Pantheism

[...] God is understood as an impersonal, all-encompassing principle. [...] Nature is not merely a creation of God but is God itself. The natural world, with its beauty, complexity, and power, is a direct expression of the divine. [...] Pantheism can lead to a profound sense of awe and reverence for the natural world. It fosters an ecological awareness and a sense of responsibility towards the environment. [...] It can offer a sense of spiritual connection and belonging, as individuals recognize their place within the vast, interconnected web of existence...

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? Allows the naturalist a portal or excuse for continuing to ritualistically feed Mesolithic psychological needs that might still be lingering around in the human profile. The most ancient of therapies, sans the primitive bone necklaces. A nostalgic retaining of something lost after entering higher education, or recovering a vestige of the original indigenous mindset or spirituality.

As well as when a non-supernaturalist or religiously noncommittal person with home roots just needs a way of qualifying for membership in a local political clique or other social club that seems ineligible for non-theists. "Wait a minute, hold on. I'm not a Christian or a Jew, but I believe in God -- I'm a pantheist. As militants ourselves, let's go harangue some other militants."
_
 
Seriously, how does calling the universe "God" change anything?
If you saw yourself in others and in the world around you, would you more likely be more kind. I'm not suggesting that you are not already a kind person, but often there is a separation, a gulf of distance between people that is artificial and the product of ideas of personal identity.
 
So what if, instead, you chose not to believe in things for which you can't find evidence, until such time as there was evidence to be had?

At the risk of being glib, you wouldn't start believing in unicorns unless there was some good reason to, yes?
We are children of the same source...the universe and life. What more proof do you need? We might not share the same parents, but here we are.
 
We are children of the same source...the universe and life.
OK. That's true whether or not God is in everything.

So, again: what is the difference between God being in everything and no God at all?

What more proof do you need?
If I asserted that the whole universe were infused with and powered by pixie dust, would you simply accept that without wanting some sort of "proof"?
 
OK. That's true whether or not God is in everything.

So, again: what is the difference between God being in everything and no God at all?


If I asserted that the whole universe were infused with and powered by pixie dust, would you simply accept that without wanting some sort of "proof"?
The existence and consciousness of myself and you tells me that the Universe is alive. It is a living breathing entity, is it not? You are an integral part of the whole.
 
Why?
A field mouse is alive, as is an ant, but that does not mean the rock they are sitting on is alive.


No.


This is merely rhetoric.
Это не риторика. Это восточные учения. Я немного изучала их. Почему Вы считаете, что не являетесь частью целого?
 
Это не риторика. Это восточные учения. Я немного изучала их. Почему Вы считаете, что не являетесь частью целого?
Part of the whole what? Connected in what way? Families can be disconnected and not know what is going on with each other, why should anything else?
 
This is not rhetoric. These are Eastern teachings. I have studied them a little. Why do you think that you are not part of the whole?

Maybe the question is if being a part of the universe (seems an obvious fact) means that you are part of some vast living being. Biology leans towards "no." Buddhism leans towards yes.
Part of the whole what? Connected in what way? Families can be disconnected and not know what is going on with each other, why should anything else?
A Buddhist would say that the disconnection is an illusion, one to be overcome through meditation. The idea, as I understand it, is that the enlightened state is one where subject and object go away, so when you look at things in the world you are not separate from them. I think William Blake was inspired by this idea in eastern mysticism in his most famous poem, Auguries of Innocence.


A field mouse is alive, as is an ant, but that does not mean the rock they are sitting on is alive
BTW, was there a field mouse on your keyboard last night? Or your cat(s)? Some unusual posts from you in the Bullet/skull thread.
 
This is not rhetoric. These are Eastern teachings. I have studied them a little. Why do you think that you are not part of the whole?
What I mean is it is just a deepity. It may sound meaningful but it is trivially true.

Yes, I am part of the universe. So? Everything is, by definition.


The term 'living' has a particular meaning, and the universe does not qualify - colourful metaphors notwithstanding. If we want to repurpose the term to include non-living things then we now need a new term to distinguish between field mice and rocks, between ants and unvierses.



I am not really good with this kind of Eastern Philosophy. I should probably step back.
 
?? All I said was I wouldn't totally opposed to a violent ending to 47's presidency.
Erm, you had best go have a look at your last several posts. Not talking about the one where you replied in English. I strongly suspect a pet was on your keyboard. (posts 8 thru 12)
 
The existence and consciousness of myself and you tells me that the Universe is alive. It is a living breathing entity, is it not? You are an integral part of the whole.
We are all a part of the universe, that is obviously true. As is the momma cat in my back yard, and the mouse that she injures and brings home for her kittens to "play" with.

I would welcome any test you may have to show that the universe cares about any of it.
 
Part of the whole what? Connected in what way? Families can be disconnected and not know what is going on with each other, why should anything else?
Разные семьи бывают. Интуиты знают, что происходит с их близкими.
 
Maybe the question is if being a part of the universe (seems an obvious fact) means that you are part of some vast living being. Biology leans towards "no." Buddhism leans towards yes.

A Buddhist would say that the disconnection is an illusion, one to be overcome through meditation. The idea, as I understand it, is that the enlightened state is one where subject and object go away, so when you look at things in the world you are not separate from them. I think William Blake was inspired by this idea in eastern mysticism in his most famous poem, Auguries of Innocence.



BTW, was there a field mouse on your keyboard last night? Or your cat(s)? Some unusual posts from you in the Bullet/skull thread.
Они стремятся потерять собственное Я. Чтобы стать целым, нужно отказаться от собственной автономности. Христианские священники запрещают такие практики, они называют это смертью. Тебе уже не хорошо, и не плохо. Тебе никак. И тебя самого почти нет. Это называется расширенное сознание. Почти, потому что исчезнуть насовсем страшно. У них целые монастыри этому учатся, а получается у единиц. Как и везде, в христианстве тоже так: целые монастыри работают, а просветления достигают единицы. И в миру тоже так: целые институты работают, а открытия делают единичные гении.
 
We are all a part of the universe, that is obviously true. As is the momma cat in my back yard, and the mouse that she injures and brings home for her kittens to "play" with.

I would welcome any test you may have to show that the universe cares about any of it.
You being a member of the Universal Family, what are your feelings?:)
 
Back
Top