Pantheism - a foundation for unity?

[wandering peacefully]

Well, it doesn't necessarily...but my question was about pantheism being a better basis (or not) for promoting tolerance, cooperation and unity - I'm not promoting it as a world religion, just comparing it with theism as a basis for humans understanding one another better - perhaps? I'm not suggesting anyone should change their religion - except maybe that pantheists might have a mindset more adequate to the task of religious consensus-building among the diverse faiths than theists - perhaps?

I think pantheists would have no problem finding unity with the non-abrahamic belief systems as they are not as rigid in their "knowledge" of exactly what and who gods are. But trying to reach consensus with those religions who absolutely "know" there is only one God and know exactly what it is that God expects is not possible. The first thing I thought of when reading your OP is that the idea of pantheism would go over no better than non-belief or secular humanism. They theists might smile politely and be more friendly if exposed to the belief that there is a universal god and we are all one and connected with everything, but I don't see them them going home and thinking any differently. The reason they are theists is because they know for certain they've got it right about the one True God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What about accepting all people as equal human beings?

 

[wandering peacefully]

((The more I think about this, the more it angers me. Does that actually matter to you, establishing some mutual understandings, more than just something to debate about to pass the time of day? If so, why are you wasting your time bragging about how much better you can do it than some other people can? Why don’t you just do it, and show us how?))

He wasn't bragging. He was putting forth an idea about pantheism. Why are you here if you are so judgemental about other people's motives as though you know what they are. It is a debate forum for sharing ideas. It's not here to save the world. If that is your "true" goal, why not just go do it instead of passing your time here insulting various poster and their posts? The entire forum doesn't owe you your "plans" for a debate forum.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think the difference is subtle, but paramount. It's the difference between religion as a cult of self-righteousness, and religion as a means to a greater spiritual end.

The problem is calling other religions a 'cult of self-righteousness' is a common accusation of 'others.' and describing one's religion as 'a greater spiritual end is how most people describe their own religion or belief system.'

 

[BSM1]

I do not believe pantheism is God is in everything, God is physical existence, or everything.

Panentheism comes cloer to God is in everything.

It wasn't a question of belief but of definition.

 

[shunyadragon]

It wasn't a question of belief but of definition.

I did not consider it a question of belief, but a clarification of definition.

 

[PureX]

The problem is calling other religions a 'cult of self-righteousness' is a common accusation of 'others.' and describing one's religion as 'a greater spiritual end is how most people describe their own religion or belief system.'

That's exactly why making this distinction is so important.

 

[syo]

What do you think? Does pantheism really provide a better foundation than theism for tolerance, cooperation and unity among the the human family?

NO.

Dharma does.

 

[BSM1]

I did not consider it a question of belief, but a clarification of definition.

No offense, but I was just going by your intro to your reply. There is a difference between the two even if it's just a subtle difference.

 

[shunyadragon]

No offense, but I was just going by your intro to your reply. There is a difference between the two even if it's just a subtle difference.

I do not believe pantheism is God is in everything, God is physical existence, or everything.

Panentheism comes closer to God is in everything.

I do not believe the difference is subtle. Panentheism acknowledges a God that is in everything or everything is in God, and possibly even beyond everything. Pantheism more specifically defines everything is God, nature itself is God.

Panentheism - Wikipedia

• In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created.
• While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe. Some versions of panentheism suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifestation of God. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the Kabbalah concept of tzimtzum. Also much Hindu thought – and consequently Buddhist philosophy – is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[3][4] The basic tradition however, on which Krause's concept was built, seems to have been Neoplatonic philosophy and its successors in Western philosophy and Orthodox theology.

Actually many theist beliefs is similar to panentheism like the Baha'i Faith and some schools of Judaism, and panentheism is more likely a unifying principle of Theist, and possibly Deist and Monist religions.

 

[BSM1]

I do not believe pantheism is God is in everything, God is physical existence, or everything.

Panentheism comes closer to God is in everything.

I do not believe the difference is subtle. Panentheism acknowledges a God that is in everything or everything is in God, and possibly even beyond everything. Pantheism more specifically defines everything is God, nature itself is God.

Panentheism - Wikipedia

• In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created.
• While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe. Some versions of panentheism suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifestation of God. In addition, some forms indicate that the universe is contained within God,[2] like in the Kabbalah concept of tzimtzum. Also much Hindu thought – and consequently Buddhist philosophy – is highly characterized by panentheism and pantheism.[3][4] The basic tradition however, on which Krause's concept was built, seems to have been Neoplatonic philosophy and its successors in Western philosophy and Orthodox theology.

