siti
Well-Known Member
OK - maybe I was not specific/restrictive enough in the OP...but what I just said is what I had in mind to discuss. The second sentence is your take - its a valid point - but others probably have a different view.
-
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!
Pantheism - a foundation for unity?
- Thread starter siti
- Start date
siti
Well-Known Member
Actually Lataster's paper was discussing panentheism, but he made the points about pantheism that I picked out in the OP early in his paper...anyway, I think the same applies to panentheism - see my response to @shunyadragon.
I'm currently the chair of my cities inter-faith council. The basis of our dialogue and common ground is that all of our faiths promote positive virtues such as love, justice and compassion. We avoid discussing our diverse and disparate theologies.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Interesting proposal. Pantheism does provides a better unity for the human and non-human family. If one sees the world as sacred or divine then one should act in a way of respect for all living and nonliving aspects of the world. Respect for the natural world would change the way we treat our world and maybe we would not be on the brink of mass extinction including human and environmental degradation. If the ultimate is beyond this earth then why care what happens on earth. If the universe is god then one would chose to respect and protect what happens on earth. You would feel connected with the rest of life and not above and beyond who we share this planet with. It seems to me that adopting this view would be more likely to save humanity (not to mention the rest of life) than what the other religions have done so far.
siti
Well-Known Member
I'm not surprised that theology is avoided - it is a problem for revealed theistic religion - do you think there might even be fruitful inter-faith discussion of theology if the impetus came from a pantheistic or panentheistic (see @shunyadragon's comments and my response above) - I mean if we stated openly that we believe all humans (and hence human constructs like religions) to be part of the greater divine reality at the outset, wouldn't that open the way for mutual respect of one another's 'theologies'? Isn't that (theology) the main obstacle to inter-religious cooperation? And how well does it really work when we just avoid talking about the 'elephant in the room'?
I see it oppositely; "all is one" eliminates a divide between mind and body, which allows for grasping of the greater picture, non-dualism. Much of my reading of Buddhism addresses how the parts do not differ significantly from the whole, and everything is interconnected.
The problem isn't theology or the worldview, but an inability to respect the views of those who are different from ourselves. It doesn't matter whether we are deist, atheist, pantheistic or theist. If we take a perspective of intolerance to those with differing views we will have conflict. If we are accepting and respectful of our differing theologies then we can cooperate to work towards our shared goals.
We are aware of our different theologies. We take it in turns to have our meetings at each others community centres or places of worship. The host will spend about 10 minutes presenting his or her faith with time for respectful questions. We want to learn about each other's beliefs and build good relationships. We are not interested in debating to establish the dominance of one world view over another.
siti
Well-Known Member
You say that, but it surely does make a difference if one believes his worldview was directly revealed by God and another fully acknowledges that it is just the way some humans, including himself, view things. I can happily discuss my beliefs as a story I tell myself to help me make sense of the world...for example. And in my case, (nowadays) the story changes from day to day as I try to assimilate new information...but previously, as a devout theist, I was convinced that my beliefs were based on a perfectly reliable ancient and unchangeable divine revelation - how can I use that as a basis for genuinely respecting other beliefs - no belief other than mine can truly represent the revealed word of God - or else mine isn't after all - is it? Don't get me wrong - I am not criticizing others' beliefs, I am just wondering whether one genuinely has a better chance of understanding and respecting diverse religious views if one starts from a pantheistic/panentheistic base. I suppose it comes down to the question of whether humans have the right to decide what God thinks? The pantheist would probably say yes - at least to some extent because humans are part of God...the theist would say no and anything that contravenes the Word revealed through God's appointed prophet is anathema. So its much easier, in principle, I think, for the pantheist to acknowledge the theists right (before God) to believe the stories he believes about God than for the theist to acknowledge the right (before God) of a non-theist to believe the stories he has decided work best for him. Perhaps?
Sorry. It is just that I have been talking so much about this specifically that I assume others have had enough already.
A very marked turn in my thoughts in recent years brought me to a loving appreciation of apatheism. As they say, it is wood varnish and ice cream topping. Perhaps automatically, I have also concluded that no specific stance towards god-concepts is capable of sustaining doctrine. I think it was just a couple of days ago that I posted here that I never understood how the Abrahamics manage to survive while promoting monotheism as an universal belief. After all, people can hardly expect their relatives and loved ones to consistently turn out to be monotheists even if they are themselves deep and sincere believers.
Personally, I have concluded that this is no coincidence; the Abrahamics have actually developed a weird survival strategy based on that very tension. Probably an example of anti-fragility.
