Redefining our Concept of God
by Elisabeth Sahtouris, Ph.D.
I reversed the scientific story I was taught from seeing consciousness as the end product of evolution to seeing consciousness as the source of evolution. In other words, the universe, to me, is fundamentally Consciousness -- alive, aware and intelligent. This Consciousness is non-local, i.e. everywhere, and is what different cultures variously personify as God, under many names. It is also what physicists now call "zero point energy" -- the infinite energy existing at every point in space. They are discovering that it is conscious and that it non-locally records all information ever produced in the universe. This Conscious non-timespace energy is vaster than our local universe. It can and does transmute itself into electromagnetic energy, and, in turn, matter, in the creation of universes such as ours, though it can also create itself into other pure energy patterns in a myriad ways (they include angelic realms, for example, and all the "worlds" we exist in between lives, and eternally).
This All-That-Is God Source is perceived as I-Am from the perspective of the local consciousness created in beings such as you and me, when we go into meditation, expanding our little consciousness into the Great One we are all part of. In this state we not only perceive union with God, we transcend our local selves such that we recognize ourselves as God.
Our universe appears to be a learning universe. I like to say its basic principle is "Anything that can happen, will happen," and so it learns what works well and what doesn't. Evolution is an improvisational dance, keeping the steps that work and changing those that don't. As I cannot separate God-as-Cosmic-Consciousness from God-transmuting-into-material-universes, I believe our learning universe implies a learning God -- God learning to know the nature of Self through exploring its possibilities and learning to reflect on that Self. Exactly as we, God's human reflections, learn to do! In other words, Cosmic Consciousness begins as Unity and divides into Complexity a stage at a time -- at least from our human linear time perspective -- as it embodies itself in vast varieties of energetic and material forms. In non-timespace, which physics now knows to be the more fundamental nature of the universe, all possibilities exist together in complexity inconceivable to us humans.
I believe we exist as non-physical beings which incarnate intentionally, according to particular intentions for learning in each life, but that our "higher selves" are present non-physically throughout our lives. We weave our birth-to-death lifelines through the endless possibilities by the choices we make from moment to moment, each constraining the succeeding choices. From the perspective of non-timespace, all our lives together are like a kind of lotus flower, with each life one petal, one way of playing out a theme chosen by our soul entity or higher self. Some of our incarnations may be simultaneous in the linear timeframe, others are a historical sequence. Each "petal" is in soul communication with each other; thus our many lives can influence each other. Recall that early Christianity included the belief in reincarnation; I believe the Church changed that to gain more control over people's lives, just as Jesus told us we could reach God directly and the Church made priests not assistants but necessary channels to God.
All nature is thus conscious in my worldview, and all of it has access to non-timespace; all of it is an aspect of God. The acorn knows the oak tree it will become. Only we humans of western culture have played the game of cutting ourselves off from the Great Conversation that our very cells can still hear! Soils, waters, organisms, ecosystems, Earth, even DNA itself, all know their composition and that of the Whole as the cells of our bodies know each other and our whole bodies, behaving intelligently to maintain themselves and that whole (that's why our bodies work!).
Our human task now is to wake up and recognize ourselves as parts or aspects of God-as-Nature and behave accordingly. All are One, all harm harms each of us, all blessings bless each of us. What a guideline for choice! The ancients knew it and taught it. But God, through us, is trying out the most dangerous game of all -- the game of truly forgetting our nature. A great risk, but it had to be done to try all possibilities!
... I pray that scientists, who have been given the role of priesthood -- the right to tell us "how things are" -- will soon officially recognize that there is one alive, intelligent universe in which spirit and matter are not separable. I pray the indigenous people who never separated science and spirituality will be honored for that. It is time for the true communion which alone can save our species and all others, which alone can bring about the perfectly possible world we all dream of -- a world expressing this understanding of ourselves as-the creative edge of God!
~from http://twm.co.nz/saht_god.html
Full Version: Redefining our Concept of God
yes, that 'all nature is thus conscious' is a conclusion I've reached on my own, too. Indeed, the Yoga Vasistha and other ancient Indian works send out the same message. Quite profound, I think, but more needs to be said on this. We cannot simply remain satisfied and content with such statements as 'all nature is thus conscious'. Instead, we must seek to go beyond, and to realize utterly novel truths....
....truths that will transform us.
....truths that will transform us.
"…I was taught from seeing consciousness as the end product of evolution to seeing consciousness as the source of evolution.”
I understand that this position holds that consciousness as a unified whole equals god. I don’t understand the premise that consciousness gave rise to what we now know.
To paraphrase Augustine, I would ask you this: “Where is consciousness then, and whence, and how crept it in hither? What is its root, and what is its seed?”
Did consciousness arise out of non-consciousness? In this case, god has not always existed, has not always been. He would then merely be the product of chance + time perhaps, correct? This would then be no god. It would resemble more of a cosmic accident in my opinion.
Adieu,
Esoteric
I understand that this position holds that consciousness as a unified whole equals god. I don’t understand the premise that consciousness gave rise to what we now know.
To paraphrase Augustine, I would ask you this: “Where is consciousness then, and whence, and how crept it in hither? What is its root, and what is its seed?”
Did consciousness arise out of non-consciousness? In this case, god has not always existed, has not always been. He would then merely be the product of chance + time perhaps, correct? This would then be no god. It would resemble more of a cosmic accident in my opinion.
Adieu,
Esoteric
hello Esoteric,
nice to have you here.
About your post:
I think it's more along the lines of 'everything is conscious', a panpsychism of sorts. Human consciousness is, for the most part, reflective consciousness, whereas other types of consciousness, say of 'objects' in the universe, is non-reflective and probably not like anything we've ever experienced. Hence, the typical assertion that panpsychism is absurd since it grants consciousness to inanimate objects, like your shoes for example, is unwarranted, naive, and lacks substance.
