2006-07-30 02:01:50 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
with regard to the Hegelian idea that we are manifestations of the Absolute, the substance of the universe which yearns to figure itself out and bring cosmos from chaos. We are supposed to be that one element of the manifold structure of existence. I was thinking-isn't this notion even more personal than a single God-that we are all one. And would create greater respect for ALL around us and we ourselves. maybe.
2006-07-30 02:21:47 · update #1
You might get more responses in the Religion section...
Anyway, I personally think it's the right idea in many ways. God is all there is. It just makes sense to me somehow, the way the Christian God makes sense to Christians. My only problem with it is that God becomes a kind of impersonal force in that logic, rather than something close and present. Doesn't God -feel- close and present?
If you were looking for something more specific, add some details and I'll be back...
edit:
Ahh, okay. I don't know this "Hegel" of which you speak, though you explained the concept clearly enough. I don't think we're here to figure anything out. If we really are God, what does God need to figure out and wouldn't he/she/it know it by now?
In some ways, yes, it can be more personal than a God that watches from afar. It would generate a good deal more compassion, too, if more people actually believed it. It would also encourage us to live in a way more congruent with reality, since we all really are connected and our actions do have consequences to others.
It's also much less complicated...instead of asking what God wants, all you have to do is ask what WE really want. We say that compassion and love are good, and good is better than evil. If we are God, than aren't we really saying that our true nature is compassion? How is that so different from other deities?
2006-07-30 02:11:31 · answer #1 · answered by rabid_scientist 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Although I'm an atheist myself, I like the idea of Pantheism. For me naturalistic pantheism is the most attractive form of pantheism, because it doesn't imply a personal god. God is identified with nature, which makes some people call it a form of atheism. At the moment, it's the only form of religion I feel somewhat related to, but certainly not enough to call myself a pantheist.
2006-07-30 09:36:12 · answer #2 · answered by sethnebtjebu 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is certainly easier to justify as a belief system than belief in a personal God.
However, I fail to see what the question is to which Pantheism could possibly be the answer (other than the obviously "humourous" questions).
The only defensible position is agnosticism and, from a personal point of view, atheistic agnosticism.
2006-07-30 09:20:42 · answer #3 · answered by the last ninja 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It makes more sense. As for the need for a personal God some people feel that the forces of nature can help Man. .That prayers help ,be that to Jesus or Allah Names do not make a difference.
2006-07-30 09:38:00 · answer #4 · answered by Padmini Gopalan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everything is sacred. If we all believed that then we might get some peace. Life is awesome - but we seem to have lost some of the awe.
2006-07-30 12:42:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"All is God." - Is that really all God is?
Xan Shui,
Philosophical Philanthropist, Honest Man
2006-07-30 09:17:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
multiple idol worship
2006-07-30 09:37:29 · answer #7 · answered by Radio Girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
" All is God " (cksq)
2006-07-30 09:12:11 · answer #8 · answered by CKRT SQRL 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