The bottom line is that it works, but only demographically, and only at the expense of so much unhealthy distraction that it compromises the very validity of those doctrines as religions proper.
I sincerely believe that religion has to at some point adopt an apatheistic stance if it takes itself seriously enough and survives for long enough. Of course, odds are that it will not notice that it is doing that... after all, it would be such a minor, unremarkable thing.
So no, apartheism is no panacea. It is a litmus test for religions that have grown into maturity in a healthy way.
Of course, people will turn out monotheist, pantheist, panentheist, animist, atheistic, and in many other colorful variations of those, ideally without even bothering to notice. That is such a personal matter that other people may never understand the implications... and probably never did.
It matters and it doesn't matter. We have representatives from the main denominations of Christianity, as well as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhist and Baha'i. Members of your former faith (the Jehovah Witnesses) never attend as you would expect. They are the exception rather than the rule. The Catholic church after the second Vatican council in the early 1960s have become strong supporters of the interfaith movements as with the Anglicans, Presbyterians and Methodists. The Mormons are also surprisingly staunch supporters. I really believe we can have strong beliefs yet see the value in other people and what they believe. Talk to any of the Christian participants of my interfaith group and they will say exactly the same thing. One of our members is a church minister and he established the Abrahamic society after 9/11. He is a staunch promoter of Muslims having their own chaplaincy services at our university and hospital.
The Catholics have just released an information package for their members to encourage them all to participate whole heartedly in any opportunities they have to fellowship with those from a different faith. It is far more important that a persons right to believe as they choose is respected and there is no place for undermining the beliefs of others. The twentieth century has seen great progress in overcoming prejudices based on race and gender. Now we are seeing prejudices based on faith and belief addressed and overcome.
siti
Well-Known Member
Right! I got it. So one's religion (ultimately) should not dictate one's theology (or lack thereof) and a mature religion will not care tuppence whether I personally subscribe to a theistic, pantheistic, atheistic or any other worldview. Isn't that the direction the UU Church has gone in? (For example).
Far as I figure, that is exactly right. Of course, that is not all.
siti
Well-Known Member
OK, please continue...
siti
Well-Known Member
I really wanted to tag this bit optimistic - but I thought just doing that might make it seem I was skeptical - I am genuinely impressed that people where you are seem to be seeing past imposed (in some cases at least) theological differences to the more fundamental human values that really matter. That is cause for genuine optimism.
Are you sure?
In any case, I have concluded that theology, far from central, probably should not even be a part of a religion's doctrine. It is mainly an aesthetical matter: good for illustrating some ideas if you can find like minds, but gets in the way for no good reason otherwise.
Ya learn something every day. Fire plugs doesn't really translate to Australian, far as I know. I didn't know what they were (kinda guessed, but...)
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Well, you had your answer in the first post after your post. Till you keep a God in the equation, there will be prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis from that God and they will not let people live in peace. 'One God' is the greatest problem for the world. Without rejecting God, you cannot have world peace. Or accept polytheism, many Gods, none a Supreme.
You don't discuss God, that is why there is peace in your city council.
Last edited:
On 15th March 2019 a lone gun man murdered 51 Muslins while gathered peacefully in two Mosques in Christchurch, about 5 hours drive from my hometown. Although the perpetrator was originally from Australia, he had been living less than a kilometre down the road from me. He had planned to target the one Mosque in my town but realised he could cause more carnage in Christchurch.
A week later the Dunedin city council assisted by our Interfaith group arranged a prayer vigil in honour of the Muslim community. We had prayers from the major world religions. Over Eighteen thousand people or 15% of my city attended.
A city united
If you go to the first video in the link titled Dunedin vigil part 2, that’s me saying a prayer for unity 10 seconds in.
We accept each other’s world view without one group trying to push their beliefs on another. Whoever hosts contributes an opening reflection or prayer.
Our meeting over the weekend was hosted by the Tibetan Buddhists. I like their parable of the poisoned arrow as it reminds us to focus on the urgent duty each of us needs to perform. The Buddha often took a neutral stance towards beliefs about God or gods, perhaps because discussions back then were like many discussions today, fruitless and divisive.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
Are you a pantheist? I can be a pantheist if I want to be, and I’m already trying to help establish some mutual understandings between different religions. Let’s you and me try your idea, as pantheists, and see if we can be more successful in establishing some mutual understandings between different religions than whoever you’re calling “theists.” We would need to list who they are, to know who we’re comparing ourselves to, and we would need to have a way of measuring. How would we measure how successful we are in establishing some mutual understandings between different religions? What ideas do you have about what we can do for that, as pantheists, that the people you’re calling “theists” can’t do?
Last edited: