I don't understand Pantheism

[crossfire]

Isn't there a prayer of jesus to 'the father' something like, "May they be one with you as you and I are one"? Perhaps he was praying that all of humanity might realize (understand, accept, embrace, know) it's godhood?
It certainly wouldn't make sense for him to pray for a thing that were not possible. That said, the bible at its best is metaphorical- symbolic- and self interpreted. So on a personal level I really don't care (what people say it does or doesn't 'say').

John 17
(Is verse 21 the one you are looking for?)

 

[Î Î¿Î»Ï Ï€Î­ÏÏ‡Ï‰Î½ Γʹ]

When he is asked how can he say he is God if he is a man, he replies "doesn´t god says in the scriptures "you are gods"? "

I have no question Jesus was a Pantheist or panentheist. It is pretty clear.

Also, when he says that which you do with th least of my brothers you do to me, he is including all of us in him, which is basically a panentheist or pantheist remark of we being part of or equal to God.

You're taking that verse out of context.

Christ quotes the passage, identifying the "gods" and "sons of God" (the Most High) in our passage here as the persons who had received God's law. It does not mean that they are actually divine beings, but people who think of themselves as gods, i.e. put them self in the position of the Most High.

The gross error of some scholars in not catching on to what "gods" in Ps. 82:6 really means is due to only one thing, namely, their lack of knowledge of the New Testament. As we have frequently noted, nobody can really understand the Old Testament without a thorough knowledge of the New Testament.

 

[NIX]

John 17
(Is verse 21 the one you are looking for?)

I wasn't looking for it, but yes that's the one. I'm not christian so I really don't care, but from my own viewpoint I'd say the whole prayer could easily be read in a Pantheistic light. I could write my thoughts and insights but then 5 christians would just come along and tell me I'm 'wrong'. I'm not 'excited' or interested enough about it all to bother. My 'self invested' interest in christianity disolved to a passing side note enough years back that it's inconsequential to me now.

 

[crossfire]

I wasn't looking for it, but yes that's the one. I'm not christian so I really don't care, but from my own viewpoint I'd say the whole prayer could easily be read in a Pantheistic light. I could write my thoughts and insights but then 5 christians would just come along and tell me I'm 'wrong'. I'm not 'excited' or interested enough about it all to bother. My 'self invested' interest in christianity disolved to a passing side note enough years back that it's inconsequential to me now.

Fair enough.

 

[Noaidi]

I can fully appreciate the notion of the Universe / Nature as being worthy of reverence and respect (I travel that particular road myself) but, on a practical level, what essentially is the difference between believing that all is god and an atheistic position of nothing is god?

I regard myself as a dark green atheist and Nature, to me, has a deep sacredness, but I wouldn't call it god. Is there any real difference between myself and a pantheist?

 

[Bob Dixon]

I can fully appreciate the notion of the Universe / Nature as being worthy of reverence and respect (I travel that particular road myself) but, on a practical level, what essentially is the difference between believing that all is god and an atheistic position of nothing is god?

I regard myself as a dark green atheist and Nature, to me, has a deep sacredness, but I wouldn't call it god. Is there any real difference between myself and a pantheist?

1. The difference between "all is God" and "nothing is God" lies in your own definition of "God".

2. I can't see any practical difference between yourself and a Pantheist, except for the fact that you don't believe in any "God" and they do.

 

[Me Myself]

You're taking that verse out of context.

Me? It is you that takes it completely out of context with all of that

 

[Noaidi]

1. The difference between "all is God" and "nothing is God" lies in your own definition of "God".

Yes, I agree, so what does the term 'god' mean to a pantheist? (not asking you specifically, Bob).

2. I can't see any practical difference between yourself and a Pantheist, except for the fact that you don't believe in any "God" and they do.

I don't see any practical difference either.

 

[Me Myself]

To me, (though I am a panentheist) it means that the whole has all the power and it has consciousness.

So for me that would be the difference. If you dont believe the whole has a consciousness but you are aware it creates, destroys, has all the power and all, I would be surprised you call it God, I generally associate the term "God" to some kind of consciousness or sentience. (not saying it is the only needed attribute, but at least one of the most basic ones for it to be called "god" IMHO)

 

[mycorrhiza]

I can fully appreciate the notion of the Universe / Nature as being worthy of reverence and respect (I travel that particular road myself) but, on a practical level, what essentially is the difference between believing that all is god and an atheistic position of nothing is god?

