thormas

I agree with you. I think that in Jesus' (and his people) belief was that the establishment of the Kingdom was all on God. Many today take a different track and believe that man 'shares' such responsibility. And I guess Christians in the past have shared this philosophy at times, for example the 'just war' position. So, the challenge and the responsibility is that 'we' must decide how best to be ethical and enable (a better) Life. Having said this, it is also humbling to witness the example of King and Gandhi and also to consider the very violent society Jesus was part of in his time - and that eventually need in his death.

" By turning the other cheek to the evildoer (or giving even more to the plaintiff than sought in court, or walking an extra mile if forced to walk one, or giving to beggars and also not refusing anyone who wants to borrow from you) I think Jesus is saying show your preparedness not to perpetuate acts of aggression and retribution, not to harbour unhelpful baggage in life (i.e. wishing for revenge) and maybe help others not carry such baggage also - the aggrieved beggar who doesn't get help, or the destitute friend who desperately needs a loan to carry him through - both whom may be left feeling scorned if we don't help them when we could." Paul, I missed or forgot this comment, but I like your idea of Jesus and preparedness. While I think his focus, circa 30 CE, was the imminent Kingdom, such preparedness was relevant then and I think it's valid to suggest that (with the Kingdom delayed or better because we no longer think in those terms) it can also speak to the 21st C CE. Such preparedness is an ethic: to not "...perpetuate acts of aggression and retribution, .... harbour unhelpful baggage in life and maybe help others not carry such baggage also." And I think it is the last comment that moves it from what not to do, to what to do: to be, to do for the other and in this to become our true Self. Nice point!

As part of 'today' and the more recent 'yesterday' I have never focused on peace as mere happiness - especially without anxiety. The idea of life at anytime without anxiety seems not only unrealistic but the perspective of a blind man. I do get the idea of an inner (and therefore outer) happiness but it is a world apart from the present gospel of prosperity. But you're right, at least a dissertation.

On love and being nice: As previously mentioned, the first and only focus for Jesus was the coming Kingdom of God and the radical change this demands. However, as I remember the story of the Good Samaritan - I can picture people using different word to describe that action: kind, compassionate, concerned, loving and/or nice - nice means: kind, kindly (humane, neighborly, merciful), gracious, friendly, good, admirable, considerate and two of my favorites -nifty and peachy. On one hand, I believe nice can be on a continuum with love as when we tell a child to be nice (kind, friendly, good, considerate) to her friends, to be nice to the dog, to be nice to the new neighbors, to be nice to her mother's aunt even though she has way too much perfume. Nice can be how some of us learn love. On the other hand, I think nice is a face of love. Love is compassionate concern for another: to hold a door open for an old lady, for a young mother, for the stranger who is actually surprised by the act, to help help fix a flat tire, to even nod at a stranger (again, cost nothing and is often met by surprise and relief and even a peace filled smile) are acts of compassionate concern for the suffering, the misfortune of others - or simply the very being of others. This giving of self is the (way of) becoming our true self: this is the cross, this is the priority of Jesus, this is the incarnation of God/love in/by humanity. These acts, all such acts are loving and they are kind, friendly, good, considerate, neighborly, even nifty, and nice. All acts, great and small, of Love for others, of being nice to others are the moments when we take up the cross. When the dad in the family takes the baby so the mother can have some time of her own: it is a loving action and it is also a nice, a really nice thing to do. When you do the simple act of holding a door, another might 'pay it forward' and on and on. It is easy, it is thoughtful of the other, it is a little act of selflessness, it is nice, it is love. How many times, I can't count, have I gone to a wake and everybody, everybody says of the deceased, what a nice woman she was, what a really nice guy he was? And, how about the guy who saved the kids at the lost of his own life: it was said of him, he was a nice guy. Nice is a face of love.

