(August 24, 2016 at 12:43 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(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.

Islam and Christianity have the same ideals, morals, GOD, history, and both believe in the resurrection and the second coming of Christ.

Pretty similar

As far as void; yes, force isn't really the best descriptor.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

(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.

Have you looked up Panentheism?

Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God") is the belief that the divine interpenetrates every part of the universe and extends, timelessly (and, presumably, spacelessly) beyond it. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[1] panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.[2]

---

(August 24, 2016 at 9:28 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: 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.

Have you tried working with an extant infinite substance? A quark-gluon singularity with no external border?

Too many are trying to think of God's personality, which is almost guaranteed to be an ego projection...too few think of the substance of God.

Tazzycorn,

Deism is like the watchmaker analogy. I believe it. But to say that God is somehow incapable of interacting with creation is simply closed minded. Assuming that GOD doesn't have the power or knowledge to have both set all in motion and destine everything yet still make it seam as if our trials or tests are determinate to our ultimate destiny. Pantheistic beliefs in how I understand them is the belief that God is the Universe. I can't say IT isn't, nor do I limit GOD in any way. I agree that everything is of GOD.

No I haven't read too much mythology. But I have read the Bhagavad-Gita, OT, NT, book of Enoch, Quran, Zend Avesta, the writing of the Bab or Baha'i scripture and parts of the beliefs of Buddhism, Confusiansm, Jainism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and much of Zoroastrianism.

They are all much more alike than different in morals and reasons for those virtues.

It's a shame that you are having trouble getting past your preconceived bias in regard to what GOD is.

You did mention two nature's, perhaps you were talking about deism and theism, but you did mention it. GOD isn't really described as being human, but human traits have been used to describe otherwise difficult things to describe. What did you mean about too small?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I don't really know much about pantheism but I love pancetta. Great on pasta or with eggs. I'll bet it would make great risotto too.

(August 24, 2016 at 2:56 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I don't really know much about pantheism but I love pancetta.  Great on pasta or with eggs.  I'll bet it would make great risotto too.

Have you looked up panentheism? God is distinct from creation but interpenetrates and surrounds it.

The electromagnetic force, gravity and the Higg's field all span the universe and have relatively (within the universe) infinite range.

(August 24, 2016 at 2:58 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(August 24, 2016 at 2:56 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I don't really know much about pantheism but I love pancetta.  Great on pasta or with eggs.  I'll bet it would make great risotto too.

Have you looked up panentheism? God is distinct from creation but interpenetrates and surrounds it.

The electromagnetic force, gravity and the Higg's field all span the universe and have relatively (within the universe) infinite range.

Ark, my vote is for panentheism. Deism does not account for God's role as the necessary being that sustains existence. Pantheism to me is the same as having no god at all. The best it gets you is panpsychic idealism, the kissing cousin of materialism.

The similarly of moral teaching between different religious traditions seems more easily explained by all people sharing a universal human nature. Each religion has very different ideas about what that human nature is and where it comes from. My point to pops is that you cannot just look at the surface where things appear similar.

(August 24, 2016 at 2:26 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

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

Have you looked up Panentheism?

Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God") is the belief that the divine interpenetrates every part of the universe and extends, timelessly (and, presumably, spacelessly) beyond it. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[1] panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both.[2]

---

(August 24, 2016 at 9:28 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: 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.

Have you tried working with an extant infinite substance? A quark-gluon singularity with no external border?

Too many are trying to think of God's personality, which is almost guaranteed to be an ego projection...too few think of the substance of God.

Have you read any Spinozan ethics? If you have you'd understand that I'm pretty much on the money regarding pantheism. Well it's a lot more complex than that as a system of ethics, but the idea of god is essentially as I state it. In pantheism the universe is god and all in the universe are part of god. It does not exist as a separate being and is not conscious in and of itself.

The reason why I speak of god's ego rather than his substance is because it's all we have to go on. The writers of the world's holy books only gave us personality, no substance to be found because, like the Scarlet Pimpernel, wherever you looked he wasn't there. Oh yes, we got a lot of natural processes which were previously ascribed to gods, but guess what, as natural processes we now know no gods were ever involved (unless you're going to try and raise your idiotic notion that processes worked differently than they do now before we discovered their workings).

(August 24, 2016 at 2:48 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: It's a shame that you are having trouble getting past your preconceived bias in regard to what GOD is.

It's a shame you don't understand how god can hold three mutually incompatible properties. God being deist, pantheist and theist all tat the same time is as possible as me being hot and cold blooded simultaneously.

(August 23, 2016 at 8:45 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I do not hate atheists. I dont even hate atheism per se even though I think many of the ways it manifests itself can be profoundly destructive for people and society just as misguided religion can. I strongly dislike some AF members but I still pray for their well being and for me to learn compassion through them.

No, you don't hate atheists. You just think we're all self-absorbed, wicked tools of Satan that deserve eternal punishment for not accepting your beliefs as true.

You're splitting hairs there.

I am. Satan's my inferno daddy.