Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,870 Year: 4,127/9,624 Month: 998/974 Week: 325/286 Day: 46/40 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The impossibility of infinite ability..aka "god"
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 16 of 94 (450056)
01-20-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
01-19-2008 11:23 PM


Pantheism is not Anthropomorphic
NJ writes:
Why do you insist that God moves at all, since movement is uniquely apportioned to that which has a body -- i.e., material? You speak of God in anthropomorphic terms, as if he were a man in outer space. These pantheistic notions about God have nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian concept of God.
From Pantheism - Wikipedia:
quote:
Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract 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 in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind.
Pantheism is not anthropomorphism. If anything, it is further from anthropomorphism than your belief system as you refer to your 'god' as male, which last I saw would require your 'god' to have male sex organs, which is a physical attribute.
Look NJ, if you don't know what a word means or don't know how to use a given word in it's proper context, then don't use it.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-19-2008 11:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 2:04 PM anglagard has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 864 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 25 of 94 (450073)
01-20-2008 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2008 2:04 PM


Re: Pantheism is not Anthropomorphic
NJ writes:
In the pantheon, Gods and Goddesses have intercourse, which in turn tells me that they have genitalia. The Judeo-Christian concept of God as a "He" or "Him" is a personification of that which has no physical personhood. By your rationale, we should assume that referring to ships as "she" means that the ship physically is a female, or that Spanish words referring to masculine or feminine pronouns means that they actually assume that a table or a door has a sex.
OK , just checking to make sure your views on your version of 'god' are not in the slightest anthropomorphic, as it seems some others in this forum are judging from their posts.
If per chance you are discussing a Spinoza-like pantheism, then I would agree that it does not entail physical features. I was specifically referring to the pantheon, where Zeus and Odin reside.
Then wouldn't a more appropriate and precise term be ancient European polytheism, or even Pre-Christian polytheism? Using the terms pantheism and polytheism interchangeably is not normal English usage IMO.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2008 2:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024