Greetings Sue, James etal
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:35:15 +1000, Alan Leggett wrote: > > > Panentheism simply means that everything is in God and God > > is in everything. Sue replied > That, I believe, is pantheism. Gerald McDermott defines panentheism as > "God is in everything but is also separate from the creation".[p145, > "Can Evangelicals learn from World Religions?"] > By the way, McDermott is both a panentheist and an evangelical! My understanding of pantheism is that it means that 'everything is God". Panentheism on the other hand assumes that God is more than that which is created and while everything exists in God, God also exists beyond creation. I guess we are playing with words > > [Michael Morwood] then went on to argue that assuming that God is everywhere, > > the only place we can say that God has come to consciousness > > that we know of is in the development of life on this planet > > and that the highest known level of that consciousness was to > > be found in the evolution of the human species. > > I am continually amazed by the existence [and achievements] of humans > in this universe, but it drives me to the sort of wonder expressed in > Psalm 8. I don't see how Morwood can surmise that humans are the > highest level of God's consciousness. Perhaps I have not explained this very well, but I believe that Morwood is not saying that humans are necessarily the highest level of God's consciousness but that the highest "known" level of consiouness that we can identify is in humans. He is asking the questions, "is creation as we know it God coming to consciousness?" "Do we have any evidence of consciousness existing outside of creation? If so, where?" These are brave questions but ones that I think need some serious reflection. > > To quote McDermott again [because I have his book on my lap]: > 'biblical authors assumed that meaning flows not from the bottom up > but from the top down'[Ibid, p224] , which means that we cannot limit > God to our own understanding. McDermott again, " I think postmodernism > is correct when it declares that there is no pure experience but only > interpreted experience." [p155] > > > As Christians, we might want to claim that for us, Jesus > > becomes the ultimate revelation of the divine nature within > > us, but of course we have no way of proving this and we > > therefore have no right to expect that following of other > > paths may not be at least equally valid. > > Try telling that to someone who has left one of these "other paths" > precisely because they have been overwhelmed by God's grace in Jesus. > Who are we to deny people the message of this grace through political > correctness? But like McDermott, and others like Christine Mallouhi > ["Waging Peace on Islam"] et al I believe that we can learn from other > religions and people. We don't have to claim to be superior: we're not > meant to be promoting ourselves afterall. > > I think you would enjoy McDermott's book [Alan]. He is critical of > "American religion", agreeing with Harold Bloom that it is "devoted to > self-affirmation and human freedom and ... evangelical Christianity is > the most representative example of this..." [p196] > > I would at least agree with you that we must reject that type of > religion. Thanks Sue, I will have to get hold of it. Allan ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
