Panentheism

[cesara]

Re: Panentheism

[quote author=BlueAurora]
I wanted to thank you for posting this topic here (and that illustration!). A few months before I found this thread, I read about the Hindu god Brahman and became really excited that I'd finally found something that closely resembled my concept of the Divine. I hadn't read about Panentheism, so when I read this post I felt... relieved to find the exact term that described me [img alt=]http://www.paganforum.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif[/img] I've spent years kind of floating around, a bit spiritually lost, and this has really given me so much focus [img alt=]http://www.paganforum.com/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif[/img][/quote]

Welcome to the thread! First off, I'm so glad you can relate to this topic and it has helped you. I spent a fair amount of time 'lost' as well, and then felt the exact same way when I came across the term 'panentheism'. It was an 'A ha!' moment for me.

[quote author=BlueAurora]
I'm curious what the panentheists reading this think about Gods/Goddesses?[/quote]
I see them as helpful archetypes. Though, this perspective is certainly not the only interpretation that works within a panentheistic model. The only perspective that would throw a concept of the gods/goddesses outside the perimeters of panentheism is if one believed the gods/goddesses were completely separate from The All/Divine/God.

[quote author=BlueAurora]
I ultimately view the Divine as an impersonal spiritual, creative force, but I also believe there's a personal Goddess/Spirit/Energy that's connected with me before and who I can connect with again. I feel like She is one aspect of the Divine, a small sliver of consciousness tied into Earth & Humanity, but not THE Divine... if that makes any sense [img alt=]http://www.paganforum.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif[/img] [/quote]

It makes perfect sense to me, and is pretty much how I see things. For me, yes, The All/Divine/God is definitely impersonal. Also, for me, what you call 'creative force' is the stuff (or 'potential'?) that The All/Divine/God is made of, so to speak. Further, what you refer to as "Personal Goddess/Spirit/Energy" is what I see as our Inner Self or Higher Consciousness or Spark of the Divine etc. (there are lots of terms for this...including Personal God/dess, Spirit Guide etc...). It's where we came from....we are an extension of that Energy in the physical....it's "Who We Really Are" -- which is connected to The All/Divine/God. The whole of us is not encompassed within our bodies.....but rather, our physical bodies contain only a small portion of 'Who We Really Are'.....the rest of us is.....well.....non-physical and connected to both us and The All/Divine/God.

I feel as though I'm starting to ramble so, I'll stop for now...lol. Please remember, this is just how I frame my beliefs within panentheism, and there are many other views that would be equally fitting under the panentheistic umbrella. But yes, I feel that your perspective fits very well with panentheism.


[quote author=Bjorn link=topic=1184.msg30846#msg30846 date=1296099386]
I feel pretty much exactly the same, BlueAurora, and felt the same as I read this post. I too have a god (The Great Spirit) and Father Bear, who I believe is my personal sliver of the Great One.

To me, Panentheism doesn't seem like an exclusive term - like, "you can't be a panentheist and take from other deistic ideas. The possibility that The Great Spirit is not only earth, but everything that ever was and could be says to me that its covering the unexplained, which I appreciated from the term.

Am I interpreting that correctly, Cesara?
[/quote]

I think you are very right, Bjorn, in that you can be a panentheist and take from other ideas, as well....after all.....in a panentheistic framework, there is a WHOLE lot of 'God' left over after the end of the universe. Ultimately, as long as It is happening WITHIN The All/Divine/God, then I would classify it as panentheistic, so long as there is clear reference to The All/Divine/God being more than just the physical universe.

[Anu]

Re: Panentheism

I've had this topic bookmarked since I joined, and just now got around to reading it. I really find this fascinating, especially since I wasn't familiar with panentheism or pantheism. While I'm definitely not a panentheist, pantheism is really appealing to me. So while that's not the point of this post, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I'm going to probably read through this topic a few more times (since there are some posts I'm not fully sure I understand) and then bombard you all with about four hundred questions. I find this highly interesting.

[cesara]

Re: Panentheism

[quote author=Anu link=topic=1184.msg31120#msg31120 date=1296236350]
I'm going to probably read through this topic a few more times (since there are some posts I'm not fully sure I understand) and then bombard you all with about four hundred questions.[/quote]

LOL......shoot!

[Gwen]

Re: Panentheism

Sorry, it's super late and I'll have to read more carefully later... just wanted to drop in that as a religious studies scholar the word panentheism gives me a headache (and has been known to set off little soapbox sessions) because there's not a lot of agreement about what it means. I am a panentheist by the definition Cesara provides. However, I've more often encountered the theological definition that God is part of the universe but not identical to the universe in that there is both part of God that is not contained in the universe and part of the universe that is not part of God. I used to be able to list two or three other definitions too. For simplicity's sake if nothing else, I generally identify with pantheism instead... because my classmates and professors at seminary at least have a better shot of understanding what I mean when I say it. o.O

[cesara]

Re: Panentheism

LOL, Gwen. Yes, there can definitely be some misunderstanding. It's not a very common word -- at least not at this time. But I do think that, regardless of if people understand what it means, there is a clear meaning, albeit, one that can take time to fully understand.

I would disagree with the second part of the 'theological definition' you describe. I have not come across any academic literature where panentheism states that there is "part of the universe that is not part of God."

Stanford has a great article on the topic. It's long, but well titled so you can scan it if you are seeking specific information.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

This article deconstructs the word as follows: Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God.

So, ALL IN GOD. So, clearly, the word itself denotes that ALL (including the universe) is in God.

