PanDeism?

[The Sum of Awe]

Any PanDeist on this board? I always had been interested in hearing from them but never met one.

 

[Sees]

Panendeistic polytheist is what I use to sort of describe my theistic views.

Most pantheism is probably synonymous with pandeism though.

 

[Pandeist]

Any PanDeist on this board? I always had been interested in hearing from them but never met one.

Indeed -- well now you've met one!!

 

[idav]

Most pantheism is probably synonymous with pandeism though.

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades! I'm just kidding.

I actually fail to see a significant difference. In one instance he is on paid vacation and the other he has everything on an automated system but keeps monitoring. Heck now that I say that sounds like it could even be both.

 

[Sees]

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades! I'm just kidding.

I actually fail to see a significant difference. In one instance he is on paid vacation and the other he has everything on an automated system but keeps monitoring. Heck now that I say that sounds like it could even be both.

I used to love playing horseshoes

I always treat it as theism = personal, conscious, aware....deism = impersonal, unconscious or consciousness itself, unaware or awareness itself. It definitely doesn't fit what everybody is meaning when they use the terms, especially in compound forms.

Most would probably admit that it is sort of like saying what is your idea of a perfect pizza, perfect song, definition of love, etc. where precision and utmost accuracy doesn't really apply, matter greatly, or isn't possible.

 

[Pandeist]

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades! I'm just kidding.

I actually fail to see a significant difference. In one instance he is on paid vacation and the other he has everything on an automated system but keeps monitoring. Heck now that I say that sounds like it could even be both.

Wait, which one is what, now? I don't think either of those descriptions quite match up with either of those ideas.

There is Deism (which hasn't properly been brought up here yet) -- where the Creator sets forth the Creation and then leaves it be, as everything has been set up to run on its own.

Then there is Pantheism, where really there is no "Creator" at all, as our Universe is eternal, and *is* "God" or the nearest equivalent; and we are all simply fragments within that being's internal continuum.

And then there is Pandeism which combines the two; there is again a Creator, but this time the Creator simply *becomes* the Creation (eg our physical Universe), and thereafter exists as the Creation (presumably until some alarm clock built into the fabric of reality rings the Creator back into its initial "Creator" state). Ooh, I do like that last clause, remind me to use it again, well and often.

 

[idav]

Allow me to quote my comparisons with your definition.

Wait, which one is what, now? I don't think either of those descriptions quite match up with either of those ideas.

There is Deism (which hasn't properly been brought up here yet) -- where the Creator sets forth the Creation and then leaves it be, as everything has been set up to run on its own.

On vacation.

Then there is Pantheism, where really there is no "Creator" at all, as our Universe is eternal, and *is* "God" or the nearest equivalent; and we are all simply fragments within that being's internal continuum.

Automated but still observing.

And then there is Pandeism which combines the two; there is again a Creator, but this time the Creator simply *becomes* the Creation (eg our physical Universe), and thereafter exists as the Creation (presumably until some alarm clock built into the fabric of reality rings the Creator back into its initial "Creator" state). Ooh, I do like that last clause, remind me to use it again, well and often.

Possibly even both.

I think I got it.

 

[oldbadger]

I 'cycle' between Deism and Pandeism.
My perception of 'God' is that everything and everyforce is part of God, but a God that cares as much for any one particle as for us humans. I perceive that humankind is arrogant and dense to believe that God holds any special value for us, and at the same time this belief gives me a strong sense of wellbeing, because before, all 'my' atoms were somewhere else, and after, they will go somewhere else. I was dead for countless millenia before, so, no problem later on.

 

[Jainarayan]

Panendeistic polytheist is what I use to sort of describe my theistic views.

Most pantheism is probably synonymous with pandeism though.

I think I'd describe myself this way also (we just agree way too much ). I think it's best explained in Ways of the Ásatrú Beliefs of the Modern, Northern Heathens by Michael J. Smith (http://www.heathengods.com/library/mike_smith/WayoftheAsatru.pdf).

He gives five ideas of divinity in Ásatrú. Idea #2, which I lean towards, is:

Although more pantheistic in nature, this is where the religious or philosophical belief adheres to the thought that it is the universe itself and all of the creation within it which are divine. In this strict case, divinity itself is not conscious, but a type of power which permeates, and is central, in all things.

I believe if there is A God, that God is even less personified than that of the watchmaker analogy.

 

[Pandeist]

I 'cycle' between Deism and Pandeism.
My perception of 'God' is that everything and everyforce is part of God, but a God that cares as much for any one particle as for us humans. I perceive that humankind is arrogant and dense to believe that God holds any special value for us, and at the same time this belief gives me a strong sense of wellbeing, because before, all 'my' atoms were somewhere else, and after, they will go somewhere else. I was dead for countless millenia before, so, no problem later on.

I think that if there's a purpose for our Universe in Pandeism, it is to generate intelligent life through which our Creator can experience such things as fear and courage, hopelessness and hope, failure and triumph. A being of such ability would never be able to have the positives if it couldn't experience the negatives simply by the tragedy of being too powerful and too alone to suffer those things which the positive contrast against.

To that end, I think beings like us are important. Like Carl Sagan described us, we are a way for our Universe to know itself. This is so even if our Universe is our Creator unconsciously sustaining the fabric of existence and living through our every moment.