George,

I agree that "immanence" is the word to use. I'm not sure why you quoted the Wikipedia but, as Relda has already pointed out, panentheism combines immanence with transcendence.

Cheers.

Oliver,
“Were Christians to accept panentheism, it would be a radical departure from the path Christianity has taken to date..” Perhaps it can put Christianity back on track – to an original ‘place’ from where it began. Carl Jung once said, “If ever there was a time when self-reflection was the absolutely necessary and only right thing, it is now, in our present catastrophic epoch.” Self-reflection is actually a kind of bending backwards - a privilege born of human freedom, a differentiation of our compulsion to the daemonic (half-man / half-god).

The act of self-reflection places us above the instinctual; a transformation into the ‘archetypal realm’, resulting in the ‘incarnation’ of God through humanity, i.e., the light of consciousness is born. This is why Jung said, “God becomes manifest in the human act of reflection.” For Jung, the human act of self-reflection forces God, so to speak, to “empty himself of his Godhead” and incarnate through humanity “in order to obtain the jewel which man possesses in his self-reflection.” This is what Jung meant when he said, “Whoever knows God has an effect on him.” We play an active, participatory, and crucial role in the process of ‘divine transformation’ and ‘incarnation’.

I am curious about the idea of the Trinity being a social construct. The inference is that if it is then it does no refer to something real. One might say that the periodic table of the elements is a social construct. After all, it has been put together over the years ad added to as new elements were discovered. Someone had to come up with its form. But that does not stop it referring to something real in the world, that the properties of elements can be categorised according to their atomic weight. So you might say that the doctrine of the Trinity was a social construction and point to its historical development, but that does not indicate that it does not refer to some reality.

The other, more disturbing, trend that such talk produces is to destroy the transcendence of God and make him subject to man. Relda has already gone a very long way along this path in his quotation from Jung.

“For Jung, the human act of self-reflection forces God, so to speak, to “empty himself of his Godhead” and incarnate through humanity “in order to obtain the jewel which man possesses in his self-reflection.” This is what Jung meant when he said, “Whoever knows God has an effect on him.” We play an active, participatory, and crucial role in the process of ‘divine transformation’ and ‘incarnation’.”

I am surprised at this considering Relda’s demonstrated theological depth. The idea that any act of man could force God to do anything makes God our subject and reverses the relationship between creature and creature. Surely this is what “religion” does and is no longer an option for those for whom Jesus is Lord?

Certainly we must understand God as being both immanent and transcendent but the freedom of god must be protected. ‘My thoughts are not your thoughts” etc

Peter Sellick

George,

I do agree we should be respectful to Sells’ worldview, yet I see OLO as a forum. I am only saying that Sells should broaden his horizons in assessing god(s). The point is methodological not personal.

Moreover, a broad horizon allows one to match religions in the search for God(s). I suspect Sells would agree of someone who believed in Mithras or the Serapis Trinity, that they should also consider Jesus and the Christian Trinity. So would I. As I think I said before, Sells’ close-up affixed gaze of one tree doesn’t allow him to see the forest, and not seeing the forest deprives him of the scope to make more informed analyses.

You are correct, I ran two thoughts together regarding inference and inertial frames (Galileo and Einstein), when indicating that one sees different qualities, according to one’s frame reference. Atheism is also a relative term.

[I typed this comment for Sells' recent post]

Sells,

Greetings. I really don't see why you can't take a step back and assess the enbroadened data anew.

im taking down evolution

god did cause the world
live with-it
its over dying for

all death demeans the life giver/sustainer
the living loving light sustaining life via his light

court de jure in session

this notice
notices the notice ...of de jure hearing ..on the censure of evolution

athiesm based on claimed science..of not god..or of evolution of species
not genus..and calling for jurors..

[ratio 24 clear sepperation... as measure of judgment..
.as better explained at post topic

heed and take notice that

court is in session
conducting first reading
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=120&t=3225&p=19776#p19776

this is 2 de of four notices
first is
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3124&page=0
2 de is de jure trial
3rd is here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=3229
4th at...PUBLIC ..open forum
http://www.peacetakescourage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11077&p=82369#p82369

posting in progress

please note this site shall hold the public record
as other sites are currently...closed..but im hoping we can open them up a bit

so get involved
im taking evolution down..in court...infront of a jury of my athiest/thiest peers
recall here is where i gathered all mine opponants
come to the hearing...inform the trial
or catch up here...as i recall to post the public record

Sells, you are clutching at a particularly thin straw here, I think.

>>I am curious about the idea of the Trinity being a social construct. The inference is that if it is then it does no refer to something real. One might say that the periodic table of the elements is a social construct. After all, it has been put together over the years ad added to as new elements were discovered. Someone had to come up with its form. But that does not stop it referring to something real in the world, that the properties of elements can be categorised according to their atomic weight.<<

My understanding of a "social construct" is clearly very different to Sells'.

The presence of the word "social" indicates the exact opposite of "natural" - which in this case may also be stretched to "divine".

Social constructs are not required in cases where physical observation, empirical evidence and consistent representation are all available - as it is with the periodical table - since the elements happily conform to natural laws. The addition of a "social" construct, as opposed to a naturally occurring one, is therefore unnecessary.

Sells pretty much confirms this, when he states:

>>So you might say that the doctrine of the Trinity was a social construction and point to its historical development, but that does not indicate that it does not refer to some reality.<<

It may refer to "some reality" held to be so by an individual already committed to the concept. But that is not at all the same "reality" that creates the concept of atomic weight, which may be observed, and - just as importantly - consistently measured.

Let's face it, Sells, you are far more comfortable with utterings such as:

>>Surely this is... no longer an option for those for whom Jesus is Lord<<

The meaning of which is, and should remain, deeply personal to you. Because it looks really silly when you expose it to the rest of the world.