(August 24, 2016 at 12:23 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 10:07 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: Yeah,  that's screwed up...so was the post before the one I'm quoting.

Eternal hell is a gross misconception.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Eternal hell may be a gross misconception for some xtians but it is the coin of the realm for others and entirely irrelevant to we godless ones.

I wouldn't go so far as to say hell is irelevent, the word was just mistranslated and doesn't mean eternal torture like so many theist and atheist like to think.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

(August 24, 2016 at 4:33 am)popsthebuilder Wrote:

(August 24, 2016 at 12:23 am)Whateverist Wrote: Eternal hell may be a gross misconception for some xtians but it is the coin of the realm for others and entirely irrelevant to we godless ones.

I wouldn't go so far as to say hell is irelevent, the word was just mistranslated and doesn't mean eternal torture like so many theist and atheist like to think.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

It is irrelevant.

(August 24, 2016 at 4:36 am)Bella Morte Wrote:

(August 24, 2016 at 4:33 am)popsthebuilder Wrote: I wouldn't go so far as to say hell is irelevent, the word was just mistranslated and doesn't mean eternal torture like so many theist and atheist like to think.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

It is irrelevant.

That really is a good way to look at it; going things for reward is a form of greed which is the root of all evil.

But lack of existence in any form seems worthy of mention and contemplation and is definitely relevant to any who aren't completely lost. And none here are without hope. In fact; I'm sure some here are actually safer than me. GOD doesn't punish the ignorant and all are judged by their works and what they know. If one naturally does good and lives right yet doesn't know of the veracity of GOD because IT didn't choose to so show them then how could they be at fault for anything?

Eternal hell refers to destruction, not torment.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

We need to honest here. Perdition is a central concept in the parables and pronouncements of Jesus Christ. The nature of that state of perdition is debatable but we as Christians can't candy coat the notion that there is or will be a highly unpleasant outcome to wickedness and disbelief.

(August 23, 2016 at 1:33 am)popsthebuilder Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 12:50 am)Whateverist Wrote: Two questions:

Does that mean you your self are leaning a little deist?

Are you the same Pops who'd gotten swept up in some religious predictions?


Don't mean to put you on the spot or embarrass you.  I think quite a few of us felt some real fondness for you and were wishing you hadn't painted yourself into that corner.

There are and have been members who were deists.  I myself can allow 'gods' exist; I just don't think any of them created everything or have the power to impose an afterlife even if they wanted.  So I don't go for any supernaturalism in gods.  If they're going to have any reality at all, they're just going to have to make it in the real world the same way we do.  Of course, you might wonder if God is so little why even bother?  But to my mind, it is only a very little, nearly powerless, entirely personal god which could possibly command my respect or interest.

Your mind is a very different one from mine indeed.

I've always been both, even pantheistic, but none bother to ask generally.

Deist in that I believe in an ultimate creative force.

Theistic in that I jave belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).

Pantheistic in that I do indeed believe all existence to be of GOD.

Hope that helps.

I just don't get how people can justifiably insist that GOD; the creator of all existence,  wouldn't care about or guide that creation or formation.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Deism & Pantheism and Theism are two groupings of ideas which have a fundamentally incompatible idea of what a god is. Neither deists nor pantheists believe in intentionally active gods while theists do. You can't really try to say I'm one or the other, because you ascribe to your idea of god two natures which cannit coexist.

Oh, and from your beliefs cited you are a theist. Answer me this though why do you ascribe to go the natur of a five year old spoiled brat? That's why I cannot accept any of the gods believed in, they are too human, too petty and too limited to be anything other than our imagination.

(August 24, 2016 at 8:37 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 23, 2016 at 1:33 am)popsthebuilder Wrote: Your mind is a very different one from mine indeed.

I've always been both, even pantheistic, but none bother to ask generally.

Deist in that I believe in an ultimate creative force.

Theistic in that I jave belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).

Pantheistic in that I do indeed believe all existence to be of GOD.

Hope that helps.