That was the Matthew (quote) I referred to above. If it is about the Temple, I don't see it as a prophetic statement from the lips of Jesus but I do allow it could have been Matthew, after the Temple destruction, putting it on the lips of Jesus. Whether it was about the Temple or about the family/friends consequences for the one who accepts the Way (when family doesn't), the idea seems the same. I don't think the historical Jesus ever said "whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." It comes 15+ chapters before his cross - again I don't accept prophecy as seeing the future - also, it seems to be something that could/would be said to Matthew's community to recognize their own hardships and encourage them and finally, the man Jesus was all about God - I just don't accept he would place this emphasis on himself (not worthy of me) and not the Father. I have not done a historical reconstruction into the 50s about Jesus and peace, so not sure what is meant by 'perfectly peaceful' but I never regarded 'his' peace as a myth - especially as we find it in the 1st century Christian writings - despite our different interpretations of its full meaning. Perhaps I misunderstand your comments and it has been a while since I focused on these passages, so nothing is locked in stone

Back to Peace. We have the Matthew quote above which speaks to the division that will exist for those who accept the way of Jesus if/when friends and family do not understand or accept that way also. Plus, the peace Jesus brought was not peace on earth but the healing of the division of man from God: thus Peace. Jesus did come to give peace , according to John 14:27: "Peace I leave with you, my Peace I give to you." Again goes to relationship with God which is embodied or lived out in the relationship with our fellow men and women. And, with the Kingdom 'delayed,' there is/must be social peace or, better, the striving for peace in human community, in creation - for it is in the world that one incarnates God (thereby one lives in the peace of Christ by being in/accepting the way of God .

At first glance, I'm not sure I agree that these are exaggerated explanations or that they are just absurd examples. For Jesus it was all about the coming Kingdom, everything was about the soon to be established Kingdom of God on earth. In this Kingdom there will be a total reversal of fortune (see Ehrman below and cited writing); the first shall be last, etc. The way to prepare demanded turning to God (2 great commandments) and as Ehrman writes "really doing that requires a radical change in life." That radical change is captured in the sayings you quote. So indeed they have been told not to murder, but Now with the Kingdom upon them , with the need to turn to God, more is demanded: calling someone a fool is just as bad. If I remember correctly, most scholars do not believe there was a real Sermon on the Mount (as it is portrayed) but these kinds of saying were indeed thought to be part of the preaching of the man Jesus. For him, therefore, for all who heard his call, they already knew they should not murder, commit adultery, divorce or break oaths - but the Kingdom is upon them, the Time demands they do more and not even call another a fool, lust in their hearts, marry a divorced woman or promise anything for the future - because it is all about NOW. There is not time, this is no time to be lusting, divorcing anyone, taking the time to call others fools, etc. That time is over: prepare for God! On his blog, in the article on The teaching of Jesus in a Nutshell, Ehrman writes: Jesus did not teach social ethics so we could make society better and all get along for the long haul. For Jesus there wasn’t going to *be* a long haul. The end is coming soon. We need to live lives dedicated to God and to love and to one another NOW, so we can enter the kingdom THEN. Our dilemma, our challenge is that the Kingdom didn't come, so now we must discover what is to be done (how we ought to live) with the behavior called for by Jesus as the world goes on?

Good points. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who truly believed the 'end' was near (in the lifetime of his disciples). He believed the Kingdom was about to be established - solely by the action of God - and men/women were to do nothing but be ready and begin to live as they would in the Kingdom. In addition, Jesus is pointing to those who are not valued, those who are overlooked in the kingdoms of man and saying 'theirs' will be the Kingdom of God. The value system is turned on its head. There is no time for retribution, no time for retaliation: the Kingdom is right around the corner (for Jesus). Plus, one could argue that helping the aggrieved beggar or the destitute friend is part of the answer when it asked, "when did I feed you Lord, when did I cloth you........?" Since the Kingdom didn't come, I think it is valid to figure out how best to live now but that makes us consider a realm, a world that Jesus never envisioned would still exist. I also agree it does not contradict working for social justice on any level - for one could argue that those with such needs are the same as those Jesus told about their place in the Kingdom and as Jesus ministered to them, the social worker 'is Jesus' to the world today.

