panentheism vs. monotheism vs. pantheism vs. polytheism

[TomF]

Keith's comment on the Dawkins thread prompted me here.

Monotheism and Polytheism are fairly obvious, eh? Religious belief in only one god, or in more than one (respectively). Pantheism is a bit more obtuse - it sees everything holding a spark of the divine, but creation is all there is.

Panentheism is a bit more obtuse again, but much more satisfying for me. Yes, the divine is present in everything, sustaining everything (as in pantheism). So all things are sanctified. But panentheism says that the Divine's also transcendent - is more than the created world.

Lest you think that this is simply weird new-agey drivel, panentheism has a long tradition in the Orthodox and Eastern churches, in Hasidic (and more recently, some orthodox and Conservative) Judaism, and in Hinduism.

What do you think?

[Donn]

I think I'll take advantage of the unseasonably warm weather, and cut some sod.

[Popeye]

you guys want some egg nog?

[TomF]

I think I'll take advantage of the unseasonably warm weather, and cut some sod.errr, then sod off.:D

couldn't resist ......

[Keith Wilson]

I think I've been a doubtful panentheist for years and didn't realize it. Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? :D

[Bruce Hooke]

Interesting. I needed a bit more information on the distinction between Pantheism and Panentheism, so I found this:

From The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ )


Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work — if not pantheists.
The book recognized as containing the most complete attempt at explaining and defending pantheism from a philosophical perspective is Spinoza's Ethics, finished in 1675 two years before his death. In 1720 John Toland wrote the Pantheisticon: or The Form of Celebrating the Socratic-Society in Latin. He (possibly) coined the term "pantheist" and used it as a synonym for "Spinozist." However, aside from some interesting pantheistic sounding slogans (like "Every Thing is to All, as All is to Every Thing"), and despite promising "A short Dissertation upon a Two-fold philosophy of the Pantheists" Toland's work has little to do with pantheism.

See the website noted above for LOTS more detail.

And, from Wikipedia:

Panentheism (from Greek: πάν (‘pan’ ) = all, en = in, and theos = God; "all-in-God") is the theological position that God is immanent within the Universe, but also transcends it. It is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe. In panentheism, God is viewed as creator and/or animating force behind the universe, and the source of universal morality. The term is closely associated with the Logos of Greek philosophy in the works of Herakleitos, which pervades the cosmos and whereby all things were made.
...
The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have a doctrine called panentheism to describe the relationship between the Uncreated (God, who is omnipotent, eternal, and constant) and His creation that bears surface similarities with the panentheism described above but maintains a critical distinction.

Most specifically, these Churches teach that God is not the "watchmaker God" of the Western European Enlightenment. Likewise, they teach that God is not the "stage magician God" who only shows up when performing miracles. Instead, the teaching of both these Churches is that God is not merely necessary to have created the universe, but that His active presence is necessary in some way for every bit of creation, from smallest to greatest, to continue to exist at all. That is, God's energies maintain all things and all beings, even if those beings have explicitly rejected Him. His love of creation is such that he will not withdraw His presence, which would be the ultimate form of slaughter, not merely imposing death but ending existence, altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is sanctified, and thus no part of creation can be considered innately evil. This does not deny the existence of evil in a fallen universe, only that it is not an innate property of creation.

This Orthodox Christian panentheism is distinct from a "fundamentalist" panentheism in that it maintains an ontological gulf or distance between the created and the Uncreated. Creation is not "part of" God, and the Godhead is still distinct from creation; however, God is "within" all creation, thus the Orthodox parsing of the word is "pan-entheism" (God indwells in all things) and not "panen-theism" (All things are part of God but God is more than the sum of all things).
For more see the entry on the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

I think I probably lean more towards Pantheism, but I think I get where Panentheism is coming from. I have to admit that I don't quite get the difference described in the last paragraph above between:

A. Creation being part of God, and

B. Creation not being part of God but God being within everything.

[Milo Christensen]

Which one answers the vital question; How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Bruce Hooke]

Some people around here clearly are not interested in philosophy!

Why they feel it necessary to make a point of their lack of interest is a little beyond me.

