Why the Jews mock Jesus/hate Christianity

[David York]

Above is a presentation at a Stormfront conference by a "Russian Orthodox"/Christian Identist, Matt Heimbach. In it he raises an interesting question, a question which would supposedly debunk the theory that Christianity was a weapon of the Jews to subdue White people . The question goes something like this: "If Christianity was a tool of the Jews to destroy White people, then why do the Jews seemingly attack Christianity at this moment in time? That would seem like a conflict of interests wouldn't it? Not really. I brought up this question myself during a call in on a pro white radio show and at that time I hadn't really thought about the question much and didn't really have an answer. But after a while of thinking over this question, I came to a conclusion. Perhaps this is just a theory, but I think it explains the alleged conflict of interests between the seeming Jewish hatred of Christians, and the White Nationalist theory that Christianity was invented by the Jews in order to take advantage and ultimately destroy the White race. My theory goes something like this:

1) For upwards of 2,000 years, if the Christian religion was intended to be used as a weapon by Jews to destroy Whites, than it has certainly served it's purpose. The Christian religion had served the purpose of indoctrinating whites with an alien value system, which has for all intents and purposes, wrecked White Civilizations since Rome, weakened White racial solidarity by preaching universalism and brotherhood of all races, altered the sexual and reproductive process for white people, made white people hesitate in fighting off aggressive alien intruders, and show favoritism for the semetic tribes like the Jews. There are probably more things to add to that list of effects Christianity has had on our people but I'll stop there for now.

2) Why do the Jews attack Christianity now? My opinion is, the damage has been done. 2,000 years of semetic God worship has brought white people to the weakest point in their entire history. There is really not much more use for the Christian religion for Jews because white's have been thoroughly driving themselves into virtual extinction, and at this point the weapon of Christianity has created the desired effects of weakening our people, and weakening our ability to resist the alien tribes that have been invading our homelands.

3) More possible reasons. The Jews are at the peak of their world power. In America their influence is now the strongest it has ever been. With the controlled media there is hardly any resistance to Jewish Malfeasance. In the Middle East, their tiny country has a free hand in butchering it's neighbors, stockpiling nuclear weapons, and getting tribute payments from America and Europe. At this point the Jews feel confident enough to protest any criticism against them, no matter how superficial it may be. The New testament offers hardly any real threat to them, but their pride doesn't like the fact that they are called the children of Satan by the son of God, Jesus. For those reasons they mock the religion in their media, and Jesus himself, and they need not fear much Christian backlash. After all Christian Zionists are now falling all over themselves to support the rogue state of Israel, and traditional Christians have been undermined for so long by their pastors, priests and popes, that Christianity today is practiced by complete wimps with no Ideals, no will to fight, and some of the most superstitious people this side of the Universe.

4) In my conclusion I would suggest that by and large Christianity has effectively weakened white nations for the last 2,000 years while at the same time strengthening Israel and the Diaspora. So it was indeed a weapon to crush white gentiles. The reason we see Jewish criticism of Christianity today, and a seeming push towards atheism by Jews, is 1)because there is still minor resistance by Christians against the Jewish program of spreading Homosexuality in America, 2)the Jews are at the pinnacle of their success and hold a grudge against the lines against them in the New Testament, and finally 3) Christianity is one of the last barriers that stand in the way of the Jewish desire for anarchy in the United States. It has served the primary purpose of instilling alien Morals in Whites and weakening the White race, and Christianity is no longer of much use for the Jews.

5) Will Christianity be strong enough to stop Homosexuality and Anarchy in America? I doubt it. The Christian televangelists like John Hagee and others, whom lead a large segment of American Christians are constantly preaching love and Solidarity for Jews in Israel. Christianity has proven ineffective of stopping racial integration since the Civil rights days, so I don't think they will be effective in stopping Homosexuality or other perversions. The head of the Catholic Church, the Pope, has been complicit with the wishes of the Jews for many years, so there won't be any resistance from the Catholic Church by most Catholics. Other denominations of Christianity including the Christian Identity movement among White Racialists are thoroughly deluded and still falling into the trap of worshiping a Semetic God and Semetic religion. The Christians who still hold on to their traditional values are still simply to week in the long run to take necessary measures to save the white race.

Feedback would be welcome! Thanks for Reading!

[Cosmotheist]

Hello Folks,

The following excerpt was taken from:
"Nature's Eternal Religion" by Ben Klassen

Note* Although this article was written for a white audience, Jewish communism affects all Gentiles [non-jews] regardless of race, and this is definitely worth a read. Christianity is a preparation for communism, its doctrines are identical with communist philosophy, and there is nothing spiritual about it. All occult knowledge and power that would enable Gentiles to fight back through spiritual warfare [what the Jews have been using against us for centuries] has been systematically removed. After being forcibly removed with the Inquisition, this power has been in the hands of the top Jewish rabbis to throw curses, create unimaginable wealth and power, and to use at will against Gentiles. In other words, as the "YHVH" aka "Jehova" is in truth the Jewish people, they become "God."

Communism is another Jewish brotherhood scam that fools Gentiles into thinking it is for equality, peace, and better living. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a Jewish program of genocide, mass-murder, and slavery for Gentiles, regardless of color.

Quote from the Jewish Talmud: Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L:

"Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts.
The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

======================================================================================================


Christianity and Communism: Jewish Twins
from "Nature's Eternal Religion" by Ben Klassen:

To hear the Kosher Konservatives tell it, a fierce, intensive battle is raging today between the evil forces of communism and the sacred forces of Christianity. We are led to believe that it is an all out battle between good and evil. We are told that these two forces are the very essence of two poles of opposition — in complete and diametrical conflict. It is a sham battle. The fact is they are both degenerate products of the collective Jewish mind, designed to do one and the same thing — to destroy the White Race. If we take a closer look at these two evil forces that have bedeviled and tormented the minds of the White Race for all these years, we find that they are not on opposite sides at all. We find that they are both on the side of international Jewry, doing the job they were designed to do, namely: confuse and confound the White Man's intelligence so that he himself will help the Jew in destroying the White Race.

In comparing the two we find that they are strikingly similar, and not opposites. In fact, there are so many similarities in the two programs and in the philosophy of these two creeds that the hand of the same author can easily be detected. That author is the International Jewish network. They and they alone wrote both the creed of Christianity and the creed of communism. Both communism and Christianity preach against materialism. Communism designates those productive and creative forces of our society to which we owe in such large part the benefits of a productive White civilization, as "bourgeois." It then lashes out with unparalleled fury at the bourgeois and tells us over and over again that they must be destroyed. Instead of giving credit where credit is due, it slanders and vilifies these constructive and productive elements, namely the bourgeois or the capitalists, as the ultimate in evil. Christianity tells us basically the same thing. It tells us that it will be more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. It tells us that we should "sell all thou hast and give it to the poor," an insidious piece of advice that, if followed, would make us all a pack of roving bums and beggars. It would most surely cause the breakdown of our society. Christianity further tells us "lay not up treasures on earth, but lay up treasures in heaven." Throughout, the implication is clear. Don't accumulate unto yourself any of the good things in life. If, through hard work, you've already managed to accumulate some wealth, get rid of it, give it away, give it to the poor, above all, give it to the Church, they'll take it, with relish. The net result of this fantastically bad advice, of course, is that it will more easily pass into the hands of the Jews, who do not subscribe to such foolishness. They hope to make fools of us, knowing very well the old saying "A fool and his money are soon parted," is only too true.

The other side of the coin is that the leaders of both Christianity and communism themselves are fantastically materialistic. When we look at the Catholic Church on down through the ages, we find that whereas they were extracting the last mite from the poor widow, the church itself was gathering up and hoarding gold, silver and precious gems in unbelievable quantities. Not only was it taking in and gathering all the gold, silver and precious stones that it could, but it acquired huge amounts of real estate, and the Catholic Church today is undoubtedly the most fantastically wealthy institution on the face of the earth. Even through the Dark Ages when poverty was widespread, mostly because of Christianity itself, we find these huge and fabulously rich cathedrals, built in the midst of poverty, with gold encrusted altars and apses and vaults and columns and walls. The leadership of the Church caused to be built huge and great Basilicas, Cathedrals, Abbeys, Baptisteries, Mausoleums, Convents, and Churches. Practically all of these were so lavish and so huge in comparison with the meager surroundings of the times, that they flamboyantly stood out as the main repository of all the material wealth — gold, silver and architectural lavishness — of both their era and their geographical location. The church never has bothered to explain why it was so necessary to have such lavish wealth on display to the worshipping faithful, who were told time and again that it was evil to "lay up treasures." Unto this day, churches are built to be flamboyant, garish and bizarre. Money seems to be no object.

The Vatican, that citadel of "spiritual" leadership, which also preaches, "lay not up treasures on earth," does not practice what it preaches. On the contrary, what it practices is indeed the height of hypocrisy, and the antithesis of spirituality. It goes all out for laying up treasures on earth. It has amassed unto itself a portfolio of 5.6 billion dollars in stocks alone, not to mention all of its real estate, art treasures and other valuables. It enjoys an annual income of 1.5 billion dollars, much of it undoubtedly collected from the "widow's last mite," as well as its vast holdings. Next Back Home The United States religious establishment as a whole is valued at 102 billion dollars. In 1969, of the 17.6 billion dollars United States individuals contributed to charity, 45 percent, or 7.9 billion dollars was earmarked for religious purposes. Pretty materialistic for a religion that "shuns" earthly treasures and preaches "my kingdom is not of this world."

