Problem of evil in Pantheism

[Willamena]

Self creates "other," so as soon as this alleged "split" of god into two happens both become self-and-other. You suggest that one ("Self") continues to split while the other ("Source") does not, and hint at a devolution of the first--but why should that be the case?

There is only world, and dividing is its nature. The act of dividing "dividing" creates the illusion of a permanence on which everything is dependent, but there is nothing that this permanence can rest on. In fact, it need rest on nothing more than the act of dividing.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Self creates "other," so as soon as this alleged "split" of god into two happens both become self-and-other. You suggest that one ("Self") continues to split while the other ("Source") does not, and hint at a devolution of the first--but why should that be the case?

There is only world, and dividing is its nature. The act of dividing "dividing" creates the illusion of a permanence on which everything is dependent, but there is nothing that this permanence can rest on. In fact, it need rest on nothing more than the act of dividing.

I take it this is for me. You missed some of the quote out on last post which you commented on which made it somewhat misleading. Your first comments I can pretty much agree with, though there is only One Existence that the Many are within. As for "why", I am assuming that perhaps you don't believe in God, and therefore the discussion is going to be somewhat enlarged. Do you??
There are many worlds, many universes, but only one that is All of them. I don't have too many problems with anything you have said, but I get the feeling that your not agreeing, if this is the case, then please explain. Yes I would say that the "divided" (Image) is an allusion in that sense.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

God being "evil" with himself because it enterteins him and then punishing himself for it pretty much sums out my views on this.

To me, evil is lila, or simply put, god being masochistic.

To me it is God being schizophrenic and psychotic.

 

[Willamena]

I take it this is for me. You missed some of the quote out on last post which you commented on which made it somewhat misleading.

I apologize.

Your first comments I can pretty much agree with, though there is only One Existence that the Many are within. As for "why", I am assuming that perhaps you don't believe in God, and therefore the discussion is going to be somewhat enlarged. Do you??

I do, but of course that depends on what you mean by "god." I don't agree with a "god" that can "divide his attention."

There are many worlds, many universes, but only one that is All of them. I don't have too many problems with anything you have said, but I get the feeling that your not agreeing, if this is the case, then please explain. Yes I would say that the "divided" (Image) is an allusion in that sense.

What did you mean by "allusion"? To what?

I do disagree with much of what you said, although it's just a metaphysical disparity.

 

[columbus]

I have never considered the "problem of evil" to be an issue for any theisms aside from classical monotheism. It is only the classical monotheists - to my understanding - that claim their god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Pantheists and panentheists claim no such thing, so there is no theological problem to wrestle with.

Furthermore, neither pantheism nor panentheism inherently subscribe to the kind of moralistic dualism that you see in the classical monotheisms of the West. That is, the way things are is not necessarily judged in terms of being "good" and "evil" in the first place. This is certainly the approach most contemporary Pagans who incorporate elements of pantheism/panentheism into their theology tend to take.

I may be embroidering my memory a bit. But I recall getting into some hot water as a youngster. My second grade teacher, Sister Loratine, asked us to contribute money to feed poor kids in Africa or something. I asked what Jesus was doing about this. That didn't go over well.

The problem of evil is not a theological problem really. It is a logical problem. Claims that an omnimax being created and runs the world, but is incapable of dealing with tsunamis, birth defects, hurricanes, viruses, etc etc etc, and also that said being loves us, is just plain illogical. Which makes abrahamic religion unbelievable to those of us who value logic.

Pantheists don't make such claims in my experience.

Tom

 

[Ouroboros]

I may be embroidering my memory a bit. But I recall getting into some hot water as a youngster. My second grade teacher, Sister Loratine, asked us to contribute money to feed poor kids in Africa or something. I asked what Jesus was doing about this. That didn't go over well.

The problem of evil is not a theological problem really. It is a logical problem. Claims that an omnimax being created and runs the world, but is incapable of dealing with tsunamis, birth defects, hurricanes, viruses, etc etc etc, and also that said being loves us, is just plain illogical. Which makes abrahamic religion unbelievable to those of us who value logic.

Pantheists don't make such claims in my experience.

Tom

Agree.

My view of the issue of evil is that it's a horizontal concept, not vertical. In other words, evil, morality, etc, is related to us, humans, and our lives, society, culture. But it doesn't transcend different levels of existence. For instance, what a dog would consider good or evil is not the same as what an ant consider good or evil, or a human consider good or evil, or what a god would consider good or evil. The universe does what it does. Its "goodness" lies in the process of producing things that exists, and some of them alive to a varied degree, but not concerned about what is specifically evil for one single little life form on a small blue planet.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I do, but of course that depends on what you mean by "god." I don't agree with a "god" that can "divide his attention."

What did you mean by "allusion"? To what?

Firstly can you tell me who or what your God is? Do you believe in the Christ? Is your main source the Bible? If not then what to the three.

To answer your comments, I like the way you word things, "divide his attention", what a fascinating way of putting it, beyond me, but correct I feel. The premise is this: what IS, brings its own Self into being as an Image, as if in a mirror. In that sense, and that sense alone, he "divide his attention". Thus again in that sense, there are two not one. Of course there is not really two, as there can be no separated division outside of the Existent (God). He is all there is.

One might comment that if we can divide our attention, however small that might be, then why not he the greater? If not, then we have the problem of one consciousness which must account for good and evil within one mind. This will not work. There has to be two.

