• 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!

Do you call yourself a 'Panentheist'?

Tyho

Member
Hi,

As you may know, 'Panentheism' is not a religion, it's more of a theological position. There are some religions out there that are considered 'Panentheistic' but do you, as a non-religious individual, call yourself a 'Panentheist'? How is that the term you use to define your beliefs to others?

Kind of like:

Person A: Hi, are you a christian or a jew?

Person B: No, I am a Panentheist.

Person A: A what?

Person B: ...

Awkward.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
How is that the term you use to define your beliefs to others?
I use many terms, and in different situations. There's no single term that captures what a person thinks or believe. To reduce the complexity of a person's ideas and views into a dictionary word (that most of the time aren't defined well enough either), is useful only for the purpose of pointing the way. It's just a street sign pointing towards the next city. I call myself atheist, naturalistic pantheist, panentheist, and probably other things as well. When it comes down to it, I can't say for sure what I believe about everything or every philosophical concept either, so it's not impossible that one or the other term only fits me to a certain point, but not completely. I don't know. That's what life is all about. Learning about ourselves, while learning about others.
 

Baladas

An Págánach
I have searched and hunted for a label that fits me well enough for me to adopt it so as to make myself easily understood.
So far, I have found that though some labels fit me to some extent, I am just not comfortable with them.

As Ouroboros said, there is no single term that can capture what a person thinks or believes.
I do understand your frustrations though in desiring an accurate and convenient label.
 

steveb1

Member
Hi,

As you may know, 'Panentheism' is not a religion, it's more of a theological position. There are some religions out there that are considered 'Panentheistic' but do you, as a non-religious individual, call yourself a 'Panentheist'? How is that the term you use to define your beliefs to others?

Kind of like:

Person A: Hi, are you a christian or a jew?

Person B: No, I am a Panentheist.

Person A: A what?

Person B: ...

Awkward.

I don't feel awkward - I just say that I believe God contains everything, so therefore everything exists in God. For a Christian I'd cite the Paul of Acts of the Apostles that in God we move and live and have our being.
:)
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hi,

As you may know, 'Panentheism' is not a religion, it's more of a theological position. There are some religions out there that are considered 'Panentheistic' but do you, as a non-religious individual, call yourself a 'Panentheist'? How is that the term you use to define your beliefs to others?

Kind of like:

Person A: Hi, are you a christian or a jew?

Person B: No, I am a Panentheist.

Person A: A what?

Person B: ...

Awkward.
Here is an interesting site on definitions
Panentheism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

I am not too familar with patheneism. My theological approach is pantheism. All is God and equal to each other. I guess you can saw that "life" in everything is beyond us or like a "God" per se. I wasnt raises religious; so, I dont have that authoritive thinking. Yet, because we cant live without the earth it can beyond sense I revere it. What would you call that?

As for identity, pantheism. If I were a panenthiest, Id say that. However, I think I may be a little bit of both. Both are still somewhat new for me to hear.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don't feel awkward - I just say that I believe God contains everything, so therefore everything exists in God. For a Christian I'd cite the Paul of Acts of the Apostles that in God we move and live and have our being.
:)
Hey what verse is that? Thats a good one to fill the gap of many christians who ask my view of God.
 

Baladas

An Págánach
Here is an interesting site on definitions
Panentheism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

I am not too familar with patheneism. My theological approach is pantheism. All is God and equal to each other. I guess you can saw that "life" in everything is beyond us or like a "God" per se. I wasnt raises religious; so, I dont have that authoritive thinking. Yet, because we cant live without the earth it can beyond sense I revere it. What would you call that?

As for identity, pantheism. If I were a panenthiest, Id say that. However, I think I may be a little bit of both. Both are still somewhat new for me to hear.

Looking at the definitions on the link you posted, I am either a strong panentheist or a panendeist.
It's hard to say, as I view the laws of Nature as inherent in the Divine, and not something that any transcendent aspect necessarily has any say in.
Not simply that the laws "have no need of intervention" but that they cannot be. If something happens, it is by Natural law (whether we understand it at present, or ever will understand it) since all is Nature.

I too revere the Earth. As you say, without it we could not exist.

Hey what verse is that? Thats a good one to fill the gap of many christians who ask my view of God.

