Pantheism - a one universe for all

[Doreen]

That's not really a limitation the Creator being omnipotent has absolute power over everything else and then it's not a limitation.

Well, if I am your parent and I say to you

You cannot be on the street or be at Jimmy's house.

You are limited.

If I keep adding on places you cannot be, then you get more and more limited.

If God cannot be anywhere, God is limited. He is never immanent.

God would be limited in location.

Arguing that God is not limited if God is not present gets even clearer if you move to omnipotence.

If you say God has no power, God is clearly limited. If God never goes anywhere, is never present anywhere, God is limited from immanence. In fact this means, right now, I am doing/being something God will never ever do/be. I am immanent. This further limits God's experiences. God will never experience being anywhere - let alone all the things one does when one is immanent.

I am going to leave it at that since we are on a tangent and not really on topic.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, if I am your parent and I say to you

You cannot be on the street or be at Jimmy's house.

You are limited.

If I keep adding on places you cannot be, then you get more and more limited.

If God cannot be anywhere, God is limited. He is never immanent.

God would be limited in location.

Arguing that God is not limited if God is not present gets even clearer if you move to omnipotence.

If you say God has no power, God is clearly limited. If God never goes anywhere, is never present anywhere, God is limited from immanence. In fact this means, right now, I am doing/being something God will never ever do/be. I am immanent. This further limits God's experiences. God will never experience being anywhere - let alone all the things one does when one is immanent.

I am going to leave it at that since we are on a tangent and not really on topic.

unless of course god achieves the quality of immanence through a potency - kind of like the sun renders all things visible, including its self, through the agency of sunlight .... despite being localized

 

[Big Chiller]

If God cannot be anywhere, God is limited. He is never immanent.

God would be limited in location.

How so? God has absolute power over all locations. According to your suggestion there would have to be an eternal place or an eternal universe to contain God otherwise He wouldn't be able to exist but if He doesn't require an eternal place to exist then would He be limited before He created all locations (universe)?

 

[Doreen]

How so? God has absolute power over all locations.

Except God can't be in them. At the very least God is limiting God. And, according to your schema, always will.

Now I really will drop it.

 

[Michael]

'Nature' was honored pretty much as far back as we can find.

Really? Was it "Nature" per say, or Gods and Goddesses? Is Amaterasu a Nature Goddess or a Creation Goddess or both?

The Abrahamists have had a strong undercurrent distrust of nature, but other groups quite the opposite.

This does seem to be true. But, the Romans weren't all that kind towards Nature - other than taming it and bringing order to chaos. Western societies are a legacy of the Roman World.

As far as nature being a bitch...pantheism is more about everything being alive, not necessarily that everything in nice. And to say nature was killing humans is clearly oversimplified. I mean, where would they have been without nature?

Well, Nature is nice when you're in your home or "camping". Try living as the animal we are - off Nature's kind graces. I bet it isn't long before you think she's a Bitch!


I love Nature. But, I also like living in a modern world. We can have both, but, I think it means less numbers of humans. Too many human's and there's not enough room for Nature. Too few and it's hard to maintain prosperity and advancements.

What do you think?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Pantheism is not about niceness or beauty or glory or any of those typical "religious" sentiments as far as I know.

It is more about realism and worshiping that which exists for all that it is.
Use every adjective in the dictionary from the positive to the negative, all human values are a part of it's focus.

Pantheism is worshiping our sewage, our ash trays and our most glorious moments.

By trying to apply reductionism to the whole, reduces the notion of universality in a way that closes minds to the whole.

Pantheism attempts to see and respect reality for what it is, in a way that can only lead to optimism, worshiping [affection for] and wonderment.

In many ways Pantheism is similar to Buddhism, and possibly Taoism....but makes no attempt to master anything.
just an opinion...

 

[Adstar]

yes I agree in the main with this interpretation.

However the "created" is the "creator" in this case don't you think?

No that thinking is the thin edge of the wedge that leads one down the path to full-blown nature worship. Saying that all things are a part of God removes the distinction between God and all things. Soon God is not needed when everything is God and then people eliminate God and then pick and chose from nature what they like most and worship it. Of course some jump all over that and start worshipping themselves as God and that is the last phase of new age "development".

Grounding the divine in all things instead of some fluffy, cloudy, dream scape somewhere else....as being separate and aloof to the creation.

The separation between The Creator and the created will always be there. But that separation does not equate to isolation. As a Christian i believe God is within me through the Holy Spirit. So God is with me intimately, like having a direct connection between my brain and him. I have never seen God as being an aloof figure somewhere out there is the nether regions of the universe. God has always been very close to me.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

Actuallly this is not correct at all. The creator and the universe are simply one. Further many believe that God/the divine is not limited to some transcendent place. Rather God is everywhere, including nature. The Abrahamists decided that God was separate from Nature, beyond. In this way they sidelined their own God.

If you are going to knock them, at least get their ideas right.

