Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Alternative Medicine
- Artificial Intelligence
- Atlas Shrugged
- Ayn Rand
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Chess Engines
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Cosmic Heaven
- Designer Babies
- Donald Trump
- Ethical Egoism
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom of Speech
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- High Seas
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Longevity
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Life Extension
- Mars Colonization
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- New Utopia
- Personal Empowerment
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Private Islands
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Resource Based Economy
- Ron Paul
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Teilhard De Charden
- The Singularity
- Tor Browser
- Transhuman News
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Zeitgeist Movement
The Evolutionary Perspective
Category Archives: Pantheism
Posted: May 7, 2015 at 7:45 pm
Subscribe to our Question of the Week: Question: "What is pantheism?"
Does the Bible teach pantheism? No, it does not. What many people confuse as pantheism is the doctrine of God's omnipresence. Psalm 139:7-8 declares, Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. God's omnipresence means He is present everywhere. There is no place in the universe where God is not present. This is not the same thing as pantheism. God is everywhere, but He is not everything. Yes, God is present inside a tree and inside a person, but that does not make that tree or person God. Pantheism is not at all a biblical belief.
The clearest biblical arguments against pantheism are the countless commands against idolatry. The Bible forbids the worship of idols, angels, celestial objects, items in nature, etc. If pantheism were true, it would not be wrong to worship such an object, because that object would, in fact, be God. If pantheism were true, worshipping a rock or an animal would have just as much validity as worshipping God as an invisible and spiritual being. The Bibles clear and consistent denunciation of idolatry is a conclusive argument against pantheism.
What is monism?
What is panentheism?
What is pandeism?
What does it mean that God is omnipresent?
Can monotheism be proven?
Questions about False Doctrine
View original post here:
What is pantheism ? - Bible Questions Answered
Posted: March 31, 2015 at 10:52 pm
Wk 40 Katey on Pantheism and Souls
Like our Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/StartingoutSolitary Check out our personal channels! Eliptica24 https://www.youtube.com/user/eliptica24 Tara Incognita ...
By: Starting Out Solitary
Read more here:
Wk 40 Katey on Pantheism and Souls - Video
Posted: March 8, 2015 at 4:51 pm
This video should be watched along with my other video called "Do I believe in God?" Link for that below - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6egS4s_1nA.
By: Liza Llewellyn
Posted: March 6, 2015 at 9:53 pm
Synopsis | The Beginnings Of Hindu Pantheism By Charles Rockwell Lanman
THE SYNOPSIS OF YOUR FAVORITE BOOK =--- Where to buy this book? ISBN: 9781113507716 Book Synopsis of The Beginnings of Hindu Pantheism by Charles Rockwell Lanman If you want...
By: Bino Book Land
Go here to see the original:
Synopsis | The Beginnings Of Hindu Pantheism By Charles Rockwell Lanman - Video
Posted: March 5, 2015 at 8:52 pm
How to Pronounce Pantheism
This video shows you how to pronounce Pantheism.
By: Pronunciation Guide
See the original post here:
How to Pronounce Pantheism - Video
Posted: February 20, 2015 at 12:53 am
The Greek prime minister vows to restore dignity to the Greek people. On the face of it, this certainly seems like a reasonable statement. The worth of each individual certainly needs to be recognized. Everyone deserves to feel a sense of dignity and to be treated with respect. No one would want his or her life viewed in any other way. But the cry for dignity is not limited to Greece; it is a demand heard around the world by many individuals and nations. And it is well deserving of the worlds attention.
The recognition of peoples dignity helps establish respect within neighborhoods. It means seeing the value of each family member, each community member, and enables us to appreciate the diversity of nations. Dignity is not something that can be given or taken away. It is the intrinsic value we each have from our Father in heaven, who values and needs His loved children. This makes dignity a divine imperative and something that could never be destroyed. Understanding dignity to be a divine valuation lifts humanity out of indignity. No one showed this more than Christ Jesus. As the Son of God he proved, with divine authority, that recognizing our value and worth brings healing.
