Atheism

[bhsmte]

(I'm not sure if I should start a separate topic for this question, but I'll try asking it here first.)

If a person has never seen any evidence for God personally, then should that person be an atheist? I'm asking this because when I have tried to find out why people believe in their religion I get nothing. Most of these people seem intelligent, educated, and mentally stable. Why aren't they atheists? What is their excuse for believing in a religion - particularly a religion that claims to be superior to other religions? Of course I know many people were indoctrinated from childhood. That is understandable. But others actually converted as adults. I don't get it.

The answer to your question is related specifically to an individuals psychological need. We all have unique psychological needs and with some, believing that someone is looking out for them and that there is a paradise after death, is a comfort they need personally. Nothing wrong with it and it does not mean they are psychologically weak.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by andy b

when i first came on to this forum atheist posters really annoyed me.Im kind of new to this and i saw them as a fly in the ointment so to speak in developing my faith.Ive changed my view on this and i actually like reading some of there posts and am glad there here.If God created everything then they should be embraced as part of the plan.

The thing with the INTERNET is you only see part of someones persona, they may come across as the anti christ but in real life they may be a pussycat with a heart of gold.
​

Too true. A friend of mine is a super nice guy, but I found him in an on-line forum a few years ago being very negative toward believers. I never let him know I saw his posts.

That has also been my experience with non-Christians and even other religons.


.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A form asking for religious belief would need a check box for atheist/none.

And you made a good point about the importance of materialism, secular humanism, pantheism, and other things for many atheists.

What do you think about the idea that everybody is a mix of several mutually exclusive religions? 7

Based on some of what you said, there was something another noted best that would probably answer some of your thoughts on the issue of how one can be atheist and yet reflective of something else as well....going in line with the thought that there are many differing types of atheists....

And there is more to religion than belief in God. For Religion is text, tradition, ritual, moral teaching, culture, and community plus (usually) belief in one or more deities - or lack, thereof, of beliefs in gods/deities....

And atheism can qualify:

• Atheists are Believers | Nonreligion and Secularity

As said there, for a brief excerpt:

Scientific atheism is a product of Enlightenment rationalism and Victorian Darwinism, grounding the critique of religion in the natural sciences and considering it a false explanation of nature that is superseded by modern science. Religion, from this point of view, is strictly a matter of belief. Humanistic atheism is a product of the emergent social sciences of the mid-19th century, particularly Marxism, grounding the critique of religion in a conception of social justice and considering it a manifestation of, and response to, alienation and suffering. From this perspective religion is a social phenomenon rather than a matter of individual beliefs. These two traditions are not mutually exclusive, but they do involve very different understandings of the nature of religion and its functions at the individual and societal levels.

Atheism may be a rejection of religion, then, but there is a reason for this rejection, and historically these reasons have been tied to intellectual and social developments. At the most basic level, this rejection is typically grounded in one of these two belief systems, or at least some version thereof. For example, New Atheism can clearly be situated within the tradition of scientific atheism. It is a Darwinistic social philosophy that constructs a vision of the evolution of modern societies from barbarism (characterized by religion and superstition) to civilization (characterized by scientism). The ideological bias for scientism is evident in the New Atheist authors’ puzzling over what evolutionary and neuro-chemical processes may be responsible for differences in religiosity among individuals. That these individuals are situated in cultural, historical, and geographic contexts, and that patterns of religiosity can be discerned with respect to these contexts, is rarely considered. Because the New Atheists are already committed to the answer before they investigate the question (the answer is that religion strictly involves beliefs that exist within individual minds, or cognitive processes emerging from physical structures molded by natural selection), they miss some answers that are much more satisfying and much less dependent on conjecture. Their failure – or unwillingness – to recognize the obvious social and cultural nature of religion is stunning....

