What am I?

Like so many, I am a searcher and am learning about Panendeism and the realm of belief and thoughts of people who identify with that word.

I'm a little stuck on what to call myself. I believe in a God (though that word has been corrupted in so many ways) that is manifest both in everything we see and experience but that also extends far beyond that. To my understanding this is the "Panen..." part of the picture.

The Deist vs. Theist is hard for me. I believe that the nature of the Divine is available not only through reason and experience but that phenemena that many call "supernatural" are also touches with the Divine. I find ancient sources of wisdom useful though not absolute.

What should I be calling myself?

Hello Negoba and welcome.

The labeling of beliefs is not an exact science but there are some basic outlines that can help to illustrate the difference between broad categories such as Deism and Theism.

For one, deists tend to prefer a methodology based on reason and free choice where theists often lean on tradition, dogma, authority and faith.

Metaphysically most deists tend to believe in a god that doesn't interfere with the laws of nature and see god in transpersonal or nonpersonal terms. Theists often believe in a personal god that is involved in our lives on a daily basis.

Welcome!
Just out of interest what kind of "supernatural" occurrences do you suspect might take place within this universe?

I'm certain of few things....one of them is that God is like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. No one person has the whole answer but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

"supernatural" definitely deserves quotes as it all depends on what's natural to the observer. Quantum mechanics is beyond supernatural to more of our conceptions of reality.

I've had many epiphany moments in my life. Many could be explained by my own reason but many cannot. I believe in a personal God because I've had some personal experiences of the presence of God. (Which I believe all would if we just opened ourselves in the right way)

I've had one "contact with spirits" episode. It was random and strange but the odds of it happening by chance are as low as the chance of life happening by pure chance. Zero.

Thanks for the welcome and I'll be exploring the site and probably leave comments here and there.

I have more questions than answers to be certain, though I've lived long enough to have had a few contacts with the elephant.

Negoba wrote:

The Deist vs. Theist is hard for me. I believe that the nature of the Divine is available not only through reason and experience but that phenemena that many call "supernatural" are also touches with the Divine. I find ancient sources of wisdom useful though not absolute.

What should I be calling myself?

Since time began, there's been only one gage on which to judge whether you're on the right path or not--Truth. Certainly some ancients possessed wisdom, and the way to tell which ones did is if they passed the test of Truth over those centuries. Otherwise, more than likely they were just earlier versions of what we call today, power grubbing evangelists. If they used vague language and generalities, then how were they different from fortune tellers and mediums?

Sorry to be abrupt, (I'm usually not that way ). But welcome to the board.

Truth is a tricky word.

I believe in it, but do not pretend to fully understand it.

Vague language and generalities are certainly a tool of charlatans, but some aspects of truth do defy the limits of language.

Interesting Neboga.

I mean many deists upon hearing of the presence of God would want normal scientific verification, i.e., has the presence or internvention of the supernatural been verified in normal channels, i.e. by the verification of at least one other person.

If it was just an individual relationship that cannot be verified then it cannot be verified.

I think Paine comments on that a few times.

Having said that, that is not saying that a God or supernatural experience cannot be experienced by an individual. Only to say that, such an individual experience that cannot be verified is not acceptable in the scientific sense to verify or disprove something. Whether that's important or not, I don't know.

In fact, I think we've discussed this issue on various friendly deist boards before as to whether God could "whisper" to you.

It is a fascinating area!

My own gut feeling at this point is that if God is truth and truth is God and you have an ephiphany of truth then you certainly become in tune with God's wavelength or whatever. But I would still strictly hold to the non-intervention of God in this universe.

By the way welcome. Whether you are a deist or a theist, hope you find some of the discussions to your interest.

Negoba wrote:

Truth is a tricky word.

Yes it can be, especially in the hands of those who want to avoid it. For a reasonable denouement, google Truth: Resuming the Age of Reason. It's short, but longer than most message board structures allow.

I found that but it costs money which I will probably cough up once I'm done with current reading, which is a "Essential Ken Wilber" as one of attempts to catch up.

I also found this which seems pretty much like me:

http://www.theosophical.org/about/about_theo.php

Maybe I'm a theosophist

Theosophy is believing in any mystic idea you want. Not that it's not possible (I'd give it a .0000001% chance), it's just that you can't tell if it's real or just your mind playing games with you. This last is the best reason to at least dismiss it if not completely discount it.

I'm a deist, a panendeist, a pantheist, a veritologist, an epistemologist, a teleologist, an agnostic and I can't dismiss atheism. Pursuing any of these reason based philosophical endeavors offers unlimited mystery and the near certainty of fulfillment.

Negoba wrote:

I found that but it costs money which I will probably cough up once I'm done with current reading, which is a "Essential Ken Wilber" as one of attempts to catch up.

I also found this which seems pretty much like me:

http://www.theosophical.org/about/about_theo.php

Maybe I'm a theosophist

As far as Ken Wilber is concerned I would recommend "Integral Spirituality" as well. It's a very good read.