Likewise, the communist bosses in Russia, practically all of which are Jews, have accumulated unto themselves all the riches of the countryside. While the communist slave laborer is toiling away twelve hours a day and then comes home to a dingy, dirty, filthy, crowded little apartment shared with other families, his Jewish bosses have opulent palaces spread all over the countryside. They drive the best of cars, chauffeur driven, of course, and eat the best of foods. Not only that, but they have the best of planes at their disposal to fly wherever they see fit to govern their slave laborers. These Jewish communist bosses usually also have at their disposal imported clothes and tailors and a galaxy of servants. When they need a rest from running their slave empire, they have private villas on the Black Sea or other choice vacation spots at their beck and call. And so it goes in the Proletarian Worker's Paradise.

Let us pass on to the next similarity. Both communism and Christianity make extensive use of the weapons of terror, both psychological and real. Undoubtedly the most ghoulish and vicious concept ever contrived by the depraved and collective mind of Jewry is the concept of hell. Can you think of anything more horrible than placing millions of people in confinement in a superheated torture chamber and then burning them forever and ever without even the mitigating mercy of allowing them to die? With this piece of "Good News," and "Joyful Tidings," Christianity set out to conquer the minds of its superstitious and unreasoning victims. The fact that such a torture chamber was non-existent did not at all detract from the fact that it was a real threat to those who were made to believe that it was real. To a child, for instance, if you tell him that the Boogieman is going to get him, and he innocently believes you, then the threat is just as real as if a Boogieman actually existed. And so it is with hell. To those that have become convinced that it exists, this horrible threat is just as real as if it did exist. However, Christianity did not stop with using psychological terror alone. Those who deviated from the official church line were declared as heretics and forthwith burned at the stake. The idea of using fire in one form or another as a means of torturing their opponents seems to have obsessed these "loving" Christians' minds. According to van Braght's famous Martyr's Mirror, some 33,000 Christians were put to death by other so-called Christians by means of burning at the stake, a grizzly type of revenge. Among my ancestors alone (who were of the Mennonite faith) some 2,000 martyrs were burned at the stake by these ever-loving Christians. One outstanding feature about this burning at the stake business was that they were always White people who were being burned. Never have I ever heard of a Jew being burned at the stake for not believing precisely along specified lines of Judaism, even though they did not believe in Christ at all. Burning at the stake wasn't the only means of torture and death used by these love-dispensing Christians who were so eager lo spread their message of love.

During the Inquisition, and other times, all the beastly refinements of torture that the depraved human mind could devise were used to extort confessions and whip the unbelievers or heretics into line. The thumb-screw, water-dip, the iron corset, drawn and quartered, gouging out one's eyes with hot irons, and the rack (slowly tearing limb from body by means of stretching) were but some of the devices used by these ever-loving Christians to spread their gospel of Love. When the communists came along and used physical torture as one of their instruments of conquest, they had very little left to invent but what the Christians had already utilized before them. And this is as can be expected, since it was Jewish fiendishness that designed the means of torture for both. Nor did the Church hesitate to use wholesale warfare to batter down whole nations that did not submit to their religious dictation. In fact during the 16th, 17th and 18th century the main causes of war were religious dissentions in which one religious group sought to force their beliefs on their opposites by wholesale warfare and slaughter. The communist record of using wholesale terror, both psychological and physical, is so recent, so widespread and so well known that we need hardly review it here.

In Russia alone the Jewish communist regime used terror on a scale unknown before in the annals of history. In order to exterminate the best of the White Race in Russia, namely the White Russians, the Jews slaughtered some 20,000,000. The terror, the killings, the murders that are going on in Russia today defy the imagination of the average White Man's mind. In any case, both communism and Christianity are using, and have used, terror extensively, both psychological and physical, to subjugate their victims. Whereas the Christians excelled in psychological terror, the communists excel in physical terror. But in both cases the Jews were experts in using whatever type of terror best accomplished their ends. Both communism and Christianity have a book that presumably lays down the creed of their movement. Christianity has the Jewish bible which was written by Jews, mostly about Jews, for the purpose of uniting the Jewish race and for destroying the White Race.

The communist bible is Karl Marx's Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx in conjunction with Friedrich Engels, both of whom were Jews. Both of these Jewish creeds, communism and Christianity, are highly destructive, and when followed, tear down the fabric of the society that has fallen victim to them. Christianity teaches the evilness of man, that he is a no-good, unworthy sinner, that he is born in sin and that his every instinct is evil. Communism preaches that the productive, creative element of our society, namely the "bourgeois" as they call them, is rotten and evil, and must be destroyed. It can be safely said that any sound, healthy society that turned either to complete Christianity and practiced all of its principles, or any society that practiced pure communism, would soon destroy itself. Again we want to vigorously point out that contrary to what these Kosher Konservatives are always telling us, communism is by no means the same as socialism or collectivism. The latter are basic constructive elements of any healthy society, but communism is an undisguised Jewish slave-labor camp. Since I have gone into this matter in considerable detail in another chapter, we will not take further space to review this idea here. Both communism and Christianity preach the equality of man. Christianity preaches that we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, whereas the communists preach that we all must become equal in the communist society. The latter argue that the only reason we are not equal is entirely due to environment, and this little quirk of Nature they are going to correct. By the time they get through processing us all in an equal environment, they assure us they will have leveled us all down to where we are all equal.

This will only be too true, for the White Race will be leveled down to where they are all equal to a horde of miserable slaves, whereas every Jew, on the other hand, will be a king. Not only do both communism and Christianity preach the equality of the individual, but they also preach the equality of races, another vicious lie thrown in the face of Nature. Both creeds have a very tricky dogma that is rather nebulous and confusing, not to say contradictory, in itself. They both, therefore, have set up a hierarchy that interprets what the correct dogma of the day is and everyone is to toe the line or suffer the consequences of an entrenched power structure. Christianity and communism both have had their schisms. In the case of Christianity, the followers that differed were called heretics and in the case of communism, those that stray from the official line are called deviationists. In the case of Christianity, the Great Schism, of course, was during the Reformation when the Protestant segment developed and broke away from the Catholic Church. It then proceeded to split and splinter in a thousand different directions from there on out, all to the detriment and destruction of the White Race. The first great split, of course, was when the Byzantine Empire split from the Roman or Western half.

Among the communists there were a number of schisms such as the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, and a number of other schisms, before the communists ever came to power. After they did come to power, there were the Stalinist communists and the Trotskyite communists, the latter being vigorously pursued and purged from the ranks. Now we presumably have the Mao wing of the communist party and for a while we had the Tito deviationists, and so on. In any case, the main idea in Christianity and communism is the same: On top of a confusing and impossible dogma sits a tight powerful hierarchy which dictates and interprets what the line of its followers must be, and terror, death and reprisal are the consequences to those who dare to think for themselves. It is not at all surprising that the archenemy of both these Jewish creeds is Adolf Hitler, because he dared to come out with a healthy, natural social structure that embodied those principles that were in harmony with the natural laws, and with the healthy instincts for the preservation of the White Race. We, therefore, find the Jewish press, the communist press, and Christianity, all in chorus, denouncing Adolf Hitler, and telling us what a terrible, terrible man he was. All perpetrate and repeat over and over again the same Jewish lies about Hitler that the Jews themselves have dreamed up and supplied to their toadying stooges. The similarities between these creeds go on and on. Both preach the destruction of the present society. They especially zero in on the destruction and downgrading of the more creative and productive elements of society as a whole. Both denounce and vilify the better elements of established society and rejoice at human failures and weaknesses, thereby claiming to prove the correctness of their communist-Christian theory.

The Jews, who are the perpetrators of communism, envision the United Nations headquarters to finally rest in Israel and in particular, in Jerusalem. Christianity too, continuously keeps talking about Zion, the New Jerusalem, and looks to Jerusalem as the Holy Land, its origin and spiritual headquarters. Both of these Jewish creeds consistently follow policies which are disastrous to the welfare of the White Race. I have already gone into considerably detail about the catastrophic effects of Christianity on the great White Roman civilization. I have also pointed out previously that the Jews in communist Russia killed off 20,000,000 of the best White Russians. However, the programs and policies of both these creeds extend much further than these two major catastrophes of history and to point out how disastrous the effects of both Christianity and communism have been upon the fortunes of the White Race would require a whole volume in itself. I believe we have scattered throughout this book a mass of such examples that it is hardly necessary to again repeat them here. Another similarity that manifests itself in both of these Jewish creeds is that both have an incurable ability to put forth a profuseness of verbiage that is extremely vague and beclouded with confusion. Not only is the verbiage profuse, but incredibly lacking in substance. This is an old Jewish trick to confuse and confound the minds of their opposition, the latter being deceived into thinking that all this vast collection of words must have some higher meaning beyond their comprehension.

To further destroy and beat back the opposition, both creeds have developed to a high state the art of hurling vicious trigger words and hate words at their opponents. The Christians developed such hate-trigger words as atheist, heathen, heretic, apostate, blasphemy, pagan, sinner and anti-Christ. The communists have developed a whole stable of similar trigger words, and some of these are Fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot, prejudice, and anti-Semitic. Without anyone really stopping to analyze what each of these words mean and why they should be considered as bad, these words have been developed to a high state of implied evil so that by just merely calling these names, you need not really debate the issues, but mercilessly strike down your opponents without resorting to any debate or reasoning whatsoever. If the similarities between Christianity and communism seem rather striking, there is a very good reason for their parallel ideology. That reason is, of course, they were both concocted by the Jewish power structure for the common objective of destroying the White Race. Unfortunately, up to this point, both their ideologies have been devastatingly effective. It is partially the purpose of this book and the Creativity Movement to confront this devastating attack on the mind of the White Race and expose these twin Jewish ideologies for what they are. Furthermore, I am firmly convinced, and it is my measured conclusion, that the Jews could never have foisted modern communism on a long suffering humanity, had they not First softened up, unhinged and confused the intellect of the White Race with the fallacious snares of Christianity. It is therefore the further objective of Creativity to help straighten out the befuddled thinking of the White Race to where they then can, and will, expunge both of these twin Jewish scourges from the face of this planet.

======================================================================================================

Although Ben Klassen was an atheist, and not a Cosmotheist, he was still "perceptive enough" to recognize
the Jewish nature and spirit and soul of both of these spiritual and materialist "poisons" and for what these
actually were and are:
ALIEN and subversive OPPOSED IDEOLOGIES to any "authentic" and to any truly ARYAN spiritual and material
WORlDVIEW. Cosmotheism, unlike his atheism, however, retains the understanding that the COSMOS does
have a spiritual as well as a materialistic aspect and that the denial of one or the other is a incomplete and
is a flawed and is only an inaccurate WORLDVIEW. That is what makes Cosmotheism superior to both either
any Personal Theism or any strictly materialist ATHEISM, as it embraces ONLY WHOLE TRUTHS of REALITY.

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

[Cosmotheist]

Hello Folks,

To listen to the true voice of our ancestors read:

======================================================================================================

Author : Himmler Heinrich (Sorenson Wulf)
Title : Voice of our ancestors
Year : *

Link to download :
http://www.balderexlibris.com/index.php ... -ancestors
Then download this zipfile from the above:
http://www.balderexlibris.com/public/eb ... estors.zip

Introduction By David Lane.

For several years I have been writing about the methods that certain aware or initiated individuals of the past have used to keep old wisdom alive and identify tyrants without being burned at the stake, tortured by the inquisition, forced to recant and so on. One method among many was to disguise messages in the myths and religions and in folkish tales.

Wise men look first to the numbers for a wisdom of the ancients. While the words of men are subject to interpretation, change, slanting or translation, the relationship of number is forever constant. Thus, the greatest truths are concealed in number and we read, "But Snow White, over the seven mountains with the seven dwarves is a thousand timed fairer than you." In this manner messages are identified and interpretation of the parables and allegories is aided.

Such devices are often called "Hermetic" (hidden) and may conceal up to seven distinct and separate messages. Wulf Sorensen has given a masterful interpretation of the Snow White fairy tale in "Voice Of Our Ancestors". We hope you will enjoy and that the message will aid you and others in the search for what has been destroyed by tyrants of church and state during two thousand years of dark ages of religion and of governmental suppression. ...

======================================================================================================

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

[David York]

Hi Cosmotheist. Good article by Ben Klassen. I haven't read the Himmler piece yet but it sounds interesting. Here is something interesting I came across a while ago. It comes from the website to Joel Osteen. It's a short article about tithing:

http://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/Message ... 2014-10-08

Open Windows
TODAY'S SCRIPTURE:
"Bring all the tithes (the whole tenth of your income) into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and prove Me now by it, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."
(Malachi 3:10, AMP)
TODAY'S WORD:
God promises to open the windows of heaven and pour out blessings on you today! But, you have to do your part of this verse. Your part is to be a faithful tither and be obedient to the Lord with your finances.

The truth is, we are all just stewards over the resources God has given us. When we are good and faithful stewards, the Lord entrusts us with more. He opens the windows of heaven. Have you ever thought about what kind of blessing would be so great that there would not be room enough to receive it? It may be hard to comprehend, but that’s what God’s Word promises!

Today, make the decision to be a giver. Be a tither. The tithe is the first tenth of your income. As the scripture says, get ready to prove the Lord because He is faithful. Thank Him today because He is going to pour out abundant blessings on every area of your life!

My initial reaction to this was it seems pretty pushy to demand your followers that they must tithe the first tenth of their income. My second reaction was why does God need people's money? Is God some sort of bum who lives off people's charity? That's what it sounds like. I noticed that every church, minister or pastor, even online pastors, anyone who is spreading the gospel of the lord seems to ask for donations. How come God doesn't take care of his own messengers? I wonder if Jesus asked for donations too?

[R. Bryant]

Why the Jews mock Jesus/hate Christianity

I’ve always viewed that as a tactical error on their part - one that I attribute more to innate aggression and visceral contempt, than an intellectual strategy.

The jew’s compulsion to defile and disrupt any competing culture, in order to render it inert while keeping its carcass intact in order to feed off it, is a primary survival mechanism.
They have an incessant need to instill a sense of cultural pessimism and erode any sense of dignity in the host population to make it docile and subservient - but they seem to reserve a particularly vicious degree of contempt towards Christians.
This is partly historical, but it’s mostly because Christians find solace and a cohesive identity in religious doctrine that the jews themselves utilize merely as a cloak to justify the extermination of their adversaries.
So the Christian's misguided reverence elicits a fearless disrespect among jews based on their theological neutering, coupled with their egregious presumption of “knowing” and coexisting with the jew on a spiritual plane that the jew itself created.

It’s gone beyond religion at this point, though.

The most destructive pathogens leave an autoimmune response in their wake - and that’s what we’re witnessing in society today - whites crippled with self-doubt, lacking conviction, and attacking other whites as a form of status-signaling as they grovel to gain the approval of their semitically-correct contemporaries.

[Cosmotheist]

Hello Folks,

All good points, RB.

Dr. Pierce's Cosmotheism is the real panacea destroying the alien and Jewish ideological
and spiritual plagues that do threaten our own White racial survival and advancement up
towards Godhood. Cosmotheism is White racialist and/or White biocentric panentheism.

======================================================================================================

Panentheism
First published Thu Dec 4, 2008
; substantive revision Tue Feb 5, 2013
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

“Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to both traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid either isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does or identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God's active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God's presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; Cooper, 2006). However, a rich diversity of panentheistic understandings has developed in the past two centuries primarily in Christian traditions responding to scientific thought (Clayton and Peacocke 2004). While panentheism generally emphasizes God's presence in the world without losing the distinct identity of either God or the world, specific forms of panenethism, drawing from a different sources, explain the nature of the relationship of God to the world in a variety of ways and come to different conclusions about the significance of the world for the identity of God.

1. Terminology
2. History
3. Contemporary Expressions
4. Criticisms and Responses
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
1. Terminology
Because modern “panentheism” developed under the influence of German Idealism, Whiteheadian process philosophy, and current scientific thought, panentheists employ a variety of terms with meanings that have specialized content.

Theological terms as understood by panentheists:

1. Classical or Traditional Theism
The understanding that ultimate reality is a being which is distinct from the world and any other reality. This distinction often develops into an ontological separation between God and the world that makes any interaction between God and the world problematic.
2. Pantheism
A type of theism that stresses the identity of God and the world ontologically. This identity is expressed in different manifestations so distinctions can be made, but the distinctions are temporary. There is often a strong sense of necessity in God's creation of the world so that God as God must express deity in creation.
3. Transcendence
Generally, God's externality to the world so that God is unlimited by any other being or reality. Hegel and then Hartshorne understand transcendence as including all that is in order to avoid any reality external to God that limits God.
4. Immanence
God's presence and activity within the world. Panentheists assert that traditional theism limits its affirmation of God's immanence by understanding immanence as the transcendent presence of the supernatural Being within the natural realm. When this divine presence is understood as distinctly transcendent, God's presence and activity within the world as natural is an intervention of the supernatural within the natural. God, then, is absent from the natural except in specific cases of intervention.
5. Kenosis
Divine self-emptying, or withdrawal, of infinite being while present in the world.
Terms influenced by the German Idealism of Hegel and Schelling:

1. Dialectic
The presence of contradictory realities where the contradiction is overcome by including elements from each of the contradictory elements in a synthesis that is more than the combination of each member of the contradiction. Whitehead's understanding of God's redemption of evil by placing an evil event in the context of good events expresses a similar understanding although he is not as explicit as Hegel in understanding all of reality as a dialectical development.
2. Perichoresis
The ontological intermingling of the members of the Trinity so that the Father is part of the Son and the Spirit, the Son part of the Spirit and Father, and the Spirit part of the Father and Son. Moltmann utilizes this concept to describe the presence of God in the world and the world in God.
Terms influenced by Whiteheadian process philosophy:

1. Internal and External Relations
Internal relations are relations that affect the being of the related beings. External relations do not change the basic nature or essence of a being. For panentheism, the relationship between God and the world is an internal relationship in that God affects the nature of the world and the world changes the nature of God. Classical theism affirms an external relationship between God and the world in that God responds to events in the world but those events do not change God's essence, necessary existence, or basic nature.
2. Dipolar
Refers especially to God as having two basic aspects. Schelling identified these aspects as necessary and contingent. Whitehead referred to God's primordial and consequent natures meaning that God has an eternal nature and a responsive nature. Whitehead understood all reality to be dipolar in that each event includes both physical and mental aspects in opposition to a mind-body dualism. Hartshorne identified these aspects as abstract and concrete.
Terms related to current scientific thought:

