Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bill Snedden · 03-18-2003, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Do you know of the title of a specific book where Tillich addresses this stuff?

Alas, no. I also know of his writings primarily from other authors (mostly John Spong). I recently bought a copy of The Courage To Be, but haven't had a chance to read it yet. I do know that there is at least one anthology of his work and judging from what I have read, other best bets might be his The Irrelevance and Relevance of the Christian Message or perhaps Dynamics of Faith. They're both on my long list of books to buy/read at some future point.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

HelenM · 03-18-2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
You know the answer but your not going to tell me?

I'm afraid not. I would love to but - ummm - the reply box is too small; yep, that's the reason

Nothing personal...

Anyway, I noticed that Glenn Miller just added the following to his site yesterday/today in which I think he comments to some extent on the God can't? God won't? dilemma:

Would the culpability of human non-intervention in violent crime imply that God's non-intervention (due to theodicy reasons) was proof that God was either malevolent or impotent?

I may be wrong since I haven't exactly read it. It seemed that it might be relevant though.

Anyway, I'm glad you're 'muy bien'

take care
Helen

Vinnie · 03-18-2003, 11:40 AM

Helen, I skimmed it very briefly but I didn't read it.

Don't think it will help but I'll read it in full later anyways and comment if I see fit.

Vinnie

Toto · 03-18-2003, 11:53 AM

How could Jesus be a panentheist, a term that was invented about 200 years ago? What I read about it seems inconsistant with described God as "Father."

Panentheism

Quote:

This universal arrangement is not pantheism (all is God), but panentheism, a term devised by Karl C. F. Krause (1781-1832) to describe his thought. It is best known for its use by Charles Hartshorne and recently by Matthew Fox. Panentheism says that all is in God, somewhat as if God were the ocean and we were fish. If one considers what is in God's body to be part of God, then we can say that God is all there is and then some. The universe is God's body, but God's awareness or personality is greater than the sum of all the parts of the universe. All the parts have some degree of freedom in co-creating with God. At the start of its momentary career as a subject, an experience is God--as the divine initial aim. As the experience carries on its choosing process, it is a freely aiming reality that is not strictly God, since it departs from God's purpose to some degree. Yet everything is within God.

. . .

It is not necessary to go to pantheism, with a god that acts as a universal wet blanket, smothering the possibilities of everything else's genuine existence. Panentheism gives all that one could want: an all-encompassing, growing, perfect God, everywhere present and containing everywhere within himself; and the reality of oneself and others, freely deciding within God, responding to God's overtures in the process of co-creation. Theism denies that the world (including us) shares in God's being. Panentheism recognizes that everything shares God's being (or becoming) but that God's being operates from innumerable relatively freely-choosing centers or perspectives of existence. God and the world, which is God's body, are interdependent. To be is to be free, to be choosing, and to be enjoying (slightly or greatly, positively or negatively) the process of selecting from among competing influences. To be doing this is to be alive. To be doing it with the complexity of performing these tasks self-consciously, rationally, purposefully is to be doing it as a person. To have perfect awareness of all this, perfect memory, love, and preservation of it, and to be giving perfect guidance to the others who are involved in the process is to be the only perfect person, God.

This sounds really, uh deep and enlightened, but trying to make sense of this makes me dizzy.

More from Wikipedia

Quote:

Spiritual Panentheism is a form of philosophical mysticism whose tenets are derived from aspects of panentheism, holism, freethinking, holographic paradigms, and quantum mysticism. The only authorized church in the world is online at www.panentheism.org . "Spiritual Panentheism" is a legal trademark of the Church of Spiritual Panentheism, and is used here with permission.

Vinnie · 03-18-2003, 12:35 PM

Quote:

How could Jesus be a panentheist, a term that was invented about 200 years ago? What I read about it seems inconsistant with described God as "Father."

In Jesus A New Vision, Marcus Borg devotes section one of his book (pp.23-75) to a discussion of Jesus and Spirit.

Jesus could have endorsed "mystical elements" and a "spiritual outlook" similar to some tenets of panenetheism but I for one, never said Jesus was a panentheist.

I am not sure what exactly Jesus thought about God. Did he think of a being out there? Did he endorse the interventionist God of supernatural theism? It seems very possible but I can't get into Jesus' head to know for sure what exactly he thought.

Quote:

This sounds really, uh deep and enlightened, but trying to make sense of this makes me dizzy.

No one can refute panentheism because no one understands it

Panentheism does seem somewhat difficult to understand but I am finding it to be much more tenable than supernatural theism. I am actually pretty much a panenetheist right now.

Borg used this analogy for God being the universe and more than the sum total of all its parts: Think of a circle within a circle. It doesn't help "much" but it does help "some".

I like it in that it doesn't disconnect God from reality (e.g. what deism does and supernatural theism to an extent). It doesn't polarize and pit science against faith either. It doesn't pit prayer against "socialization, relaxation and placebo" as Gary Posner suggested. For panentheists it is quite clear that when we communicate (prayer) with the one in whom we live and move and have our being, it has very positive effects on our everyday lives (socialization, relaxation, placebo or whatever you want to call them).

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-18-2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

How could Jesus be a panentheist, a term that was invented about 200 years ago? What I read about it seems inconsistant with described God as "Father."

Calling God father or mother is a metaphor isn't it? Its to see God as a father or a mother or as a parent. Rather than being seen as a violation of panentheism where God is not a separate being (as a father is separate from his son, could father not equally affirm the intimacy we share with God under a panentheistic framework?

Vinnie

HelenM · 03-18-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
No one can refute panentheism because no one understands it

Yeah really

Seriously though, do you think it fares better than other theisms against atheist arguments that the universe displays no evidence of unifying purpose? I don't see how it would, but feel free to enlighten me if you think it does.

Helen

Vinnie · 03-18-2003, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Seriously though, do you think it fares better than other theisms against atheist arguments that the universe displays no evidence of unifying purpose?

You are going to have to talk to me more about what you mean by "unifying purpose"??? How can we detect a "unifying purpose" of the universe through science? What would constitute evidence and what would constitute counter-evidence?

Vinnie

Vinnie · 03-21-2003, 05:01 AM

"For the most part, modern skepticism and atheism are a rejection of supernatural theism, but if God is not thought of as a supernatural being separate from the universe, then the persuasive force of much of modern atheism vanishes. The resolution of this intellectual difficulty about God is no small matter, for it means that the "God question" becomes and open rather than a closed one." M. Borg, The God We Never Knew, pp. 33-34

Vinnie

HelenM · 03-21-2003, 06:14 AM

But is this what Borg means, in effect? "As long as we keep our definition of 'God' sufficiently vague, nontheist attempts to refute the existence of God will be no more successful than trying to nail down jello"

I'm just asking

Helen

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2003, 11:40 AM	#13
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Helen, I skimmed it very briefly but I didn't read it. Don't think it will help but I'll read it in full later anyways and comment if I see fit. Vinnie

03-21-2003, 05:01 AM	#19
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"For the most part, modern skepticism and atheism are a rejection of supernatural theism, but if God is not thought of as a supernatural being separate from the universe, then the persuasive force of much of modern atheism vanishes. The resolution of this intellectual difficulty about God is no small matter, for it means that the "God question" becomes and open rather than a closed one." M. Borg, The God We Never Knew, pp. 33-34 Vinnie

03-21-2003, 06:14 AM	#20
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	But is this what Borg means, in effect? "As long as we keep our definition of 'God' sufficiently vague, nontheist attempts to refute the existence of God will be no more successful than trying to nail down jello" I'm just asking Helen

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.