[Bruce Hooke]

In some ways it seems like the distinction between Panthesim and Atheism could be fairly small. The idea that God is everywhere but does not extend beyond creation is not that different from a reverence for all creation but without a belief that there is an entity called God that ties together all creation. No?

[Milo Christensen]

Some people around here clearly are not interested in philosophy!

Why they feel it necessary to make a point of their lack of interest is a little beyond me.

Is it really philosophy to quibble about the exact amount of divinity? Or is it schismatic rationalization? My original post was meant to convey the idea that certain "philosophical" discussions reach into the realm of reductionist meaninglessness.

My cat was sitting on the bed this morning clearly curious about why I always put my left sock on before my right sock. I have good reasons why I do this, but I'm certainly not going to try to explain it to my cat.

[Bruce Hooke]

I guess I see these distinctions as more significant. As I noted in my previous post, the distinction between Panthesim and Panentheism could almost become a question of whether or not one believes in God.

[Keith Wilson]

My cat was sitting on the bed this morning clearly curious . . . Sometimes I think it's a bit like a discussion among my intestinal bacteria about the Meaning Of It All. To quote that famous philosopher Clint Eastwood, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

[Milo Christensen]

I guess I see these distinctions as more significant. As I noted in my previous post, the distinction between Panthesim and Panentheism could almost become a question of whether or not one believes in God.

How can we have a discussion when we can't agree on the definition of one of the splinter definitions? How about we start by saying that all the theisms not starting with the letter a acknowledge the divine, some call the divinity God, some don't.

[Milo Christensen]

..."A man's gotta know his limitations...

...but not God's."

[Popeye]

i got a pair of polyester pants , does that count?

[TomF]

Milo, gotta admit that I don't quite see where you're coming from; at least to some folks who believe, the distinctions aren't trivial, they can be quite transformative stuff.

Like you, I've little interest in knowing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or such drivel. You really think that's the character of the distinctions being made here?

I think that conceiving God as limited to creation, and conceiving God as present in creation but also transcending it can lead to quite different places. Believing in many Gods, or no Gods can do the same.

If you're simply saying that you get irritated by the reflexive and confrontational posting that goes on in many religious threads, I agree. But when that doesn't occur, I find them among the most interesting. Even at the hoary age of 44, I've got enough idealism left to hope for some good points in this thread, sprinkled with the other stuff.

t.

[Moose]

Milo, someone answered your question about dancing angels to me a long time ago so I'll pass it along. The answer: None! Angels have no rythm and are horrible dancers....

[johnw]

The strength of polytheism is that when a new god was encountered, it could be incorporated into the pantheon. Result? Wars of conquest, but not religious wars. Monotheism claims only your God is the right one, resulting in conflict without end. Not that polytheists ever lacked for something to fight about....

[Keith Wilson]

Angels have no rhythm and are horrible dancers.... No, that was only in the old days before they started letting Africans into heaven. (I'll duck now) :D :D

[huisjen]

I think Milo seem to understand the difference between religion and spirituality. Many others here don't. These differences are religious divisions of little or no spiritual importance.

Dan

[JimD]

i got a pair of polyester pants , does that count?

Polyesterism is not the same as polytheism. Its actually a breakaway sect of Syntheticism, the belief that man made synthetics can be better than and indeed eventually replace the natural world. See also Rayonism and Nylonism.

[TomF]

Respectfully, Dan, some atheists would say that "spiritual importance" is an oxymoron. That as no "spirit" exists ..... That's rather a long ways from folks who believe in some form of the divine.

There are, I agree, big distinctions between religion and spirituality. But no, distinctions between mono- or poly- or pan- or panen-theism aren't insigificant, at least to some. They lead to different ways of understanding the world, and our place in it.

[Moose]

kieth, that was the most gloriousely un-pc thing I've heard in a long while! funny though

[Donn]

errr, then sod off.:D



I did. ~300 square feet more bed, and less lawn.

Looks like I got more done than this discussion did.:p

[TomF]

Well, sounds like a dirty job ... Did you find God out there in the bowels of creation? Or just humus?

