Tantric miniature, Rajasthan, nineteenth century. Linking to the tree of life. Sex is our second most powerful drive after survival. There are good biological reasons for this, since it determines the reproduction of the species and the spreading of individual genes. This is not to diminish its meaning but rather to increase it. Life on earth is a vast tree with myriad branches, on which each of us is a leaf.
Sex is the activity through which we join to the growing branches. It links us to all life in the past, and all human life in the future. Sex is also a mystery, similar to the mystery of existence. Why do we experience the intensity, the ecstasy of orgasm? Why are we not simply impelled by blind drives, like the drive to sleep?
Why are we given such a overpowering reward? Sex can also be a religious sacrament. Kenneth Pak concludes that an open future makes any ultimate victory over evil impossible Pak , — In response, B. An additional criticism is that since God and the world are interdependent in the classic panentheism of Hegel and Whitehead, God is not free to choose to create and to save.
The necessity of the world for God loses grace as the source of creation and redemption. While Roger Olson questions whether or not a classic panentheist can hold to creation from nothing Olson , in Other Internet Resources , Clayton affirms creation from nothing as consistent with panentheism The emphasis of classical theism on divine will misses that the divine will is directed by divine love Oord and Molnar, , Metaphysical critiques of panentheism provide a basis for both the theological and experiential criticisms made by Christian theists.
Four types of metaphysical critiques have been made. One criticism is that panentheism fails to maintain an ontological distinction between God and the world Leidenhag , , , While panentheism identifies differences between God and the world, the distinction is one of characteristics rather than one of being.
Although different forms of panentheism understand similarities and differences between God and the world in different ways, both Hegel and Whitehead refer to differences between God and the world that are important. Whitehead describes God as non—temporal and events composing the world as temporal Bracken , The modal status of the world in relation to God provides a related challenge to panentheism.
A third type of critique is that panentheism holds an inadequate concept of transcendence. God cannot be present simultaneously with the event. However, Bracken rejects the necessity of a causal joint when both top—down and bottom—up causation take place , Also, Clayton counters that few process panentheists accept a full equality between finite actual occasions and the divine actual occasion or occasions. God being the chief exemplification of creativity indicates a difference between God and actual occasions and thus a vertical transcendence Clayton b, Whitehead attributes metaphysical ultimacy to creativity and understands God as the primordial manifestation of creativity.
This appears to leave God in a secondary position Hosinski , Cobb resolves the problem of the priority of creativity by identifying creativity as an abstract metaphysical principle rather than an actuality more important than God , and see Nobharu , Bracken considers creativity to be the systematic whole rather than a greater reality than God , , Analytic theology Jeanine Diller and Asa Kasher, eds.
Buckareff and Yujin Nagasawa, eds. Analytical approaches to panentheism critique panentheism as lacking a distinctive identity making careful identification, research, and development of a distinctive position impossible. Two responses to this challenge to identify the distinctiveness of panentheism have developed.
One response seeks to identify a defining characteristic. The second response affirms the richness of diversity and suggest certain commonalities distinguish panentheism from other forms of theism.
Yujin Nagasawa develops the concept of modal panentheism by describing modal panentheism as holding that God is the totality of all possible worlds and that all possible worlds exist to the same extent that the actual world exists. Thus, God includes all possible worlds and any actual worlds.
But Nagasawa also notes that modal panentheism has some similarities to classical theism which limits any modal distinction between classical theism and panentheism Mullins offers an analytic response to the challenge regarding the distinctiveness of panentheism by suggesting that panentheism can distinguish itself from classical theism by making absolute space and time attributes of God and by recognizing the distinction between absolute time and space and physical and temporal realities contained within absolute time and space.
One type of response to the challenge that panentheism lacks a distinctive characteristic suggests a symmetrical, mutual relation between God and the universe as the crucial characteristic of panentheism Griffin , 43—44; Keller , 73; Clayton a, ; Gregersen , 20, 22, 23; J. Cooper , 29; Olson , ; Meister , 5; Henricksen , ; Stenmark , 27; Gasser , A variety of terms have been used to describe a mutual relation between God and the universe.
The basic nature of a mutual relation between God and the universe involves an influence of each member of the relationship on the other member and assumes some degree of independence or freedom of each member. Panentheism and classical Christian theism both distinguish between God and the world. Classical theism identifies this as an ontological difference. While God is immanent and active in the world as well as transcendent for classical Christian theism, the relationship between God and the universe is asymmetrical in that God influences the universe, but the universe does not affect God J.
Cooper, , 18, 22 and Stenmark , In contrast, Gregersen , 19 balances transcendence and immanence. Thus, panentheism affirms the basic role of divine immanence. David Nikkel recognizes the importance of this balance even within panentheism. He warns against an overemphasis upon transcendence leading to the loss of the indeterminacy needed for growth that occurs in panentheism overly influenced by German idealism and an overemphasis on immanence leading to the loss of God as the source of existence that occurs in panentheism overly influenced by process thought The classical Christian tradition due to a variety of influences such as Platonic influence that stressed the reality of the forms in contrast to matter shaped by the forms see Straus has tended to understand God as an unrelated Other to ordinary existence.
While the biblical tradition describes God as creator and sustainer of the creation, many assumed that the ability to create and sustain depended upon the otherness of God in comparison to creation. While divine immanence is not denied by the classical Christian tradition, divine immanence derives from divine transcendence. Transcendence over all specific relations enables the immanence of the divine relation to all of reality.
