Talk:God becomes the Universe/Archive 1

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 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 thi m k 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 thi m k 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 thimk  act  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 thimk  act  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&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 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 <b style="color:blue;">talk</b> 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.
 * I tried but the link is now dead, what did he have to say about it? 198.100.3.85 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * What are you critisising something in the artlce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.139.214 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2009 (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)
 * I will search around and see what I can find on this. Earlier references to pandeism are usually in German (Pandeismus) and maybe even in Romance languages (Pandeismo). 198.100.3.85 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (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 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) I would also like to see some support for this in references to something more solid than a yahoo group. 198.100.3.85 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 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)
 * It is different to Scientific Pantheism. Scientific Pandeism is similar but has a different fundamental principle to Scientific Pantheism. SciPanD holds it that everything in the world is connected, the connection could be referred to as pandeistic force, only in the way that it is impersonal and ever-existing, yet is not god or "deus". SciPanTH is referred to as "Atheism for Nature Lovers" and does not make that same conclusion of universal interconnectedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.149.134 (talk) 05:57, 21 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.132.31 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look for this too. I can not seem to find a copy on the internet (there are references to it but not the actual text). Do you know where I can find one? 198.100.3.85 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2009 (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)

I was going to respond to this proposal sooner or later. And I will so here it should stay. 64.202.139.214 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

An interpretation
Please work any of this in that you can use. 198.100.3.137 (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Pandeism is the belief that the Deus created the universe (the Deus existed before the universe’s existence), the Deus is the universe (the Deus became the universe), and the universe will one day coalesce into a single being (the universe will once again become the Deus). It is somewhat simple to explain the definition of Pandeism, but it’s a whole other ballgame to explain how Pandeism could be a possibility in the world we know to exist today. I will explain the theory of Pandeism in four different phases.

Pandeism Phase 1: The Deus: Pre-Universe
In the Pandeistic theory, the Deus that existed before the universe is an omnipotent being. The Deus, being omnipotent, does not operate as a human would. It does not desire and does not need anything because omnipotence grants Him freedom from desires and needs. The Deus is also aware of itself. It knows that It exists and that It is omnipotent. It is also aware that It is the only "god" that exists. In a sense, the Deus has a consciousness. If the Deus is aware of Itself and is aware that It is omnipotent, what thought or question could possibly exist in Its mind? The Deus can only be aware of Itself in the manner in which It exists. Therefore, the Deus would not be aware of Itself in a manner in which It would not exist. Or would he? By default, this would be the only question that could exist in the Deus’ mind: What would happen if I cease to exist? That question being asked by the Deus, would be the logical reasoning behind Its motivation to act, to do anything at all. To answer this question, the Deus took action and destroyed Itself.

Pandeism Phase 2: The Birth of the Universe
According to the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter, anything that exists cannot cease to exist, nor can anything be created from nothing. If we apply this same law to the Deus, we can then safely state that the Deus cannot cease to exist, but Its existence can shift from one form to another.

When we rewind the evolution of the universe, we can see that there was indeed a beginning roughly 13.7 billion years ago (give or take 200 million years) according to the Lambda-CDM concordance model of “big bang” cosmology. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe started out as a very high density of energy, huge temperatures and pressures that was very rapidly expanding and cooling.

Let’s overview our present scenario after Phase 1 and Phase 2: First, we have an omnipotent being who decides to self-destruct in order to answer Its own question, “What will happen if I self-destruct?”. Second, we have the birth of the Universe as we know it. If, according to the Law of Conservation, the universe can not be born from nothing and the Deus can not cease to exist, then one must conclude that the Deus, in the act of self-destruction, gave birth to the very elements that make up the beginnings of our universe as we know it. The Deus ceased to exist as It knew itself to exist, and appropriately existed in another context, the universe.

When the Deus took action and became the universe, It created another phenomenon; time. Time is essentially the sequence of events taking place one after another. Before the Deus took action, created an event, there was no event to be created, no action to execute. Once the Deus created an event (his own self-destruction) It put forth a sequence of events that would continue long after Its initial self-destruction.

Pandeism Phase 3: The Coalescence
After the Deus’s self-destruction, Its composition was re-composed in the manner in which is described by the Big Bang theory. If Its essential being is currently compiling into stars, planets, and everything else that exists in our universe, what can be said for Its consciousness? According to the Law of Conservation, Its consciousness cannot cease to exist; of course this is assuming that consciousness has a tangible existence within our universe.