1. Reductionism
All of reality is one type of existence. Ordinarily reductionism holds that all of reality can be explained by using only physical, sub-atomic, entities. Any reference to a higher being or cause results from a lack of information about the physical entities that are involved. Modern reductionism denies the existence of mental realities as a separate type of existence. Panentheism critiques reductionism as an oversimplification of reality and the experience of reality.
2. Supervenience
One reality arises out of another reality. For example, mental activity arises out of physical reality. While reductionistic understandings agree that supervenience occurs, reductionistic supervenience maintains that there are consistent principles that function in the same way at both levels. Panentheists generally understand supervenience to give rise to new principles that are effective at one level but not present at the simpler level.
3. Emergence
Emergence, as the process involved in supervenience, occurs when a new property arises out of a combination of elements. The traditional example is that water emerges out of the combination of oxygen and hydrogen atoms in certain proportions. There are a variety of types of emergence that have been identified. In part-whole emergence, the whole is more than the total of all the parts (Corning 2002). Strong emergence understands evolution to produce new and ontologically distinct levels characterized by their own laws or regularities and causal forces. Weak emergence holds that the new level follows the fundamental causal processes of physics (Clayton 2004, 9). Strong emergence is also known as ontological emergence and weak as epistemological emergence.
4. Top-Down Causation
More complex levels of objects or events affect less complex elements. Causation is ordinarily understood as being from the bottom-up meaning from the simple to the complex. Physical elements cause other, often more complex, objects or events. A common example of top-down causation is the effect of thought upon a person's body. Scientists heatedly debate the possibility of top-down causation (Davies 2006).
5. Entanglement
In quantum theory, the correlation of two particles that originate in a single event even though separated from each other by significant distance. Entangled objects behave in ways that cannot be predicted on the basis of their individual properties. The impossibility of prediction can be understood epistemically if behavior is considered the result of an average of many similar measurements or ontologically if behavior results from the existence of the world in an indefinite state prior to measurement. Both Bohr's indeterministic and Bohm's deterministic understandings of quantum theory accept this relational understanding of physical processes. Understanding the world as persistent relationships as well as separation provides a model based in science for understanding God's relation to the world. God's influence can be present at the level of individual events although this entanglement would remain hidden from a local perspective. However, the implications of entanglement for concepts of causality become even more complex when considering the relation between God and the world. Polkinghorne suggests that causality may be active information rather than an exchange of energy (2010, 9).
Although numerous meanings have been attributed to the “in” in panentheism (Clayton 2004, 253), the more significant meanings are:

1. Locative meaning
Location that is included in a broader location. For example, something may be located in a certain part of a certain room. Such a meaning is problematic in reference to God because of the common understanding that God is not limited by spatial categories. If spatial categories do not apply to God in ordinary usage, to say something is located in God becomes problematic. “In” then takes on special meanings with metaphysical content or as an analogy for God's relationship to the world.
2. Metaphysical basis for being
Beings come into existence and continue to exist due to the presence of divine Being. The concept of participation often includes the understanding that the world comes into being and continues to exist through taking part in God's Being (Clayton 2008, 118–119).
3. Metaphysical-Epistemological basis for being
Presence in God provides both identity and being. Karl Krause's panentheism asserted a metaphysical structure that involved both how an entity differs from other entities (epistemological identity) and what it is in itself (ontological status) (Göcke 2013).
4. Metaphysical interactive potential
Active indeterminacy of commingling unpredictable development of self-organizing relations derived from prior actualizations (Keller 2003, 219).
5. Emergence metaphor
A more complex entity comes from at least a partial source.
6. Mind/Body analogical meaning
The mind provides structure and direction to the organization of the organism of the body. The world is God's body in the sense that the world actualizes God and manifests God while being directed by God as different from the world. Many, but not all, panentheists utilize the mind/body analogy to describe the God/world relation in a manner that emphasizes the immanence of God without loss of God's transcendence.
7. Part/Whole analogical meaning
A particular exists in relation to something that is greater and different from any and all of its parts. The world is in God by participating in God's being and action.
2. History
Although Panentheism lacked a clear label in philosophical and religious reflection about God until Karl Krause's (1781–1832) creation of the term in the Eighteenth century (Gregersen 2004, 28), various advocates and critics of panentheism find evidence of incipient or implicit forms of panentheism present in religious thought as early as 1300 BCE. Hartshorne discovers the first indication of panentheistic themes in Ikhnaton (1375–1358 BCE), the Egyptian pharaoh often considered the first monotheist. In his poetic description of the sun god, Ikhnaton avoids both the separation of God from the world that will characterize traditional theism and the identification of God with the world that will characterize pantheism (Hartshorne 1953, 29–30). Early Vedantic thought implies panentheism in non-Advaita forms that understand non-dualism as inclusive of differences. Although there are texts referring to Brahman as contracted and identical to Brahman, other texts speak of Brahman as expanded. In these texts, the perfect includes and surpasses the total of imperfect things as an appropriation of the imperfect. Although not the dominant interpretation of the Upanishads, multiple intimations of panentheism are present in the Upanishads (Whittemore 1988, 33, 41–44). Hartshorne finds additional religious concepts of God that hold the unchanging and the changing together in a way that allows for the development and significance of the non-divine in Lao-Tse (fourth century BCE) and in the Judeo-Christian scriptures (1953, 32–38).

In philosophical reflection, Plato (427/428–348/347 BCE) plays a role in the development of implicit panentheism although there is disagreement about the nature of that role. Hartshorne drew a dipolar understanding of God that includes both immutability and mutability from Plato. Hartshorne understood Plato's concept of the divine to include the Forms as pure and unchanging being and the World soul as changing and in motion. Although he concluded that Plato never reconciled these two elements in his understanding of the divine, both aspects were present (1953, 54). Cooper, instead, thinks that Plato retained an essential distinction between the Good and the other beings that Plato called gods. According to Cooper, Plotinus (204–270 CE) rather than Plato provided the basis for panentheism with his description of the physical world as an emanation of being from the One making the world part of the Ultimate (2006, 35–39). Baltzly finds evidence in the Timaeus of a polytheistic view that can be identified as panentheistic (2010).

From Plato to Schelling (1775–1854 CE), various theologians and philosophers developed ideas that are similar to themes in contemporary panentheism. These ideas developed as expressions of traditional theism. Proclus (412–485 CE) and Pseudo-Dionysus (late Fifth to early Sixth century) drawing upon Plotinus developed perspectives that included the world in God and understood the relationship between God and the world as a dialectical relationship (Cooper 2006, 42–46). In the Middle Ages, the influence of Neoplatonism continued in the thought of Eriugena (815–877 CE), Eckhart (1260–1328 CE), Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464 CE), and Boehme (1575–1624 CE). Although accused of pantheism by their contemporaries, their systems can be identified as panentheistic because they understood God in various ways as including the world rather than being the world and because they used a dialectical method. The dialectical method involved the generation of opposites and then the reconciliation of the opposition in God. This retained the distinct identity of God in God's influence of the world (Cooper 2006, 47–62). During the early modern period, Bruno (1548–1600 CE) and Spinoza (1631–1677 CE) responded to the dualism of traditional theism by emphasizing the relationship between God and the world to the point that the nature of any ontological distinction between God and the world became problematic. Later thinkers such as the Cambridge Platonists (Seventeenth century), Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758 CE) (Crisp 2009), and Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834 CE) thought of the world as in some way in God or a development from God. Although they did not stress the ontological distinction between God and the world, they did emphasize the responsive relationship that humans have to God. Human responsiveness assumed some degree of human initiative if not freedom, which indicates some distinction between God and humans. The assumption of some degree of human initiative was a reaction against the loss of freedom due to Spinoza's close identification between God and the world (Cooper 2006, 64–90).

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the development of panentheism as a specific position regarding God's relationship to the world. The awareness of panentheism as an alternative to theism and pantheism developed out of a complex of approaches. Philosophical idealism and philosophical adaptation of the scientific concept of evolution provided the basic sources of the explicit position of panentheism. Philosophical approaches applying the concept of development to God reached their most complete expression in process philosophy's understanding of God being affected by the events of the world.

Hegel (1770–1831) and Schelling (1775–1854) sought to retain the close relationship between God and the world that Spinoza proposed without identifying God with the world. Their concept of God as developing in and through the world provided the means for accomplishing this. Prior to this time, God had been understood as unchanging and the world as changing while existing in God (Cooper 2006, 90). Schelling's understanding of God as personal provided the basis for the unity of the diversity in the world in a manner that was more open than Hegel's understanding. Schelling emphasized the freedom of the creatures in relation to the necessity of God's nature as love. For Schelling, God's free unfolding of God's internal subjective necessity did not result in an external empirical necessity determining the world (Clayton 2000, 474). This relationship resulted in vitality and on-going development. Hartshorne classified this as a dipolar understanding of God in that God is both necessary and developing (1953, 234). Cooper describes Schelling's thought as dynamic cooperative panentheism (2006, 95). Hegel found Schelling inadequate and sought a greater unity for the diversity. He united Fichte's subjective idealism and Schelling's objective idealism to provide a metaphysics of subjectivity rather than substance (Clayton 2008, 125. Hegel's unification of Fichte and Schelling resulted in a more comprehensive and consistent system still based upon change in God. God as well as nature is characterized by dialectical development. In his rejection of pantheism, Hegel understood the infinite as including the finite by absorbing the finite into its own fuller nature. This retained divine transcendence in the sense of the divine surpassing its parts although not separate from the parts (Whittemore 1960, 141–142). The divine transcendence provided unity through the development of the Absolute through history. Karl Krause (1781–1832) in 1828 labeled Schelling's and Hegel's positions as “panentheism” in order to emphasize their differences from Spinoza's identification of God with the world (Reese 2008, 1). Cooper describes Hegel's panentheism as dialectical historical panentheism (2006, 107).

