Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

The sunset is God, The charging bull is God. The terrifying waterfall is God. The mountain is God. The bug on the bottom of your shoe is God.

Reality according to Rhiannon.

Forgive me for saying that is quite meaningless to me, Rhi. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Reminds me of Bishop John Robinson (Honest to God chappy) who said that people need to cast aside their old conception/definition of a personal deity and see God as much in cancer as in a sunset.

He was dying of cancer at the time so it wasn't exactly a flippant throwaway remark made by someone who knew nothing about it.

It comes across to me as pantheism through and through, but that's OK - institutional religions could do with a lot more of that.

It's Panentheism. Pantheism is where everything is God. Panentheism is the idea of God being in things.

Horsethorn has his own interpretation of panentheism.

[Shaker]

The sunset is God, The charging bull is God. The terrifying waterfall is God. The mountain is God. The bug on the bottom of your shoe is God.

Reality according to Rhiannon.

Forgive me for saying that is quite meaningless to me, Rhi. 

Pantheism, Len - the view that everything (Nature, the Universe, whatever) is God.

Obviously not a personal, personalistic, conscious, aware God with likes and dislikes; no sort of God that you can pray to, expect to be heard and from which you might receive an answer; it's a synonym for 'Nature' or 'reality' or 'the cosmos.'

[Shaker]

It's Panentheism. Pantheism is where everything is God.

... which is still entirely consistent with Robinson's statement about cancer.

[Leonard James]

Pantheism, Len - the view that everything (Nature, the Universe, whatever) is God.

It still doesn't make sense to me, no matter what you call it.

[Shaker]

Pantheism, Len - the view that everything (Nature, the Universe, whatever) is God.

It still doesn't make sense to me, no matter what you call it.

Well, it's a concept which has had its adherents and which has also received a fair amount of stick down the ages. Schopenhauer (dead German philosopher bod) said that the real problem with it is a linguistic one. It doesn't add anything to say that the Universe/Nature is God; you're just cooking up an extra word for the same thing, in fact for things for which we already have words. Like Universe. And Nature. Why muddy the waters by saying that these things are God? I think it's fair to say that most theists - especially monotheists - think of their god in personal terms; something much like a great big person with human-like emotions, a god that likes this and doesn't like that, which judges, rewards and punishes on that basis and so forth. (The reason is of course obvious. All gods are man-made, purely human constructs made in our image, not vice versa). Doesn't matter how "sophisticated" about it you want to be, when it comes right down to it this is the way most theists seem to think and act when it comes to their god. But if God is the Universe/Nature, all that goes out of the window.

I don't think there's any real answer to this, save perhaps that - according to what I've read anyway - pantheists feel justified in using the term God to refer to Nature/the Universe because on emotional grounds they believe that only that word will convey the same feelings of awe and majesty that they see in the natural universe that traditional believers see in their personalistic god.

I don't really buy it myself, but that's how I've seen it defended. And they're not doing anybody any harm after all. (And could be doing a lot of good: many pantheists are very active in environmental and ecological matters, for obvious reasons).

[Leonard James]

Pantheism, Len - the view that everything (Nature, the Universe, whatever) is God.

It still doesn't make sense to me, no matter what you call it.

Well, it's a concept which has had its adherents and which has also received a fair amount of stick down the ages. Schopenhauer (dead German philosopher bod) said that the real problem with it is a linguistic one. It doesn't add anything to say that the Universe/Nature is God; you're just cooking up an extra word for the same thing, in fact for things for which we already have words. Like Universe. And Nature. Why muddy the waters by saying that these things are God? I think it's fair to say that most monotheists think of their god in personal terms; something much like a great big person with human-like emotions, a god that likes this and doesn't like that, which judges, rewards and punisheson that basis and so forth. (The reason is of course obvious. All gods are man-made, purely human constructs made in our image, not vice versa). Doesn't matter how "sophisticated" about it you want to be, when it comes right down to it this is the way most theists seem to think and act when it comes to their god. But if God is the Universe/Nature, all that goes out of the window.

Thank you for taking the trouble to explain that, Shakes!

I suppose it takes all sorts to make a world! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's Panentheism. Pantheism is where everything is God.

... which is still entirely consistent with Robinson's statement about cancer.