LOL

Doreen I have been exposed to a lot of new agers on chat rooms and in real life and i know what the new age idea is. The serpent in the old story of Adam and Eve was a new ager. satan wants to be God and enticed Adam and Eve with the same delusion. New Age is satans little enticement just repackaged in a more eloquent way. But in the end it is the same deception with the same outcome.

If you proclaim everything as God you are in effect claiming yourself as God and proclaiming yourself as an ally of satan. There is no better way to “sideline” God, then to declare yourself God.


All Praise The Ancient of Days

 

[Big Chiller]

Except God can't be in them. At the very least God is limiting God. And, according to your schema, always will.

If God were to be one with the universe and be in locations then He could have something located above Him, and not allowing something to be located above Him wouldn't change that fact. Hmm what a dilemma.

 

[Cris]

If God and the universe are one and the same thing then we can simply discard the term "God" and use "universe" instead, since the first term adds no redeeming value.

 

[Emil]

If God is everywhere, it is also in me.
Trying to understand this, I made the following model.
Cell of my body has a life of its own.
He does not understand that is part of an organ.
Both are part of the body but at different levels.
They'll never "understand" self-conscience
the human body.
If you are a good "cell" of God?
There will never understand "self-conscience" of God.

 

[Doreen]

If God and the universe are one and the same thing then we can simply discard the term "God" and use "universe" instead, since the first term adds no redeeming value.

Unless it is conscious.

 

[Doreen]

If God were to be one with the universe and be in locations then He could have something located above Him, and not allowing something to be located above Him wouldn't change that fact. Hmm what a dilemma.

So God has to avoid being immanent so nothing can be above him? Again, limiting himself. Further you are assuming he must be either in or out. In fact God could be both manifest and transcendent. Omnipresent and not present at the same time. Your version seems to have a deity avoiding certain things to stay on top, and also to limit God to the categories we are limited to: either in or out. Here or there. Manifest or transcendent. And so on.

 

[Doreen]

LOL

Doreen I have been exposed to a lot of new agers on chat rooms and in real life and i know what the new age idea is. The serpent in the old story of Adam and Eve was a new ager. satan wants to be God and enticed Adam and Eve with the same delusion. New Age is satans little enticement just repackaged in a more eloquent way. But in the end it is the same deception with the same outcome.

This really made no sense at all. 1) pantheism is not New Age, since it predates this. 2) Which seems clear to you, oddly, since you use an example from Genesis, which does, indeed, predate New Age stuff. But then 3) Satan was not a pantheist, which is clear in that he rebelled against God and was in struggle with God, so bringing this into the discussion is simply nonsense. And using the term 'new age' to bridge this unrelated ideas is, as I said, incorrect. 4) all you have really done is given pantheism an incorrect label so that it is now categorized under a pejorative term. IOW no substance.

If you proclaim everything as God you are in effect claiming yourself as God

You are saying you are a part of God. IOW God is not limited to some transcendent realm but is everywhere and everything. This does not mean one is God in the sense of having super powers, innate goodness or even special insight.

and proclaiming yourself as an ally of satan.

Certainly not the Satan of the OT. REally all you are saying is 'bad' this and 'bad' that. A poor form of Christian judgment and spite.

There is no better way to “sideline” God, then to declare yourself God.

You are projecting Abrahamic ideas onto this so it means something completely different. It has nothing to do with someone, for example, claiming they are Jesus or Yahweh.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If God and the universe are one and the same thing then we can simply discard the term "God" and use "universe" instead, since the first term adds no redeeming value.

I agree, The term or label of God is so loaded with historical issues. Maybe in a few hundred years the label God will it self be redeemed in the eyes of man.

 

[Doreen]

I agree, The term or label of God is so loaded with historical issues. Maybe in a few hundred years the label God will it self be redeemed in the eyes of man.

If you use 'universe' most people will assume you either mean the immanent and less important realm that God made or the primarily dead matter scientists view the universe as.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you use 'universe' most people will assume you either mean the immanent and less important realm that God made or the primarily dead matter scientists view the universe as.

I agree, the term Universe is so loaded with historical issues. May be in a few hundred years the label universe will be redeemed in the eyes of man........ or was it God?

 

[Quantum Quack]

primarily dead matter scientists view the universe as

and funnilly enough our bodies are made of so called dead matter as well...

 

[Doreen]

I agree, the term Universe is so loaded with historical issues. May be in a few hundred years the label universe will be redeemed in the eyes of man........ or was it God?

I just did a synonym and etymology search and I could find no good term. None that really fit pantheism and none that were neutral. IOW leaving it open what the whole thing was or might be. I thought cosmos might be good, but its roots are from a verb having to do with organizing and disposing things, including many military references.

'Everything' seems OK, I suppose. Oddly, the root of 'thing' seems have been a word meaning 'a stretch of time for a meeting'. I suppose that works.

 

[Doreen]

and funnilly enough our bodies are made of so called dead matter as well...

Good point. I see two trends. One a trend to where more things are granted consciousness/sentience - women, non-whites, animals and some haziness even around plants - where it was not really granted before. At the same time an urge to see even humans as mere mechanisms with self qualia - consciousness as a mere, useless epiphenomen.