Why Do I hate creationists (theists in general)

[Arkilogue]

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.

I found it quite simple to understand: Take a beam of white light (God, unified state of existence before inflation of universe) pass it through a prism (opening of the universe as a vacuum cavitation), and you get the same colors (individuated forces of the universe, gravity, electromagnetism, etc) in the same order and proportion, each time.

Now where in the rainbow is the original white light?

Morality is inherent in "one of the colors" (electromagnetism) It describes as a shaping force; uprightness, vertical travel (up or down), magnetic return (reaping) for electric thoughts and actions (sowing) and proper conduct/conduction. What happens if we improperly conduct and put up too much resistance? We short circuit and burn.

---

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).

Good stuff my man, no I haven't read Spinozan ethics. I'm not a pantheist. In my panenthism, "God" is like solid white light and the universe is like a void bubble with the colors flying around inside with the white light remaining outside the bubble.

But it's not all we have to go on, there are many objective descriptions of God's substantial nature throughout the religions. "All consuming fire" (bible), Lord Vishnu (Bhagavad Gita) is described alternately as resting on an infinite serpent on an infinite ocean and that Vishnu's body is the infinite ocean itself.

The idea of a substantial infinity is even previous to "God" in many of these old stories, the Chaos of the Greeks and the Nun of Egypt. From this infinite formless "ocean" the gods self arose and its very easy to understand why some didn't conceive of the Infinite prior to creation as "God"....because there was no creation to be The God of.

"God"(Father/Mother) is the relationship of creator to (pro) creation. If there is no creation, there is no "God" role to play. But there is self existence. Like you self exist, but you won't be called a parent until you have a child. So it is with God.