AletheiaRivers

Fred, Here is another link you might enjoy: Wildman's Kantian Skepticism on Center4Process.org

Here's a new one. It's not even close to being Christian or religious in any way, but I liked it. Bumper Butt

Sigh. I love Thich Nhat Han. I haven't read this book, but now I'm going to. Curlytop, your posts are so heartfelt and beautifully written, they almost make me cry. Thank you for sharing so deeply.

I'll be here. I'm philosophically frazzled right now, but am looking forward to reading and perhaps asking questions.

Yeah, I thought I coined the term "Duality in Unity". LOL! Just when you think you're being all creative and original ... "Dialectic Monism" on the Universal Dialectic Webpage means the same thing as far as I can tell. (I don't mean the same thing as PP, but what YOU said: dual aspect monism.) I imagine that "dual aspect monism" (aka qualified monism, dialectic monism) is actually the same as "holistic dualism" (aka qualified dualism, unified dualism).

Fred, For the heck of it I did a search on Richard Swineburn and John Cobb. I found a book review. The book is basically a debate between classical and neo-classical philosophy and theology. Here is the book!

Actually, driving to my parents house on Saturday, I was talking to my husband about you (Lolly) and how I needed to ask you how hard it was to learn the "Episcopalian routine". I have stage fright! How long did it take you to learn the "sit, stand, kneel, repeat after me" stuff? Is it easy? User friendly? How are things set up to teach the process to visitors? Also, for baptism, is there any sort of catechism or classes to pass? Do I have to stand and repeat the creeds by heart in front of the whole group?

Doh! Sorry. Your question was obvious. I'm just brain dead today. I was basically raised agnostic or nominal Christian. I never attended church really. I went to the LDS church every once in a while with one of my sisters. So in that way I was raised pretty "progressive", meaning un-indoctrinated. I indoctrinated myself when I was 20 as a JW. LOL! Then I un-indoctrinated myself about 10 years later with the help of the internet. Gotta love those ex-JW websights. Utah is getting better. The Olympics of 2002 brought in the non-Mormons and the mountains and skiing persuaded many of them to stay. Whoo hoo!

No, I think you are right. Unity is different from CS in many good ways. Probably the only thing I've come across in Unity thought that "bugs" me, is the Monism/Pantheism focus. However, having never attended a Unity church, I don't know how much of a part it truly plays in their overall theology.

According to the websight I'd have to go out of state to attend. LOL! It is for that reason that I've considered the Episcopal church. I like ritual and liturgy much more than I like sermons and Bible stories. Whatever happened with me? About what?

LOL! The board is scattery isn't it? I'd hoped the "Hybrid" thread would include discussions about Centering Prayer compared to other forms of meditation, which would then grow to include Mysticism (which goes hand in hand with meditation imo).

We have one ex Christian Scientist on the board, which shares the same roots as Unity. We also have another member (whom I have not seen for a while) who is/was also a Christian Scientist. A nice thread on New Thought churches can be found here: New Thought Thread

If you and Panta wish to continue the Process Philosophy/Theology discussion, I might pipe in now and again, but I've kinda run out of steam. I'm enjoying the conversation, but alas, do not feel I'm contributing much worth commenting on at this time.

Curlytop, Thank you for piping in the way you do about progressive Catholicism and Catholicism in general. I've always been attracted to Catholicism because of its rich mystical heritage. I've thought about attending a service (mass?) on a Sunday, but don't know if the Catholic churches here are conservative, moderate or liberal. Utahn's tend to do everything conservatively.

For this thought put to one of the most beautiful lullabies I've ever heard, see my reply to Fred's thread on song lyrics: Song Lyrics - When You Dream LOL! Thomas Moore, my Jungian psychologist, ex-monk hero, used my nick name in an article I read in Parabola magazine a couple years ago. Aletheia means un-covering or un-forgetting of that which we actually know: divinity. As far as changing the subject, I like it too. I love mysticism. I'd hoped the Christian "hybrids" thread would go more deeply into that, but it died.

Hi Joker, welcome to the board. I get the impression that the other two panentheism threads have died, which is perhaps for the best at this point. I do not have any formal education past the high school level. I've never taken classes in theology or philosophy. Everything I know (or think I know) I've learned through reading. Anything I don't understand, I "google and google and google." Anyway, is there something particular regarding panentheism you like to talk about?

This brings to mind the question: WHY did Jesus tell the Jews of his day not to divorce except on the grounds of adultery?

