Vancouver (photo from trekearth.com)
All is one and one for all. The Guru Musketeer
From:
http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html
Pantheism
D.A. Carson stated:
Once again, there are many variations. The heart of the matter, however, is that this structure of thought insists that "god" and the universe are one. There is no chasm between creator and created. All that is, is god; god is whatever is.
In this worldview, not only adopted by most Hindus but the working assumption of the entire New Age movement, god is not a transcendent "other" who is personal, who can come from beyond to help us. The entire universe belongs to one order. Within this universe, however, there are levels of attainment. What Christians see as sin or evil, pantheists are likely to see as imperfections in reality that need to be removed by progressive self-realization, progressive self-improvement. The goal of human beings is not to have their sins forgiven and to be reconciled to a God who holds them to account, but to spiral up the cycle of life, perhaps through reincarnation, but certainly through meditation, self-focus, self-improvement. Carson (1990: 32)
Simon Blackburn stated concerning pantheism: "The view that God is in everything, or that God and the universe are one." Blackburn (1996: 276)
There are two major reasons why I, philosophically, dismiss pantheism. One, to me it is illogical to propose that an impersonal God can create, or somehow cause, personal beings. It makes sense that an infinite personal being could create finite personal beings with some similar characteristics, but for an impersonal being to create beings with personality seems untenable.
Two, Carson mentioned that the removal of evil in pantheism is believed to take place through self-progression. Without an objective personal God, however, what basis does pantheism have to call something evil? How is pantheism to determine what is out of order with the cosmic order? It would seem to me that an impersonal "it" that creates the Universe does not have character and is amoral, and thus it is neither good nor evil. The cosmos resulting from it would be amoral and nothing should be seen as evil within it.
It should be noted that there is a difference between God being in everything in pantheism, and God being omnipresent in Christianity. Pantheism assumes monism, God and Universe are one, God is everywhere and in everything so that each human being is in fact God. Christianity assumes God is everywhere but yet separate from his creation. What is the difference? Why am I not God? God is present where my spirit and body are present, yet he wills that I have a will separate from his, a life separate from his, the same is true for all his created beings. Therefore, I could, hypothetically, think that there is no God. As well, I could disobey him and sin.
Whereas in pantheism, those who do wrong are considered to be misunderstanding what they are a part of, however, I think this is untenable. If indeed we were part of God we could not depart from what we were, and there would be no fracture. The fact that we sin demonstrates that although God is infinite we still have the power to will not to be one with him in obedience, and thus evil exists.
The evil that exists in the world is a much greater testament to human separation from God as opposed to the concept of human union with God with misunderstanding. Human beings sin against God because their will is apart from him although his infinite being is always present, however, he can be present yet still have disobedience exist in his creation.
To make a convincing argument of how humanity, being divinity, fails to realize this fact and act accordingly, is very difficult. For divinity to remain pure and able to reincarnate human beings, for example, seems almost intellectually impossible to accomplish, when human beings within divinity continue to commit wrong actions. Pantheism does not make sense because it fails to separate God’s nature from that of his creation. If the nature was indeed the same, there would be no fracture.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Pantheism, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
Please leave a comment.
However, if you want to be an evil clown on this blog. I probably will not publish your comment.;)
A photo by Sherry from Facebook. At Christmas time she is asking me to smile...
I think I needed a shave. Once I have my sleep apnea related surgery for a receding jaw, I shall have a new less 'kingpinnish' look. The lower mandible bone will be moved forward and my face will be restructured. I will appear to have more of a neck, although it is presently 20 inches in circumference. I take it the circumference of my neck is so large at the present that it contributes very much to my serious sleep apnea problems.
From:
http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol2/circumference.html
My neck, sort of...
The distance around a circle is called the circumference. The distance across a circle through the center is called the diameter. Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. Thus, for any circle, if you divide the circumference by the diameter, you get a value close to Pi.
The radius of a circle is the distance from the center of a circle to any point on the circle. If you place two radii end-to-end in a circle, you would have the same length as one diameter. Thus, the diameter of a circle is twice as long as the radius.
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/04/presumed-funny-
celebrity-statements.html