As Darwin's theory of evolution introduced history into the conceptualization of biology, Samuel Alexander (1859–1938), Henri Bergson (1859–1941), and C. Lloyd Morgan (1852–1936) introduced development into the ways in which all of physical reality was conceptualized. They then worked out positions that in a variety of ways understood God and the world as growing in relationship to each other. Although Hartshorne's classification of “panentheism” did not include Alexander in the category of “panentheism,” only occasionally mentioned Bergson, and made no reference to Morgan, Whitehead referred to all three of these thinkers positively. Although it may be too strong to claim that they influenced Whitehead (Emmett 1992), they did provide the background for Whitehead's and then Hartshorne's systematic development of process philosophy as an expression of panentheism. Hartshorne popularized the modern use of the term “panentheism” and considered Whitehead to be the outstanding panentheist (Hartshorne 1953, 273). Although Hartshorne made several modifications to Whitehead's understanding of God, the basic structures of Whitehead's thought were continued in Hartshorne's further development of Whitehead's philosophy (Ford 1973, Cobb, 1965). God, for process philosophy, is necessary for any actual world. Without God, the world would be nothing more than a static, unchanging existence radically different from the actual world of experience. God as both eternal and temporal provides possibilities that call the world to change and develop. God as eternal provides an actual source of those possibilities. However, if God is only eternal, the possibilities would be unrelated to the actual world as it presently exists. Thus, Whitehead and Hartshorne understand the world to be present in God in order for the possibilities that lead to development to be related to the world (Hartshorne 1953, 273). The implication of God's inclusion of the world is that God is present to the world and the world influences God. Although the presence of the world in God could be understood as a form of pantheism, process philosophy avoids collapsing the world into God or God into the world by maintaining a distinction between God and the world. This distinction is manifest in the eternality of God and the temporality of the world. It is also apparent in the freedom of the events in the world. Although God presents possibilities to the events in the world, each event “decides” how it will actualize those possibilities. The freedom of each event, the absence of divine determination, provides a way for process thought to avoid God being the cause of evil or containing evil as evil. Since God includes the events of the world, God will include the evil as well as the good that occurs in the world and this evil will affect God since the world affects God's actualization. But, because God does not determine the response of each event to the possibilities that God presents, any event may reject God's purpose of good through the intensification of experience and actualize a less intense experience. God does take this less intense, evil, experience into God's self, but redeems that evil by means of relating it to the ways in which good has been actualized. Thus, God saves what can be saved from the world rather than simply including each event in isolation from other events (Cooper 2006, 174, 180).

3. Recent Developments
Protestant theologians have contributed to recent developments of panentheism by continuing the German Idealist tradition or the tradition of process philosophy. Although the majority of the contemporary expressions of panentheism involve scientists and protestant theologians or philosophers, articulations of forms of panentheism have developed among feminists, in the Roman Catholic tradition, in the Orthodox tradition, and in religions other than Christianity.

Utilizing resources from the tradition of German Idealism, Jürgen Moltmann developed a form of panentheism in his early work, The Crucified God in 1974 (1972 for the German original), where he said that the suffering and renewal of all humanity are taken into the life of the Triune God. He explicated his understanding of panentheism more fully in The Trinity and the Kingdom in 1981. Theological concerns motivate Moltmann's concept of panentheism. Panentheism avoids the arbitrary concept of creation held by traditional theism and the loss of creaturely freedom that occurs in Christian pantheism (Cooper 2006, 248). Moltmann understands panentheism to involve both God in the world and the world in God. The relationship between God and the world is like the relationship among the members of the Trinity in that it involves relationships and communities (Molnar 1990, 674). Moltmann uses the concept of perichoresis to describe this relationship of mutual interpenetration. By using the concept of perichoresis, Moltmann moves away from a Hegelian understanding of the trinity as a dialectical development in history (Cooper 2006, 251). The relationship between God and the world develops because of God's nature as love that seeks the other and the free response of the other (Molnar 1990, 677). Moltmann does not consider creation necessary for God nor the result of any inner divine compulsion. Instead creation is the result of God's essential activity as love rather than the result of God's self-determination (Molnar, 1990, 679). This creation occurs in a process of interaction between nothingness and creativity, contraction and expansion, in God. Because there is no “outside” of God due to God's infinity, God must withdraw in order for creation to exist. Kenosis, or God's self-emptying, occurs in creation as well as in the incarnation. The nothing in the doctrine of “creation from nothing” is the primordial result of God's contraction of God's essential infinity (Cooper, 2006, 247). Moltmann finds that panentheism as mutual interpenetration preserves unity and difference in a variety of differences in kind such as God and human being, person and nature, and the spiritual and the sensuous (Moltmann, 1996, 307).

Utilizing process philosophy, David Ray Griffin assumes that scientific understandings of the world are crucial and recognizes the implications of scientific understanding for theology. However, his concept of panentheism builds on the principles of process philosophy rather than scientific concepts directly. Griffin traces modern atheism to the combination of understanding perception as exclusively based on physical sensations, accepting a naturalistic explanation of reality, and identifying matter as the only reality. But, the emergence of mind challenges the adequacy of this contemporary worldview (2004, 40–41). He claims that the traditional supernaturalistic form of theism with its emphasis upon the divine will does not provide an adequate alternative to the atheism of the late modern worldview because God becomes the source of evil. Griffin argues that traditional theism makes God the source of evil because God's will establishes the general principles of the universe (2004, 37). Process panentheism provides a way to avoid the problems of both traditional theism and materialistic naturalism (2004, 42). Griffin substitutes panexperientialism for materialism and a doctrine of perception that bases sensory perception on a non-sensory mode of perception in order to explain both the mind-body interaction and the God-world interaction. God is numerically distinct from the world but is ontologically the same avoiding dualism and supernaturalism. God and events in the world interact through non-sensory perception (2004, 44–45). Through this interaction, God can influence but not determine the world, and the world can influence God's concrete states without changing God's essence. Process panentheism recognizes two aspects of the divine, an abstract and unchanging essence and a concrete state that involves change. Through this dipolar concept, God both influences and is influenced by the world (2004, 43–44). Griffin understands God as essentially the soul of the universe although distinct from the world. The idea of God as the soul of the world stresses the intimacy and direct relationship of God's relationship to the world, not the emergence of the soul from the world (2004, 44). Relationality is part of the divine essence, but this does not mean that this specific world is necessary to God. This world came into existence from relative nothingness. This relative nothingness was a chaos that lacked any individual that sustained specific characteristics over time. However, even in the chaos prior to the creation of this world, events had some degree of self-determination and causal influence upon subsequent events. These fundamental causal principles along with God exist naturally since these causal principles are inherent in things that exist including the nature of God. The principles cannot be broken because such an interruption would be a violation of God's nature. An important implication of the two basic causal principles, a degree of self-determination and causal influence, is that God influences but does not determine other events (2004, 43). Griffin's understanding of naturalism allows for divine action that is formally the same in all events. But this divine action can occur in a variable manner so that some acts are especially revelatory of the divine character and purpose (2004, 45).

Much of the contemporary discussion and development of panentheism occurs in the context of the science and religion discussion. The early modern concept of an unchanging natural order posed a challenge to understandings of divine action in the world. The current discussion draws on the development of scientific information about the natural world that can contribute to religious efforts to explain how God acts in the world. In the contemporary discussion, Arthur Peacocke and Paul Davies have made important contributions as scientists interested in, and knowledgeable about, religion. Peacocke developed his understanding of panentheism beginning in 1979 and continuing through works in 2001, 2004, and 2006. Peacocke starts with the shift in the scientific understanding of the world from a mechanism to the current understandings of the world as a unity composed of complex systems in a hierarchy of different levels. These emergent levels do not become different types of reality but instead compose a unity that can be understood naturally as an emergentist monism. At the same time, the different levels of complexity cannot be reduced to an explanation of one type or level of complexity. The creative dynamic of the emergence of complexity in hierarchies is immanent in the world rather than external to the world (Peacocke 2004, 137–142). Similarly, Paul Davies describes the universe by talking about complexity and higher levels of organization in which participant observers bring about a more precise order (2007). An important scientific aspect of this concept of complexity and organization is the notion of entanglement especially conceptual level entanglement (Davies 2006, 45–48). Again, the organization, which makes life possible, is an internal, or natural, order rather than an order imposed from outside of the universe (Davies 2004). Peacocke draws upon this contemporary scientific understanding of the universe to think about the relationship between God and the natural world. He rejects any understanding of God as external to nature whether it is a traditional theistic understanding where God intervenes in the natural world or a deistic understanding where God initiates the natural world but does not continue to be active in the world. For Peacocke, God continuously creates through the processes of the natural order. God's active involvement is not an additional, external influence upon events. However, God is not identified with the natural processes, which are the action of God as Creator (Peacocke 2004, 143–144). Peacocke identifies his understanding of God's relation to the world as panentheism because of its rejection of dualism and external interactions by God in favor of God always working from inside the universe. At the same time, God transcends the universe because God is infinitely more than the universe. This panentheistic model combines a stronger emphasis upon God's immanence with God's ultimate transcendence over the universe by using a model of personal agency (Peacocke 2004, 147–151). Davies also refers to his understanding of the role of laws in nature as panentheism rather than deism because God chose laws that give a co-creative role to nature (2004, 104).