No I think you are doing a revisionist thing to make Robinson a pantheist which as you pointed out in subsequent posts is more or less a superfluous title for what is effectively a naturalist.

An illegitimate attempt to 'claim' Robinson.

[Shaker]

No I think you are doing a revisionist thing to make Robinson a pantheist which as you pointed out in subsequent posts is more or less a superfluous title for what is effectively a naturalist.

An illegitimate attempt to 'claim' Robinson.

I'm not trying to 'claim' him for anything. If for no other reason than that he was a prolific writer and much - perhaps even most - of his output is still in print. Unless he was a liar (which I don't believe) he wrote what he believed and that still stands; it's no place of mine to put words into his mouth. I'm simply pointing out that that one statement of his, made toward the end of his life, is perfectly consistent with pantheism.

[Rhiannon]

Reminds me of Bishop John Robinson (Honest to God chappy) who said that people need to cast aside their old conception/definition of a personal deity and see God as much in cancer as in a sunset.

He was dying of cancer at the time so it wasn't exactly a flippant throwaway remark made by someone who knew nothing about it.

It comes across to me as pantheism through and through, but that's OK - institutional religions could do with a lot more of that.

Yes, pretty much.

I'm sort of a panentheist in the sense that I think deity is both creation and the creative energy within that. I believe it possible to perceive deity on an individual, personal level, but I think that is something that our humanity creates - it's almost like our collective thoughts and desires calls them into being.

If you accept that creation, the cosmos, is God, then God is the tsunami, the cancer cell, the flu bug, the earthquake, just as much as it is stars, moon, raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens. The lesson being : we're pretty insignificant really.

[BashfulAnthony]

Reminds me of Bishop John Robinson (Honest to God chappy) who said that people need to cast aside their old conception/definition of a personal deity and see God as much in cancer as in a sunset.

He was dying of cancer at the time so it wasn't exactly a flippant throwaway remark made by someone who knew nothing about it.

It comes across to me as pantheism through and through, but that's OK - institutional religions could do with a lot more of that.

Robinson was little more than an attention-seeker, whose theology was extremely weak..  You do the same thing you have criticised others for:  you quote him without knowing exactly where he was coming from.

[Shaker]

Robinson was little more than an attention-seeker, whose theology was extremely weak..  You do the same thing you have criticised others for:  you quote him without knowing exactly where he was coming from.

How did I know?

[BashfulAnthony]

Robinson was little more than an attention-seeker, whose theology was extremely weak..  You do the same thing you have criticised others for:  you quote him without knowing exactly where he was coming from.

How did I know?

Googling, of course.. Unfortunately, you didn't read enough.

[Nearly Sane]

Reminds me of Bishop John Robinson (Honest to God chappy) who said that people need to cast aside their old conception/definition of a personal deity and see God as much in cancer as in a sunset.

He was dying of cancer at the time so it wasn't exactly a flippant throwaway remark made by someone who knew nothing about it.

It comes across to me as pantheism through and through, but that's OK - institutional religions could do with a lot more of that.

Robinson was little more than an attention-seeker, whose theology was extremely weak..  You do the same thing you have criticised others for:  you quote him without knowing exactly where he was coming from.

Man dying of cancer seeks to deal with it in his theology, mocked by you because your theology is so much better. Mmm...

[Shaker]

Googling, of course.. Unfortunately, you didn't read enough.

No, you misunderstand. (Well there's a thing ...).

When I wrote "How did I know?" I didn't mean "How did I know about Robinson's quote?" (It's because I've read him and read about him, a good deal). I meant "How did I know that as a matter of personal principle Bashers would dismiss a noted theologian, a man who could run intellectual rings round him faster than Mo Farah, as an attention-seeker [ETA: and "loony"] whose theology was extremely weak, simply because I mentioned him?"

[BashfulAnthony]

Reminds me of Bishop John Robinson (Honest to God chappy) who said that people need to cast aside their old conception/definition of a personal deity and see God as much in cancer as in a sunset.

He was dying of cancer at the time so it wasn't exactly a flippant throwaway remark made by someone who knew nothing about it.

It comes across to me as pantheism through and through, but that's OK - institutional religions could do with a lot more of that.

Robinson was little more than an attention-seeker, whose theology was extremely weak..  You do the same thing you have criticised others for:  you quote him without knowing exactly where he was coming from.

