Is Panentheism a form of Pantheism?

[Twig pentagram]

I disagree. I think that "god is all things" can describe the "only god" of monotheism quite well. Many monotheists are monists. Monism recognizes oneness of self and God. All selves (all things).

This could be true, but once you cross that line you are monotheistic and not pantheist. Pantheist see all things as infinite and not all things are one. The infinite things all evolved from the same material and have the same essence but they are not the same things.

 

[brbubba]

Pan= all. Theism = god. This could mean that all things are gods or god is all things. Pantheism is not monotheistic in any way, shape or form. I've never met a pantheist that did'nt think that we are our own gods. We are seperate individuals we just evolved from the same materials. The materials and the individuals are divine.

You're trying to play a semantics game here. Sure the root of pan means all or every, but the actual term was coined by Toland to describe something specific, part of which was outlined by Spinoza. I never implied that it was monotheistic, but there are Christian Pantheists out there. Yes, it is a dicey proposition, but I don't find it any more egregious than someone who says the are a Pantheist/Atheist.

If we are all our own Gods, that would only be in thought and action alone. Again, you are trying to twist semantics. No one would confuse the universe God with you personally being a God.

Yes we did evolve from the same materials, but a Pantheist universe assumes that the materials are presently the same.

 

[Twig pentagram]

You're trying to play a semantics game here. Sure the root of pan means all or every, but the actual term was coined by Toland to describe something specific, part of which was outlined by Spinoza. I never implied that it was monotheistic, but there are Christian Pantheists out there. Yes, it is a dicey proposition, but I don't find it any more egregious than someone who says the are a Pantheist/Atheist.

If we are all our own Gods, that would only be in thought and action alone. Again, you are trying to twist semantics. No one would confuse the universe God with you personally being a God.

Yes we did evolve from the same materials, but a Pantheist universe assumes that the materials are presently the same.

Christian and pantheist should never be grouped together. There are monotheist who describe thier god in a pantheistic way but I don't think that christianity and pantheism can be mixed. Maybe christian panentheist, but not pantheist.

As for us being our own gods, this is what every pantheist I know including myself thinks. That's why we don't like to use the word god because the way we see things is so different from all other theisms. I prefer the word divine because you don't think of numbers when you hear it. Pantheism is beyond numbers, the divine is infinite.

 

[brbubba]

As for us being our own gods, this is what every pantheist I know including myself thinks. That's why we don't like to use the word god because the way we see things is so different from all other theisms. I prefer the word divine because you don't think of numbers when you hear it. Pantheism is beyond numbers, the divine is infinite.

I don't think that and have never met a Pantheist, Naturalistic or Classical, that would state that they are Gods. Nor would Toland or Spinoza propose that we individually are Gods.

Being a pantheist necessitates using the word God. If people are confused simply say that your God is not a conscious God in the traditional sense. In my experience, the use of other words, such as nature, to describe these things only serves to further obfuscate the issue.

 

[Twig pentagram]

I don't think that and have never met a Pantheist, Naturalistic or Classical, that would state that they are Gods. Nor would Toland or Spinoza propose that we individually are Gods.

Being a pantheist necessitates using the word God. If people are confused simply say that your God is not a conscious God in the traditional sense. In my experience, the use of other words, such as nature, to describe these things only serves to further obfuscate the issue.

Well now you know of one and I know of a few others, so we are real and we are pantheist. Secondly, how can they consider all or everything to be divine and not consider themselves divine, are'nt they included in all things or everything?

 

[Twig pentagram]

I don't think that and have never met a Pantheist, Naturalistic or Classical, that would state that they are Gods. Nor would Toland or Spinoza propose that we individually are Gods.

Being a pantheist necessitates using the word God. If people are confused simply say that your God is not a conscious God in the traditional sense. In my experience, the use of other words, such as nature, to describe these things only serves to further obfuscate the issue.

Pantheist do not have to use the word god. The word god is obsolete to most pantheist. This is why alot of people call pantheism "sexed up atheism" .

 

[Storm]

Well now you know of one and I know of a few others, so we are real and we are pantheist.

I think the point is that pantheists aren't united on the question.

Secondly, how can they consider all or everything to be divine and not consider themselves divine, are'nt they included in all things or everything?

There's a subtle but important (imo) between considering oneself "part of God" and "a God."

Not saying either position is better, just different.

Pantheist do not have to use the word god. The word god is obsolete to most pantheist. This is why alot of people call pantheism "sexed up atheism" .

And a lot of people don't: "Sexed-Up Atheism"

 

[brbubba]

Pantheist do not have to use the word god. The word god is obsolete to most pantheist. This is why alot of people call pantheism "sexed up atheism" .

By definition you are obligated to use the word God. How you define God is another thing.

And pantheism is not sexed up atheism, Dawkins, who made the original statement, is a sensationalist.

Secondly, how can they consider all or everything to be divine and not consider themselves divine, are'nt they included in all things or everything?