Philip Clayton begins with contemporary scientific understandings of the world and combines them with theological concepts drawn from a variety of sources including process theology. He describes God's relationship with the world as an internal rather than an external relationship. Understanding God's relationship as internal to the world recognizes the validity of modern scientific understandings that do not require any external source in order to account for the order in the world. At the same time, God's internal presence provides the order and regularity that the world manifests (2001, 208–210). Clayton agrees that the world is in God and God is in the world. Panentheism, according to him, affirms the interdependence of God and the world (2004b, 83). This affirmation became possible as a result of the rejection of substantialistic language, which excludes all other beings from any one being. Rejection of substantialistic language thus allows for the interaction of beings. Clayton cites Hegel's recognition that the logic of the infinite requires the inclusion of the finite in the infinite and points towards the presence of the world in God (Clayton 2004b, 78–79). Clayton, along with Joseph Bracken (1974, 2004), identifies his understanding of panentheism as Trinitarian and kenotic (Clayton 2005, 255). It is Trinitarian because the world participates in God in a manner analogous to the way that members of the trinity participate in each other although the world is not and does not become God. God freely decides to limit God's infinite power in an act of kenosis in order to allow for the existence of non-divine reality. The divine kenotic decision results in the actuality of the world that is taken into God. But, for Clayton, God's inclusion of finite being as actual is contingent upon God's decision rather than necessary to God's essence (2003, 214). Clayton affirms creation from nothing as a description of creaturely existence prior to God's decision. The involvement of the world in an internal relationship with God does not completely constitute the divine being for Clayton. Instead, God is both primordial, or eternal, and responsive to the world. The world does constitute God's relational aspect but not the totality of God (2005, 250–254). The best way to describe the interdependence between God and the world for Clayton is through the concept of emergence. Emergence may be explanatory, epistemological, or ontological. Ontological understandings of emergence, which Clayton supports, hold that 1) reality is made up one type of being, physical existence, rather than two or more types of being but this physicality does not mean that only physical objects exist because, 2) properties emerge in objects from the potentiality of an object that cannot be previously identified in the object's parts or structure, 3) the emergence of new properties give rise to distinct levels of causal relations, which leads to 4) downward causation of the emergent level upon prior levels (2006a, 2–4). Emergence recognizes that change is important to the nature of the world and challenges static views of God (Clayton 2006b, 320).

A number of feminist contribute to the development of panentheism by critiquing traditional understandings of transcendence for continuing dualistic ways of thinking. Feminist panentheists conceive of the divine as continuous with the world rather than being ontologically transcendent over the world (Frankenberry 2011). Sallie McFague's use of metaphors in both theology and science led her to describe the world as God's body. McFague bases the metaphorical nature of all statements about God upon panenethiesm (2001, 30). Further more, for McFague, panentheism sees the world as in God which puts God's name first but includes each person's name and preserves their distinctiveness in the divine reality (2001, 5). God's glory becomes manifest in God's total self-giving to the world so that transcendence becomes immanence rather than being understood as God's power manifest in distant control of the world. Grace Jantzen also uses the metaphor of the world as God's body. Additionally, Jantzen (1998) and Schaab (2007) have proposed metaphors about the womb and midwifery to describe God's relation to the world. Anna Case–Winters challenges McFague's metaphor of the world as God's body. Case–Winters acknowledges that his metaphor maintains God's personal nature, offers a coherent way to talk about God's knowledge of and action in the world, recognizes God's vulnerable suffering love, and revalues nature and embodiment. But at least McFague's early use of the world-as-God's-body metaphor tended towards pantheism and even her later introduction of an agential role for the divine still retains the possibility of the loss of the identity of the world. Case–Winters uses McDaniel's (1989) distinction between emanational and relationsal understandings of God's immanence in the world to establish a form of panentheism with a clearer distinction between God and the world. The world is an “other” in relation to God rather than being a direct expression of God's own being through emanation for Case–Winters (30–32). Frankenberry contrasts McFague's and Case–Winter's two concepts of transcendence to the traditional hierarchical concept of transcendence. McFague's concept is one of total immanence while Case–Winters holds a dialectic between individual transcendence and immanence (2011). Frankenberry suggests that pantheism may provide a more direct repudiation of male domination than panentheism provides (1993).

The feminist discussion about the adequacy of the metaphor of the world as God's body plays a role in the broader panentheistic discussion about how to describe the relationship between God and the world and the adequacy of the specific metaphors that have been used. Many panentheists find that metaphors provide the most adequate way to understand God's relation to the world. McFague argues that any attempt to do theology requires the use of metaphor (2001, 30). Clayton proposes different levels of metaphor as the most adequate way to reconcile the conflict between divine action and the integrity of the created realm (2003, 208). For Peacocke, the limitation of language requires the use of models and metaphors in describing either God or the cosmos (Schabb 2008, 13). The dominant metaphor in panentheism has been the world as God's body. The primary objection to the world as God's body is the substantialistic implications of the term “body” that lead either to an ontological separation between the world and God or to a loss of identity for God or the world. Bracken proposes a Trinitarian field theory to explain the world's presence in God. The world is a large but finite field of activity within the all–comprehensive field of activity constituted by the three divine persons in ongoing relations with each other and with all the creation (2009, 159). Bracken accepts that other metaphors have been utilized but concludes that the world as God's body and field theory have proven the most helpful. However, more clearly metaphysical panentheistic understandings of God's relation to the world have been articulated. Schelling's German Idealism understood God as freely unfolding as emanation by introducing subjectivity. There is no ontological separation between God and the world because the world participates in the infinite as its source (Clayton 2000, 477–481). Krause understood the world's participation in God both ontologically and epistemically. The particularity of each existent being depends upon the Absolute for its existence as what it is (Göcke 2013). The metaphysical concept of participation occurs as a description of world's relation to God but lacks precision and can be understood either metaphorically or literally. Keller offers another metaphysical understanding by arguing for creation out of chaos. She rejects substance metaphysics and describes the relation between God and the world as a complex relationality involving an active indeterminacy and past realities (2003, 219). Finally the science and religion discussion provides another metaphysical understanding by drawing upon scientific concepts such as supervenience, emergence, downward causation, and entanglement to provide a ground for theological concepts explaining God's relation to the world.

Although most of the advocates for panentheism work in the context of Christian belief or responses to Christian belief, indications of panentheism in other religions have been recognized especially in the Vedic tradition. Hartshorne in his discussion of panentheism included a section on Hinduism (1953). The concept of the world as the body of the divine offers a strong similarity to Western panentheism. The Gita identifies the whole world, including all the gods and living creatures, as the Divine body. But the Divine Being has its own body that contains the world while being more than the world. While the Upanishads acknowledge the body of the Divine at times, the body of the divine is never identified as the cosmos. Most of the Tantrics hold a pantheistic view in which the practitioner is a manifestation of the divine. Abhinavagupta, in the tenth century, provided the first panentheistic understanding of the world as God's body. For him, differentiation is Shiva concealing his wholeness. Abhinavagupta also insisted that Shiva transcends the cosmos (Bilimoria and Stansell 2010, 244–258). Abhinavagupta and Hartshorne think of the Divine as immanent in the world and as changing but they understood God's mutability in different ways (Stansell and Phillips 2010, 187). Ramunuja in the twelfth century also considered the world to be God's body and the thoughts of ultimate reality, individual selves, and the cosmos as identical (Ward 2004, 62 and Clayton 2010, 187–189).

4. Criticisms and Responses
In spite of more than one hundred years of development, panentheism continues to grow and change. Much of this growth has taken place as a result of advances in science. Another impetus for change has been criticisms raised by the major alternatives to panentheistic understandings of the God-world relation. Panentheism faces challenges both from those who find that any lessening of the emphasis upon divine transcendence to be inadequate and from those who find some form of pantheism more adequate than any distinction between God and the world. Finally, the variety of the versions of panentheism have led to an active internal discussion among the various versions.

Both pantheists and scientists working with naturalist assumptions criticize panentheism for its metaphysical claim that there is a being above or other than the natural world. At times, this criticism has been made by claiming that a thorough-going naturalism does not need a transcendent, individualized reality. Corrington describes the development of his thought as a growing awareness that panentheism unnecessarily introduces a being above nature as well as in nature (2002, 49). Drees expresses a similar criticism by arguing that all contemporary explanations of human agency, including non-reductionist explanations, are naturalistic and do not require any reference to a higher being. For panentheists to claim that divine agency is analogous to human agency fails both to recognize that human agency requires no additional source or cause and to explain how a divine source of being could act in the realm of physical and mental processes (1999). Frankenberry makes this objection more specific. Panentheism offers a more complex relationship between God and the world than is necessary. This unnecessary complexity is revealed by the problems that panentheism has with the logic of the freedom of parts in wholistic relations, the possibility of the body-soul analogy relapsing into gender inflected ideas of the soul as the male principle, the problem with simultaneity of events in the divine experience in relation to the principle of the relativity of time, the necessity of the everlasting nature of value, and finally the use of the ontological argument to establish the necessity of the abstract pole of the divine nature (1993, 36–39). Gillett points out that panentheism lacks an explanation for a causal efficacy higher than the causal efficacy realized by microphysical causation (2003, 19). Generally, panentheists respond to these criticisms by affirming the inadequacy both scientifically and metaphysically of any type of reductionistic naturalism. Such a naturalism whether articulated in scientific categories or religious categories fails to recognize the emergence of levels of complexity in nature. The emergence of higher levels of organization that cannot be completely explained in terms of lower levels renders non-differentiated accounts of being inadequate. Panentheists often argue that the emergence of higher levels of order makes possible downward causation. Davies describes the difficulties in coming to a clear description of downward causation and concludes that the complexity of systems open to the environment makes room for downward causation but has not yet provided an explanation of how downward causation works (2006, 48). The concepts of entanglement and divine entanglement may offer new perspective on causation and especially the role of the divine in natural causation (Wegter–Mcnelly 2011).

Rather than criticizing an unnecessary transcendence, traditional theism charges panentheism with an inadequate transcendence due to failing to distinguish God from the world. Grounds recognized that panentheists hold that God includes the world but is not identical to the world. Craig recognizes that Clayton claims that God is infinite. But Grounds describes Hartshorne's distinction between God and the world as a distinction that is not consistently held because Hartshorne includes accidents within God's nature. Grounds argues that according to Hartshorne God would cease to be if the world ceased to exist. Such a position lacks an adequate distinction between God and the world since God and the world are interdependent (Grounds, 1970, 154). Craig challenges the understanding of the term “infinite” within panentheistic thought by arguing that understanding the infinite as including all reality in a monistic sense confuses the definition of “infinite” with identifying what is infinite (2006, 137). Even though Clayton seeks to retain a distinction between God and the world, he fails to be consistent because he fails to recognize that “infinite” is an umbrella concept that captures all the qualities that identify God as the perfect being rather than identifying God as an absolutely unlimited reality (Craig 2006, 142–150). Rowe responds to Craig by arguing that Clayton would reject understanding the distinction between God and the world as requiring that the world limits God by being distinct. Instead, distinct from God means having an essential property that God lacks or lacking an essential property that God has which agrees with Craig's notion of the infinite as an umbrella concept (Rowe 2007, 67). Clayton describes the infinite as present in finite minds although ungraspable (2008, 152). Vail finds that Keller's panentheism blurs the line between the cosmic and the divine leading to a distinction of degree rather than of quality (2012, 164, 177).

The basic response of panentheists to these criticisms that the distinction between God and the world cannot be maintained is a dipolar concept of God. In a dipolar understanding of God, the essence of God is different from the world because God is infinite and the world is finite; God is everlasting and the world is temporal. Griffin additionally affirms the numerical difference between God and the world even though there is no ontological difference of kind (2004, 44–45). Cooper recognizes that the panentheist does actually describe a distinction between God and the world but criticizes panentheism because it does not hold an unqualified ontological distinction between God and the world. Only an ontological distinction between God and the world makes it possible to identify and affirm God's saving presence. According to Cooper, if God's transcendence does not infinitely exceed God's immanence, God's presence, knowledge, and power are limited rather than complete, immediate, and unconditioned. Cooper recognizes that prioritizing divine transcendence raises the problem of evil but thinks that God's unlimited power provides hope that God will provide an ultimate solution to the problem of evil. The basic issue for traditional theism is that panentheism understands a balance between transcendence and immanence to involve the world influencing and affecting God. If God is affected by the world, then God is considered incapable of providing salvation (Cooper 2006, 322–328). Peacocke and Eastern Orthodox thinkers (Louth 2004, 184; Nesteruk 2004, 173–176; Ware 2004, 167) respond by affirming a weak form of emergence in which the world does not affect God. Clayton and Bracken respond by maintaining that the world does influence God but God's will, expressed through the decisions that God makes, protects God's ability to save (Clayton 2005). Moltmann describes God's essence as directing God's activity in order to maintain the reliability of God as love acting on behalf of creation. Moltmann does not find it necessary to protect divine freedom by giving it priority over divine love but rather understands freedom as acting according to the divine nature of love (Moltmann 1981, 98, 99). Cooper also criticizes panentheism for holding a concept of God that can save through the general processes of nature but not in any distinctive way. Vanhoozer's concern for divine freedom is based on a similar concern (1998, 250). But, Griffin's discussion of divine variable action does allow for specific and distinctive manifestations of divine love (2004, 45). Ultimately, the panentheist response is that God's nature as love directs God's actions bringing salvation. God's nature as love is the crucial aspect of divine action rather than a causal efficacy. The emphasis of traditional theism on divine will misses that the divine will is directed by divine love. Some responses by traditional theists have claimed that traditional theism is not guilty of separating God from the world and thus panentheism is not needed as a corrective (Carroll 2008, Finger 1997). Wildman acknowledges that traditional theism does hold that God has a meaningful presence in the world but has an inadequate ontological basis for that presence. An adequate basis for the active presence of God int he world requires some role for the world in the constitution of God (Wildman 2011, 186).

The varieties of panentheism participate in internal criticism. Clayton (2008, 127) and Crain (2006) emphasize the dependence of the world upon God rather than the dependence of God upon the world although they maintain that God is influenced, and changed, by the world. They criticize understandings of God that limit God by making God subject to metaphysical principles. Griffin emphasizes the regularity provided by metaphysical principles. This regularity recognizes the order in reality that the reliability of God's love provides. Panentheists also caution that the emphasis upon the ontological nature of the relation between God and the world can lead to a loss of the integrity of the world. Richardson warns against losing the discrete identity of finite beings in God (2010, 345). Case-Winters calls for maintaining a balance between the distinction between God and the world and God's involvement with the world. Over–emphasis upon either side of the balance leads to positions that are philosophically and theologically inadequate (Case–Winters 2007, 125).

Bibliography
Baltzly, Dirk, 2010, “Is Plato's Timaeus Panentheistic?”, Sophia, 49: 193–215.
Bilimoria, Purushottma and Stansell, Ellen, 2010, “Suturing the Body Corporate (Divine and Human) in the Brahmanic Traditions”, Sophia, 49: 237–259.
Bracken, Joseph A., 1975, “Panentheism from a Trinitarian Perspective”, Horizons, 22: 7–28.
–––, 2004, “Panentheism: A Field-Oriented Approach”, in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being, P. Clayton and A. Peacocke (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 211–221.
–––, 2009, “Whitehead and Roman Catholics: What Went Wrong?”, American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, 30:153–167.
Case-Winters, Anna, 2007, Reconstructing a Christian Theology of Nature, Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Clayton, Philip, 2000, The Problem of God in Modern Thought, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
–––, 2001, “Panentheist Internalism: Living within the Presence of the Trinitarian God”, Dialog, 40: 208–215.
–––, 2003, “God and World”, in The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, Kevin J. Vanhoozer (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–218.
–––, 2004b, “Panentheism in Metaphysical and Scientific Perspective”, in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, P. Clayton and A. Peacocke (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 73–91.
–––, 2004c, Mind and Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2005, “Kenotic trinitarian panentheism”, Dialog, 44: 250–255.
–––, 2006a, “Conceptual Foundations of Emergence Theory,” in The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, P. Clayton and P. Davies (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–31.
–––, 2006b, “Emergence from Quantum Physics to Religion: A Critical Appraisal”, in The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, P. Clayton and P. Davies (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 303–322.
–––, 2008, Adventures in the Spirit: God, World, Divine Action, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
–––, 2010, “Panentheisms East and West”, Sophia, 49: 183–191.
Clayton, Philip and Peacocke, Arthur, (eds.), 2004a, In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.
Cobb, John B., Jr., 1965, A Christian Natural Theology, Based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead, Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Cooper, John W., 2006, Panentheism The Other God of the Philosophers: From Plato to the Present, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Corning, Peter A., 2002, “The Re-emergence of ‘Emergence’: A Venerable Concept in Search of a Theory”, Complexity, 7: 18–30.
Corrington, Robert S., 2002, “My Passage from Panentheism to Pantheism”, American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, 23: 129–153.
Craig, W. L., 2006, “Pantheists in spite of Themselves” in For Faith and Clarity, J.K. Beilby (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, pp. 135–156.
Crain, Steven D., 2006, “God Embodied in, God Bodying Forth the World: Emergence and Christian Theology”, Zygon, 41: 655–673.
Crisp, Oliver, 2009, “Jonathan Edwards on the divine nature”, Journal of Reformed Theology, 3: 175–201.
Davies, Paul, 2004, “Teleology without Teleology: Purpose through Emergent Complexity”, in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, P. Clayton and A. Peacocke (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 95–108.
–––, 2006, “The Physics of Downward Causation”, in The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, P. Clayton and P. Davies (eds.), Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 35–52.
Davies, P. C. W., 2007, Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Drees, Willem B., 1999, “God and Contemporary Science: Philip Clayton's Defense of Panentheism”, Zygon, 34: 515–525.
Emmett, Dorothy, 1992, “Whitehead and Alexander”, Process Studies, 3: 137–148.
Ford, Lewis, (ed.), 1973, Two Process Philosophers: Hartshorne's Encounter with Whitehead, Tallahassee, FL: American Academy of Religion.
Frankenberry, Nancy, 1993, “Classical Theism, Panentheism, and Pantheism: On the Relation between God Construction and Gender and Construction”, Zygon, 28: 29–46.
–––, 2011, “Feminist Philosophy of Religion”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2 ... -religion/>.
Franklin, S. T., 1984, “Panentheism”, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, W. A. Elwell (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, pp. 818–820.
Gillett, Carl, 2003, “Physicalism and Panentheism: Good News and Bad News”, Faith and Philosophy, 20: 3–23.
Göcke, Benedikt Paul, 2013, “The Importance of Karl Christian Friedrich Krause's Panentheism”, Zygon, forthcoming.
Gregersen, Niels Henrik, “Three Varieties of Panentheism”, in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, P. Clayton and A. Peacocke (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 19–35.
Griffin, David Ray, 2004, “Panentheism: A Postmodern Revelation”, in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being, P. Clayton and A. Peacocke (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 36–47.
Grounds, Vernon, 1970, “The Future of Theology and the Theology of the Future”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 12: 147–171.
Hartshorne, Charles and Reese, William L. (eds.), 1953, Philosophers Speak of God, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jantzen Grace, 1998, Becoming Divine: Towards a feminist philosophy of religion, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Keller, Catherine, 2003, Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming, New York: Routledge.
Louth, Andrew, 2004,“The Cosmic Vision of Saint Maximos the Confessor”, in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, P. Clayton and A. Peacocke (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 184–196.
McDaniel, Jay, 1989, Of God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life, Louisville, KY: John Knox/Westminster.
McFague, Sallie, 2001, Life Abundant: Rethinking Theology and Economy for a Planet in Peril, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Molnar, Paul D., 1990, “The Function of the Trinity in Moltmann's Ecological Doctrine of Creation”, Theological Studies, 51: 673–697.
Moltmann, Jürgen, 1974, The Crucified God, Evanston, IL: Harper and Row.
–––, 1981, The Trinity and the Kingdom, New York: Harper and Row.
–––, 1996, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Nesteruk, Alexei V., 2004, “The Universe as Hypostatic Inherence in the Logos of God: Panentheism in the Eastern Orthodox Perspective”, in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, P. Clayton and A. Peacocke (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 169–183.
Peacocke, Arthur, 1979, Creation and the World of Science, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
–––, 2001, Paths from Science towards God: The End of All Our Exploring, Oxford: Oneworld.
–––, 2004, “Articulating God's Presence in and to the World Unveiled by the Sciences”, in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being, P. Clayton and A. Peacocke (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 137–154.
–––, 2006, “Emergence, Mind, and Divine Action: The Hierarchy of the Sciences in Relation to the Human Mind-Brain-Body”, in The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, P. Clayton and P. Davies (eds.), Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 257–278.
Polkinghorne, John, 2010, “The Demise of Democritus”,in Physical Science and Theology, John Polkinghorne (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 1–14.
Richardson, W. Mark, 2010, “Evolutionary-emergent worldview and Anglican theological revision: case studies from the 1920s”, Anglican Theological Review, 92: 321–345.
Reese, William L., 2008, “pantheism”, in Encyclopædia Britannica, retrieved June 25, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com/eb/article-38155.
Rowe, William L., 2007, “Does panentheism reduce to pantheism? a response to Craig”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 61: 65–67.
Schaab, Gloria, 2007, “Midwifery as a Model for Environmental Ethics: Expanding Arthur Peacocke's Models of 'Man–in–Creation”, Zygon, 43: 487–498.
–––, 2008, “Evolutionary Theory and Theology: A Mutually Illuminative Dialogue”, Zygon, 42: 285–295.
Stansell, Ellen and Phillips, Stephen H., 2010, “Hartshorne and Indian Panentheism”, Sophia, 49: 9–18.
Vail, Erich M., 2012, Creation and Chaos Talk: Charting a Way Forward, Princeton Theological Monograph Series, Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J., 1998, “Effectual Call or Causal Effect? Summons, Sovereignty and Supervenient Grace”, Tyndale Bulletin, 49: 213–251.
Ward, Keith, 2004, “The World and the Body of God: A Panentheistic Metaphor”, in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, P. Clayton and A. Peacocke (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 62–72.
Ware, Kallistos, 2004, “God Immanent yet Transcendent: The Divine Energies according to Saint Gregory Palamas”, in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World, P. Clayton and A. Peacocke (eds.), Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, pp. 157–168.
Wegter–McNelly, Kirk, 2011, “The Entangled God: Divine Relationality and Quantum Theory”, New York: Routledge.
Whittemore, Robert C., 1960, “Hegel As Panentheist”, Studies in Hegel, (Series: Tulane Studies in Philosophy, Volume 9), pp. 134–164.
–––, 1988, “The meeting of East and West in neglected Vedanta”, Dialogue & Alliance, 2: 33–47.
Wildman, Wesley J., 2011, “Mark Johnston's Naturalistic Account of God and Nature, Life and Death”, American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, 32: 180–187.