I just don't get how people can justifiably insist that GOD; the creator of all existence,  wouldn't care about or guide that creation or formation.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Deism & Pantheism and Theism are two groupings of ideas which have a fundamentally incompatible idea of what a god is. Neither deists nor pantheists believe in intentionally active gods while theists do. You can't really try to say I'm one or the other, because you ascribe to your idea of god two natures which cannit coexist.

Oh, and from your beliefs cited you are a theist. Answer me this though why do you ascribe to go the natur of a five year old spoiled brat? That's why I cannot accept any of the gods believed in, they are too human, too petty and too limited to be anything other than our imagination.

I thought I had explained quite clearly what aspects of deism theism and pantheism I do a scribe to. They very easily go well one with the other. As far as to ascribe to the belief that God is equivalent in character to a five-year-old human child; frankly you'll have to be more specific, I have yet to go into any specific doctrines or the characteristics of God so how can you assume that what I claim to be God or what I know is in any way equivalent to a child?


Lastly, I didn't say anything about a dual natured GOD. There are two distinct directions or forces yet only one of these is of GOD in nature.
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Pops, you must realize that having a generally unorthodox theology means you must make greater effort to clarify your position. It simply isn't enough to say "not me". Speaking as a generally unorthodox Christian (Swedenborgian), I know that it can be frustrating and time consuming to present your beliefs. While no shortage of AF members will intentionally mischaracterize your positions with innane phrases like "sky daddy", there are also sincere debaters that rely on familiar frameworks and are trying to understand where you fit in. It is incumbent on you to do a better job suppling that framework. Personally, I cannot make sense of your subtle distinctions. Is GOD (in caps) similar to Plotinus' "The One" or the biblical "God is Love." Deism, theism, pantheism, and panentheism are solid comprehensive categories. It seems inconsistent and confused to me to say God is a little bit of one and a little bit of the other. Look, I'm not saying that you must write a comprehensive essay. All I'm saying is that people need more context, like comparisons with familar concepts: kind of like Brahma as the Ground of Being, similar to a gnostic demiurge, comparable to Aristotle's First Cause, etc.

(August 24, 2016 at 8:51 am)popsthebuilder Wrote: I thought I had explained quite clearly what aspects of deism theism and pantheism I do a scribe to. They very easily go well one with the other.

No, what you actually did was redefine deistic and pantheistic beliefs so that they agree with the generalised theistic belief that god(s) take an active role in the world and intentionally intervene in the lives of people. Neither deists nor pantheists believe that. Deists believe in a god which is separate to the universe, created it but left it to its own devices after the moment of creation. Pantheists believe the universe and all it contains is god, saying not that there is separate conscious god, but that god is everything and everything is part of god. As you can see both those positions are fundamentally incompatible with theism, and anybody who can say that he believes in all three is either talking out of his arse or hasn't the first clue on theology.

Quote:As far as to ascribe to the belief that God is equivalent in character to a five-year-old human child; frankly you'll have to be more specific, I have yet to go into any specific doctrines or the characteristics of God so how can you assume that what I claim to be God or what I know is in any way equivalent to a child?

Have you ever read any of the mythologies, the Graeco-Roman, the Germanic, the Celtic, the Abrahamic, the Brahamanic? I've read a lot of the mythology surrounding the various religions in Europe and Asia, and the descriptor "spoiled brat" is pretty much applicable to a greater or lesser degree to all the gods described, even the ones generally portrayed as good or kind. There's this boundless need to be worshiped (which anybody around a young child would immediately recognise as naked attention seeking), the capricious use of their powers without thought or regard for others (have you ever seen toddlers get angry when they see another child go for a toy they weren't playing with?), the need to be always right, and the anger displayed when shown to be wrong (another trait of young children that you can see every day). I have not yet come across a description of a god where you cannot adequately and honestly apply the decriptor as a being who has been given a power they know how to use but lack the emotional or intellectual maturity to be able to control when they should and should not use it.

