spiritual evolution....
Dec. 17th, 2002 12:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsycheI can't recall off the top of my head which book it was that introduced me to the term "panentheism", but once I came across it I recognized it as my own views of God. In panentheism, God is seen as both transcendent and immanent, both beyond and within. This is the true traditional stance of Christianity, but in recent centuries only the transcendent aspect has been emphasized.
I've since dropped my identification with animism. I realized that, in panentheism, the concept of animism simply becomes superfluous and unnecessary. It's rendered irrelevant.
I've since dropped my identification with animism. I realized that, in panentheism, the concept of animism simply becomes superfluous and unnecessary. It's rendered irrelevant.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-17 10:43 am (UTC)And when you say beyond to mean as in an entity separate from yourself, or just 'beyond'? Er, if you know what I mean.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-17 10:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-17 11:04 am (UTC)I am a Panentheist (http://www.notasaint.com/)
Check that out if you'd like.
Peace
P.S. I added you to my friends list a while back. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-17 11:44 am (UTC)MONK 1: I have never seen anything without seeing the god within.
MONK 2: I have never seen anything but god.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-17 11:48 am (UTC)I agree with the former, but not entirely with the latter. I think that the transcendent has certainly been emphasized - especially in Anglo-Protestant circles - but not that *only* it has been emphasized. I find that living in America leaves one with a very skewed impression of normative Christianity.
My reason for this is that Catholic theology actually basically embraces the ideas of panentheism as you have laid them out. (I can't say that you would actually call this aspect of Catholic theology panetheism, simply due to my limited knowledge of panentheism and because I don't want to assert something I'm not sure of, but I can talk about the idea as you've put forward.) The idea is that the Creator pervades and permeates the creation, but Creator and creation remain distinct. The Divine is in everything, but that does not mean that everything is the Divine. It is relative immanence rather than absolute emmanence which, when you think about it, is actually monism.
I think this is expressed quite distinctly in the Eucharist. In the Sacrament, the matter of the Sacrament - what begins as bread and wine - becomes truly the Divine incarnate. What the communicants then receive into themselves is the Divine .. is God. This particular expression of God's emmanence is unique only in being a penultimate form. So, when we see a de-emphasis of the Divine Immanent (relative) we also see the need to replace "truly becomes" with "symbolically becomes" in the Eucharist. And this is the very question that Aquinas was dealing with as he formulated ideas about the Eucharist. It is not surprizing that Aquinas gave form to the concepts on both these matters.
Thanks for sparking the thoughts and teaching me a new term. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-17 06:11 pm (UTC)And when you say beyond to mean as in an entity separate from yourself, or just 'beyond'? Er, if you know what I mean.
I'm not quite sure if I do. :) I don't like the term "Other", because I vehemently deny a duality at the root of the cosmos. But yes, beyond in this case would refer to all things that are other than oneself, or perhaps rather that are outside of oneself.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-17 06:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-17 08:01 pm (UTC)This I do not doubt. I have only a cursory academic understanding of Catholicism. From the outside looking in, I have to admire the importance of the ritualism of Catholicism. I hope to increase my knowledge soon.
The Divine is in everything, but that does not mean that everything is the Divine.
Despite the lengths I've traveled this past year, I still have a hard time really wrapping my mind around this concept. I think of such a relationship mathematically. In addition, I also see God not only as being in everything, but just being everything. So I would see this as A=A.
I'm also very skeptical when it comes to transubstantiation, for the same reason. If God is the bread already, what does it matter if the bread is no longer viewed as bread but as God? It's the same thing!
Don't listen to me, though. I'm a novice heretic. I've just begun to nibble on the edges of philosophical and theological thought.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-17 09:15 pm (UTC)From this perspective, transubstantiation *doesn't* make any sense. Unless the Creator and the creation are distinct, the substantio cannot change from one to the other. There is simply no room for transubstantiation in Monism (everything is God), but the Catholic view is not a Monist view.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-18 03:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-18 07:24 am (UTC)*nod* I got that impression. Lately, I've come to describe my personal cosmology as a dualistic monism. I would guess this is closer to Taoism than anything else. And I know that Catholicism is certainly not Taoism!
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-18 07:26 am (UTC)Alternately, I also use the terms "ultimate reality" and "ground of being". These are niftier terms and are more descriptive.
Re:
Date: 2002-12-18 09:55 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2002-12-19 01:04 am (UTC)heh.
not really.