Jump to content
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

The way I 'see' IT B)  what Jesus referenced as 'the Father' is THE Life-Force, or THE Force (for short), It is THAT which 'gives' 'rise' to all BEING (i.e. what Jesus referenced as 'the Son') and and power-fully 'animates' every aspect-'act' of said "Son's" DOING ("The Son can do nothing of himself!" John 5: 19)

Said Force is ubiquitously ensconced 'in' aspect of BEING which being is the 'exterior' expression -- one might say it is the 'outer' 'Creation' -- of said 'Force'. There is nothing 'outside' of said expression. Said expression IS the 'out'side of said ubiquitously ensconced, 'in'side 'Force'.

All aspects of said expression are interconnected -- the 'out"-put thought-feeling-and-action 'doings' of each and every (aspect of) 'being' feeds back (think of an web of interlinked computers) and serves as 'in'put for each and every 'other' and thereby 'feeds back' into 'the Father' in the process. As expressed ;) in the following passage from a piece that I wrote, Jesus knew and proclaimed this. I would therefore argue that his understanding of Life was 'panentheist'ic!

"Jesus’ vision was even more penetrating and far-seeing than even the statement “The Father is in me, and I in him” implies. Presaging that wave-ripples of awareness and spiritual espousal of what he ‘saw’, embraced and articulated would spread and become so mutually validating and reinforcing as to eventually peak in a worldwide crescendo, continuing to [psychospiritually] identify with and so speak in the ‘persona’ of The Entity of all Creation, he then went on to say, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20) Such statement cannot possibly be made sense of using simple, linear A→B→C logic, of course, but how aspects of the identities of personal and transpersonal beings (beingnesses, really) can operationally be ‘in’ one another becomes readily understandable when and as one realizes, as more and more people are now doing, that our existential reality is a matrixially interwoven, dynamically living (that is, creatively growing, developing, evolving, etc.) system wherein the output of every personal and transpersonal component of said system functions as input in relation to any and all other components which, because of constitutional similarities and/or complementary affiliations, are vibrationally ‘attuned’ thereto, such that the process of every singular or compound element thereof, ‘from the least to the greatest’, ultimately directly or indirectly affects and is affected by the process of every other aspect of Life."

"Life" just being another 'label' for the above spoken of (Godly! :)) 'Force', of course!

I am an 'educator' - I think I was born that way - LOL! The idea of everything and everyone being a dynamically interconnected 'element' of a ('motherly'? 'matriarchal'? ) Matrix that is continually being Life-'inseminated' ( :) ) by a ('fatherly') Force strikes me as being more functionally applicable to 'the world' we conjointly expeerience than the idea of everything and everyone just being a boundaried egg-'circle' within a gigantic Womb-'Circle'. My hope is that others will enjoy 'seeing' it that way too!

Woohoo, y'all!

Edited by Davidsun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Davidsun but I find your post confusing.  I can't even contextualize it.

Share this post


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

Thank you, Davidsun but I find your post confusing.  I can't even contextualize it.

I appreciate your attempt to grok my understanding. As a friend of mind  commented, my writing is quite 'dense' (densely 'packed', that is). It certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea.

You may simply have repeat of the same experience, but if you wish to try (again) to 'see' what I 'see', the larger context of the excerpt I shared is available as a 23 page (pdf) essay:

http://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploads/7/7/6/5/7765474/what_jesus_meant-ch1.pdf

Caveat: my intention in offering this link is to be 'helpful', but, given the way my mind works (and consequent writing 'style'), you and/or others might find attempting to read that whole essay even more frustrating.

Edited by Davidsun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Davidsun said:

The way I 'see' IT B)  what Jesus referenced as 'the Father' is THE Life-Force, or THE Force (for short), It is THAT which 'gives' 'rise' to all BEING (i.e. what Jesus referenced as 'the Son') and and power-fully 'animates' every aspect-'act' of said "Son's" DOING ("The Son can do nothing of himself!" John 5: 19)

Said Force is ubiquitously ensconced 'in' aspect of BEING which being is the 'exterior' expression -- one might say it is the 'outer' 'Creation' -- of said 'Force'. There is nothing 'outside' of said expression. Said expression IS the 'out'side of said ubiquitously ensconced, 'in'side 'Force'.

