AletheiaRivers

Wind, I can't seem to make things ok. I know what your words were in reference to. The reasons there are " ... " between the sentences is to indicate that text was removed from the quote. I do it to save space. I've done it many times before. It was in response to the "I don't know who believes what regarding Gods existence outside the universe" that I listed a nutshell of where I am right now in relation to panentheism and other spiritual ideas. I hoped it would open further dialogue. I guess I should have paid more attention to the "I don't care"part. It was in response to saying that you haven't found anyone else that believes as you do regarding God's intervention in the world that prompted my confusion. I thought we'd had a great conversation on the Heart of Christianity thread. I wasn't trying to take your words out of context. I don't think I said anything to twist them. I'm sorry.

I knew you didn't mean an old man in the sky, but if only subconciously, most Christians do have that view/idea. I brought it up because, if you read the webpages that argue against panentheism, one of the arguments they use is that a panentheistic God ISN'T PERSONAL. I think to myself "Really?" how much more personal can you get? As far as God knowing all there is to know about us? I'd say yes. Everything that can be known. That doesn't include a knowledge of the future as if the future has already happened and God can just look at it. This is my opinion of course. As far as wondering why God didn't step in to stop the Holocaust or the Tsunami? It's hard for me to put my views into words without coming across as callous, but I'll try. Sorry if it's going to far off topic, but I think it's applicable to your original 5 questions. My first thought is - Why do we consider it important for God to step in and prevent the deaths of LARGE amounts of people, but we don't get as equally worked up over just one death? Why is it the QUANTITY of deaths, all at once, that is important? Over a period of months as many people die of every cause as happened in the tsunami. Why wouldn't it be just as important for God to step in and prevent every one of those deaths as well? If God is going to prevent the MASS deaths of people then he needs to prevent EVERY death, every minute of every day, because the life of a single person dying in a car accident is just as important as one dying in a tsuanami. My second thought is - What would have been the long term consequence of God stepping in and stopping the holocaust? The saving of life would have been WONDERFUL. However, after that, what? I would think it would be obvious that it was divine intervention that stopped the Holocaust. With the tsunami, I imagine God could have done it in a way that it would seem natural, but the Holocaust? It would have been obvious that it was a "miracle". So now people KNOW without a doubt that there is a God. They have NO CHOICE but to believe. People would no longer be FREE to believe otherwise. How would people start to act if they absolutely knew that God was "watching" their every move? (Not that God would do that.) I would think at first everything would be fine. As time went on however, I think humanity might start to feel a little, well, "stalked" is the word that comes to mind. We know God's there, watching, but we still can't see Him. Would people choose to do good because they wanted to or would they choose to do good because they felt they HAD to? If you do something because you feel you HAVE to, are you truly doing it of your own free will? I've heard so many ex-Christians say "I'll worship God as soon as he gives me proof he exists." I used to feel the same way. Now I believe that for God to do so would be a BAD thing. I think God wants sentient life to grow in love and to make this and every planet a "paradise". At that time we will have the "Kingdom of Heaven" on earth. But we have to WANT to do this FREELY and we mostly (not completely) have to do it on our own.

That's kinda funny, because I thought you and I were closer to being on the same page than others regarding Gods power, relationship and how God acts on the world. If I had to pigeon hole my beliefs I guess I would say: 1) I am a panentheist. I believe that this and all possible universes exist within God's Being. 2) I am dipolar. I view God as a being that contains all polarities. I believe this makes God a "neutral" being with free will. 3) I am an Open or Free Will theist. I believe that free will is the very foundation of our reality. I believe free will is the greatest good. Free will is more important from an infinite perspective than anything God could do to intervene and fix our problems. I would go one step further and say that God doesn't intervene in human affairs because to do so would TAKE AWAY our free will. I believe God COULD intervene. I believe that God COULD make us robots incapable of doing evil. I believe God has the power to do so. BUT - I believe God won't (not can't). 4) I believe God uses PERSUASIVE power to nudge us in the direction of love, because that is what is right and is what will make us happy. I believe that Jesus was one such "nudge". 5) I believe we can "tap into" divine power and "use" it for self transformation and by that transform the world. We can call that divine power "the Force" (ala Star Wars), we could call it "Holy Spirit" (ala the Bible) or we could call it "magic" (ala witchcraft). I could go on and on, but I won't. Perhaps I did take your comments too personally yesterday, but I was quite floored by them. I was under the impression that everything was cool and then I come back from being gone all day yesterday to find there are 1/2 dozen replies to the thread and that all is not copacetic. I'm truly sorry if I have done anything to alienate you or to contribute to your crankiness and frustration.