When we look at ourselves as the beings we are, we notice that we are self-aware, sentient, sapient beings on a level quite unlike that of any other species in our known universe. Is this self-awareness that we possess just the logical outcome of a world evolving? Yes, but it cannot be ignored that our self-awareness is also the logical outcome of an omnipotent, self-aware Deus that once existed in a manner in which can execute Its own decisions based on motivation to do so, not unlike the way we do.

If the Deus’s self-awareness and consciousness has been handed over to us as a characteristic we possess, we must then conclude that every decision we make, every action we perform is a result of being the remnants of the Deus. If we are the inevitable results of the Deus’s destruction, then what are the inevitable results of us? What is to become of an ever-evolving universe and an ever-evolving consciousness?

If we look at the timeline of human civilization, we can use that as a parallel to the events that have taken place, are taking place, and will take place throughout existence as we know it. We humans started out as a population of species that inhabited Africa some 200,000 years ago. Since then we have migrated across the globe, separated ourselves in terms of geography, culture, language and philosophy. We each developed our own ways as individual societies to protect ourselves from one another. With the advancement in technology concerning communication, we were eventually able to come together more closely as a whole. With the internet and other manners of information exchange, we are able to communicate with one another so rapidly and with so much ease, that it almost rivals that in comparison to the way in which we each individually sequentially think our own thoughts. If we give communication technology another two thousand years, or even one million years, what will we have then? Would it be possible to think a thought and automatically have it be thought in the mind of another individual across the globe? Could that be described as one collective consciousness? Is that science fiction? Or would it be the results of an evolving species in an ever-evolving universe, the results of the death and re-birth of a conscious Deus?

This timeline of human activity; birth, evolving, migrating, coming together, is much like the universe’s own timeline; birth, evolving, expanding, coming together. According to the Big Crunch theory, the average density of the universe is enough to stop expansion and begin collapsing. What that basically means, is that one day the universe will start to slowly (in the same amount of time that it had expanded) condense in on itself. Although many scientists believe the universe will continue expanding infinitively, either theory has not yet been proven to be true.

Suppose the universe does continue to expand. If the universe can infinitely expand, than the matter and energy existing in the universe will infinitely evolve. Just like planets are made of different forms of matter condensing into one entity, so the universe is evolving over time to form together as one entity. The evidence can be seen throughout the universe by understanding that each and every part of the universe, every form of matter and energy, is essential to the existence of it’s counter-part or it’s co-exister.

Whether you believe the universe is condensing in on itself or you believe the universe will grow forever, one thing remains clear; the universe and everything that exists within it, is coming together more and more as the years go on.

After reviewing the timelines and potential futures of the human consciousness and it’s universe in which it exists, and understanding that the universe and all that exists within it are remnants of a once self-aware, omnipotent being, we can then suppose that the Deus is reconfiguring Itself within the boundaries of existence as we know it.

Pandeism Phase 4: An Oscillating Existence
Assuming that the Deus will one day piece Itself back together by means of a universe and active consciousness coalescing in on itself, would It then be the same Deus It was before Its initial destruction? If It is the same Deus as It was before the birth of the universe, then It would again be plagued by the only question that can exist in Its mind; would I know what happens if I cease to exist?

The problem with assuming It would ask Itself that same question would be that since It had already existed as a universe and a separate consciousness as a result from Its first attempt at self destruction, then wouldn’t It already know that answer? He’s been there and done that. So now what?

There is another possible explanation. If the Deus, after ceasing to exist as he knew itself to exist, became the universe and a separate consciousness, It would not be aware of any other form of existing. Due to Its present state, it would be impossible for him to know Its previous state if It is not yet fully aware of itself in Its current state. Supposing that the entirety of existence will one day coalesce (the Deus piecing itself back together), the consciousness that the Deus will re-possess is not the same consciousness that existed while It wasn’t “fully complete”. It’s not that the Deus will forget that It was once a universe filled with stars, moons, and people. The very act of remembering a moment in time is only possible if time were to exist (the very act of remembering is an event being executed, time is a series of events being executed one after another…). Since time only exists while the universe is in motion, then time would cease to exist once the fully completed and fully revived Deus exists. An omnipotent Deus and the concept of time cannot co-exist; therefore the Deus would not execute the action of remembering that It was once a living universe, which brings us back to square one; what would be the only logical option for an omnipotent Deus? Thus we have the oscillating existence.


 * What is your source(s) for all this? We are required to cite sources when adding content like this, otherwise it is considered original research, which we can't use. -kotra (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Morality
I added this paragraph.

