How ironic. Using evil acts for common good.
Twisted.
From Wiki-
“Pantheism (Greek: πάν ( ‘pan’ ) = all and θεός ( ‘theos’ ) = God) literally means “God is All” and “All is God”. It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of ‘God’.”
Like I just posted, What is the point of labeling everything God? If everything is God, God is not a separate entity from anything. God is everything. And essentially… God is nothing. It shouldn’t be called a theology at all, because there is no God in it! I think it is ridiculous! 
reality has to be monistic
if there were 2 100% distinct objects or sects in the universe, how would they interact with eachother? how would a mutual protocol be determined? how would they even know if they’re space and time proximity? the only way things can interact, as i see it, is if there’s one underlying law to everything. if the universe is God, his consciousness extends to that level of the universe at which that one principle unifies
everything.
gods are part of the unified God, like waves are part of the sea…
so is my belief.
The only thing I wonder is if my coke can has a spirit
God-as-all means that the God-is-an-invisible-dude God is gone (nothing).
It’s the dis-anthropomorphizing of God. There is no morality, there is no special treatment of humans by “god”, God “cares” as much about humans as “he” does rocks. God doesn’t “hear” prayers.
Also, catastrophic events are considered to be “God’s will”. There is no separate “devil” that does things. Earthquakes aren’t good or evil.
Also, Buddhists can see the “divine” within anything. You may have seen enlightened people who bow to others in a way not like the stiff Japanese method, but more of a spiritual way? This is the enlightenment of seeing God in everything, acknowledging that regardless of what they may think of you as a person (possibly not liking you at all) they still respect that you are an embodiment of God. Very spiritual and meditative. Very different than the West’s religion of rituals; the East is more introspective relying on inner peace and tranquility as being the goal.
self realization. awakening to our true identity. That is the point.
I never did understand Pantheism. As I understand it , it is the notion that this keyboard and this chair that I sit on is part of God? Is that right? If that is right then I think that is ridiculous I mean how can that be? What does that mean?
I can’t claim to know what it means, but the idea of being part of whole is quite appealing. The chair is made up of information, just like you are. We perceive separation, but in actuality there is a togetherness.
The air you inhale and exhale that I then inhale and exhale, prevents me from knowing where you end and I begin.
I think there is a comfort in thinking about this prospect, marveling the possiblities. It also helps to get along better with other peeps.
If God is considered to be so great, he must be very extensive and flexible. He must have it somewhere in his being to be able to be a chair. I wonder what it’s like to be a chair, if anything. I’d imagine matter is a very low frequency of life, so it feels heavy and unenlightened and unechanging. Or maybe matter is wiser than we are, who knows. Can’t any pantheists here tell me if my coke can has awareness and what it might think of me?
It could be that the chair is wiser. I think animals are wiser than humans.
I dont know about the coke question, but I imagine you body cells that repair themselves might have an opinion about you has a whole.
The universe is the sum of all information. And we are the informers.
Coming late into the discussion, I offer my two cents.
Pantheism–a concept in which the many are described as constituents of the one. This is an old, old concept of Eastern religions. From a theological bias, one would have to envisage a developing God to validate patheism. If the preference is to call the one or whole God it must include the becoming that is being for humans. Any simple reading of OT (Old Testament) and NT (New Testament) depicts a God who has developed or progressed from eye for eye morality to turn the other cheek. Was it God who developed or was it the human idea of God? It can’t be had both ways for pantheism to be a viable philosophy, i.e., an immanent God and a trancendent God.
I live in a world in which fate is a matter of cosmic billiards or lottery. To reconcile this reality with ideas of a loving God is impossible unless one can grasp the concepts of ecological resolutions. To consider an agnostic as a woose or dummy, one must assert his/her own beliefs of certainty as God ordained, which is stuff and nonsense. I’ve personally known atheists who are more moral than religious fundamentalists. And to call the whole God? What’s in a name? A rose by any name would smell as sweet." Why hate and deride over names and beliefs? Is your God too small to encompass all that is? Even such as we label sin, suffering, evil?
Job’s God claimed it all!!!
?
If that’s what pantheism is, count me in.
About the freedom thing, the way I resolve that is to remember that, as a part of God, our will is also God’s will. There is no struggle. If God’s will is free then ours, being one with it, is also free. There’s just one caveat: every willful act tries to meet an objective. God’s objective is not the same as ours - it is so much greater. I think of it as several miniature tasks that have to be done in order to meet a grand task (like steps in baking a cake). Our individual objectives in all the acts we take are like the steps, and they all go towards meeting the grand objective that the universe is in the process of fulfilling. Even an entire life’s worth of acts is just a small sample of the steps that need to be taken in order to meet the grand objective.
About God being impartial or apathetic: yes, God brings about natural disasters and needless suffering. But what keeps me from hating or fearing God because of this is to remember that, as a part of God, the suffering that we go through due to this is also felt by God. I don’t know - for some reason, He’s sometimes a masochist. In other words, He’s not really apathetic because he does go through the same trials and tribulations as all of us. Why? I don’t know. Perhaps He thinks it’s worth it for the grand objective He has in mind. Or maybe not even He is free - can he rise above his own physical laws?
As for what your coke can feels - well, to understand that, you first have to realize that consciousness is not just a vacant awareness of reality; it is a system of experiences and perceptions. There is an entire tapestry of qualities in the gamut of human experiences - there’s color, motion, depth perception, sounds, voices, lingual comprehension, tactile sensations, pain and pleasure, emotions, ideas, memories, fantasies, apprehensions of truths and facts, and so much more. Yet this is just an infinitesmal sample of what kind of mental experiences are possible. To understand the mind of God, you have to understand that He experiences all possible qualities, those that we humans can conceive of and more that we can’t. Your coke can does not “think” or “feel” or “see” - these are human experiences. Your coke can has some kind of experience that you cannot fathom.
Well, that’s my pantheistic views anyway. It’s far from truth - just a humble opinion.
non-sequitur
Our idenity doesn’t change if we call everything God. It doesn’t make us more or less significant. Call everything God or whatever you want, but you and everything else is just the same as before. To call the chair God doesn’t change anything. It’s still a f*cking chair. 
Sounds like existentialism to me. Reminds me exactly of the blanket example Dustin Hoffman gives in the movie I Heart Huckabees (Everything is connected)
pantheism=atheism.
Not necessarily, but I understand what you’re getting at.
Why? Because God=material universe? Calling the universe “God” is more than slapping a label on it, at least for my version of pantheism. There are extra connotations that go along with it - for example, that the universe is conscious.
I agree with your example.
I believe in pantheism from an ecological perspective. I also believe that calling the whole God invites an idolatry of worship at the expense of much needed action, involvement, caring.
It can, but that depends on the connotations you attach to “God”. I, for one, don’t associate the god-like being I believe the universe to be to the Biblical God or any particular gods of other religions. I don’t believe it created the world (itself?) in 6 days, or that it parted the Red Sea for Moses, are that it brought about the flood that Noah saved two of every animal from, etc. It doesn’t ask to be worshipped or respond to prayer. I only call it “God” because I believe it to be god-like in several respects.