Non-Anthropomorphic Immanent God = Atheism?

[sayak83]

Incorrect. As I previously stated, God of the panentheist is both transcendent and immanent. Therefore is it both separate from and one with physical existence.

More like " one with physical existence but extends further beyond it to inconceivable heights and depths."

 

[idav]

I do not understand what you say. Will you Kindly explain?

Sorry it's in reference to your post in another thread.
Things you don't like about Materialism

 

[soulsurvivor]

It was suggested in another thread that a belief structure that views God as non-anthropomorphic and non-transcendent (immanent) is sexed-up atheism.

What are your thoughts on this?

This sounds like pantheism: Pantheism - Wikipedia . Hardly atheistic.

 

[atanu]

Sorry it's in reference to your post in another thread.
Things you don't like about Materialism

Okay. I read that again and found that a sentence there was potentially confusing. I have now edited it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not how it must be used; how it is used.

Well!!! What an oxymoron. The reality is any language is used in the context of the subject. You acknowledge only one use of English in the context that the only way it can be used is your way. In your view . . . ' how it is used is the way it must be used." Oh! How egocentric.

You said that the attributes of God are attributes of humanity.

They're attributes of God and many of them are human attributes.

I also said the attributes of humanity Created are not God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Belief is everything to do with theism.

Theism is only one form of a belief system that may be believed in different forms. Panentheism is one of the forms of Theism. There are other belief systems than Theism.

If your trying to say pantheism conforms more to reality I must agree.

I do not personally propose that pantheism conforms more to reality than other possible world views. That is another discussion. I simply describe pantheism as it is defined.

 

[shunyadragon]

If the spiritual worlds exist, they are within the God perceived in pantheism.

False, pantheism is cosmos=God only.

Panentheism would allow for spiritual worlds to exist other than our physical existence.

How does view in the first sentence differ from pantheism?

Pantheism does not believe in spiritual worlds beyond the physical world by definition.

The second sentence has nothing to do with my "generalization."

Sure does. The concept of what 'all' includes is different from the perspective of different religious worldviews.

 

[shunyadragon]

In pantheism and panentheism, they kind of are.

The Baha' Faith is not pantheistic nor panentheistic. The attributes of Creation and humanity are only an expression of God in Creation and not God.

 

[shunyadragon]

This controversy is not likely to die because 'Pantheism' has different meaning from religious and from philosophical POV. To clarify let me cite from WIKIPEDIA.



Philosphically, to Jews and Christians, Pantheism would be dressed up atheism.

But the problem of the controversy, IMO, is in the definition and understanding of Pantheism. For example Spinoza was a self declared monist in Hindu tradition. I cite a small extract from another WIKI article to show that Spinoza was actually closer to Panentheist (Monism of Hindus is Panentheism).



Let me put the above in another fashion. Spinoza held the following three:

• the unity of all that exists;
• the regularity of all that happens;
• the identity of spirit and nature.[101]

The above is closest to Nonduality of Hindus and it does not stop at Pantheism. It is Panentheism.
...........

I hold that if a theist holds a Pantheist view then that person is not clear. What is that God (or essence or Brahman) that gets altered continually as nature? OTOH, if the essence or the all pervading matter is to be equated to God or Brahman, then that essence must be transcendental to all of natures forms.

We can understand this very simply if we use a metaphor used by Shri Krishna in Gita. Brahman is like air that pervades all forms within and without, yet is distinct and unchanged by the forms.

What you are describing is Spinoza's panentheist world view, which is similar to Hinduism. I cited Spinoza's definition of pantheism, which is not necessarily what Spinoza believed.

 

[shunyadragon]

Rubbish. There are several alternatives in the English language for gender neutral third person pronoun.

Yes there are as you describe, but none of the above reflects how religion's may use the English language.

Tables and rigid secular concepts of use of language are useless in determining how English is used in religion. You are not considering that the English in the Baha'i writings is translated from The dominant language of Baha'i writings is Persian which use gender neutral pronouns. A few writings are in Arabic which allows for both gender and gender neutral pronouns. It is a translation choice, and not a reference to the gender and an anthropomorphic God.

From: Noun gender - Persian Grammar
Persian is a gender-neutral language. That is, it doesn't distinguish grammatical gender. Therefore, verbs, adjectives and pronouns don't have masculine, feminine or neuter forms. For example, Persian has one word for each of these groups: «he, she, it» (3rd person singular subject pronoun), «him, her, it» (3rd person singular object pronoun), «his, her, its» (3rd person singular possessive pronoun). The fact of being male or female is indicated lexically.

All Baha'is acknowledge that original Baha'i writings were written in gender neutral language.

 

[idav]

Theism is only one form of a belief system that may be believed in different forms. Panentheism is one of the forms of Theism. There are other belief systems than Theism.



I do not personally propose that pantheism conforms more to reality than other possible world views. That is another discussion. I simply describe pantheism as it is defined.

Theism is a belief not a belief system.

Your taking someone's definition of pantheism and ignoring when I cite parts of it. Any definition of atheism or pantheism will not dictate a worldview. Your telling everyone it's not broad enough definitions so must be stuff you don't like and then conflate your own beliefs into it.

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet they refer to God with "He" and "Him."

Not in the original Arabic and Persian writings concerning Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

The reason 'it' is not used in the writings translated into English to refer to God, because by definition it refers to the impersonal or lifeless subjects.

 

[shunyadragon]

Theism is a belief not a belief system.

It most definitely is by definition, and of course I acknowledge variation in the belief of Theism.

Your taking someone's definition of pantheism and ignoring when I cite parts of it. [/quote]

I prefer to cite the whole definition in context.

Any definition of atheism or pantheism will not dictate a worldview. Your telling everyone it's not broad enough definitions so must be stuff you don't like and then conflate your own beliefs into it.

No, individuals do mix and match and some take the hodge podge approach and not the subject of the thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

When I see thee word transcendent I see the universes ability to be anywhere in space and time, that's called trascendance.

""beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience""

I have seen this smeared in vagueness in the use of transcendence in various posts, and it does not reflect the clear and specific definition of transcendence.

From: Transcendence (religion) - Wikipedia
In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of a god's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws. This is contrasted with immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. In religious experience transcendence is a state of being that has overcome the limitations of physical existence and by some definitions has also become independent of it. This is typically manifested in prayer, séance, meditation, psychedelics and paranormal "visions".

By definition pantheism does not include the transcendent, but panentheism does.

 

[idav]

It most definitely is by definition, and of course I acknowledge variation in the belief of Theism.

I prefer to cite the whole definition in context.



No, individuals do mix and match and some take the hodge podge approach and not the subject of the thread.

If you were going by context you wouldn't ignore the "greater" part of the statement, you even purposely cut it off when you reposted it.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you were going by context you wouldn't ignore the "greater" part of the statement, you even purposely cut it off when you reposted it.

I originally posted the whole definition and it was you who chose to cite it partially.

 

[SalixIncendium]

False, pantheism is cosmos=God only.

Panentheism would allow for spiritual worlds to exist other than our physical existence.



Pantheism does not believe in spiritual worlds beyond the physical world by definition.

Repeating the same inaccuracy over and over doesn't make it any less inaccurate.

Sure does. The concept of what 'all' includes is different from the perspective of different religious worldviews.

I'm pretty sure all means 'all' includes the whole quantity or amount of everything, regardless of religious worldviews, without any qualifiers such as 'except.'

 

[SalixIncendium]

The Baha' Faith is not pantheistic nor panentheistic. The attributes of Creation and humanity are only an expression of God in Creation and not God.

You're deflecting. I never implied it was.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes there are as you describe, but none of the above reflects how religion's may use the English language.

Tables and rigid secular concepts of use of language are useless in determining how English is used in religion. You are not considering that the English in the Baha'i writings is translated from The dominant language of Baha'i writings is Persian which use gender neutral pronouns. A few writings are in Arabic which allows for both gender and gender neutral pronouns. It is a translation choice, and not a reference to the gender and an anthropomorphic God.

From: Noun gender - Persian Grammar
Persian is a gender-neutral language. That is, it doesn't distinguish grammatical gender. Therefore, verbs, adjectives and pronouns don't have masculine, feminine or neuter forms. For example, Persian has one word for each of these groups: «he, she, it» (3rd person singular subject pronoun), «him, her, it» (3rd person singular object pronoun), «his, her, its» (3rd person singular possessive pronoun). The fact of being male or female is indicated lexically.

All Baha'is acknowledge that original Baha'i writings were written in gender neutral language.

What point are you trying to make here? That religion cannot use gender-neutral English terms? Or that it refuses to?

 

[shunyadragon]

You're deflecting. I never implied it was.

The original challenge was concerning the Baha'i Faith concerning the use of pronouns and the unknowable nature of God, and not the concept of pantheism and panentheism.