Panentheism

[Anonymous No.19816728]

Panentheism (the idea that the universe is in God and is therefore divine) has really peaked my interest these past few years. Recommend/discuss books and thinkers that promote it, or beliefs similar to it.

[Anonymous No.19816737]

>>19816728
Sikhism is a monotheist panentheistic faith. You can read the Japji Sahib for an intro.

[Anonymous No.19816741]

*piqued my interest

[Anonymous No.19816749]

>>19816728
I'm Christian but I've always imagine it like in the second graph...

[Anonymous No.19816753]

How would a polytheistic panentheism work?

[Anonymous No.19816756]

>>19816728
>Recommend/discuss books and thinkers that promote it, or beliefs similar to it.
Ever heard of this thing called atheism

[Anonymous No.19816782]

>>19816728
Matthew Fox's "Christian Mystics 365" talks about it from a Christian perspective. Also, didn't Spinoza talk about this sort of thing? Maybe google his wikipedia page.

[Anonymous No.19816784]

>>19816737
Thanks
>>19816749
Nah, I'm pretty sure Christianity considers panentheism to be idolatrous.
>>19816753
Since everything is in God, there is nothing that is not divine. Therefore, you can worship things in this world that are worthy of it, like an extraordinary or virtuous persons, beautiful animals etc. That's my guess.
>>19816756
Religion is not a dichotomy between Abrahamic religions vs atheism/agnosticism

[Anonymous No.19816796]

>>19816728
zen for americans, i'm sure you've already read the wiki article.
In this book:
>Buddhism acknowledges the existence of God
>we don't use this term 'cause its abrahamic connotations
>proceeds to define it
>in every thing is like the christian God.
Hummm.... dharmma bros?

[Anonymous No.19816823]

>>19816796
How is it like the Christian God?

[Anonymous No.19816931]

>>19816823
Immanent
infinite, almighty
creator of the universe
is accessible with faith

[Anonymous No.19816949]

>>19816931
From my understanding, the immanence of the Christian God is unlike the immanence of panentheism. Christianity still maintains that God and the universe are two separate entities.

[Anonymous No.19816978]

>>19816728
Nyx is the literal universe. The vaginal void that birthed the stars, life and consciousness

[Anonymous No.19817000]

>>19816753
Like the Gods of Pegana.

[Anonymous No.19817076]

>>19816949
I know the evil is in the details but I'm just pointing the terms are the same you can use for the biblical God.
>From my understanding, the immanence of the Christian God is unlike the immanence of panentheism. Christianity still maintains that God and the universe are two separate entities.
The Christian God is present in its creation without being confused with it.The creation is also incapable of containing God, so God is also beyond it.

[Anonymous No.19817091]

>>19817076
>The creation is also incapable of containing God
Yeah I think that's where the disagreement between the two worldviews lie

[Anonymous No.19817120]

>>19817091
I think you misunderstand panentheism. The idea is that God fully permeates the universe since He is boundless.

[Anonymous No.19817156]

>>19817120
Yes, that is what I understood it to be.

[Anonymous No.19817157]

>>19816728
I think the reality much more complex than these simplified flowcharts. For example, does Panentheism assign existence to God? Or do theysay God is above existence in the same way one would say of Kantian noumenon? Do any of them assign intermediary worlds between God and the World? Do they consider the immanent world real or illusory like Maya? These are just some of the important questions.

[Anonymous No.19817243]

Didn't know it was called that, but I've thought about it for a long time.
>Myths of creation across multiple religions and mythologies usually talk about how in the beginning there was nothing or/but chaos.
>In the midst of such chaos, a being is born, whom starts to fiddle with what is around it, bringing forth many things, such as land, the sky, the stars, etcetera
>The Bible in genesis also says that while God was creating the universe he "saw" some things as good, meaning he too learned.
>Revelations talk about how he is the beginning and end, i.e everything.
>Humans are blessed their intelligence, and thus can create societies, cultures, art, etc, most of which came by playing around with the world and learning, which means that if a higher being also posseses the gift we have, they too must have gone through the process of creating the universe by playing with stardust.
Going with a little physics.
>The universe itself is in motion, which might very well mean were all the reaction of an action.

[Anonymous No.19817281]

Pandeism is better

[Anonymous No.19817492]

>>19817281

[Anonymous No.19817618]

>>19816728
The technological singularity will lead to the creation of God. We live in a simulation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA

[Anonymous No.19817630]

>>19816728
Kinda sounds like Spinoza. Haven't read it yet but from what I've heard you should check out his Ethics

[Anonymous No.19817636]

>>19816728
>the idea that the universe is in God and is therefore divine
Isn't this just Hermeticism? I didn't know there was a technical term for it, but I'm pretty sure this is a basic belief of Hermeticism. if so, the Corpus Hermeticum is a good body of work to dive into about this.

