Unity of Existence

[Left Now]

Well first of anything,hello.

Okay so the title is "Unity of Existence",what do you think about it?

[Judean Zealot]

If you're trying to bring out what I think you are, then I like it. :)

[Left Now]

Etzelnik,actually I am trying to bring something which I do not think just a few people here have ever heard about,and it actually can somehow be in odd with many people's beliefs and imagination in here.

Since I am not sure if there are other people here who are some kinda confused about theology (Seriously what kinda name is that they have chosen for this subject) or not,I think it is going to actually turn into a good debate.

[Microcosm]

I'm not really sure what this thread is about, but I'll attempt to interpret it.

I'll try though. So, if you're talking about how we should all accept each other and everything we say as equal, I think that would be very bad for the world(even though it sounds good). Read Ayn Rand's book Anthem. A society that is built entirely on equality is not a good thing and it never will be. Humans have disagreements. Sometimes these disagreements turn into war. Sometimes war and death are the only solutions to these things. I, personally, believe diplomacy is the best cure for these things. However, it is common when making an effective decision for the need to act quickly and effectively to arise. The best way this can be achieved is through quick, effective action even if that involves killing or unethical sacrifice.

"The great questions of the time are not decided by speeches and majority decisions,. . . but by iron and blood. -Otto Van Bismarck

My point in mentioning all this is not to go off into a unrelated debate, but rather to say that people do not merely accept each other and others' opinions, and, sometimes, they are entirely justified in doing so. Therefore, it would seem entirely reasonable to say that "Unity of Existence" is harmful because in order to enact it, you would have to force it on people by forcing them to treat everyone's ideas and opinions(even crazy opinions and ideas that clearly make no sense) as equal.

For the sake of sticking to the main topic, I'd prefer that anyone wishing to respond to me would respond with the thoughts of the second paragraph in the forefront of their response as that of the first paragraph is exemplary explanation of the second.

[Judean Zealot]

Etzelnik,actually I am trying to bring something which I do not think just a few people here have ever heard about,and it actually can somehow be in odd with many people's beliefs and imagination in here.

Since I am not sure if there are other people here who are some kinda confused about theology (Seriously what kinda name is that they have chosen for this subject) or not,I think it is going to actually turn into a good debate.

So you're giving a theistic account of the universe's essential unity?

Please explain it to us so we can have the discussion you want. :)

[Left Now]

So you're giving a theistic account of the universe's essential unity?

Please explain it to us so we can have the discussion you want. :)

Well I am not sure if you are ever familiar with Suffism or not,but there is a philosophy among them known as "Unity of Existence" also called "Hame-Khodaei" in Farsi means "All-Godness".

In this philosophy,they believe that there is nothing that is not God in existence and everything in this world is God itself and all the existence is just One Thing and there are not things but this one thing:Existence which is the God itself.

In Mullah Sadra Shia philosophy,this subject has also been discussed and followers of Mullah Sadra agree with it,although many jurists and scholars today are against it.

Well,the main core of this philosophy is that God is not a being,but the only being and since the only being means all Existence,so they call it "Unity of Existence" or better to say "Oneness of Existence."

It is somehow too much in odd with regular people's imagination and beliefs about God,nearly questions all the elements of Abrahamic (as they say) Theology.

Rainbow Dash,I was trying to bring this.

[Judean Zealot]

Broken Pen: What you described is called Pantheism in the West. It's considered heretical by just about everyone, including Sufis.

There is a very similar philosophy, though, which is what you mean to say, called Panentheism. Whereas Pantheists like Spinoza believe that God is no more than the sum of Nature, Panentheists believe that all of the universe is part of God, but God is still greater, and indeed, exists, beyond the sum of Creation.

Panentheism has quite a few schools of thought in the Abrahamic religions, including Greek Orthodox Christianity, certain Hassidic sects, and others. I think that the idea as it simply stands is untenable, but I'd like to hear why you think it doesn't square with Abrahamic theology.

I'm currently working on a tweaked version of Panentheism myself.

[Left Now]

Etzelnik,Oneness of Existence is not considered heretical by Suffi schools here and even some Shia schools approve it,although many others disapprove it and even most of jurists of Qom School consider it heretical,but they can't force their opinion of its being heretical on the other jurists because they can quitely well defend their opinion.

This year we even read one of its examples in our Literature book about "Hassan Hallaj",a Suffi Iranian Philosophist and Poet of 4th century Solar Hijri who introduced "انا الحق" (I am Truth:One of the names that God is called in Islam) Theory,and how he later got hung because of Sunni then jurists who considered his thoughts heretical and then pressured Caliph to execute him.


Well according to this Philosophy,since God is One it cannot be just one thing and being but the only thing and being.It is all Existence itself and nothing more than it since nothing more than it exists and there is no other thing than God itself.I do not know about Panentheism and Pantheism,but "Vahdat-e-Vojood" (Oneness of Existence) Philosophy more insists that God and Existence which means everything are one.

Well as I said,as they say it is in odd with Abrahamic Theology and I myself do not think it has anything in odd with it,since even in Quran there is a verse that says "We (what God refers itself) are closer to you even more than the blood vessel of your neck.",which with just a little thinking,one can uderstand that it can also be an approval to this philosophy.

Actually,I myself am some kinda involved in some kinda of "Oneness of Existence" Philosophy too,however a little more twisted one.

[Judean Zealot]

Etzelnik,Oneness of Existence is not considered heretical by Suffi schools here and even some Shia schools approve it,although many others disapprove it and even most of jurists of Qom School consider it heretical,but they can't force their opinion of its being heretical on the other jurists because they can quitely well defend their opinion.

This year we even read one of its examples in our Literature book about "Hassan Hallaj",a Suffi Iranian Philosophist and Poet of 4th century Solar Hijri who introduced "انا الحق" (I am Truth:One of the names that God is called in Islam) Theory,and how he later got hung because of Sunni then jurists who considered his thoughts heretical and then pressured Caliph to execute him.


Well according to this Philosophy,since God is One it cannot be just one thing and being but the only thing and being.It is all Existence itself and nothing more than it since nothing more than it exists and there is no other thing than God itself.I do not know about Panentheism and Pantheism,but "Vahdat-e-Vojood" (Oneness of Existence) Philosophy more insists that God and Existence which means everything are one.

Well as I said,as they say it is in odd with Abrahamic Theology and I myself do not think it has anything in odd with it,since even in Quran there is a verse that says "We (what God refers itself) are closer to you even more than the blood vessel of your neck.",which with just a little thinking,one can uderstand that it can also be an approval to this philosophy.

Actually,I myself am some kinda involved in some kinda of "Oneness of Existence" Philosophy too,however a little more twisted one.

Yeah, I think we're in agreement here (I just didn't explain myself properly). I'm just trying to make an important distinction here.

Pantheism is the belief that God is merely the sum of all creation, and He has no independent existence beyond the universe. This is primarily championed by Spinoza, and is considered heretical by just about everyone else.

Panentheism, which is what you're referring to, is the belief that all of Creation exists within God, and that the universe is an actual 'part of God'. Thus God exists beyond the universe, but the universe is still part of God. This is a more acceptable, yet still controversial position.

The main challenge to Panentheism (or as you would call it, Unity of Existence) is that God is definitionally simple, meaning he has no parts (this is especially emphasized in Judaism and Islam, where no equivalent of the Trinity exists). Now, if we were to say that all of the universe is God, but God also exists beyond it, then we have divided God into two, which is cosmologically unacceptable.

I have a few possible answers, but I want to hear what you think. How would you answer this challenge?

[Left Now]

Yeah, I think we're in agreement here (I just didn't explain myself properly). I'm just trying to make an important distinction here.

Pantheism is the belief that God is merely the sum of all creation, and He has no independent existence beyond the universe. This is primarily championed by Spinoza, and is considered heretical by just about everyone else.



Well,actually this one is closer to my opinion but the part whicn says "no independent existence beyond the universe" is somehow troubling.In my opinion God is all exists and so there is no other thing but God .Nothing exists beyond the all that exists,so there is nothing that this definition "God" is not in Existence.You know the fact that this Universe,Existence is all it is and there is no other Existence but this only one.It means that,this definition God is all Existence;you know they are One.


Panentheism, which is what you're referring to, is the belief that all of Creation exists within God, and that the universe is an actual 'part of God'. Thus God exists beyond the universe, but the universe is still part of God. This is a more acceptable, yet still controversial position.


Well,I am not saying that this world is a part of God,but that everything exists is this definition God,everything exists which means the Existence itself,and there is nothing beyond this Existence.

