Do Pantelists have their own churches?

[Sarada]

Do Pantelists have their own churches, or do they go to churches of different denominations. What denominations would Pantelists favour?

[Me Again]

Many of my pantelist friends don't attend church, but I don't want to speak for them. I favor liberal (not politically liberal) or moderate churches theologically; e.g., Congregational, Evangelical Lutheran, United Methodist, PCUSA. They tend to still believe scripture, but their interpretation of it leaves room for dissent. Conservative churches want to make demands of what you believe and what you do. I used to be an elder at a Reformed Presbyterian Church of the United States (a very small Southern denomination). Our congregation practiced Male only voting, head-coverings for women, Sabbath-keeping, and homeschooling. Homeschooling is the only one that I retain in my theological paradigm, but for different reasons today.

When I say that I shun politically liberal churches, what I mean is that I don't want to really go to any church that "worships" this country (or any other - like Israel). I believe that churches are embassies of the kingdom of God. While we may live our lives in the society where we are planted, we do not represent American politics, rather we represent godly service.

[Barry]

Sarada
As an advocate of the first century fulfillment of all things written (as pertains to Bible prophecy), I would be willing to attend Church as a guest. I would be willing to attend Church and submit to certain codes of conduct depending on what they are if a greater good can come of it. The idea however that this is the Church that we see in the scriptures is something that I cannot accept in all good conscience.

A very good case can be made that the "church" authority as it stood in the first century was for the purpose making the transition between old and new covenants. A transitional "body" that did complete its task from dieing with Christ to being raise up with him. This is why apostleship was an application of one generation and the clear qualification of apostleship does clarify this very thing.

They were preparing the people for the end of one era and the beginning of a new era. John writes in Revelation that the Christ said "I am making everything new".
Since everything has been made new this changes the application of "church" quite a bit. It also changes the meaning of being a "christian".

Hence my view is that it is impossible to restore first century Christianity because what they did is completed. The Revelation is completed. It is the ongoing impact of that revelation that continues.

Church usually teaches that people are "saved" so that they can go to heaven and not to hell. But the salvation that was taught in the first century dealt with "this life" not post-mortem continuity as is thought of in most christian circles. Salvation thus was never intended to be seen as obtaining an eternal security. Eternal security was never the issue IMO. The first century Christians were saved to serve others. That is why they were called a "royal priesthood". Priests always severed others who were not priests. What these priest had then is a kind of reward for their service which is a type of "legacy".

We can still extrapolate from this [This is in part because love is eternal and every act of love impacts history in a positive way.] and call ourselves Christians, but the application is no longer for the same exact purpose. The idea that we need to make converts so that people can go to heaven when they die instead of going to hell is imho ludicrous. I have been exposed to that in my past long enough and presently to be quite honest, have little patience for it. While I do respect the journey that others take, IMHO I can also see the hurt that comes from some things that are taught. My views relate to divine oneness and interconnectedness where unity is realized and is not attained through performance.

Most (but not all) Church today functions under the presumption of an ongoing authority. People get together decide what doctrines they wish to abide by and how they wish to implement their organizational structure, then give their denomination a name, and then call it church as if that is what God had sanctioned in the first century in the bible scriptures. That's fine if that is what one wishes to do, but I see things very differently.

What I enjoy is spiritual fellowship and being around people who wish to discover the depths of love. There may be a church out there that I can fit into. I have not seen one yet anywhere around where I live in Ontario and am not looking too hard.

There are very loving people in many different (christian) church settings. And there is a lot of good things that come from Church. IMHO there are also other ways for people to organize themselves to accomplish beneficial things and be a blessing to others in an outward fashion. Church as it stands in today's setting is sometimes very self focused and self serving and encourages the ego to be the main driving force.

Some others here who I respect and love greatly have found places of worship that have been a blessing overal.

Just some personal thoughts of course as one who was a preacher and a missionary and grew up in a missionary family. We lived in Madagascar and Mauritius and Guadeloupe. My wife is from Guadeloupe Island, a department of France.

