I love that movie. The book is even better. 
Just dropping a thought: Did anyone see the documentary Transcendent man?
Thinking about this stuff a lot can make the head hurt. 
I haven’t, but just read the synopsis. Have you? What did you think? How does that relate to our discussion?
Magma, I did and it was disturbing.
It relates because the idea Ray Kurzwiel (spelling) has is that eventually the human mind will become digital. Our consiousness will actually exist in a machine and we will network and communicate at speeds that are biologically impossible. He says at that point there will be a singularity of mind and we will be like gods. He says then we will create virtual worlds (like the video games we play) and we’ll create characters who will live within this virtual world. We, the creators, will be able to do ANYTHING in this world.
He laughs when he says “people often ask me if I believe in God and I just tell them, not yet”.
I guess just thinking of how God exists, knows all things, does all things - it’s a good metaphor - similar to The Matrix.
It’s a digression -
Aug
Another idea about God’s boundlessness: God’s boundlessness includes omnipotence and omniscience that enable God to impose boundaries on himself to allow distinction between Creator and free-will creatures. Also, these boundaries work with God’s omnipresence and government of creation. The divine government upholds all things while maintaining the distinction between Creator and creature.
I know that Marcus Borg describes himself as a panentheist so I don’t know if any of his writings would help explain it.
I dropped the “C” label awhile back -a label that never really quite fit anyway. I love what we call “the bible” but do not view it as anything infallible (there are no magic books or people in my view). It is more like a mirror - people tend to see in it who they presently are OR who they want to become.
Right! Very basic common sense. Ex-nihilo is an illogical and ill-conceived idea - just more hocus-pocus religious nonsense.
From my studies it seems pantheism primarily says that the physical universe is God AND that the physical universe is all there is. Pan-en-theism says that although God exists in the physical creation and indeed is immanent IN creation God also transcends the physical universe. Huge difference.
Omnipresence is pretty much a universally accepted Christian doctrine. Yet it seems that mainstream Christian dogma maintains that God is distinctly separate from creation and that all things are not in God.
Right - it really has very little to do with how many persons make up God or what their names are.
I think you are right about that.
AISI - evil, and in fact, the entire negative side of things is part of the state which allows our type of universe to exists.= Also (AISI) since the tree of this forbidden knowledge was right in the garden then it (of course) came from the only place where anything comes from.
The latter, although I am not sure why that would technically disqualify the former, since I also affirmed the transcendence of God and the distinction of the not-God created natural system from God.
If there are pan-en-theists who deny the latter, that means they aren’t also pan-ek-theists. 
I think pan-en-theism is entirely compatible with any supernaturalistic theism (including ortho-trin), so long as the supernat-theism is coherent enough not to propose that there was some kind of equally self-existent ‘stuff’ ‘over there’ for God to create within; or not to propose that God created a reality parallel to Himself (pseudo-self-existent or otherwise), such that He and this new reality share an existence within a common overarching reality.
(This, by the way, would be my rebuttal to Paidion’s explanation. More on that later.)
As for evil, as long as the pan-en-theist also affirms pan-ek-theism (thus not pan-theism), I don’t think there is a conceptual problem with evil being an abuse of the good; although in any case, unless we are talking about something other than supernaturalistic theism (and its variants), this abuse of the good (ultimately involving the abuse of God, unless God is not good), so far as it goes, must be permitted by God.
Rline,
I either shouldn’t have burdened you with the work stress I was under that day, or should have waited to reply. That was my fault, and I’m sorry.
Since you didn’t specify what you were questioning, for all I knew you were denying that Jesus and/or the Father was supposed to be operating in our heart at all. Each has been denied for different reasons by unitarians (for reasons I’ll get to in a minute). And since from your first comment in this thread you wrote, “Me, I have spent a reasonable amount of time studying exactly this topic recently, and while I’m not quite convinced, I feel the biblical evidence points far more strongly to Jesus not being God” among other things–and since I didn’t recall you changing your mind in the course of the thread but still holding more toward that than toward some version of Jesus not being God (with joke/taunts like "Pack your bags!!! 
" when a member complained that if Jesus wasn’t God he would feel obligated to leave Christianity)–then I inferred you were still sympathetic to unitarianism when you asked me to quote chapter and verse on inviting God into our hearts and sanctuaries.
If you aren’t still sympathetic to Jesus not being God, then again my apologies, I missed that switch back somewhere. But if you are, then formally you’re still at least sympathetic to Christian unitarianism broadly (where God is only a single person and, unlike modalism, Jesus is personally distinct from the Father thus is not God Most High), even if not to a particular version of it yet (of which there are several).
My reply did not necessarily assume you actually are a theologically dedicated unitarian yet, but since the topic you asked about is one that some unitarians as such deny in various ways, and since you didn’t bother to clarify what you were asking about or why, I inferred you were most likely asking from within unitarian sympathy and even as a unitarianesque challenge.
(…I declare ‘unitarianesque’ to be a real word. 
)
Some unitarians are perfectly fine with both the Father and the Son coming into our hearts. (And even the Holy Spirit insofar as they acknowledge this to be another created spiritual person, although in my experience most unitarians see this as being only another way of talking about the Father and/or the Son.)
