On Apr 22, 6:44 pm, B <BGK...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> B - No..I am a PanEntheist.
I am aware of the word PanEntheist. I looked it up, for this post, in
Wikipedia and found more than I wanted to know.
Wikipedia says (in part)
Panentheism is essentially a unifying combination of theism (God is
the supreme being) and pantheism (God is everything). While pantheism
says that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims
that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is
contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the =93supreme
affect and effect=94 of the universe.
Assuming this is an accurate statement of the position of
panentheist's beliefs I can understand it and work with it. To me,
and, I believe, many other people this definition makes panentheism a
specialized version of pantheism rather than an alternative to it. The
definition only seems to work because it adapts a restricted version
of what pantheism means.
I am unaware of any school of thought, not even Spinoza, that makes
God precisely equal to the physical universe (assuming that is the
sense of "coextensive" in the definition). In general, thought which
is usually called pantheistic, uses something like the body-soul
metaphor where the physical world is the body of God and what most of
us think of as God is the soul. (Anyone who is willing to claim to be
a pantheist is free to object to this description.)
But, from where I sit, that metaphor looks no different than what is
defined as panentheism.
Or conversely, how is panentheism different than conventional beliefs?
I believe that no religion these days holds that the physical world is
not God's. Even a stereotyped Manichee would argue that the physical
world is either God's or Satan's and it is his duty to make sure that
stays God's. They might not approve of the geometric metaphor involved
in "contained within God" but surely that is just an alternative
representation of the possessive "God's".
In the published literature my personal position is best presented by
Martin Buber in "Ich und Du". Perhaps the differences are all merely
matters of emphasis. Someone like myself emphasizes the aspect of God
that is "larger" than the physical world.
I think maybe I should change my notion of what "pantheism" is. I
perhaps should call what I used to call "pantheism" "panentheism" and
relegate "pantheism" to the world of fabulous monsters. I don't think
the change is needed - but if that is where the language is going I
guess I had better go along with it.
Sorry if I offended you.
|