Man dying of cancer seeks to deal with it in his theology, mocked by you because your theology is so much better. Mmm...

For goodness' sake, read up the story of the loony and his doings..

[Nearly Sane]

Reminds me of Bishop John Robinson (Honest to God chappy) who said that people need to cast aside their old conception/definition of a personal deity and see God as much in cancer as in a sunset.

He was dying of cancer at the time so it wasn't exactly a flippant throwaway remark made by someone who knew nothing about it.

It comes across to me as pantheism through and through, but that's OK - institutional religions could do with a lot more of that.

Robinson was little more than an attention-seeker, whose theology was extremely weak..  You do the same thing you have criticised others for:  you quote him without knowing exactly where he was coming from.

Man dying of cancer seeks to deal with it in his theology, mocked by you because your theology is so much better. Mmm...

For goodness' sake, read up the story of the loony and his doings..

Man dying of cancer mocked as 'loony'... unpleasant in many ways.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I think you are doing a revisionist thing to make Robinson a pantheist which as you pointed out in subsequent posts is more or less a superfluous title for what is effectively a naturalist.

An illegitimate attempt to 'claim' Robinson.

I'm not trying to 'claim' him for anything. If for no other reason than that he was a prolific writer and much - perhaps even most - of his output is still in print. Unless he was a liar (which I don't believe) he wrote what he believed and that still stands; it's no place of mine to put words into his mouth. I'm simply pointing out that that one statement of his, made toward the end of his life, is perfectly consistent with pantheism.

Not on the strength of what you quote him as saying.

[Shaker]

Then explain, don't just assert, why his remark is inconsistent with pantheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then explain, don't just assert, why his remark is inconsistent with pantheism.

I have already explained that what you quote talks of God being ''in'' things. This is Panentheism. You ignored this distinction.

[Shaker]

Then explain, don't just assert, why his remark is inconsistent with pantheism.

I have already explained that what you quote talks of God being ''in'' things. This is Panentheism. You ignored this distinction.

I know what panentheism is; I'm waiting to hear your ... well, I'll call it reasoning for now as to why Robinson's remark is as inconsistent with pantheism as you insist it is.

I'm still waiting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then explain, don't just assert, why his remark is inconsistent with pantheism.

I have already explained that what you quote talks of God being ''in'' things. This is Panentheism. You ignored this distinction.

I know what panentheism is; I'm waiting to hear your ... well, I'll call it reasoning for now as to why Robinson's remark is as inconsistent with pantheism as you insist it is.

I'm still waiting.

Shaker if you know what panentheism is then you will know the distinction.
It is down to you to demonstrate how a panentheistic statement is Pantheistic.

Good luck.

[BashfulAnthony]

Then explain, don't just assert, why his remark is inconsistent with pantheism.

I have already explained that what you quote talks of God being ''in'' things. This is Panentheism. You ignored this distinction.

I know what panentheism is; I'm waiting to hear your ... well, I'll call it reasoning for now as to why Robinson's remark is as inconsistent with pantheism as you insist it is.

I'm still waiting.

Shaker if you know what panentheism is then you will know the distinction.
It is down to you to demonstrate how a panentheistic statement is Pantheistic.

Good luck.

Give him a while:  he's looking it up, right now!     

[Shaker]

Shaker if you know what panentheism is then you will know the distinction.
It is down to you to demonstrate how a panentheistic statement is Pantheistic.

No, it is down to you to back up your assertion that Robinson's statement is inconsistent with pantheism. I don't need luck; I need you to shore up your claim with a sound argument. (The triumph of hope over experience, I know, but still ...).

It's evident that you are entirely unable to do this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then explain, don't just assert, why his remark is inconsistent with pantheism.

I have already explained that what you quote talks of God being ''in'' things. This is Panentheism. You ignored this distinction.

I know what panentheism is; I'm waiting to hear your ... well, I'll call it reasoning for now as to why Robinson's remark is as inconsistent with pantheism as you insist it is.

I'm still waiting.

Shaker if you know what panentheism is then you will know the distinction.
It is down to you to demonstrate how a panentheistic statement is Pantheistic.

Good luck.

Give him a while:  he's looking it up, right now!     

He is good but is he THAT good?