Pantheism (ritual, mysticism, tradition, blood, choices)

[Moonshadow]

Oh my.

I dont know if I am a Pantheist or not, I know that I believe nature and the Universe are sacred, divine, worthy of reverence and respect yes and that I gain most of my spiritual balance in nature but I am having a hard time letting go of the term-Spiritual Atheist (I am also UU).

I just dont believe in God.
Not any Gods of any kind.
No supernaturalism
No superstition

Yes to practices such as meditation, yoga, trance, spirit dance, contemplation and ritual and of course participation in the many ceremonies and celebrations that my church has but no to everything else.

sometimes I read about Pantheism or Naturalistic Paganism and feel like-Yeah that describes me but right now I am wanting to escape from the tarot readings and aura healings and ghosts and all of that type of thing that people are trying to force me to explore once they hear me say-I am Pagan.

Pantheist-all is God.

Not to me, all is sacred, holy, divine to a degree maybe, God not...and what do Pantheists say to someone when a tornado rips through their home? The Universe is divine, nature is divine, sorry about your husband who died in nature's fury?

I think more often that I should I guess.

[cheddarsox]

YeY! I'm glad to see someone reactivating this thread. I just joined up, I'm a Natural Pantheist. I consider the Universe to be ultimate reality...I don't use the words, god, sacred or divine much, because most people use them in ways that don't fit my beliefs, and it would cause them to misunderstand what I do believe.

I'm finding more useful terms as the years go on, that will truly communicate what I believe.

The universe is awesome and is ultimate reality. Humanity is not the purpose for the existence of the rest of the universe, it is not merely a stage for us to play out our human dramas. That is what I remind myself when tragedy strikes...it's not personal, not about me. The Universe is. Awesome yes, but often not convenient...doesn't change anything. The same forces and laws that cause all the things I like, cause all the things I don't like. That is just how it is.

Many people say they can't worship/honor a god that would allow, this or that sad thing to happen. Fair enough, but I find I can't help but be in awe of the Universe, even when it's eating me alive. That is my authentic response to it.

When someone has a tragedy, I also respond authentically, and humanly. I offer support, if I have some support to offer...to listen, to cook, to drive, to babysit, to clean up the mess. I be human to them. I recognize their humanity as well.

I don't believe that anything is supernatural, I think it's all part of the same system...but I admit to a few superstitions...I think that too is authentically human. I don't claim they are true or real, but everyone has their quirks.

Many people try to argue with me using science or logic...like...how do you know the Universe is ultimate reality. what if there is a god behind it? what if there are multi-verses? So, I define my faith as the Universe is MY ultimate reality. If there is a god behind it...so far it's shown no evidence of itself...maybe because I am a mortal finite limited creature that is made of matter and energy...and it isn't, so we can't communicate. If there are other universes...well, I'll never see or visit them, and they don't seem to control this one..so, for all intents and purposes, this universe is my ultimate reality.

I got weary of speculating what may or may not exist and decided to focus on what I know does exist.

I consider natural pantheism to be a non theistic faith.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Explain to me why the 'theism' in Pantheism is not superfluous.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Explain to me why the 'theism' in Pantheism is not superfluous.

Sorry - that came across poorly, but the question was sincere. What do we lose when we divest 'pantheism' of its intimation of deity? Why 'pantheism' instead of religious naturalism and the recognition that religion is not [necessarily] about God?

[cheddarsox]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Sorry - that came across poorly, but the question was sincere. What do we lose when we divest 'pantheism' of its intimation of deity? Why 'pantheism' instead of religious naturalism and the recognition that religion is not [necessarily] about God?

Good question. I'm not attached to the term. I use it because it's in common usage and helps me locate others with similar beliefs.

Religious naturalism is a great term and when more people start using it, and understand what it means, I'll start using it in a more general way. I do use it sometimes with people on faith forums, etc, to whom it makes sense.

I'm new to this forum (just a few days) and finding my way around.

Is there a forum here for religious naturalism?

I also belong to some groups that use the term naturalistic paganism.

Like I said, I'm not attached to terms...I use what gets me the results I seek, and that is usually a factor of who I am communicating with.

But I agree with you in sentiment, and I've been thinking about shedding the "pantheism" term lately myself, except for the pantheists themselves, nearly everyone else thinks it means that I consider the universe to be a deity, and I'm getting tired of correcting them.

But when I go hunting on line for like minded folks, they seem to be using the term pantheist for themselves...what's a girl to do?

[Moonshadow]

I have noticed that too.
In the meanwhile, I have taken to calling myself a UU Pagan.
If asked, I will explain that I am Naturalistic.

I like and need labels and for some reason, Pantheism isnt feeling right to me, maybe because I was raised Pagan...Not sure, I am also going through what gay people tell me happened to them when they first admitted to themselves they were gay-I admit I am Pagan to myself and then maybe someone else and then I backtrack and say...No! I am an Atheist...Spiritual but still an Atheist and it makes no sense really but its this belief that I got from the Atheists I was around for so long that any belief system, any theism is silly and I cant shake that idea.

[Jayhawker Soule]

• Religious naturalism
• What is Religious Naturalism?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Explain to me why the 'theism' in Pantheism is not superfluous.

It's etymologically correct. I'm not sure I understand your objection.

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Sorry - that came across poorly, but the question was sincere. What do we lose when we divest 'pantheism' of its intimation of deity? Why 'pantheism' instead of religious naturalism and the recognition that religion is not [necessarily] about God?

What do you mean by "intimation of deity?"

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Storm

It's etymologically correct. I'm not sure I understand your objection.


What do you mean by "intimation of deity?"

Far be it from me to speak for Jay, but I think what he means is that pantheism doesn't fit the classic definition of theism. There generally is no theistic God involved. Usually, pantheism holds that the universe is God, meaning it's a completely different definition of God than the theistic one. Does that make sense?

[Storm]

Perfect sense. I agree completely.

I still don't see what he's objecting to, though.