In a sense jesus could be understood that way. How did Mary get pregnant?, curious.... Buddha actually fails at trying to be enlightened that's when he becomes enlightened. I think jung is most right. I have his red book btw very interesting.
-
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!
God=nature nature=God
- Thread starter David T
- Start date
siti
Well-Known Member
"The many become one and are increased by one" (A.N.Whitehead) - God (perhaps, if there is one) is both the "alpha" and the "omega" of that continuous process - the creative impulse and the final unifying consummation of each actual occasion of the experience of the universe as a whole...if "God" is not that then "God" is not God at all...I think. But what does it mean to say that God=Nature? If we can't answer the question "what is Nature?" except to say that it is the 'experiential process of reality' then what is it that we are equating "God" with? There is (perhaps) no such thing as "Nature" because the nature of "Nature" is change (aka process, aka evolution - in the broadest sense).
Archie J Bahm's translation of the (first bit of the) Tao Te Ching expresses it like this:
"Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature"
So to say God=Nature (and vice versa) suggests that God exists as a complete description of an ever-changing reality - but in what sense could such a 'description' be said to 'exist' if it is ever-changing?
I think it is (perhaps) more accurate to say that "God" is the process of Nature becoming God becoming Nature...if God is not that, then God is neither God nor Nature...
Archie J Bahm's translation of the (first bit of the) Tao Te Ching expresses it like this:
"Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature"
So to say God=Nature (and vice versa) suggests that God exists as a complete description of an ever-changing reality - but in what sense could such a 'description' be said to 'exist' if it is ever-changing?
I think it is (perhaps) more accurate to say that "God" is the process of Nature becoming God becoming Nature...if God is not that, then God is neither God nor Nature...
What does it do for the word "nature"?
siti
Well-Known Member
You mean what does calling it "God" do for it? It deifies nature - which is (I think) the point of pantheism. I don't know whether that is appropriate - but if it is not appropriate to deify nature then I don't think it is appropriate to deify anything.
No, pantheism is more subtle. When the thinking 'you' becomes nature, that release of the boundaries imposed on consciousness allows one to realize no distinction between conscious being, the world and present being. That acceptance of nature is a much cooler deification than deifying nature that is the not-you.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
If all that exists is God, then God is all, and all is nature.
It is the most simple question possible, surely?
I don't understand your point at all. Why would Nature be interested particularly in you, or humans?
This notion is Deism, surely?
Sure. But Deism is the correct title, and most Deists recognise the God of all to be single.
AS soon as you forget Pantheism, and click on Deism, you'll have it.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
As far as I know, most Theists believe in God/s that are interested especially in humans, even as far as offering us life after death. Nature has no such interest.
But I don't think that many G=N N=G followers believe that and so they call themselves either Deists or Atheists.
The tough part uns4 is to move that past belief or conviction or science or religion or what anyone thinks but an is. It's grounded.
Quin, yes and no. The problem with say descriptive language, is it places the topic into the auto mechanics section of the library so to speak.
We can say from a modern scientific perspective "this is nonsense". The problem is then our brains are the locus of reality of a true. From a religious perspective we can say "this is not what we believe" which is simply the doppleganger statement of the previous scientific statement with the exact same outcome. Neither are correct both start with the cranium as the locus. The statement is neither anti religious nor a anti science it most certainly against intellectualizing nature beyond what is said specifically and in context. People make crazy statements scientifically and religiously about nature or god absolutely convinced they understand everything. False. My statement is mono!
I don't think monotheism originally started as a theological, philosophical activity but became that. Pantheism as well shouldn't be construed as a philosophical but a perceptual of another kind. We are slipping into perceptions in religion that influence a lot. My op is take a deep breath everyone, and it flips into discussion "what is breathing is it x?"" I believe it's y"," oh it cannot be y science proves y is false." But the bible says x according to g."On and on it goes!!! No wonder we need yoga.
