Am I a pantheist?

[nazz]

Or a panentheist?

I believe all reality goes back to one Source. A Potentiality that manifested as an Actuality. I sometimes call that Source "God" but I also use the term "God" to refer to the Highest Being, the first Aeon (that is the actualized form of the Source) from which everything else has its origin through emanation. I call the highest being "Father" and see him as existing separately from other derived forms.

So what the heck am I?

 

[Quintessence]

Do you feel the Source is greater than the universe or in some way extends outside of or beyond it? Do you also consider that Source to be divine, sacred, and/or worthy of worship and adoration?

If yes, I'd probably call you a panentheist as your worshiping something that exists outside of (or transcends) the universe. Pantheism sees the divine/sacred/gods as synonymous with the universe with nothing else transcending that.

Of course, then you might also want to ask what "the universe" is to you. For some people, that category is larger than it is for others.

 

[Awoon]

Or a panentheist?

I believe all reality goes back to one Source. A Potentiality that manifested as an Actuality. I sometimes call that Source "God" but I also use the term "God" to refer to the Highest Being, the first Aeon (that is the actualized form of the Source) from which everything else has its origin through emanation. I call the highest being "Father" and see him as existing separately from other derived forms.

So what the heck am I?

A practicing person like the rest of us.

 

[nazz]

Do you feel the Source is greater than the universe or in some way extends outside of or beyond it?

No. The Source no longer even exists since it actualized as the All. "Source" only refers to its pre-actualized form.

Do you also consider that Source to be divine, sacred, and/or worthy of worship and adoration?

No, not really. I mean I might use words like "divine" or "God" in talking about it but it is incorrect in my view to see it as a Person or Being to be worshiped. Rather I worship the Father who its actualized expression. Think Brahman/Brahma in Vedanta. Though in another sense I might call it "the Mother of All". But that's just a personification.

If yes, I'd probably call you a panentheist as your worshiping something that exists outside of (or transcends) the universe. Pantheism sees the divine/sacred/gods as synonymous with the universe with nothing else transcending that.

I do see the Father transcending all other Aeons yet at the same time just as much a part of the All as everything else.

Of course, then you might also want to ask what "the universe" is to you. For some people, that category is larger than it is for others.

When I think of the universe I think of this universe--the sum total of physical matter/energy as well as space/time of this cosmos. But this one is just one of many in my view.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You sound like a pantheist to me.

 

[Windwalker]

Or a panentheist?

I believe all reality goes back to one Source. A Potentiality that manifested as an Actuality. I sometimes call that Source "God" but I also use the term "God" to refer to the Highest Being, the first Aeon (that is the actualized form of the Source) from which everything else has its origin through emanation. I call the highest being "Father" and see him as existing separately from other derived forms.

So what the heck am I?

You decide:

• A theist believes God is the Source of all creation, but is separate and removed from creation. Wholly transcendent to creation and only in the world through special miraculous interventions.
• A pantheist believes God is wholly immanent within the world and not separate from it and does not transcend it. Creation is God and not separate from God.
• A panentheist believes God is both transcendent to creation, and immanent within it. God is the Source of all manifestation, and wholly immanent within creation.

The question I'd ask you is do you feel God is immanent in nature, in all things, while also seeing God as transcendent to nature, paradoxically? Then I'd say you're a panenthiest.

 

[Sha'irullah]

We will need further clarification on your thoughts about god in relation to existence.

Pantheism asserts that natural existence(matter and even energy) are literally apart of god.

While Panentheism asserts that physical existence is not only apart of god but that god is also beyond even that. God is in your thoughts and consciousness while also being separate from physical existence simultaneously.

Pantheism only concerns itself with physicality essentially

 

[nazz]

You decide:

• A theist believes God is the Source of all creation, but is separate and removed from creation. Wholly transcendent to creation and only in the world through special miraculous interventions.
• A pantheist believes God is wholly immanent within the world and not separate from it and does not transcend it. Creation is God and not separate from God.
• A panentheist believes God is both transcendent to creation, and immanent within it. God is the Source of all manifestation, and wholly immanent within creation.

The question I'd ask you is do you feel God is immanent in nature, in all things, while also seeing God as transcendent to nature, paradoxically? Then I'd say you're a panenthiest.

I think I decided I am a panentheist (in relation to the Father and the universe) that believes in a greater pantheism (The All coming from the Source).

 

[Windwalker]

I think I decided I am a panentheist (in relation to the Father and the universe) that believes in a greater pantheism (The All coming from the Source).

I was just thinking to add something here and remembered I went into some depth about it in a topic I started awhile back that might shed some interesting light regarding panentheism, since you referenced the "Father": http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/155334-evolutionary-panenthiesm.html

 

[nazz]

I was just thinking to add something here and remembered I went into some depth about it in a topic I started awhile back that might shed some interesting light regarding panentheism, since you referenced the "Father": http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/155334-evolutionary-panenthiesm.html

Nice. Thanks for sharing

 

[Agent Smith]

A pantheist believes
1. God = Nature/The Universe.
2. Not a being, in the sense humanlike, with motives, thoughts, very distinct from the Christian YHWH.
3. Nature does not/never intervenes, thereby making prayer pointless/unnecessary

The granum for pantheism has been traced all the way back to the 17th century, to Baruch Spinoza, who famously announced, Deus sive Natura. That's just one of the many rootlets for pantheism. It is, what else, a horrendas heregias (horrid heresy).

Did you check all the boxes? If you did ...

 

[metis]

A pantheist believes
1. God = Nature/The Universe.
2. Not a being, in the sense humanlike, with motives, thoughts, very distinct from the Christian YHWH.
3. Nature does not/never intervenes, thereby making prayer pointless/unnecessary

The granum for pantheism has been traced all the way back to the 17th century, to Baruch Spinoza, who famously announced, Deus sive Natura. That's just one of the many rootlets for pantheism. It is, what else, a horrendas heregias (horrid heresy).

Did you check all the boxes? If you did ...

Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza?

 

[Agent Smith]

Are you familiar with Baruch Spinoza?

At a Wikipedia level, si.

 

[metis]

At a Wikipedia level, si.

Let me recommend an excellent book on mostly his philosophical/"religious" approach, which is "A Book Forged In Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age" by Nadler.

BTW, when in Amsterdam I visited his former synagogue, which also is quite impressive,

 

[Aupmanyav]

Or a panentheist?

I believe all reality goes back to one Source. A Potentiality that manifested as an Actuality. I sometimes call that Source "God" but I also use the term "God" to refer to the Highest Being, the first Aeon (that is the actualized form of the Source) from which everything else has its origin through emanation. I call the highest being "Father" and see him as existing separately from other derived forms.

So what the heck am I?

You are not a true panentheist. A Panentheist would not add a confusion like God, Father in his/her belief. A true panentheist would just say 'it' to designate whatever exists. Hindus term it as Brahman.

 

[metis]

You are not a true panentheist. A Panentheist would not add a confusion like God, Father in his/her belief. A true panentheist would just say 'it' to designate whatever exists. Hindus term it as Brahman.

And generally speaking, most panentheists/pantheists do not differentiate between the two as that would constitute a belief that's logically impossible to verify.

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO. a panentheist should stay away from the word and idea of a God, since everything is that, even dog ****.
As Advaita Hinduism says "Sarvam khalu idam Brahma" (All these things (are) Brahman).

 

[SalixIncendium]

IMHO. a panentheist should stay away from the word and idea of a God, since everything is that, even dog ****.

I can see why one might suggest that a pantheist should do this.

However, a panentheist sees the divine as both immanent and transcendent. As I understand it, it's that transcendent being a panentheist calls God.

 

[metis]

IMHO. a panentheist should stay away from the word and idea of a God, since everything is that, even dog ****.
As Advaita Hinduism says "Sarvam khalu idam Brahma" (All these things (are) Brahman).

I can see why one might suggest that a pantheist should do this.

However, a panentheist sees the divine as both immanent and transcendent. As I understand it, it's that transcendent being a panentheist calls God

The only problem I have with the above is that both still slip into the "belief mode" minus objective evidence for either. To avoid this, I used to use this as my old Signature Statement, which I still do follow: Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much just leave it at that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The only problem I have with the above is that both still slip into the "belief mode" minus objective evidence for either. To avoid this, I used to use this as my old Signature Statement, which I still do follow: Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much just leave it at that.

I won't call maya "God."