Panentheism is not that GOD is IN everything, it's that EVERYTHING is IN God. Think of a great big circle. That's God. Now think of an itty bitty circle inside of the big circle. That's us and everything else. Of course, it's not that simple, not that cut and dry. For example God (the big circle) "seeps into" the universe (the little circle). 1 - I believe that our relationship to God is panetheistic. 2 - A panentheistic God would be more personal than an "old man in the sky sitting completely outside the universe" God, because IN a panentheist God we live and move and have our being. 3 - Yes AND No. Yes, in that God is transcendant (and so is more than the universe or is also outside the universe) and no in that God is immanent (we live inside God like a fish in the ocean. God surrounds us and permeates us). 4 - I think co-creation is intrinsic in a panentheist God because if we exist inside of God then all we do helps co-create. 5 - To relate. To give and to receive. To love and to receive love. Etc ... PS - I think these questions would have fit nicely in the other thread on panentheism. The only reason that thread moved over to discussing process theology was because of my initial question.

Soma, I'm not sure, but I think what Panta is asking is whether you believe that we are "independent" entities RELATING to God or are WE God? Is God in a "give and take" with US? or Is God in a "give and take" with himself? You mentioned in another thread that this is the Matrix. Do you believe then that all that we see is Maya? Illusion? God having a dream? Or did God "create" the universe in order to RELATE? One view is what is called "Idealistic Monism" the other is "Dialectic (Dipolar) Monism." You might like to read the ideas here: Dialectic Monism

From some websights I've read I got the impression that Process Theology and Dipolar Theism are synonyms. However, from the Meta webpage I got the impression that you CAN be a Dipolar Theist but not be a "full fledged" Process Theist. When I read that I felt the need to say "Hey, I was wrong about the two terms being completely interchangeable." I appreciate that some feel that because God does not intervene "supernaturally" in the world that God must then be viewed from a Deistic perspective. I personally do not feel that way. I don't think that the belief that God COULD intervene "supernaturally" if God chose to do so is an inconsistent stance to take. It's also dependent upon how someone defines the term "supernatural". Most theologians define it to mean the "old man in the sky" who sits outside the universe, outside time, who watches everything and decides from time to time to "zap" the planet with supernatural miraculous divine intervention. I don't think that has to be the only definition of "supernatural". Like Des said, anything outside of the "natural" universe is "supra" natural. IMO, the transcendant mind of God could be said to be "outside the natural". Again, I don't think a modified Process Theology (aka Open View) makes naturalism and theism enemies. For me it solves some of the metaphysical wranglings I have regarding God's power (which seems to be different than what Process says) and God's necessary existence and ability to exist even if absolutely no universe or any other sentient life existed anywhere in any dimension (which seems to be different that what Process says). I'm willing to say that I hold this view because I'm just not "getting" the full picture of Process Theology. It's possible, with there being so many schools and views of Process Theology that I might completely agree with one of them.

I certainly didn't mean to imply with my first statement: "I don't think open theism and panentheism are on a "line" where you are more one than the other. Like process philosphy fits within the umbrella of panentheism, so does open view." that that's the ONLY WAY open theism and panentheism ARE. I said "I don't THINK ..." Meaning I'M NOT SURE. In making the second comment: "I imagine you could have an open view of God and not be a panentheist." I was actually replying to something Des had said, trying to reassure her that she doesn't have to have a phD to be in on the conversation. What she said made me rethink about being an open theist but not a panentheist and so I said "I IMAGINE YOU COULD". I didn't think this was a debate, but I will formally retract my previous statement as I did earlier in this thread regarding my equating process thought as a synonym for dipolar theism. I started this thread because I was (and still am) confused and because you guys are the ones I like to turn to for help. I was really enjoying this thread. I'm so sad that others are not.

