Panentheism
B.G. Kent
within..our highest self/non-self directing us to enlightenment. My
panentheism is what tells me that everything that "is" has God within..but
that God can also transcend it. If there was a void before creation..then
God or the Creator or whatever you call it...was still there. To not see
God within everything is to see God as limited (to me). When everything is
taken down to its purest form..it seems to be wave and particle..and in
this..there is life and that life is God..what else could it be? I think.
To enlighten...we shed the layers of self..the belief that we are separate
from God or can be separate...and as we shed these cloudy layers..we
"en-light-en" our raiment shines stronger and we recognize the truth of
the God center. That center is where we go within and know that I AM
God..that the heaven is within and God lies within. We meditate as did
Jesus supposedly in the desert..and we access that part of us that is God
to guide us to right ways..love..kindnesses. Some of us need many lessons
to learn to do this..many lives...or many experiences..some of us learn
quickly. I believe that Jesus was a special human being...not a separate
one and only son of God..but a symbol of the God within and a great Rabbi
who shows us the way. We are not to worship Jesus the Christ..but worship
the God..the true ONENESS that is in us all. This is my Christianity.
Someone like Isenders or Matthew may say that It is not true
Christianity...I ask you...who decides what is true Christianity? God?
Christ? or man?
Blessings on your path..whatever way you take to God..the destination can
be the same.
Bren
Denis Giron
>
> This is my Christianity. Someone like Isenders or
> Matthew may say that It is not true Christianity...
> I ask you...who decides what is true Christianity? God?
> Christ? or man?
With all due respect, it is very hard to see in what sense your
beliefs reflect historical Christianity. While this analogy is a bit
loaded, imagine me going to an Islamic newsgroup and saying that I am
a Muslim, but I am also an idolater and a polytheist. I also claim
that "true Islam" has nothing to do with believing in outdated texts
like the Qur'an, or abstaining for pork, homosexuality or alcohol.
Despite all that, I claim I still love the divine energy which
animates all the different gods, and I call that divine energy
"Allah," and since I love Allah I am a true servant of Allah, and thus
a true Muslim. Should I be surprised if orthodox Muslims express
incredulity towards my claims? It would seem that if I believed such
things, it would be better for me to admit that I'm practicing
something other than Islam. So too, perhaps you should confess that
your beliefs, however sincerely felt, are not exactly Christianity.
As for who defines Christianity, most Christians would say God
(including Jesus Christ) defines what is Christianity, but he chose
men to pass on that message (whether in the form of the Apostles, or
presbyters in the Church). With all due respect, it seems obvious that
you are just making up your own definition of Christianity.
B.G. Kent
> On Nov 25, 7:29 pm, "B.G. Kent" <rav...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> >
> > This is my Christianity. Someone like Isenders or
> > Matthew may say that It is not true Christianity...
> > I ask you...who decides what is true Christianity? God?
> > Christ? or man?
>
> With all due respect, it is very hard to see in what sense your
> beliefs reflect historical Christianity.
B - why must it?
While this analogy is a bit
> loaded, imagine me going to an Islamic newsgroup and saying that I am
> a Muslim, but I am also an idolater and a polytheist.
B - yes?
I also claim
> that "true Islam" has nothing to do with believing in outdated texts
***snip for space
> incredulity towards my claims?
B - not at all...I'm not surprised that there is bigotry. Why do you
assume that I am surprised?
It would seem that if I believed such
> things,
it would be better for me to admit that I'm practicing
> something other than Islam.
B - Not at all. If this were true then there would be only one kind of
Christianity and no denominations. There would also not be the Sufi order
of Islam or both Sunni and Shite.
So too, perhaps you should confess that
> your beliefs, however sincerely felt, are not exactly Christianity.
>
B - No. I am a Christian...just not your kind of Christian.
Blessings
Bren
enlight...@gmail.com
Yep,
I'm a Panentheist also, working inside a Christian tradition. I share
the same position and feel very comfortable with it.
Bill
Steve Hayes
>I am a Panentheist and a Christian. I see the Christ or God-self
>within..our highest self/non-self directing us to enlightenment. My
>panentheism is what tells me that everything that "is" has God within..but
>that God can also transcend it.
Orthodox Christianity is panentheist, though not all panentheism is Orthodox.
