Q&A #87 Pantheism

15

Pantheism, if correct, makes God and universal intelligence synonymous. Did BJ hold to that viewpoint?

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 15 comments

  1. william hollensed 05/31/2017, 3:22 am:

    I think he did.

    • william hollensed 06/02/2017, 1:33 am:

      wondering if anyone understand the importance and significance of God being separate from UI

      • Joe Strauss 06/02/2017, 1:22 pm:

        Apparently not being Theologians (BJ and RWS)they could not be expected to answer that. So why did they try!? Would any chiropractic/”theologians” like to try?

      • Joe Strauss 06/02/2017, 8:24 pm:

        To understand the difference/separation/significance we would have to understand the characteristics/essence/qualities of universal intelligence and that of God. Our chiropractic philosophy gives us the former and theology gives us the latter. I understand the former through our chiropractic philosophy and objective which tells me what it is and what it is not. I understand the latter from my theology which tells me Who He is and Who and What He is not. I understand the difference from understanding one deals with the physical world and one deals with the spiritual world just as I understand the difference between medicine and chiropractic, one deals with the physical world(medicine) and one addresses the metaphysical world (chiropractic). There is some overlap between medicine,chiropractic and theology but there is NEVER a mixture of the three . BJ and most chiropractor never understood that (and still don’t). That is why we have physical mixing and spiritual mixing.

  2. David Suskin 06/02/2017, 1:57 pm:

    Law: Cause and Effect in matter and law.
    Question: Who, Why, How, What Caused God (UI)?
    Answer?
    Sound of one hand clapping.
    Danger Danger. Illogical Mr. Smith.
    Therefore
    CREATOR separate from Creations. Physical And Metaphysical

  3. Terry Van Dervort 06/02/2017, 9:56 pm:

    Chiropractic is defined as a philosophy, science, and art of things natural, not things beyond the natural (the supernatural). When we talk about pantheism, theism, and deism we are talking about the supernatural entities that maintain the organizational qualities of a Supreme Intelligence. The discussion about gods and isms are subjects beyond the natural and should be had in places like religious forums, where those topics are talked about.
    That being said it is my observation that B. J.’s understanding of infinity might actually have finite boundaries because of the religious influence of the day on his thinking. He may have seen our finite universe as infinite.
    It is also my thought that the progression of intelligence should begin with a Supreme Intelligence: the intelligence responsible for the creation, organization, and maintenance of all infinity without any limits or boundaries to its supernatural ability to function. This intelligence is expressed through a supernatural entity defined by pantheism, theism, and deism. In chiropractic we begin our conversation with , universal intelligence is a specific portion of that supreme intelligence whose mission it is to maintain our finite universe in a state of active organization with respect to the natural laws of science that govern the universe. Lastly, there is innate intelligence, the specific portion of universal intelligence in a specific portion of matter whose mission it is to maintain that portion of matter in active organization within the natural limitations of that particular portion of matter.

    • Joe Strauss 06/05/2017, 2:06 pm:

      Terry, welcome to the blog. From your comment, I assume you do not agree with BJ’s assertion that universal intelligence and God are synonymous. Am I correct in that assumption? Since ui and God impinge upon our chiropractic philosophy by the very fact that no less than BJ Palmer has linked them, I do believe they warrant discussion, the former being our starting point and the latter being outside the realm of chiropractic philosophy, as you correctly state. Medicine is also outside our chiropractic philosophy but something BJ and traditional chiropractors in “getting sick people well” seem to discuss/embrace/mix. What is your opinion of use of the term metaphysical which David Koch uses in his book Contemporary Chiropractic Philosophy?(page 18) found in Websters and based on the word Meta, the Greek word taking the genitive case, and meaning with, together with, on the same side or partly with, among (Perschbacher’s The New Analytical Greek Lexicon? This would take it out of the supernatural realm and put it into the metaphysical realm. Changing grapes into wine involves a metaphysical phenomena. Changing water into wine was a supernatural/miraculous phenomena. While BJ used terms like God (having a supernatural connotation), he did not appear to see Him as a supernatural Being but rather as a natural phenomena utilizing universal/innate intelligence.

      • Terry Van Dervort 06/13/2017, 9:41 pm:

