Evolutionary Panenthiesm

[Windwalker]

It is my belief that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is at its heart historically, a panentheistic view of God, not a theistic view. By panentheism, which is distinct from pantheism, this means that God is viewed as both wholly transcendent to creation, while wholly immanent within it, paradoxically. It takes a positive view of God, one which tries to envision what God is, versus what God is not, and makes it one that is both the Goal of spiritual aspiration, and the immanent knowing of ever-present reality in the world. The classic Trinity doctrine expresses this in saying "The Logos was made flesh and dwelt among us." The infinite, became us. Classic theism removes God once again from the world taking the Trinity and making it some metaphysical, wholly transcendent thing outside this world, up there, beyond every living thing, which it views as fallen, separate from God, lost and in darkness save for supernatural intervention from on high above. Woe are we who wallow in our sin!

Now, to add the other word here, evolutionary. This takes this positive view of the divine and ties it squarely with the movement of life as exposed well through the knowledge we have through the tool of our sciences in examining the processes that formed not just our world, but all life within it. It marries the transcendent and immanent, the eternal and impermanent, in movement, in motion towards "redemption", toward unity, from the lower to the higher, from the simple to the complex, from the blissfully slumbering to the fully awake, fully realized being in the world and in the heart and mind of the God that is the Beginning and End of all that is.

I see all religions as following this path towards that awakening;a fumbling and faulted navigating through cultures and societies, yet drawn, endlessly, relentlessly towards that eternal light that birthed us all on our way through the cosmos, from the atom to the human mind and heart and spirit reaching for its Source, to know, to touch its Self, its Origin, its hope, its eternal Being.

How we imagine God is an expression of that path of awakening from that slumber to that awakening. It evolves. It must speak to our minds and our hearts and not be stagnant in the dogma of institutions hanging onto their isolation, but freed within them all. I guess I just wish to know, can we see beyond these to move freely towards that Light that binds us all? Can we take how we envision things and allow understandings that free us to unite in That, as ourselves? Unique, beautiful, and bound together in our transcendence and our immanence, as the One and the Many? Or must we resist this hiding behind what divides us from our pasts? Do we reject knowledge, or try to take this towards a fuller unfolding toward this which we are all drawn?

 

[Orbit]

It is my belief that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is at its heart historically, a panentheistic view of God, not a theistic view. By panentheism, which is distinct from pantheism, this means that God is viewed as both wholly transcendent to creation, while wholly immanent within it, paradoxically.

You say God is outside of creation, yet within it. Why make the paradox? Why not just say God is everything?

The paradox implies that there is something for God to be outside of. So God, therefore, is the universe but also exists outside of the universe? In a parallel universe? In a sort of immaterial "heaven"? Is it a "where" or is this a conceptual nonmaterial space?--but space is material. Or is this all just a koan?

 

[Iti oj]

opcorn: wonders where idav is.

 

[allfoak]

Acts 17:28Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

28 for in Him we live, and move, and are; as also certain of your poets have said: For of Him also we are offspring.

So here is the paradox.

#1 In him we live move and are

#2 also we are his offspring


As an infant we are seen as the offspring of our parents, we have yet to develop to the point of being an individual.
As an infant , through our parents, we live move and are, yet we are separate from them.
As we grow a strange thing happens.
We become ourselves, which just happens to be much like our parents.

This is true on every level.
Our spiritual growth happens in much the same way over many, many lifetimes.

 

[idav]

Yes I would agree that the trinity is panentheistic however i would contend that Jesus was a pantheist and attempting to teach it. The trinity is a mistaken view unnecessarily separating the creation from its source. As such Jesus never claimed to be god as the trinity describes. He was aware that the divinity is within.

 

[Windwalker]

You say God is outside of creation, yet within it. Why make the paradox? Why not just say God is everything?

By saying God is everything you've reduced God to the sum total of all objects.

So God, therefore, is the universe but also exists outside of the universe? In a parallel universe? In a sort of immaterial "heaven"? Is it a "where" or is this a conceptual nonmaterial space?--but space is material. Or is this all just a koan?

Well, a koan would help kick the mind out of trying to reason what is not reasonable. Where does time exist?

 

[Windwalker]

Yes I would agree that the trinity is panentheistic however i would contend that Jesus was a pantheist and attempting to teach it.

That's an interesting view. I'd enjoy hearing your support for it.

The trinity is a mistaken view unnecessarily separating the creation from its source.

How? Why? While I do agree that how the Trinity is traditionally taught does in fact make the Trinity a definition of strict dualistic theism, in effect "kicking Jesus upstairs", I do not believe that the Trinity formulation actually stands up to that dualistic reinterpretation of it.

As such Jesus never claimed to be god as the trinity describes. He was aware that the divinity is within.

