Blog Action Day: Today is the first annual Blog Action Day, the day bloggers unite to help raise awareness for the environment. Here is The Panentheist's contribution:
Greenpeace, the environmental activist group of which I became a member way back in 1983, named its first anti-whaling ship The Rainbow Warrior. The name came about from a prophesy recorded by the Cree Indian people which, according to Greenpeace ‘foresaw a time when the white man's materialistic ways would strip the earth of its resources, but just before it was too late the Great Spirit of the Indians would return to resurrect the braves and teach the white man reverence for the earth. They would become known as the Warriors of the Rainbow.’
From a panentheistic point of view, the Great Spirit is another attempt by a particular culture to describe and name ‘God’ and is as valid as any other attempt.
The first part of the Cree prophesy certainly seems to be coming true; although the white man has been joined by others of many colours in the stripping and rape of the earth.
Panentheism by its nature endues people with an inherent respect, love and reverence for the earth and for nature. Our environment is holy ground and to see it abused is something that can only be viewed with abhorrence. When the Warriors of the Rainbow rise to reclaim the earth from the despoilers, the panentheists will be in the vanguard.
Monday 15 October 2007
A Gnostic Thought
An Act of Gnosis
We know Thee,
Thou eternal thought:
immovable, unchangeable, unlimited and unconditioned;
remaining unchanged in essential essence
while forever thinking the mystery of the universe.
Manifesting three extensions of cosmic power:
creation, preservation and destruction -
Thou, Lord of all.
From: The Gnostic Catechism
by Stephan A. Hoeller and Tau Stephanus I
We know Thee,
Thou eternal thought:
immovable, unchangeable, unlimited and unconditioned;
remaining unchanged in essential essence
while forever thinking the mystery of the universe.
Manifesting three extensions of cosmic power:
creation, preservation and destruction -
Thou, Lord of all.
From: The Gnostic Catechism
by Stephan A. Hoeller and Tau Stephanus I
Tuesday 9 October 2007
God-speak...
One of the keys to understanding panentheism is, in my opinion, to appreciate the limitations of language and to resist the temptation to equate the symbols that we use in theological speech, communications and thought with something that is real and actual.
I believe that ‘God’ does reveal god-self (a better term, borrowed from a friend of mine, to express the gender-less nature of ‘God’ than using him/her/itself) but that this is experienced as an indescribable presence / feeling. As soon as we put words to this we lose the wholeness and completeness and subtlety of the experience.
That is not to say that discussing God is wrong; but it is very limited and all our God-words must be expressed in the humble knowledge and understanding of this.
Maybe when attempting to describe ‘God’ we are like a person trying to describe what the colour ‘purple’ means to someone who has been blind from birth. Purple can only be experienced; it cannot be described without reference to a simile; but the simile can only get over a limited amount of subjective information: it cannot explain the depth and richness and the reality of what ‘purple’ really is.
I believe that ‘God’ does reveal god-self (a better term, borrowed from a friend of mine, to express the gender-less nature of ‘God’ than using him/her/itself) but that this is experienced as an indescribable presence / feeling. As soon as we put words to this we lose the wholeness and completeness and subtlety of the experience.
That is not to say that discussing God is wrong; but it is very limited and all our God-words must be expressed in the humble knowledge and understanding of this.
Maybe when attempting to describe ‘God’ we are like a person trying to describe what the colour ‘purple’ means to someone who has been blind from birth. Purple can only be experienced; it cannot be described without reference to a simile; but the simile can only get over a limited amount of subjective information: it cannot explain the depth and richness and the reality of what ‘purple’ really is.
Tuesday 2 October 2007
God Love
GospelCom.net is heavily promoting the ‘Fathers Love Letter’ – essentially a love letter from God composed of various verses taken from through-out the Bible. (See
http://www.fathersloveletter.com/flltextenglish.html ). While this may be touching in a cheesy sort of way, does it really portray what it means when we say that ‘God is love?’ I would say that it doesn’t and that by focussing on one aspect of love – a father’s love for his child – it actually diminishes rather than builds our view-point.
Whatever we say about ‘God’ is a human conception, based on an incomplete understanding and built using the symbols and expressions that we understand from within our humanity. However, we should never equate our understanding of God with what God is really like. We need to humbly accept our limitations; knowing that what we perceive of God is really only a Plato's Cave shadow image, at best; and completely and utterly wrong at worst.
So when we come to talking about ‘God’s love’ we need to try and move beyond our human experience and expectations of what love is and move to a different level.
I believe that rather than speaking of God’s love; we should speak of God Love. Love is what God is. Period. God doesn't love (an action), God IS Love (a force / a power). I don't believe that we can say that 'God' loves us; but that we are bathed, surrounded, in God Love. God Love is not a gift or something to be earned/ taken away; it is an ever-present reality. It is not something that is directional, in the way that a father directs his love on to a child, it is something that as soon as we become aware of how to open ourselves up to it, it is there ready to experience; ready to change us; ready to be poured out by us.
http://www.fathersloveletter.com/flltextenglish.html ). While this may be touching in a cheesy sort of way, does it really portray what it means when we say that ‘God is love?’ I would say that it doesn’t and that by focussing on one aspect of love – a father’s love for his child – it actually diminishes rather than builds our view-point.
Whatever we say about ‘God’ is a human conception, based on an incomplete understanding and built using the symbols and expressions that we understand from within our humanity. However, we should never equate our understanding of God with what God is really like. We need to humbly accept our limitations; knowing that what we perceive of God is really only a Plato's Cave shadow image, at best; and completely and utterly wrong at worst.
So when we come to talking about ‘God’s love’ we need to try and move beyond our human experience and expectations of what love is and move to a different level.
I believe that rather than speaking of God’s love; we should speak of God Love. Love is what God is. Period. God doesn't love (an action), God IS Love (a force / a power). I don't believe that we can say that 'God' loves us; but that we are bathed, surrounded, in God Love. God Love is not a gift or something to be earned/ taken away; it is an ever-present reality. It is not something that is directional, in the way that a father directs his love on to a child, it is something that as soon as we become aware of how to open ourselves up to it, it is there ready to experience; ready to change us; ready to be poured out by us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