.....I have found that if you talk to an atheist about why they don’t believe in God, you will naturally come to what they do believe. This matter of what atheists believe is a significant issue for researchers in this field, which to this point has concentrated more on the ‘negative’ (or negating) aspects of atheism – certainly a worthwhile line of inquiry – with much less emphasis on the ‘positive’ ideologies this negation is rooted in, particularly with respect to their political dimensions. Atheism does not exist independently of other beliefs, and therefore it is not analytically useful or valid to try to study atheism strictly as negation, absence, or rejection, independently of these beliefs. Atheism is itself a kind of belief (or many kinds of belief), in both historical and contemporary discourse and practice.

There may be those who don’t believe in God, or are simply not interested in religion and have no real opinion on the matter, but these are just non-believers. Applying the term ‘atheist’ in these cases is not useful or analytically precise because atheism has never been simply a lack of religious belief. For this reason I think the term ‘atheist’ is best reserved for ‘active’ atheists, or those who participate to some extent in organized atheism (LeDrew 2013a, Hunsberger and Altemeyer 2006).

Religion by definition is ‘a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.’ ‘Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.’



Atheism is defined by religion, but it is not the opposite of religion. Technically, as it concerns forms of belief, everyone is born atheist, just as everyone is born human. Some people end up developing into religions that go opposite of religions that are expressions of atheism (lack of belief in gods or goddesses and divine beings) whereas others go into religions that ZEALOUSLY feel lack of belief in gods/goddesses is to be affirmed in life (atheism in expression) - and some are atheists in the beginning sense that they don't know what they believe at all.

It is kind of like humans and hats, as all humans are born without hats, just as all humans are born without religion. ...and some humans have hats put on their heads pretty soon after birth, but they are not born that way. But if you came into a point of life where you chose to make wearing hats an official way others were supposed to live, then you'd be a part of an official system of thought that's a religion - while going on the opposite end of the spectrum with dogmatism would mean you chose a religion just as much....but you all began at some point with having a belief in nothing - which at some level is where everyone starts in life. With the religious forms of atheism, we can see this in 1940, Congress attempted to define religion in a provision exempting certain individuals from the Draft (Selective Service Act, 1948) - exempting military service from anyone who felt that to do such would conflict with their religious belief...but the Court later expanded the meaning of the term "religion" in the Draft Law to include "non-religious belief".. ... This broadened definition has been applied in other free exercise clause cases as well (Torcaso v. Watkins 495; Pfeffer 1967, 608-609). Even atheism and agnosticism are now "religious" beliefs under this view of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment .




Being an atheist does not mean "If a religion says X then I should believe the opposite." For just because a religion says something doesn't mean that an atheist must automatically believe the opposite - nor does it mean that because an atheist believes differently means that atheism is not a religion, seeing how there are already groups of atheists who organize together and dogmatically claim god/gods and divine beings cannot exist and claim to know more than other - and when they try to enforce those beliefs in certain sectors, they fulfill the definitions of being a religion. In many respects, Atheism is not the opposite of religion, siince there are atheist religions such as Buddhism and atheist religious cults such as Raelianism and mock religions too such ..


So it's possible to be an atheist who hasn't chosen a religious system - but it's also the case that atheism can be/has been seen as a religion the moment things become dogmatic (on the belief of gods/goddesses not being real) and there's fighting against others systematically and organizing against those who feel different. Secular Humanism being an example of that..

 

[gord44]

The answer to your question is related specifically to an individuals psychological need. We all have unique psychological needs and with some, believing that someone is looking out for them and that there is a paradise after death, is a comfort they need personally. Nothing wrong with it and it does not mean they are psychologically weak.

Sometimes true but not always the case. I was fine being an atheist at one time and agnostic at other times. I actually preferred not believing in paradise after death or that someone was looking after me, but alas, it was not to be....when the Holy Spirit fell upon me as i sat by myself, what i wanted was no longer the reality.

 

[bhsmte]

Sometimes true but not always the case. I was fine being an atheist at one time and agnostic at other times. I actually preferred not believing in paradise after death or that someone was looking after me, but alas, it was not to be....when the Holy Spirit fell upon me as i sat by myself, what i wanted was no longer the reality.