O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth
WHO ART EVERYWHERE AND FILLEST ALL THINGS
Treasury of blessings and Giver of Life
Come and abide in us and cleanse us from every impurity
And save our souls, O Good One.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
B.G. Kent
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:29:55 GMT, "B.G. Kent" <rav...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
> >I am a Panentheist and a Christian. I see the Christ or God-self
> >within..our highest self/non-self directing us to enlightenment. My
> >panentheism is what tells me that everything that "is" has God within..but
> >that God can also transcend it.
>
> Orthodox Christianity is panentheist, though not all panentheism is Orthodox.
B - interesting.
Bren
B.G. Kent
>
> Yep,
>
> I'm a Panentheist also, working inside a Christian tradition. I share
> the same position and feel very comfortable with it.
>
> Bill
>
B - very nice to meet you Bill..or have we met before? not the best with
names!
I knew there were others who had similar beliefs and considered themselves
Christian on this group...nice to see some come out!
Blessings
Bren
Matthew Johnson
>
>On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:29:55 GMT, "B.G. Kent" <rav...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
>>I am a Panentheist and a Christian. I see the Christ or God-self
>>within..our highest self/non-self directing us to enlightenment. My
>>panentheism is what tells me that everything that "is" has God within..but
>>that God can also transcend it.
>
>Orthodox Christianity is panentheist, though not all panentheism is Orthodox.
I am glad you made this distinction, since it was in danger of being completely
lost in the noise in this thread.
>O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth
>WHO ART EVERYWHERE AND FILLEST ALL THINGS
>Treasury of blessings and Giver of Life
>Come and abide in us and cleanse us from every impurity
>And save our souls, O Good One.
But we can do better than citing one prayer to support our position. Remember
that the non-orthodox do not find a prayer text very authoritative. We _can_
base this prayer's theological assumptions on Scripture, in particular:
Where shall I go away from your Spirit?
If I go to heaven, you are there; if I go to the depths, you are there too.
(Psa 138:7-8)
And there are other similar passages.
NB: I do not claim to prove the _entire_ principle "who art everywhere present
and fillest all things" from this one passage. I am just giving examples of how
it can be done, giving the reader a good start.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
>
>On Nov 25, 4:29 pm, "B.G. Kent" <rav...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>> I am a Panentheist and a Christian. I see the Christ or God-self
>> within..our highest self/non-self directing us to enlightenment.
[snip]
>I'm a Panentheist also, working inside a Christian tradition.
Sort of like a fifth column?
> I share
>the same position and feel very comfortable with it.
Unfortunately, "feeling very comfortable" with a theological position is not a
reliable guide for its real trustworthiness. If anything, it is nearly the
complete opposite: if you feel comfortable, it is because you have not allowed
God to challenge you.
George
news:7so2j.29804$Xg.225@trnddc06...
Umm, there is life in a hydrogen molecule? Umm, I think your definition of
life is a bit broad.
George
Denis Giron
>
> > With all due respect, it is very hard to see in what sense your
> > beliefs reflect historical Christianity.
>
Well, if we are going to determine what Christianity is, perhaps we
should look to what Christianity has been throughout history. I mean
no disrespect, but your method, where one doctrine is Christian, and a
wholly contradictory doctrine is also Christian, risks rendering the
word "Christian" meaningless.
> I'm not surprised that there is bigotry. Why do you
> assume that I am surprised?
Well, the question was rhetorical. But I don't think this is mere
bigotry. The point was that when one comes up with an innovation that
is wholly different from what Islam has always been, why should
Muslims accept that innovation as also being Islam (especially if it
bares nothing in common!)? So too, the same questions can be asked
from a Christian perspective.
> Not at all. If this were true then there would be
> only one kind of Christianity and no denominations.
> There would also not be the Sufi order
> of Islam or both Sunni and Shite.
Indeed, both Christianity and Islam have variations, but there is also
large agreement about what is and is not Christianity, as well as what
is and is not Islam. And I'm sure you're also aware that there are
arguments within these faiths about where the boundaries of their
faiths are. I think it is clear that polytheistic idolaters are not
Muslims, and so too, people who reject the Bible nearly in toto, or
Christian particularlism, are probably not Christian. Is your goal to
take advantage of the fact that there is disagreement amongst those
calling themselves Christian, and therefore argue that anything can be
called Christian?
> I am a Christian...just not your kind
> of Christian.
So you're your kind of Christian, and another person's kind of non-
Christian. Under one definition you are Christian, and another you are
a non-Christian. Are both definitions correct? Are you simultaneously
a Christian and a non-Christian? Or is one of those definitions
incorrect? Is there an objective standard by which we might judge
definitions?
Am I your kind of married bachelor?