The allusion is the mirror Image. Thus everything we see is not really real. Atoms for instance which make up what we see are not really solid, so there is no solidity as such; scientists like Hoffman, Hagelin, Goswami, Lanza (not mainstream science yet) would say similar things, that everything is consciousness. The Consciousness I speak of is in layers. In what sense? In the sense that, just as we have been a child, and then an adult, so also the Consciousness of the Existent develops and evolves the same way. Each Realm can be seen as a new period of light, a new "day".

 

[Willamena]

Firstly can you tell me who or what your God is? Do you believe in the Christ? Is your main source the Bible? If not then what to the three.

I'm not a big fan of putting words to god, but it may be described as that which underscores all things, with a very bright highlighter.

To answer your comments, I like the way you word things, "divide his attention", what a fascinating way of putting it, beyond me, but correct I feel.

As well you should like it: I was quoting you, from post #17.

The premise is this: what IS, brings its own Self into being as an Image, as if in a mirror. In that sense, and that sense alone, he "divide his attention". Thus again in that sense, there are two not one. Of course there is not really two, as there can be no separated division outside of the Existent (God). He is all there is.

One might comment that if we can divide our attention, however small that might be, then why not he the greater? If not, then we have the problem of one consciousness which must account for good and evil within one mind. This will not work. There has to be two.

Now you're speaking a language I can understand.

I see it a bit differently. The image, as if a mirror, does not differ from what is, except in our understanding of mirrors. Ultimately there is only the world.

No part of the world, including our attention divided, including each thought, differs from what is.

What is the problem with good and evil?

The allusion is the mirror Image. Thus everything we see is not really real. Atoms for instance which make up what we see are not really solid, so there is no solidity as such; scientists like Hoffman, Hagelin, Goswami, Lanza (not mainstream science yet) would say similar things, that everything is consciousness. The Consciousness I speak of is in layers. In what sense? In the sense that, just as we have been a child, and then an adult, so also the Consciousness of the Existent develops and evolves the same way. Each Realm can be seen as a new period of light, a new "day".

Ah, you mean "illusion."

I'm familiar with the ideas you put forth. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm not a big fan of putting words to god, but it may be described as that which underscores all things, with a very bright highlighter.

Ok, but you don't mention the Saviour, so presumably you don't believe in Christ?

I see it a bit differently. The image, as if a mirror, does not differ from what is, except in our understanding of mirrors. Ultimately there is only the world.

If "ultimately" there is ONLY the world, where does that leave God...or is that a given?

No part of the world, including our attention divided, including each thought, differs from what is.

If I quote you again, with emphasise: "No part of the world, including our attention divided [in other words people], including each thought, differs from what IS, [that is the Ultimate God]." is that correct?

What is the problem with good and evil?
Ah, you mean "illusion."
I'm familiar with the ideas you put forth. Thanks for explaining.

No problem with Good and Evil, they exist as opposites that oppose one another, two sides to the same coin.
Apologies about "illusion", my mistake.

 

[Willamena]

Ok, but you don't mention the Saviour, so presumably you don't believe in Christ?

I don't believe in a saviour, right.

If "ultimately" there is ONLY the world, where does that leave God...or is that a given?

"God," to me, means the world--all the things that make up the world--underscoring itself. Like the Oroboros (the present moment) eating its tail. The rules by which we think govern that it all has to rest on something, and to many what it rests upon is a concrete image, and that's "god," and to others it needn't rest on anything concrete, and that's nihilism. To me, the Oroboros is the image at rest. It IS.

I prefer the simplest.

If I quote you again, with emphasise: "No part of the world, including our attention divided [in other words people], including each thought, differs from what IS, [that is the Ultimate God]." is that correct?

We're getting closer. I like this form of semantics.

No part of the world, including our attention divided [in other words, the person], including each thought, differs from what IS, [that is the mirror].

I would certainly allow that that be called "god," and not dispute it. It's all part and parcel.

No problem with Good and Evil, they exist as opposites that oppose one another, two sides to the same coin.
Apologies about "illusion", my mistake.

No worries.

 

[Robert.Evans]

"God," to me, means the world--all the things that make up the world--underscoring itself. Like the Oroboros (the present moment) eating its tail. The rules by which we think govern that it all has to rest on something, and to many what it rests upon is a concrete image, and that's "god," and to others it needn't rest on anything concrete, and that's nihilism. To me, the Oroboros is the image at rest. It IS.

No part of the world, including our attention divided [in other words, the person], including each thought, differs from what IS, [that is the mirror].

I find your words intriguing and yet I am still somewhat puzzled as to your ultimate belief. Do you think that all there is then is the world and it is somehow cyclic? If so in what way?

 

[raater_aloo]

To me its very simple.

If the universe is synonymous with God, and the universe is partly evil, then God is partly evil.

 

[Draupadi]

Self creates "other," so as soon as this alleged "split" of god into two happens both become self-and-other. You suggest that one ("Self") continues to split while the other ("Source") does not, and hint at a devolution of the first--but why should that be the case?

There is only world, and dividing is its nature. The act of dividing "dividing" creates the illusion of a permanence on which everything is dependent, but there is nothing that this permanence can rest on. In fact, it need rest on nothing more than the act of dividing.

No. In many religions God does devolve when splitting, becoming a lesser Deity or mortals like human beings.