PANENTHEISM (from Charles Hartshorne, et al)
All is in God. But not all is God.
God's existence is necessary, and is compatible with all events in the world.
God is capable of surpassing himself by growing and changing in his knowledge and feeling for the world.
All the beauty created in a person's life will exist forever in the reality of God.
Science and Theology provide data for each other.
God loves creation, but also endures suffering.
God needs the world in order to be a complete being.
An aspect of God does not have complete foreknowledge of all events.
MY PREOLISM (Progressive Realism):
All is in God. God is in all. But all is not God. Because some of the all is a web of math, that serves as the intangible body of God, but not the Mind of God.
The Conscious aspect of the Godhead interfunctions with a web of math.
The interfunctioning produces and conserves each unfolding cosmos of potentiality.
The portion that has already unfolded into previously renormalized histories of manifestation is Information.
That portion that presently presents to measurable manifestation is Substance.
The Duality is the Godhead plus the Web of Math.
The Trinity of the Godhead is Consciousness, Information, Substance
Consciousness is made experienceable from the interfunctioning of Information and Substance.
Information is made experienceable from the interfunctioning of Consciousness and Substance.
Substance is made experienceable from the interfunctioning of Information and Consciousness
The Web of Math is made serviceable by the Godhead, i.e., the interfunctioning of Consciousness, Substance, and Information.
No one part of the Trinity can express itself without a connecting reference to the other two parts.
I am that I am.
SPIRIT - CONSCIOUSNESS AT META LEVEL THAT IS IMMEASURABLE FROM OUR LEVEL OF EXPERIENCING IT
We experience mortal, particular Consciousness from the perspective of a bonded avatar, that has been associated with a history of perceptions, whose avatar has recorded those perceptions, for being conserved and remembered via a recording function, which sense of memory interfunctions with unfoldings of present interpretations, relations processing not just in space but also in time, renormalized within locally experienceable and communicable parmeters, interpreted as sensations of sight, sound, touch, taste, feeling of contextual pressure, balance, and beingness, such interpretations being fed back and renormalized via a reconciling function, that conserves math based relationships.
But may Consciousness exist or be experienced beyond the renormalizing function of a temporal avatar that is bonded with an unfolding cone of local experience?
May such Consciousness experience Identity, Unity, Feedback, Appreciation?
May aspects of it step in and out of space-time?
From its level of experience, may it measure aspects of itself, in terms of a meta-math?
Such questions seem not answerable so long as we bond and cling to mortal perspective.
But once we are reabsorbed to the Godhead, may we, as IT, suffuse our interpretations through those of the mortals that we, as IT, then sponsor?
If the conservational reconciliation, were it all at once added together, reduces to zero, then does that suggest that Conscious Mind abides as a reality that is superior to zero and to Substance (body and brain) and Information?
Identity. Avatar. Soul. Accumulation of Information. Karma. Same Information, from many Perspectives, including Holistic. Changeless Changer. God appreciating, learning, reconciling, preserving information, paying it forward. Both psychically and substantively. At immeasurable and unprovable but intuitive level, Spirit learning, reconciling. Preservation of Information, regrets. Immeasurable Causer. Still quiet voice. Spirit based conscience. God Identity Consciousness Alone. Appreciation Music Purposefulness. Choosing through possible scenes. Intuitive Conscience Soul. Beyond science, yet confined with math. Godhead because trinitarian can both remember (store possibilities) and forget and appreciate anew. Shades of music.
A propensity abides among godless elites to assume to promote themselves to God. This affliction among mankind endangers humanity more every day.
In abstract terms, consciousness, in some respects, seems necessarily to be enmeshed with and throughout the observable substance and information of the cosmos. Whatever is of measurable import is in some sense perceived or implicated to observers. Maybe mortal avatars for the expression of consciousness emerge and bond, as more than one form of sensory recordation is correlated in a self perpetuating and feedback relationship with another. Some avatars are organized to experience feedback in a way that can be called being self aware.
IAE, there seems to abide a conserving and reconciling principle (or Principler). While aspects of it can be formulated in math, something more than math itself seems to avail consciously interpretive experiences of present fluxes of substance and previous histories or information concerning such fluxes. That "something" is empathetically intuited by some to constitute a unifying Recomciler, a changeless-changer, a meta-spiritual-holism on a higher level -- i.e., God.
It can be worthwhile to appreciate that our avatars are limited perspectives of the God. That we may, on passing, in some respects be adjudged worthy of being reabsorbed into that Godhead, or purged to further refinement. That we, as spirit, are part of the potential of a higher Reconciler. But to believe there is no good, no source, and no Reconciler above us, is to avail many to nourish a sociopathy that easily transposes towards hideous evil.
When God is denied, or demoted below oneself, then the way seems to be open for an artificial void to promote and float those who are most prone to sociopathy.
(Sorry for the sermon. When I do that, it tends to be more because I am playing with ideas in themselves, though I recognize it often bores others. Since this is "American Thinker," I think and brew on these things to seek civilization that can be commodious to consistency, coherence, and completeness.)
Islam also sorely "misunderestimates" the Trinity (aka Godhead). Islam is lost in a bi-dimensional logic that is hopelessly inadequate to cope with the unfolding reality.
Completeness is one of the receding conundrums. No sooner do we complete passing through one door than at least one other opens. Yet, each system of thought tries to account for all possible contingencies. As you say, It seems beyond us to imagine how even God can be complete in respect of constantly pursuing fulfillment and learnig to appreciate surprising unfoldings. I think the godhead is complete, but the conscious aspect of it must in some respects flux.
I suspect at least half the members of every society feel lost unless they can measure themselves in a duck line. They are lost unless they know who occupies what position in each heirarchy. They need hierarchy, even if they are at the bottom rung. They will riot, unless they can either rule or be ruled. They hate being responsible to become individually competent to think for themselves, as opposed to thinking as does the hierarchy of which they want to be a part.
America was in large part founded and settled by frontiersmen. America still has that in its blood. There is no other place in the world that is still like that. The more that America imports immigrants who require a hierarchy, the more America will willingly put on her own chains. And fight against all who seek to remove such chains.
These new imports tend not to want freedom to think, speak, associate, or enterprise. They detest that! They want the security of a safe place in the hierarchy of political correctness. If Americans don't stop importing such people, the American Ideal of human freedom and dignity will be lost forever.
The minorities who are not comfortable with freedom do not dislike white men who are independently competent because they are racist. They dislike such white men because they are not racist. They find the very idea of competent independence of mind to be entirely repugnant. If more white men were really racist, such minorities could better know their place and would probably be more contented for it. Meanwhile, they find solace in doing what they can to stick individually competent white men at the lowest rung of whatever hierarchy they can forcibly establish.
I do not want to live in a racially hierarchical society. I want to find like minded people and disassociate myself from all the PC quackers and their duck lines. To do that, if necessary, I am willing to employ nullification and secession. And all who are like me, of whatever color, are kin. I want more freedom genes and less anti-freedom genetic drag. And to hedoublell with anti-American obamanites and their anti-freedom "refugees."
But why are women (and salon femimen) most represented among the PC anti-freedom fascists? Well, it could be because fewer among them happen to be brought up to value becoming individually competent. They tend to value security. And when that cannot be found with a competent mate, then the Obamagirls among them look for it in a gov or a despot. Why does Hillary tell lie after lie to fit the commie agenda, and stand by her man, even as she knows he gives the lie to everything she says? Why do all the women under Islam put up with that system of repression? Must it not be because they have been conditioned more than anything else to fear losing their position in the established duckline, even when it is at the lowest rung?
Such women will not be salvaged by a "religion" that justifies their subjugation. They will be salvaged on this earth only by a faith that appeals to their capacity to become all they can be.
Every sentient person of the least common sense knows that every true believing Muslim celebrated in his heart the grievous and black eye given to America on 9-11-11.
So, suppose you live in a representative republic and learn by direct experience of a land where people are raised, taught, and conditioned from the time they are babes to hate every important value upon which your republic is based, to despise the women of your land and want them stoned when not covered and chaperoned, to believe that God ordains that they are divinely superior to the people of your nation and entitled to enserf and rule them, and that they should feel entitled to rape and kill any of your fellow citizens as they may desire.
Now then, in event such people begin fighting one another so that some seek refuge, would you, especially without extensive vetting, invite them into your home and trust them to be on their own or unsupervised near your daughters? If not, how could you justify your government using tax money to force your fellow citizens to take them in?
I attended a Christ based church today. I give the minister an A on presentation, but a D on moral philosophy. I understand that a church will wish not to discourage membership, and will want to provide inspiration and encouragement to members. It will want to help move the message of Christ towards victory. However, there is more to seeking moral guidance from God than a simplistic talisman of loving and tolerating everyone.
For heaven's sake, how do you "tolerate" your neighbors of good faith and good will if you sponsor the importation of brutes to go among them to rape, plunder, and kill them? Why should love and toleration go to trained rapists, plunderers, and killers, but not to long standing neighbors? And what of the future -- should it factor into any instant gratification you may seek from being radically "tolerant" in the present? What does your receptivity to God's guidance tell you about the kind of decency and civilization God wishes to lead us towards? Should we be tolerant of that, as opposed to sacrificing it so we can feel good about "tolerating" brutes in the present?
My church minister made an excellent presentation leading up to the question, Does the church believe anything is wrong (or bad or sinful)? Or does it just tolerate and love everything and everyone, and is that even possible? I give an A for the presentation leading up to entering the ring to wrestle and grapple with the question. The minister got right up to the ring, but then, apart from concern for Syrian refugees, failed to enter and engage the important factors that relate to the question. The pat suggestion seemed to be, yes, give refuge to the Syrian Musliims. With no concern expressed about the nation. Nor for an alternative that would provide refuge in place.
Same with concerns about gays. Little appreciation that Gays already are free to do most of what they want, and face little public prejudice for doing it. As if social tolerance, to be moral, should somehow require the next step, being political funding and sponsorship.
Jacob wrestled with an angel of God. But most churches nowadays do not wrestle. Nor do they seek or give practical moral guidance. Instead, they tend to claim God loves and tolerates everyone and everything -- as if such a logical contradiction could make any kind of moral sense! They do not help a nation keep its moral balance to preserve itself politically. They make us easy fodder for corrupt vultures, crony plunderers, and mad-dog gangster rapists posing as men of "God" (Allah). And with a well presenting minister, all the sheeple assent.
Are genetic, cultural, and meme drag making us dumber? You betcha. Pray for common sense. Trump/Cruz.