AletheiaRivers

Hehehehe ! Ditto to that for me as well, always.

Earl: I really like that websight. BroRog mentioned it on one of the threads discussing panentheism as well. I especially appreciate the following quote: I constantly wage war with myself regarding this. I latch onto a theory of reality/God as being "the most true". Then I experience God in a different way and realize that God is MORE than that which I reasoned She must be. I also really like this quote:

PPPPPPPSSSSSSS : In reading and re-reading and re-reading Stanfords Online Philosophical Encyclopedia article on Process Theism, I can honestly say that I agree with 99% of what I read. However, what I seem to disagree with are points that might be HUGE and irreconcilable. Perhaps I can come to agree with the other 1% in time? I'm not sure. I don't think what I've got rattling around in my brain is actually at ODDS with Process Theism, but I do wonder if YOU presuppose that what is going on in my head is at odds with Process Theism? Perhaps we could agree that I believe Process thought to be correct and you could help me clarify a few things? I don't have any desire to "challenge your premises". I would like to exchange ideas and discuss, but I'm not interested in debate.

PS: I understand the logical necessity of "creativity requiring creation". However, I do get frustrated when the conversation ends up consisting of logical versus illogical arguments about God's nature. I'm willing to allow that God's nature is BEYOND that which we can conceive. Process doesn't seem willing to allow this. Heck, philosophy in general doesn't seem willing to allow this. I can say, after all the logical arguments and suppositions, in the spirit of Via Negativa, that God is ALSO NOT what we have argued/reasoned God to be. Logical contradiction? Maybe. I think this was what Fred meant when he said he'd be just as careful about saying that process is the primary mode of God's existence, as he would about saying substance is. God is this and God is that, but "Neti, Neti", not this, not that. I think this is why I'm a mystic at heart (although you'd never know it based on the conversations I have had here ). Most times mysticism and philosophical reasonings support each other. Sometimes they contradict each other. At those times of contradiction I don't think it's illogical to say of God, that God MIGHT be both. PPS: I don't believe that God, if he existed alone, and THEN created, would BE the same being he was before he created and ALSO a new being. I intended my "creation story" to relate the idea of SYNTHESIS.

This sounds a little like the reasoning used to "prove" that the perfection of God also means God cannot change because perfection, by it's very definition (it's property), means that one can not get more or less perfect because that means one was not PERFECTLY perfect to start with. Perfection = no change. I KNOW this is a theological mistake and I agree. However, like Cynthia said, just because God might WANT to create doesn't mean he HAS TO. I don't see how the "trait" of creativity necessitates "creating" anymore than the trait of "perfection" necessitates no change.

I agree. 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. 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. Ahhh! That's where the confusion is coming from! 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. ("All water" would be Monism and Pantheism.) On the Christology thread I tried to clarify my thoughts by "stream of concious-ing" the following: 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. 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.

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? 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.

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. )

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.

LOL! Between the "circle in a circle" part and the "umbrella" part, I'm beginning to think I subconciously memorized the book and am selectively remembering parts of it as I go along. And we're back (basically) to the original questions I asked on the other panentheism thread. Panentheism means "us in God and God in us, but God is also more than us." (Non-philosophical speak.) Outside that, I guess one could have different views about: >whether God is "substance" or not (Process vs ?) >whether God can intervene but wont or whether God CAN'T intervene or whether God intervenes all the time in some way (Process vs Open vs Interventionist) >whether God can only exist if A universe exists or if God can exist all by Godself without any manifested/created universe or finite reality (Process vs ?) I'd be interested in finding out the difference between dialectical and dipolar (I would have thought they were the same?)

The infinite is unfolding as the finite >> The finite changes >> Time is change >> The finite IS time. Thank you Earl. I got goosebumps.

LOL! We all posted within 1 minute of each other (or less). Panta and I basically said the same thing. Hi Darby! I swear it wasn't a conspiracy!

It is true that I call "Crap!" based upon my own beliefs. However, I only do so regarding dogma that automatically seperates someone from God's love based solely on the fact that they are not CHRISTIAN. Different Christian groups have varying levels of exclusivity and salvation teachings. JW's, for example, basically say that if you are not a JW and armeggedon comes, you're gonna die. That means babies too, simply because their parents are not JW's. I appreciate that that is one motivating factor for preaching. My issue is not with that. My issue is with the DOGMA that leads to such negative thinking in the first place. I guess it comes down to conservatives and liberals being (hopefully) able to meet in the middle regarding dogma and Biblical interpretation. From reading Generous Orthodoxy, I believe that is possible. A post-liberal, post-conservative theology that will eventually transcend the need for labels.

I didn't think you were picking on me Don. I get frustrated at MYSELF because I wish I could put into words what I feel or see in my head. I don't LIKE to get frustrated at myself. It's counter-productive for ME, as an individual. I have a tendency to beat myself up. I need to re-read The God We Never Knew. I can't remember Borg's using the circle/circle analogy, but am gladdened that he does. It's been about 6 years since I've read that book. (There are so many books I want to read for the FIRST time, I don't know when I'll be able to go back and REREAD any. )

It's really awesome having you here Lily. You write so beautifully and have helped me look at some things in a new light, which I've really needed. It's very easy to become discouraged as a "progressive/liberal" Christian.

I know when I first came online here, I threw you by stating that I was a "Panentheistic Perennialist". Of course, I meant perennialist the way I defined it below, so I didn't know there was a conflict. LOL! I haven't read much of Ken Wilber except online. I don't know what book to start with. I know he has a view towards "Natural Mysticism" that has me a bit confused. He considers it to be down low on his, umm, what does he call it? It's a spirally thingy. I don't know if he and I define Natural (Nature) Mysticism the same way though. For me, when I say Nature Mysticism, I mean that nothing connects me to the Divine more than nature: Not meditation, not liturgy, not prayer, not church. I also mean nature mysticism in that when I look at, say, a dragonfly, I can see the Transcendant within it. I know that the Infinite is contained within that little tiny finite life form. As Thomas Merton said, God is all around us, but people just don't see it. I do see it and see it best through nature. Does Ken Wilber consider Natural Mysticism too Kataphatic I wonder? Getting weird?

Is it just me, or does the quote from "The Status of the World" seem to be interchangeing the words "mysticism" and "perennial" as if they are one and the same thing? Everytime the article uses the word "mysticism" it should have used the word "perennial". As you rightly pointed out, Panta, one could be a classic perennialist AND be a mystic, but just because someone is a mystic doesn't mean they are a classic perennialist. Matthew Fox, for example, defines mysticism as necessarily panentheistic which would be a 180 from classic perennialism. When I first came on this board I used the term perennial without having a complete definition of the word. To me it meant the "common truths" found in all religions, but I had no idea that it also represented an ontology (let alone a hiearchical ontology). I appreciate that Ken Wilber, in his "Neo-Perennialism" keeps the meaning of the word (that I originally thought was the definition), but does away with the static hiearchical view that classic perennialism espoused. In fact, I think it might have been Ken Wilber's definition that I was first introduced to, which is part of what caused the confusion, because I didn't know there was any other one. Here is the Ken Wilber interview.

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

PS: Ah ha! Exactly! If God decided to create space outside himself (like classical theism says), how would you imagine it would happen? I don't want to write more, because I think to do so would obscure my idea.

Des, You didn't say or do anything to upset me. No worries. As for the waving icon, I should have qualified the statement: An icon with a hand that is beside the face, but that DOENS'T MOVE in any way. LOL! BroRog: An ameoba is appropriate to what I was trying to say with the "leaky circle" comment. Permeable boundaries. Thank you. When I pray I am going to have a HARD time getting that amoeba visual out of my mind! Cynthia: Hehehe. I used the word mitochondria in the Christology thread (I think) to ponder the difference between creation out of God "stuff" (a cell) or creation Ex Nihilo (a mitochondria). Too cool you mentioned it here.

In the Hebrew scriptures, the KJV translates the Hebrew word Sheol as hell and grave and pit. (It uses the word "hell" whenever the context seems to be implying damnation. It uses the word "grave" whenever the context does NOT seem to be implying damnation. Job prayed to go to Sheol during his suffering. Why? I would think finite suffering would be preferable to eternal suffering (if that's what sheol is.)) In the Christian Scriptures, the KJV translates Hades (greek for Sheol) as hell. It translates Gehenna as hell. It translates Tartaros as hell. LOL! If we retranslate Sheol as Sheol and Hades as Hades (which are NOT a place of damnation) and Tartarus as Tartarus (which is only referred to once, in referrence to fallen angels), that still leaves Gehenna, which can be found 12 times in the NT. I know what I think Gehenna was supposed to mean, but that belief is a left over of JW theology. Whether it's an actual place of torment or a state of nothingness or an eternal seperation, as Darby said, it's BAD.

I won't comment on your panentheism "definition" other than to say that I like it, can grasp it and appreciate it. That's awesome! In various places on the board I've mentioned that there's "no such thing as time". I've never adequately been able to put into words what I mean by that, but what you've said comes pretty damn close. You're right, language doesn't do it justice, but from time to time I can grasp it intuitively quite well.

Thanks for the well wishes and support guys. I'm not going anywhere, but more than likely won't be participating as much. We'll see. I'm a chatterbox and staying away could be more than I could handle. God gills! I love it!

I had a lengthy and well thought out reply regarding my use of the circle and fish analogies, but I've decided for the moment not to post it. The past few days have been hard ones for me both on this board and in my personal life. I imagine it's time for me to take a break because I can't help but think I'm not communicating very clearly.

Cynthia. Hi! (I wish there was a "waving" emoticon.) I am truly flabergasted when I talk to those who don't believe in God and the reason, they say, is that there is no proof. Sure there's room for doubt. As I mentioned earlier, I think that is necessary, but I also (like you) think there is proof all over the place. Interconnectedness is probably a better definition of what I believe as well. All life co-creates with God just by nature of the relationship of the universe to God (panentheism). I agree about other species doing a better job at being what they are. I know my cats are better at doing what cats do then I am at doing what a human is supposed to do.