Talk:God becomes the Universe/Archive 2

Natalia Kita

Natalia Kita posted the following in a forum for the Philadelphia Universist Meetup Group:

I am an ordained minister through several free-thinking churches, including one I started with my "Metaphysical Christianity" practicing mother. I guess I would classify myself as a transcendental pandeist, and as of today, a universist.

I tracked Ms. Kita's email address down and wrote to her, explaining my understanding of the meaning of the term (the entire communication is posted here). Ms. Kita replied (in relevant part):

I will gladly write more when I have the time, but in short, my classification of my own beliefs as "transcendental pandeism" means that I believe most of what you outlined, except that I believe God not only is, always was, and always will be the universe, but that the Universe is contained within God, and God transcends that which we know as the Universe. I also believe that all living beings contain the knowledge/wisdom of God/the Universe within them, if only they open their minds to it. I view God not so much as a being, but as a force of pure spirit and energy, containing all the knowledge/wisdom there is, and sharing it with all.

I can't imagine from the above that she made up the term "pandeism", but rather cobbled together the phrase, "transcendental pandeism" (which sounds something more like panentheism). I visited the website that she remarked on in her letter to me, and found some materials there ([1]) that present striking similarities between professed beliefs and the "spiritual pandeism" materials that were inserted into the original pandeism article ( e.g. their website says that "Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, and many other spiritual leaders and teachers may have been more tapped into this Divine Consciousness than the average seeker"). --BD ^thimk 23:21, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

By the way, I went home for Mother's day and, while searching through a stack of boxes containing old papers, notes, etc., finally managed to locate a handout from Professor Mendoza which discusses Pandeism. Full of interesting stuff - he says "The Pandeist God is the Salmon-God: when it spawns it dies" and that "the pandeists simply need to buy a razor - Occam's razor." He also criticizes the theory for being inconclusive, and confusing the metaphysical with the spiritual - which leads me to think that he's talking about someone else's theory (who would talk that way about their own). But I don't know how to refer to this handout as a "source" for the article - it's four pages of tightly packed text, titled "History of Ideas: Pantheism" (most of the handout is about pantheism, the last page discusses pandeism). --BD ^thimk 03:27, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Scan it. Put it up for download. Adraeus 06:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Oy. I'll just transcribe it - easier to quote from that way anyway. -- BD ^thimkact 16:26, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Not that I don't think you're credible, but I'm certain there are others who would be more convinced by a scanned dated document than a transcription that could have possibly been created by you. Adraeus 17:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I know - but the handout is neither dated nor signed - it just says "History of Ideas" on the top line, then "Pantheism" on the next, and then launches into the text. -- BD ^thimkact 21:17, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Cleaning

I have deleted a large chunk of the last part of this article for it quoted a person who stated that pantheism means a transcendant god. This is the opposite of the truth and im not sure what this was getting at... it also for some reason quoted a Matrix website (yes, the movie)

I believe this whole page should be deleted and just referenced as another possible name for pantheism. User:Progressivepantheist

• It went throught Vfd and came out ok. The author BD, isn't going to be back until after the 30th. Falphin 15:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • One should, in general, discuss first, delete large chunks of articles later. It tends to make people quite pissy, and is at best undiplomatic. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi, I'm back a day early. Regarding User:Progressivepantheist's concerns, I think the better practice would be to point out the error of the incorrect use of "pantheism". As they teach us in First Amendment law, the remedy for bad speech is good speech, not censorship. -- BD ^talk 19:17, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Handout

I'm done with the Bar exam, and have started my job. I can cobble together some time to transcribe the handout, and plan to have it done within a few weeks. Cheers! -- BD ^talk 04:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK, well it's not quite the same, but here I have posted the paper that I was required to write for Professor Ramon Mendoza's "History of Ideas" class, which largely echoed what he taught on the subject of pandeism. I have transcribed the professor's handout on the topic as well, but can not get in touch with him to get his authorization to use it. BD T 02:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Yin and Yang (or male and female) in PanDeism

Consider for a moment the gender roles that best suit the parent philosophies of PanDeism. First you have Deism - this is absolutely a masculine concept. God is a father-figure, not a mother giving birth to the universe, but a mechanic, an architect, a craftsman, a clockmaker, a typical male role. And what does this father do after the universe has been made and set in motion, when the gears are wound? He abandons us. He disappears, and does not make himself available to us. We trust that he is still there, but can only confirm this through the exercise of cold reason; this is a God who is cold, emotionless, out of reach, like every stoic father who has presented only this face to a son, a tradition passed down from generations before. The God of Deism therefore possesses the attributes of the Yang.

Now you have PanTheism - a feminine concept if ever one was! God is the universe that envelops us, is all around us, wraps us in her warmth. God is ever present, sharing herself completely with us, giving us unconditional love because we are part of her, born from her womb with an umbilical cord that can never be severed. This is the ultimate mother, the ultimate feminine, possessing the attribute of the Yin.

Hence, PanDeism strikes the perfect balance of masculinity and femininity, of Yin and Yang (thus not surprisingly, PanDeistic ideologies are far more prevalent in Asia). Like the masculine Deist God, the PanDeist god is a mechanic, an architect, a clockmaker; but the PanDeist God does not abandon us when his act of creation is completed; rather, the PanDeist God assumes the other role, that of the PanTheist all enveloping mother, allowing us to exist through her very substance

So, as Deism and PanTheism combine to find the perfect balance in PanDeism, so must we strive to find this balance in ourselves and in our relationships, to both build and nurture, to be sufficiently distant yet always present when this presence is called for. We are each a microcosm of the potential balance of the universe, and each of us already carries with us the connection with the universe that enables us to emulate its temperment, should we desire to touch the God within ourselves. Realize, therefore, beloved friends, that touching God therefore means touching the characteristics within ourselves that reflect the opposite gender - men must find their feminine side, and women their masculine.

