God is All and in All -

[Balthazzar]

Short definition of pan(en)theism -

Which oddly enough, or not so oddly enough parrots the bible, the New Testament specifically, on how God is to be understood as a prophetic declaration.

 

[metis]

Short definition of pan(en)theism -

Which oddly enough, or not so oddly enough parrots the bible, the New Testament specifically, on how God is to be understood as a prophetic declaration.

Ever read anything about Baruch Spinoza? He often used the word "Nature" as another name for "God", and Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God".

 

[Balthazzar]

Ever read anything about Baruch Spinoza? He often used the word "Nature" as another name for "God", and Einstein said he believed in "Spinoza's God".

I'm aware of Spinoza, although I've never read his work. One could simply say "life" and it would be equally true. Terms and definitions eh?

 

[metis]

I'm aware of Spinoza, although I've never read his work. One could simply say "life" and it would be equally true. Terms and definitions eh?

Or "Existence".

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What is the difference between panentheism and pantheism? What exactly does it mean for God to be “more” than “all”?

 

[Balthazzar]

What is the difference between panentheism and pantheism? What exactly does it mean for God to be “more” than “all”?

It would en-clude what is yet to be - outside the parameters of that which already exists - New creations, universes, entities, beings, etc. that have not yet been formed.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It would en-clude what is yet to be - outside the parameters of that which already exists - New creations, universes, entities, beings, etc. that have not yet been formed.

As I understand “all” would include literally everything, including the past present and future. Why would “all” be limited to everything within space but not everything within time, as time itself is just another dimension of the universe, and all things within time exist as all things exist in width or length or height.

 

[Balthazzar]

As I understand “all” would include literally everything, including the past present and future. Why would “all” be limited to everything within space but not everything within time, as time itself is just another dimension of the universe, and all things within time exist as all things exist in width or length or height.

Star seed children - for example - the true new creations - who have only recently come on the scene - Old souls, those who have lived many lifetimes and perhaps completed the process of becoming one with the universe, being the creators of these new souls - Despite the all things exist including time concept, the new creations birthed from developed and "refined" sources the "en" aspect of pan en theism. They simply never existed prior to this type of expansion.

 

[Orbit]

What is the difference between panentheism and pantheism? What exactly does it mean for God to be “more” than “all”?

In pantheism, God is the universe and everything in it. In panentheism God is immanent in the world, but also transcends it.

 

[Balthazzar]

In pantheism, God is the universe and everything in it. In panentheism God is immanent in the world, but also transcends it.

Different wording but essentially the same definition as my own - I choose to include the "en" in pan thiesm - The scriptural version seems to suffice also: God being "all and in all" - this would account for newly created extensions of ourselves.

 

[dybmh]

Different wording but essentially the same definition as my own - I choose to include the "en" in pan thiesm - The scriptural version seems to suffice also: God being "all and in all" - this would account for newly created extensions of ourselves.

All *in* All, imv, puts a limit on God. There is a boundary, a border, a limit. So that's pantheism, not panentheism. A panthentheistic God cannot be contained.

It would en-clude what is yet to be - outside the parameters of that which already exists - New creations, universes, entities, beings, etc. that have not yet been formed.

Yes. but more. It also includes all the things that cannot / will not be created. A panentheistic God includes all the nothingness just as much as somethingness. A very strange way of thinking about it, but now the infinitude includes literally every thing and non-thing. There is no limit, no boundary.

 

[Balthazzar]

All *in* All, imv, puts a limit on God. There is a boundary, a border, a limit. So that's pantheism, not panentheism. A panthentheistic God cannot be contained.

Yes. but more. It also includes all the things that cannot / will not be created. A panentheistic God includes all the nothingness just as much as somethingness. A very strange way of thinking about it, but now the infinitude includes literally every thing and non-thing. There is no limit, no boundary.

If God is All and likewise in All, then how is it that God is contained?

 

[dybmh]

What is the difference between panentheism and pantheism? What exactly does it mean for God to be “more” than “all”?

I like the answers given, but I'd like to take the question in a different direction.

Is there a practical difference between pantheism and panentheism? Besides brain-food, and contemplation, how does believing in one concept effect life / life style / code of conduct?

Panentheism permits the idea of infinite reward and infinite punishment depending on ones choices. Pantheism naturally puts a limit on this.

Depending on how literally pantheism is understood, a person's life is all there is for them, nothing more. Therefore reward and punishment are limited to the individual life, nothing more. So, if a person intentionally causes harm, but, doesn't get caught in this life, there's no negative consequence. Pantheism can be used to rationalize bad actions.

 

[dybmh]

If God is All and likewise in All, then how is it that God is contained?

God is contained within itself.

God is X. God is in X. X is in X.

If I take the first X and slowly move it over top of the second X, each and every part of the first letter X is included in the second X and no more. The first X is in the second X literally. X is in itself.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I like the answers given, but I'd like to take the question in a different direction.

Is there a practical difference between pantheism and panentheism? Besides brain-food, and contemplation, how does believing in one concept effect life / life style / code of conduct?

Panentheism permits the idea of infinite reward and infinite punishment depending on ones choices. Pantheism naturally puts a limit on this.

Depending on how literally pantheism is understood, a person's life is all there is for them, nothing more. Therefore reward and punishment are limited to the individual life, nothing more. So, if a person intentionally causes harm, but, doesn't get caught in this life, there's no negative consequence. Pantheism can be used to rationalize bad actions.

Hmm. But if we are all The Universe, bad actions affect others and therefore we're affecting ourselves, so therefore it rationalizes against bad actions, no?

 

[Balthazzar]

God is contained within itself.

God is X. God is in X. X is in X.

If I take the first X and slowly move it over top of the second X, each and every part of the first letter X is included in the second X and no more. The first X is in the second X literally. X is in itself.

a varient of zzyzx road or chromosome reference without the Y ?

 

[dybmh]

Hmm. But if we are all The Universe, bad actions affect others and therefore we're affecting ourselves, so therefore it rationalizes against bad actions, no?

Yes! It can rationalize both. Panentheism has added incentive.

 

[Balthazzar]

or multiverse theory or all the above?

 

[dybmh]

or multiverse theory or all the above?

elaborate?

 

[Balthazzar]

I like the answers given, but I'd like to take the question in a different direction.

Is there a practical difference between pantheism and panentheism? Besides brain-food, and contemplation, how does believing in one concept effect life / life style / code of conduct?

Panentheism permits the idea of infinite reward and infinite punishment depending on ones choices. Pantheism naturally puts a limit on this.

Depending on how literally pantheism is understood, a person's life is all there is for them, nothing more. Therefore reward and punishment are limited to the individual life, nothing more. So, if a person intentionally causes harm, but, doesn't get caught in this life, there's no negative consequence. Pantheism can be used to rationalize bad actions.

Not necessarily - depending on how after lives are viewed. In relation to multiverse twin selves, I would think there's some quantum entanglement involved, but only to the extent of its opposites, and if not opposites, then same, which makes the process of growth and development equal. Afterlives, reincarnations, the born-again piece to the Christian concept of, involves new creations intact with lessons learned and more lessens to be learned as new creations. It's the balance, the straight path between truth and error, pleasure and pain, pleasant and unpleasant, and the vehicle that enables our continual development. The polar aspects of life that tutor us.