God is Nondual

[Maria Billingsley]

Well, actually nondualism is a core part of most Buddhist traditions, but it is definitely not limited to Buddhism. It is also a stand alone position found in various traditions, including those that are Abrahamic and New Age. It doesn't belong to any particular label or group (just as theism doesn't only belong to Christianity).

Please, there is a very clear distinction on how one approaches their Creator. In Christianity there is only one way , Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Do not be deceived. It is a slippery slope if your discernment skills are weak. Blessings.

 

[Jonaitis]

Please, there is a very clear distinction on how one approaches their Creator. In Christianity there is only one way , Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Do not be deceived. It is a slippery slope if your discernment skills are weak. Blessings.

Does this conflict with what you are saying?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Does this conflict with what you are saying?

I am pretty clear on my position. Thanks for engaging!

 

[Jonaitis]

I am pretty clear on my position. Thanks for engaging!

Do you not want to continue this discussion?

 

[The Liturgist]

It means recognizing our union with the divine, and I have provided some verses in the OP.

You used eisegesis in an effort to prove Pantheism, which is a serious dogmatic error because, among other things, it destroys the meaning of the Incarnation.
You are confusing the omnipresence of God in creation through His grace and uncreated energies with His uncreated essence.

 

[Jonaitis]

You used eisegesis in an effort to prove Pantheism, which is a serious dogmatic error because, among other things, it destroys the meaning of the Incarnation.
You are confusing the omnipresence of God in creation through His grace and uncreated energies with His uncreated essence.

I don't see it.

Acts 17:28 "In Him we live and move and have our being."

This is a fundamental truth that even the heathen agrees with—that our reality is not separate from the Creator. All things are interconnected in the Divine, including our being and activity. If this were not true, nothing would exist. Simple as that.

If God is self-existent and self-sufficient while we are contingent beings, then our very being depends entirely upon His. This dependency negates any notion of absolute separation between the Divine and creation.

Furthermore, pantheism and panentheism are entirely different.

 

[The Liturgist]

If God is self-existent and self-sufficient while we are contingent beings, then our very being depends entirely upon His.

I can agree with that statement, but not with any actual Pantheism. God is distinct from us but not separate from us.

 

[Jonaitis]

I can agree with that statement, but not with any actual Pantheism. God is distinct from us but not separate from us.

I agree. A wave is distinct from another wave, but both are connected by the ocean, right?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see it.

Acts 17:28 "In Him we live and move and have our being."

This is a fundamental truth that even the heathen agrees with—that our reality is not separate from the Creator. All things are interconnected in the Divine, including our being and activity. If this were not true, nothing would exist. Simple as that.

If God is self-existent and self-sufficient while we are contingent beings, then our very being depends entirely upon His. This dependency negates any notion of absolute separation between the Divine and creation.

Furthermore, pantheism and panentheism are entirely different.

Not sure what you are asking/saying here. Pantheism is not Emmanence. Nor is Panentheism, actually, unless it is to be used as a crutch for our human brains only. It would have to be only 'a way to look at Emmanence'. He is not made of us --the universe in its totality is not God, but "in him we live and move and have our being". My personal opinion is that his 'involvement' is the same thing as his sustaining the very existence of the universe in every tiniest detail --MUCH more intricate and intimate than the notion of mere 'intersecting' with each detail.

Even if it can be shown that the universe is infinite in size, it cannot be of the same sort of thing that infinite God is, though I expect that it is in many ways representative of his very nature: Efficiency, Intricacy/Massiveness, "Earthiness" or "usual" (as over against the 'flash-bang' we are tempted to use to describe omnipotence), order, consistency, incomprehensible wisdom of principles, and, of course, Power across the whole spectrum. Even, in the mind of some, Joy, Satisfaction and Delight can be found there.

 

[sparow]

Not sure what you are asking/saying here. Pantheism is not Emmanence. Nor is Panentheism, actually, unless it is to be used as a crutch for our human brains only. It would have to be only 'a way to look at Emmanence'. He is not made of us --the universe in its totality is not God, but "in him we live and move and have our being". My personal opinion is that his 'involvement' is the same thing as his sustaining the very existence of the universe in every tiniest detail --MUCH more intricate and intimate than the notion of mere 'intersecting' with each detail.

Even if it can be shown that the universe is infinite in size, it cannot be of the same sort of thing that infinite God is, though I expect that it is in many ways representative of his very nature: Efficiency, Intricacy/Massiveness, "Earthiness" or "usual" (as over against the 'flash-bang' we are tempted to use to describe omnipotence), order, consistency, incomprehensible wisdom of principles, and, of course, Power across the whole spectrum. Even, in the mind of some, Joy, Satisfaction and Delight can be found there.

I am having trouble following the discussion, but I still form an opinion. Pantheism is where men have tried to solve a problem, which includes defining God, using their own intellectual skills. The Christian faith is where something bigger than the human mind has been handed down, where God is defined vaguely using metaphors, symbolic language, and parables. The term dualism/nondualism are philosophical terms where Language and concepts have not been developed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am having trouble following the discussion, but I still form an opinion. Pantheism is where men have tried to solve a problem, which includes defining God, using their own intellectual skills. The Christian faith is where something bigger than the human mind has been handed down, where God is defined vaguely using metaphors, symbolic language, and parables. The term dualism/nondualism are philosophical terms where Language and concepts have not been developed.

Not by way of disagreement, but you seem to refer to mere "ways to look at it" here. But these have all grown much farther than that, each into their own methodology and ideology, in not only their individual philosophy but in attendance to their resulting tenets/concepts/statements of belief. The language of each includes individual (typical) developments of the uses of the principles of, to use your example, dualism and nondualism, which are not of themselves religions, but used in religions' philosophies.