Sure, you can't toss everyone in the same boat, because psychological needs are unique and can change over a persons lifetime. Hence, some people go from non-believer to believer and some go from believer to non-believer, with that latter, being more common these days.

 

[dlamberth]

Sure, you can't toss everyone in the same boat, because psychological needs are unique and can change over a persons lifetime. Hence, some people go from non-believer to believer and some go from believer to non-believer, with that latter, being more common these days.

I think what's most common these days is someone going from believer to non-believer to a believer again only way different than before.

.

 

[bhsmte]

I think what's most common these days is someone going from believer to non-believer to a believer again only way different than before.

.

If by going back to a believer you mean a believer in a personal God, the studies would not support that, for the last several decades. I would agree, some who go from believer to non-believer may end up latching onto some type of spirituality, but more people are trending away from belief in a God, than the opposite.

 

[seashale76]

(I'm not sure if I should start a separate topic for this question, but I'll try asking it here first.)

If a person has never seen any evidence for God personally, then should that person be an atheist? I'm asking this because when I have tried to find out why people believe in their religion I get nothing. Most of these people seem intelligent, educated, and mentally stable. Why aren't they atheists? What is their excuse for believing in a religion - particularly a religion that claims to be superior to other religions? Of course I know many people were indoctrinated from childhood. That is understandable. But others actually converted as adults. I don't get it.

One reason is because quite a few of these people have personal experiences of a spiritual nature that are convincing to them. They know that telling a skeptic of their experience/s won't convince that person of anything.

 

[gord44]

One reason is because quite a few of these people have personal experiences of a spiritual nature that are convincing to them. They know that telling a skeptic of their experience/s won't convince that person of anything.

Yes. I came to the Lord as an adult. My parents were not really Christians. Personal experience is what brought me around to believing. I didnt want to but really had no choice if I wanted to be spiritually honest with myself. The blessings since have been extraordinary.

 

[cloudyday2]

One reason is because quite a few of these people have personal experiences of a spiritual nature that are convincing to them. They know that telling a skeptic of their experience/s won't convince that person of anything.

I can understand why a believer might not want to share the details, but I think believers should at least provide an overview of their evidence. For example, they can say "I heard a voice 3 times, I saw an apparition 2 times, I felt very inspired in church 6 times, I overcame hatred for some person, I experienced 4 synchronicities, ...".

At least that gives people an idea of the believer's motivations. Otherwise it seems like they are believing simply because they like to believe.

 

[seashale76]

I can understand why a believer might not want to share the details, but I think believers should at least provide an overview of their evidence. For example, they can say "I heard a voice 3 times, I saw an apparition 2 times, I felt very inspired in church 6 times, I overcame hatred for some person, I experienced 4 synchronicities, ...".

At least that gives people an idea of the believer's motivations. Otherwise it seems like they are believing simply because they like to believe.

And- being told anything of this nature by someone would be convincing to you? Forgive me for feeling doubtful on that. Usually people justify it as being a nice story but all in the believer's head, and then will go on to express the sentiment that as long as they're getting something good out of their faith, then it is mostly alright. Knowing their motivations would likely change nothing for you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Really now? Who is Christianity's Deadliest Enemy?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7820614/

I don't make a habit of relying on forum threads as the determining, foundational factors that form the basis of my theology.

According to St. Paul the "final enemy", man's most virulent opponent, is in fact death. Mortality, the cessation of existence, entropy, etc. Overcome in and by resurrection.

Atheists aren't my enemy.
I wouldn't even classify atheism as my enemy.