Concerning Augustine, I would say that 'where', 'whence', and 'how' are merely constructs of consciousness, and hence, it makes no sense to answer such questions in terms residing beyond the scope of consciousness. All that is, that has any being, is conscious. It's an undeniable fact. I think anyone who ventures deeply enough into themselves will realize this, and further gain a better appreciation for the profundity and utter vastness of their depths.
It's not that consciousness arose out of non-consciousness, but rather that consciousness and the physicist's definition of "action" are one and the same thing. That is, they're both perspectives on something more fundamental, something that gives rise to both consciousness and action depending on perspective. They appear different because of the particular perspective we adopt. I sometimes like to make the analogy with the electro-magnetic field, where the magnetic and electric fields 'appear' different depending on what frame of reference you're in. It's the same for consciousness: What you experience as consciousness and infer is unconscious is due to the fact that you're in a particular frame of reference. But if you change this frame of reference, then what you experience as conscious and infer as unconscious will also be changed.
namaste,
Shawn
nice to have you here.
About your post:
I think it's more along the lines of 'everything is conscious', a panpsychism of sorts. Human consciousness is, for the most part, reflective consciousness, whereas other types of consciousness, say of 'objects' in the universe, is non-reflective and probably not like anything we've ever experienced. Hence, the typical assertion that panpsychism is absurd since it grants consciousness to inanimate objects, like your shoes for example, is unwarranted, naive, and lacks substance.
Concerning Augustine, I would say that 'where', 'whence', and 'how' are merely constructs of consciousness, and hence, it makes no sense to answer such questions in terms residing beyond the scope of consciousness. All that is, that has any being, is conscious. It's an undeniable fact. I think anyone who ventures deeply enough into themselves will realize this, and further gain a better appreciation for the profundity and utter vastness of their depths.
It's not that consciousness arose out of non-consciousness, but rather that consciousness and the physicist's definition of "action" are one and the same thing. That is, they're both perspectives on something more fundamental, something that gives rise to both consciousness and action depending on perspective. They appear different because of the particular perspective we adopt. I sometimes like to make the analogy with the electro-magnetic field, where the magnetic and electric fields 'appear' different depending on what frame of reference you're in. It's the same for consciousness: What you experience as consciousness and infer is unconscious is due to the fact that you're in a particular frame of reference. But if you change this frame of reference, then what you experience as conscious and infer as unconscious will also be changed.
namaste,
Shawn
Thank you for your reply sir, and I respect you point of view. But surely you must make a distinction between, say, a man and the shoe of man, for example. What you call “non-reflective” I call unconscious, for it, by its very definition (what I would define as “lack of self-awareness”) is unconscious. But perhaps I am misunderstanding the nature of this non-reflective consciousness you describe… It is a new concept to me.
I view unconscious, as I mentioned, as a kind of self-awareness, a realization and or comprehension of ones self, if you will. Obviously, putting a shoe in this definition falls into the absurd.
I’m not sure I comprehend your remark that “It's not that consciousness arose out of non-consciousness, but rather that consciousness and the physicist's definition of "action" are one and the same thing.” This philosophy of “action” is new to me, so I’m not sure I understand what is meant by action in this context. I should like know your thoughts on this futher.
Good talking to you Shawn. :)
Esoteric.
I view unconscious, as I mentioned, as a kind of self-awareness, a realization and or comprehension of ones self, if you will. Obviously, putting a shoe in this definition falls into the absurd.
I’m not sure I comprehend your remark that “It's not that consciousness arose out of non-consciousness, but rather that consciousness and the physicist's definition of "action" are one and the same thing.” This philosophy of “action” is new to me, so I’m not sure I understand what is meant by action in this context. I should like know your thoughts on this futher.
Good talking to you Shawn. :)
Esoteric.
hello Esoteric,
it's good talking to you too :)
The distinction between man and the shoe of man resides in what these terms mean. Let 'man' be human consciousness; should we let 'shoe of man' be man's mental construction or perception of a shoe (i.e., the way the shoe presents itself to the man's mind), or should we let 'shoe of man' be the thing-in-itself, something which cannot be perceived by a human mind because as thing-in-itself it is beyond human perception? By 'shoe of man', I think you mean the thing-in-itself and not the mental construct or perception we have of the shoe. So, let me presume this is the case. Then, the only distinction between human consciousness and the consciousness of other things-in-themselves, like shoes or other objects, resides in the degree to which they possess consciousness, as well as its structure and quality (of it's consciousness).
About reflective vs. non-reflective consciousness, consider the following scenario: What if you couldn't remember anything that happened to you? So, let's say you tie your shoes and then stand up, but at that point you don't remember ever tying your shoes (you don't remember your experience of you tying your shoes). In other words, you cannot reflect on your past experiences. Does this make those past experiences unconscious, simply because you can't reflect on them or remember them? They couldn't have been unconscious at the time that you experienced them, but how do you know that you've experienced them in the near future when you can't remember any of your past? In other words, how do you discriminate between unconscious things versus conscious things that you just can't remember? Maybe you had some orgasmic union and transcendental experience with the universe yesterday, but today you don't remember that ever happening. Does that mean the experience was never made conscious by you, even at the time that you were experiencing it yesterday, or even that it never happened? No. Therefore, we cannot discriminate between unconscious things and conscious things that we just can't remember. Similarly, in many states of non-reflective consciousness, while we have vivid, expanded consciousness confined to the present, we find that when we try to reflect on the experience in the future, and recollect it, that it can become very difficult, if not impossible. So, does this mean the experience never happened, that it never became conscious?
Btw, 'action' is a term from quantum mechanics which many physicists consider the fundamental constituent of reality. By saying that consciousness and action are one and the same thing, simply viewed from different perspectives and frames of reference, I mean that consciousness and absolute reality are one and the same.
take care,
Shawn
it's good talking to you too :)
The distinction between man and the shoe of man resides in what these terms mean. Let 'man' be human consciousness; should we let 'shoe of man' be man's mental construction or perception of a shoe (i.e., the way the shoe presents itself to the man's mind), or should we let 'shoe of man' be the thing-in-itself, something which cannot be perceived by a human mind because as thing-in-itself it is beyond human perception? By 'shoe of man', I think you mean the thing-in-itself and not the mental construct or perception we have of the shoe. So, let me presume this is the case. Then, the only distinction between human consciousness and the consciousness of other things-in-themselves, like shoes or other objects, resides in the degree to which they possess consciousness, as well as its structure and quality (of it's consciousness).
About reflective vs. non-reflective consciousness, consider the following scenario: What if you couldn't remember anything that happened to you? So, let's say you tie your shoes and then stand up, but at that point you don't remember ever tying your shoes (you don't remember your experience of you tying your shoes). In other words, you cannot reflect on your past experiences. Does this make those past experiences unconscious, simply because you can't reflect on them or remember them? They couldn't have been unconscious at the time that you experienced them, but how do you know that you've experienced them in the near future when you can't remember any of your past? In other words, how do you discriminate between unconscious things versus conscious things that you just can't remember? Maybe you had some orgasmic union and transcendental experience with the universe yesterday, but today you don't remember that ever happening. Does that mean the experience was never made conscious by you, even at the time that you were experiencing it yesterday, or even that it never happened? No. Therefore, we cannot discriminate between unconscious things and conscious things that we just can't remember. Similarly, in many states of non-reflective consciousness, while we have vivid, expanded consciousness confined to the present, we find that when we try to reflect on the experience in the future, and recollect it, that it can become very difficult, if not impossible. So, does this mean the experience never happened, that it never became conscious?
Btw, 'action' is a term from quantum mechanics which many physicists consider the fundamental constituent of reality. By saying that consciousness and action are one and the same thing, simply viewed from different perspectives and frames of reference, I mean that consciousness and absolute reality are one and the same.
take care,
Shawn
Well said, thank for the explanation of your views. I find it very interesting. I see I made typo in my last post, I said I define unconsciousness as self-awareness. obviously I meant to say I define consciousness as self-awareness. To be more specific, I might define it as the dictionary does as a sense of one's personal or collective identity. Is this the same definition you are using? And yes, you understood me rightly as referring to the shoes thing-in-itself, as you put it.
I think I understand what you meant by reflective-consciousness. but it is a bit new to me. I would grant that weather or not you could recall a conscious experience in the past is irrelevant as to weather or not you were conscious at the time. But I fail to see how your argument about recalling conscious experiences makes a case that the shoe can in any way be said to have some sort of consciousness. Maybe you could clarify?
Shawn, you have awareness of self, and awareness of the shoe. The shoe has neither. And it will never experience its personal or collective identity. It is an empty, lifeless, object only to be perceived by something conscious, such as you or I. It is absurd to claim such an object as a shoe possess some kind consciousness, and then proceed to derive some kind of spiritual pantheism from it (Im not sure you would use the word pantheism, I’ll use the term pan-everthingism).
BTW, I think I would grant there are differing levels of consciousness in conscious things. Obviously, a mouse does not, and cannot, perceive its existence at the depth and level of, say, a man. But it is conscious if its self nonetheless.
I hope we understand each others position better. I should like to know your thoughts on this further. Have a good one.
Esoteric
I think I understand what you meant by reflective-consciousness. but it is a bit new to me. I would grant that weather or not you could recall a conscious experience in the past is irrelevant as to weather or not you were conscious at the time. But I fail to see how your argument about recalling conscious experiences makes a case that the shoe can in any way be said to have some sort of consciousness. Maybe you could clarify?
Shawn, you have awareness of self, and awareness of the shoe. The shoe has neither. And it will never experience its personal or collective identity. It is an empty, lifeless, object only to be perceived by something conscious, such as you or I. It is absurd to claim such an object as a shoe possess some kind consciousness, and then proceed to derive some kind of spiritual pantheism from it (Im not sure you would use the word pantheism, I’ll use the term pan-everthingism).
BTW, I think I would grant there are differing levels of consciousness in conscious things. Obviously, a mouse does not, and cannot, perceive its existence at the depth and level of, say, a man. But it is conscious if its self nonetheless.
I hope we understand each others position better. I should like to know your thoughts on this further. Have a good one.
Esoteric
hello Esoteric,
you're right, I wouldn't refer to 'everything is conscious' as pantheism (literally, 'all is god'), but rather panpsychism (pan=all, psych=consciousness). It doesn't mean I don't believe in pantheism. In fact, I think believing in both pantheism and panpsychism gives rise to a very interesting worldview. Don't you?
Now, you accept that a mouse is conscious, but not to the same extent or degree as a human, but where does it stop? Does a flea possess some sort of elementary consciousness? If not, then you have to define what's conscious and what's not, which is kind of like seeing things in black-and-white, when in fact few things are as simple as black-and-white, and I don't think the question of what's conscious is one of them. I think it's more reasonable to believe in gradations of consciousness, and consistency in this view practically demands that all things possess some type of consciousness.
you're right, I wouldn't refer to 'everything is conscious' as pantheism (literally, 'all is god'), but rather panpsychism (pan=all, psych=consciousness). It doesn't mean I don't believe in pantheism. In fact, I think believing in both pantheism and panpsychism gives rise to a very interesting worldview. Don't you?
Now, you accept that a mouse is conscious, but not to the same extent or degree as a human, but where does it stop? Does a flea possess some sort of elementary consciousness? If not, then you have to define what's conscious and what's not, which is kind of like seeing things in black-and-white, when in fact few things are as simple as black-and-white, and I don't think the question of what's conscious is one of them. I think it's more reasonable to believe in gradations of consciousness, and consistency in this view practically demands that all things possess some type of consciousness.
Hello everyone,
Since much of the foundation of my own viewpoint resides in this string, I hope you all will not mind the intervention.
The gist of what I would like and amplify upon to say is over on the Welcome page on the 'two world' string and I do not know how to link it here.
There are two worlds:
Nature's world, the physical world in which we reside.
A world that for the purposes of this discussion I would term WIPCON (for work in process consciousness)
This state is held in permanence by nature, who dutifully puts her handmaidens and henchmen to work preserving this status with various survival strategies to hand off from generation to generation the information entrusted to her. This is the solid, quantum particle world partially described by Newton and Darwin and currently carried on by modern science.
There is a second world, one let us define as HICON for obvious reasons. This is the other side of the quantum world, the world of the waveform. (Quantum elctrodynamics will not be understood until this division is understood). At present the present state of the general WIPCON understanding of the HICON world is as an esoteric, etheriel world. Because of this non-understanding the defining of HICON is left mostly to priest, guru, charletan, shaman.
The search for HICON is currently being made under the streetlight of the WIPCON world because the lighting is better.
Man is the metaphor for these two worlds, containing both of them within his own skinbag. That is where the fight is presently being waged.
This is what devides us. Duty to preserve against urge to fulfill.
What is below is like what is above. Hermes.
One world the solidified particle brain: the other, the ghost; the waveform mind. IMHO.
We can tap into both today just with a certain realization and utilization of resources that we posess here and now.
Since much of the foundation of my own viewpoint resides in this string, I hope you all will not mind the intervention.
The gist of what I would like and amplify upon to say is over on the Welcome page on the 'two world' string and I do not know how to link it here.
There are two worlds:
Nature's world, the physical world in which we reside.
A world that for the purposes of this discussion I would term WIPCON (for work in process consciousness)
This state is held in permanence by nature, who dutifully puts her handmaidens and henchmen to work preserving this status with various survival strategies to hand off from generation to generation the information entrusted to her. This is the solid, quantum particle world partially described by Newton and Darwin and currently carried on by modern science.
There is a second world, one let us define as HICON for obvious reasons. This is the other side of the quantum world, the world of the waveform. (Quantum elctrodynamics will not be understood until this division is understood). At present the present state of the general WIPCON understanding of the HICON world is as an esoteric, etheriel world. Because of this non-understanding the defining of HICON is left mostly to priest, guru, charletan, shaman.
The search for HICON is currently being made under the streetlight of the WIPCON world because the lighting is better.
Man is the metaphor for these two worlds, containing both of them within his own skinbag. That is where the fight is presently being waged.
This is what devides us. Duty to preserve against urge to fulfill.
What is below is like what is above. Hermes.
One world the solidified particle brain: the other, the ghost; the waveform mind. IMHO.
We can tap into both today just with a certain realization and utilization of resources that we posess here and now.
I miss the old template already. I'm lost here! Whos's on right now?
I have received a lot help by doing a google on 'panentheism'--G-D in and through all things. I like the shorter doublet, unitheism--and from reading the following:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
===============================
I also life what I read about Alfred North Whitehead, in the site on process philosophy and theology:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
http://ctr4process.org/relationality/viewt...php?p=1369#1369
BTW, I do not pretend to understand it all, but I like the idea which states that G-D has evolved, like all things and beings, especially human beings, from chaos to order.
Could it be that moral, ethical and loving human beings are simply those of us who have agreed to allow ourselves to be g-d filled. Is this not the message of all great spiritual leaders, like Jesus. Check out John 17:20 to the end of the passage. The whole Gospel of John is about G-D becoming flesh, one with us. But keep in mind: this is not something that will be imposed on us; we have to willing accept the gift.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
===============================
I also life what I read about Alfred North Whitehead, in the site on process philosophy and theology:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
http://ctr4process.org/relationality/viewt...php?p=1369#1369
BTW, I do not pretend to understand it all, but I like the idea which states that G-D has evolved, like all things and beings, especially human beings, from chaos to order.
Could it be that moral, ethical and loving human beings are simply those of us who have agreed to allow ourselves to be g-d filled. Is this not the message of all great spiritual leaders, like Jesus. Check out John 17:20 to the end of the passage. The whole Gospel of John is about G-D becoming flesh, one with us. But keep in mind: this is not something that will be imposed on us; we have to willing accept the gift.
What is Unitheism?
by Rev. Lindsay King
Unitheism is a way of conceptualizing the g-d-like concept, a kind of theism, not unlike Unitarianism, but without the kind of bureaucracy which all churches have to have.
Unitheism is not one of the monotheisms. It is not deism, henotheism, polytheism, or atheism. It is really a way of looking at, defining and understanding the nature and concept of the divine beingness which, in my opinion and without judging others� concepts, makes all the old forms of theism� and there is more than one� obsolete, for me.
Nor is it an organized religion as such, as of yet. If it ever becomes one, I recommend that it be made up of small autonomous groups, with absolutely no hierarchy, possibly operating, with permission, within friendly established churches.
I like the idea of each unit consisting of thirteen families� the model used by Jesus, who, according to the NT, remained a Jew to the end of his life.
I also like the idea for unitheists, who wish to do so, to be free to maintain their church, synagogue, mosque or temple connection, if they have one, with any of the formal religions, of all faiths. Unitheists love being theological bridge builders� always looking for ways which unite, not divide us.
As a unitheist I do not seek to convert those who are happy with what they believe in and hold dear. I do seek to connect with those who are looking for something more than they have to give them more meaning for living.
Why This New Spelling?
For some time now, Orthodox Jews have used 'G-d' as their way of writing the god-concept in English. They use it to indicate the mystery and ineffability involved. I assume that they will not object to this unitheist using the same literary device.
I agree that though the word is relatively new� I first used it in the 1970's or 1980's� unitheism is not a new concept. However, it is not one that is well known. The purpose of my writing these ideas down is to take this idea and get it out there.
Unitheism and Panentheism
Be aware that I see the term unitheism as a doublet of panentheism� G-D (here I use all caps) is in and through all things� a word I first heard used by the theologian and former Dominican priest, Matthew Fox. But I prefer unitheism, because it helps avoid confusion with pantheism� all things are G-D.
For sure, unitheism values the quality of faith. However it also values the use of scientific theories, reason, and the discoveries of science. Through experience, I have discovered that some atheists are very annoyed by this approach. The reality of G-D is not that easy to dismiss.
Unitheism takes an inclusive, artistic and imaginative approach to matter and mind as partners of the spirit in the whole and holistic creative process. Mind and matter are the raw materials out of which reality is forming, ad infinitum.
To use my way of spelling it: I say that you and I are g-ds who have, by the power of love, the ability to choose to be co-creators with G-D� the ultimate reality. As more and more of us make this our choice, more and more of ultimate reality will become natural reality.
It is up to us, in cooperation with the g-d concept, to help bring order out of chaos.
The Three Components of Nature� Physical, Mental, and Spiritual
Although I believe the pneuma, the spiritual, or the immaterial component is primary, the g-d concept also includes the psyche, or the mental component. It also includes the soma, the physical, or the material component, based on hard and pragmatic facts.
In other words, G-D is as real as we are, and as the next breath we take. G-D is physical, as well as mental and spiritual. I experience G-D with each and all my senses. How more real can we get?
However there is still room for mystery. And perhaps the greatest mystery of all is: G-D� the infinite and eternal, in which we live and move and have our being, is even more than the sum of all these wonderful parts.
by Rev. Lindsay King
Unitheism is a way of conceptualizing the g-d-like concept, a kind of theism, not unlike Unitarianism, but without the kind of bureaucracy which all churches have to have.
Unitheism is not one of the monotheisms. It is not deism, henotheism, polytheism, or atheism. It is really a way of looking at, defining and understanding the nature and concept of the divine beingness which, in my opinion and without judging others� concepts, makes all the old forms of theism� and there is more than one� obsolete, for me.
Nor is it an organized religion as such, as of yet. If it ever becomes one, I recommend that it be made up of small autonomous groups, with absolutely no hierarchy, possibly operating, with permission, within friendly established churches.
I like the idea of each unit consisting of thirteen families� the model used by Jesus, who, according to the NT, remained a Jew to the end of his life.
I also like the idea for unitheists, who wish to do so, to be free to maintain their church, synagogue, mosque or temple connection, if they have one, with any of the formal religions, of all faiths. Unitheists love being theological bridge builders� always looking for ways which unite, not divide us.
As a unitheist I do not seek to convert those who are happy with what they believe in and hold dear. I do seek to connect with those who are looking for something more than they have to give them more meaning for living.
Why This New Spelling?
For some time now, Orthodox Jews have used 'G-d' as their way of writing the god-concept in English. They use it to indicate the mystery and ineffability involved. I assume that they will not object to this unitheist using the same literary device.
I agree that though the word is relatively new� I first used it in the 1970's or 1980's� unitheism is not a new concept. However, it is not one that is well known. The purpose of my writing these ideas down is to take this idea and get it out there.
Unitheism and Panentheism
Be aware that I see the term unitheism as a doublet of panentheism� G-D (here I use all caps) is in and through all things� a word I first heard used by the theologian and former Dominican priest, Matthew Fox. But I prefer unitheism, because it helps avoid confusion with pantheism� all things are G-D.
For sure, unitheism values the quality of faith. However it also values the use of scientific theories, reason, and the discoveries of science. Through experience, I have discovered that some atheists are very annoyed by this approach. The reality of G-D is not that easy to dismiss.
Unitheism takes an inclusive, artistic and imaginative approach to matter and mind as partners of the spirit in the whole and holistic creative process. Mind and matter are the raw materials out of which reality is forming, ad infinitum.
To use my way of spelling it: I say that you and I are g-ds who have, by the power of love, the ability to choose to be co-creators with G-D� the ultimate reality. As more and more of us make this our choice, more and more of ultimate reality will become natural reality.
It is up to us, in cooperation with the g-d concept, to help bring order out of chaos.
The Three Components of Nature� Physical, Mental, and Spiritual
Although I believe the pneuma, the spiritual, or the immaterial component is primary, the g-d concept also includes the psyche, or the mental component. It also includes the soma, the physical, or the material component, based on hard and pragmatic facts.
In other words, G-D is as real as we are, and as the next breath we take. G-D is physical, as well as mental and spiritual. I experience G-D with each and all my senses. How more real can we get?
However there is still room for mystery. And perhaps the greatest mystery of all is: G-D� the infinite and eternal, in which we live and move and have our being, is even more than the sum of all these wonderful parts.
This article by Elisabeth Sahtouris seems a bit off. It's one thing to say that everything is consciousness, but to then go off and anthropomorphize everything seems naive. Why should our universe be a learning universe? It's been around for a long time, so what's left to learn? Instead of the universe having lots to learn, I'm inclined to think that it's really the author that does.
The last sacred corners of romance... :-)
QUOTE(cerebral @ Feb 22, 12:39 PM) 
This article by Elisabeth Sahtouris seems a bit off. It's one thing to say that everything is consciousness, but to then go off and anthropomorphize everything seems naive. Why should our universe be a learning universe? It's been around for a long time, so what's left to learn? Instead of the universe having lots to learn, I'm inclined to think that it's really the author that does.
There are yet to be received particles of information retrieved from the initial explsion of the "Big Bang'. When those particles arrive, the human neural web will collect and process that new data and may result in potentially bringing about a new form/level of human conscious awareness about the fundamental nature of reality. The key is to consciously be tuned into that right frequency where potential new information is located. Then once it is collected, processed,and analyzed and the potential ramifications of these newly arriving particles of information are formulated, one can harness that new knowledge and help steer and mold an ever evolving understanding of what it means to be.
The 'God Particle'.
Quite fitting that your status is God... 
Anyway, I hope this frequency you talk about isn't 666 hz. Because then I might not be inclined to create a machine sending that frequency to the brain :-)
Anyway, I hope this frequency you talk about isn't 666 hz. Because then I might not be inclined to create a machine sending that frequency to the brain :-)
To avoid confusion, the following, lgking and Lindsay are one and the same. Having been here from the start, I am not a junior member. Also, the current date is February 23, 2006:
BTW what happened to the originator of this thread, Thanatos?
QUOTE(lgking @ Feb 04, 10:16 PM)
I have received a lot help by doing a google on 'panentheism'--G-D in and through all things. I like the shorter doublet, unitheism--and from reading the following:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
===============================
I also like what I read about Alfred North Whitehead, in the site on process philosophy and theology:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
http://ctr4process.org/relationality/viewt...php?p=1369#1369
BTW, I do not pretend to understand it all, but I like the idea which states that G-D has evolved, like all things and beings, especially human beings, from chaos to order.
Could it be that moral, ethical and loving human beings are simply those of us who have agreed to allow ourselves to be g-d filled. Is this not the message of all great spiritual leaders, like Jesus. Check out John 17:20 to the end of the passage. The whole Gospel of John is about G-D becoming flesh, one with us. But keep in mind: this is not something that will e imposed on us; we have to willing accept the gift.
===============================
I also like what I read about Alfred North Whitehead, in the site on process philosophy and theology:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
http://ctr4process.org/relationality/viewt...php?p=1369#1369
BTW, I do not pretend to understand it all, but I like the idea which states that G-D has evolved, like all things and beings, especially human beings, from chaos to order.
Could it be that moral, ethical and loving human beings are simply those of us who have agreed to allow ourselves to be g-d filled. Is this not the message of all great spiritual leaders, like Jesus. Check out John 17:20 to the end of the passage. The whole Gospel of John is about G-D becoming flesh, one with us. But keep in mind: this is not something that will e imposed on us; we have to willing accept the gift.
BTW what happened to the originator of this thread, Thanatos?
....Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work � if not pantheists....
I would add turn of the 20th century Canadian, Dr. Richard Maurice Bucke (a Walt Witman collegue/buddie) as a partial illuminati. Einstein? Hawking?
Hey Reverend,
If your into great intellectual art, the York University MFA's (myself included) are having a group exhibition in March at the new gallery in the new Accolade West building. You and yours are more than welcome to the opening or even just to casually stop by at some point during the week.
....from chaos to order....
You might be interested in Alan Guth's 'Chaotic Inflationary Theory'.
http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~sci_info/award...racMedal02.html
It has nothing to do with 'Chaos Theory' where unpredictable systems that grow increasingly disordered over time.
'Chaotic Inflation' starts out with chaos and ends in perfection.
I would add turn of the 20th century Canadian, Dr. Richard Maurice Bucke (a Walt Witman collegue/buddie) as a partial illuminati. Einstein? Hawking?
Hey Reverend,
If your into great intellectual art, the York University MFA's (myself included) are having a group exhibition in March at the new gallery in the new Accolade West building. You and yours are more than welcome to the opening or even just to casually stop by at some point during the week.
....from chaos to order....
You might be interested in Alan Guth's 'Chaotic Inflationary Theory'.
http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~sci_info/award...racMedal02.html
It has nothing to do with 'Chaos Theory' where unpredictable systems that grow increasingly disordered over time.
'Chaotic Inflation' starts out with chaos and ends in perfection.
QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Feb 23, 02:55 PM)
Hey Reverend,
If your into great intellectual art, the York University MFA's (myself included) are having a group exhibition in March at the new gallery in the new Accolade West building. You and yours are more than welcome to the opening or even just to casually stop by at some point during the week....
The following is a series of quotes from another chatroom in which I participated. Take the quotes for what they are worth:
QUOTE
Monotheism is the belief in a single, universal, all-encompassing deity. Various forms of monotheism exist, including:
• Theism, a term that usually refers to the belief in a 'personal' god, that is a single god with a distinctive personality, rather than just a divine force. http://www.theism.info/
• Deism is a form of monotheism in which it is believed that one god exists, but that God does not intervene in the world, beyond what was necessary for him to create it (no answering prayers or causing miracles). http://www.deism.com/
• Pantheism holds that the Universe is God. Depending on how this is understood, such a view may be tantamount to atheism, deism or theism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
• Panentheism is a form of theism that holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. This is also the view of Process theology. http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/panentheism.html
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Monotheism/
The word 'monotheism" comes from two Greek words: Monos which means 'one' and Theos which means 'God'. In other words monotheists believe in only one god.
Roman Catholic monotheism http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm
Islamic monotheism http://www.al-sunnah.com/50q.htm
Islam claims to be the TRUE religion http://www.islamworld.net/true.html
The word unitheism is made up of two words 'uni' meaning one and theism meaning 'god'. Although some unitheist pretend otherwise this logically means that unitheists believe in one god in the same manner that mono theists believe in one god. If they wish, as some have noted, to separate themselves from theists they must begin with their name. Believers in one god--uni theists--who claim they are not theists fail to convince anyone but themselves.
Yes, there are many flavours of theism as the above linked article outlines. But they are only different in the spin each choose to put on their belief in one god. The squabbles between the various theistic religions are, in effect, a family fight. Often times it comes down to whether you think god is more immanent than transcedent, or is learning or all knowing, is personal or non personal. These kinds of disputes have been going on since time out of mind and show little evidence of being resolved any time soon.
Beyond theism there are really only, broadly speaking, a few other options available to us all. One is polytheism, a belief in many gods or at least more than one god; atheism is another, which is a belief in or rejection of all gods and, finally, agnosticism--a reasonable belief, in my opinion--which is the attitude that it is impossible to choose or know on evidence or proofs whether there is or is not a god or gods or no god[s], or even which one of the theistic faiths tells it most like it is.
A number of uni theists who have made the mistake of assuming monotheism is synonomous with belief in a personal God, may wish to read the following linked articles on the various forms of monotheism including pan en theism which some uni theist claim is really just another name for uni theism.
The form of monotheism which is traditionally most common in the West (and which is too often confused with theism in general) is the belief in a personal god which emphasizes that this god is a conscious mind that is immanent in nature, humanity, and the values which it has created. This is unfortunate, because it fails to acknowledge the existence of great variety not only within monotheism generally, but also within monotheism in the West.
http://atheism.about.com/od/theismtheists/...smvarieties.htm
...I understand what Farr, pave and TRev are saying, in no way is unitheism a doublet of monotheism, anymore than panentheism is.
