• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Define my religion

siti

Well-Known Member
The beliefs you describe here are quite identical to mine. However, before I apply a label, however, I would need to know if you view this possible god as immanent or transcendent.
Yes - I mean both but in a particular - and perfectly natural - way. God is entirely immanent in the sense that there is nothing of God that is 'outside' reality but transcendent in the sense that it (God/reality) is always becoming other than it was - i.e. beyond 'existing' reality. But then so are human beings.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes - I mean both but in a particular - and perfectly natural - way. God is entirely immanent in the sense that there is nothing of God that is 'outside' reality but transcendent in the sense that it (God/reality) is always becoming other than it was - i.e. beyond 'existing' reality. But then so are human beings.

Since you view God as both immanent and transcendent, I would label you a panentheist.

Pantheists (the closest label I've found that encompasses my beliefs), I general, view God as exclusively immanent.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Why categorize or label you beliefs, especially spiritual beliefs, they cannot be conceptualized, as soon as you do that you reduce it to a mere belief. I have my own so called religion, I can try and explain it to you, but what I tell you is not what it is, I can only point to it, you yourself must experience your truth for yourself, and point other to that truth, and they also must experience truth for themselves, yes we can never organize this truth, because then it will die.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Why categorize or label you beliefs, especially spiritual beliefs, they cannot be conceptualized, as soon as you do that you reduce it to a mere belief. I have my own so called religion, I can try and explain it to you, but what I tell you is not what it is, I can only point to it, you yourself must experience your truth for yourself, and point other to that truth, and they also must experience truth for themselves, yes we can never organize this truth, because then it will die.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I said "the closest label that encompasses my beliefs". I do not allow my beliefs to be confined within a label. My first post ever posted in this forum offers my opinion on labels.

While I share your feelings on labels, labels do serve the purpose of facilitating an overview of one's beliefs when another asks.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Since you view God as both immanent and transcendent, I would label you a panentheist.
I'm not too sure about that - I don't think that God ever is more than reality, but is always becoming more. Its a bit like Archytas' cosmic-edge riddle - if God goes to the edge of the cosmos and stretches out his hand beyond the edge, then whatever was beyond the edge is now within the cosmos. It doesn't have to be about space-time only (though it applies) but about any novel reality that emerges. God is continually transcending reality without ever becoming transcendent because every 'act of transcendence' (which is what they are - i.e. 'acts' rather than 'conditions') instantiates a novel immanent reality. Its just the process of the 'more than the sum the parts' becoming the new 'sum of the parts'.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I said "the closest label that encompasses my beliefs". I do not allow my beliefs to be confined within a label. My first post ever posted in this forum offers my opinion on labels.

While I share your feelings on labels, labels do serve the purpose of facilitating an overview of one's beliefs when another asks.
Yes of course we need to use labels, but when it truly comes to that which is beyond the mind, we should use labels sparingly, because many will latch onto the label and miss the mark.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Why categorize or label you beliefs, especially spiritual beliefs, they cannot be conceptualized, as soon as you do that you reduce it to a mere belief. I have my own so called religion, I can try and explain it to you, but what I tell you is not what it is, I can only point to it, you yourself must experience your truth for yourself, and point other to that truth, and they also must experience truth for themselves, yes we can never organize this truth, because then it will die.
Yes - but isn't that the same even if we are talking about an object, or a scene or whatever...the description is not the thing itself. But how do we carry on rational discourse without defining, labeling and categorizing the ideas we want to compare with the reality we observe?
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Yes - but isn't that the same even if we are talking about an object, or a scene or whatever...the description is not the thing itself. But how do we carry on rational discourse without defining, labeling and categorizing the ideas we want to compare with the reality we observe?
What we call reality we all can equally see if all of our senses are order, and what is beyond the senses we cannot see through our senses, that's really the difference of label use.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not too sure about that - I don't think that God ever is more than reality, but is always becoming more. Its a bit like Archytas' cosmic-edge riddle - if God goes to the edge of the cosmos and stretches out his hand beyond the edge, then whatever was beyond the edge is now within the cosmos. It doesn't have to be about space-time only (though it applies) but about any novel reality that emerges. God is continually transcending reality without ever becoming transcendent because every 'act of transcendence' (which is what they are - i.e. 'acts' rather than 'conditions') instantiates a novel immanent reality. Its just the process of the 'more than the sum the parts' becoming the new 'sum of the parts'.