Other Christians may and do think differently. Well that's them, not me. My interest isn't to engage in a pointless, artificially constructed "culture war" with Christian "good guys" and non-Christian "bad guys" duking it out because we need some sort of societal champion, or ruling ideology to govern our civilization. I really couldn't give a rat's fart whether or not "In God we trust" is on the coins I use to buy those 50 cent "Whoa!" stickers at the grocery store.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dlamberth]

If by going back to a believer you mean a believer in a personal God, the studies would not support that, for the last several decades. I would agree, some who go from believer to non-believer may end up latching onto some type of spirituality, but more people are trending away from belief in a God, than the opposite.

I purposely wrote "way different than before" because when folks come back to the Divine experience, for them the image of God or the Divine is not at all as it was before. I'm a perfect example. God to me now is more of a Panentheist experience and my life is way more spiritual and a lot different than before. And when I look at it, I see that my old mental concepts of God, and even the word "God" in a lot of ways don't work for me any more. Yet, I'd say that I'm a believer because today I'm fully aware of a cosmic wide Divine expression with in life itSelf that is so much greater than myself. And I know that I'm not alone in this.

.

 

[light upon light]

Yes. I came to the Lord as an adult. My parents were not really Christians. Personal experience is what brought me around to believing. I didnt want to but really had no choice if I wanted to be spiritually honest with myself. The blessings since have been extraordinary.

I'd be very interested to hear more about the blessings you've been experiencing!

 

[KCfromNC]

Seeing that other alternatives listed were other relgions who did not believe in gods/God

Meaning you weren't telling the truth when you claimed that the only choices for atheists were humanism or nihilism.

Not sure why this subject is so important to you that you need to spread falsehoods like this. But I do know that it isn't worth my time discussing this with someone who is just going to make stuff up.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Meaning you weren't telling the truth when you claimed that the only choices for atheists were humanism or nihilism.
.

If/when you're going to try conflating two DIFFERENT conversations as if they were the same point, then you're mixing categories willfully. No need trying to switch goal posts on the matter...

Seeing that the context of discussion was on what the Supreme COURT listed as alternatives (as that was what was asked on), it is already evidedent you were willing to attempt another falsehood for the sake of argument. For Secular Humanism WAS a part of the alternatives listed - but as it concerns the options outside of that which atheists turn to if there was no other thing but Secular Humanism and nothing in life really mattered/had any basis, nihilism is the natural choice - and that is something which has been noted a lot before when it comes to dogmatic atheists taking things to their logical conclusion of no one able to know a divine reality or prove Divine Law - while others insisted in saying humanity has value/we live in a materialistic world (as goes the religious philosophy of Secular Humanism). As said previously:

For an atheist, the only alternative to secular humanism or any humanism is nihilism, the belief that life has no purpose or meaning. While nihilism is a reasonable inference from atheism, most atheists resist nihilism and argue for what Antony Flew calls Atheistic Humanism: a positive philosophy of life that embraces life as meaningful despite the lack of any divinely created purpose for the human race. This is the philosophy of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), and the Secular Humanist Declaration (1980).

Then why did the court case you're so in love with list other alternatives?
.

The only alternative to secular humansim - that has little to do with saying there are no other religious alternatives. The context is secular humanism (or other humanisms) and what they seek to do when it comes to life having no meaning outside of giving a system of thought to live by. This is no different than talking on "The only alternative to Christianity is Deism" when the context is discussing whether or not God's personal and seeing that Christianity shows Christ as personal but other systems of God existing (as with Deism ) do not......and it'd be foolish for anyone to jump in saying "But there are lots of alternatives to Christianity - Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. - so you lied!!!! when there was context/nuance.

Likewise, the point you tried to wrangle over (with nihilism being the only alternative to secular humanism or any other humanism ) was noted within the context of humanism being the main option and nothing else being present. It was not dismissing what was already said when it comes to atheists already reflecting religious systems that do not believe in gods/goddesses or a Deity (Buddhism, Taoism, Pantheism, Unitarian Universalism, etc.) - as that was already noted before.

