. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. Aletheia... where you talk about "will" being neutral, I thought of perhaps indwelling God being neutral and allowing choice. Still though, why does a tree not struggle to be a tree? Why do humans struggle with what we are? Is that the origin of species-centric (only people have souls) beliefs??? It seems a better argument for fallen man - separate from God/the rest of creation.

 

I guess to answer your other questions, the indwelling seems different to me from being the same thing/object. Again, a fish in the water vs. all water. The fish can, at it's peril - granted - jump out of the water.

 

Darby - I agree - here's the quote from Roman's 7 that I was also thinking of.

 

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. (7:21-23)

 

Thought-provoking stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aletheia... where you talk about "will" being neutral, I thought of perhaps indwelling God being neutral and allowing choice.
I agree. :)
Still though, why does a tree not struggle to be a tree? Why do humans struggle with what we are?
Because we have free will and trees don't. Trees can't help BUT be trees and so they do it very well. They don't have any other choice. Humans are part of nature (which I think we need to more fully embrace), but at the same time, we are very different. I think that is what the Bible means when it says we are created in God's image: we also have free will, just like God. I think that by making the "right" free will choices, we can become "fully" human, more truly human, more like what God wants us to be, but WON'T FORCE us to be in any way.
It seems a better argument for fallen man - separate from God/the rest of creation.
See, I don't think we are "fallen" (as if we were once better or perfect), but I think we ARE growing. I think the symbolism in Genesis about man's being created in God's image and also the tree and the fruit represents man's finally evolving into sentience with the capability of free will.
I guess to answer your other questions, the indwelling seems different to me from being the same thing/object. Again, a fish in the water vs. all water.
Ahhh! That's where the confusion is coming from! :lol: I don't think panentheism means we are the same "thing/object as God (although I did word things badly on the Christology thread that made it seem that way). I would say that your idea of indwelling is basically the same as my idea of panentheism. God dwells within us. We dwell within God. :D ("All water" would be Monism and Pantheism.)

 

On the Christology thread I tried to clarify my thoughts by "stream of concious-ing" the following:

When I say the universe IS God, I don't mean to imply pantheism. I'm thinking of an analogy of a cell within a body. The cell is IN my body, it is PART of my body, so in a sense it IS me, but I am more than my cell. This is panentheism where the universe "stuff" is made out of God "stuff" (ex Deo?)

 

OR I could look at panetheism from a "mitochondria" point of view, little parasites that exist within me, work for me, and yet are NOT ME. This is panentheism where the universe stuff is not made out of God stuff.. Creation ex nihilo but still within God? Would this be possible?

 

OR How about creation of the universe as consisting of bothGod stuff, plus something new (and I don't mean matter, I mean traits or aspects)?

The last bold sentence is where I'm at in my thought process currently. By "traits" I mean "receptivity." God had to make us capable of receiving, which isn't a "trait" that God would have had, never having been in a "relationship". God was then able to give and because of us, receive. (Please excuse the ethnocentric language.)

 

I believe God created "others" in order to relate (to give and to receive). We add to God and God adds to us.

The soul is part of God. The mind has the potential to separate us from God.
I think our choices move us toward God or can possibly, ultimately, seperate us from God (ala The Great Divorce), but that we will ALWAYS have the ability to move toward God by choice, even from "hell".

 

PS: sorry that was sooooooo long. :P

Edited by AletheiaRivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the fact that we struggle has anything to do with being "fallen", unless by fallen all you are implying is some kind of separation. But even then we aren't really separated until around what might be considered the age of "reason" (though I don't personally consider a 7 year old very reasonable. :-)). But that's just because as you say, Aletheia, we have free will/ choices. By the very nature of being able to make choices we can make wrong ones.

 

The other thing is that we can contemplate our thoughts. This is a good thing in being able to think about things and have ideas, but in terms of living in the moment and just being able to experience our lives (instead of thinking about experiencing them). We can use defense mechanisms like denial or intellectualism. This is good for our emotional health, I think they are just necessary some times. But they do separate us more from the here and now of the universe. My cat is lying on my computer desk right now. He doesn't know that he may have an incurable illness; he doesn't know he is 16-17 which is darn old for a cat. He's just totally comfortable with who he is. I might be worrying about money, something that I need to do, etc etc.

 

The "fall" might represent consciousness. At that pt., you are aware of yourself as separate from everything else.

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I think that free will makes us separate from God because, at the simplest level, if we were the same as God how could we have a different will?

 

If I am part of God how can I be unGodly?  If God is indwelling in me, as a separate being, then parts of me can be unGodly and parts of me Godly dependent on my choices and behaviors.

Cinthia:

To answer your questions, you can have a human will because God gave you free will to choose: your will or God's. But "Nothing real can be attack, nothing unreal can exist. Herein lies the Peace of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here's one from my husband...

 

The soul is part of God.  The mind has the potential to separate us from God.  That starts to make sense.... anybody???

cynthia:

 

It makes a lot of sense to me. The mind has the potential to be split on the issue of what is real and what is not, and thus to separate us from God.IMO God is real, man's ego is not. Virtual reality is not reality, and we are here to make decisions which are expressions of our creator. Living by invented realities is dangerous.

 

Jeep

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