        Joe, thank you for the forum and your challenges; they cause me to clarify my thoughts. Your assumption is 100% correct. I think BJ missed an opportunity when he failed to do two things. First of all, I don’t think he completely understood Supreme Intelligence, a term he refers to in five of the Green Books, including Stephenson’s. I wish he would have explored and developed that thought a little further. Secondly, he did not point out the differences between supernatural, metaphysical, and not physical (beyond the physical). These words are not exclusive to chiropractic philosophy, and we should be particular about our use of them.
        BJ makes multiple references to Supreme Intelligence as the source of all creation, and he even says the term Supreme Intelligence is synonymous with God, but then he falls short in my opinion by labeling universal intelligence as Supreme Intelligence. I would like to suggest that when we are discussing chiropractic philosophy we recognize three levels of behavior by intelligence as directed by the entity of force rather than two.
        #1. Supreme Intelligence: the level of intelligence, directed by the entity of force, responsible for the creation and maintenance of all infinity in active organization. This level of intelligence is directed to behave without boundaries or limitations.
        #2. Universal intelligence: that specific portion of Supreme Intelligence, directed by the entity of force, whose mission it is to maintain the universe we know in active organization with respect for the natural limitations and the order of this universe.
        #3. Innate intelligence: that specific portion of universal intelligence, directed by the entity of force, whose mission it is to maintain the specific matter it occupies in active organization with respect for the natural limitations of that matter.
        Supreme, universal, and innate intelligence is the same non-physical subject with three different levels of expression. The entity of force that unites Universal and innate intelligence behaves with respect for the natural order of the space they occupy. On the other hand, the entity of force that unites Supreme Intelligence to all the matter of infinite creation can behave beyond the boundaries or limitations of nature, beyond the natural order. The entity of force that unites Supreme Intelligence to all infinite creation might be a physical or a non-physical entity with the ability to behave in a way beyond the natural, a supernatural way.
        It is my opinion that metaphysical is one of our most misunderstood and misused terms. I like that Dr. Koch is using the word metaphysicaI to refer to the underlying theoretical principles of chiropractic, and I agree with that completely. I prefer to use physical and not physical or non-physical to describe the physicality of a subject. Intelligence is not physical.
        Natural and supernatural define the behavior of a subject. Is a subject’s behavior natural to its environment or is it beyond the natural behavior, supernatural? We must be careful not to confuse natural with normal.
        Also, an entity demonstrating supernatural behavior could possibly take on a physical or a non-physical form. For example, Jesus Christ was a physical being with the ability to behave supernaturally; Casper the ghost is a non-physical being with the ability to behave supernaturally.
        As for BJ seeing God as a natural rather than a supernatural being, that definitely has pantheistic overtones, and as I see from other posts, that turns the conversation from chiropractic philosophy to critiquing religion. That is why I think it is important to understand the role of intelligence, force, and matter and to see where the supernatural behavior (of the entity) of force ends and where the natural behavior (of the entity) of force begins. At this point I feel that it becomes more productive to talk about “things natural” in conversations about chiropractic philosophy.
        Also, in response to your comment about grapes and wine, turning grapes into wine involves both natural and physical actions. Turning water into wine is a supernatural physical act.
        In my opinion, BJ seeing God as a natural phenomenon was the result of a stumble in his otherwise brilliant reasoning.

        • Joe Strauss 06/14/2017, 3:04 pm:

          Terry, Thanks you for your input. I have just written a post which should be posted early next week in which I coin a new term which I think will convey the intention of your comment and perhaps clarify the chiropractic philosophy for the profession. Looking forward to your thoughts.

        • Joe Strauss 06/15/2017, 7:36 pm:

          Terry, You write” I like that Dr. Koch is using the word metaphysical to refer to the underlying theoretical principles of chiropractic, and I agree with that completely. I prefer to use physical and not physical or non-physical to …”
          The only problem with Dr. Koch’s definition is that it is defined (by Webster) “as transcendent or supersensible…” which is not bad but then Webster says it can be synonymous with SUPERNATURAL which is defined as of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible, observable universe. I think that is what BJ supposed UI to be, but using an already existing concept which had an already Judaeo-Christian meaning, it has caused confusion.He did the same thing with dis-ease but gave it a totally different meaning than did Webster, giving it a uniquely chiropractic meaning, one which most chiropractors have failed to adopt. Your thoughts?

  4. Richard Doble jr., D.C. 06/07/2017, 7:25 pm:

    I think as we evolve spiritually we first become aware that there is a God, next we become aware that God is in us and finally we become aware that God is in everything. I think B.J. understood that for he said “Innate is God in man.” Universal Intelligence is God and God is more than that.

    • Joe Strauss 06/07/2017, 8:06 pm:

      Richard,How do we evolve spiritually and how does this “evolution” make us “aware that there is a God and that He is in everything”? Theology says that God is omnipresent but P. #1 only says that universal intelligence is in all matter (emphasis mine). Lastly what did BJ mean by the statement “Innate is God in man”

      • Claude Lessard 06/18/2017, 5:41 pm:

        What is it that you guys are uncomfortable with regarding the start point of chiropractic… the major premise?

        Why going beyond it into the theological realm, which is outside chiropractic? What needs do you have to talk about a Supreme Intelligence or God?

  5. Claude Lessard 06/18/2017, 6:21 pm:

    When I fly my airplane I startvwith the law of gravity and the sub principle of aerodynamic(thrust, lift, drag, etc). There no need for a pilot to go to the creation of the laws in order to stay airborne. Simply follow the laws and principles regardless of your belief systems. It is as simple as that!
    Why complicate what is simple?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *