"Eckenkar and the WPM are ENTIRELY unrelated. For that matter, I would love it if you could elaborate on how you formed that conclusion, as I find that utterly confounding. I am equally perplexed at how you would discredit the WPM as not "true" pantheism. (For more about the WPM visit: www.myspace.com/thewpm). I'd be glad to clear things up for anyone with additional questions. First off, I would recommend anyone in this pantheist group to read the book I suggested before coming to any conclusion"

They may find themselves to be unrelated, however after reading the book you reccomended and exploring t6he related site and comparing this to the religion of Eckenkar to which i am firmiliar as my great grandmother was a priestess of it and writer about it. i personally think that they are very similar. As WPM related it's version of pantheology through the nature within this planet and much of pantheism theory includes other things beyond but still including our natural enviroment here on this one lonely planet in the grand scheme of things, i personally feel (as in it is my opinion) that WPM is not true pantheism. Do you disagree? Good that is the very nature of theology itself. My years of study will likely not be completely dissuaded by rereading one book or viewing any myspace page. But this is the great thing about WPM and what i feel to be true pantheism, they both leave room for prople to form their own opinions even if they do not match yours.

i hope that clears things up.

Also panentheism according to the extremely unreliable unverifiable wiki is all in god which is the exact opposite of what i believ so i am not in that way confused. to elaborate as requested, i link eckenkar and WPM as well as many pagan faiths such as wicce for the do create dieties but with a less human and more nature based backing, though i did not through wicca in earlier as they do tend to use human form dieties whereas WPM and Eckankar leave the diefying entirely in the non human nature element. WPM gets a little further off the planet than Eck and i am not saying that they are sononomous by any means, but since even spacial concepts in WPM are related to this planet i find them to be very similar in their earth planet nature angle of beliefs. But one can not say WPM believ everyone to be correct in their religious beliefs, nor are they all inclusive of thought enough for me to call it true pantheology, semipantheology i would conceed to.

Any existence...er, all existence of any kind.

This, of course, is problematic given some notions of alternate realities (a.k.a different "worlds"). In some of those theories, each universe (say the universe where Paris Hilton was actually a good singer) would be an entity real only to itself and all others un-real to it. In that case, as Ockham notes, each universe would have it's own necessary being (God). That always rubbed me a bit wrong. I'd be more inclined to say that God subsumes all possible universes within it's being as well.

Of course, this ends up with a super-verse and being really does look much more like analogy of being rather than equivocal being. I don't really have a problem with the super-verse, but it's corrilary about analogy of being is fairly devastating to the pantheist theology. So, I believe this way, but I'm certainly not ready yet to defend it philosophically. It may be that analogy of being isn't all that devastating to pantheism...I haven't yet taken the time to sit and iron out this part of my personal theology. Perhaps Ockham is right and each possible universe has it's own necessary being. In that case being can be more easily equivocal and each universe is a patheistic universe unto itself.

Thanks for the prompt!
It got me thinking...but alas, back to programming.
Be Well

> So how are you defining universe?

Mathematically, specifically using set theory: the Universe is the set of everything. I exist, therefore I'm part of the universe (∈U for short). You exist, therefore you ∈U. My dead phone exists, therefore it's ∈U. The star that resulted in the crab nebula did exist, therefore it's ∈U. Love exists ... ∈U. The idea of a unicorn ∈U. All memories of the color blue ∈U. The void between galaxies ∈U.

So, if Jehovah is out there somewhere, he's ∈U. If an aeonic wave function (whatever that means) exists, it's ∈U.

A related idea, which goes well beyond set theory, is a group of extant things is usually much more than the sum of its parts. A human body contains countless numbers of parts, but we're not just a group of parts, we have intellegence, we can love, we have a divine spark. As mundane as it might look on the surface, a line of people waiting to buy lottery tickets contains many intellegences (arguably not being used at that moment), many loves, many divine sparks. A more interesting group of people, say a Buddhist Monestary, might have gathered its people together to form something even greater than the sparks of the people.

The Earth, while again a collection of other things, seems to have her own intellegence, her own personality, her own divine spark. The Universe itself, while too vast to be particularly accessable to my small human brain, I see no reason why it would not also be it's own divinity, and by definition, one that encompasses all of us.

Pretty much, yeah :o)

From the Free Online Dictionary of Philosophy (FOLDOP):

pantheism

<metaphysics, stoicism, epistemology> the belief that God and the universe are identical; among modern philosophers, Spinoza is considered to be a pantheist. Among the ancients the Stoics were the most notable exponents of pantheism. According to Stoicism, the material universe is the Body of God, and the God's spirit or soul is the Mind (or logos) guiding and governing this universal body. In effect, universal Body and indwelling Mind together comprise the divine Person.

From the Philosophical Dictionary on www.philosophypages.com:

pantheism

Belief that god is present in all of nature, rather than transcending it. Spinoza's identification of god with nature ("Deus sive Natura") and Hegel's notion of the Absolute as World-Spirit are usually regarded as forms of pantheism.

"So if I believe that everything that exists, IS God, that means that I am probably a pantheist?"

yes i think so.