[Anonymous No.19817721]

>>19816784
>Since everything is in God, there is nothing that is not divine. Therefore, you can worship things in this world that are worthy of it, like an extraordinary or virtuous persons, beautiful animals etc. That's my guess.
You're just describing standard deistic paganism, like most shamanic religions.
>>19816784
>Nah, I'm pretty sure Christianity considers panentheism to be idolatrous.
Absolutely wrong, it's just as fancy way of describing the standard view of creation.

[Anonymous No.19817739]

>>19817243
Now you're describing process theology, and that's not even christian anymore since you're removing all the characteristics from God, if you follow process theology you're worshiping a demiurge.

[Anonymous No.19817749]

>>19817721
>deistic
*pantheistic

[Anonymous No.19817876]

>>19817636
Hermeticism is considered panentheistic, yes.
>>19817721
A lot of people misuse the word "pantheism" when they really mean "panentheism" The former basically reduced God to the material universe while the latter asserts a divine material universe plus a first principle (God)
>Absolutely wrong, it's just as fancy way of describing the standard view of creation
No, panentheism is not inline with Christian teachings, or at least its mainstream teachings. I was talking to a catholic and he told me that there is nothing divine in the universe, which is at odds with panentheism. Let me read a passage from the Summa Theologica to prove my point:
>For some deemed certain men to have been gods, whom they worshipped in the images of those men: for instance, Jupiter, Mercury, and so forth. Others again deemed the whole world to be one god, not by reason of its material substance, but by reason of its soul, which they believed to be God, for they held God to be nothing else than a soul governing the world by movement and reason: even as a man is said to be wise in respect not of his body but of his soul. Hence they thought that divine worship ought to be given to the whole world and to all its parts, heaven, air, water, and to all such things: and to these they referred the names of their gods, as Varro asserted, and Augustine relates (De Civ. Dei vii, 5). Lastly, others, namely, the Platonists, said that there is one supreme god, the cause of all things. After him they placed certain spiritual substances created by the supreme god. These they called "gods," on account of their having a share of the godhead; but we call them "angels." After these they placed the souls of the heavenly bodies, and beneath these the demons which they stated to be certain animal denizens of the air, and beneath these again they placed human souls, which they believed to be taken up into the fellowship of the gods or of the demons by reason of the merit of their virtue. To all these they gave divine worship, as Augustine relates (De Civ . . Dei xviii, 14).

>The last two opinions were held to belong to "natural theology" which the philosophers gathered from their study of the world and taught in the schools: while the other, relating to the worship of men, was said to belong to "mythical theology" which was wont to be represented on the stage according to the fancies of poets. The remaining opinion relating to images was held to belong to "civil theology," which was celebrated by the pontiffs in the temples
>

[Anonymous No.19817880]

>>19817876
>Now all these come under the head of the superstition of idolatry. Wherefore Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii, 20): "Anything invented by man for making and worshipping idols, or for giving Divine worship to a creature or any part of a creature, is superstitious."

[Anonymous No.19817887]

>>19817876
>Let me read a passage from the Summa Theologica to prove my point
There is a Neoplatonist reading of Thomas where its not so simple as it appears on the surface, Pseudo-Dionysus is the 2nd or 3rd most cited person in the Summa.

[Anonymous No.19817892]

>>19817887
What are you trying to say?

[Anonymous No.19817909]

>>19816728
Eastern Orthodoxy is panentheistic, OP.

[Anonymous No.19817936]

>>19817630
Thanks anon
>>19817909
Yeah that is the feeling I got from reading its wikipedia page, though it still seems a bit fuzzy to me. It's obviously not like a Spinoza figure who claims that "whatever is, is in God"

[Anonymous No.19817965]

>>19817618
this image is from Kurzweil's book on the singularity btw. if technological progress remains logarithmic, its interesting to think that von neumann probes could begin waking up the galaxy by the end of this century

[Anonymous No.19818099]

>>19817887
Are you trying to say that Aquinas was secretly a panentheist?

[Anonymous No.19818226]

OP here. Is the Kyoto School good for panentheism?

[Anonymous No.19818236]

>>19816728
Spinoza

[Anonymous No.19818252]

>>19817965
>if technological progress remains logarithmic
It won't. Technology cannot continue to scale because it is dependent upon limited resources. It must fail at some point.