All aspects of said expression are interconnected -- the 'out"-put thought-feeling-and-action 'doings' of each and every (aspect of) 'being' feeds back (think of an web of interlinked computers) and serves as 'in'put for each and every 'other' and thereby 'feeds back' into 'the Father' in the process. As expressed ;) in the following passage from a piece that I wrote, Jesus knew and proclaimed this. I would therefore argue that his understanding of Life was 'panentheist'ic!

"Jesus’ vision was even more penetrating and far-seeing than even the statement “The Father is in me, and I in him” implies. Presaging that wave-ripples of awareness and spiritual espousal of what he ‘saw’, embraced and articulated would spread and become so mutually validating and reinforcing as to eventually peak in a worldwide crescendo, continuing to [psychospiritually] identify with and so speak in the ‘persona’ of The Entity of all Creation, he then went on to say, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” (John 14:20) Such statement cannot possibly be made sense of using simple, linear A→B→C logic, of course, but how aspects of the identities of personal and transpersonal beings (beingnesses, really) can operationally be ‘in’ one another becomes readily understandable when and as one realizes, as more and more people are now doing, that our existential reality is a matrixially interwoven, dynamically living (that is, creatively growing, developing, evolving, etc.) system wherein the output of every personal and transpersonal component of said system functions as input in relation to any and all other components which, because of constitutional similarities and/or complementary affiliations, are vibrationally ‘attuned’ thereto, such that the process of every singular or compound element thereof, ‘from the least to the greatest’, ultimately directly or indirectly affects and is affected by the process of every other aspect of Life."

"Life" just being another 'label' for the above spoken of (Godly! :)) 'Force', of course!

I am an 'educator' - I think I was born that way - LOL! The idea of everything and everyone being a dynamically interconnected 'element' of a ('motherly'? 'matriarchal'? ) Matrix that is continually being Life-'inseminated' ( :) ) by a ('fatherly') Force strikes me as being more functionally applicable to 'the world' we conjointly expeerience than the idea of everything and everyone just being a boundaried egg-'circle' within a gigantic Womb-'Circle'. My hope is that others will enjoy 'seeing' it that way too!

Woohoo, y'all!

Ok, I can, for discussion, accept Life Force or what might traditionally be referred to as "God-in-himself' (and what might also be called Being) and I agree it 'gives rise' to all being -which I would characterize as 'giving rise' to show better the 'continual coming into being' of beings (so to speak). Not sure what reference you are referring to but certainly the Word (the Son?) is the movement of the Life Force (the Godhead) out of itself in creating or is the 'expression' of the Life Force and thus - all being. And, it would follow that Being is omnipresent (for there is not nothing) and indeed it is 'ensconce' for 'It" is in all being, or, better, all being is 'of' It - or is because of IS. And I can agree that being is the expression (of said Life Force) but I would disagree it is merely exterior  or outer (although I get the use of these words) for each seems to suggest that all being is merely the self-expression of the Life Force. Rather, I go with the Christian insight that all being is 'given rise' by that Force/Being (through the Creative Word) yet, in some real way, all ('created') being is truly 'other:' such being is called to express and become its TrueSelf. Thus the 'given rise' or creating, is truly a gratuitous action; it is a grace for the other - and not just self-expression. And I agree there is nothing outside of said expression - if by expression we mean the 'movement' of the Godhead in/as the Word - and thus creation. There is, or seems to be, an inside to outside movement of the LifeForce but the Word of the LifeForce is not spoken for Itself - the Word brings forth something 'new;' this Word, 'let's be.'  As properly understood, creating (as opposed to making) means that the creator is 'in the creation' - yet the creation in some real way is or has its own reality - it is 'other' than the creator.  

Finally, I agree this is panentheism: the world in God or being in Being. But it is not pantheism: the world as (an expression of) God. 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High Five, Thormas! Glad to see (sense?) the convergence in our perspectives/understandings.

 

17 minutes ago, thormas said:

yet the creation in some real way is or has its own reality

 

Given that the 'the Word' concept doesn't compute in my way of thinking, I don't know you will go along with this, but I 'see' (imagine?) a kind of feed-back 'loop' between that which is 'created' (which is 'creative' in own right) and the (originating) 'Creator' - such that the 'Creator' then becomes 'more' or 'different' that it (previously) was as a result of 'creation' continuing to 'fold back' into It.

So, for instance,  I personally image-in the quality-ative 'nature' of 'the Father' (the 'vibe' of the Life-'Force') at the time of the dinosaurs as having been significantly different from It's 'nature' since more caring for their off-spring 'mammals' and 'bird' 'arose'. And, for another instance, I image-in the quality-ative 'nature' of 'the Father' (the 'vibe' of the Life-'Force') before and at the time of Moses to have been significantly different from its 'nature' at and since the time of Jesus's Being.

The way I see It, the 'nature' of 'God' (the 'Creative Nexus of the Life-Force) evolves (to become more and and more 'loving', IMO) as a result of what it 'learns' in the course of expressively living and (so) expeeriencing. Hence the idea of 'the Son' ('creation') feed-back looping and becoming a dynamic aspect of 'the Father' and 'you' and 'me' feed-back looping into said 'Father'-and-'Son' phenomenon - which is what I think Jesus's words "Ye shall know I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." (John 14) were intended to mean.

Of course, there are other ways of  interpreting the same words. In this regard, I personally think of all (any and all 'sets' of) 'ideas' (i.e. meaning-full 'constructs') as basically just being tools, only valuable in terms of the Quality-of-Life augmentative 'uses' to which they can be and so are put.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Davidsun said:

Given that the 'the Word' concept doesn't compute in my way of thinking, I don't know you will go along with this, but I 'see' (imagine?) a kind of feed-back 'loop' between that which is 'created' (which is 'creative' in own right) and the (originating) 'Creator' - such that the 'Creator' then becomes 'more' or 'different' that it (previously) was as a result of 'creation' continuing to 'fold back' into It.

So, for instance,  I personally image-in the quality-ative 'nature' of 'the Father' (the 'vibe' of the Life-'Force') at the time of the dinosaurs as having been significantly different from It's 'nature' since more caring for their off-spring 'mammals' and 'bird' 'arose'. And, for another instance, I image-in the quality-ative 'nature' of 'the Father' (the 'vibe' of the Life-'Force') before and at the time of Moses to have been significantly different from its 'nature' at and since the time of Jesus's Being.

The way I see It, the 'nature' of 'God' (the 'Creative Nexus of the Life-Force) evolves (to become more and and more 'loving', IMO) as a result of what it 'learns' in the course of expressively living and (so) expeeriencing. Hence the idea of 'the Son' ('creation') feed-back looping and becoming a dynamic aspect of 'the Father' and 'you' and 'me' feed-back looping into said 'Father'-and-'Son' phenomenon - which is what I think Jesus's words "Ye shall know I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." (John 14) were intended to mean.

Of course, there are other ways of  interpreting the same words. In this regard, I personally think of all (any and all 'sets' of) 'ideas' (i.e. meaning-full 'constructs') as basically just being tools, only valuable in terms of the Quality-of-Life augmentative 'uses' to which they can be and so are put.

You have hit on a big question: does God 'become?' I wouldn't characterize it as a feed-back loop (sounds too impersonal for me) but I believe I get the idea. I believe that the created, specifically man, must embody or actualize Being/God - so man definitely is capable of change. And I would allow that Being/God changes for if God goes 'out' and takes the 'risk of creation,' things can go either way and one can imagine that 'impacting' God. On the positive side, if the diversity of humanity (of creation) comes into Unity - that is different or more (so to speak) than the GodHead in Itself; it is as Whitehead says a higher form of Beauty. On the other hand, it could go down the tubes and if the highest Beauty is not realized that could be a 'loss' on the part of God. However, I believe that, even if it takes time beyond time, all creation does achieve Beauty.

I get your comments on the dinosaurs, Moses and the time of Jesus - although one could argue that with the the dawn of man, the quality has had its ups and downs since man has brought a new level, a new quality to evil and suffering than was possible for the dinosaurs. It seems that if one buys what (the best of) Christianity has to offer, then one must allow for 'risk' on God's part and for 'vulnerability' if indeed God is Love (for what is love if there is not vulnerability?) - and the Becoming of God. Yet any becoming is 'within' the unchanging(?) essence of what God IS. Contradiction? Paradox? I admit I'm still wrestling with this notion (it continues below).  

Further, I imagine the Word (it does compute for me) that creates is a call to Become - and that is always a going forth not a folding back (semantics perhaps).

I don't see the LifeForce as 'learning' or becoming more loving. Love is Its essence, Love is always creative (see below) -  any becoming is not in the quantity of love but results because of the very nature of Love - of being for the other. The Life Force is always Love - which raises the question: is (was) the LifeForce ever pure Godhead or was there ever not creation? If the LifeForce is Love, does that mean creation always is? Can we really imagine such a LifeForce hoarding Being or is it always 'giving rise?' Doesn't keep me up at night but interesting to ponder over a cup of tea. 

A clarification: for you, is the Son creation or is the 'Son' the Word, the expression of/from the Godhead that creates? I guess, if I think about it, for me the Word is the expressive call of the Father and Son(Daughter) is the destiny of the created as it responds to that Word. In this way, all creation becomes and Is the Son (of Being). Or to put it another way: creation is not yet the Son, it is called to be the Son - or as you said: "Son' ('creation') ...... becoming a dynamic aspect of 'the Father.'" We are (called to be) the Son phenomenon!

Time for more tea.

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


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

... a call to Become - and that is always a going forth not a folding back (semantics perhaps

I 'see' it as an impulse (i.e. in-pulse) to Become, which may be ex-peer-ienced ;)  as a 'call'. Either way, the concept of an 'urge' in this regard applies, I think.

 

Also, I see it (the process) as being both a 'going forth' and a 'folding back'. In the article provided a link to, I wrote:

"Many would rather simply believe that by saying “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Jesus unequivocally asserted that the gestalts of his and his/our Father’s spirits were absolutely identical,i.e. that they were literally one and the same aspect of Life in action; case closed. Such statement may certainly be read that way and, taken by itself, used to support God-concept co-opting narratives such as the one presented in the Nicene Creed [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed] which proclaims that the personage of Jesus was “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made;” etc. But it may also be taken to mean that Jesus thought and felt that his and said Father-God’s spirits were dynamically integrated and functionally co-operational, and so 'united' as ‘one’, metaphorically speaking, in terms of purpose and consequence – analogous to the way in which partners who aren’t identical may accomplish something they both desire when and as they work together in a complementary manner, which they couldn’t and so wouldn’t be able to creatively accomplish if each worked alone. (This is what holism really means, by the way: “Holism is based upon idea that: the whole is more than the sum of its constitutive parts, so reduction of the whole to its constitutive elements eliminates some factors which are present only when a being is seen as a whole. For example, synergy is generated through the interaction of parts but it does not exist if we take parts alone.” [quoted from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Holism)

For those who have reached the point where they are capable of dispassionately pondering such matters, I submit that “The Father is in me, and I in him” (John 10:38) which Jesus added in the same speech-sequence (as “I and my Father are one”) clearly shows the latter understanding to be what he actually meant to communicate. Notwithstanding the meta-truth that every ‘feature’ of Creativity (Life, God, Reality, Being – however you wish to view and reference It) is an inseparably integral aspect of one all-inclusive phenomenon, in light of which any and all conceptual ‘divisions’ which distinguish aspects of It one from another may be seen to really just be navigational aides at best, this saying indicates that Jesus ‘saw’ that there was a dynamic, two-way flow-connection between the primally progenitive soul of ‘the Father’ and the consequentially co generative soul-constellation of ‘the Son’, such that the outflow from one functions as inflow in relation to the other in continuously ongoing outflowinflowad infinitum fashion. (Readers capable of engaging in abstract thought experiments may appreciate the kind of experience an observer walking lengthwise along the seemingly two-sided ‘surface’ of a mobius strip [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Möbius_strip] would have and, if reasonably intelligent, sooner or later grok as analogically ‘explaining’ the never-ending ‘story’ of ever-ongoing FatherSon Creation.)"

