Pantheism

[_Roger Morrison]

The idea that Spong is a Pantheist was put forward by several posters. On question, is that really a BAD? That "God" is in all? RC's declare that wrong as it destroys the idea of a "personal God" who rewards and punishes. What do folks here think/believe? Warm regards, Roger

[_truth dancer]

Hey Roger...

Well, I consider myself a sort of Pantheist. The Spinoza/Einsteinian/Mystery/nature religionist, sort of Pantheist if there is such a thing. :-)

I do not in any way understand or experience God as an advanced primate living on some planet (or star) in our universe, or even outside our universe.

I do see a one and only essence that is the Source of everything. Call it the quantum vacuum, or implicate order, or nothingness, or Sourse, or infinite potentiality (my personal favorite), or whatever. There is a realm from which everything in the universe has emerged. This realm/essence/nothingness is mysterious only because it is WAY beyond anything we can possibly imagine. As humans we have evolved to experience a very tiny, minute little glimpse of what is this mystery, so to think there is a remote possiblity of grasping what is the totality of existence seems silliness to me.

I do understand that many religionists find it offensive to dismiss the idea of a personal/man-being, sort of God. But, for me, the idea of limiting God to an understandable human male with a few additional powers (or in the case of LDS NO additional powers), just REALLY seems almost sinful! (smile)

~dancer~

[_harmony]

The idea that Spong is a Pantheist was put forward by several posters. On question, is that really a BAD? That "God" is in all? RC's declare that wrong as it destroys the idea of a "personal God" who rewards and punishes. What do folks here think/believe? Warm regards, Roger

The Protestant God that fills the universe and at the same time is small enough to live in a person's heart is sort of Pantheist, right? At least the fills the universe part is.

[_huckelberry]

Hey Roger...

Well, I consider myself a sort of Pantheist. The Spinoza/Einsteinian/Mystery/nature religionist, sort of Pantheist if there is such a thing. :-)

I do not in any way understand or experience God as an advanced primate living on some planet (or star) in our universe, or even outside our universe.

I do see a one and only essence that is the Source of everything. Call it the quantum vacuum, or implicate order, or nothingness, or Sourse, or infinite potentiality (my personal favorite), or whatever. There is a realm from which everything in the universe has emerged. This realm/essence/nothingness is mysterious only because it is WAY beyond anything we can possibly imagine. As humans we have evolved to experience a very tiny, minute little glimpse of what is this mystery, so to think there is a remote possiblity of grasping what is the totality of existence seems silliness to me.

I do understand that many religionists find it offensive to dismiss the idea of a personal/man-being, sort of God. But, for me, the idea of limiting God to an understandable human male with a few additional powers (or in the case of LDS NO additional powers), just REALLY seems almost sinful! (smile)

~dancer~

God limited to an understandable human male? I do not know any Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddist, should I go on, group that does that. Ops there a small sect in Utah I have heard about....

[_huckelberry]

The idea that Spong is a Pantheist was put forward by several posters. On question, is that really a BAD? That "God" is in all? RC's declare that wrong as it destroys the idea of a "personal God" who rewards and punishes. What do folks here think/believe? Warm regards, Roger

I am not sure how to make a value judgement on the word pantheism. What sort of God is being spoken of who is in everything? I mean the traditional Jewish and Christian view is that God is in everything but God is not limited to those things. Usually pantheism implies there is no dimension of God beyond the things.

It really is a bit hard to see any difference between pantheism and atheism. Perhaps a desire to remain a bit fuzzy about that hard finality of death? But panthists may well see death as absolute. Then what quality in nature would be spoken about as divine and why bother? I actually like thinking of rocks as rocks, water as water, air as air, plants as plants etc. Why muddy it up with a divine something having no characteristics?

One way of making some sort of value judgement would be to ask if it helps clarify my thinking about moral descisions or direction and aspirations in my life. That would be a focused piece of the question, does it help understand reality and is it more accurate than other views. I would be interested to hear suggestion of a way pantiheism could help understand matreial reality. As far is a nonmatrial reality, the shape of personal interelationships is the only portion, we have enough access to to talk about. It could be the only immaterial reality that exists.