Quote:Lastly,  I didn't say anything about a dual natured GOD. There are two distinct directions or forces yet only one of these is of GOD in nature.
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I never said anything about a dual natured god either. What I said is that the gods described are too human, too small to be considered believable. They are a reflection of our worst traits, what man in his worst nightmares imagined that it was possible for him to do given the power and with the requisite lack of morality.

(August 24, 2016 at 9:13 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Pops, you must realize that having a generally unorthodox theology means you must make greater effort to clarify your position. It simply isn't enough to say "not me". Speaking as a generally unorthodox Christian (Swedenborgian), I know that it can be frustrating and time consuming to present your beliefs. While no shortage of AF members will intentionally mischaracterize your positions with innane phrases like "sky daddy", there are also sincere debaters that rely on familiar frameworks and are trying to understand where you fit in. It is incumbent on you to do a better job suppling that framework. Personally, I cannot make sense of your subtle distinctions. Is GOD (in caps) similar to Plotinus' "The One" or the biblical "God is Love." Deism, theism, pantheism, and panentheism are solid comprehensive categories. It seems inconsistent and confused to me to say God is a little bit of one and a little bit of the other. Look, I'm not saying that you must write a comprehensive essay. All I'm saying is that people need more context, like comparisons with familar concepts: kind of like Brahma as the Ground of Being, similar to a gnostic demiurge, comparable to Aristotle's First Cause, etc.

Firstly; I'm not sure why I can't thumbs-up posts here, but that was very well written and conveyed it's message and reasons for said message very clearly. I could only hope to be able to write so legibly one day.

I agree wholly with what you say. Time was an issue last night, and really still is as I have just pulled up on the job. These subjects or rather this subject is of the utmost importance and surely much more clarity is needed on my part. Yet again this must be a thing spanning some time as I do have other obligations as well. Not that I place those over these in any means, but one must be done to continue the other.

Quickly; you want what I think GOD is.
I can say it is somewhat synonymous with the first cause and Brahma, Islam calls IT Allah. I don't make a division of too much really. Man isn't GOD in any form and never was. All prophets and or messengers have always been of a single accord. GOD's Will for man is wholly beneficent and for the sake of all existence. The selfless conscience is related to the Holy Spirit; the light and or breath of God metaphorically speaking.

There are two opposing forces;

One Creator GOD; characteristics in part; long suffering, benevolent, giving, merciful, giver of life, former of creation,
all knowing, all powerful.

The other nature is that of void or the absence of existence generally characterized by greed, anger, deceit, violence, fear, insidious, creeping, manipulating, hidden, opposing of what is direct and upright in all ways, yet easily seen with the Light of God.

Gotta work

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

(August 24, 2016 at 9:46 am)popsthebuilder Wrote: Time was an issue last night, and really still is as I have just pulled up on the job. These subjects or rather this subject is of the utmost importance and surely much more clarity is needed on my part.

I think everyone understands that AF is a hobby and I didn’t mean to imply that anyone has any obligations to contribute beyond what fits in their spare time.

(August 24, 2016 at 9:46 am)popsthebuilder Wrote: I can say it is somewhat synonymous with the first cause and Brahma, Islam calls IT Allah. Man isn't GOD in any form and never was. All prophets and or messengers have always been of a single accord.

The older I get the less and less I buy into the idea of a big mountain with several paths or blind men describing an elephant. I see big conceptual gulfs between say Roman Catholicism, Wahhabi Islam, and Tibetan Buddhism. Maybe I haven’t studied other traditions deeply enough to see the commonalities. All I’m saying is that I’m not seeing them. For example, Christianity sees the intelligible order of the world as a direct reflection of a God that is to some small measure accessible to reason. Not so in Islam. Islam’s Allah transcends rational thought and can only be accessed by special revelation. That is not a minor difference.

(August 24, 2016 at 9:46 am)popsthebuilder Wrote: There are two opposing forces; One Creator GOD; characteristics in part; long suffering, benevolent, giving, merciful, giver of life, former of creation, all knowing, all powerful…The other nature is that of void or the absence of existence

Technically, the void would not be a force since it is nothing at all.