I see it differently: It never was meek acceptance, it is active non-retaliation. The Father in the (parable of the) Prodigal Son lives this: he neither meekly accepts his son's actions and he certainly doesn't, given his actions and attitudes apparent in the story, silently yet loudly shout at his son's disrespect and/or suggest he won't back down. Rather he actively, in attitude and action, does not retaliate - thus something new begins that wouldn't be possible in the other two scenarios. So too, Jesus is the best practitioner: with his scourging and on the Cross he neither meekly accepts nor silently shouts he is not backing down - rather, by not calling down the wrath of heaven, he is actively not retaliating. His actions, rather than saying, hit me again, I'm not backing down -say instead, I forgive, let us begin anew. He was wise enough to realize that his call for living the 2 great commandments of love would not (initially) bring peace but would be sword cutting into creation and the variance would be those who don't and those who do understand and practice active non-retaliation: such (the latter) action is taking the cross because what is 'given up' is a world where self(centeredness) reigns and in its place, love is allowed to reign.

Craig, I suggest you go back and read the comments - especially the beginning. David has made numerous personal comments (insults, jaundice), some of which I summarized - even after he repeatedly read that the issue, rather the suggestions were about writing style. These include: pretending to be nice, something about being on the side of Life (and guess who he thinks is false?), our spiritual behavior, smugness and suggesting we think we're doing the work of Life - when it was just about his writing style, which even he found fault with. And now you admit that you do too. You have just said the advise offered, like paring down some of the elaboration would be constructive and serve his intent and you would have suggested it as well. But nobody went all WWF on him when this advise was offered - go back and check. Only with his 'spoiled generation' in which he stated that Jesus offered an indulgently loving Father and I quote, "there is a need (here for example!) of a 'reverse' correction in the direction of taking personal responsibility...." And he goes on to state "I am just a messenger in this regard (with all of the implications of this word).." and then his LGBTQ comments (which I still find confusing which goes to the need to pare down and write clearly) did I push back. Not attack, not personal - push back, disagree! First the Jesus/messenger comment, really: do you buy his understanding of Jesus, do you accept him as a (with all god-sent implications applied) messenger, do you think we need a reverse correction from the teachings of Jesus? And then his LGBTQ comments (humorous?) that we need to expand our horizons: is that an acceptable analogy for our comments (with which you agree) on his writing style? I thought this was insensitive, insulting and presumptuous: I have gay relatives, have lost a friend to AIDS, was at the bedside of a brother who almost died of the same disease (and suffered from the related dementia), I taught with gays and lesbians who I valued and were my dear friends and I taught and accepted kids of the same orientation. I don't need to expand this horizon and said so. Again, no attack - push back. David did say I might have miss his point and then, he adds: "I'll agree with you on this maybe when and if I feel more understood and (so) included." So my push back was not seen as an attack but who can't accept a point on principle until they're understood? In between these comments, Burl once again restated his point and said 'nothing personal.' Read David's reply, look at his comments: "....your statement is presumptuously 'dictatorial'........ My guess is that you are so steeped in an attitude of self-'right'eousness that you will probably remain blind to this fact even though I use your own words to point it out to you...... your disclaimer of "nothing 'personal' intended" rings hollow........... Who died and made you 'God' here" comes to mind...... all of the above is intended to get you off of what I 'see' as a being like the proverbial 'high horse' and involved in a truly meaningfull discussion of pros and cons of the ideas." This is an attack, this is personal, this is full of insults, this is jaundice pitched - and this is where it began - with David's hate-filled words. I responded to David by saying, "He (Burl) was trying to help. And then you (David) make assumptions about his character and slam him? Nice messaging (in reference to his being a messenger!) He was talking about writing style - you are the one who has made it personal." And then David continued to escalate. So, go back and read - David continues to get more vocal, more personal, more insulting and now he presumes to speak for everyone. My last comment tied to reset showing him his own word and the progression. We shall see. p.s. I had actually enjoyed his first post and I believe I was the only one to respond. And I was looking forward to more (and hoped he would make it a bit easier on readers). My writing style, all our styles are personal. but if to be heard, some paring would serve the writer's intention (to be heard about something that is important to him/her) who wouldn't tweak things? If someone couldn't 'hear' me, I would try to change it up a bit - it doesn't lessen what I have to say, it doesn't lessen me? This is a mountain made from a molehill - he will not get it, I now expect additional attacks.

p

David, you wrote this about your own writing: "the disjointedness of aspects of my preceding post. ...I get so wrapped up in the 'totality' my ideas, I often don't see 'gaps' present in my verbalizations." and it was directly on the heels of this statement about your own writing that Burl, offered a simple statement, a simple suggestion. And your follow up - not only if we're imputing spiritual behavior, as you have done, but on the very basis of your words and emphasis - was curt, dismissive and suggested Burl's corner of Being was less than yours. And my immediate response on the heels of your dismissal of Burl was accepted by you, with you saying, "point well taken." Then, next, when I said I would read your post, complemented you again and made the same basic suggestion - it all went to hell. In your next post you suggested 'my proposal' (the same basic one I made earlier) would be taking it easy on a spoiled generation. You did say 'you had to be you' but my comment/suggestion/proposal did not change from the post before to the post after that comment of yours - nor did my attitude. READ IT! What the hell happened? Go back to the beginning - this is on you!

You're right: you don't respond the same way (I or most people do) but thanks for recognizing that I am nice. The 'evidence is there (again, thanks) and if I change and there is evidence that I stop being nice, as requested, I'll let you know. You're a very sensitive guy to take offense at a helping hand. Interesting but I won't pretend to be a therapist: I never pretend. You talk about understanding but what you consistently fail to see is that the writer is obliged to take pains to use words (also goes to writing style) so they are really communicating which is the first step in being heard and being...............wait for it............understood. For one who values writing to not take care is as you might say: Narly, bro!

David, you repeatedly mischaracterized people and their good intentions. Again, it is on writing style and communication. Short, simple and to the point. You are the one who has repeatedly gotten personal with attacks on people's characters. Out of your mouth have come the following comments about others: posturing, condescending, foist(ing) preferences, guise and hiding - all personal attacks. I'm sure readers did get a lesson from you and are wise and kind enough not to repeat it. It is amazing you have made this such an issue. Again and for the final time, I had no issue with the substance of what you were saying and I actually enjoyed the exchange. We didn't fully agree, which is fine and I was looking forward to more of the same. However, even then, I thought your style was a little more loaded (not meant to be pejorative) than it had to be to make what I thought were interesting points and I noticed no one else engaged. Burl was honest, he had a problem following you and said so. I have had many exchanges with Burl and witnessed his exchanges with others, we don't always agree, but I have never though he didn't have the intellectual capacity, the passionate curiosity or the reading ability to understand. So when he indicated this to you........it was so he could hear you, so others (with the same reaction) could hear you and all (interested) could engage. It was not meant as an attack, it was not intended to be personal - and that's what you should have focused on: intentions, good intentions. However, it seems you can't see this, your go to reaction is personal attacks and, as you said, you are fine (i.e.don't care) if others don't read or respond to your ideas. I have never heard a writer make such a statement, after all that is the point of writing and specifically, it is the point of engaging and sharing on a site such as this. p.s. I remember when a fellow member said one of my post was too long, so I tried to shorten it and another was confused by my use of certain words, so I tried to clarify: style issues. Now when someone else flatly disagreed with me, that was her/his right but I held the substance of my position (even after playing with style so I was heard). Simple!

First, there was no side, I simply said what I believe Burl was after and I too tried to make suggestions so you might be heard. There is no service if your voice cannot be heard. And, again I ask, how many have actually engaged with you on the substance of what you wrote, not this side stuff, the substance? News flash (catchy, by the way): all our styles are 'personal' but it doesn't mean another can't comment and give a well intentioned suggestion to help someone (be heard). And, of course, it follows that one doesn't have to take the advise - just move on, see if people respond to your style and if not??? No need to attack the one who makes the suggestion. Personally, it was not meant to be personal so you shouldn't take it personally because I have not attempted to say something personal to you personally- but the more you talk the more personal you seem to get and some might take that personally. Seems you are the only one who has gotten personal with you comments on Burl. Good god, first it's dictatorial and now it's bad parenting - all over innocent attempts to help you communicate better on a new site. And, I get dance, I get muse, but what is ic? Regardless, you don't know either of us well enough to be able to judge our 'soul' dance' but anybody's dancing can be improved. And no it never occurred to me that I'm dancing your dance, rather it occurred to me that you can't take a helpful hand. Ruh roh, you seem to be getting personal with the 'your kind of lovingness' comment. Hold it, had to gather myself - okay, I can go on. It had nothing to do with truth, spirit and the American way - it had to do with writing style: writ-ing-sty...le. Finally, I have been dealing - although I prefer engaging - with 'different' since I was in college and, in particular, a favorite professor, who has a similar style to the 100th power: I can work through his writings but I am also witness to many others who can't or simply can't take the time. The lost is theirs, but the lose is also his. Further, my style is not all that different but as a teacher and a writer I knew I had to be aware of my audience and write to/for them - otherwise why do either? After all, It is not an exercise in ego; if it is not for the other, it is not.