Also, Pantheism.org also has an article explaining the difference between pantheism and panentheism. http://www.pantheist.net/society/panentheism.html

Maybe showing those articles to your classmates and professors would help them to understand the concept a little better!

[Sirius]

Re: Panentheism

Oh i'm a pantheist with a touch of buddhism in there. I believe everything on the planet and in the universe is made of god. From the tiniest piece of dust in the distant side of the universe to the boogers in your nose.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Panentheism

I'm coming into this one late, but I'm intrigued by really the BIG difference between pantheism and panentheism. It's a bigger thing than I think even I realized. I'm a pantheist, sort of soft polytheist. But I have this apparently unique idea that we create gods, not the other way around. They BECOME seperate within the whole, just as we as human beings are seperate within the whole, but only by our will.

Panentheist seems to be an almost monotheistic view, in a way, since God is bigger and outside (while still part of) the all, whereas I can't imagine anything, not even a deity, being greater than the whole. I can't comprehend how something is more than everything. It's my scientist I think.

[Sirius]

Re: Panentheism

I believe we create an idea of what god is. The "god" that i believe in is a lifeforce, not an all powerful all knowing being. It's a lifeforce that is a part of all of us, created all of us. We are all brothers and sisters.

[cesara]

Re: Panentheism

I'm coming into this one late, but I'm intrigued by really the BIG difference between pantheism and panentheism. It's a bigger thing than I think even I realized. I'm a pantheist, sort of soft polytheist. But I have this apparently unique idea that we create gods, not the other way around. They BECOME seperate within the whole, just as we as human beings are seperate within the whole, but only by our will.

Panentheist seems to be an almost monotheistic view, in a way, since God is bigger and outside (while still part of) the all, whereas I can't imagine anything, not even a deity, being greater than the whole. I can't comprehend how something is more than everything. It's my scientist I think.

Firstly, I just wanted to point out that panentheism doesn't state that the Divine is 'outside the All'.....The All IS the Divine -- and the universe is part of The All. It is not 'bigger than the whole' -- it IS the whole. Now, if you consider the Universe as 'all there is', then that is where your 'whole' ends....pantheism.....but if you accept that The All encompasses AND transcends our universe, that is a panentheistic position.

IMHO, panentheism takes into account 'nothing' as much as 'everything'. The All includes the universe, but is not limited by it. Panentheism recognizes what is -- and the other end of the scale, what isn't, or -- potential. (we'll save the quantum stuff for another thread...haha) It also allows for things like multiple universes....

I would argue that panentheism is only as monotheistic as pantheism is -- and, for me, that is not at all -- at least in any traditional sense (see diagram at the beginning of this thread). Soft polytheism fits just fine within a panentheistic framework.

It's funny how far each of us is willing to stretch our inner scientist -- something beyond the Universe is completely comprehensible to me, whereas, gods being 'created' by man and becoming 'separate within the whole' is something I just can't wrap my scientific head around...lol. Viva la Difference!

---------- Post added at 01:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 AM ----------

Just a note....

I realize that everyone likes to share their beliefs, however, if your post is not in some way related to panentheism, it really doesn't fit in this thread. Now, comparing how your beliefs don't quite fit into a panentheistic framework and why is fine, but, with all due respect, please don't simply post your non-panentheistic beliefs here without any reference to panentheism.

Thanks!

[Gwen]

Re: Panentheism

LOL, Gwen. Yes, there can definitely be some misunderstanding. It's not a very common word -- at least not at this time. But I do think that, regardless of if people understand what it means, there is a clear meaning, albeit, one that can take time to fully understand.

I would disagree with the second part of the 'theological definition' you describe. I have not come across any academic literature where panentheism states that there is "part of the universe that is not part of God."

It's been a crazy-@$$ couple of weeks with classes starting up, so I haven't had time to get you sources yet, but I will! I've got some from a class I took on Neopaganism, taught by a Pagan grad student in religious studies, so we're not talking about someone who's only ever studied Biblical material here. I had a long conversation with him in class about what exactly was meant by the term, and his sources mostly pointed to a Venn diagram between God and the phenomenal world that looks like two side-by-side circles with significant but not total overlap. However, he gave us several readings from peer-reviewed scholars who worked with differing definitions of the word. (Yup, that class is where my soap-boxing on the term was born.)

I'm thrilled to discover that you've found so many mainstream academic sources that cite the definition I prefer for myself (the universe is completely contained in God but God is not limited to the universe)! I'm just sayin' that there are a lot of other conflicting academic definitions for the word out there. Sources to follow, I promise.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Panentheism

Firstly, I just wanted to point out that panentheism doesn't state that the Divine is 'outside the All'.....The All IS the Divine -- and the universe is part of The All. It is not 'bigger than the whole' -- it IS the whole. Now, if you consider the Universe as 'all there is', then that is where your 'whole' ends....pantheism.....but if you accept that The All encompasses AND transcends our universe, that is a panentheistic position.

So perhaps more along the lines of deity is the whole and the universe is an organ within the whole? Sort of like a Gaia theory for all existence?

That I can dig. Still a bit different from where I stand, but I think I can divorce it from monotheism better that way.

[cesara]

Re: Panentheism

I would love to read them, Gwen! Unfortunately, I don't have access right now to academic journals as I'm not enrolled in any classes right now....sigh....so please do post when you've got the time!

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------

So perhaps more along the lines of deity is the whole and the universe is an organ within the whole? Sort of like a Gaia theory for all existence?

That I can dig. Still a bit different from where I stand, but I think I can divorce it from monotheism better that way.

In essence, exactly!