I feel that 'panentheism' comes closer to the non-duality of God. In other words nothing can be separate from God.

 

[shunyadragon]

I feel that 'panentheism' comes closer to the non-duality of God. In other words nothing can be separate from God.

Your view more closely reflects pantheism as God is not separate from our physical existence..

Actually the definition covers more views than you describe, and they dominantly describe a God manifest in the physical existence, but a part from the physical existence, and 'transcends' physical existence as cited.

 

[BSM1]

Your view more closely reflects pantheism as God is not separate from our physical existence..

Actually the definition covers more views than you describe, and they dominantly describe a God manifest in the physical existence, but a part from the physical existence, and 'transcends' physical existence as cited.

When I use 'panentheism' I mean there is no separation of 'God' and anything else, even this conversation' everything is 'God'. On the other hand, 'pantheism' means 'God' is in everything that we see as real.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm curious. (not to mention a bit suspicious) What is your sense of the general sincerity? Do some folks just come for the show, and then, once back home, resort to a more intolerant view, or is the tolerance actually sustained? If there were 9 faiths in town, and you were the one that didn't show up, wouldn't it be a worth it to go just so you didn't look so intolerant, even though you didn't actually agree?

For example, in that 10 minute talk by the host, do some go on a little longer than 10 minutes, and sort of try to convince others, or does it stay cordial? Do some groups come for the meetings, but then don't contribute to joint action plans? I suspect you know what I'm getting at ... all talk and no action. I recall a recent pope's visit to India, where he was all nice for a few days, but then on the day he left, encouraged the Catholic flock to work harder on conversion of the non-believers.

You know how some politicians are ... lots of promises. Then lots of unfulfilled promises.

You seem to have a reasonably good handle on it, so yeah, I'm curious.

It’s a very challenging space. Like you, I often wonder what’s really going on. I have no doubt about the sincerity of some of the members.

We have a minister of religion from one of the main Christian denominations who has championed the cause. He is a University Chaplain who started the Abrahamic Society after 9/11. The motivation came from being approached by Muslim students who were fearful for their safety and understandably upset how 9/11 had portrayed Islam to the world at large. He has been instrumental in keeping the Abrahamic Society going after many years. He recently assisted a couple of senior Muslims to become part of the chaplaincy service at the hospital as well as establishing a Muslim chaplain at the University. I know he’s visited the places of worship of many of the faiths represented on the council. He’s chairing a committee to have a special commemorative service to mark the 150th anniversary of our University’s founding. He’s ensured the church service will have good Interfaith representation.

The very first formal meeting I attended last year the minister shocked me by nominating me to be chairman. I politely declined, deflected by nominating the sitting chairman as he was clearly doing a great job. I agreed to be vice chairman instead so eased me into the role when nominated again this year.

There are a number of other members whom I’m slowly getting to know who seem to be the real deal. They are strong in their personal faith but have the personal maturity and right attitudes to be part of the interfaith council.

There has been a few people who have come along who simply don’t have the prerequisite attributes for Interfaith. The most dramatic is one whose son suicided earlier in the year and subsequently was admitted to a psychiatric facility. He used to attend the same Baptist church as me before I became a Baha’i nearly 30 years ago so we have that connection. Unfortunately he attended this somewhat fundamentalist church for decades which adversely affected him. I’m sure he had a psychotic breakdown a few years ago before converting to another fundamentalist (non Christian) Faith.

I do wonder about the Catholics sometimes as they have opposed the Baha’i Faith in one or two Pacific Islands. Our representative runs the national religious education programme in Catholic schools. He’s a very capable guy. The New Zealand bishops recently drafted an interfaith booklet for their congregation. Our rep invited us all to a special Catholic meeting to discuss and finalise it contents.

The mayor of our city recently endorsed our council as doing great work in the city for Interfaith relationships. We were part of a special meeting last week where leaders of community groups considered the next steps to build unity and meet challenges post the Mosque shootings.

There is currently huge momentum for the interfaith movement in my city. It’s both exciting and terrifying! Ever thought about getting involved again?

 

[shunyadragon]

When I use 'panentheism' I mean there is no separation of 'God' and anything else, even this conversation' everything is 'God'. On the other hand, 'pantheism' means 'God' is in everything that we see as real.

I believe you have reversed the definitions for your own use. OK, but sense English is for communication your view does not fit the definitions.

 

[BSM1]

I believe you have reversed the definitions for your own use. OK, but sense English is for communication your view does not fit the definitions.

That was my question, being new to the concept I was wondering if maybe I did have the terms reversed.