I regard myself as a dark green atheist and Nature, to me, has a deep sacredness, but I wouldn't call it god. Is there any real difference between myself and a pantheist?

There's probably no difference between you and a naturalistic pantheist. You choose the term "dark green atheist", I choose the term "pantheist". There's no need to call Nature God, it simply fills the same spot that God does for theists.

Other pantheists may hold a more literal interpretation of Nature as God, regarding the Universe as a single conscious entity, though.

 

[Quintessence]

I can fully appreciate the notion of the Universe / Nature as being worthy of reverence and respect (I travel that particular road myself) but, on a practical level, what essentially is the difference between believing that all is god and an atheistic position of nothing is god?

Although it depends on the individuals in question, in general I would say a heck of a lot. With belief in the gods comes active devotion and practice that honors the sacred. It doesn't have to be highly ritualized, but that worship, reverence, and thankfulness will be there. Atheists don't celebrate the seasonal cycle, and for those that do, they're not doing it with an expressly religious/sacred tone to it. One who revels in the immanent divine, on the other hand, is very likely to do so. There are pantheists who are only philosophical pantheists and have no related devotions or practices. You are not particularly different from those kinds of pantheists.

Not sure if I'm explaining that particularly well.

 

[idav]

I can fully appreciate the notion of the Universe / Nature as being worthy of reverence and respect (I travel that particular road myself) but, on a practical level, what essentially is the difference between believing that all is god and an atheistic position of nothing is god?

I regard myself as a dark green atheist and Nature, to me, has a deep sacredness, but I wouldn't call it god. Is there any real difference between myself and a pantheist?

Your certainly are on the line. There are varying degrees everywhere from everything coming from nothing all the way to coming from some conscious type of entity. Where I find a significant difference is in how people consider the origin of everything. To me an atheist viewpoint is like believing someone doesnt have a mother.

 

[Orias]

I think it's hard to objectively determine whether it is beautiful and fills us with peace, the universe isn't that much of a peaceful place. It is complex and powerful to us as well. It doesn't necessarily mean it is a god though?

It depends on how you want to define God.

I find the most accurate and meaningful interpretation to simply be invocation, and from what we know the universe is pretty...provocative (which consists of invocation).

Picture it like this, in ancient times the sun and stone was used to tell time, now days we use clocks comprised of very intricate devices that all rely on each other. But they are no different than the need for the sun to make shadows wax and wane across the stone, all devices rely on the other devices to complete the perception thereof, and to invoke the mind into understanding!

Every reaction is apart of a domino effect, and we have the privilege to witness it and give it a name or meaning. Its what we were meant to do!

 

[Noaidi]

To me, (though I am a panentheist) it means that the whole has all the power and it has consciousness.

So for me that would be the difference. If you dont believe the whole has a consciousness but you are aware it creates, destroys, has all the power and all, I would be surprised you call it God, I generally associate the term "God" to some kind of consciousness or sentience. (not saying it is the only needed attribute, but at least one of the most basic ones for it to be called "god" IMHO)

OK, thanks.
That's the difference. I don't see the Universe as having consciousness although, obviously, consciousness exists inmany individual organisms.
How does this consciousness or sentience manifest itself?

 

[Noaidi]

There's probably no difference between you and a naturalistic pantheist. You choose the term "dark green atheist", I choose the term "pantheist". There's no need to call Nature God, it simply fills the same spot that God does for theists.

The term 'naturalistic pantheist' probably fits best with my view. I've also heard of the term 'spiritual naturalist', which has a similar view.

 

[Noaidi]

Not sure if I'm explaining that particularly well.

You explained it just fine!
Thanks.

 

[Noaidi]

Your certainly are on the line. There are varying degrees everywhere from everything coming from nothing all the way to coming from some conscious type of entity. Where I find a significant difference is in how people consider the origin of everything. To me an atheist viewpoint is like believing someone doesnt have a mother.

How so?

 

[NIX]

At the very least the Universe is conscious in/through the conscious beings it gives rise to.
The 'I's' are the eyes of the universe consciously observing and interacting with itself.

Seen as a whole then (including 'us'), the universe is a self conscious- or self aware- entity.

 

[idav]

How so?

Origin means coming from somewhere not coming from nothing.

 

[Willamena]

Origin means coming from somewhere not coming from nothing.

Technically, it's just the first instance. It is not about what generates that first instance.