Panentheism

                                     

I am a panentheist. Although I prefer the term mono-pantheist, which means the same thing.  And I challenge rustic monotheists. Now this is NOT pantheism. Instead, it is the position that Creator God is distinct from the universe, in addition to every part of the universe being part of God (not in the sense that pantheists see it). And that God interpenetrates our entire universe. Here is an analogy: Eternally preexisting God became a universal library.  And each "book" is a piece of God.  These publications include apples, Bohemians, cats, diamonds, eggs, flowers, gravity, houses, icicles, jaguars, kittens, >>

lightning, moonbeams, neon, oceans, planets, quicksilver, rubies, stars, talents, umbrellas, violins, whirlwinds, xylophones, yellowtails, zoos, and innumerous others.  Each has been checked out and is on loan, all of which will eventually be returned to the Library. I also reject the ideas of Father God being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient as being inaccurate. Rather, the universe can also be described as a self-simulation, having a hand in its own publication. Evil is damage to the books, which will be eliminated via restoration before they are returned. When evil dominates a personality, that >>

persona will be annihilated, while their physical matter and untainted metaphysicality are reamalgam- ated. I completely agree with a preacher, in that God is the epitome and zenith of holiness.  I also fully agree that both pantheism and polytheism would besmirch the concept of God's perfect holiness due to lacking unique separatism.  But I vehemently oppose his lumping mono-pantheism into the same category. Instead, consider that many Muslims reject the Christian concept of God becoming man in the person of Jesus because that would supposedly undermine God's holiness due to mixing together >>

Almighty God and mortal man. Since their viewpoint would have more justification than the preacher's anti-panentheism, and we reject their viewpoint, let us also reject anti-panentheism. In fact, intractable forms of monotheism have led to God being considered completely impersonal, such as rejecting all forms of Christianity in favor of Deism. Another danger is its leading to the Calvinist heresies of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. These are partially based on the notion of uncalled for separation between God and man, humans >>

supposedly having no part in the salvation process, although the process should be an intimate union of co-reconciliation. Also, monopantheism necessitates the sacredness of life and Nature and should foster healthy love and appreciation for it. It is also a pillar of the CTMU (Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe), along with the understanding that God cannot be outside of space and time but is within. Adherents might also call it holo-pantheism. For more info on the CTMU, see the CTMU Wiki or YouTube videos on the CTMU.  



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Occam's Razor

Image
                                                  Occam's Razor is an extremely important philosophic principle linked to philosopher and theologian William of Ockham. Put simply, it states: "Of competing theories, that which provides the simplest explanation for something should be preferred. A similar formula was already made by Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Ptolemy (circa AD 100-AD 170) and reiterated by Isaac Newton (1642-1727). It is also known as the law of parsimony. Parsimony means extremely thrifty or careful with resources. So, the simplest explanation for anything is most likely correct, while the more complex an explana-tion, the reverse is true: the less and less likely to be correct. For example, a tree fell down. You could logically conclude that the wind knocked it down. Or believe a meteorite knocked it down, which hit another meteorite, obliteratin...
Read more

"Sex Work"

Image
  The New York politician known as AOC said:  "Sex work is work."   That is like saying eating work is work, drinking work is work, breathing work is work, sleeping work is work, urinating work is work, or defecating work is work.  Sex is not work! It is a bodily function.  It also implies that she sees sex as only an unenjoyable chore that calls for heavy compensation. She also includes in so-called sex work women who sell videos of themselves naked, not even having bodily contact with the foolish men who pay for it.  That is highly offensive to those who work long hard hours for low pay. Everyone naturally takes their clothes off occasionally.  It is no product or service whatsoever and takes advantage of men and their impulsive desires.                                         In reference to a female paramedic who supplemented her income wit...
Read more

The Berlin Wall & WW 2

Image
                                                                   In every war, both sides think they are right, and their opponents are wrong. Yet both sides are usually wrong to an extent.  Food for thought.  Now in World War 2, which started in 1939 and ended in 1945, there were two major groups: Allies and the Axis. Though numerous countries were on either side, the three main Allied powers were the Soviet Union, United States, and United Kingdom. The three main Axis powers were Germany, Italy, and Japan, which governments signed the Tripartite Pact in 1940.  However, Japan had different goals. Their head, Emperor Hirohito, wanted to continue conquest of China and Southeast Asia, while Germany and Italy wanted to expand their territory into Europe instead. And while Germany and Italy had similar econ...
Read more