Oops. Bad sentence structure again. Dang me! I meant that I like many of the ideas that have been put forth as to what the word Christ means. I like 1) The idea put forth by Matthew Fox about the Cosmic Christ. I like 2) The idea that earl mentioned that Christ could mean the potentiality that exists within all of us. Two different ideas. LOL.

I think that's the point. The person is saying that there is nothing in science to say or not say that electrons are events rather than entities. I think the person is saying that science does not prove Whitehead, but it does not disprove him either. I don't agree with the radical duality as espoused by Descartes, but neither do I necessarily believe that, if a seperate spiritual realm does exist, it might not be able to influence the material world. Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it impossible. Thank you for the quote from Davies. I no longer own the book. I remember coming away from the book with the impression that Davies believes in "God" and that evidence for God's existence can be found in the natural world. Also, the universe organizes towards the evolution of conscious beings with minds.

Oh boy. Whew! Ummm. Okay, let's see ... I probably shouldn't have said that because I'm really not sure. I guess because I too feel God/dess is a "metaphysical exception". I'm willing to let God/dess remain a bit of a mystery. If that means God/dess gets to break the rules, so be it. I can conceive of the universe existing within God/dess and also conceive that God/dess could "reach in" if you will, and influence the universe supernaturally, if she so wished. I believe she does not because free will is the greatest good for sentient life. That's what I meant. That is where I knew we would diverge. I guess at this point I have not embraced reality as events and not substance. I will look into Paul Davies. I love that man! The Mind of God was one of my favorite books. I would imagine that you wouldn't agree with this quote: Note that the process scheme is neither consistent nor inconsistent with experimental observations - it does not of itself give rise to any empirically testable proposals. Nothing in science attributes any sort of subjectivity to an entity like an electron, nor is such a postulate anywhere supported by experiment. Whitehead’s scheme is true ‘meta’-physics. It is sometimes supposed that because Whitehead formulated his metaphysics at the time of the great developments in physics known as the second quantum revolution [The Schr?ger Wave Equation was published in 1926, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in 1927] and because both process thought and quantum theory require a somewhat unusual way of looking at the world, that therefore process schemes are particularly compatible with the new physics. But see Polkinghorne, J, Science and Christian Belief (London: SPCK, 1994) pp22-3 against this view. I can't be sure, but I think that was me. I can imagine a relationship between God/dess and the universe where we exist within God/dess (in a "bubble" if you will). That which is within changes, but God/dess's essential nature does not. What changes within God/dess gives God/dess "experiences" but if all universes within God/dess dissappeared, God/dess would not. I totally appreciate our conversations. I worry about frustrating you. It could be that I'll come to embrace process theism someday, with perhaps a few modifications.

Hmmm. The word Christ is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah. The Hebrew word Messiah means Anointed One. All annointed kings in Israel were then "Messiahs". In what way did the early followers of Jesus consider him anointed? WHY did they consider him anointed? Was it that Jesus taught unique ideas and SO THEN the early followers gave him the title of "annointed one"? Can we seperate the fact that Jesus is the person who was considered annointed by the early Christians from the idea of annointing itself? I don't know what I'm trying to say. I really appreciate Matt Fox's Cosmic Christ and the idea that we too can become Christs but I don't know that that is what the early Christians meant by "Christ".

Don't feel bad Des, it's taken me months and months of reading and searching and thinking to even begin to appreciate/understand some of process thought, open theism, dipolar (dialectic) monism, etc ... and just when I think "I've got it" something comes along to confuse me again. It doesn't help that even within process thought there are a lot of different opinions. I think you have it in a nutshell. No, I think you've got it. I imagine you could have an open view of God and not be a panentheist. I don't know if you could have a process view of God and not be a panentheist or pantheist though. Panta? Thoughts? Hmmm. I would say that the universe is within God, not the other way around: "The universe is within God as a fish is in the ocean" or "The universe is within God as a cell is within the body." I guess you could say that God is within the universe in that (to go back to the fish analogy) the water in the ocean surrounds the fish and the fish breathes in and exhales the water. I don't think I or you need to go to theology school to discuss stuff here. I don't have any theological schooling, but I am interested in this stuff and love to discuss it.