[Donn]

Lots of worms. They have no sense of humus.

[TomF]

Few wanted to open the can of worms here ... I guess the fresh kind's better.

[Bruce Hooke]

I think Milo seem to understand the difference between religion and spirituality. Many others here don't. These differences are religious divisions of little or no spiritual importance.

Dan

I think your basic point is that we can talk about religion until the end of the world is upon us, but if we don't experience it then we won't have gotten anywhere. It is like the old saw that looking at your pills won't do anything to cure you. In a sense I agree. Religion is ultimately not something that can be understood purely via logic. On the other hand, I don't think that means we can't learn by discussing religion, and that such learning can't ultimately lead to deeper spirituality, or whatever you call that sense of oneness if you do not believe in God.

[Leon m]

Just Live !

[Donn]

I believe worms are microtheistic. God, to them, is decomposing organic matter, and they spend their lives casting about in search of it.

[Sea Frog]

In some ways it seems like the distinction between Panthesim and Atheism could be fairly small.

Oh sure, that's what some fellow thought when he tried to stab Spinoza in the back !

[glenallen]

I did. ~300 square feet more bed, and less lawn.

Looks like I got more done than this discussion did.:p

It's snowing here and 20 degree wind chill! And you're gardening in New York? I see no justice in that.

[TomF]

It's snowing here and 20 degree wind chill! And you're gardening in New York? I see no justice in that."The rain falls on the just and the unjust."

Snow too. Raining here, and well above freezing ... but the worms were safe today.

[Donn]

Most unusual weather, and I'm taking advantage of it. It changes shortly, however. I'll be shutting off the outside water and winterizing the boathouse head this weekend.

[Frank Wentzel]

Show me the data! Not “I assume this and therefore that follows”, or “Since I can't explain this let's believe that”. If I'm trying to sell you a mutual fund you want a history and a prospectus with goals and methodologies. You would be considered a fool to buy from me without that information. If I am trying to sell you a religion or a philosophy all that seems necessary is "I believe " or "It is obvious that (which it is not - at least to me) or worst of all "since we can not logically go any further is obviously true that…". Sorry, but I require more data than any philosophy or religion I have yet seen has provided. I went to a Jesuit school and I want hard information not airy conjecture. Where is the “BEEF”. Without the “beef” you are just spinning your wheels! I have no problem with “I just don’t know!”. People who have gone beyond “I don’t know” have (and continue) to provide us with the most “entertaining” wars in history.

/// Frank ///

[Donn]

Show me the data!

I don't need no steenkin' data. I put seeds in the soil and they grow into plants. That's all the data I need to make me oligotheistic.:D

[Backfin]

I believe worms are microtheistic

Research shows that worms are vermitheistic.
This is a sect of the Spaghetti Monster Church.

Vermicelli

[Donn]

That's just wrong! Vermicelli was a 14th century Italian painter, wasn't he?

[Leon m]

I thought Vermicelli was a shot they gave you in the Navy after you'd been overseas.

[Donn]

Whatever it is, it must be Catholic.

[Bruce Hooke]

Show me the data! Not “I assume this and therefore that follows”, or “Since I can't explain this let's believe that”. If I'm trying to sell you a mutual fund you want a history and a prospectus with goals and methodologies. You would be considered a fool to buy from me without that information. If I am trying to sell you a religion or a philosophy all that seems necessary is "I believe " or "It is obvious that (which it is not - at least to me) or worst of all "since we can not logically go any further is obviously true that…". Sorry, but I require more data than any philosophy or religion I have yet seen has provided. I went to a Jesuit school and I want hard information not airy conjecture. Where is the “BEEF”. Without the “beef” you are just spinning your wheels! I have no problem with “I just don’t know!”. People who have gone beyond “I don’t know” have (and continue) to provide us with the most “entertaining” wars in history.

/// Frank ///

You are not going to get to religion by asking for proofs. After all, it is often called "faith." This is not to say that you cannot find evidence for your religious beliefs, it is just that this evidence must in the end come from inside you. You cannot force yourself to believe something that in your heart you do not believe, and the reverse is also true. Your "heart" many take in information from the logical world, but that is only one of its sources. Just to round things out, I will also say that I think most religous wars are caused by people who are not doing a good job of developing a truly religous beliefs and are instead listening to what someone tells them to believe. So, it is the people who think they have outside "proof" of the verasity of their beliefs (religous or otherwise) who are the most dangerous.