If Jesus isn’t God, then at least the Son has to “come into” our hearts–he cannot exist there omnipresently the way the real God Most High does. (Unless Paidion’s bi-theism is true. More on that in another post. 
) But depending on the unitarian version, Jesus might come into our hearts at the time of our creation, the way the Spirit of the Father does (and maybe even as the Spirit of the Son, along with the Spirit of the Father, so that there are two Holy Spirits. If they shared the same spirit as the “Spirit of God”, then either modalism or at least binitarian theism would be true.)
Some unitarians deny that Jesus comes into our hearts at all, however, or not in any religiously special way, because that would be related to the worship of a lesser lord or god, which as religious monotheists they deny. (And I would say rightly so.) On the other hand, some unitarians affirm that Jesus comes into our hearts, but does so in a religiously special way because the Father cannot!–the Father has to send a not-God entity to be His envoy so that He will not leave heaven (the idea being that if He ‘left heaven’ He would not be God, or would cease being God).
Consequently some unitarians challenge the notion of Jesus being in our heart at all (or any any religiously special way, more than for example Saint Paul or any other beloved person being in the heart of someone who loves that person); and others challenge the notion of the Father being in our heart at all (which is one reason why He sends a not-God envoy: to do so for Him.)
My reply to you, since you didn’t specify, had to take these options into account.
That’s why I started with that quote from St. Paul (also since you asked for that); who himself cites OT scripture about YHWH coming to dwell in us. As it happens you don’t deny YHWH is supposed to come dwell in us (leaving aside whether you deny YHWH is supposed to come walk among us!), but at the time I didn’t know that.
There are also scriptures about Jesus per se coming into (what amounts to) our heart (even if the word ‘heart’ is not used); and one of those also happens to involve Jesus not coming in until He is invited. Thus my citation of testimony from Jesus Himself as reported in RevJohn. As it happens you don’t deny Jesus is supposed to come dwell in us, but at the time I didn’t know that. You had to be at least questioning whether Jesus has to be invited in, however. That verse indicates so.
This leads systematically to the question of whether Jesus and the Father come into our heart, or only one of those persons (and if so which one–not yet considering the Spirit!) Thus my citation of testimony from Jesus Himself as reported in GosJohn: He and the Father (personally distinguishing) are supposed to come in. But if (per the RevJohn example) Jesus has to be invited in, and the Father comes in parallel to Jesus (or vice versa) in GosJohn, then the Father also has to be invited in.
Will they-or-They force their way in eventually? Apparently not in this life (if at all), even if one or both of them prepare our hearts to receive one or both of them. Thus my citation of testimony from Jesus Himself as reported in GosMatt: the heart of the previously demonized man was cleaned and ready for occupation, but he didn’t do anything with it, and so other entities forced their way in (not the Father and/nor the Son and/nor the Spirit).
As to inviting YHWH into the sanctuary, I didn’t ever claim that this happens in the NT, only that it was a Biblical notion. It happens in the OT, and if you want I can look up chapters and verses; but I hope you will be content with recalling the common OT concept of YHWH leaving the Temple in rejection of the sins of the nation and the people inviting YHWH back to the Temple in repentance of their sins. (This has topical connections with Jesus coming to the Temple during His ministry, and His departure until the day of the repentance of the leaders there; but I didn’t want to complexify things further by pressing that on you. The “Blessed is he who comes in the name of YHWH” is at least a cooperative invitation to Jesus that is expected to happen in the future, and Jesus implies this will involve entering the physical Temple again.)
While the NT texts are written as if the Temple is still in operation (thus pre-70, and for the most part even before the Jewish War), there is a shift happening to the worship of God “in spirit and in truth” that won’t rely on the Temple, we ourselves becoming the Temple. The same principles from the OT of inviting YHWH in repentance to return to the sanctuary, thus come to apply even more importantly and centrally in regard to our heart.
I don’t deny God’s omnipresence in our heart before our repentance–I think the scriptures have some things to say about that, too. But they do on occasion talk about YHWH (and Jesus, whether in identification of YHWH or not) being invited into the Temple (thus into a sanctuary–which if we have sanctuaries that would be the polite thing to continue to do. ) And about YHWH (Father and/or Son) not only coming into our heart, but being invited in. And, in some way, not coming in (despite the omnipresence of at least one of those persons) until we invite them. I expect the difference involves our cooperation with them; thus (I would say in regard to all three Persons of course) They are already there, or we wouldn’t be rational souls at all. But being in rebellion against them as sinners we try to thrust Them out. Inviting Them in enacts our cooperation by contrast.
Along the way, I thought I was being extremely fair to bring up textual details from my citations which are themselves often appealed to by unitarians against ortho-trin doctrine–and without going to the trouble of rebutting unitarian application of that data! (This was also a main reason why I chose those verses.)
I don’t recall there being any scriptural demonstration or command as to how to present the invitation. I would say the thief on the cross was in effect doing so, even though his expression (and probably understanding) was almost as minimal as imaginable. (The sheep at the judgment did not even realize they had been serving Christ per se!–they may be the logically minimum example, that of charity to others.)