Great groovin' (withchoo!) jehosophats, Thormas! :D

P.S. I think 'the urge' ('impulse', 'calling') - which is what I think(?) you mean by 'the Word' - emanates/comes from 'the Father' (the 'Creator') and so is pervasively 'built' 'into'  'the Son' (i.e. 'Creation').  One might say that said 'urge' is 'Creativity' (ITSELF!) 'speaking' (as a 'voice' in one's 'head' - do it, I say DO IT, by Gum! LOL)

Edited by Davidsun

Share this post


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

I 'see' it as an impulse (i.e. in-pulse) to Become, which may be ex-peer-ienced ;)  as a 'call'. Either way, the concept of an 'urge' in this regard applies, I think.

Also, I see it (the process) as being both a 'going forth' and a 'folding back'. In the article provided a link to, I wrote:

"Many would rather simply believe that by saying “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) Jesus unequivocally asserted that the gestalts of his and his/our Father’s spirits were absolutely identical,i.e. that they were literally one and the same aspect of Life in action; case closed. Such statement may certainly be read that way and, taken by itself, used to support God-concept co-opting narratives such as the one presented in the Nicene Creed [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed] which proclaims that the personage of Jesus was “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made;” etc. But it may also be taken to mean that Jesus thought and felt that his and said Father-God’s spirits were dynamically integrated and functionally co-operational, and so 'united' as ‘one’, metaphorically speaking, in terms of purpose and consequence – analogous to the way in which partners who aren’t identical may accomplish something they both desire when and as they work together in a complementary manner, which they couldn’t and so wouldn’t be able to creatively accomplish if each worked alone. (This is what holism really means, by the way: “Holism is based upon idea that: the whole is more than the sum of its constitutive parts, so reduction of the whole to its constitutive elements eliminates some factors which are present only when a being is seen as a whole. For example, synergy is generated through the interaction of parts but it does not exist if we take parts alone.” [quoted from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Holism)

For those who have reached the point where they are capable of dispassionately pondering such matters, I submit that “The Father is in me, and I in him” (John 10:38) which Jesus added in the same speech-sequence (as “I and my Father are one”) clearly shows the latter understanding to be what he actually meant to communicate. Notwithstanding the meta-truth that every ‘feature’ of Creativity (Life, God, Reality, Being – however you wish to view and reference It) is an inseparably integral aspect of one all-inclusive phenomenon, in light of which any and all conceptual ‘divisions’ which distinguish aspects of It one from another may be seen to really just be navigational aides at best, this saying indicates that Jesus ‘saw’ that there was a dynamic, two-way flow-connection between the primally progenitive soul of ‘the Father’ and the consequentially co generative soul-constellation of ‘the Son’, such that the outflow from one functions as inflow in relation to the other in continuously ongoing outflowinflowad infinitum fashion. (Readers capable of engaging in abstract thought experiments may appreciate the kind of experience an observer walking lengthwise along the seemingly two-sided ‘surface’ of a mobius strip [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Möbius_strip] would have and, if reasonably intelligent, sooner or later grok as analogically ‘explaining’ the never-ending ‘story’ of ever-ongoing FatherSon Creation.)"

P.S. I think 'the urge' ('impulse', 'calling') - which is what I think(?) you mean by 'the Word' - emanates/comes from 'the Father' (the 'Creator') and so is pervasively 'built' 'into'  'the Son' (i.e. 'Creation').  One might say that said 'urge' is 'Creativity' (ITSELF!) 'speaking' (as a 'voice' in one's 'head' - do it, I say DO IT, by Gum! LOL)

If the link is the one you provided in response to Burl I will try to get to it but it requires time and a commitment. 