[Meerkat]

Some people believe that proof of religion comes in a bottle. ;)

[eleseus]

I'm a staunch worshipper of "pan-flutism"--Zamfir is my God, blessed be his name

[Donn]

Some people believe that proof of religion comes in a bottle. ;)

That all depends on the proof. I know people who worship RonRico 151.

[johnw]

Proof in that context originally meant, if you poured the rum over gunpower, then held a match to it, would it go off? Which to my way of thinking would be 'poof,' but I suppose they wanted proof the rum handn't been watered. Some suppliers to the Royal Navy tried turning rum into water...

[Nanoose]

Keith's comment on the Dawkins thread prompted me here.

Monotheism and Polytheism are fairly obvious, eh? Religious belief in only one god, or in more than one (respectively). Pantheism is a bit more obtuse - it sees everything holding a spark of the divine, but creation is all there is.

Panentheism is a bit more obtuse again, but much more satisfying for me. Yes, the divine is present in everything, sustaining everything (as in pantheism). So all things are sanctified. But panentheism says that the Divine's also transcendent - is more than the created world.

Lest you think that this is simply weird new-agey drivel, panentheism has a long tradition in the Orthodox and Eastern churches, in Hasidic (and more recently, some orthodox and Conservative) Judaism, and in Hinduism.

What do you think?

Tom: doing some googling on pantheism/panentheism, and look at what pops up! :)

I'm trying hard to differentiate between these 2 and having trouble getting, and hence keeping, it straight in my mind.

Panentheism sounds like it is saying God is both immanent and transcendent. Do I have that right? Because isn't that the same thing as theism?

Help.
Thx.

[htom]

Panentheism sounds like it is saying God is both immanent and transcendent. Do I have that right? Because isn't that the same thing as theism?

Help.

The difference (at least that I see) is that panentheism (taking the Philosophical Taoism variation) is that the Universe is formed from a part of the Wuchi (which transcends the Universe) but the Wuchi is not a person-like god capable of receiving worship. There is no "who" doing the forming. Things become and fade away in their times.

As I understand it, anyway. It's not a very comforting place to be.

[johnw]

“I am Lazarus, come from the dead, Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”

I thought this thread died years ago, but it seems to have been resurrected. Actually, I suspect many who call themselves pantheists would meet Tom's definition of panentheism.

[purri]

Lots of worms. They have no sense of humus.

Hummous, are you Lebanese?

Reminds me of graffiti

1. "God hates homos".

2. "But he loves tabbouleh!"

[Tom Montgomery]

I'm trying hard to differentiate between these 2 [panentheism & theism] and and having trouble getting, and hence keeping, it straight in my mind.

Panentheism sounds like it is saying God is both immanent and transcendent. Do I have that right? Because isn't that the same thing as theism?

Help.
Thx.

Marcus Borg can be fairly credited with popularizing the concept of panentheism:


… in his book The God We Never Knew, [Borg] compares two different conceptions of God within the Christian tradition:

"The first conceptualizes God as a supernatural being 'out there', separate from the world, who created the world a long time ago and who may from time to time intervene within it. In an important sense, this God is not 'here' and thus cannot be known or experienced but only believed in (which, within the logic of this concept, is what 'faith' is about.) I will call this way of thinking about God 'supernatural theism.' Widespread within Christianity, it is perhaps what a majority of people (both believers and non-believers) think of when they think of God. Some accept the existence of such a being, and some reject it. But it is the notion of God as a supernatural being 'out there' that is being accepted or rejected."