Yes. We can deviate descriptively. When heraclitus says "the logos is common but everyone seems to have their own understanding" that is in fact monotheism in its clearest buddha temperament. Western monotheism, became as we love to do, the"mind", the Nous. That is in fact exactly pythagoras statement in context to the logos. Nature is not moved by the mind nature moves the mind beginning and end of story. My statement is in perfect alignment what ever deviates descriptively away from that is false.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Few monotheists are pantheists, so I would say it is quite far from reality. On the other hand, pantheism, specifically pandeism, is an interesting philosophy, and was found in ancient traditions. Basically, it is similar to our current model of the universe, God, both created the universe and "became" the universe itself, not unlike the current inflationary model of cosmology.
Oh gosh this was long sorry I took you seriously. I get long winded and hard to understand for most.
Well I tend to not be Philo about it and I actually try and avoid philosophy as it's manifesting today. Philosophy in all forms tends to attempt to structuralize. It OK I guess but philosophy structures become the THAT which we experience and that which actually literally experience is now being interpreted by those philosophy strictures. I don't hold philosophy itself as primary as most or it begins to take on authority that isnt real. We can say yes I wrote pantheism I suppose, but then that tends to become structures, into belief, theory, hypothesis, speculation, detached from experience and is just defining my experiences.
I already know what I wrote may appear word salad I get that here. If I walk out in the woods philosophy does not exist only experience. My daughter is gifted this way, you and I are deeply handicaped in this regards. It's experiencing nature alive all of it as one. That's easy to say hard to understand. and if I philosophy structuralize it, then it's not alive its a mechanical statement about nature.
All poetic and most of ancient metaphysics understand. this problem. Artists wrestle with it, religion today is a long distant echo of it, science is tone deaf to it, even worse than religion, if that's humanly possible.
If I ask say Richard Dawkins please explain Gordon lovelocks gaia theory he will blast it. If I ask say a theogical counterpart he will blast it. They could have the harshest debate, but both would turn on a dime and attack that. Gordon is only saying, anima mundi, holy spirit really. Very very old actually in new clothing nothing more.
It's not theory its just seeing is all. It's properly seeing without definition. After that all statements either lead away into symptomatic disconnect or all statements move towards that in healing. It's either, or, at that point.
To understand God you must understand nature, to understand nature you must understand God. To split it is to define it, to define it, is to negate it.
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - but that's not necessarily a deification either - one could quite legitimately "release" those boundaries and enjoy the "spiritual" elation of oceanic oneness with "the world" and not call it either "God" or "pantheism" - but either way - if that "oneness with nature" is the "goal" or the "definition" there is no "not-you" - is there?
siti
Well-Known Member
G=N N=G is just another way of articulating Spinoza's "deus sive natura" God or Nature equivalence - I agree that this could be interpreted as either a pan-deistic or atheistic position but it is usually categorized as pantheism.
There are many levels of God.This physical earth has a spiritual dimension which I call the Earth God. Physical energy is Co/Cs energy. We have the light speed Co dimension which is 186,000 miles per second and the Cs dimension with a light speed of 1000 light years per second. Spiritual energy is the dual in the spiritual dimension. At the spiritual center of the Earth the Earth God is subdivided into animal and plant life. A tree has a soul. A cow has a soul. The God of Humanity is a subdivision of the Earth God. All this is caused by the dual structure of the physical/spiritual universe as understood by the Chinese philosophers. The God of Humanity is subdivided into the Jewish God, the many Christian Gods of the Churches, and the Gods of all the rest of humanity.
The general religious process is earthly reincarnation. The spirit flows into their respective Gods and then after a long time reincarnates back to new life. When we die, we will flow toward the light or be rejected by the light. Then we will suffer purification of our sins. Then later we will return to life over and over again. Some of us will achieve new Earth reincarnation and move upward toward higher existence.
The general religious process is earthly reincarnation. The spirit flows into their respective Gods and then after a long time reincarnates back to new life. When we die, we will flow toward the light or be rejected by the light. Then we will suffer purification of our sins. Then later we will return to life over and over again. Some of us will achieve new Earth reincarnation and move upward toward higher existence.