George
news:MsK2j.30175$Xg.29019@trnddc06...
What I find even more incredulous (and ironic) is when people argue over
who's delusions contain the most truth.
George
Matthew Johnson
>
>On Nov 27, 11:41 pm, "B.G. Kent" <rav...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > With all due respect, it is very hard to see in what sense your
>> > beliefs reflect historical Christianity.
>>
>
>Well, if we are going to determine what Christianity is, perhaps we
>should look to what Christianity has been throughout history. I mean
>no disrespect, but your method, where one doctrine is Christian, and a
>wholly contradictory doctrine is also Christian, risks rendering the
>word "Christian" meaningless.
It is not a 'risk', it is a certainty. Aristotle proved the logic theorem long
ago: if you admit even just one contradiction as true, then you must admit
_every_ contradiction as true.
In modern notation. the proof goes something like this:
1) Let R be a statement ~R its negation.
2) Recall that R->S is the same as S or ~R,
3) R -> (~R) then is the same as (~~R) or R which is R, which is true.
4) therefor if R is true, then ~R is also true.
No Christian can allow this, for reasons that should be obvious. But because
Bren is SO illogical, she just doesn't see this, or won't admit to seeing it.
[snip]
B.G. Kent
> On Nov 27, 11:41 pm, "B.G. Kent" <rav...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > With all due respect, it is very hard to see in what sense your
> > > beliefs reflect historical Christianity.
> >
> > B - why must it?
>
> Well, if we are going to determine what Christianity is, perhaps we
> should look to what Christianity has been throughout history. I mean
> no disrespect, but your method, where one doctrine is Christian, and a
> wholly contradictory doctrine is also Christian, risks rendering the
> word "Christian" meaningless.
>
B -
I dare you to determine a
definitive word that says "Christian" that
everyone Christian adheres to. Follower of Christ maybe. Christianity (the
word or concept)
started with Jesus..although he probably did not call it that in his time.
I follow Christianity...not literal Christianity..that's pretty obvious.
To me...a Christian is someone who follows their interpretation of Christ.
Your interp may be someone who follows Pauls interp of Christ, King
James...or what have you.
> > I'm not surprised that there is bigotry. Why do you
> > assume that I am surprised?
>
> Well, the question was rhetorical. But I don't think this is mere
> bigotry. The point was that when one comes up with an innovation that
> is wholly different from what Islam has always been, why should
> Muslims accept that innovation as also being Islam (especially if it
> bares nothing in common!)? So too, the same questions can be asked
> from a Christian perspective.
>
B - They can accept or not accept what they wish. But if wishes were
horses.....
If it matters to one to belong to "the club" then by all means follow what
the rest of the wide roaders want you to follow....but if you don't care
about "the club" then find your truth.
> > Not at all. If this were true then there would be
> > only one kind of Christianity and no denominations.
> > There would also not be the Sufi order
> > of Islam or both Sunni and Shite.
>
> Indeed, both Christianity and Islam have variations, but there is also
Snip for content*
B - Not at all. My argument is only for those that deem to speak for all
Christians. Please don't.
>
> > I am a Christian...just not your kind
> > of Christian.
>
> So you're your kind of Christian, and another person's kind of non-
> Christian. Under one definition you are Christian, and another you are
> a non-Christian. Are both definitions correct? Are you simultaneously
> a Christian and a non-Christian? Or is one of those definitions
> incorrect? Is there an objective standard by which we might judge
> definitions?
>
> Am I your kind of married bachelor?
>
B - there is a definition of married and bachelor...but Christianity has
many many vines to it's roots.
lsen...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:29:55 GMT, "B.G. Kent" <rav...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> >I am a Panentheist and a Christian. I see the Christ or God-self
> >within..our highest self/non-self directing us to enlightenment. My
> >panentheism is what tells me that everything that "is" has God within..but
> >that God can also transcend it.
>
> Orthodox Christianity is panentheist, though not all panentheism is Orthodox.
>
Eastern Oriental Church.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>In article <fk63j.34153$ng.26123@trnddc08>, Steve Hayes says...
>>
>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:29:55 GMT, "B.G. Kent" <rav...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>I am a Panentheist and a Christian. I see the Christ or God-self
>>>within..our highest self/non-self directing us to enlightenment. My
>>>panentheism is what tells me that everything that "is" has God within..but
>>>that God can also transcend it.
>>
>>Orthodox Christianity is panentheist, though not all panentheism is Orthodox.
>
>I am glad you made this distinction, since it was in danger of being completely
>lost in the noise in this thread.
