The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Actually your amount of godliness would probably be determined based on the amount of atoms you possess.
I was thinking this too, but I didn't really care.
-
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!
What kind of pantheist are you?
- Thread starter mycorrhiza
- Start date
I was thinking this too, but I didn't really care.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Pull one man out of a group, he is still of the group.
Unless you're concept of God is literal and is similar to the trinity except the individual atoms are the parts of it, then God is just a status.
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
The single man is not the group, though
Definitely not a literal understanding. It's just a descriptive metaphor for the Universe. I'm as much part of the Universe as anything else, but I am not the Universe itself. I'm like a cell in the body that is the Universe.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
The single man is not the group, though
Definitely not a literal understanding. It's just a descriptive metaphor for the Universe. I'm as much part of the Universe as anything else, but I am not the Universe itself. I'm like a cell in the body that is the Universe.
What I mean is, if the whole thing is Godly, then a piece of it is godly itself. Just like if you pull off Edward Cullen's leg it would be sparkly.
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
Godly or divine, definitely, but not the whole Godliness. I'm pretty sure we actually agree, just semantics. Depending on the scientific reason for his sparkliness, the leg might not sparkle
. The concept was never fully explained in the books as far as I know.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Godly or divine, definitely, but not the whole Godliness. I'm pretty sure we actually agree, just semantics. Depending on the scientific reason for his sparkliness, the leg might not sparkle
I agree not the whole Godliness but I'm still Godly and I say take advantage of that.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
I see the universe as a creation of energy, both positive and negative. For me, the positive energy is anthropomorphically seen as God and the negative energy is Satan. The questions for me are: are these two aspects self aware? are they even separate or two parts of the same whole? If they are self aware, are they also aware of the beings within their makeup, ie us? or are we all just microbes within the larger being who may know we exist but are not aware of our movements and activities? I ponder these questions but I have no real desire to know the answers. I don't think they are knowable. But I enjoy the pondering.
My first pantheistic image was monistic--all the world exists as information (in-form-ation). "Physical," "mental," "real," and "illusion," are types of information. "God" is the mystery, what we are informed by; alternately, "god" is us, informed (formed from within).
I'm also a fan of Dogen's image of "One Bright Pearl," and my understanding of pantheistic images was broadened by the idea of a nameless "surface" upon which everything, even "a surface," resides.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Or put another way, was the "I am" that is identified as "Jesus" also an illusion in the way that your own self is? And if so, what is the function of the Christ in your approach to Christianity?doppelgänger;2981324 said:
There is room for a dualistic point of view in pantheism it would just be all contained within the universe. The main point of divergence would be that panentheism believes in a god that is also outside the universe which I hear it described as mind being god and transcending the body which would be the universe.
OTHER: pantheist who understands that the manner in which humans slice up reality is a construct, therefore all of the above models (and an infinite number of other ones) are all true from a certain point of view. My arbitrary construct of reality states there are four roots: Elemental Air, Elemental Fire, Elemental Earth, and Elemental Water. Each of the Four found in all things of the universe and create Quintessence, or reality as we can know it.
And yes, this is where my username comes from.
And yes, this is where my username comes from.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
That doesn't work for me. The only way I can make sense of panentheism is to think of it as the logical-grammatical substratum that gives rise to the basic forms of symbolic thought - the hard-coded neurology of human language that doesn't vary from language to language or in different cultural contexts - what Chomsky might be calling his "Language Acquisition Device" or is sometimes referred to as "Universal Grammar."
"I am afraid we are not rid of God, for we still have faith in grammar." - Nietzsche
That is a good description for dualism as I understand but at any rate I'd still be pantheist. I don't currently have a reason to think the data is anything other than something resonating off of something physical or the data is actually something physical.doppelgänger;2981443 said:
edit: I think that naturally panentheism is advocating dualism though one can still argue it is one yet separate, we are talking more about substance. This dualism can still happen just within the confines of the universe which would be pantheistic.
Last edited:
According to the quiz on this thread, I'm an agnostic dualist pantheist/animist.
Twig pentagram
High Priest
I Am a Luciferian pantheist, so of course I chose other.
Pantheist by ontologically asthetic default. I enjoy all of the symbolic and linguistic construction opportunities it affords. Perhaps that makes me an esoteric pantheist? or an occultic pantheist. or maybe just a chaotic one.
I really wouldn't mind being considered a sexy atheist though. :flirt:
SpaceMosher789
New Member
I suppose dualism, however I'd stress that the physical substance and the mental substance are inherent to one another, not mutually separate. The way I figure, how can there be no inherent conscious power in a hunk of carbon or glass of water, when if you throw those atoms/molecules together in a certain way, you get a self-procreating machine capable of having hopes, dreams, and fears (the human creature)? I see matter as something that assembles itself consciously into systematic forms, and furthermore, that the universe, as the sum of all existing matter, basically has its own consciousness that permeates everything.