======================================================================================================

Enjoy!

Best regards,
Cosmotheist



PS--Many of the false criticisms of panentheism by atheists and pan-atheists and even
pantheists stem from not understanding that the Whole is always greater than just the
sum of all of the parts, and just as your own Whole self is, and is all known intrinsically.

[Cosmotheist]

Hi Cosmotheist. Good article by Ben Klassen. I haven't read the Himmler piece yet but it sounds interesting. Here is something interesting I came across a while ago. It comes from the website to Joel Osteen. It's a short article about tithing:

http://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/Message ... 2014-10-08

Open Windows
TODAY'S SCRIPTURE:
"Bring all the tithes (the whole tenth of your income) into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and prove Me now by it, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."
(Malachi 3:10, AMP)
TODAY'S WORD:
God promises to open the windows of heaven and pour out blessings on you today! But, you have to do your part of this verse. Your part is to be a faithful tither and be obedient to the Lord with your finances.

The truth is, we are all just stewards over the resources God has given us. When we are good and faithful stewards, the Lord entrusts us with more. He opens the windows of heaven. Have you ever thought about what kind of blessing would be so great that there would not be room enough to receive it? It may be hard to comprehend, but that’s what God’s Word promises!

Today, make the decision to be a giver. Be a tither. The tithe is the first tenth of your income. As the scripture says, get ready to prove the Lord because He is faithful. Thank Him today because He is going to pour out abundant blessings on every area of your life!

My initial reaction to this was it seems pretty pushy to demand your followers that they must tithe the first tenth of their income. My second reaction was why does God need people's money? Is God some sort of bum who lives off people's charity? That's what it sounds like. I noticed that every church, minister or pastor, even online pastors, anyone who is spreading the gospel of the lord seems to ask for donations. How come God doesn't take care of his own messengers? I wonder if Jesus asked for donations too?

Hello Daniel. Thanks. You should read it, as there are many relevant points in that article.
Yes, the "churches" are always telling their believers "not to lay up treasures on earth but
in heaven" but these "churches" certainly do not practice what they always preach do they?

What else should you expect from any such religion that is founded and is rooted upon Jewish:
"spirituality" and "ideology" and "pseudo-history" and "mythology" and a "egoistic or malignant
narcissism"?

Best regards,
Cosmotheist

[David York]

There is also this thought from another thread by Albert Pike, who wrote that the Anti-Semetism found in the NT was added in there by White Christians several hundred years after Christ was crucified.

From my understanding much of the NT text was written and interpreted 300-600 years after the death of the Christ figure in monasteries , saying that many of the Germanic countries were aware of the Jews and their ways and in those days and it did worked against them, however nowadays the Christian believer is told how to think just as the masses thru the jewish run media

that was from this thread. http://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1366 . Sounds like a good possibility.

[Will Williams]

Above is a presentation at a Stormfront conference by a "Russian Orthodox"/Christian Identist, Matt Heimbach. In it he raises an interesting question, a question which would supposedly debunk the theory that Christianity was a weapon of the Jews to subdue White people...

I attended that Stormfront seminar, but left before the Saturday afternoon speeches so missed this Heimbach fellow. I did happen to get into a 20-minute, or so, impromptu religious debate with him in the snack room Friday evening in our hotel lobby, though. He is a good speaker, but all he could do with me as I hit him with the Cosmotheist/Creator biocentric world view was to keep citing, with a straight face and much conviction, scripture after scripture from the Big Jew Book to "prove" that Jesus Christ would eventually come down through the clouds on a white horse to save the White race. We had an audience of seven or eight other attendees of the conference who got a good earful of of the Biological Racist POV vs. the Identist POV. What a stark contrast of world views that was! Heimbach didn't like at all that I told him he worshiped the Jew's tribal god.

I could only watch one minute of this video, knowing already how this rather arrogant young man thinks. I read where this "Identist" got into a rather heated argument at the event with another Identist, Thom Robb, over some position the former Identist advanced that the latter did not agree with. "Dueling scriptures," I suppose.

[Cosmotheist]

Above is a presentation at a Stormfront conference by a "Russian Orthodox"/Christian Identist, Matt Heimbach. In it he raises an interesting question, a question which would supposedly debunk the theory that Christianity was a weapon of the Jews to subdue White people...

I attended that Stormfront seminar, but left before the Saturday afternoon speeches so missed this Heimbach fellow. I did happen to get into a 20-minute, or so, impromptu religious debate with him in the snack room Friday evening in our hotel lobby, though. He is a good speaker, but all he could do with me as I hit him with the Cosmotheist/Creator biocentric world view was to keep citing, with a straight face and much conviction, scripture after scripture from the Big Jew Book to "prove" that Jesus Christ would eventually come down through the clouds on a white horse to save the White race. We had an audience of seven or eight other attendees of the conference who got a good earful of of the Biological Racist POV vs. the Identist POV. What a stark contrast of world views that was! Heimbach didn't like at all that I told him he worshiped the Jew's tribal god.

I could only watch one minute of this video, knowing already how this rather arrogant young man thinks. I read where this "Identist" got into a rather heated argument at the event with another Identist, Thom Robb, over some position the former Identist advanced that the latter did not agree with. "Dueling scriptures," I suppose.

Will,

It is always a "sad display" to see any "White" man defend views based solely upon a book written by Jews, for Jews,
with the "reward" of a "fictional" heaven to feed his "egotism" and "arrogance" and as much like the "Chosen People"
myth the "true believer" gains his "self-righteousness" from the same delusional source as through "blind faith" thus
and also being "saved" by "God's Grace" from the "sadistic and perverse Hell" invented to help "keep any such sheep"
from "ever escaping either mentally or spiritually" from this Jewish "pen" prison and poison all called "Christianity".

Ugh. Sad and pathetic indeed!

Such "Dueling scriptures" actually killed many Whites with those "hundred years" and "thirty years wars" in Europe,
as it was intended to do with all of its inherent contradictions and schizophrenia, of which is the hallmark of Jews.
Nietzsche was correct that "Christianity" is the "scourge of humanity" just as are the ones that originated it are a
"bane" and "nemesis" to all nations and peoples and races everywhere on earth as their "history" fully reveals to us!

Best regards,
Cosmotheist



PS---The exact quote is:

“This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race...”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti Christ