Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
des

Panentheism 101

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, romansh said:

OK taking this slowly ... did you understand the bubbles in Anderson's blog Analogical Thoughts depicting theism and panentheism?

Whilst we are at it I presume you understand the pantheist bubble in my representation?

Sorry, I was trying to take it slowly for you since you're a bubble guy.

I understand but, as noted, disagree with the set of overlapping bubbles. While the recent bubble (the Rom original), also as noted, looks like a rash especially when set against 'pure' (no rash) panentheism. So, I am disagreeing with all the bubbles because they are either wrong or inexplicable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, thormas said:

I understand but, as noted, disagree with the set of overlapping bubbles. While the recent bubble (the Rom original), also as noted, looks like a rash especially when set against 'pure' (no rash) panentheism. So, I am disagreeing with all the bubbles because they are either wrong or inexplicable. 

So what would the bubble diagram look like for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, romansh said:

So what would the bubble diagram look like for you?

I think bubbles are over (and, thus erroneous) simplifications of complex isms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎03 at 1:49 PM, thormas said:

I think bubbles are over (and, thus erroneous) simplifications of complex isms.

Perhaps ... but your explanations are not working outside of your imagination. And we can start simple and build up a picture. I can do the graphics for you.

Quote

Forget God and try this for now. Love seems to be many things and there is emotion but for now it is best understood as compassionate concern: the same compassion, the same concern that (hopefully) is experienced (given and received) "In our most intimate human relationships - with the lover, with a child, with friends."

The problem here is, in the Ignosticism thread you had God synonymous with Love/Abba. Ignoring Abba for the moment ... I have a good sense of what love is in its various forms, perhaps even extending it to its biological and evolutionary basis.  Now what is Love and how does it differ from love ... answers please on the ignosticism thread?  But in the meantime assuming it is similar to the more mundane love, then this plain vanilla version of love is separate from a good chunk of the universe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, romansh said:

Perhaps ... but your explanations are not working outside of your imagination. And we can start simple and build up a picture. I can do the graphics for you.

The problem here is, in the Ignosticism thread you had God synonymous with Love/Abba. Ignoring Abba for the moment ... I have a good sense of what love is in its various forms, perhaps even extending it to its biological and evolutionary basis.  Now what is Love and how does it differ from love ... answers please on the ignosticism thread?  But in the meantime assuming it is similar to the more mundane love, then this plain vanilla version of love is separate from a good chunk of the universe. 

The explanations are not in my imagination and actually found in contemporary theology. I leave you to do the research and see for yourself. However you do seem to have a bubble fetish. Thanks for the offer but I don't indulge.

You asked me to leave God out of it and give an explanation of 'love.' Then once your request is granted, you bring God back in and ask yet again about love.  Yet you ignored the other explanation that you were after: immanence. Try combining the two but I'm not hopeful as it might take a bit of imagination:+}

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of philosophy is to ask novel and increasingly more complex questions.  Answering life valued questions and reducing them to their lowest common denominator is looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Burl said:

The whole point of philosophy is to ask novel and increasingly more complex questions

It may well be for you Burl. But for me the point is more along the lines:

  • Getting better descriptions and understanding of the way the universe ticks.
  • Providing and honing tools to do this: eg formalized logic, scientific method, and on occasion asking novel and increasingly complex questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

It may well be for you Burl. But for me the point is more along the lines:

  • Getting better descriptions and understanding of the way the universe ticks.
  • Providing and honing tools to do this: eg formalized logic, scientific method, and on occasion asking novel and increasingly complex questions.

Explains a lot.  Philosophy and theology are arts, not sciences.  They are aligned with painting, poetry and music. The goal is to put emotion and experience into form so that it may be shared with others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burl said:

Explains a lot.  Philosophy and theology are arts, not sciences.  They are aligned with painting, poetry and music. The goal is to put emotion and experience into form so that it may be shared with others.

For me they are aligned more with the sciences. In fact natural philosophy spawned science. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×