The main challenge to Panentheism (or as you would call it, Unity of Existence) is that God is definitionally simple, meaning he has no parts (this is especially emphasized in Judaism and Islam, where no equivalent of the Trinity exists). Now, if we were to say that all of the universe is God, but God also exists beyond it, then we have divided God into two, which is cosmologically unacceptable.

Actually the main core of my philosophy is that this definition God is not a being,but is the being and existence itself.

[Judean Zealot]

Well,actually this one is closer to my opinion but the part whicn says "no independent existence beyond the universe" is somehow troubling.In my opinion God is all exists and so there is no other thing but God .Nothing exists beyond the all that exists,so there is nothing that this definition "God" is not in Existence.You know the fact that this Universe,Existence is all it is and there is no other Existence but this only one.It means that,this definition God is all Existence;you know they are One.

I think I've pinpointed your position, but I'd like to be sure. Tell me, besides for the sun, moon, galaxies, earth, animals, people etc (everything we call 'nature' or 'creation'). Besides for these, is there anything that can be called God?

Actually the main core of my philosophy is that this definition God is not a being,but is the being and existence itself.

Yeah, you seem to be a Spinozan. Check him up: Baruch (or Benedict) Spinoza.

But don't tell this even to a Suffi. You will probably get into a lot of trouble.

[Left Now]

I think I've pinpointed your position, but I'd like to be sure. Tell me, besides for the sun, moon, galaxies, earth, animals, people etc (everything we call 'nature' or 'creation'). Besides for these, is there anything that can be called God?

For me,this definition God is not appropriate.I would rather call it Absolute.Absolute is not each of these things (sun,moon,galaxy,animals and people and etc) one by one,but the Existence.I hope I have made it clear.



Yeah, you seem to be a Spinozan. Check him up: Baruch (or Benedict) Spinoza.

But don't tell this even to a Suffi. You will probably get into a lot of trouble.

Thanks,I will surely check him up,but I some kinda see my views closer to Mullah Sadra and Abu Ali Sina's views than any other people.

Well about that Suffi thing,I haven't gotten into any problem with Suffis yet,but even if I want to debate with them about this,I will surely make sure not to let them feel offended.Thanks for the advice.

Plus+Would you please try reach your 100 soon as possible?I am looking forward to have private conversations with you through P.M

[Judean Zealot]

For me,this definition God is not appropriate.I would rather call it Absolute.Absolute is not each of these things (sun,moon,galaxy,animals and people and etc) one by one,but the Existence.I hope I have made it clear.

Alright. Now for the meat. What is this Absolute's relation to human actions?


Plus+Would you please try reach your 100 soon as possible?I am looking forward to have private conversations with you through P.M

I haven't yet left ROTW, so this may take some time. :P

I'm looking forward as well.

[Left Now]

Alright. Now for the meat. What is this Absolute's relation to human actions?

Pardon me?



I haven't yet left ROTW, so this may take some time. :P

I'm looking forward as well.

Good luck then.:yes:

[Judean Zealot]

Pardon me?

Does the Absolute reveal Itself to us? Does the Absolute command us to do or not to do certain things? Does the Absolute care?

[Left Now]

Does the Absolute reveal Itself to us? Does the Absolute command us to do or not to do certain things? Does the Absolute care?

When I say Absolute I am not talking about a lord or a human,I am talking the Absolute.It is the revelation itself do not you see:The World Exists!
Do you want any better revelation than this?

It is not a lord to give orders,the things which we must do must be Normality,Discipline.The things which we must not do are Innormality and ignoring Discipline.They are not orders written by a human,they are what we have to do and what we do not have to do.The things which are either along Discipline and Normality or against it.

By the way,Revelation,Care,Commands,Kindness,Honor,Anger and ... are all definitions made by humans...

When you say does it care,then you are saying that this Absolute is a human or with human feelings,while it is not a HE or SHE,but Absolute.Anyway,if you want to use this definitions,let us just say the fact that the world exists and there is a discipline is the ultimate Care itself.

[Judean Zealot]

When I say Absolute I am not talking about a lord or a human,I am talking the Absolute.It is the revelation itself do not you see:The World Exists!
Do you want any better revelation than this?

It is not a lord to give orders,the things which we must do must be Normality,Discipline.The things which we must not do are Innormality and ignoring Discipline.They are not orders written by a human,they are what we have to do and what we do not have to do.The things which are either along Discipline and Normality or against it.

By the way,Revelation,Care,Commands,Kindness,Honor,Anger and ... are all definitions made by humans...