 

[shunyadragon]

That was my question, being new to the concept I was wondering if maybe I did have the terms reversed.

The word construction provides the hint:

pan=theism

pan-in-theism

 

[Vinayaka]

It’s a very challenging space. Like you, I often wonder what’s really going on. I have no doubt about the sincerity of some of the members.

We have a minister of religion from one of the main Christian denominations who has championed the cause. He is a University Chaplain who started the Abrahamic Society after 9/11. The motivation came from being approached by Muslim students who were fearful for their safety and understandably upset how 9/11 had portrayed Islam to the world at large. He has been instrumental in keeping the Abrahamic Society going after many years. He recently assisted a couple of senior Muslims to become part of the chaplaincy service at the hospital as well as establishing a Muslim chaplain at the University. I know he’s visited the places of worship of many of the faiths represented on the council. He’s chairing a committee to have a special commemorative service to mark the 150th anniversary of our University’s founding. He’s ensured the church service will have good Interfaith representation.

The very first formal meeting I attended last year the minister shocked me by nominating me to be chairman. I politely declined, deflected by nominating the sitting chairman as he was clearly doing a great job. I agreed to be vice chairman instead so eased me into the role when nominated again this year.

There are a number of other members whom I’m slowly getting to know who seem to be the real deal. They are strong in their personal faith but have the personal maturity and right attitudes to be part of the interfaith council.

There has been a few people who have come along who simply don’t have the prerequisite attributes for Interfaith. The most dramatic is one whose son suicided earlier in the year and subsequently was admitted to a psychiatric facility. He used to attend the same Baptist church as me before I became a Baha’i nearly 30 years ago so we have that connection. Unfortunately he attended this somewhat fundamentalist church for decades which adversely affected him. I’m sure he had a psychotic breakdown a few years ago before converting to another fundamentalist (non Christian) Faith.

I do wonder about the Catholics sometimes as they have opposed the Baha’i Faith in one or two Pacific Islands. Our representative runs the national religious education programme in Catholic schools. He’s a very capable guy. The New Zealand bishops recently drafted an interfaith booklet for their congregation. Our rep invited us all to a special Catholic meeting to discuss and finalise it contents.

The mayor of our city recently endorsed our council as doing great work in the city for Interfaith relationships. We were part of a special meeting last week where leaders of community groups considered the next steps to build unity and meet challenges post the Mosque shootings.

There is currently huge momentum for the interfaith movement in my city. It’s both exciting and terrifying! Ever thought about getting involved again?

Thank you for the detailed response. It seems to me that during times of stress like in your situation, momentum can be built. The challenge is continuing it, and not letting complacency settle in. Consistency over a much longer period of time is a far greater challenge. Things like just finding new suitable projects to work on need some creativity. Bottom line is that old folks can get stale. So probably a constantly shifting personage helps. Maybe just thinking that the next intolerant move could be just around the corner might help. I certainly don't know.

Personally, I no longer have the physical energy to get really involved, and I'm a bit jaded by past occurrences. I tend to look deeper, and when that happens, faults often come forward, as in the multi-faith chapel incident I told you about earlier.

Regardless, even if it brings a better relationship or understanding between any 2 groups, it's worth it. Best wishes for the challenges. In my city interfaith has basically run it's course, most likely for the very reasons we can see.

 

[siti]

Help me out here. It's my understanding that (in simple terms) 'pantheism' is basically God is in everything; whereas 'panentheism' is God is everything (including this very conversation). Your take?

Definitely including this conversation! But I think the difference (if there really is one) is the acceptance or non-acceptance of supernaturalism - pantheism means everything IS God whilst panentheism literally means everything IN (-en-) God. In either case, there is nothing that is not God, but in panentheism (apparently) there is some of God leftover that is not part of everything that exists naturally which is not the case for pantheism - in pantheism, nature exhausts all there is of God. So for both this conversation would be part of God, but for a panentheist there is a conversation (if you like) that God has with himself (I'm not sure what else God would do 'outside' of reality except converse with himself) that is not part of the manifest world of reality - and for most, it is a fairly big conversation - it is most of the infinite God.

 

[siti]

Are you sure?

Absolutely...

In any case, I have concluded that theology, far from central, probably should not even be a part of a religion's doctrine. It is mainly an aesthetical matter: good for illustrating some ideas if you can find like minds, but gets in the way for no good reason otherwise.

Yes I suppose that's right - but I'm having trouble imagining any of the major religions relegating theology to the periphery, let alone abandoning it altogether. I know I'm taking my own thread off track a bit here, but what do you suppose a religion without theology would look like?