Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Panentheism is God is everything yet he is supreme? Everything is a supreme God?
I can't find an easy definition of this term.
I can't find an easy definition of this term.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Panentheism and God of the Bible
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That would be "pantheism". "Panentheism" has God being outside of our universe but having it that our universe is a reflection of God in large part.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
That sounds like theism where God is outside or separate from His creation and His creation is a reflection of Him.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Correct. And we're part of the universe.
Right. I confused things for both of us. Of course we're talking two different kind of "personal".
Theism is the personal God, the external being, sentient entity that's separate from us. Pantheism is that all things together is God, which means that there's personal aspects of it, even though not the same as in Theism. Sorry for messing things up.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I guess that's close to how I see it. To me, there's a point where paradoxes and contradictions even combine. That's the -en- part of panentheism.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
That's not how I see.
The pantheistic part for me is that all things are God.
But I do see that things that come together become something more than they are independently. The sum of all parts is greater than just the parts together. It's a form of holism. A box of puzzle pieces doesn't make a picture, but the puzzle pieces in their given place is more than just a connected pieces, it's a picture. That's kind of more of the "-en-" part. God as the emergent factor, omega, of things. It's like us humans. We're matter, but from that matter emerges consciousness. When I talk about "me", I'm not just talking about my biochemical composition, but also the non-material aspect of me, my memories, history, future, etc. I'm not me without my body, but I'm not me without the abstract part of me as well. Two aspects that become one.
Pantheism reflects the materialistic view of God, while panentheism reflects the synergistic view of God. That's how I see it (kind'a).
And to make it more confusing, God is also the immaterial foundation, substrate of existence, fabric of reality, etc, that goes beyond our understanding of time and space. The essence of being. Which makes it a bit "deeper" or beyond just "the universe" per se. That's another aspect of -en-.
Essentially, the substrate is alpha. Then synergy is omega. And in between, that's the universe with us in it. And ultimately, it all ties up in a cycle.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
What's interesting is that this view can be seen in many different philosophies and beliefs. Ein sof in Judaism for instance. Or the monistic unity of dualities or Logos from Heraclitus (my hero philosopher nowadays
). The yin/yang symbol is the not-one not-two. And so on.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, but there are different takes on this because we're really talking about a general category rather than a very specific belief.
For those of us in Judaism that drift in this direction, we really tend not to get that specific, and most of us tend not to even to differentiate as far as our beliefs or "drift" between whether we're more pantheistic or panentheistic. Generally speaking, I think it's likely because we recognize that it is impossible to determine which was is most likely to be correct, so why have a belief based on nothing.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's not how I see.
The pantheistic part for me is that all things are God.
But I do see that things that come together become something more than they are independently. The sum of all parts is greater than just the parts together. It's a form of holism. A box of puzzle pieces doesn't make a picture, but the puzzle pieces in their given place is more than just a connected pieces, it's a picture. That's kind of more of the "-en-" part. God as the emergent factor, omega, of things. It's like us humans. We're matter, but from that matter emerges consciousness. When I talk about "me", I'm not just talking about my biochemical composition, but also the non-material aspect of me, my memories, history, future, etc. I'm not me without my body, but I'm not me without the abstract part of me as well. Two aspects that become one.
Pantheism reflects the materialistic view of God, while panentheism reflects the synergistic view of God. That's how I see it (kind'a).
And to make it more confusing, God is also the immaterial foundation, substrate of existence, fabric of reality, etc, that goes beyond our understanding of time and space. The essence of being. Which makes it a bit "deeper" or beyond just "the universe" per se. That's another aspect of -en-.
Essentially, the substrate is alpha. Then synergy is omega. And in between, that's the universe with us in it. And ultimately, it all ties up in a cycle.
Thanks for explaining where you're coming from, and as I mentioned to Carlita, there are myriads of different takes on both pantheism and panentheism. As for myself, I drift more in the direction of Spinoza's take, but what I mostly believe in is this: "I don't know".
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Yup. It all starts with with the doubt, and we can never leave that behind. I always question what I think, know, believe, etc. That's where understanding starts. At point zero.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Gosh. I think I'm going to irritate myself trying to figure the differences. In Judaism, it's a general consensus not to divide belief perspectives (as atheist vs agnostic; animist versus toteism) and so forth but just to keep it simple--God?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not for most Jews but for those of us that tend to fall in the direction of pantheism/panentheism. Even though Baruch Spinoza was banned from the Portuguese Synagogue in Amsterdam several centuries ago, there's quite a few of us Jews who now tend to drift in his direction, and Einstein was one of them.
BTW, don't confuse us with the New Age movement as that is the polar opposite of where we're in general coming from.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As Jews, we all don't look at Torah in the exact same way, so you would be generally correct about those that many would call "observant", although even that terminology can mean different things to different Jews.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
AAhh.. That's why. Pantheism and panentheism in my head sounds new age. Maybe there are more culturally appropriate terms from a Jewish perspective?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I mostly use the words "Jewish naturalism" to refer to my leaning, but even that can be taken different ways. Probably the simplest and best way for me to state my drift is this: Whatever caused our universe/multiverse I'll call "God", and pretty much just leave it at that.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Pantheism is far from new. Many philosophers in the ancient Greek were pantheists. It makes it older than Christianity.
Neither are New Age terms. That New Age seizes upon then and co-opts them does not make them New Age. Meditation is used in "New Age" too. Does that make it something to avoid?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
New Age isn't a bad term. It just means that people are taking some things, mixing it up (intentional or not), and making it their own (as a group, culture, or individual). Somewhat adding their own definitions to old concepts and religions. It makes it seem "new age" because we are so conditioned to think the older the religion, the more true it is.
For example, Zen has been around for ages, and it is not "blocking your thoughts." One doesn't need to "sit cross legged" in order to practice Zen. Also, in Zen we look at a blank wall. Culturally, it isn't done "anywhere". Also, Zen is hand in hand with meditation; the two are not the same. The only similar component between the two is breathing.
Witchcraft is now new aged as well. Witchcraft is a collection of ethnic polytheistic (in some) faiths that did not focus on "intent only" and "if you just visualize your prayers you send them out into the universe."
Many faiths believe that actual objects are needed to do "magic" not magick. It is like Catholics and the Eucharist (concept comparison only). Catholicism is focused around the Eucharist. Without the hosts there is no consecration: no Christ.
I can't compare pantheism and patheneism as a new age (or modern perspective) belief since I am not either and never looked into it. I just know panthenism wasn't around twenty years ago. Now it's one of the many isms that people back then didn't use to define and separate their beliefs systems. They were part of their belief systems; they weren't religions on their own.
A lot of New Age beliefs and perspectives are old. It's just they have been changed and mixed with other beliefs. In some cases, the perception or concept that is embedded in an ethnic faith is considered a religion onto itself today.
For example, animism is not a religion. Many ethnic cultures have religions that are surrounded with this belief; but they never separate the concept from their practices and belief tenants themselves. Ancestral veneration is not a religion either. However, a lot of people do it even if they don't realize it.
New age is not a bad thing; I just disagree with it because it sometimes distorts religions and practices because we cannot find what they really are (witchcraft example). There was a lot of mixture of faiths back then, we make it our right to mix faiths today.
It's not bad in itself. All religions are mixed matched in some way, Christianity included. The difference is, back then, it wasn't a choice. In many cases it was political in nature. (Santeria: African faith mixed with Catholicism because the Church came in to convert Africans to Catholicism. Africans had to mirror their beliefs to match Catholicism so they wouldn't be killed. Christianity: A mixture of Jewish and Roman traditions and culture. Jesus taught Jewish traditions (Law of Moses for example). His apostles told the gentiles to continue their traditions. Buddhism has so much of a mix it's hard to separate it out. And so on and so forth.
I value authentic religions. However, it's not all possible today; and, it annoys me when traditional religions are intentionally distorted for the purposes of the practitioner.
Actually, that's not why it's called New Age. It comes from the belief we are entering into a New Age of conscious awakening. Being new, doesn't not equate with being New Age. In practice, what New Age is probably best described is as "Experimental Christianity". I would say this because the basic premises of an externalized power that one engages with brings about the desire self-benefit. Instead of praying for God to help you, you send out positive energies for the universe to bring you into cosmic alignment, or some other type of rebranding of a theistic deity. It's earmarks are really a lack of depth of understanding both the sciences and the religions from which they co-opt terminologies.
That is factually incorrect. Panentheism has been around for thousands of years (the Trinity is actually panentheistic, the wholly transcendent and fully immanent divine). The term panetheism was however only first coined as such over 200 years ago, not 20. It was first used as a word by Karl Krause in the 18th century. So that is hardly a "New Age" term of a mere 20 year ago coined in California. Here's some better information on it: Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Panentheism was actually within the original formulation of the Trinity doctrine, as I alluded to. It was only later that this Transcendent and Immanent divine was made wholly theistic and they "Kicked Jesus upstairs" as Alan Watts rightly put it. I started a high-level topic on this some time back: Evolutionary Panenthiesm | ReligiousForums.com
It's kind of like saying that fundamentalist quoting ancient Wisdom text have "ancient beliefs". They in fact do not. There is no actual depth of understanding, and hence the words are the "right words", but hollow and vacuous soundbites, religious'ese speak. That tends to be one of the characteristics of a lot of it, if not most. Right words, shallow or atrocious meaning.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making religious speak to a modern culture, but not to just add deep-sounding language to validate shallowness.
Anyway, I think it has its place, but its hardly anything truly "new"