If a pantheistic God were admitted to .... (grace, prophet, Holy Spirit)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what you're saying is that the difference is reverence.
Reverence versus no reverence.
So why would you use the words "nothing more than" with regard to such a dichotomy?!?!?
That's clear. I'm working on that as much as I can. Be patient; I am.
No question, but to be honest I cannot put my finger on any regular poster here who is a panentheist and not a pantheist. Perhaps you can point a few out?
MysticPhD is a PanENtheist bUU.
I hold his offerings to this board in my very highest regard.
So what you're saying is that the difference is reverence.
Reverence versus no reverence.
So why would you use the words "nothing more than" with regard to such a dichotomy?!?!?
That's clear. I'm working on that as much as I can. Be patient; I am.
No question, but to be honest I cannot put my finger on any regular poster here who is a panentheist and not a pantheist. Perhaps you can point a few out?
Mystic phd describes himself as a Panentheist.
You are right that atheism is simply a disbelief in any gods. Pantheism may approach atheism in being just reverence for nature a bit overdone, or it may go so far as saying there is a planning mind behind it. Whatever floats their boat. Atheism remains what it is.
You are right that atheism is simply a disbelief in any gods. Pantheism may approach atheism in being just reverence for nature a bit overdone, or it may go so far as saying there is a planning mind behind it. Whatever floats their boat. Atheism remains what it is.
Right..."Atheism remains what it is".
And that would be: Illogical in the face of objective evidence of that which is perceived as GOD.
The word religion comes from the Latin root religare, to bind together. It evolved into a meaning, to bind people together in reverence. Reverence is the act of acknowledging something of ultimate value other than one's own personal interest.
One of the most common sources of conflict in humanity stems from different perceptions of what God is to us, only one of which defines God as something that the existence of which is something that no one denies. All the rest of the definitions rely on belief in something explicitly supernatural, with no reason (literally) to believe it other than personal preference, personal aggrandizement, and personal advantage.
Pantheism breaks down one more of the thousands of walls between people. It opens the door for those who revere the natural and real to derive the most critical benefit of religare that those who revere the supernatural and fantastical currently derive: Community within covenant grounded in reverence, which is demonstrably stronger than community grounded solely in community.
(Don't get me wrong: A cadre are unusually close friends can offer the same benefits, at least for certain periods of time. [Seinfeld is a perfect example of a small but strong community, essentially devoid of reverence.] However, community within covenant grounded in reverence capitalizes on how our society is hardwired. That, combined with some of the trappings of organized religion are attributable for the long-lasting nature of religious communities, as compared to ad hoc, otherwise un-tethered communities.)
For clarification, the point of this thread is what accepting a definition of Universe as God vs a simple natural Universe as universe matters, based on the insistence of certain posters that we must accept that God as Universe exists and deny any logic of agnosticism or atheism . Agnosticism , or the ability to admit " I don't know ", would achieve the same things you describe above in breaking down walls formed by religious dogma .
Quote:
You've already acknowledged that pantheism = physical universe. So either you're saying that pantheism is a form of atheism (which would be wrong), or your claim equating atheism with disbelief in any supernatural gods is inaccurate in some way. The later is the case: Atheism is disbelief in any notion of god, natural or supernatural.
I've have acknowledged that some define God as to include the physical universe as being God. I have no admitted that this is correct, except in admitting it for the sake of argument, which I hope you understand that doesn't equate actual acceptance of the idea . And I stress the supernatural in response to the posts of certain pantheists posters here .
“Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to both traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid either isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does or identifying God with the world as pantheism does. (Stanford)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