"The second root concept of God in the Christian tradition thinks of God quite differently. God is the encompassing Spirit; we (and everything that is) are in God. For this concept, God is not a supernatural being separate from the universe; rather, God (the sacred, the Spirit) is a nonmaterial layer or level or dimension of reality all around us. God is more than the universe, yet the universe is in God. Thus, in a spatial sense, God is not 'somewhere else' but 'right here.' I will call this concept of God 'panentheism'." (p. 11-12)

I think the key is that Borg does not consider God to be a personality. I do not know, but I suspect, that Borg rejects the notion of original sin. We are not separate from God. "We (and everything that exists) are in God."" When Borg speaks of "original sin" he is referring to the fact that all human beings sin, and not making a statement about human's inherent nature.

[Greg Nolan]

And where does a mono-, poly, or pan- god fit into this:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110201.html

And does the fact that there are likely to be multi-thousands of inhabitable planet in our little galaxy change your answer?

[ishmael]

Tom,

I confess this is the first time I've read the word panentheism. I further confess I'm not sure what you mean. I guess I'm both a pantheist and a deist. I don't see them as mutally exclusive.

Seeing God in this cat, in this desk, in this computer may be simply a comfort. A story I tell myself so I can sleep at night. I don't think so, but then I wouldn't.

You're asking deep questions, dear brother. That's OK, but don't expect a logical answer.

[BrianY]

I had a series of discussions over three years with a guy who was what I regard as an expert on Spinoza. I found the whole thing to be quite interesting and the most appealing version of God of all of the varieties of Chrisitianity. I had three main objections to Spinoza's "proofs" about the nature of God:

First, Spinoza does not prove that the existence of God is a rational conclusion. Instead, Spinoza starts with the assumption that God exists and then through a series of logical proofs, he describes the nature of God. Spinoza essentially defined god as he wanted to ("all that is") and then said that since we know that stuff exists, God exists. I always though that this was a rather weak argument because it seems to me to beg the question.

My next objection: God being defined as "all that is" or "Everything in the universe" or "Nature" is not very useful. You can't ask this God for anything ("forgive me, oh universe, for I have sinned" ? ? ? ), there's no point in worshipping it, it offers no explanations about "what it all means" because there's no entity/intelligence...."thing" there. God is everything and everything is God. God is not a creator or destroyer. God is not some "other" outside of or otherwise seperate from this universe. Spinoza's pantheism eliminates the special purpose and place that deities have always had in religion. It's sort of the ultimate anti-atheism: Instead of the assertion that there is no god, it asserts that EVERYTHIG is God...but the end result is the same. There is nothing to worship, nothing to hold onto except the fact of existence. It seems to me that the matter of belief or disbelief is unimportant. If you believe that you exist and the stuff around you exists (as an sane person would), then by definition you believe in God, even if you do not conciously call it that. In Spinoza's world, you cannot be an atheist.

Which brings me to my third objection: Does this 'thing" deserve to be called "God" ? Coming at it from an agnostic/atheist point of view, I cannot see why. The term "god" has always had certian meaning and implications regardless of which god you're talking about. Spinoza's god has none of these. My friend (being a Christian) countered that if you cannot call "all that is" "God", what do you call it? I suggested "Nature' - a term Spinoza used himself, but my friend felt that the term "Nature" was not sufficient to convey the enormity and significance of the concept.

He also suggested that Spinoza's God was something more than "all that is" - that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts, which leads into panentheism. Although I'm, pretty sure that Spinoza does not argue that point explicitly (and I may be wrong as I have not read - and definitly not understood - everything that Spinoza wrote), Spinoza's starting point - a Christian who believed in God as a thing beyond and different from humans - implies this idea that the "all that is" is more than the physical reality of the universe an dthat there is a spiritual dimension there as well.

[Chisler]

God and His Son are everything. There is nothing else. The phenomonal universe is an illusion, a dream. The dream is a projection of the mind of the Son, who has, in the dream had the idea that He could be separate from His Father. The idea that we are all separate from each other and separate from our Father is the ego. The ego believes it tried and succeded in killing God and so it has sought to hide in fear and guilt. The ego is insane.
The reality is that the Father created the Son, life, eternal. Created eternal means not ever changing. As God Himself—Perfect, glorious, holy forever—so is His Son. That life, seen in the illusion as scattered over time and space, is actually perfectly united in eternity which is to say now and always. This is why Jesus said," I have known you since before the foundations of the earth."
The Father creates the Son by extending Himself; He has created His Son as Himself.
That which is real about you, your life, is literally the thought of the Father, and ideas leave not their source. You are the Son, You and the Father are one. And nothing can change that because God and His Son are eternal, but you can choose to believe in the dream and continue to see the ego instead of the Kingdom.
Eternity is not a very long time; it is always. Eternity is now and the holy, infinite, perfect Son of God is the life which you identify as looking out at the world through the bodies eyes.
Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.