We have had meaningful discussions and it should be obvious to any who have spent some time reading on this site that there are many differences. That's life, that's Christianity, that's philosophy, that's this site. Again, I didn't agree with the suggested limits but Burl was trying to help - how many have responded to your posts, to your actual writings? He was trying to help. And then you make assumptions about his character and slam him? Nice messaging! He was talking about writing style - you are the one who has made it personal. Not sure of your point. Burl (and I) was trying to make suggestions so others would want to dance with you.

I actually have no idea what this means but I have no need to expand that group - although I would give the same writing advise regardless of sexual orientation. My user name is not my given name either, merely a play on a name given me by my daughter when she was in elementary school. I'm not sure what part has an unpleasant edge and what part is repartee fun: the writing, the name, the self-designation as unconventional and unlike any other? I now have no idea what you're talking about. I had no choice in being hetero - don't remember a time when I made the decision to be attracted to girls, not guys. So too, the people I know who are lesbian or gay did not choose, they are - and none of us has to be forgiven. I for one "can't help being the way I am" and neither does my gay brother, my college friend who died of AIDS, the lesbian women I taught with or the straight, gay, lesbian kids I taught. So, I really have no idea what your point is. It is the understanding of some (too many) that orientation is chosen and that's why they consider it sinful (and in need of reverse correction and forgiveness) and support re-programming of a homosexual orientation. Then you have the Catholic 'blessing' that it isn't chosen but they just can't express it, i.e. make love to the one that is all to them. Absurd! Also, remember you are on a progressive site and I suspect most are not conventional and do not have to expand their LGBTQ group.

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. First, I have no idea what "not just here, but here too" means but no total generation is a bunch of spoiled kids. Such a generalization is the very definition of prejudging. And there is no suggestion of enabling, merely a suggestion if a serious writer is truly interested in others 'hearing' his words. Without an audience, there is no impact. Jesus did not indulge people: his words are a call to change, a challenge to live the two great commandments - neither is easy and neither is a correction, they are the summary of the commandments of his people, the Jews. And, there is no need to improve on the message of Jesus and have a 'reverse correction.' Unless someone misunderstands prophecy, no one know what is 'coming down the road' and I learned long ago to beware of those who proclaim themselves messengers (and some saviors).

I will read more when time permits but this line struck me as I skimmed. People are always free to disregard anything but I think you have something to offer - so all the more reason to enable others to more easily read you so you can be heard.

Davidsun, I don't have any particular key and lock but I take Burl's meaning - if not the exact number of sentences that are optimal. I write too (not just on this or other sites) and take great pains to write for others, for an audience (otherwise what's the point?) so they can understand what I'm trying to communicate. On this site, sometimes I just make quick comments, when I'm on the run, and, other times, even when I put in the time and effort, others might not follow (partly on me, partly on them - perhaps). I know writing about 'this stuff' is not always easy and we all try to stretch language but you seem to be taking this to a new level - which makes it difficult for some and others might just pass by your comments. For example, you can probably trust that most people know what you meant when you say 'best' and they don't need a 19 word explanation in a parenthetical sentence. I have been on the run this week, looked at your comment on 3 different occasions and passed it by as I believed it would take a longer commitment to read it that I had time for. You have something to say but the blues, the underlines, the bold print, the phrases with multiple -s, seem to suggest everything is important rather than drawing the reader to one or two things that really are.

And if you add flaming arrows - you get a Viking funeral.

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!

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.

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.

First David, welcome. Your introduction brought a smile to my face as Davy Crockett was (and remains) one of my childhood favorites. We use to play 'guns' as little kids (in the late 50s/early 60s so it was totally acceptable) and we all wanted to be this character. So one guy would be Davy, another Dave and so on. Nice memory. More importantly, I wish you well and, again, welcome.