Earlier in the thread I said: "Dipolar theism as far as I can tell IS a synonym for process." I take it back. I think I was wrong.

Jeep, Thank you very much. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Panta thanks for replying. I don't reject process philosophy because of Ankerberg. I accept some portions of process thought as well as some portions of open view. My metaphysics is something I'm working out on my own and when I find philosophies that agree with some of it, I get excited. Some process views fit. Some open views fit. I am also trying to appreciate the differences between Hartshorne and Whitehead. I think (but don't know) that Whitehead's views, prior to being tweaked by Hartshorne, are closer to my own. I believe God/dess uses persuasive power as well, but because she wants to, not because she has no other choice. I know this puts me closer to open view. I agree that all abstracts are derived from actualities. However, I've gotten the impression from MANY sources, that process philosophy teaches that, in a nutshell, God wouldn't exist if the universe didn't exist. Doesn't this make process theology's God an abstract? I understand and agree with the necessity of the universe being contingent upon God, but not with God being contingent upon the universe. The universe may be a necessary component of God. God may have always manifested the finite necessarily. But I don't think God would not exist if the universe did not exist. I am not meaning to build up a strawman here. If I've got it completely wrong, please let me know. I am trying to understand.

Poor choice of words. It did come out like pantheism, but that is definitely not what I meant. 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? How about creation of the universe as consisting of both God stuff, plus something new (and I don't mean matter, I mean traits or aspects)? Ah see, that's the problem. I grew up surrounded by Mormons and JW's who don't believe in the Trinity but like to rant against it an awful lot. They build up strawmen in order to tear them down and for me, the strawman God incarnate is all I know.

I guess in the loose definition of panentheism, all of the above fits, but they are all different forms of panentheism. The problem I had with the article is that they use process philosphy and panentheism as if they were synonyms. I would assume Spongs "ground of being" is impersonal and not process. Borg and Fox's panentheistic God is personal and not process. Dipolar theism as far as I can tell IS a synonym for process. I must have missed that link, Wind. Would you mind posting it here again? I don't think open theism and panentheism are on a "line" where you are more one than the other. Like process philosphy fits within the umbrella of panentheism, so does open view. I think it would be more appropriate to say that I sound more open view than process view (which would be true). That is definitely an open view and is what I agree with. I think a general definition of panentheism as "the universe exists within God" is fair.

Fred and Des, I agree, but I needed a double check. Oh yeah. I hear ya and feel it too. Exactly! That's why I got a chuckle at finding all the articles on the Trinity there. Thank you for your replies guys.

Welcome Jasn, Wonderful to have you here!

I just read an article about PANENTHEISM that has me rather frustrated. I found myself arguing with the article pretty much all the way through. It was saying basically "Panentheists all believe this and this and this", but I found myself responding "No I don't. No I don't. No I don't." The arguments against Panenetheism, imo, were actually against Process Philosophy and not necessarily against Panentheism. That made me wonder: Am I technically a Panentheist if I don't agree with all of Process thought? Is Panentheism synonymous with Process Philosophy? Borg is a Panentheist, but does that mean he also holds to Process thought necessarily? Can you be a Panentheist and not have a Process view of God? All these questions are basically asking the same thing, I know. I'm not too hopefull I'll actually get responses to these because I rarely do (guilt, guilt, guilt ). If you care to read the articles they are here: Panentheism Part 1 Panentheism Part 2 PS - I found it amusing on the websight that after saying how illogical a bipolar God is in the article about Panentheism, the websight has a 4 part article on the "mystery of the Trinity".

Good questions! They are ones I lay in bed thinking about last night as I fell asleep. From a panentheistic point of view, the physical universe IS God and so God has always been latent within it and always will be. Perhaps from time to time God incarnates to nudge us in a particular direction? Saying that God only came once definitely makes Christianity exclusive compared to other religions. Is Christianity unique (special) compared to other religions? Does it offer something that others do not? Is exclusivity, when tempered with love, such a bad thing? I don't see how Jesus could have BEEN God because 1) How would God have resurrected himself? (that's a JW point) and 2) I believe the universe is part of God (in God) and the universe certainly didn't dissappear when Jesus showed up. So, I'd have to say it was a "partial" incarnation thing. (Not saying that I believe any of this, I'm just pondering out loud.)