That we do so is presented by Jesus Himself as being important. How we do so is, by the same data, apparently quite variable.
Yes, that was impatient, and I’m sorry.
You don’t seem to have answered my question, though. 
(I quoted more than what you replied me quoting, specifically on the notion of needing to invite Jesus into our hearts.)
I don’t think you were being disrespectful to me, and I’m sorry I was brusque with you Wednesday.
I think I have a clearer understanding of various types of pantheism since we last talked a while back. There are two primary types of pantheism: (1) naturalistic pantheism and (2) idealist pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism looks atheistic and says that God is the scientific understanding of nature. Idealist pantheism says that the universe is ultimately mind and there is a universal/cosmic consciousness. Notable cases of idealist pantheism include various types of Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age.
I suppose that I keep hearing from you about a universal consciousness, which looks more like idealist pantheism instead on panentheism. But please let me know if I misunderstand you.
You are quite the gentleman sir! You remind me of a close friend of mine as a matter of fact. We can discuss all these things and keep kindness at the forefront which I think God smiles on much more than being right or wrong.
I’ve never studied Hinduism, Buddhism or New Age in any depth but have heard the word pantheism used in conjunction with Buddhism. In the small amount I have read not much resonated with me but their ideas are interesting for sure. Hinduism with it’s plethora of God’s various manifestations and elaborate hierarchy is a much bigger mess than Christianity IMO. My understanding is very simple and straightforward and hopefully inspired.
Again - I believe the big difference between pantheism and panentheism is the idea of absolute transcendence, that in the big picture this entire physical universe is just a tiny speck in an infinite God and in no way even begins to define who God is. I do not believe that the physical universe IS mind but that it exists within God’s mind and so my panentheism is much closer to Christian panentheism than to pantheism.
In fact I’ve never read much about spirituality outside the bible - which surprises some. A CU who had befriended me as a youth (when I was an atheist), seeing the grace of God at work took me in allowed me to stay in his home to fast/pray/study for a full year, full time. So I was sort of a modern U.S. orderless monk 
Of course I didn’t fast full time - but I was very very thin by the end!
I never read Christian authors much either as I wanted my info “straight from the horses mouth” so to speak as the Holy Spirit is the only interpreter needed. But religion wants creedal structure and set doctrine which IMO is the enemy of true spirituality. AISI - the simple biblical highlights of loving God and others is the most important thing in there. The fruits of the Spirit are the epitome of spiritual life and are available to any who will seek them. It’s more about what the the reader is able to comprehend of what it says (through inspiration) than about what it actually says.
Back on topic - what most Christians seem to miss is that the connection between the Christ and humanity is the same as Adam and humanity. One is a universal archetype of the natural and the other a universal archetype of the spiritual. Both are Sons of God and represent the knowledge of good and evil, the flesh being contrary to the spirit and such.
I got it. You’re not an idealist. I suppose that you hold to some type of mind-matter dualism. Is that correct? Let me make another conjecture based on previous statements of yours. You believe that there is ultimately one infinite divine mind in the universe while each human mind is [a] speck within the divine mind. Is that close to your belief? Perhaps you believe in something along the lines of a dualist universal consciousness?
My beliefs are fluid and always evolving but the major cornerstone has remained steady which is this: I (believe I) know that the breath of God has been implanted into the heart of the earth and humans are the result. Ultimately we are passing from death to life, from the valley of the shadow of death into resurrection knowledge which would include understanding the divine origins of human consciousness. The cross, the tomb and the resurrection all represent mankind as a whole. Adam 1 represents the descent into death and Adam 2 (AKA Jesus) represents the rising into God consciousness again.
CUs cornerstone verse “as In Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive” states it well although this and all scripture is couched in mystery. Taking the surface meanings literally is what gave rise to the religion of Christianity with it’s creeds and forms which are only types of the reality.
The mind matter duality question I’m not sure how to answer. I do think the mind allows us the ability to be conscious of the alternate eternal reality outside of the physical universe. This link, when opened up, is a faucet out of which an understanding God’s eternal nature flows - scripturally called “the spirit of wisdom and revelation”. Ultimately, when the dam completely breaks the earth will be covered with the knowledge glory of the Lord (ie: the Eternal) as the waters cover the sea.
Okay, I’ll stop guessing how monism or dualism plays into your theology, especially since I’m still unclear about my views of dualism. However, these ideas have some impact on Christology, so that’s why I consider them.
By the way, Romans 5 is part of but not a cornerstone for my universalist theology. I see no verse of the Bible teaching definite universalism while Romans teaches that faith is a condition for salvation. However, God never gives up on a single person.
Jason, Thanks for your apology. I accept it, forgive you, whatever is required.
The one that comes to mind most readily is in 2 Cor 5:
That seems to me to possibly be the clearest statement of what we’re to do, particularly given that in verse 19, God was already reconciling the world to himself in Christ, and not counting their sins against them.
But clear as this is, it seems to have nothing to do with an invitation into the heart.
I guess that’s where I was coming from.
Again, thanks for your apology.
And, being a part of Him, how could He?