And nothing said there at ANY point went past the bottom line of what was being noted when saying that Secular Humanism is the default for most athests when it comes to the system in which their beliefs are best expressed - and outside of Secular Humanism giving framework of belief, the other options would be Nihilism...that nothing matters - for anytime atheists speak of morality/desire to treat others fairly and say man has value, it is a Secular Humanism mindset that is reflected since 100% atheism is lack of belief in anything...and no atheists wants that.

Outside of Secular Humanism and other humanisms, there are other religious systems which are protected under the Supreme Court even though they don't believe in gods/goddesses or deities - that was and has ALWAYS been the context wAnd that is consistent with what the Supreme Court already said when it came to promoting the ideas of an atheists who protested - and noting that one of the systems that are in existence which don't believe in God/gods or goddesses and yet are religions (just as many see atheism to be a religion). That was already addressed earlier as seen here:

...arguing "That's not true" doesn't mean squat in showing what a case was about. That is your ignorance alone on the matter.

For the Supreme Court has recognized Secular Humanism as a religion in Torkoso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court said that "among religions ... are Buddhism ... and secular humanism," etc. And this was key for Watkins since he was a former board member of the American Humanist Association, an educational and philosophical group, and a former president of its Washington chapter. And later became a humanist counselor, with the authority to officiate at weddings in some states after the case - but his stance on Secular humanism reflecting atheism was never in question.

And Torkoso was an atheist - who brought the case to the Supreme Court since he didn't like what was happening (at the time ) in Maryland when it was required in the area he was to have belief in God for certain positions. Again, In 1961 the Supreme Court handed down the Torcaso v. Watkins decision regarding a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In fact, in a footnote that clarifies what the Court means by non-theistic religions, we read, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." ( Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961). )

Context -and you need to do better at paying attention to it before speaking since it's obvious you weren't sticking to the truth when it was already noted from the first posting onward that there were other religions defining atheism which atheists held to (i.e. pantheism being a basic among others) - and if you willfully avoided that, you have little room to speak about truth-telling.

Not sure why this subject is so important to you that you need to spread falsehoods like this. But I do know that it isn't worth my time discussing this with someone who is just going to make stuff up

Unless anyone asked you "Do you feel it's worth your time?", it's an emotional response to even bring that up as if that was a factor in others addressing you.

As it stands, you already did falsehood a number of times (from claiming Quakers in other camps weren't militant to claiming atheism was the lack of belief in gods/goddesses and backtracking from that ...several other things beside that as well). All of that is a pity that it couldn't be avoided since other atheists have not resorted to doing so....but you already avoided repeatedly what other atheists/atheists groups have said - and woefully dealt with it, so it's not really a concern what you do or don't do with your time. The focus is the facts - which you avoided - and for all the talk of "I do know that it isn't worth my time discussing this..", the irony is thatfor no one was seeking to SPEAK to you originally. For you and you alone were the one who felt it so important to focus on what another (myself ) said to someone else (starting in #44 /#50) - and you chose to keep responding after that, even though most of what you claimed had nothing to do with what was actually said..

Thus, it'd be appropriate for one to ask "Why is the subject so important to you that you seem obsessed with others disagreeing with you ...?". But it's not worth having a meltdown over when you can't stay consistent with what you claim.

 

[cloudyday2]

And- being told anything of this nature by someone would be convincing to you? Forgive me for feeling doubtful on that. Usually people justify it as being a nice story but all in the believer's head, and then will go on to express the sentiment that as long as they're getting something good out of their faith, then it is mostly alright. Knowing their motivations would likely change nothing for you.

I agree that most people reflexively dismiss the validity of another person's spiritual experience even though the same experience might seem very convincing in the first person. People consider themselves very rational but they can assume other people are easily fooled by coincidences, emotion, and imagination.

But without this information how does religion look to an unbeliever? I'm sure there are a variety of motivations for believing:
- God unexpectedly interacting with world (answers to prayer, synchronicities, ...)
- Holy spirit experiences (in church, during prayer, ...)
- self improvement (overcoming substance abuse, improving marriage, ...)
- enjoyment of rituals (prayer, liturgy, ...)
- fellowship with people
- intellectual interest (theology, religious history, ...)