>
>>O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth
>>WHO ART EVERYWHERE AND FILLEST ALL THINGS
>>Treasury of blessings and Giver of Life
>>Come and abide in us and cleanse us from every impurity
>>And save our souls, O Good One.
>
>But we can do better than citing one prayer to support our position. Remember
>that the non-orthodox do not find a prayer text very authoritative. We _can_
>base this prayer's theological assumptions on Scripture, in particular:
I was commenting on a remark by Bren, who does not (I gather from previous
discussions) find Holy Scripture very authoritative either.
>
>Where shall I go away from your Spirit?
>If I go to heaven, you are there; if I go to the depths, you are there too.
>(Psa 138:7-8)
>
>And there are other similar passages.
>
>NB: I do not claim to prove the _entire_ principle "who art everywhere present
>and fillest all things" from this one passage. I am just giving examples of how
>it can be done, giving the reader a good start.
I wasn't trying to prove the truth of a principle; I was merely saying that
this is what Orthodox Christianity teaches. Since Orthodox Christians use the
prayer daily (except between Pascha and Pentecost) it is a fairly good
indication of what we believe. Many non-Orthodox Christians claim to read and
believe Holy Scripture (though there are exceptions, like Bren), so referring
to scripture does not necessarily establish that it is a belief of Orthodox
Christians.
lsen...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> Where shall I go away from your Spirit?
> If I go to heaven, you are there; if I go to the depths, you are there too.
> (Psa 138:7-8)
>
Which denotes omnipresence, not panentheism. Also, the bible clearly
notes, that though omnipresent, God is not everywhere present to the
same degree. He is certainly not present by the definition of
philosophic
pantheism. Heaven is different from earth or hell as far as the local
of
God's presence. Isa 6 or Ex 33 or 1 Jn 1:2 or Rev 4 & 5 all speak to
the
fact that omnipresence does not incorporate panentheism.
This is one reason why the E. Oriental Church is viewed with
suspicion when investigated biblically.
B.G. Kent
>
> What I find even more incredulous (and ironic) is when people argue over
> who's delusions contain the most truth.
>
> George
>
B - We are the fleas explaining the dog.
Bren
Steve Hayes
>And that is why "Eastern Orthodox Church" is slang for its true name,
>Eastern Oriental Church.
As opposed to the Roman Catholic Protestant Church?
enlight...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <dk63j.34149$ng.26614@trnddc08>, enlightenedf...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Nov 25, 4:29 pm, "B.G. Kent" <rav...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> >> I am a Panentheist and a Christian. I see the Christ or God-self
> >> within..our highest self/non-self directing us to enlightenment.
>
>
> >I'm a Panentheist also, working inside a Christian tradition.
>
>
> >the same position and feel very comfortable with it.
>
> reliable guide for its real trustworthiness. If anything, it is nearly the
> complete opposite: if you feel comfortable, it is because you have not allowed
> God to challenge you.
>
> -----------------------------
> Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
> Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
> (Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Well, I'm just interested in the best explaination for " all that is"
I like the books written by the scientists/theologians like
Polkinghorne, Peacocke, Baurbour, etc. These folks are both priests
and scientists and know both scripture and science. With that point of
view, their theological position is Panentheism. They are also
Christians.
Karen Armstrong just released a new book " The Bible : A Biography ".
It's great reading if you are interested in who, when, where, & why.
Here is a one page explaination :
Bill
Matthew Johnson
>
>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Denis Giron wrote:
>
>> >
>> > > With all due respect, it is very hard to see in what sense your
>> > > beliefs reflect historical Christianity.
>> >
>>
>> Well, if we are going to determine what Christianity is, perhaps we
>> should look to what Christianity has been throughout history. I mean
>> no disrespect, but your method, where one doctrine is Christian, and a
>> wholly contradictory doctrine is also Christian, risks rendering the
>> word "Christian" meaningless.
>>
>
>
>B -
>I dare you to determine a
>definitive word that says "Christian" that
>everyone Christian adheres to.
You have missed the point. Denis is not _interested_ an a definition that
"everyone adheres to". Nor is he interested in a definition everyone who _calls_
himself Christian adheres to. He is interested in a definition that could
plausibly be considered correct.
The difference is huge. You will resist this truth, of course, but it is there.
[snip]
>B - there is a definition of married and bachelor..
And by definition, the two are mutually exclusive.
>.but Christianity has
>many many vines to it's roots.
No, there can be only one root. And not everyone who _says_ they are one a vine
to that root really _are_ on one.