Panentheists developed the word 'panentheism' because 'monotheism' failed to serve the purpose. Mono is a very singular concept; uni is a very universal one. This is why Unitarians prefer being called Unitarians and not Trinitarians.
• Theism is a term that refers to the belief in the existence of a god or divine being.
•
• Deism is a form of monotheism in which it is believed that one god exists. However, a deist rejects the idea that this god intervenes in the world. Hence any notion of special revelation is impossible, and the nature of god can only be known through reason and observation from nature. A deist thus rejects the miraculous, and the claim to knowledge made for religious groups and texts.
•
• Monistic Theism is the type of monotheism found in Hinduism. This type of theism is different from the Semitic religions as it encompasses pantheism, monism, and at the same time includes the concept of a personal God as an universal, omnipotent supreme being. The other types of monotheism are qualified monism, the school of Ramanuja or Vishishtadvaita, which admits that the universe is part of God, or Narayana, a type of panentheism, but there is a plurality of souls within this supreme Being and Dvaita, which differs in that it is dualistic, as God is separate and not panentheistic.
•
• Pantheism holds that the Universe itself is God. The existence of a transcendent supreme extraneous to nature is denied. Depending on how this is understood, such a view may be presented as tantamount to atheism, deism or theism.
•
• Panentheism, or Monistic Monotheism, is a form of theism that holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. The One God is omnipotent and all-pervading, the universe is part of God, and God is both Immanent and Transcendent. This is also the view of Process theology and also Vishistadvaita Vedanta Hinduism. According to this school, from Ramanuja, the universe is part of God but God is not equal to the universe but in fact transcends it as well. However, unlike Process theology, God in Vishistadvaita Vedanta Hinduism is omnipotent. Panentheism is thought of as "God is within the universe as the soul is within the body".
•
• Substance monotheism, found e.g. in some indigenous African religions, holds that the many gods are different forms of a single underlying substance, and that this underlying substance is God. This view has vague similarities to the Christian trinitarian view of three persons sharing one nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
Posted by: TRev (Lindsay) Jan 6 2006, 06:29 PM
"Wikkipedia"? To which I have contributed, IMO, it is a source of very valuable opinions, and some "fact fundamentals"... It is not, IMO, an infallible source, yet. Agreed?
G-D, G-d, g-d
BTW, what it says about panentheism/unitheism is VERY good stuff. It builds on theism, IMO, but it is definitly more than the classic-kind of monontheism/theism--the kind of Santa-Claus monotheism in which I was raised. This is why I sought another kind of theism. Then I found panentheism, or, to avoid confusion with pantheism, I like to call/unitheism--a new way of describing and/or defining god.
This kind of thinking led me to using the following ways of writing the divine names: When I wish to refer to that which is infinite and eternal in nature and being, I write it as G-D. When I wish to refer to that which is family and community, I write it, as do Orthodox Jews, G-d. When I wish to refer to that which is in you and me, as individuals, I write it as g-d. This reminds me of a Sanskrit word, nameste. It means that the g-d in me sees the g-d in you.
• Theism, a term that usually refers to the belief in a 'personal' god, that is a single god with a distinctive personality, rather than just a divine force. http://www.theism.info/
• Deism is a form of monotheism in which it is believed that one god exists, but that God does not intervene in the world, beyond what was necessary for him to create it (no answering prayers or causing miracles). http://www.deism.com/
• Pantheism holds that the Universe is God. Depending on how this is understood, such a view may be tantamount to atheism, deism or theism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
• Panentheism is a form of theism that holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. This is also the view of Process theology. http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/panentheism.html
http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Monotheism/
The word 'monotheism" comes from two Greek words: Monos which means 'one' and Theos which means 'God'. In other words monotheists believe in only one god.
Roman Catholic monotheism http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm
Islamic monotheism http://www.al-sunnah.com/50q.htm
Islam claims to be the TRUE religion http://www.islamworld.net/true.html
The word unitheism is made up of two words 'uni' meaning one and theism meaning 'god'. Although some unitheist pretend otherwise this logically means that unitheists believe in one god in the same manner that mono theists believe in one god. If they wish, as some have noted, to separate themselves from theists they must begin with their name. Believers in one god--uni theists--who claim they are not theists fail to convince anyone but themselves.
Yes, there are many flavours of theism as the above linked article outlines. But they are only different in the spin each choose to put on their belief in one god. The squabbles between the various theistic religions are, in effect, a family fight. Often times it comes down to whether you think god is more immanent than transcedent, or is learning or all knowing, is personal or non personal. These kinds of disputes have been going on since time out of mind and show little evidence of being resolved any time soon.
Beyond theism there are really only, broadly speaking, a few other options available to us all. One is polytheism, a belief in many gods or at least more than one god; atheism is another, which is a belief in or rejection of all gods and, finally, agnosticism--a reasonable belief, in my opinion--which is the attitude that it is impossible to choose or know on evidence or proofs whether there is or is not a god or gods or no god[s], or even which one of the theistic faiths tells it most like it is.
A number of uni theists who have made the mistake of assuming monotheism is synonomous with belief in a personal God, may wish to read the following linked articles on the various forms of monotheism including pan en theism which some uni theist claim is really just another name for uni theism.
The form of monotheism which is traditionally most common in the West (and which is too often confused with theism in general) is the belief in a personal god which emphasizes that this god is a conscious mind that is immanent in nature, humanity, and the values which it has created. This is unfortunate, because it fails to acknowledge the existence of great variety not only within monotheism generally, but also within monotheism in the West.
http://atheism.about.com/od/theismtheists/...smvarieties.htm
...I understand what Farr, pave and TRev are saying, in no way is unitheism a doublet of monotheism, anymore than panentheism is.
Panentheists developed the word 'panentheism' because 'monotheism' failed to serve the purpose. Mono is a very singular concept; uni is a very universal one. This is why Unitarians prefer being called Unitarians and not Trinitarians.
• Theism is a term that refers to the belief in the existence of a god or divine being.