//// Pacific PanDeist 07:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note, referring to a figure as "the good gentlemen" or a "great professor" is charming, but not really encyclopedic in tone. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You see BD, that's where I think you're wrong - an educated Englishperson IS a "gentlemen"... the professor IS great, so why can't we say it? Who is going to read this article? PanDeists!! They will want to know that a good gentlemen and a great professor recognized their philosophy in a way that is nearly describeable as prescient!! Perhaps these persons were not writing merely what they knew but were communicating their internal contact with the God that is us all!!

//// Pacific PanDeist * 03:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Charles A. Bolton, "Beyond the Ecumenical: Pan-Deism?"

I found this title referenced in a book on Christianity in Japan, but that's all I have to go on is this reference, Charles A. Bolton, "Beyond the Ecumenical: Pan-Deism?".... does anyone know which kind of PanDeism the guy is talking about in this book or where I can find it? I've figured out at least that Charles A. Bolton was some kind of significant figure in the Catholic Church, maybe involved in a schism or something.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're refering to is an article published in a collection in 1959. 72.144.221.238 14:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote you can use.

• Are we virtuous merely because we are restrained by the fetters of the law? We hear men prophecy that this war means the death of Christianity and an era of Pandeism or perhaps even the destruction of all which we call modern civilization and culture. We hear men predict that the ultimate result of the war will be a blessing to humanity.
  • Yale University Sheffield Scientific School, Yale Sheffield Monthly (1918) p. 463.
    • It is not clear to me that this quote is using "Pandeism" as a reference for "omnitheism" rather then "pantheistic deism". Can you provide any additional context as to what sort of "era of Pandeism" the author refers to? bd2412 T 20:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this?

By American Jewish Congress, Published 1975, Original from Stanford University, Digitized Oct 12, 2006, Judaism - Page 41:

Is Gordon a pan-deist, or a monotheist?

Could be.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 05:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bernardo Kastrup's article

This should say something about Bernado Kastrup's article Intriguing Metaphysical Parallels between the Consciousness Debate and Pandeism. It's good analysis.

Under the Mythology Header

COULD YOU GET SOMEONE WHO'S UNBIASED TO WRITE IT NOT TO MENTION AN EDITOR?!?!?! I HATE TO BE THE ONE TO TELL YOU, (I KNOW WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES) BUT YOU DON'T APPEAR VERY INTELLIGENT IF YOU MISUSE SEMANTICS. --Carlon 01:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• So fix it (but unlock your caps lock first please).... //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts. The existence and nature of God are facts, but right now they are unknowable facts, just like our belief or disbelief that there is life in a distant galaxy may be right or wrong in fact, but there's no way we can tell. Whether evolution by natural selection occurs on this planet is a knowable fact, and at this point seems to be a known fact. Even Saint Augustine cautioned against adhering to faith in the face of known science. At least, where science provides an account, spiritual accounts should be recognized as the allegory that they almost certainly are. God can not be imagined providing visions that explain DNA mutations to a primitive shepherd or craftsman in a way the ancient person would understand. If God communicates with man, it is allegorical, not meant to convey scientific or even moral realities, but some semblence of spiritual beauty. As between Deism and Pantheism, there is a middle ground of Pandeism. Pandeism is the idea that rather than God creating a universe and then not providing any interaction with it, and rather than God being just another name for an eternal universe, God created the universe by becoming it. So, Pandeism says, God created the universe and God is the universe, and all revelation or mystical experience is not an intentional act of God, but a side-effect of us all being part of God. Pandeism, at least, follows to the end the approach of using reason and science to determine, as much as it can be determined, the truth about God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.46.250 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The date of earliest use is wrong

Goethe describes himself as a Pandeist in a letter to Fritz Jacobi, January 1813. This is a lot earlier than 1859. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.214.177 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:God's Debris.jpg

The image Image:God's Debris.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Pandeism

there is no mention of scientific pandeims... a quick explanation is , "I am a Scientific Pandeist, which is a distinct form of Atheism, (also referred to as Atheistic Pandeism and Pandeistic Atheism, and very rarely Nontheistic Pandeism). I believe that everything and everyone in the universe is connected (through natural NOT supernatural force). I base this on the reasoning that it is Scientific opinion that everything was once condensed into a ball of matter no bigger than a golf ball (Big Bang Theory). Therefore we all came from one NATURAL source (albeit 14 billion years ago)." or would this be better suited in the Atheism section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.149.134 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Where do you get that? That seems like a self-defeating proposition. Pandeism is a kind of belief in God, but the God-entity is different, it is called the Deus. An atheistic pandeism sounds like a Christless Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.135.222 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No you are thinking of a Scientific Pantheism, not a Scientific Pandeism. Pandeism is a creator-based belief even though you could in a stretch say it is not theistic because it does not have a truly omnicompetent God. Torquemama007 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The section has been restored. It deserves more time to be researched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.132.31 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Nejar

A resource to be tapped for this topic is "Pandeísmo em Carlos Nejar", in Última Hora, Rio de Janeiro, 17 mai., 1978.