Regarding Theosophy, IMO it's a type of Panentheism. There are many aspects of it that I like but there are certain aspects that just seemed too "New Agey" and even cult like for me. There are certain things like immortality, literal reincarnation and karma that I just haven't seen enough evidence for to say I believe in. I don't discredit them but at this point I'm agnostic regarding such topics.

I looked up Theosophy again and this is their Emblem...


I thought Paineful would get a kick out of it.

There are two schools: Theosophy and Universalism that have aspects that really appeal to me. But both start to get very specific about their respective models and that's when I start to get uncertain. The link above has some things that really resonate with me:

-One Life pervades and sustains the universe.

-The universe is the manifestation of an eternal, boundless and immutable Reality beyond the range of human understanding.

(This is something that bothers me about Deism, limiting ourself to our own human Reason which is inherently finite and limited. At the same time I don't like the tone that things are completely beyond understanding, but I truly believe it is impossible for a human to wrap his mind around the totality of Truth)

-An intelligence that is both immanent and transcendent is the basis of all laws of nature.

(I love this - both immanent and transcendent)

-The entire system of the universe, visible and invisible, is the scene of a great scheme of evolution, in which life moves to ever more expressive form, more responsive awareness, and more unified consciousness.

(This is pretty conjectural IMO, but points and some aspect of Truth)

-The human consciousness (also called spirit or soul) is in essence identical with the one supreme Reality, which Ralph Waldo Emerson called the "Oversoul," including each of our particular beings and uniting us with one another.

(This is far from particular to Theosophy)

-The human pilgrimage takes us from our source in the One through experience of the many, back to union with the One Divine Reality. Our goal is thus to complete the cosmic cycle of manifestation with full conscious realization of ourselves, no longer polarized between consciousness and matter or divided into self and other, but unified within and united with all other beings through our common Source. This realization is enlightenment

My favorite new analogy stolen from some ancient's better rendered parable is that we are all raindrops, borne of the vast ocean, destined to return to it, even in apparent separation one with it in identity.

Interestingly enough, I've been nosing into Paine as well. Part of his creed really resonated with me:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

It doesn't take long for him to turn to his attack mode, using sarcasm as a sword. He is more interested in power than anything else, as evidenced by his political activity. And though I might lean to his side if forced to choose, I firmly believe in a third way. Never engage the warrior. Sidestep, change the game, war and power struggles are a contest of lose-lose or at best zero-sum activity. I'm not interested in those activities. Life is dependent, and the highest potential of existence derives from symbiotic co-existence. i.e. Win-win situations.

Paine is not about win-win situations.

I have more to read, more to learn before I get too critical. I should also remember to evaluate him within his own context rather than the one of my own personal thought.

Yes I agree more or less with pretty much all of those quotes.

Negoba wrote:

(This is something that bothers me about Deism, limiting ourself to our own human Reason which is inherently finite and limited. At the same time I don't like the tone that things are completely beyond understanding, but I truly believe it is impossible for a human to wrap his mind around the totality of Truth)

IMO Deism is based on a methodology of logical reasoning but it's not limited to pure reason. (Although there are many deists who would probably disagree with me on that.) I think intuition and direct experience should also play a major role in one's spirituality.

Negoba wrote:

It doesn't take long for him to turn to his attack mode...

Yes I agree with you about Paine. He was what we call a "negative" deist. I don't personally like that approach myself but I recognize that it does serve a purpose. Especially for those who have just left or are thinking about leaving a dogmatic religion.

Negoba wrote:

I have more to read, more to learn before I get too critical. I should also remember to evaluate him within his own context rather than the one of my own personal thought.

Yes that's a very important point to remember. Paine was writing during a time when there still really wasn't a separation of church and state in most countries in the developed world. Even in the U.S. "blue laws" held a powerful grip despite what was written in the Constitution.

Quote :

(This is something that bothers me about Deism, limiting ourself to our own human Reason which is inherently finite and limited.)

I see what you're saying but IMO it's not so much that deists limit themselves to human reason as opposed to using human reason or applying human reason. So it's not that we're limited to human reason, but that we use human reason.

So for instance, if some one says that someone came back from the dead, for instance, a deist would say, well I don't literally believe that because we've never seen an animal come back from the dead (and I define dead as lack of appropriate brain signals).

Yet at the same time deists can conjecture other universives and the existence of God. But for most deists such a beliefs would not require us to suspend our reasoning, as some theist religions do, not to knock them, though.

Aaron wrote:

I looked up Theosophy again and this is their Emblem...


I thought Paineful would get a kick out of it.

Truth and a hoopsnake on the same emblem. Kinda says it all.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Aaron wrote:

I looked up Theosophy again and this is their Emblem...


I thought Paineful would get a kick out of it.

Truth and a hoopsnake on the same emblem. Kinda says it all.

You missed the Swastika.

i will call you Negoba...try it.