Doxa

There are definitely problems within the umbrella movement known as integral spirituality, including some of its adherents mistaking egoism for enlightenment, but this still seemed like something relevant to the discussions here on this forum...

One of the most important contributions Christianity has to offer the world's discussion of spirituality is the idea of the Holy Trinity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This unique conception of God as "three persons, one substance" has been a central part of Christian doctrine since the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. And when viewed through the lens of Integral panentheism, the Trinity truly comes alive in our minds as three very different ways of experiencing God:

- The God that is the great, unknowable, Absolute Mystery, from which we come and to which we shall return—God transcendent, or God the Father.

- The God that we recognize in everything that we see, everything that we touch, everything that is—the entire universe as the Body of Christ; God imminent; or God the Son.

- The God that exists through doing, creating, knowing, understanding—the dynamic aspects of God; God as verb; or God as Holy Spirit.

The Holy Trinity is just one of many traditional religious symbols from around the world that take on renewed life, relevance, and significance in the light of a panentheistic conception of the physical and spiritual worlds. As such, the panentheistic model is an almost ideal place to begin any Integral discussion of religion and spirituality, as it not only helps to reconcile some of the apparent contradictions within the Christian tradition (e.g. transcendence vs. immanence), but also provides a common foundation upon which we can begin a truly inter-religious discussion, revealing many of the essential similarities (and important differences) between a multitude of different religions and faiths, as well as with the secular and scientific worlds. In a panentheistic universe, there is no need for conflict between spirituality and science, between God and evolution, or even between consciousness and biochemistry.

http://integrallife.com/editorial/relat ... e-and-many

Well, I could definitely support this on the face side. Though you're right, I have seen sites like this here and there.

That being said I need to find this book called "Panentheism: the Other God of Philosophers." it gives a historical account of panentheism and then criticizes it in favor of classical theism.

I've seen statments about Greek mythology and Hindu as being Trinity. So I don't know how unique it really is. Although that's not to say it isn't true or god.

It's problematic saying it's not inque. First, we must dismiss the typical skeptical argument that Zeus, Posiden, and Hades were a Trinity. Just having three major gods that head the Pantheon is not Trinity. Ditto for Hindus.

There are Hindu conceptions that have Shiva, Vishnu and Bramin as three persona in one essence. But there are also Hindu conceptions that have all gods as energies that imminent from the same source. That's not necessarily three persona in one essence.

There was a more genuine melding between Diana and Hecate and a third figure I can't recall. That has often been called a true Trinity. I wonder if the description was truly the same as the church's before Christian influence?

mdsimpson92 wrote:That being said I need to find this book called "Panentheism: the Other God of Philosophers." it gives a historical account of panentheism and then criticizes it in favor of classical theism.

I have seen people describe it as a theology of impersonal God. I dispute that. Even Tillich isn't saying God is just an impersonal force, even though he disparages the idea of "personal God." This get's back to the transpersonal issue.

Metacrock wrote:

mdsimpson92 wrote:That being said I need to find this book called "Panentheism: the Other God of Philosophers." it gives a historical account of panentheism and then criticizes it in favor of classical theism.

I have seen people describe it as a theology of impersonal God. I dispute that. Even Tillich isn't saying God is just an impersonal force, even though he disparages the idea of "personal God." This get's back to the transpersonal issue.

Actually I dont think that was the criticism. I need to find it somewhere, but it had more to do with human free will and how God is distinguished from the world. But the parts that I have read online were very respectful.

mdsimpson92 wrote:

Metacrock wrote:

mdsimpson92 wrote:That being said I need to find this book called "Panentheism: the Other God of Philosophers." it gives a historical account of panentheism and then criticizes it in favor of classical theism.

I have seen people describe it as a theology of impersonal God. I dispute that. Even Tillich isn't saying God is just an impersonal force, even though he disparages the idea of "personal God." This get's back to the transpersonal issue.

Actually I dont think that was the criticism. I need to find it somewhere, but it had more to do with human free will and how God is distinguished from the world. But the parts that I have read online were very respectful.

are you familiar with this "integral Christianity?" I am not.

Metacrock wrote:are you familiar with this "integral Christianity?" I am not.

It is approaching Christianity via Integral Spirituality. You can also have Integral Buddhism, etc. It is a broad umbrella term, but it basically means integrating: 1) the common wisdom of all sacred traditions, 2) different levels of spiritual development (see the standard color chart below), 3) what is useful from traditionalism, modernism and post-modernism, and 4) the 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person perspectives on God. The link I gave before is part of three for summaries of interviews between Ken Wilber and Br. David Steindl-Rast and gives an idea of what Integral Christianity would mean, but for a more fleshed out view I know there are blogs and books out there, but I haven't read them yet.

tinythinker wrote:

Metacrock wrote:are you familiar with this "integral Christianity?" I am not.

It is approaching Christianity via Integral Spirituality. You can also have Integral Buddhism, etc. It is a broad umbrella term, but it basically means integrating: 1) the common wisdom of all sacred traditions, 2) different levels of spiritual development (see the standard color chart below), 3) what is useful from traditionalism, modernism and post-modernism, and 4) the 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person perspectives on God. The link I gave before is part of three for summaries of interviews between Ken Wilber and Br. David Steindl-Rast and gives an idea of what Integral Christianity would mean, but for a more fleshed out view I know there are blogs and books out there, but I haven't read them yet.

O you mean spirituality.