Blessings,
Barry

[Sarada]

I was baptized and confirmed in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. After confirmation, I taught Sunday school there for awile. Here in Canada we have what is called the United Church, which is quite liberal. I was a member of our local church council and sang in the choir. Now I usually go to a local Evangelical Lutheran church at Christmas time.

Did you find the Lutheran Church to be liberal? Do you believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ as is mentioned in Lutheran Church Missouri Synod website?

I was happy to note that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada has a formal dialogue with the Catholic church.

[Me Again]

Pantelists do not believe that the Pope is the antichrist; nor do we believe that anyone else living today is the or an antichrist. The antichrist was a first century spiritual force within first-century Judaism that didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ, who had come in the flesh to die for their sins. That spirit of antichrist caused many Jews to not believe in Christ and to have to endure the destruction of the Temple and the holy city in AD70. The "resurrection" occurred then too, wherein the Completed Temple (the body of Christ) and the New Jerusalem (the heavenly city) was "raised" from the "second death," which was the lake of fire (the destruction of Jerusalem).

With Israel redeemed, all humanity has been reconciled to God. Those who believe and enter the work of love that God calls us to are "saved" to serve. Humanity is no longer at war with God (if they ever truly were), but all creation is becoming more and more in harmony with the work of God. I believe that we find expression of this in every culture and most likely in every religion, although I still believe that the reconciliation came through Christ and Israel.

Hope that helps to explain where I'm coming from.

[Sarada]

Barry and Me Again,

The two of you blow me away.:biggrinbounce: If I had known about Pantelism 20 years ago, I might have never left Christianity! This inclusive viewpoint is phenomenal. I agree with so many things that you have said.
From a Hindu point of view, there is nothing to stop me from believing in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. But, from a Lutheran perspective, if I insist on being a Hindu, I will surely suffer hellfire. Until my former Lutheran pastor told me this, I thought that I could somehow combine both faiths.

From what you tell me, it could some day become a possibility. The only obstacle left is the doctrine that Christ is the ONLY way.

The Rigveda samhita (1.164.46) itself indicates that

Truth is one, but the learned refer to it in different names. "ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti ahuh"

We do celebrate every Christmas Eve by reading the story of Jesus' birth, sometimes we read the story from the Q'uran.

My own feeling is that the Ultimate Truth is like a brilliant cut, planet sized diamond - no one can see all its facets simultaneously.

Salaam,

Sarada

[Me Again]

Sarada,
your objection to Jesus being the ONLY way is actually looking at this from the back end of things. In pantelism, we believe that God has loved us all along. God's choosing of a people through whom he would bring a savior of the world is, for the most part, an example for us.

You see, in the original story, Adam and Eve were naked prior to the fall. They were unashamed because their eyes were not open to their nakedness. After eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of both good and evil, their eyes were opened and they realized that they were naked and they were ashamed. They tried to hide their nakedness from God by sewing fig leaves together (I'd like to mention here that most of us do not see this story as some kind of literal story, but a metaphor/analogy of a literal story), which signified their own works (sewing). Then they HID from God in the garden.

God's response of clothing them wasn't to cover their nakedness for his sake, it was for their sake. The clothing of Adam and Eve was to remove their shame. They tried but they couldn't do it...(old song, anyone remember?), and so God did it for them. This was not some kind of "bailout" (to use a very familiar phrase these days), or buyback. God did this because they were ashamed. He was covering them so they wouldn't be ashamed.

All through scriptural history, events happened that were for the purpose of revealing that they were naked. Yet, he always provided a covering. First, in the garden, it was the animal skin. Eventually it was the blood of animals and curtains. Finally it was Jesus, his blood. The covering (atonement) covered the shame of those who had eaten the fruit (works) from the tree of knowledge (the flesh, not physical bodies but shame). Their shame was covered until such time as God would destroy that system that brought death and shame. After that system (the Mosaic Law) was destroyed, death was destroyed (because the Law brought death). With death destroyed, there was nothing to condemn us any longer.

So, this isn't a matter of having to believe in Jesus, that he is the ONLY way. This pantelism states that he was THE way to eliminating the shame. Regardless of your religion, if you are ashamed as a human, then you need to know that there is no longer any shame. If you are not ashamed, then you already know.