One clear example of this is when a crippled woman was in Jesus presence. He called her to him. In spite of the indignity she may have felt from the public, she made her way over to him. Jesus said to her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God (Luke 13:12, 13). He restored not only her well-being and wholeness, but also her sense of dignity and proved to all that everyone has value. When asked whether it was lawful to demonstrate the healing power of God on the Sabbath, he said, ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him (Luke 13:16, 17). He rebuked anything that would argue against the value of man by recognizing man as Gods loved and valued child. Jesus taught that everyone can waken spiritually to know themselves as God knows them, and to feel the blessing of Gods healing love.
Dismissing others as unworthy of respect because of their social, economic, gender, or educational status or their physical condition is not the way of Christ. But through the spirit of Christ we are able to see beyond these human evaluations into the innate spiritual worth of all. This spiritual worth is what Christian Science comes to illuminate. The Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, rejected any other valuation of man and asked this thought-provoking question: Shall the opinions, systems, doctrines, and dogmas of men gauge the animus of man? or shall his stature in Christ, Truth, declare him? (Christian Science vs. Pantheism, p. 11).
This question has made me take special care in how I value everyone that crosses my path. As Jesus example shows us, the inherent dignity of our stature in Christ must be understood and lived. In this way we can all come to the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ as it is written in Ephesians(4:13). By this, the cry for dignity can begin to be truly answered for individuals and for nations.
Go here to see the original:
Posted: February 19, 2015 at 6:51 am
Pantheism (Original Mix)
Pantheism Original Mix Blok One Textures Music Group Released on: 2013-05-14 Unknown: Blok One Auto-generated by YouTube.
By: Blok One - Topic
Posted: February 16, 2015 at 3:50 am
Pantheism Master (Original Mix)
Pantheism Master Original Mix Akmon Blue Audio Aashram Music Released on: 2012-09-20 Unknown: Various Auto-generated by YouTube.
By: Various Artists - Topic
Go here to read the rest:
Posted: at 3:50 am
There are several different ways to think about pantheism. (1) Many of the world's religious traditions and spiritual writings are marked by pantheistic ideas and feelings. This is particularly so for example, in Hinduism of the Advaita Vedanta school, in some varieties of Kabbalistic Judaism, in Celtic spirituality, and in Sufi mysticism. (2) Another vital source of pantheistic ideas is to be found in literature, for example, in such writers as Goethe, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Although it should be added that, far from being limited to high culture, pantheistic themes are familiar, too, in popular media, for example in such films as Star Wars, Avatar, and The Lion King. (3) Thirdly, as it is in this article, pantheism may be considered philosophically; that is, a critical examination may be made of its central ideas with respect to their meaning, their coherence, and the case to be made for or against their acceptance.
A good way to understand any view is to appreciate the kind of drives that may push someone towards it. What arguments may be given for pantheism? Although there are a great many different individual lines of reasoning that might be offered, generally they may be placed under two heads; arguments from below, which start from a posteriori religious experience, and arguments from above, which start from a priori philosophical abstraction.
Following the first type of argument, pantheistic belief arises when the things of this world excite a particular sort of religious reaction in us. We feel, perhaps, a deep reverence for and sense of identity with the world in which we find ourselves. Epistemically it seems to us that God is not distant but can be encountered directly in what we experience around us. We see God in everything. The initial focus of attention here may be either our physical environment (the land on which we live, our natural environment) or else our social environment (our community, our tribe, our nation or, generally, the people we meet with) but further reflection may lead to its more universal expansion.
In the second kind of argument, reasoning starts from a relatively abstract concept whose application is taken as assured, but further reflection leads to the conclusion that its scope must be extended to include the whole of reality. Most typically, the concept in question is that of God, or perfect being, in which case pantheism appears as the logical terminus or completion of theism. The following paragraphs illustrate four examples of such reasoning.