On this forum people only talk about the last item (theology, religious history, ...).
I wish they would talk about the other items more. Otherwise atheists can be forgiven for thinking religious people are simply afraid to face facts and give up the security blanket of religion.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

God to me now is more of a Panentheist experience and my life is way more spiritual and a lot different than before. .

Panentheism is a very beautiful way of expression - and something that makes the most sense (IMHO) to express belief from a Theistic point of view when it comes to God. Some of this was discussed elsewhere - as seen here:

the 'Lord' would be the universe. You, me, that rock, etc. All manifestations of 'God'. Not powering, but being. A Buddhist may see God as a vast ocean, and us as the waves, emerging for a bit, then going back to where we came from and what we truly are (in this example, the vast ocean).

That'd go with the view of Buddhism which others have already noted - that even if others claim it is a theistic system, any semblance of theism (with respect to differing deities) is simply another manifestation of pantheism.

Personally, although the concept of God being present in creation is not necessarily a negative, I'd go with Panentheism over Pantheism any day (more shared in #26, and Panentheism, the other God of the philosophers: from Plato to the Present.. - ). And as it concerns the issue from a purely etymological perspective:

• Pantheism = All things are God / God is all things, or all things are part of God
• Panentheism = God is in all things

​

Panentheism is the idea that the entire universe is part of God, But God is greater that the universe. God is omnipresent and transcendent – that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. And He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us – it is wholly beyond Creation.

Kinda like my cells and molecules and blood and other things in my body are part of myself, but I am much greater than those…and I cannot be seen in them….yet I am omnipresent through them, as I created them at my conception and sustain them throughout my life. God transcends creation as I transcend my body. Intelligence is everywhere. ..and the Universe is so massive that it'd make sense to know there has to be SOMEONE outside of it.

Hubble Heritage Gallery of Images​

These are but a few, click on the link above to see dozens of them.

If you've ever heard of Louie Giglio, he actually had a video he made on the subject of just how vast the universe is...and how as incredible it is, it by itself cannot exist apart from the Lord and nothing can exist outside of Him. One of the reasons why men are foolish not to fear Him, seeing just how big He truly is:

How Great is Our God: with Louie Giglio (full video) ​

If you remember the film "Men in Black", there was a famous scene that really brought things into perspective on the issue of things would look like in the eyes of a creator:

Final Clip of Men In Black​

Of course, I don't think God looks like how the alien being looked like in 'Men in Black" . But on a serious level, I do think that there's something to be said on how the classical model of how we see the universe isn't enough...for the Lord sustains it and is OUTSIDE of it entirely. The entire view behind what's known as Panentheism

Panentheism is the idea that the entire universe is part of God, But God is greater that the universe. God is omnipresent and transcendent – that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. And He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us – it is wholly beyond Creation.

Kinda like my cells and molecules and blood and other things in my body are part of myself, but I am much greater than those…and I cannot be seen in them….yet I am omnipresent through them, as I created them at my conception and sustain them throughout my life. God transcends creation as I transcend my body. Intelligence is everywhere.

I personally see no issue with supporting Biblical Panentheism and the concept of God being outside of the world and yet connected deeply to it/all within

Panentheism does not begin soteriologically with God’s special presence to some but with the universal presence to all, moving from thence toward the theories of special presence. It seeks to give the right perspective & focus in the face of evil. For instead of pulling away from those things that do not now manifest the nature of God fully, panentheism suggests the picture of transforming and healing them, as a healthy body might heal itself from an injury.

In this line of thought, the rapist still is being sustained by the Lord’s power even though God may not approve of His actions/decide to dwell with him…with God’s heart being to see the rapists REDEEMED and trusting in Him since even the Rapists was made in the image of God/given as aspect of the Divine….and the message of repentence/forgiveness and grace is where that process of healing can begin for the rapist, the murderer or any other aspect where decline has begun.