I hope I am making sense - just to reiterate: it is not that Jesus is the ONLY way, but he is THE way. The word "only" implies that you have to come through him (the Jews did, but we don't), whereas him being THE way simply means that he did it, period. I don't believe it to "get in the door," I believe it because I am IN the door; not by my works, but because Jesus brought us all in with him.

[Sarada]

Suppose you are in a dark cave for a long time, you can't see your hand in front of you, and you are afraid of the dark. Suppose that cave has several exits, but you can't see them. You are in the dark cave, hugging its walls, inching along very gingerly, trying to find a way out. Finally you find the way. There are other people in the cave as well. They also eventually find the way out, but it is not the same exit as the one you took. But all of the exits lead from the darkness to the light. Materially and spiritually.

When I was young, a family member committed suicide. I was devastated and felt guilty, because I thought that I should have been able to prevent it, but I didn't. She died on a Friday night. That night I went to bed with a srtong urge to go to church on Sunday, but I did not know why. I had not been to church in years. Later I found out that she had committed suicide on that Friday. I spoke to my pastor at length, I visited him, he visited me, I went to church, but nothing could rid me of this guilt. prayed to Jesus for years, and nothing helped. I was given more and more anti-depressants. Nothing helped, my guilt feelings and my feelings of worthlessnes just got worse.
Finally I attempted suicide and ended up in hospital for several months.

Whilst in hospital, I was given short passes to go out for a few hours. On one of those outings, I found myself in a bookshop looking at a book about a powerful but misunderstoond Hindu deity called Kali. I read the book, and I totally understood Shri Ramakrishna's devotion to her. I started repeating her mantra and praying to this aspect of God. Soon, I started to feel better, and I began to realise that I was not responsible for her death. I found a spiritual advisor who is a Christian, and who also believes in Kali, Shiva, and the other aspects of God. I fired my psychiatrist and have not had to take any more psychotropic drugs. In fact, I found out later, that I now have irreversiblel brain damage as result of taking these drugs, and must take an anti-parkinsons disease drug to stop my shaking.

Anyhow, through my discovery of Kali Maa, or Mother Kali, and my meetings with my spiritual advisor, I have arrived at the point where I no longer feel responsible for her death, and my sense of self worth has been restored. So yes, I can see that Jesus is the way, but He is not THE way.

God may have chosen the Jewish people and Jesus in this hemisphere, but for me it always comes down to what about all the other people in the world who haven't heard of Jesus, or who call God by a differen name, or worship Him in different ways, are they just out of luck until some missionary comes to set them free? I don't believe God would do that. I believe that He would have manifested himself in every corner of the globe, to the Eskimos, to the people in Borneo, to the Maoris, to the Aborigines of Australia, everywhere. For he is a loving and compassionate God, and he would not leave any of his children waiting in despair for centuries until their land is discovered by Europeans.

In my belief, every people have been given the Darshan (being in the sight of and seeing} of God.

Whether you call him Jesus, G-d, Y-w-h, Allah, Brahman, Gitchimanitou, Osiris, or Lakshmi he is God and there is only one.


"Asato Ma Sat Gamaya
Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya
Mrityor Ma Amritam Gamaya
Om Shanti Shanti Shanti."


Translation:

Lead Us From Untruth To Truth,
Lead Us From Darkness To Light,
Lead Us From Death To Immortality,
Aum (the universal sound of God)
Let There Be Peace Peace Peace. - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.28.
(500 B.C.E.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF00Dh7XXvI

[Amie]

Whether you call him Jesus, G-d, Y-w-h, Allah, Brahman, Gitchimanitou, Osiris, or Lakshmi he is God and there is only one.

When my daughter was in like third or fourth grade, a little girl who was a Jehovah's Witness was telling her about her beliefs. The little girl told her "We believe in a different God than you" and my daughter said, "But you can't, there's only one God." The other little girl accepted the logic and continued to share. haha! I love listening to kids.

Amie

[Amie]

PS-

I prefer not to attend church at all, and don't. :)

Amie

[Sarada]

When my daughter was in like third or fourth grade, a little girl who was a Jehovah's Witness was telling her about her beliefs. The little girl told her "We believe in a different God than you" and my daughter said, "But you can't, there's only one God." The other little girl accepted the logic and continued to share. haha! I love listening to kids.