God is present to all of reality because God exists independently from all other reality and is uninfluenced by other reality. This separation of divine reality from ordinary, created reality makes the relationship of the divine to all of created reality an external relationship. The external nature of this relationship become apparent in deviations from the classical Christian tradition such as deism. God then does not respond in any way to the created order but acts without consideration of the events of the world.
On the other hand, prioritizing divine immanence even when that includes the influence of other realities, fails to retain a robust concept of divine transcendence. The postmodern theological tradition offers an alternative understanding of the divine—created relationship that considers God as wholly immanent.
See Barber , 41— This emphasis upon divine immanence seeks to affirm the presence of God in the world. While some forms of this interest lead to pantheism and the identity of God with the creation, the emphasis upon immanence recognizes the need for a source of newness and novelty that is not limited by, or to, the past.
The basis for this novelty is internal to created reality rather than an external reality providing novelty. However, the question about the adequacy of the novelty for the present situation must be considered. The transcendence involved in the emphasis upon immanence is a horizontal rather than a vertical transcendence.
A horizontal transcendence involves beings of the same ontological status. Newness and novelty then arise from the unrealized potentials in the original situation. However, this limitation risks making radical novelty impossible because the context always limits the possibilities.
In response to an emphasis upon transcendence, the emphasis upon immanence clearly affirms the value and importance of the creation. But at the same time that it affirms the value an importance of creation, the creation is a limited creation incapable of being more than what is already in some way present in the creation.
The second type of response recognizes the diversity of types of panentheism and rejects identifying panentheism by means of a single characteristic Lataster and Bilimoria , 57— This leads to several suggestions about ways to identify the commonality among the diverse expressions of panentheism. Michael Brierly finds eight common themes in panentheism although all eight themes may not be present in each expression of panentheism , 6—8. Gregersen identifies a core common to all forms of panentheism, God contains the world so that the world belongs to God and there is a feeding back from the world into divine life , This common then is expressed in a variety of forms of panentheism as particular theologies Gregersen , Stenmark describes panentheism as having core doctrines and extension claims , Both panentheism and classical theism maintain the immanence of God, but they differ in that panentheism holds that God ontologically includes the world while classical theism maintains an ontological distinction between God and creation.
Clayton suggests that panentheism be considered a philosophical research program which may include sub—research programs. The panentheistic research program affirms the pervasiveness of change with real change taking place in he divine experience but not in he divine nature.
Since panentheists differ on whether creation is from nothing or is necessary this is a sub—research program within panentheism Clayton , 9— While the idea of panentheism may not be a philosophically stable concept in itself, that instability makes possible respecification in light of particular theologies Gregersen , The varieties of panentheism participate in internal criticism.
Clayton , and Steven Crain emphasize the dependence of the world upon God rather than the dependence of God upon the world although they maintain that God is influenced, and changed, by the world. They criticize understandings of God that limit God by making God subject to metaphysical principles. Griffin emphasizes the regularity provided by metaphysical principles. Panentheists also caution that the emphasis upon the ontological nature of the relation between God and the world can lead to a loss of the integrity of the world.
Richardson warns against losing the discrete identity of finite beings in God , Over—emphasis upon either side of the balance leads to positions that are philosophically and theologically inadequate Case—Winters , Mullins suggested several sources that increased the coverage of this article and through careful reading provided helpful challenges to increase the clarity of this article without being responsible for any remaining lack of clarity.
Terminology 2. History 3. Contemporary Expressions 4. Theological terms as understood by panentheists: 1. Classical Theism Classical theism is a specific form of theism. Classical theism understands God as transcendent, immutable, impassible, timeless. Ultimate reality is a reality which is distinct from the world Cooper, , 11; Stenmark, , This distinction at times develops into an ontological separation between God and the world that makes any interaction between God and the world problematic.
Pantheism A type of theism that stresses the identity of God and the world ontologically. This identity is expressed in different manifestations so distinctions can be made, but the distinctions are temporary. Hegel and then Hartshorne, however, understand transcendence as including all the parts that make up the world in order to avoid any reality external to God that limits God Whittemore , Kenosis Divine self-emptying, or withdrawal, of divine attributes.
Thomas J. Terms influenced by the German Idealism of Hegel and Schelling: 1. Dialectic The presence of contradictory realities where the contradiction is overcome by including elements from each of the contradictory elements in a synthesis that is more than the combination of each member of the contradiction. Infinite The obvious understanding of the infinite is as a negation of any limits such as a bounded space or time. However, many panentheists, and other thinkers Williams , , understand the infinite in a positive sense as the inclusion of all that is and that might be Clayton a, What is the unique quality of pantheism?
What do atheistic existentialism think about sexuality? What has the author Paul A Harrison written? What is the goddes of love beauty and sexuality?
What is a sentence with pantheism in it? How pantheism view sexuality? Is it okay to question sexuality? Are people open about their sexuality? What is the meaning of pantheism? How can you tell if you are in denial of your sexuality?
What is a sentence using the word pantheism? What are pantheism believers called? How can i know if im bi? What are the symptoms of being a lesbian? What is the belief that everything is part of God?
What is the belief in numerous gods called? Who believes in pantheism? Indian pantheism claimed that everything was? How does Atheistic Existentialism impact sexuality?
Are yams bisexual? What countries practice pantheism? See synonyms for: pantheist on Thesaurus. We could talk until we're blue in the face about this quiz on words for the color "blue," but we think you should take the quiz and find out if you're a whiz at these colorful terms.
See pan- , theism. Words nearby pantheism pantechnicon , Pantelleria , Pan-Teutonism , Panth , Panthalassa , pantheism , Pantheon , pantheonize , panther , Panthera , panther fungus.
0コメント