Religion

okasha

(11,573 posts)

19. I thought you meant panentheism,

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:35 AM

Feb 2013

but wanted to be sure. We agree there completely.

Sorry if I was a bit nebulous on the second question. Let me preface this by saying that I don't beleve in «the supernatural.» If God/energy/pneuma/spirit exists, then God/energy/pneuma/spirit is itself natural. I have seen Native and other holy men and women perform ritual acts in which they invoked this energy/pneuma through specific avatars. Eagle, say, or Sun or Changing Woman. These rutual acts have produced physically percrptible effects, from staunching bleeding to jump-starting failed organs. Other ceremonies have other purposes.

It seems to me that these phenomena are possible precisely because the same underlying energy/pneuma runs through patient, healer, and the avatar invoked. In effect, it is energy/pneuma acting upon itself to restore sophia, justice, dharma, hozho, grace, whayever a given culture calls it. Does this fit in with the concepts you'e describing?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The God problem (part 2) [View all] Thats my opinion Feb 2013 OP

This is not significantly different rrneck Feb 2013 #1

Everything is energy of one form or another Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #2

A D please reread Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #3

The problem I have with this that if you are trying to look at something in a different way Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #4

Significant statement ! Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #6

You are assuming that 'love' started with religion Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #9

Since most people use the word God with some sort of meaning Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #11

See that is a lot of the problem Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #15

A remarkable post Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #16

I do get very angry... trotsky Feb 2013 #41

Feel good about yourself skepticscott Feb 2013 #24

And still managed a dig at "non-religious bigots" who dare to question the Great One. mr blur Feb 2013 #27

And I don't even think he realizes skepticscott Feb 2013 #30

........... Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #31

In the end, what difference does it make? BlueStreak Feb 2013 #28

It would be a lot more fun Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #38

If I'm reading you correctly okasha Feb 2013 #5

Very, very close to what I mean. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #7

That brings me to rwo more questions,then. okasha Feb 2013 #13

Coextensive many be a limiting word. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #17

I thought you meant panentheism, okasha Feb 2013 #19

Try this definition from Tom Hayden Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #42

Thanks. okasha Feb 2013 #45

The problem is you're trying to pass off as some "new revelation of God" Leontius Feb 2013 #8

You got it ! Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #10

A great post for the Religion group goldent Feb 2013 #12

I find the field you are describing fascinating. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #18

There is a philosophical theory that is something like your idea about the nature of matter. Jim__ Feb 2013 #20

Even if you accept that notion skepticscott Feb 2013 #23

I was talking about the human understanding of the nature of matter. Jim__ Feb 2013 #25

And that understanding skepticscott Feb 2013 #29

I hadn't heard of that before, but it seems right goldent Feb 2013 #34

May the Force be with you! backscatter712 Feb 2013 #14

The similarities have been remarked on before muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #52

For those who care, it's the first chapter of Colossians, not the second muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #21

Whoops! Typo. Of course it is Colossians 1 Thanks for trhe correction nt Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #40

However, you're still not addressing the problems of quoting a believer in the person of God muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #47

Colossians as two foci--parrticularly in this first poetic chapter. Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #51

Perhaps you could explain again skepticscott Feb 2013 #22

Sounds like you are discribing "the ether" edhopper Feb 2013 #26

Charles, you were right. I did "predict" you would say some of those things. SarahM32 Feb 2013 #32

There's that phrase skepticscott Feb 2013 #33

We shouldn't assume this isn't "Joseph Adamson" making the posts himself muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #35

Exactly skepticscott Feb 2013 #36

With that most recent post, it seems very likely to be Adamson himself. trotsky Feb 2013 #37

Indeed; I notice he's now taken the Adamson name off the bottom of the website pages muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #54

So with this I assume you have formally abandoned your first thread... trotsky Feb 2013 #39

Hmm... Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #43

Please, TMO skepticscott Feb 2013 #44

Ancient history, literary criticism and Biblical indterpretation Thats my opinion Feb 2013 #46

It's even more amazing okasha Feb 2013 #49

Ok, perhaps you might elaborate. Warren Stupidity Feb 2013 #50

hate to say it but this was glaring. a sore thumb Phillip McCleod Feb 2013 #53

Very interesting deutsey Feb 2013 #48