Matthew Johnson
>
>On Nov 28, 8:19 pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@newsguy.org>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Where shall I go away from your Spirit?
>> If I go to heaven, you are there; if I go to the depths, you are there too.
>> (Psa 138:7-8)
>>
>Which denotes omnipresence, not panentheism.
Your response here leaves me doubting you know what the distinction IS. After
all, what is the difference between omnipresence, and being in all things, which
are everywhere?
> Also, the bible clearly
>notes, that though omnipresent, God is not everywhere present to the
>same degree.
Newsflash: 'panentheism' asserts nothing about being everywhere present to the
same degree (whatever that would mean).
On the contrary: there is a famous passage of St. Maximus the Confessor, the
"Father of Byzantine Theology", describing the _three_ modes of presence of the
Holy Spirit in men, showing that in one mode, He is present in all men, in
another (from the context, apparently 'better' mode), He is present in all who
observe the divine Law (OT or NT), in yet another, present in all the Saints
[note the capitalization].
So no, 'panentheism' cannot claim He is present everywhere in all things to an
equal degree.
>He is certainly not present by the definition of
>philosophic
>pantheism.
>Heaven is different from earth or hell as far as the local
>of
>God's presence.
Obvioiusly.
>Isa 6 or Ex 33 or 1 Jn 1:2 or Rev 4 & 5 all speak to
>the
>fact that omnipresence does not incorporate panentheism.
No, not one of these passages 'speaks' to that -- unless you are deliberately
assuming a contentious defintion of 'panentheism'. Unfortunately, it is quite
possible that this is exactly what you are doing, since you came up with this
nonsense about "present to the same degree".
>This is one reason why the E. Oriental Church is viewed with
>suspicion when investigated biblically.
No, not when truly "investigated biblically". But you have yet to DO this.
Matthew Johnson
>> >I am a Panentheist and a Christian. I see the Christ or God-self
>> >within..our highest self/non-self directing us to enlightenment. My
>> >panentheism is what tells me that everything that "is" has God within..but
>> >that God can also transcend it.
>>
>> Orthodox Christianity is panentheist, though not all panentheism is Orthodox.
>>
>Eastern Oriental Church.
Where do you _get_ this nonsense, Loren? Don't you think Hayes knows the true
name of his own Church? Clearly, he knows it better than you.
For that matter, you should face the fact that even the most Western of
Churches, the Church of Rome, officially classifies the Eastern Orthodox Church
not as heretical, but as schismatic. So in that narrow sense of the word at
least, even Rome recognizes us as Orthodox. But you do not. Somehow, I am
inclined to think that Rome understands the truth of the matter better than you
do.
The _Oriental_ Churches are Nestorian -- though none of them approve of that
name, and some of them deny they follow his theology.
George
Who/what are explaining the fleas?
George
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>In article <PDL3j.26651$XT.26620@trnddc01>, lsen...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>>On Nov 27, 10:41 pm, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:29:55 GMT, "B.G. Kent" <rav...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>>> >I am a Panentheist and a Christian. I see the Christ or God-self
>>> >within..our highest self/non-self directing us to enlightenment. My
>>> >panentheism is what tells me that everything that "is" has God within..but
>>> >that God can also transcend it.
>>>
>>> Orthodox Christianity is panentheist, though not all panentheism is Orthodox.
>>>
>>And that is why "Eastern Orthodox Church" is slang for its true name,
>>Eastern Oriental Church.
>
>Where do you _get_ this nonsense, Loren? Don't you think Hayes knows the true
>name of his own Church? Clearly, he knows it better than you.
>
>For that matter, you should face the fact that even the most Western of
>Churches, the Church of Rome, officially classifies the Eastern Orthodox Church
>not as heretical, but as schismatic. So in that narrow sense of the word at
>least, even Rome recognizes us as Orthodox. But you do not. Somehow, I am
>inclined to think that Rome understands the truth of the matter better than you
>do.
>
>The _Oriental_ Churches are Nestorian -- though none of them approve of that
>name, and some of them deny they follow his theology.
Some of the Oriental Churches are Nestorian, but most are just the opposite,
though all are non-Chalcedonian.
The Copts and Syrian Jacobites are anything but Nestorian, and the Eastern
Orthodox would say they have gone too far the other way, though it's a moot
point whether they are "monophysite". They claim not to be, in the Eutychian
sense of the word.
B.G. Kent
>
> George
B - why the really really teensier fleas ofcourse...
LOL
Bren