Acts 17:28...the author was quoting Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus.
:)
 
Last edited:

chevron1

Active Member
i am taoist and in my religion, tao is a panentheistic entity.


image.png


image.png
 

underthesun

Terrible with Titles
How is that the term you use to define your beliefs to others?

Oh, I definitely describe myself as a panentheist whenever I'm asked what my beliefs are. Actually, whenever I'm willing to share what my beliefs are. The conversation has never been awkward for me, though every single time I've used the term I have had to explain what it meant... but I don't find that awkward. Maybe that's because whenever I'm actually discussing my beliefs, it's always at a time when I'm happy to indulge questions and explain my stances. If I'm ever worried that a person might not take kindly to my beliefs, I simply keep them to myself. No awkwardness that way. /shrug.
 

chevron1

Active Member
Yes, many people will do exactly what the opening post says when confronted with any non-BELIEF. The very act of BELIEF closes the mind and most people have long ago given up trying to learn all that is (in Universe is the completion of that ALL Is phrase - or YHVH).

if the act of belief closes the mind, then all the more reason for scientific religion, which actually accepts changes as science finds them to be true.


Thus I often hear the word "awkward" and I wonder why a person feels compelled to be so foolish.


they do foolish things to be safe because if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

In William James Religious Experience book I think he allows for the kind of pragmatism which enjoins adepts of every spiritual discipline - so I consider his Transcendentalist leanings pretty panentheist as is his fellow Harvard Professor and mathematical genius Alfred North Whitehead.

Jung loved James's Pragmatism and took the whole spiritism thing to greater depths and we learned words like archetypes and memes have a lot to do with BELIEFS.

archetypes and memes we say are the best things for all people.
 
I like to think so. I mean, I have inclinations and some inner beliefs that really resound with the principles of Panentheism. Yet, I like to the add in a few ideals from other areas of theism as well.

Overall, I tend to lean mostly towards it.
 

Amenuel

New Member
Hello,

All of these terms that people use seem to contain flaws, but my faith's category ought to be called either pantheism or panentheism. The complicated thing is that there is a separate entity often called "God" but yet it is symbiotic with existence and for each human soul is a kind of bred clone within that "God". But the complicity does not end there. There is truth in Jesus' saying of "I am in the Father and the Father in me" which obviously he meant that each person's condition could be if people just lived their lives like he did. We are a kind of "mirror" of the Father, usually in case we can realize this and become complete (finish our "breeding" phase).

Here is where I partially share what Gnostics stand for and that the World is a "problem", not evil like they say, and our souls are placed within Bodies, those Bodies from the Homo Sapiens species and the instinct is our main antagonist, i.e. we are ourselves our worst enemy (while mainstream Abrahamic faiths call this phenomenon "Satan"). The World, Universe, is a contradiction created by that mysterious God figure and it is innately lifeless in the way that things are only driven by the instinct, i.e. it is programmed that entities act in an already predetermined manner without any conscious independent input. This is the behavior we must fight against, in order to become self-realized and "alive" and that is part of our "testing". This could be considered a "testing ground" to breed conscious beings that can function independently rather than slaves to their instinct.

It may seem that I do not stand for a Pantheism, but from a very basic viewpoint then the Foundation as I call it is the Platform of existence and we are simply confined into existing in it. The signs are in that "I am in the Father and the Father in me" expression plus also within the Old Testament and "I am who am I" that this "God" spoke to Moses. Gnosticism is generally perceived as Pluralism but this is untrue. God is entirely the originator of everything. However what is God is incredible difficult to comprehend and discuss and there is probably no one sincere who would argue otherwise. What makes is so very complicated is because it resides within us yet is cognitively separate, like a symbiosis between two, yet we exist in a Oneness, a unity. Within our unity however, the Foundation is an intelligence that can be communicated with while it yet is ourselves, so basically when speaking to God we speak to ourselves. But it does not end with that, together within that unity exists all our fellow humans even those who are blind towards who they are, so there is reason for Jesus' teachings to love everyone as yourself even your enemy since they are you too, your brother or sister. If you help them you help yourself. If you hurt them you hurt yourself.