You're positing a position I never stated. Obviously individuals are part of God, but individuals are not Gods themselves. You can't separate something that is indivisible.

 

[Willamena]

This could be true, but once you cross that line you are monotheistic and not pantheist. Pantheist see all things as infinite and not all things are one. The infinite things all evolved from the same material and have the same essence but they are not the same things.

What is "infinite"? More importantly, when all things "are infinite" what is not infinite? From a certain perspective you are addressing oneness.

I guess it depends on how you look at it.

 

[Twig pentagram]

I think the point is that pantheists aren't united on the question.


There's a subtle but important (imo) between considering oneself "part of God" and "a God."

Not saying either position is better, just different.


And a lot of people don't: "Sexed-Up Atheism"

True. I don't like the phrase "sexed up atheism" myself, but it is used by many to describe pantheism. I think that the word pantheism best describes pantheism.
Someone who thinks they are a part of god would more likely be a panentheist.
Someone who thinks that we are gods and everything that exist is divine is more than likely a pantheist.

 

[Twig pentagram]

By definition you are obligated to use the word God. How you define God is another thing.

And pantheism is not sexed up atheism, Dawkins, who made the original statement, is a sensationalist.



You're positing a position I never stated. Obviously individuals are part of God, but individuals are not Gods themselves. You can't separate something that is indivisible.

"Individuals are part of God" this sounds like panentheism. The universe has an infinite amount of seperate things that share material. To say that you are not a god but you are a part of god is saying that god is greater than you. That is panentheism.
Pantheist think everything is divine individually and collectively, and the greastest divinity is self. Without the self there would be no universal experience.

 

[brbubba]

True. I don't like the phrase "sexed up atheism" myself, but it is used by many to describe pantheism. I think that the word pantheism best describes pantheism.
Someone who thinks they are a part of god would more likely be a panentheist.
Someone who thinks that we are gods and everything that exist is divine is more than likely a pantheist.

I don't know what to tell you. Go read Spinoza's Ethics and Toland's Pantheisticon and we can debate an interpretation of that material. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that Spinoza does not posit the idea of an individual as God and even states, "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived."

 

[Twig pentagram]

I don't know what to tell you. Go read Spinoza's Ethics and Toland's Pantheisticon and we can debate an interpretation of that material. But I can tell you with 100% certainty that Spinoza does not posit the idea of an individual as God and even states, "Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived."

I understand where you and Spinoza are coming from, I just see things somewhat differently. Pantheism belongs to no one, not you, I or Spinoza. It's a beautiful ideal that we all can share. Believe it or not talking with you about pantheism has been fun and informative. You seem like a very intelligent person.

 

[brbubba]

I understand where you and Spinoza are coming from, I just see things somewhat differently. Pantheism belongs to no one, not you, I or Spinoza. It's a beautiful ideal that we all can share. Believe it or not talking with you about pantheism has been fun and informative. You seem like a very intelligent person.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, I just see importance in creating a common base of meaning by which Pantheists can define themselves. Far be it from me to criticize your version of Pantheism, especially when some Christians and Atheists call themselves Pantheists. Not to mention, if you do take a deeper look at Spinoza, which I recommend all Pantheists do, you will quickly see that it's some dense stuff, that is likely open to much interpretation. Good luck in your journeys.

 

[Troublemane]

Not all panentheists believe in Creation. I do, but I'm pretty weird. (I believe that another, mature Godiverse made ours.) I'm just guessing, but I think few strict panentheists would believe in Creation.

I believe in a "creation", not strictly the genesis account, but that all creation is directed by something which pervades all of it at the most basic level. that All existence is alive. that mind pervades all things. And that behind each level of transcendence there is another, more subtle level. So although I do not believe in an absolute all powerful being called "gawd", beyond which there is nothing, as I believe there is in fact no upper or lower limit to reality,....I do believe there is an apparent upper and lower limit, based on our limited perceptions. But as far as our minds are concerned those limits are real...until experience proves otherwise.

Its like looking out on the horizon and thinking the earth must end there, until you travel beyond the horizon and find out for yourself the world is actually curved. :angel2:

 

[Storm]

Someone who thinks they are a part of god would more likely be a panentheist.
Someone who thinks that we are gods and everything that exist is divine is more than likely a pantheist.

Not necessarily.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

No. There is a difference between the too. Pantheists believe that the universe is God and panentheists believe the universe is part of God. Here is a link that explains all of the types of theisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

As I see it Pantheism says God and the universe are synonomous whereas Panentheism states God is the universe and a little bit more, sometimes even invoking the idea of an unseen intelligence behind the universe.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

No it is not. Pantheism believes that God is one with Creation, but panentheism believes that Creation is a part of God, but God is bigger than just Creation. I used to be a panentheist.

 

[Joshua Pryce]

That's how I think that Panentheism also states that God is All, and All is God

If all is God does all govern the universe, like the green grass in your garden. Does all judge like God like a dog you feed and take to the park?