Amie

Kids are great, the cut through all the embellishments, and get right to the heart of the matter! Your daughter is one smart girl!

[Barry]

God may have chosen the Jewish people and Jesus in this hemisphere, but for me it always comes down to what about all the other people in the world who haven't heard of Jesus, or who call God by a differen name, or worship Him in different ways, are they just out of luck until some missionary comes to set them free? I don't believe God would do that. I believe that He would have manifested himself in every corner of the globe, to the Eskimos, to the people in Borneo, to the Maoris, to the Aborigines of Australia, everywhere. For he is a loving and compassionate God, and he would not leave any of his children waiting in despair for centuries until their land is discovered by Europeans.

Hi Sarada
That is a good point IMO.

It however pulls points from several different directions which may at first seem to call for a conclusion that may under closer examination not be necessary. That is just a thought of course.
Then there is the issue of semantics which always comes into play. What does a person mean by "the way"?
Christ being the "way" would not IMHO cause me to conclude that you have not been assisted "else where" as you see it. The impact of what the Christ has done has had an impact on everyone whether they at first see it or not.

What has happened historically in the Christ does and will continue to be a blessing to all humanity even though experientially you have found meaning and assistance from other "names" and "angles".

From my own perspective I do not need to question the assistance that you (for example) have received from what you see as elsewhere while at the same time believe that all humanity was blessed through the Christ. These two points are not incompatible to me.

Of course in my own perspective I focus on a continuing impact that has not finished as of yet. We are IMHO still evolving, for lack of a better word. Most of us realize that the world can be better. IMHO it will be. I don't need to doubt your personal experience to believe this. If that makes sense :)

Hope that I am making some sense :)


Barry

[Sarada]

Yes Barry, in fuzzy logic sort of way, you are making sense. Everything that happens in one part of the world and at one time has repercussions in all parts of the world at all times.

Having said that, you can perhaps acknowledge my affection/affinity towards the Hindu perspective. Hindus, most of which are non-dualists, have no problem with the concept of "both and" whereas western dualistic logic is more "either or"

So yes, I can say that it is quite possible that through Jesus, I was finally helped by Kali Mata. As I said in another post, to me, the truth is like a planet sized diamond, no one can see all of its facets all at once. So who am I to judge what you believe to be the truth, even if I may not see it that way.

To paraphrase the Gita, never was there a time when Jesus did not exist, nor will he cease to exist in the future.

[Sarada]

I'm still trying to get my head around Pantelist Universalist thought. If I am correct, it seems that belief in the redemptive power of Christ's sacrifice is not necessary to be redeemed. His redemptive power just IS.
Therefore everyone is under the New Covenant whether they realize it or not. However, when you do realize that you have been liberated from death, there is a feeling of incomparable bliss. Do I have that right?

If yes, then wow, how Hindu. All you have to do is change the name of the Deity.:clap2:

[Barry]

There are different concepts to "covenant" even here at TG.

One perspective is that we do not enter into covenant but are the benefactors of covenant. Wherein the covenant was with Israel and the first century Christians.
Another perspective is that we still enter into covenant but that does not mean that others are not "redeemed" as such.

I have my own personal views on many of these subjects. My perspective is historical. I believe in an evolution of consciousness in this sphere of existence (humanity). In this sense God got into the sand box with his children and related to them and with them on their developmental level. This is an "in the box" perspective.

This "in the box" involved the dualism of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

There had to be an in the box understanding before an outside the box understanding could be relevant. It's all about the long term attributes of love which involves sharing.

During this time period love without condition was not clearly revealed because of the larger scope of need and future requirements. This is why the Christ re framed many things.

For instance "love your neighbor as yourself" is re framed in "who was a neighbor to him" [the story of the good Samaritan which was a picture of the work of Christ]. A comprehensive re framing so to speak that "love your neighbor as yourself" foreshadowed but in a sectarian precept. Getting it out of the framework of ethnicity and sectarianism in the "in the box" perspective and into a universal understanding of truth where interconnectedness is "realized" as opposed to trying to follow a "law" written in stone and ink. Thus an out of the box status emerged which we are continuing to develop from.

Humanity could not learn Unity without first experiencing sectarianism.
It could not learn love without condition, without first thinking of conditions "inside the box".
As such then there is a time for everything.
This touches on the Ego and it touches on why God was legitimately angry with "sin".

So there is an old age and a new age as relates to the status of man's consciousness. In this way we now live in a new age. Our world has changed because love without condition has been revealed. This revelation has an ongoing impact. This revelation made everything new. In this sense then the plan for development involved an atonement for sin which was a "buy back" [from the status of the ego-driven identity which needs its sin]. This releases the apparent need to be ego-driven at least in that one does not need to prove that they are loved or worthy of being loved. That is a bit of an oversimplification but it is the direction that I see things.

If you read the first 3 chapters of 1 Corinthians for example it is all about being ego-driven or how Paul puts it elsewhere "in the flesh" which means "under the law" or in an independent human potential.

The revelation however had to be historical in nature and not just an enlightenment of truth for it to effect ongoing history. It had to involve taking people of history and bringing them through the process. In this way history builds on itself.

Our interconnectedness is becoming more evident as time goes on. The printing press and the Internet for example touch on this very clearly. Universal translation appears to be on the horizon and this will greatly affect the practical outworking of our inherent interconnectedness.
We have moved historically from a period of an independent human potential to God's possibility. This relates to the "ego". We can now begin to put gender, ethnicity and sectarianism in its proper perspective through a revelation of love without condition which touches on divine identity or the "image of God".

Repentance in the first century touched on a move from an independent human potential in concept to a God's possibility concept.

Mat 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father:
{The self defined self in the identity of an independent human potential}
for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
{Repent towards God's possibility and God's defining process}
Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
{the ending of that system was coming to a close}
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
Mat 3:12 Whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
{The outward ego driven identity that had a precedence during the time of the foreshadowing of the coming good things would soon see a historical demise as the Jewish temple and holy city was about to be torn down. The temple served as a faximaly of their own ego driven identity. This "temple made with hands" was thrown down so that not one stone was left upon another in AD 70 at the close of that generation. The ego-driven identity had no perpetual efficacy or legacy.}

My view is that God could not share the way he wanted to unless all these things took place historically.

Just some thoughts
Barry

[davo]

I'm still trying to get my head around Pantelist Universalist thought. If I am correct, it seems that belief in the redemptive power of Christ's sacrifice is not necessary to be redeemed. His redemptive power just IS.From a Pantelist view point this is close – historic Israel as per the bible were covenanted to be God's light to the world. Due to disregarding their mandate they were in need of redemption – this was the redemption Christ affected through his Cross. With Israel redeemed mankind was duly reconciled.


Therefore everyone is under the New Covenant whether they realize it or not.It would be more correct to say that everyone is under God's grace – the NC was the means whereby this occurred. Example: Israel of the OC was God's specifically covenanted people, they were so covenanted to be the means and avenue whereby God's blessing would flow to those beyond. Not being in covenant did not preclude others from experiencing divine grace. In the bible "covenant" is relative to "serve", not getting to heaven.


However, when you do realize that you have been liberated from death, there is a feeling of incomparable bliss. Do I have that right?Well yes in the sense that to the degree we realise God's goodness to that degree we are free in it. Some people in the world are ignorant of electricity – ignorance does not negate its reality; however, coming to a knowledge of it can be tremendously beneficial.

[Sarada]

Would you say that although God is eternal and does not change, religion is an evolutionary thing. As our understanding of God and His relationship to His creation evolves, religion changes to accomodate that new understanding. Would you say also (in a humble way) that Pantelism is the next step in truly understanding our relationship with God?

If so, then, if one were to talk only about principles, rather than events and names, the core views of Pantelism closely approximate the ancient core views of Hinduism, vis a vis God's grace, for example. Hinduism is very symbolic. The stories and images of God are meant to illustrate ideas and principles, they are not meant to be taken literally.

I understand of course that in Pantelism, one of the unnegotiables is that this is due to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

However, this would mean that a shift in the nature of God took place at the beginning of the common era.