Be safe
Amenuel
 

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
Hello,

All of these terms that people use seem to contain flaws, but my faith's category ought to be called either pantheism or panentheism. The complicated thing is that there is a separate entity often called "God" but yet it is symbiotic with existence and for each human soul is a kind of bred clone within that "God". But the complicity does not end there. There is truth in Jesus' saying of "I am in the Father and the Father in me" which obviously he meant that each person's condition could be if people just lived their lives like he did. We are a kind of "mirror" of the Father, usually in case we can realize this and become complete (finish our "breeding" phase).

Here is where I partially share what Gnostics stand for and that the World is a "problem", not evil like they say, and our souls are placed within Bodies, those Bodies from the Homo Sapiens species and the instinct is our main antagonist, i.e. we are ourselves our worst enemy (while mainstream Abrahamic faiths call this phenomenon "Satan"). The World, Universe, is a contradiction created by that mysterious God figure and it is innately lifeless in the way that things are only driven by the instinct, i.e. it is programmed that entities act in an already predetermined manner without any conscious independent input. This is the behavior we must fight against, in order to become self-realized and "alive" and that is part of our "testing". This could be considered a "testing ground" to breed conscious beings that can function independently rather than slaves to their instinct.

It may seem that I do not stand for a Pantheism, but from a very basic viewpoint then the Foundation as I call it is the Platform of existence and we are simply confined into existing in it. The signs are in that "I am in the Father and the Father in me" expression plus also within the Old Testament and "I am who am I" that this "God" spoke to Moses. Gnosticism is generally perceived as Pluralism but this is untrue. God is entirely the originator of everything. However what is God is incredible difficult to comprehend and discuss and there is probably no one sincere who would argue otherwise. What makes is so very complicated is because it resides within us yet is cognitively separate, like a symbiosis between two, yet we exist in a Oneness, a unity. Within our unity however, the Foundation is an intelligence that can be communicated with while it yet is ourselves, so basically when speaking to God we speak to ourselves. But it does not end with that, together within that unity exists all our fellow humans even those who are blind towards who they are, so there is reason for Jesus' teachings to love everyone as yourself even your enemy since they are you too, your brother or sister. If you help them you help yourself. If you hurt them you hurt yourself.

Be safe
Amenuel

Yes! That is a beautifully concise pantheological statement! Wonderful.
 

Nefelie

Member
Hi, As you may know, 'Panentheism' is not a religion, it's more of a theological position. There are some religions out there that are considered 'Panentheistic' but do you, as a non-religious individual, call yourself a 'Panentheist'? How is that the term you use to define your beliefs to others?
Kind of like:
Person A: Hi, are you a christian or a jew?
Person B: No, I am a Panentheist.
Person A: A what?
Person B: ...
Awkward.

Usually, when I say “I’m a Pantheist” people understand “Polytheist” and that really annoys me. So, after many “experiments” I decided that the best thing to say is “non-religious theist”. Most people understand it and, if they find it interesting, they ask me for more details, so... problem solved :)

I don't feel awkward - I just say that I believe God contains everything, so therefore everything exists in God. For a Christian I'd cite the Paul of Acts of the Apostles that in God we move and live and have our being. :)

For a Christian, a good answer is also the “god is everywhere and within everything”. At least here where I am, any Greek Orthodox can understand that and relate.

And, by the way, John has many good pantheistic passages as well :)

.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
And, by the way, John has many good pantheistic passages as well :)
.
I haven't thought about that, but I can see that's very possible. John reads more like a mystic or spiritual than the other ones. You made me interested in reading John again.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Hi,

As you may know, 'Panentheism' is not a religion, it's more of a theological position. There are some religions out there that are considered 'Panentheistic' but do you, as a non-religious individual, call yourself a 'Panentheist'? How is that the term you use to define your beliefs to others?

Kind of like:

Person A: Hi, are you a christian or a jew?

Person B: No, I am a Panentheist.

Person A: A what?

Person B: ...

Awkward.

I had a similar conversation recently where I was put on the spot. The person was a Christian and they answered "Im a pantheist too".

I couldn't very well answer Catholicism or anything of the sort so I have to just resort to my theological belief since I don't have any particular religion I subscribe to.

But yes, honestly most people are not familiar with other concepts of god. It causes people to dump the whole god concept when they have a crisis of faith.
 
Top