When you say does it care,then you are saying that this Absolute is a human or with human feelings,while it is not a HE or SHE,but Absolute.Anyway,if you want to use this definitions,let us just say the fact that the world exists and there is a discipline is the ultimate Care itself.

I'm following you perfectly. I'm just trying to feel out the nuances of your position. Don't worry, I have the background to understand what you're saying.

Is the soul immortal and does it suffer punishment for sins?

[Left Now]

I'm following you perfectly. I'm just trying to feel out the nuances of your position. Don't worry, I have the background to understand what you're saying.

Is the soul immortal and does it suffer punishment for sins?

Well although I am not interested in doing more Theology here,since I am a Biology student and I usually do not think about Theological things as other people may do,but let me say that this definition Soul is nothing more than the Understanding of body cells about their different situations and conditions.

Sadness,Anger,Kindness and all human thoughts and decisions are all related to brain,so I some kinda guess that we are just one of our Brains Neurons with the Understanding of other Neurons and cells of our bodies in addition with that specific Neuron itself's Understanding.

When you do something which people may call it as "Sin",I personally call it abnormal and illogic thing,for example killing a person and enjoy it,then you are trying to get out of Discipline and not be what you had to be.Following the action,you,the specific Neuron,will start to act different than you usually and normally have to do and so since the Understanding of Neurons are connected,they will start to change to.For example you will enjoy bloodshed,violence and ... This means that you have become against Discipline and so when you die,since you have to reach the Ultimate Discipline in Existence like anything else,you will have a different way to reach the Absolute of Discipline,the Absolute,which is really more different than another person's way who have always tries to be Normal and act through Reason and Normality.

The suffering for sins is not pain or sadness or even suffering humanly,but a process to reach the Absolute and Ultimate Discipline after death which can never be known to us when we are alive.

Warning!I am not saying that this theory,Biologically or Theologically is alright since it is a personal belief,but I believe it is something near it.

[Judean Zealot]

Well although I am not interested in doing more Theology here,since I am a Biology student and I usually do not think about Theological things as other people may do,but let me say that this definition Soul is nothing more than the Understanding of body cells about their different situations and conditions.

Sadness,Anger,Kindness and all human thoughts and decisions are all related to brain,so I some kinda guess that we are just one of our Brains Neurons with the Understanding of other Neurons and cells of our bodies in addition with that specific Neuron itself's Understanding.

When you do something which people may call it as "Sin",I personally call it abnormal and illogic thing,for example killing a person and enjoy it,then you are trying to get out of Discipline and not be what you had to be.Following the action,you,the specific Neuron,will start to act different than you usually and normally have to do and so since the Understanding of Neurons are connected,they will start to change to.For example you will enjoy bloodshed,violence and ... This means that you have become against Discipline and so when you die,since you have to reach the Ultimate Discipline in Existence like anything else,you will have a different way to reach the Absolute of Discipline,the Absolute,which is really more different than another person's way who have always tries to be Normal and act through Reason and Normality.

The suffering for sins is not pain or sadness or even suffering humanly,but a process to reach the Absolute and Ultimate Discipline after death which can never be known to us when we are alive.

Warning!I am not saying that this theory,Biologically or Theologically is alright since it is a personal belief,but I believe it is something near it.

Alright, I get you.

I agree with you on much of the general principle but I strongly disagree on the particulars.

If you don't want to get theological that's fine with me, I'll just wait for someone else to jump in. :)

[Left Now]

Alright, I get you.

I agree with you on much of the general principle but I strongly disagree on the particulars.

If you don't want to get theological that's fine with me, I'll just wait for someone else to jump in. :)

Okay,thanks!Although I do not think anyone except you and me is interested in such things like this here,but I will be happy if someone proves me wrong,
Besides,are you ready for that political debate I said I am rewdy to have with you? :lol:

[Judean Zealot]

Okay,thanks!Although I do not think anyone except you and me is interested in such things like this here,but I will be happy if someone proves me wrong,
Besides,are you ready for that political debate I said I am rewdy to have with you? :lol:

No. I generally avoid having that debate online, as it is the one subject I get truly heated up when I discuss, and I don't like heating myself up in debates.

[Left Now]

No. I generally avoid having that debate online, as it is the one subject I get truly heated up when I discuss, and I don't like heating myself up in debates.

Haha,that is right.Anyway thanks for joining in this discussion.