Initially, I see an 'impulse to become' and a 'call to be' somewhat different. I (initially) see the difference as impulse speak to pantheism whereas call speaks to panentheism. The 'impulse' appears to be 'built in' and might speak to your understanding of creation as God's self-expression and becoming. 'Call' appears to be a recognition that there is a gracious-ness afoot: creation is gift and Other (in whom the world is) presents Self and invites response and the coming into the fullness of being (establishment of the Kingdom) for man. 

I will read more carefully but first reaction: John10:38 works because Jesus has responded to the call, thus he and the Father are one: see Jesus, know the Father. This statement is true for Jesus because he has responded: he rejected the temptation of self-centeredness (sin) 'captured' in the imagery of his desert experience; he becomes and is - for others. He 'obeys' (which is a response to the call of Abba) the two great commandments: he loves God by/in his love for others. A call can be rejected whereas an impulse suggests (for me) an automatic becoming which cannot be ignored. History seems to evidence that there is no automatic - man freely rejects the call to Become.

Again first glance. But good stuff!

Share this post


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

Initially, I see an 'impulse to become' and a 'call to be' somewhat different. I (initially) see the difference as impulse speak to pantheism whereas call speaks to panentheism. The 'impulse' appears to be 'built in' and might speak to your understanding of creation as God's self-expression and becoming. 'Call' appears to be a recognition that there is a gracious-ness afoot: creation is gift and Other (in whom the world is) presents Self and invites response and the coming into the fullness of being (establishment of the Kingdom) for man. 

I will read more carefully but first reaction: John10:38 works because Jesus has responded to the call, thus he and the Father are one: see Jesus, know the Father. This statement is true for Jesus because he has responded: he rejected the temptation of self-centeredness (sin) 'captured' in the imagery of his desert experience; he becomes and is - for others. He 'obeys' (which is a response to the call of Abba) the two great commandments: he loves God by/in his love for others. A call can be rejected whereas an impulse suggests (for me) an automatic becoming which cannot be ignored. History seems to evidence that there is no automatic - man freely rejects the call to Become.

Hi-Ho Thormas -

My thought is that I may not be 'seeing' something (a distinctions) that you 'know' and so are 'pointing' to. Or I may just be using and thinking of the meanings of words in ways that differ from the ways you think of and use them. All I can say is that my understanding of 'the impulse' is that it is the same as what you call ;) 'the call'. IMO, said 'impulse' can be and often is denied/rejected as a result of 'narrow'-minded, i.e. 'short'-sighted, 'immediate'-gratification-oriented selfishness which doesn't 'see' or 'feel', i.e. which doesn't really 'know', that it is thereby betraying the intention of the 'greater' cap S Self 'hand' which it is a 'finger' on.

Whatever the case, the difference between us is not important in overall terms, I think - just that one 'way' of 'thinking and feeling' may indeed 'work better' for 'you' while the other 'works better' for 'me'.

Do please download the article and occasionally give it a spot read it here and there in spare moments - no need to 'commit' yourself to a close reading of it in its entirety - just give it the chance to 'grab' your attention - it will if it is going to - and if it doesn't, because we all ultimately have to 'walk' our 'own' walks in any case, that's fine too.

I think, except in cases where souls totally 'cop out' (on) themselves, the 'call' (and/or the 'impulse') will ultimately prevail because, like a bird which ultimately fledges and leaves it egg-nest, 'flying' is in Life's program-'code' (spiritually speaking), again so I think.

IMO, though it may appear that peeps only get there by intending (i.e. proactively choosing) to do so, "Resistance is (ultimately) futile!" in said regard. Though I do think that intention and deliberate choice can and will speed the process along once one has been 'turned around' and so faces and sees what lies ahead in said self-transcending/transcendent direction. I have often jokingly commented that I have been 'kicked bass-ackwards (LOL), despite all my 'moves' to the contrary, into heaven' - which is what you may be referencing a kind of 'grace' dispensation.

The latter two paras, whatever their relevancy of lack thereof to your experience,  are just 'me' sharing thoughts aiming to be provocatively stimulating by loose-lippedly babbling. :) 

Edited by Davidsun

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

×