Even though in some ways He chooses to be disconnected from it, he is still connected to it intimately. The same goes for what was noted earlier when it comes to decline in the natural world, especially in cases where the natural world has been raped. Panentheism would suggest that God desires for healing to occur rather than the world to be abandoned altogether/demolished….and thus, He keeps it all going so that the chance for healing/redeemption may occur.


Panentheism ALSO deals with how all there is not only emanates from God..but is experienced by Him as well. Its the idea that one’s not to worship an animal or a tree since it’s not the creator–but on the same token, as Chasidism ascribes to, the animal being abused is felt deeply by the Lord. He hurts with it as much as it does since that creation is directly connected to Him (As its being sustained by Him) and consequently He can feel it—just as he does with all suffering and pain in the world whenever injustice occurs.


Christ said that even the sparrows do not fall outside of God’s care—as well as why He made clear that even the Ravens look to God for food ( Psalm 104:18-22, Psalm 147:8-10, Matthew 6:25-27, Luke 12:23-25 etc )

This is why many Panentheist have noted that Paul made a point in Romans to discuss how its not just humankind that’s redeemed…but all of creation as well, described as “groaning” and “suffering” rather than being indifferent to it all. The Eastern Fathers and some medievals have written profoundly on the cosmic dimensions of the Incarnation and Redemption (as did St. Paul).

Classical theism views sin and the Fall as distinct from the basic structure of the world and the culmination of the kingdom of God as a gracious undertaking that is not a mere outcome of a natural process. Panentheism, however, typically views creation and the Fall as part of the cosmic process as are redemption and consummation.

Christian panentheists view the earthly existence of Jesus Christ as either the central cause of the outcome of the process or a primary symbol or example of the process. Each approach is at odds with classical theism. With Biblical Panentheism I tend to lean more so toward what’s known as weak panentheism or soteriological panentheism. That is more similar to the position found in Eastern Orthodox Christianity (As well as Eastern Christianity in general). For in that view, God is manifest in redeemed nature and panentheistic metaphors are used in an eschatological sense, a future expectation when all redeemed nature is reconciled with God (1 Cor 15:28).

Ultimate salvation is viewed in a Johannine fashion, as participating in the Divine community of the Trinity (John 14:20) and abiding in Gods love as God himself is love in that He is the eternal community between Father, Son and Holy Spirit (1 John 4:16). If remembering the Eastern Orthodox concept known as Theosis, it helps things make more sense..

When understanding the theological framework of Panentheism as God being the system of systems, all creation and processes being within God, things can come together. You & all of creation exist within God. As for evil, that probably falls in under panentheism’s understanding & of the whole creation and the sustaining of it as an act of Kenosis (self-emptying for those unfamiliar with the term, famous from Philippians 2:7 where Christ is described taking the form of a servant by emptying himself) for God. For all of creation/ its sustaining is understood as a continuous act of suffering love, where God takes the suffering of this world upon Himself.

Noticeably, this goes counter to the more traditional understanding of the impassibility of God the Father and inability to hurt Him. The panentheistic model seems to be the more biblical of all options since God certainly is portrayed as one who is affected by the state of his creation in the scripture….and in my view, it increases the GLORY of God’s redeemption since in Christ (Colossians 1-2), that redeemption has begun to occur over all creation and the suffering the Lord has had to endure will eventually come to a Glorious end.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Usually people justify it as being a nice story but all in the believer's head, and then will go on to express the sentiment that as long as they're getting something good out of their faith, then it is mostly alright.

It seems the same dynamic goes in reverse as well - a lot of times it seems many atheists will not want to explain why they felt the way they did on why God/theism did not work for them...the response being "It didn't make sense" and other similar things.

 

[Zoness]

Panentheism is a very beautiful way of expression - and something that makes the most sense (IMHO) to express belief from a Theistic point of view when it comes to God....

Heck, Pantheism might even make more sense than Deism in some contexts.