(1) Traditional theism asserts the omnipresence of God and, while it strongly wishes to maintain that this is not equivalent to pantheism, the difference between saying that God is present everywhere in everything and saying that God is everything is far from easy to explain. If omnipresence means, not simply that God is cognisant of or active in all places, but literally that he exists everywhere, then it is hard to see how any finite being can be said to have existence external to God. Indeed, for Isaac Newton and Samuel Clarke divine omnipresence was one and the same thing as space, which they understood as the sensorium of God. (Oakes 2006)
(2) The traditional theistic position that God's creation of the universe is continuous can easily be developed in pantheistic directions. The view that the world could not existeven for a secondwithout God, makes it wholly dependent on God and, hence, not really an autonomous entity. (Oakes 1983) Moreover, to further develop this argument, if God creates every temporal stage of every object in the universe, this undermines the causal power of individual things and leads to occasionalism, which in turn encourages pantheism; for in so far as independent agency is a clear mark of independent being, the occasionalist doctrine that all genuine agency is divinethat it all comes from a single placetends to undermine the distinction of things from God. Both Malebranche and Jonathan Edwards have found themselves charged with pantheism on these grounds, and it was for this reason that Leibniz, in attempting to refute the pantheistic monism of Spinoza, felt it most important to assert the autonomous agency of finite beings.
(3) Alternatively it might be argued that God's omniscience is indistinguishable from reality itself. For if there obtains a complete mapping between God's knowledge and the world that God knows, what basis can be found for distinguishing between them, there being not even the possibility of a mismatch? Moreover, were we to separate the two, since knowledge tracks reality we know something because it is the case and not vice versa then God would become problematically dependent upon the world. (Mander 2000)
(4) Arguments of this general type may also proceed from starting points more philosophical than theological. For example, Spinoza, the most famous of all modern pantheists starts from the necessary existence of something he calls substance. By this he means that which exists wholly in its own right, that whose existence does not depend upon anything else. The notion of the Absolute, or wholly unconditioned reality, as it figures in the philosophies of Schelling, Hegel, and the British Idealists may be considered a related development of the same philosophical starting point. In both cases the reasoning runs that this necessary being must be all-inclusive and, hence, divine.
The pantheist asserts an identity between God and nature, but it needs to be asked in just what sense we are to understand the term identity? To begin with it is necessary to raise two ambiguities in the logic of identity.
(1) Dialectical identity. It is important to note that many pantheists will not accept the classical logic of identity in which pairs are straightforwardly either identical or different. They may adopt rather the logic of relative identity, or identity-in-difference, by which it is possible to maintain that God and the cosmos are simultaneously both identical and different, or to put the matter in more theological language, that God is simultaneously both transcendent and immanent. For example, Eriugena holds that the universe may be subdivided into four categories: things which create but are not created, things which create and are created, things which are created but do not create, and things which neither create nor are created. He argues that all four reduce to God, and hence that God is in all things, i.e. that he subsists as their essence. For He alone by Himself truly has being, and He alone is everything which is truly said to be in things endowed with being (Periphyseon, 97). But nonetheless, for Eriugena, the uncreated retains its distinct status separate from the created, not least in that the former may be understood while the later transcends all understanding. In consequence, he insists that God is not the genus of which creatures are the species. Similarly, the Sufi philosopher, ibn Arabi identifies God and the universe, suggesting in a striking metaphor that the universe is the food of God and God the food of the universe; as deity swallows up the cosmos so the cosmos swallows up deity. (Bezels of Wisdom, 237; Husaini 1970, 180) But Ibn Arabi in no sense regards such claims as preventing him from insisting also on the fundamental gulf between the unknowable essence of God and his manifest being. We must distinguish between the nature of God and the nature of things, between that which exists by itself (God) and that which exist by another (the universe), but since the nature of God just is Being itself, no parallel distinction may be drawn between the being of God and the being of things. Nothing real exists besides God who discloses himself in and through the universe. (Chittick 1989, ch.5) Again, Nicholas of Cusa's celebrated doctrine of the coincidence of oppositeswhich he memorably illustrated by pointing to way in which, upon infinite expansion, a circle must coincide with a straight lineallows him to say both that God and the creation are the same thing and that there exists a fundamental distinction between the realm of absolute being and the realm of limited or contracted being. (Moran 1990) Even Spinoza goes to great lengths to show that the two attributes of thought and extension by which we pick out the one substance as God or nature are nonetheless at the same time irreducibly different. They may be co-referring but they are not synonymous; indeed, they are utterly incommensurable. Such a dialectical conception of unity, in which there can be no identity without difference, is a strong element in Hegel's thought, and also one aspect of what Hartshorne meant by dipolar theism; the opposites of immanence and transcendence are included among those which he thinks God brings together in his being.