" The moral basis of pandeism is the idea that God (or the Deus, or the Creator) exists in all things, so that whatever we do do each other we are really doing to God. This very argument caused Saint Augustine to recoil from pandeistic interpretations, since he found it objectionable to think that a master whipping a slave would cause God to feel the blow. Yet later philosophers have pointed out that even theistic conceptions of God require this, for if God is all-knowing, then God's knowledge of the experience of that pain must be not only equal to, but superior to, that of the whipped slave. And so pandeists do not accord credence to the idea of God-given moral laws, but instead insist on treating everything in the Universe as they would treat God, giving God the awe and reverence (but not worship) due to a Creator with such creative ability, and attempt to maximize the experience of pleasure and happiness and joy in the world while minimizing the experience of pain and suffering and sorrow. "

This can be sourced, I will hunt for sources later. 198.100.3.85 (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any progress on the sources? The section will have to be removed as original research if no sources can be found. -kotra (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No sources were offered, so I have removed the section accordingly. -kotra (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Barack Obama and pandeism
Conservative blogger Mark Finkelstein recently labeled Obama's true faith as Pan-deism. He critiques a New York Times column by Gail Collins, which is why it is titled "Happy Pan-Deism Day From Gail Collins". Collins, so Finkelstein observes, noted the coincidence of Easter and Passover falling in the same week (hardly a surprising thing, since the crucifixion itself was tied to Passover in its timing), and quotes the observation from Collins that "Americans with less religious inclinations can look forward to the upcoming Earth Day celebrations, when the president is planning to do something as yet unannounced, but undoubtedly special, and Arbor Day, when rumor has it that he will not just plant a tree, but personally reforest a large swath of the nation of Mali". Finkelstein relates that "environmentalism has essentially become a religion, and Earth Day effectively a religious holiday. Yesterday's pan-deists, who worshiped trees and brooks, have become members of various environmental groups doing much the same thing. People like Al Gore others, and perhaps the reforesting Obama, have become their latter day shamans."

So Finkelstein is saying is that Obama (and Al Gore, and other environmental group members) are pandeists. Based on his political pedigree, it's pretty clear he means that as an insult (his next comment is "These are the same people who tend to demand the strict separation of church and state. Yet they would have teachers indoctrinate children in their modern-day Church of Gaia in our public schools"). I personlly doubt that Obama or Gore is a pandeist, but is this speculation worthy of mention in the article? 198.100.3.85 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This has now been related to conservative columnist Ross Douthat's attack on Pantheism in his New York Times editorial on the movie Avatar (titled "Heaven and Nature". Torquemama007 (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Examples?
What examples, these are BLOG POSTS or something like it from insignificant people. 64.202.139.214 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the examples. This is what I deleted.

Reverend Natalia Kita, classifies her beliefs as "transcendental pandeism," a phrase to which she assigns the following meaning:

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. This use of the term appears to be most consonant with panentheism, but with some variations with respect to the relationship between God and the individual.

This assertion is echoed by "Cristorly" (the pseudonym of Dominican poet and theologian) Orlando Alcántara, who also characterizes the pantheistic God as transcendent, while the pandeistic God is merely continuous with Creation:

God is inmanent, trascendent and holistic. That is Pantheism, not Pandeism. Pantheism is right, because we are speaking about a personal, individual, trascendent God. Pandeism (like Spinoza's) is not right, due to the fact that is not a trascendent God, a God beyond Creation.

Cristorly developed a "Theognosis" of Omnientheism, which integrates six concepts - theism, deism, panentheism, panendeism, pandeism, and pantheism - into a coherent corpus or canon. Cristorly describes his definitions as "discretional," meaning that each can only be understood in the context of all the rest. Cristorly asserts:

The terms Theism, Pantheism, and Panentheism have their root in Greek, which is a Biblical language, and therefore it is correct. In a discretionary way we assume that these terms present the idea of a personal, individual God. However, the terms Deism, Pandeism, and Panendeism have their root in Latin, which is not a Biblical language, and therefore it is not correct. These terms present the idea of God like synonymous of Energy or Cosmic Force, because God is not personal here, He is not individual.

Within this grouping, the meanings of the terms hinge on their categorization of the "transcendence, immanence, and holism of God". With respect to pandeism, he notes, "we see that Energy or Cosmic Force in Pandeism is immanent and holistic, but it is not transcendent."


 * So what is wrong with this stuff? It illustrates different variations in how people are actually using the word. Why do the people have to be "significant"? and why do you judge them to be insignificant? THat's a pretty harsh assessment. One of them is, apparently a reverend and the other is a theologian. I'm sure there credentials can be verified easily, why don't you do that? 198.100.3.85 (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)