[Chisler]

This is why the real good news is that there is nothing you can do in the world that can change the truth that you are your life, eternal, perfect and holy. Nothing in the world can change that. Nothing in the world is real. You don't have to ask for salvation. You are not guilty. You don't have to be afraid. The Son of God never dies, and His—your—true nature is love. One Father, one Son, one mind, one love, glorious and holy forever. Baby.

[TomF]

I wonder where thread necromancy fits into the distinctions ... :D

I've not time to play in this pond 'till probably tomorrow afternoon; more's the pity. As Tom M helpfully noted, my use of the word in this old thread stemmed from reading Marcus Borg.

From my perspective, God is in and through all things. The universe in all its diversity is created, and retains God in its parts. Anselm (I think) posited long ago that the universe continues to exist because God continues to focus on it, to regard it. That's a bit tough for me - a capricious God could destroy all by becoming interested in a new toy instead.

Instead, I think that what is, is precisely because it expresses an element or characteristic of God. Matter, life ... these are expressions themselves of God. The life animating a living bird is God's life; the substance of a tree or rock is God's substance.

But in addition, as Nanoose commented, this is only an expression of the "immanent" piece of the Transcendant and Immanent paradox. God is not only with us, but also other - God created and sustains the universe, but is not the universe. If Borg doesn't any longer consider God as a separate personality, then, I'd depart from him there. I do experience God within the context of a personal relationship, not simply a relationship where I recognize some sort of inchoate power or life force.

[Chisler]

What is in the world that is real is only that which is eternal. God's nature is love. What you see in the world that is love, is real. If you ignore the part of what you see that isn't eternal, like your body, name, face, history, because it isn't real, what you see is love. Which is to say what you see is God and God's Son. It should go without saying that that union is all inclusive. It is not possible for a brother to not be holy and perfect and eternal.

[switters]

The difference (at least that I see) is that panentheism (taking the Philosophical Taoism variation) is that the Universe is formed from a part of the Wuchi (which transcends the Universe) but the Wuchi is not a person-like god capable of receiving worship. There is no "who" doing the forming. Things become and fade away in their times.

As I understand it, anyway. It's not a very comforting place to be.


When I first started reading the thread I thought Tao, and as some one who has been studying and trying to live a taoist life for 20 some years now I have not taken much comfort from Taoism, but rather the guidance I need to find the comfort that is already available around me.

[pefjr]

I don't need no steenkin' data. I put seeds in the soil and they grow into plants. That's all the data I need to make me oligotheistic.:DDo these guys a favor and plant a new row of Mulberry bushes for them to dance around.

[purri]

"I thy God am a jealous Dog".

[Tom Montgomery]

If Borg doesn't any longer consider God as a separate personality, then, I'd depart from him there. I do experience God within the context of a personal relationship, not simply a relationship where I recognize some sort of inchoate power or life force.

I may be wrong about Marcus Borg's position with regard to a personal God. To be honest, I may be confusing his thought in that regard with John Shelby Spong's.

[ishmael]

To be honest, I almost every night get down on my knees. I do it in a form of obeisance. I pray to what I don't know.

I don't pray for this or that, I pray rather that I make right in this world. I pray that whatever years are with me, may I be just and kind and honest.

[htom]

To be honest, I almost every night get down on my knees. I do it in a form of obeisance. I pray to what I don't know.

I don't pray for this or that, I pray rather that I make right in this world. I pray that whatever years are with me, may I be just and kind and honest.

I have heard (and for that matter, said) many poorer prayers. Usually mine are for someone else to recover from some ill or injury, or to succeed in some undertaking.