Just so I have a better understanding of what you are saying, you see divine acts brought forth by an immanent divinity connected to everything as transcendent, but don't necessarily see a God who is transcendent in the sense of existing as a separate sentient being?
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Just so I have a better understanding of what you are saying, you see divine acts brought forth by an immanent divinity connected to everything as transcendent, but don't necessarily see a God who is transcendent in the sense of existing as a separate sentient being?
Yes - that's about it. Not sure I would choose the term 'divinity' - probably 'creativity' - but 'God' doesn't raise the creation to new heights from 'on high' but rather pushes back the limits of creation from within. Just like we do as humans only on a much grander scale.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Please note this is not a call out, but in another thread, quite a few people have objected to my definition of a certain - let me call it - way of thinking. I suspect that this objection is partly because the perception is that I have an opposing religious view. I'm not sure that I do and to be perfectly honest, I have no clear idea how I would define, categorize or label my religious 'viewpoint'. Certainly I have no religion - I don't go to any church, synagogue, temple or mosque - I don't have any religious affiliations at all. But my views are probably religious in nature in some sense. Here's what I think about the world/reality/God...

1. We are all connected - not only to each other but to every other living thing on planet earth and to all the billions of stars etc. 'out there'
2. That connection is probably mediated by a common, shared thread of ubiquitous "connectedness" that I call experience - this is a form of panpsychism - but I prefer to call it panexperietialism
3. It is entirely possible as far as I can see that the emergence of holistic organic experiential (and perhaps conscious) wholes could occur above the level of the individual organism (like a human being for example) and may happen at the levels of communities, biomes...and onward and upward to the level of an entire universe.
4. I have no objection to calling the possible emergent creative 'experientiality' (that may or may not be 'conscious' in the normally understood sense) of the entire universe "God"
5. None of this conflicts with science - evolution is a routinely observed fact of nature - which means - if the whole of the universe is sufficiently 'god-like' to qualify for the title 'God' then God also evolves

Most of the above is a consistent with process philosophy but it is expressly not 'theism' - it is 'non-theistic' IMO because 'God' whilst possible is neither necessary nor necessarily one nor necessarily the 'creator' nor any of the omnis in any of the usual senses of any of 'theistic' religions.

It might be 'deistic' in the sense that I expressly deny God any powers beyond or above nature. It may be 'panthe-istic' in the sense that God may (but I don't suppose it has to be) 'all' of the universe. It is probably naturalistic because although I may be stretching the boundaries of what I am saying beyond what naturalistic science knows, it is not beyond what is reasonably inferrable from what we know. And if it were not for the fact that I have no issue with using the word 'God' - it might even be atheistic, because I would then just be talking about the apparently inherent creative propensity of the natural universe.

How do you 'define' or 'label' that?

The first four don't say anything, using as they do, phrases like "holistic organic experiential" which is classic psychobabble. So then yeah, #5 is correct since it doesn't conflict with anything scientific, just with being communicative.

Have a nice day. :)
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Thank you! And by the way, thanks for your usual intellectual input. I'll try not to use difficult words that you don't understand in future.

I know exactly what they mean. In fact "holistic" is one of the biggest BS indicators there is. I don't know if it's used more in psycho babble or home remedy infomercials. Either way, congers visions of snake oil and students falling asleep over liberal arts Phil 101-601 texts. Thanks for the softball. :):):)
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I think you mean "conjures" - unless you are having visions of eels rather than snake oil. But as I said, thanks for your usual intellectual input!

Ohhhhhhhhhhh ouch, ya got me. Spelling error used to maximum deflection. You should sleep well tonight.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Deflection? From what - the inane stupidity of the rest of your post? You resurrected a six-week old thread just so you could tell me that my OP was "BS" and "psychobabble" (which, as I recall, is your usual word for stuff you are too stupid to understand) - you cannot disagree with it in intelligent terms (which would certainly be possible for someone with any intelligence) so you resort to insulting comments that you can't even f***ing spell properly. Either disagree sensibly or f*** off with your f***wit trolling dumbass.

Now I'll sleep better.

Have a nice day. :)
 
Last edited:

dingdao

The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching
Congratulations, I would put your personal theology in the Philosophical Taoism range.
 
Top