Pantheist yes, but that definitions says that means there is no personal relationship which makes no sense. Yes Gaia is somewhat descriptive as well.
Chaos is Universal potential. Desperation between religion and man is the result of man's seperation, lust for power, and lack of connection with there innermost selves. I feel that the one all encompassing Lord that is both Universal and directly connected to everything can be called any respectable term that would mean the source of all. God, Lord, Allah, Jesus, Christ, the all knowing... Whatever as long as it means the same thing. Which they all do.

---

It really is a combination.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Pops described a deist view, not a pantheist view.

But you knew that.

A deist God has no interest in his creation, it moved on. There is a foricible seperation between man and god in Pops view. Not only that but with his talk of energy he clearly sees God as being the ground of all being.

It seems you didn't know that, as Pops' latest post proves.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:16 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: Pantheist yes, but that definitions says that means there is no personal relationship which makes no sense. Yes Gaia is somewhat descriptive as well.
Chaos is Universal potential. Desperation between religion and man is the result of man's seperation, lust for power, and lack of connection with there innermost selves. I feel that the one all encompassing Lord that is both Universal and directly connected to everything can be called any respectable term that would mean the source of all. God, Lord, Allah, Jesus, Christ, the all knowing... Whatever as long as it means the same thing. Which they all do.

---

It really is a combination.

I must say I find this fascinating, the idea that all religions are one isn't a new concept and we can see it in Ba'hai as well as Unitarian Universalism but you seem to have extended it further than either of those two.

What would you say about these religions like Christianity and Islam that disagree with one another, even condemn each other? Is one closer to the truth than the other, are the all plagued with mistakes? They differ quite greatly on some key moral issues, or do moral issues not matter to this God?

(July 5, 2015 at 8:20 pm)Metis Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 8:07 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Pops described a deist view, not a pantheist view.

But you knew that.

A deist God has no interest in his creation, it moved on. There is a foricible seperation between man and god in Pops view. Not only that but with his talk of energy he clearly sees God as being the ground of all being.

It seems you didn't know that, as Pops' latest post proves.

It appears you may be right. I keyed on this:

"I believe there is one God who created everything, or at least got the ball rolling."

That reminded me of this definition:

Deism. Deism is actually a form of monotheism, but distinct in character and development. In addition to adopting general monotheism, deists also accept the specific ideas that the single existing god is personal in nature and transcendent from the created universe. However, they reject the idea that this this god is immanent, which is to say presently active in the created universe.

The term pantheism is built upon the Greek roots pan, which means all, and theos, which means god; thus, pantheism is either the belief that the universe is God and worthy of worship, or that God is the sum total of all there is and that the combined substances, forces, and natural laws which we see around us are but manifestations of God.

They are the same. Same stories, same morals, same names. Where Christianity gets lost is; most think you cannot be saved, go to heaven, go to paradise, or be added to the collective spiritual good upon physical death unless you accept Jesus. It also claims that there is no unforgivable sin. These two things are nonsense if Jesus returned to the source then why must you refer to it as Jesus specifically?
Also if I am a true believer and do not speak the truth I will be damned. There is no repentance for that.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:50 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 8:20 pm)Metis Wrote: A deist God has no interest in his creation, it moved on. There is a foricible seperation between man and god in Pops view. Not only that but with his talk of energy he clearly sees God as being the ground of all being.

It seems you didn't know that, as Pops' latest post proves.

It appears you may be right. I keyed on this:

"I believe there is one God who created everything, or at least got the ball rolling."

That reminded me of this definition:

Deism. Deism is actually a form of monotheism, but distinct in character and development. In addition to adopting general monotheism, deists also accept the specific ideas that the single existing god is personal in nature and transcendent from the created universe. However,  they reject the idea that this this god is immanent, which is to say presently active in the created universe.

The term pantheism is built upon the Greek roots pan, which means all, and theos, which means god; thus, pantheism is either the belief that the universe is God and worthy of worship, or that God is the sum total of all there is and that the combined substances, forces, and natural laws which we see around us are but manifestations of God.

That's pretty much right, there is a small but increasing number of mostly dissafected Muslims and Christians who use the term for a creator active in the universe but this isn't really what classical or modern (pre-modern know I suppose) deism was ever about. What made it evident to me he didn't mean that was that he posted that this deity seeks reconcilliation with its creation, and that the evil would be reconciled with the evil it itself had created; that suggested an element of a divinely ordained fate if not judgement.

Pantheism in athiest communities tends more to refer to the works of the likes of Bishop Spong, the "atheist bishop" of the American Episcopal Church. His thoughts are certainly miles away from the mainstream but have been provoking debate for several decades now, while not something I personally subscribe to it makes for interesting listening for where Christianity could potentionally (but I think unlikely to) go next. I don't think this is quite what Pop means though and more like your later definition.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:03 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 1:10 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Oh yeah people kill children all the time to teach them not to mess with things.  

Jenny-

As harsh as it seems, the Israelites did learn from the incident that God is not to be trifled with.

Really?  The Israelite as depicted by the Bible NEVER seem to learn.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:50 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: They are the same. Same stories, same morals, same names. Where Christianity gets lost is; most think you cannot be saved, go to heaven, go to paradise, or be added to the collective spiritual good upon physical death unless you accept Jesus. It also claims that there is no unforgivable sin. These two things are nonsense if Jesus returned to the source then why must you refer to it as Jesus specifically?
Also if I am a true believer  and do not speak the truth I will be damned. There is no repentance for that.

But are they the same? Within pre-Rabbanic Judaism it is perfectly fine for me to take multiple wives, but a sin within Catholicism for me to do so. Within Islam I have a duty to wage the lesser Jihad in some form against non believers in most theologies, within Jainism I must remain a pacifist at all times.

The Bible does teach there is an unforgivable sin, not beliving in the forgiveness of the holy spirit and most Christians would say Jesus is the source as he is a person of the trinity.

I personally admire the intent behind universalism, but many religions have very different ideas of what constitutes goodness. Within Fundamentalist Mormonism a sign of a holy man is one with a giant harem and hundreds of children, within Orthodoxy it is a reclusive introverted humble celibate who is the paragon of virtue. Both would call the other an infidel and a pervert so I am unsure how they could be reconciled.

(July 5, 2015 at 10:57 am)popsthebuilder Wrote: Ok. Evidently he was struck down because he foolishly thought that the Lord needed him to steady the arch. He didn't believe that the Lord controlled everything's fate including the fate of the arch.

(my bold)

But yet is unable to stop rapists and murderers.

(July 5, 2015 at 10:09 am)Nope Wrote: This story is from Samuel, chapter

http://biblehub.com/2_samuel/6.htm

David decided to move the ark and used a new cart guided by two men, Uzzah and Ahio. When one of the oxen pulling the cart stumbled, Uzzah-naturally- put his hand on the ark. God, according to the story, killed Uzzah for trying to stop the ark from falling.

Quote:Then the LORD's anger burned against Uzzah, and God struck him dead on the spot for his irreverence, and he died there next to the ark of God

The bible describes god as being very angry because he tried to steady the ark. To Christians, why do you believe god punished Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling to the ground? I know that not every Christian on this site believes that the stories are literal. If you believe that this story is just an allegory then what is it teaching?

Because God made it perfectly clear that only priests were to 'touch' the ark.

If God made this known, what was uzz even doing near the ark if not looking for an opportunity to touch it?

The bible never says the ark would have been destroyed if uzz did not reach out to steady the ark. Uzz was making an oppertunity for himself, and God was not going to suffer a fool or his scheming