I've reread the article a couple of times. Perhaps I'm not getting the deeper meaning behind Wallis' words. What I take away from the article is this: Although not agreeing with the Pope on EVERYTHING, he admired the Popes consistency. The Pope didn't condemn abortion and then support war. Life is life is life. The fundamentalist right, as a whole, is not consistent. Falwell, Robertson, etc ... condemn abortion, but support war and capital punishment. For them, life is not life is not life. I don't agree with Wallis that Shiavo was "severely mentally disabled but was not dying", but I see his point that those who were so vociferously defending her right to live probably don't defend the rights of children and civilians in Iraq to live. I guess a good question would be: "Does the New Testament teach a consistent morality?" Des has started another thread where this question might be addressed.

That would be cool. There are definitely some Open Theism things that bug me. I think I'm closer to Open Theism than Process because of some of my disagreements about Process, but perhaps Clayton will clear those up and provide me with a third option: Process, but tweaked. I agree. I know better now. I thought OV was so close to Process that you HAD to be a panentheist to be OV. After I read some of Polkinghorne's stuff though, I realized that is not necessary. Polkinghorne is OV, but NOT a panentheist. Monism is (as Panta would say) twicky stuff. I'm not a Monist in the classical sense. I don't think that all of REALITY is Monistic, because that would mean there is NO US, just God, having a God "dream", experiencing finite reality. However, the dialectical monism webpage (imo) does a very good job of explaining the "duality in unity" of the Tao. I'd love to discuss it further.

On the other thread, where you mentioned the Ontological Principle, I replied with this: Yes, I did skim it. But if I misunderstood, I wish you would have pointed out, based on my reply, that I still wasn't understanding, or that I was mixing up Principle and Argument. Looking up Ontological principle, I find Ockham's razor:

The "grasped in a single act of perception" bit helps alot. Thanks.

I'll admit - today is my "frustration day". It doesn't help that I totally feel like CRAP today. I've enjoyed the conversation. I wish it could have remained a little more amicable in spots, but that's just me. I don't feel the need to have all the final answers. As I've said, I'm perfectly willing and satisfied to let God, ULTIMATELY, remain a mystery.

I think this is what I was attempting to get across in my post regarding God being infinite and actualizing the finite. I should have followed that with saying that = God being finite and actualizing the infinite. MUTUAL NECESSITY. A synthesis. I know I used the word synthesis. I'm going to go back to that post ... Why is it an oxymoron? I think it's a clever way of saying that there is ONE GOD with TWO POLES. Remember on the Heart of Christianity thread, when I said: "However, it's not just the struggle of opposites that is the point, but that these opposites are actually ONE THING, not two. Yin/Yang is ONE THING (the circle), within which the polarities swirl and blend and are always changing." You said: "This is one of the best description of God/dess as understood by process thought that I've seen. God is BOTH infinite and finite, absolute and relative, personal and impersonal..." One yin/yang = monism Swirling polarities = dialectical (creating a new synthesis) I can conceive of God as being a perfect pink unicorn. I think that to be considered perfect (which the ontological argument depends upon), God must necessarily be a pink unicorn. Does my conceiving of God as such bring this unicorn God into existence? (I know this is a ridiculous example with flaws, but I don't believe in God because of the Ontological argument. I believe in God despite the Ontological argument.) And it not having any history in philosophy means what really? Philosophy is about PEOPLE asking the big questions and working out answers. Did every idea Whitehead or Hartshorne discussed ALREADY exist in philosphical history? Don't some process philosophers put Creativity BACK into God?

ROFLMAO! Mmmmm, spicy tuna rolls. I guess I just don't see the difference. What does "causal realm in its totality" mean? What does God have knowledge of except of "himself" and all universes or possible universes (that might exist as ideas in God's mind)? I can imagine God's "stepping outside time" and looking at the universe. I think what God would see is the universe as it exists RIGHT NOW, in its "Isness": Events, change, people "becoming". I'm really trying to understand what you are saying! I promise! PS: I wasn't really planning on getting sushi today, but now I am. What does that mean I wonder? (Just kidding. ... On the "what does it mean" thing, not on the "getting sushi" part. )

OK, I get that. I said earlier in the thread, somewhat retracting what I had said prior to that, that I get the idea that God's consequent/concrete pole not having a beginning because God didn't have a beginning. I even tried to show that I GET THAT, by pointing to the dialectical monism page which itself says that God, as "potential" ALWAYS had a finite pole because if not, God wouldn't be "potential". THEY AROSE SIMULTANEOUSLY - so to speak (because I KNOW God didn't "arise".) I think language and metaphors are being picked apart in this thread to the detriment of dialog. I, like Cynthia, am truly to the point of GIVING UP!