Okay, what does 'nondual' mean?

In this view, dualities are seen as constructs of the mind, and the essence of existence transcends such distinctions. Nonduality encourages the direct realization of this unity, often described as a shift in perception where separation dissolves, revealing the inherent interconnectedness of all that is. We find that God, who is the ground of being itself, is described as the nondual principle of existence.

"Do I not fill heaven and earth?" declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 23:24).

God's omnipresence suggests no separation between God and creation.

"In him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28).

Suggests that our existence is inseparable from God.

"Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there." (Psalm 139:7-8)

Asserts that God is present everywhere, leaving no place for separation.

"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:6)

Speaks to the pervasive presence of God in all aspects of existence.

"He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:17)

Emphasizes that creation is sustained and unified within God.

God is seen as the transcendent, manifesting and unifying truth of existence itself. Our union with Christ is a reflection of our union with God as inseparable. Salvation ultimately leads to self-realization of the illusion of God and His creation as dualistic.

Hey, bro. Can you PM me? The site isn't letting me PM you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When we feel deeply connected to everything around us, we are experiencing the oneness of God/Jesus. This may happen while in prayer or perhaps just hiking in the woods. I don't see this as "new age" it is a fundamental part of experiencing a unity with God. These times are very satisfying and uplifting, a shadow perhaps of when we are wholly with Jesus.

While that can be satisfying and encouraging, and even habit-forming, it is not of itself much more than subjective and unreliable, seems to me. God doesn't often keep us on that 'plain'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you think I am presenting Pantheism, friend?

Not at all. I was just about to write my friend, @The Liturgist , about that, because he seemed to think you intended to prove that, and I don't see how. Maybe he will respond to this.

But, then, you seemed to think maybe I thought you were, lol, and now I'm wondering why!

I guess I need to spend some more time reviewing the posts.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not at all. I was just about to write my friend, @The Liturgist , about that, because he seemed to think you intended to prove that, and I don't see how. Maybe he will respond to this.

No, I don’t think our friend was teaching pantheism, but I my goal was to make statements of clarification for the mutual editfication of all concerned. We Orthodox are commonly, but perhaps inaccurately, called panentheists. I believe it is essential to recognize that while God is omnipresent in creation and also sustains His creation continually, He is distinct from His creation, except insofar as He became incarnate as a man in the person of Jesus Christ. So I’m not criticizing what @Jonaitis said or judging him, but rather, seeking to make a doctrinal footnote as it were to the combination.

At any rate @Jonaitis do forgive me if I came across as at unpleasant as that was not my intention; I must beg your forgiveness as I have been feeling very poorly and this might result, and has in the past, in my writing becoming kind of cranky, for want of a better word. I love you as a fellow Christian and always enjoy talking theology with you.

By the way, please pray for me, as I am both very ill and dealing with some ridiculous stress.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Pantheism - The worship of designer jeans.

Kidding, praying you feel better. @The Liturgist

 

[The Liturgist]

Pantheism - The worship of designer jeans.

Kidding, praying you feel better. @The Liturgist

In the UK, the word pants refers to what in the US we would refer to as boxers or briefs, that is to say, undergarments. So it is common if a British person does not like something at all, like say, a particularly stupid film or song, to call it “pants.”

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In the UK, the word pants refers to what in the US we would refer to as boxers or briefs, that is to say, undergarments. So it is common if a British person does not like something at all, like say, a particularly stupid film or song, to call it “pants.”

Oh yeah, I recall talking to a person from the UK saying "Oh Pants" similar to how we might say Oh *what goes in the toilet* not sure how widespread that usage is tho.

 

[The Liturgist]

Oh yeah, I recall talking to a person from the UK saying "Oh Pants" similar to how we might say Oh *what goes in the toilet* not sure how widespread that usage is tho.

Well its not regarded as far as I am aware as an obscenity. But, many Americans in my experience are unaware that most British people do not use a word referring to the contents of the human circulatory system except as a swear word - Americans sometimes think its a quaint minced oath that is used casually, but nope, if you use that word in the UK you are considered to have uttered a four letter word with more than four letters.

This does lead to some occasional … embarassment.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well its not regarded as far as I am aware as an obscenity. But, many Americans in my experience are unaware that most British people do not use a word referring to the contents of the human circulatory system except as a swear word - Americans sometimes think its a quaint minced oath that is used casually, but nope, if you use that word in the UK you are considered to have uttered a four letter word with more than four letters.

This does lead to some occasional … embarassment.

Yes, the occurrence of UK Quaintisms that talk of something rather serious .. is not uncommon.

Another one that comes to mind is being called crazy, which could be taken as a compliment in North America .. but it just means demented or insane with no hope of recovery in the UK.

Also reminds me of how Vista is not a 4 letter word, but that's fairly outdated by now.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

God is distinct from us but not separate from us.

Then "distinct" and "separate" must have different meanings if one is the case but not the other. Perhaps one ontological use and the other spatial? But God transcends space.

I think the Process theologians might have something to add including Teilhard De Chardin. "To Be is to be United." (Esse est uniri)

The guy who comes to mind for me is Bede Griffiths. It is not an either/or situation (Either dualism or non-dualism).
But a both/and situation (unity in diversity).

Mystics across religious traditions speak of a Unitive experience. It seem to be our own true nature which we have been alienated from. Can wr call it unity with the Father. in fact, Jesus and the Trinity give us a good model. Three in one: a sacred mystery.