How can this be explained? Did not God say to Moses "I AM"? How and why did God's nature change with Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection? Or does He still remain as He always is/was/will be and only our understanding of God changed through the sacrifice of Jesus?

[Me Again]

Sarada, I don't see it as God changing, but that he is progressively revealing himself to humanity. In scripture, it says that "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." I personally feel that the word "formed" is significant here.

First of all, it has a naturally covenantal concept - Adam was the first covenant man (I believe other humans existed on the planet contemporarily with Adam) and God formed or created that covenant with him. Secondly though I think it has a personally application as well in that God is ever forming us - we are constantly evolving, not as a species, but as individuals, and as collectives.

As I said in another place, our bodies are in a constant cycle of death and resurrection. We are totally renewed physically every 7 years. Our minds are constantly growing, we are learning new things - we are able to accomplish new things, we even find out that with our minds we can physically heal ourselves, etc. All our lives we are "being formed" in the sense that things we experience and how we react to them shape us into who we are.

God is always the same, imo, it is humanity that is evolving and transforming more and more into his image.

[davo]

Would you say also (in a humble way) that Pantelism is the next step in truly understanding our relationship with God?Speaking just for myself Sarada, though I'd think others here would probably concur – I don't see pantelism as the "next" thing that God is doing but rather more on our parts, greater revelations of His grace we're becoming more aware of and how that has been historically archieved and the perpetual effects of that.

[Sarada]

Originally Posted by Sarada
Would you say also (in a humble way) that Pantelism is the next step in truly understanding our relationship with God?


IMHO I think that Pantelism is a positive step forward in Christian thought, and I hope that more and more Christians will subscribe to it.

I have enjoyed my discussions with all of you. They have been thought provoking, and interesting. You have been open minded and respectful. I hope that I have come across the same way.

If you have any more specific questions about Hinduism, you can always PM and I will answer to the best of my knowledge and ability.

Namaskar (I bow to the Divinity within you)

[davo]

And God's blessings likewise to you Sarada and thanks so much for sharing and participating with us together. :)

[~Katherine]

If so, then, if one were to talk only about principles, rather than events and names, the core views of Pantelism closely approximate the ancient core views of Hinduism, vis a vis God's grace, for example. Hinduism is very symbolic. The stories and images of God are meant to illustrate ideas and principles, they are not meant to be taken literally.

I think that's true. The principles are universal even though rules that issue from them at historical points are not. For rules, I like the word "shadows." They represent principles but the bedrock, the reason or motive, for being or behaving certain ways is the principle.

The big (possibly the ONLY) principle that I see is that we are One. From which come ideas --and there are many-- for honoring that principle.


I understand of course that in Pantelism, one of the unnegotiables is that this is due to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Even there, Jesus' sacrifice could be seen as a picture meant to illuminate the Truth that we are One (we are reconciled), and therefore could be considered a symbol, a drama with real people living through real experiences that occurred in history. I personally don't have any problem seeing it that way even though I believe Jesus lived and died and was resurrected. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. To bring the unreconciled back to a knowledge that who they are ... is in Christ.

I don't know if everyone has a conscious need to go through all the steps: separation and "independence" then through the law until Christ fulfills that law and becomes for us the propitiation. Maybe not everybody needs the whole story.

I would say it's *my* story however since I grew up with all the talk about sin and obedience and so on. To the extent that parents are urged to represent God by demanding obedience from their children in order to show their children what God is supposedly about. The only problem for me was that the story is flawed. I read my bible and kept seeing that God was about freedom, love, gratitude, a forgiving heart, mercy for weaknesses. While some things were missing from the strict lessons I was taught about obedience, wrath, hell and punishment. It didn't add up for me, logically or emotionally.

Which was ok. I like mysteries and puzzles, and I can tolerate holding off on forming "final opinions." Now that I've come across pantelism, I feel that finally I have a clearer idea of the whole story that fits together very beautifully and happily.

I still don't attend church. I quit when I left my parents' home. I would like to meet likeminded folks and others though. And eventually I may attend church with Universal Unitarians or possibly some other reformed group.