• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pantheism, not religion, an ideal.

kamino

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
320
Reaction score
79
Location
Silverdale, Wa.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
After 2 years of trying to figure out what my religious beliefs were I came to a conclusion after using deductive reasoning. Later after several months of searching for a religion I found none, but did find a name for my theological beliefs.


Wikipedia said:
Pantheism (Greek ( 'pan' = all) and ( 'theos' = God) it literally means "God is All" and "All is God") is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind. This is the key feature which distinguishes them from panentheists and pandeists. As such, although many religions may claim to hold pantheistic elements, they are more commonly panentheistic or pandeistic in nature.


History of Pantheism
The term "pantheist"—from which the word "pantheism" is derived—was purportedly first used by Irish writer John Toland in his 1705 work, Socinianism Truly Stated, by a pantheist. However, the concept has been discussed as far back as the time of the philosophers of Ancient Greece, by Thales, Parmenides and Heraclitus. The Jewish backgrounds for pantheism may reach as far back as the Torah itself in its account of creation in Genesis and its earlier prophetic material in which clearly "acts of nature" (such as floods, storms, volcanoes, etc.) are all identified as "God's hand" through personification idioms, thus explaining the open references to the concept in both New Testament and Kabbalistic literature.
In 1785 a major controversy began between Friedrich Jacobi and Moses Mendelssohn, which eventually involved many important people of the time. Jacobi claimed that Lessing's pantheism was materialistic in that it thought of all Nature and God as one extended substance. For Jacobi, this was the result of the Enlightenment's devotion to reason and it would lead to atheism. Mendelssohn disagreed by asserting that pantheism was the same as theism.

Methods of explanation
An oft-cited feature of pantheism is that each individual human, being part of the Universe or nature, is part of God. One issue discussed by pantheists is how free will may exist in this framework. In answer, the following analogy is sometimes given (particularly by classical pantheists): "you are to God as an individual blood cell in your vein is to you." The analogy further maintains that while a cell may be aware of its own environs, and even has some choices (free will) between right and wrong (killing a bacterium, becoming malignant, or perhaps just doing nothing, among countless others), it likely has little conception of the greater being of which it is a part. Another way to understand this relationship is through the Hindu phrase, tat tvam asi - "that thou art", wherein the human soul/self or Atman is understood to be the same as God or Brahman - only people do not realize it. In this Hindu context, they believe that one must be liberated through enlightenment (moksha) in order to experience and fully understand this relationship - the part becomes no longer dissimilar from the whole.
Not all pantheists accept the idea of free will, with determinism being particularly widespread among naturalistic pantheists. Although individual interpretations of pantheism may suggest certain implications for the nature and existence of free will and/or determinism, pantheism itself does not include any requirement of belief either way. However, the issue is widely discussed, as it is in many other religions and philosophies.
Panentheism
Pantheism has features in common with panentheism, such as the idea that the Universe is part of God. Technically, the two are separate. Whereas pantheism finds God to be synonymous with nature, panentheism finds God to be greater than nature alone. Some find this distinction unhelpful, while others see it as a significant point of division. Many of the major faiths described as pantheistic could also be described as panentheistic, whereas naturalistic pantheism cannot (not seeing God as more than nature alone). For example, elements of both panentheism and pantheism are found in Hinduism. Certain interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita and Shri Rudram support this view.

Cosmotheism
While the term is rarely used, and is most often simply a synonym for Pantheism, this unusual philosophy has been used rather differently, but in all cases, the feeling was that God was something created by man, perhaps even an end state of human evolution, through social planning, eugenics and other forms of genetic engineering.

H. G. Wells subscribed to a form of Cosmotheism, which he called the "world brain" (from a book of essays by the same name he printed in 1937, one of which details the creation of a Library-encyclopedia hybrid), and detailed even more in his book God the Invisible King (in which he proscribes mankind to set up a socialist system, structuring itself on social and genetic statistics, education, and eugenics, ideally someday equating itself and possibly even merging with and conquering the Pantheist god itself. See: Omega Point) and there were also some sections of his work Outline of History, which reflected this belief and his finding it in the teachings of Jesus and Siddhartha. His book Shape of Things to Come (and the 1936 film Things to Come) also reflects this, in which mankind, surviving an apocalyptic war and an extended Feudal period, unites to form a collectivist Utopia.
In modern Israel, Cosmotheism was described by Mordekhay Nesiyahu, one of the foremost ideologists of the Israeli Labor Movement and a lecturer in its college Beit Berl. He felt that God was something which did not exist before man, and was a secular entity which the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem had an instrumental role in "inventing".

Pantheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
If you look hard enough you find this in everything, including established religions.
 
True, but only to a certain point. In Pantheism God is all and all is God. So there really is no view of a supernatural being. The word God and nature/Mother nature are the same, not so in most religions. Christianity for example only goes so far in the Pantheist ideal, while God is all, all is not God, and God is an actual super natural being/higher power and is not the same as mother nature but rather the creator of nature.
 
True, but only to a certain point. In Pantheism God is all and all is God. So there really is no view of a supernatural being. The word God and nature/Mother nature are the same, not so in most religions. Christianity for example only goes so far in the Pantheist ideal, while God is all, all is not God, and God is an actual super natural being/higher power and is not the same as mother nature but rather the creator of nature.



There are literalist christians and others who view doctrine more as metaphor. There are clues in the metaphor and in other christian texts that point to pantheism.
 
True, while the average christian may hold those views, the pastors that preach there messages seldom do.
 
No, all of the pastors I had when I was being raised protestant were all crappy and pretty literal.
 
There are literalist christians and others who view doctrine more as metaphor. There are clues in the metaphor and in other christian texts that point to pantheism.

It's very clear in Christianity that all are NOT God but are created by God. Pantheism also dismisses the idea of the Trinity, which is a foundation of Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Where in Christianity does it state that all are God? Could I walk into a Christian church and say "I am God" and be accepted?

Depends on the church. but most, no. most churches and demoninations are literalists.
 

It is in every major denomination. Christian pantheists, Unitarians, and Gnostics are quite the minority.

It is the idea in Christianity that we are not God. That is why they must work and devote themselves to Jesus and God, to show they are worth of their grace and acceptance. The people also cannot talk to God and understand God's meaning as "holier" men such Clergymen can. Catholicism itself rejects the idea of the Gospel of Thomas that the Church ("God's house") is unneeded and that the kingdom of God lives within each person.
 
Last edited:
It is in every major denomination. Christian pantheists, Unitarians, and Gnostics are quite the minority.

It is the idea in Christianity that we are not God. That is why they must work and devote themselves to Jesus and God, to show they are worth of their grace and acceptance. The people also cannot talk to God and understand God's meaning as "holier" men such Clergymen can. Catholicism itself rejects the idea of the Gospel of Thomas that the Church ("God's house") is unneeded and that the kingdom of God lives within each person.




Of course they do, they are literalists. However one can make the argument that the origional christianity had many pantheistic ideals.


For example.


Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth within you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 1 Corinthians 3.16-17

Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? . . So glorify God in your body. 1 Corinthians 6.19




Look at this and tell me do you see the pantheistic ideals here?
 
Of course they do, they are literalists. However one can make the argument that the origional christianity had many pantheistic ideals.


For example.


Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth within you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 1 Corinthians 3.16-17

Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? . . So glorify God in your body. 1 Corinthians 6.19




Look at this and tell me do you see the pantheistic ideals here?
A few passages don't make a religion. If you did that you would also need to look at Leviticus and Deuteronomy and claim sadistic ideals.

Christianity as a whole has denominations of Pantheism, but these are denominations that broke away and reinterpreted the accepted doctrine. Much like Mormonism, Unitarianism, Gnosticism, etc.
 
A few passages don't make a religion. If you did that you would also need to look at Leviticus and Deuteronomy and claim sadistic ideals.

Christianity as a whole has denominations of Pantheism, but these are denominations that broke away and reinterpreted the accepted doctrine. Much like Mormonism, Unitarianism, Gnosticism, etc.


Of course one passage does not make a religion.


There are other clues as well to the original pantheistic nature of Christianity.

Even in some of the vernacular that comes from literalists. Take the catholics statment that hell is a "separation from God".... This is a curious choice of words. is it not?
 
Of course one passage does not make a religion.


There are other clues as well to the original pantheistic nature of Christianity.

Even in some of the vernacular that comes from literalists. Take the catholics statment that hell is a "separation from God".... This is a curious choice of words. is it not?
I like how you talk about not being a literalist but then choose the literal interpretations of passages as your examples of Pantheism.

If we are taking passages as literal now,
How is it Pantheistic to believe that God is a being that has singular cognitive thought, has conversations, consciously builds and destroys, consciously saves and kills people, and experiences happiness, jealousy, and anger?
 
Last edited:
Psychedelic users have a tendency to lean towards this viewpoint. Especially since, through psychedelics, one can become God for a small period of time in their own little world.
 
Of course one passage does not make a religion.


There are other clues as well to the original pantheistic nature of Christianity.

Even in some of the vernacular that comes from literalists. Take the catholics statment that hell is a "separation from God".... This is a curious choice of words. is it not?


Catholics also sate that one part of the Trinity, the holy spirit, is within us all.


If you look at that form a certain point of view, it would mean that teh trinity is actually able to jive with pantheism.
 
Catholics also sate that one part of the Trinity, the holy spirit, is within us all.


If you look at that form a certain point of view, it would mean that teh trinity is actually able to jive with pantheism.

Not really. The Holy Spirit is essentially nothing more then a medium for people to communicate with the Father (who is a singular being). It's God's version of a two-way radio which has, since Jesus's death, turned into a one-way radio (you talking to God while getting static as a response).
 
Back
Top Bottom