I'm afraid you may be understanding the Trinity in the way I said it really doesn't express. That was the point of my OP. He was aware that divinity is within. And in fact the Trinity is all about that movement and flow of the transcendent and the immanent (incarnation), in all of us. "I pray they may all be one as we are one". That's the knowledge of the divine within, as he had. That's panentheistic.

 

[idav]

That's an interesting view. I'd enjoy hearing your support for it.


How? Why? While I do agree that how the Trinity is traditionally taught does in fact make the Trinity a definition of strict dualistic theism, in effect "kicking Jesus upstairs", I do not believe that the Trinity formulation actually stands up to that dualistic reinterpretation of it.

I think john does stand up to that interpretation. John chapter one is very panentheistic in my view and includes saying god "holds all things together". It also states creation needing to go through the first creation so essentially the word became the universe. God created through the word.

I'm afraid you may be understanding the Trinity in the way I said it really doesn't express. That was the point of my OP. He was aware that divinity is within. And in fact the Trinity is all about that movement and flow of the transcendent and the immanent (incarnation), in all of us. "I pray they may all be one as we are one". That's the knowledge of the divine within, as he had. That's panentheistic.

Panentheistic would be to make jesus more god than he actually is. He was a pantheist praying for a union that I already exists. He even said if youve seen me youve seen the father. Jesus never personifies god rather its an impersonal power that resides in all. Jesus distinguishes himself as not being the source while at the same time saying gods will is through him. Jesus is the only thing making god personal everything else points an impersonal force that existed from the beginning.

 

[Windwalker]

I think john does stand up to that interpretation. John chapter one is very panentheistic in my view and includes saying god "holds all things together".

Maybe it might help if you define what you think panentheism is, because I very much agree that John 1 is panentheistic. Could it be you're not understanding me and you think I'm saying something I'm not?

It also states creation needing to go through the first creation so essentially the word became the universe. God created through the word.

Yes. I had a very lengthy discussion of this with a Hindu here, showing how I felt the Logos of John 1 is express the same thing as OM, just in a different set of terms. Traditional Christianity doesn't seem to really hear that, in the way I do as I read it. I'd like to find that thread again and go over it again. Some good material in it.

Panentheistic would be to make jesus more god than he actually is.

Whoa, there you've lost me. How can you be less God and be God? It seems you are maybe not understanding panentheism, or something.

He was a pantheist praying for a union that I already exists.

While I most certainly agree that union already exists, I'm not sure how that qualifies for pantheism. That's nonduality. Pantheism is not nonduality.

He even said if youve seen me youve seen the father.

Yes he did, and I understand that nondually. I can say that as well, but only if I truly know my own nature, my true Identity. So could you, if that is true for you.

Jesus never personifies god rather its an impersonal power that resides in all.

I can't see that. Yes, Godhead is impersonal, but there's more to it than that. I won't burden this post unpacking that at this point.

Jesus distinguishes himself as not being the source while at the same time saying gods will is through him. Jesus is the only thing making god personal everything else points an impersonal force that existed from the beginning.

I want to pick this last thought up more later after we work out what seems a language problem.

 

[idav]

Maybe it might help if you define what you think panentheism is, because I very much agree that John 1 is panentheistic. Could it be you're not understanding me and you think I'm saying something I'm not?


Yes. I had a very lengthy discussion of this with a Hindu here, showing how I felt the Logos of John 1 is express the same thing as OM, just in a different set of terms. Traditional Christianity doesn't seem to really hear that, in the way I do as I read it. I'd like to find that thread again and go over it again. Some good material in it.


Whoa, there you've lost me. How can you be less God and be God? It seems you are maybe not understanding panentheism, or something.


While I most certainly agree that union already exists, I'm not sure how that qualifies for pantheism. That's nonduality. Pantheism is not nonduality.


Yes he did, and I understand that nondually. I can say that as well, but only if I truly know my own nature, my true Identity. So could you, if that is true for you.


I can't see that. Yes, Godhead is impersonal, but there's more to it than that. I won't burden this post unpacking that at this point.


I want to pick this last thought up more later after we work out what seems a language problem.

The main reason I say it is pantheistic is because of modern physics. That source that brought out the word is impersonal and required the word in order to create. Thats like tieing a panentheist type gods hands. Why is it that god could not create except that it be through the word? I come to the conclusion god the father is the power and the logos would be the personal builder. Yet its one in the sake and no need ro distinguish except to say there is a method needed for existence. I see that as matter and energy coming from the energy that was the singularity. Yet the micro world is trascendent yet one and the same, the fabric of what we see not at all seperate really. The nonduality is an illusion to me.

 

[idav]

What it depends on is the relationship between jesus and god and jesus and us. I consider jesus a brother not a the father and he said this is how we pray "our father". Yet we are all children of the most high, "ye are gods". The OT also has a rather impersonal god as well which is debatable, and the only thing personalizing it in the nt is jesus as a manifestation of what holds us together, what is us.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

By saying God is everything you've reduced God to the sum total of all objects.

Sure, but it's hardly limiting God. Simply because a monotheistic God is an object himself.

It isn't any worse than saying "You've reduced God to the word God"

 

[Windwalker]

That source that brought out the word is impersonal and required the word in order to create. Thats like tieing a panentheist type gods hands.

Why? Again I really believe, and asked in my post you responded to, that you may need to clarify your uses of these terms. In reading your views of Logos and Godhead it seriously sounds like your dancing right around the same views I hold, but just have different ideas of terms. I'd like to save us some time by cutting to the chase. I get the impression we're saying the same things.

As to the above Godhead is really unqualifiable, so you can't honestly call it impersonal, anymore than you can call it personal. It is Source, and as such is formless. To claim it as impersonal is a dualistic perception.

Why is it that god could not create except that it be through the word? I come to the conclusion god the father is the power and the logos would be the personal builder.

I think you're still thinking in dualistic terms. I think I'm going to have really lay out the whole of what I see in John 1 to express this better. I did some looking to find that thread I mentioned about the Logos and OM being expressions of the same sort of realization of the nature of Godhead. I found it a moment ago. Please take your time reading through the many pages of what I was expressing in there and see if at all how it differs from what you're saying. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/160077-logos-aum.html

I'd direct you above to post 10 where I start to lay it out a little deeper. I go further in the rest of the thread. I should reread that myself and see if there is more I could add now.

Yet its one in the sake and no need ro distinguish except to say there is a method needed for existence. I see that as matter and energy coming from the energy that was the singularity.

Logos is the creative outflowing of eternal Godhead or Source. It is not a separate "person" 'needed to create', or "could not create without" as you worded it. Logos IS the expression of Godhead, never not in existence, always and ever Godhead outflowing. Hah, in a sense it's, "Not three, not one" . I think I like that.

Trinity is not an object of a theistic deity form. It is the dynamism of all existence and nonexistence. It is nonduality expressed in metaphysical terms.

Yet the micro world is trascendent yet one and the same, the fabric of what we see not at all seperate really. The nonduality is an illusion to me.

The micro world is transcendent? No. It's fundamental to the gross level reality. It is not transcendent. It's material.

Again, please take the time and respond to my questions for your clarification of terms which I asked for before. I think we're dancing around the same points.

 

[idav]

Why? Again I really believe, and asked in my post you responded to, that you may need to clarify your uses of these terms. In reading your views of Logos and Godhead it seriously sounds like your dancing right around the same views I hold, but just have different ideas of terms. I'd like to save us some time by cutting to the chase. I get the impression we're saying the same things.

As to the above Godhead is really unqualifiable, so you can't honestly call it impersonal, anymore than you can call it personal. It is Source, and as such is formless. To claim it as impersonal is a dualistic perception.


I think you're still thinking in dualistic terms. I think I'm going to have really lay out the whole of what I see in John 1 to express this better. I did some looking to find that thread I mentioned about the Logos and OM being expressions of the same sort of realization of the nature of Godhead. I found it a moment ago. Please take your time reading through the many pages of what I was expressing in there and see if at all how it differs from what you're saying. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/160077-logos-aum.html

I'd direct you above to post 10 where I start to lay it out a little deeper. I go further in the rest of the thread. I should reread that myself and see if there is more I could add now.


Logos is the creative outflowing of eternal Godhead or Source. It is not a separate "person" 'needed to create', or "could not create without" as you worded it. Logos IS the expression of Godhead, never not in existence, always and ever Godhead outflowing. Hah, in a sense it's, "Not three, not one" . I think I like that.

Trinity is not an object of a theistic deity form. It is the dynamism of all existence and nonexistence. It is nonduality expressed in metaphysical terms.


The micro world is transcendent? No. It's fundamental to the gross level reality. It is not transcendent. It's material.

Again, please take the time and respond to my questions for your clarification of terms which I asked for before. I think we're dancing around the same points.

A few key things to get the ball rolling. There are already the agreed pantheistic elements. All that is left to discuss at that point is why make the distinction in the first place. I see us as the container of god but god is also the fabric "holds it together". Gnostic texts help the pantheistic case more but even in revelation it is described nicely. As god is the light and the power and the lamb was the lamp. One cannot exist without the other as confirmed in John 1. Thats the model I have in my head sorta, maybe duality not a trinity.

 

[Windwalker]

I'll put together a proper response later as time permits, but I wanted to add a placeholder thought here that the other part of this I want to tie in is the first part of Evolutionary Panentheism, and that is of course Evolution. Make note that this is part of a ternary system as opposed to a binary system. That plays into this....