•
• Deism is a form of monotheism in which it is believed that one god exists. However, a deist rejects the idea that this god intervenes in the world. Hence any notion of special revelation is impossible, and the nature of god can only be known through reason and observation from nature. A deist thus rejects the miraculous, and the claim to knowledge made for religious groups and texts.
•
• Monistic Theism is the type of monotheism found in Hinduism. This type of theism is different from the Semitic religions as it encompasses pantheism, monism, and at the same time includes the concept of a personal God as an universal, omnipotent supreme being. The other types of monotheism are qualified monism, the school of Ramanuja or Vishishtadvaita, which admits that the universe is part of God, or Narayana, a type of panentheism, but there is a plurality of souls within this supreme Being and Dvaita, which differs in that it is dualistic, as God is separate and not panentheistic.
•
• Pantheism holds that the Universe itself is God. The existence of a transcendent supreme extraneous to nature is denied. Depending on how this is understood, such a view may be presented as tantamount to atheism, deism or theism.
•
• Panentheism, or Monistic Monotheism, is a form of theism that holds that God contains, but is not identical to, the Universe. The One God is omnipotent and all-pervading, the universe is part of God, and God is both Immanent and Transcendent. This is also the view of Process theology and also Vishistadvaita Vedanta Hinduism. According to this school, from Ramanuja, the universe is part of God but God is not equal to the universe but in fact transcends it as well. However, unlike Process theology, God in Vishistadvaita Vedanta Hinduism is omnipotent. Panentheism is thought of as "God is within the universe as the soul is within the body".
•
• Substance monotheism, found e.g. in some indigenous African religions, holds that the many gods are different forms of a single underlying substance, and that this underlying substance is God. This view has vague similarities to the Christian trinitarian view of three persons sharing one nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism
Posted by: TRev (Lindsay) Jan 6 2006, 06:29 PM
"Wikkipedia"? To which I have contributed, IMO, it is a source of very valuable opinions, and some "fact fundamentals"... It is not, IMO, an infallible source, yet. Agreed?
G-D, G-d, g-d
BTW, what it says about panentheism/unitheism is VERY good stuff. It builds on theism, IMO, but it is definitly more than the classic-kind of monontheism/theism--the kind of Santa-Claus monotheism in which I was raised. This is why I sought another kind of theism. Then I found panentheism, or, to avoid confusion with pantheism, I like to call/unitheism--a new way of describing and/or defining god.
This kind of thinking led me to using the following ways of writing the divine names: When I wish to refer to that which is infinite and eternal in nature and being, I write it as G-D. When I wish to refer to that which is family and community, I write it, as do Orthodox Jews, G-d. When I wish to refer to that which is in you and me, as individuals, I write it as g-d. This reminds me of a Sanskrit word, nameste. It means that the g-d in me sees the g-d in you.
The exhibition is from March 20th until March 25th, and the opening is on the 22nd from 6:00-9:00 pm.
"Random Thought Generator"
Hey Reverend,
If your into great intellectual art, the York University MFA's (myself included) are having a group exhibition in March at the new gallery in the new Accolade West building. You and yours are more than welcome to the opening or even just to casually stop by at some point during the week.... Give me the date. Both my children, Catherine (Dance and Drama), and Turner King (music and education), are fine arts graduates of York University.
"Random Thought Generator"
QUOTE(Lindsay @ Feb 23, 10:37 PM)
QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Feb 23, 02:55 PM)
Hey Reverend,
If your into great intellectual art, the York University MFA's (myself included) are having a group exhibition in March at the new gallery in the new Accolade West building. You and yours are more than welcome to the opening or even just to casually stop by at some point during the week....
Reverend,
You might be interested in the writings of 'Hermes Trismegistus' (1399 - 1257 BC).
He was an Egyptian sage, philosopher and theologian. He was best known for making the inference "As Above, So Below", refencing the relationship between macrocosm and microcosm (the big picture and the small picture). He was refered to by many as 'God's messenger'.
He was also a purported contemporary of the Egyptian and Hebrew prophet Moses (1392 - 1272 BC), and like Moses received his divine revelations directly from God. These revelations, according to some historical accounts, were purportedly later assimilated and fully explained by Christianity and were paralled by Moses' own divine revelations.
You might be interested in the writings of 'Hermes Trismegistus' (1399 - 1257 BC).
He was an Egyptian sage, philosopher and theologian. He was best known for making the inference "As Above, So Below", refencing the relationship between macrocosm and microcosm (the big picture and the small picture). He was refered to by many as 'God's messenger'.
He was also a purported contemporary of the Egyptian and Hebrew prophet Moses (1392 - 1272 BC), and like Moses received his divine revelations directly from God. These revelations, according to some historical accounts, were purportedly later assimilated and fully explained by Christianity and were paralled by Moses' own divine revelations.
TLID, you write:
Reverend, You might be interested in the writings of 'Hermes Trismegistus' (1399 - 1257 BC).....He was also a purported contemporary of the Egyptian and Hebrew prophet Moses (1392 - 1272 BC), and like Moses received his divine revelations directly from God.... Which poses the question: What do we mean by "divine revelations"?
In my humble opinion, there is no personal god who goes around revealing, arbitrarily, that which is physically, mentally and spiritually true to a select few. However, it is possible that there are certain individuals who are willing to make themselves willing vessels to receive that which is true. I am willing. How about you?
QUOTE(Trip like I do @ Feb 26, 10:04 AM)
Reverend, You might be interested in the writings of 'Hermes Trismegistus' (1399 - 1257 BC).....He was also a purported contemporary of the Egyptian and Hebrew prophet Moses (1392 - 1272 BC), and like Moses received his divine revelations directly from God....
In my humble opinion, there is no personal god who goes around revealing, arbitrarily, that which is physically, mentally and spiritually true to a select few. However, it is possible that there are certain individuals who are willing to make themselves willing vessels to receive that which is true. I am willing. How about you?
who decides what is true?
QUOTE(maximus242 @ Feb 26, 04:20 PM)
who decides what is true?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.