The Heart Sutra has been talked of on the Dialectical Monism webpages I have found, along with Taoism. It all comes together nicely doesn' it? I was thinking earlier about the Trinity from this viewpoint and I thought, maybe the Trinity isn't a trinity/unity. Maybe is is a duality/unity because I don't think many believe that the Holy Spirit is a third distinct being, but rather an aspect of Jesus or an aspect of God. Did that make sense? Jesus/spirit - God/spirit = Jesus/God = duality = Unity

No, Jesus wasn't less than who he was historically, but in trying to make Jesus God incarnate couldn't we be completely obscurring who Jesus was? Not taking away from, but covering up? I've never picked up on this from Borg, though I'm sure it's there. It's an idea I first consciously noticed when listening to "Early Christianities" from the Teaching Company. The professor mentions the Ebionites and how it was a major belief in their theology. LOL! It is kind of odd to hear term "heresy" come out on a Progressive Christian board. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Jesus being God incarnate. Like I said, I really resonate with that idea and I agree that Jesus being divine is theologically necessary. In fact, I think that the writers of the various "books" of the Christian scriptures also knew it was necessary, which is why the view of Jesus changed over time, culminating (so to speak) with the Creeds. See, I like this thought and actually it is Process philosophy that made me rethink the possibility of Jesus being God incarnate, because the Process view of God teaches God as being both infinite and finite, part of the universe and also transcendant, etc ... Process thought helped me grasp the idea of incarnation because it's not the stretch it was for me when I was a supernatural theist. That doesn't, unfortunately, move me past the little voice in my head saying: "That's not who Jesus was! Why don't we just pick various humans and claim they were God incarnate. That's what the Hindus do." (No slam to Hinduism intended.) Tell me more! Teach me! I'm all ears and will be the first person to buy your book.

As I've read and browsed authors (of a liberal bent) that teach a Christianity that has turned Jesus into a very wise and very good man, I get conflicted. The logical, skeptical, brainiac me thinks "I can accept this Jesus. This Jesus, a great man, could have existed. He was a radical Jew attempting to bring reform to his people and his nation. I should follow him, be like him and find meaning in that." But then I wonder "Why bother? There are other figures throughout history, political activists and thinkers, that I am drawn to as well. Is that all Jesus means to me? Is that all Jesus was?" Then I read and browse authors (of a not so liberal bent) that teach Jesus as the son of God or God incarnate, but not in the ways that you might think. These authors (like Yancey, Lewis and McLaren) aren't liberal, but they are not exactly conservative either. The intuitive, receptive, mystical me thinks "I love the idea that God chose to come to Earth in corporeal form to interact with and relate to human beings on our level. Wow! I don't think I can believe that it was to die a sacrificial death for my sins, but I CAN believe that it was to teach humankind the best way to live." However, (imo) this removes Jesus from his Jewish context and who he may have been historically. Does the Bible really teach that Jesus was God incarnate? If Jesus was just a man - Why bother? If Jesus was God incarnate - WOW! - but was he really? I'm coming to find that I'm somewhere in between. Perhaps Jesus was just a man that, by being adopted by God, became divine? I know that the Jewish idea of the messiah or Christ is not this, but perhaps Jesus became "the Christ" not because he was the Jewish messiah, but because he was adopted by God? So yes, I think the divinity of Jesus is very important if Christianity is to survive. I'm just not sure how to go about it.

I saw a really cool bumpersticker yesterday. I can't do it justice here because it was just one word - "COEXIST" - but it was the way in which it was written that was so cool. The C was the half moon of, is it, Islam? The O was the peace sign. The E was normal I think. The X was the star of David. The I was normal, but the dot was the yin/yang symbol. The S was normal. The T was of course a cross. I've never seen this before. It was way cool. Here is one link, but it's different than the one I saw: Co-Exist Here is the one I saw: Co-Exist