Go here to read the rest:
Posted: at 3:50 am
Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god. Some Asian religions are considered to be pantheistically inclined.
Pantheism was popularised in the West as both a theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza,:p.7 whose book Ethics was an answer to Descartes' famous dualist theory that the body and spirit are separate. Spinoza held the monist view that the two are the same, and monism is a fundamental part of his philosophy. He was described as a "God-intoxicated man," and used the word God to describe the unity of all substance. Although the term pantheism was not coined until after his death, Spinoza is regarded as its most celebrated advocate.
Pantheism is derived from the Greek pan (meaning "all") and Theos (meaning "God"). There are a variety of definitions of pantheism. Some consider it a theological and philosophical position concerning God.:p.8
As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism. From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it. Some hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical.
The first known use of the term pantheism was in Latin, by the English mathematician Joseph Raphson in his work De spatio reali, published in 1697. In De spatio reali, Raphson begins with a distinction between atheistic panhylists (from the Greek roots pan, "all", and hyle, "matter"), who believe everything is matter, and pantheists who believe in a certain universal substance, material as well as intelligent, that fashions all things that exist out of its own essence. Raphson found the universe to be immeasurable in respect to a human's capacity of understanding, and believed that humans would never be able to comprehend it.
The Catholic church regarded pantheistic ideas as heresy.Giordano Bruno, an Italian monk who evangelized about an immanent and infinite God, was burned at the stake in 1600 by the Catholic Church. He has since become known as a celebrated pantheist and martyr of science. Bruno influenced many later thinkers including Baruch Spinoza, whose Ethics, finished in 1675, was the major source from which pantheism spread.
The term was first used in the English language by the Irish writer John Toland in his work of 1705 Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist. Toland was influenced by both Spinoza and Bruno, and used the terms 'pantheist' and 'Spinozist' interchangeably. In 1720 he wrote the Pantheisticon: or The Form of Celebrating the Socratic-Society in Latin, envisioning a pantheist society which believed, "all things in the world are one, and one is all in all things ... what is all in all things is God, eternal and immense, neither born nor ever to perish." He clarified his idea of pantheism in a letter to Gottfried Leibniz in 1710 when he referred to "the pantheistic opinion of those who believe in no other eternal being but the universe".
Although the term "pantheism" did not exist before the 17th century, various pre-Christian religions and philosophies can be regarded as pantheistic. Pantheism is similar to the ancient Hindu philosophy of Advaita (non-dualism) to the extent that the 19th-century German Sanskritist Theodore Goldstcker remarked that Spinoza's thought was "... a western system of philosophy which occupies a foremost rank amongst the philosophies of all nations and ages, and which is so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus."
Others include some of the Presocratics, such as Heraclitus and Anaximander. The Stoics were pantheists, beginning with Zeno of Citium and culminating in the emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius. During the pre-Christian Roman Empire, Stoicism was one of the three dominant schools of philosophy, along with Epicureanism and Neoplatonism. The early Taoism of Lao Zi and Zhuangzi is also sometimes considered pantheistic.
In 1785, a major controversy about Spinoza's philosophy between Friedrich Jacobi, a critic, and Moses Mendelssohn, a defender, known in German as the Pantheismus-Streit, helped to spread pantheism to many German thinkers in the late 18th and 19th centuries.
See the original post: