|
Author
|
Topic: egotheistic pantheism revealed...
|
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5946 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: 09-08-2003
|
|
Message 31 of 308 (376964)
01-14-2007 3:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by Rob
01-14-2007 3:10 PM
|
|
Re: panentheism
scottness writes: Jesus is the psalms. Rob are you sure about that....
Psalms 137:9 writes: How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock. Does that sound like Jesus?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 3:10 PM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 3:52 PM | | iceage has replied |
|
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: 11-05-2006
|
Re: panentheism
........Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them........
Archer Opterix writes: pantheism = 'All Things are God' panentheism = 'All Things are in God' Orthodox Christianity = All Things are seperate from God. He can lose the heavens and the earth, and remain. He can lose the heavens and the earth and be complete. I have read your links, Archer, two of them I had read on my own. It is a very hard distinction to make, and almost beyond my ability to express at this juncture...nonetheless there is a distinction. If there was not, we wouldn't HAVE examples of panentheistic christians, but all christians would be panentheistic. I would not consider myself to be ...God is in all things? I would say something like "God uses all things" He works with creation, he is actively messing around with His art, but he is not exactly IN it. He is not united with it in any sense, except that His Spirit comes into us as a seperate and distinct force...He is still working with us, but not us, He is IN us, but not by nature. That's the best I can do. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 33 of 308 (376969)
01-14-2007 3:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by iceage
01-14-2007 3:20 PM
|
|
Re: Inclusively Exclusive
Iceage: As is usually the case the world does not not boil down to a set of "either this", "or that" dichotomy. I doesn't?  Well then your right! And then it does... A logical nightmare. You promote the death of your own reasoning.
'...cool intellect must prevail not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms that deny intellect altogether.' (C.S. Lewis) So Iceage, reality is either not exclusive, or nothing else? Is that what you're saying? You know Iceage... no matter whether you or I am right or wrong about this foundation of all clear thought, there is one thing we can be absolutely certain about... We are either right or wrong. Thanks for playing...
Staw man Fallacy: Assuming and misrepresenting or overstating an opponent's position so that you can easy dismantle it and refute. I am talking about the pantheist belief that all is God. It is not a strawman. There are other forms of pantheism. Pantheism is not monolithic. Archer is invoking panentheism. And that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the spiritual falseness of Panthesm in the Monistic sense as a warning to those flirting with it's deception. they know who they are, and they are absent from this discussion for a reason. All of the rest of this from you guys is just smokescreens. If you are not monistic panthesits then go away. if you are, then address the topic. I would expect some moderator action soon unless I have missed something and am wrong (get it? 'wrong').
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by iceage, posted 01-14-2007 3:20 PM | | iceage has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 37 by iceage, posted 01-14-2007 4:35 PM | | Rob has replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 34 of 308 (376971)
01-14-2007 3:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by iceage
01-14-2007 3:26 PM
|
|
Re: panentheism
Psalms 137:9 writes: How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock. Does that sound like Jesus? It absolutely does! Thanks for the free gift Iceage! Read this very carefully: Luke 20:Luke 20:9-19
9 He went on to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. 10 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. 12 He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out. 13 "Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.' 14 "But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. "What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When the people heard this, they said, "May this never be!" 17 Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone'? 18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed." 19 The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. Acts 4:11 He (christ) is "'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.' Iceage, you are trying to build your Tower of Babel without 'The Rock' that gives it a firm foundation. Deuteronomy 32:37 He will say: "Now where are their gods, the rock they took refuge in,..." Edited by scottness, : No reason given.
Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by iceage, posted 01-14-2007 3:26 PM | | iceage has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by iceage, posted 01-14-2007 4:42 PM | | Rob has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 35 of 308 (376974)
01-14-2007 4:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
01-13-2007 12:47 AM
|
|
Pantheist here
I am a naturalistic monistic pantheist, and the concept 'I am God' is at best metaphorical. How can I be God when I am but a small part of the cosmos? That is like one of my carbon atoms saying 'I am Mod' - nonsense. It certainly holds interest as a way of looking at things, but it isn't pantheism. So,
The cosmic vaccume cleaner of popular new age pantheism just opposes and exalts itself over everything else and claims that they (the knowing) are one with the divine. Actually I believe that all religions are 'tapping into' the same feelings that I am tapping in to. I simply propose that there is no compelling reason to believe it is because we are feeling the presence of a personal deity. If you want to believe that - fine.
That particular movie is revealing and far more honest than the typical 'sel-described' pantheist, who is really only flirting with the concept. They posit the idea that we create our own reality, and that the problem with the world is that we need to shift from the Christian paradigm, to the 'true' paradigm. I have been a pantheist for ten years - since I was sixteen, so would hesitate to call it a flirt. I didn't know it was called pantheism then, had never heard of the term until about two years ago. The idea of us creating our own reality seems to have come from your source which comes from a Hindu/Buddhist culture. I have no such conviction, though I do accept that my view of realiy is unique. Your source on pantheism is someone I have never heard of, but appears to be more of a krisna-flavoured cult icon - not a pantheist. You'd probably do better to look to Spinoza to get a better conception of pantheism.
But the pantheist cannot take to being examined very carefully because being God, he or she does not like to be challenged. And here is the conclusion: You are actually calling out egotheism not pantheism.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Rob, posted 01-13-2007 12:47 AM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 36 by anastasia, posted 01-14-2007 4:29 PM | | Modulous has not replied | | | Message 38 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 4:37 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: 11-05-2006
|
|
|
Message 36 of 308 (376976)
01-14-2007 4:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Modulous
01-14-2007 4:05 PM
|
|
Re: Pantheist here
Moduolous writes: I am a naturalistic monistic pantheist, and the concept 'I am God' is at best metaphorical. How can I be God when I am but a small part of the cosmos? That is like one of my carbon atoms saying 'I am Mod' - nonsense. It certainly holds interest as a way of looking at things, but it isn't pantheism. That is one flaw I would have called at the outset of this topic. Not being terribly familiar with pantheism in practice, I left it up to those who are to make the call. I think a person may say 'I am God' like an icicle saying 'I am ocean' ...'I am made of the same stuff as the ocean'...'I make up the ocean, but I am not THE ocean'? Edited by anastasia, : No reason given. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Modulous, posted 01-14-2007 4:05 PM | | Modulous has not replied |
|
iceage
Suspended Member (Idle past 5946 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: 09-08-2003
|
|
|
Message 37 of 308 (376977)
01-14-2007 4:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Rob
01-14-2007 3:47 PM
|
|
Re: Inclusively Exclusive
You are massively diverging from the point and not answering the questions. Again for the 3rd time a religion can be nonexclusivist and not accept every religious thought as valid. A nonexclusive religion just does not state dogmatically that it is the only path to the one true God. You are avoiding that. Next I asked for a reference to your claim
scottness writes: The popular strain in the West (new age) doesn't necessarily say that all religions are right, but that all of them will lead to where the pantheists are You avoided that.
scottness writes: I would expect some moderator action soon unless I have missed something and am wrong (get it? 'wrong'). Rob, I am addressing the very first line in your OP.
scottness in OP writes: All philosophies and religions are exclusive... especially the pantheist ones. You have built a straw man that pantheist believe that all religious paths are valid and "will lead to where the pantheists are". You need this because then you get to play your imaginary trump card that they exclude your exclusive-whacked-out philosophy so that makes them "especially" exclusive. You also seem to take a bit a pride in that Christianity is exclusive, which somehow lends it credibility. Many other religions are exclusive. And even many Christian sects are exclusive. So.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 3:47 PM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 41 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 4:47 PM | | iceage has replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 38 of 308 (376978)
01-14-2007 4:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Modulous
01-14-2007 4:05 PM
|
|
Re: Pantheist here
Hi Mod, I know that there are variations of pantheism. Many variations. I also 'flirted' with the idea for years without knowing it's definition. Is't it interesting that we all go through the same ideas and often think they are unique? As an aside, it was C.S. Lewis who said that there are no original thinkers, we're all just plagiarizing to one extent or another. I think he is right. I put it this way, and have heard others elude to the same equivocation: Just as physical energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so is the case in the metaphysical as truth can be neither created nor destroyed. The only distinction is that the physical world is not eternal and absolute as is the metaphysical reality.
You are actually calling out egotheism not pantheism. Thanks for your response, please explain this to me...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Modulous, posted 01-14-2007 4:05 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 39 of 308 (376979)
01-14-2007 4:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by Rob
01-14-2007 1:06 PM
|
|
Re: AN ADDENDUM FOR CLARITY
Scottness writes: in another thread, Anglagard made a comment that made me realize he felt I was misrepresenting his religion. Scottness from the PNT:
quote:
f you are unfamilliar with pantheism, then watch the movie, 'What the Bleep do we Know'. Ramtha (as she calls herself, and who channels the Hindu God Ram) will flat out tell you, 'You are God'. That particular movie is revealing and far more honest than the typical 'sel-described' pantheist, who is really only flirting with the concept. They posit the idea that we create our own reality, and that the problem with the world is that we need to shift from the Christian paradigm, to the 'true' paradigm.
If you are unfamiliar with Spinoza Pantheism, then read Spinoza. Ramtha is some new age con artist. She has absolutely nothing to do with Spinoza Pantheism. Yes, I felt that you were, and still are, misrepresenting my religion. Edited by anglagard, : skipped a letter when doing cut n paste
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 1:06 PM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 4:49 PM | | anglagard has replied | | | Message 51 by anastasia, posted 01-14-2007 5:05 PM | | anglagard has not replied |
|
iceage
Suspended Member (Idle past 5946 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: 09-08-2003
|
|
|
Message 40 of 308 (376980)
01-14-2007 4:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by Rob
01-14-2007 3:52 PM
|
|
Re: panentheism
There is nothing in your quotes that justifies the delight and blessedness of dashing little ones (innocent babies) against the rock. Do you have another volley scriptures to show how this dovetails with "love your enemies".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 3:52 PM | | Rob has not replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 41 of 308 (376981)
01-14-2007 4:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by iceage
01-14-2007 4:35 PM
|
|
Re: Inclusively Exclusive
Again for the 3rd time a religion can be nonexclusivist and not accept every religious thought as valid. A nonexclusive religion just does not state dogmatically that it is the only path to the one true God. You are avoiding that. I have avoided nothing. You have not perceived the point... Is there only one path to God or not Iceage? The path to God is the truth (whatever that turns out to be). We may begin at different points, but if we follow the voice of reason (law of non-contradiction), it leads to only one point; one gate inot reality. Luke 13:24 "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. John 10:7 Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. If Jesus says there is only one gate, and that he is that gate, then a religion that says otherwise simply must exclude that as true. I didn't say they can't believe otherwise. They can believe whatever they want! They can believe they are God (as some do). Our beliefs do not change reality other than for our own isolated selves.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by iceage, posted 01-14-2007 4:35 PM | | iceage has replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 42 of 308 (376982)
01-14-2007 4:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by anglagard
01-14-2007 4:39 PM
|
|
Re: AN ADDENDUM FOR CLARITY
Yes, I felt that you were, and still are, misrepresenting my religion. Is your religion true?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by anglagard, posted 01-14-2007 4:39 PM | | anglagard has replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 43 of 308 (376983)
01-14-2007 4:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
01-13-2007 12:47 AM
|
|
Not Applicible #1
Scottness writes: But the pantheist cannot take to being examined very carefully because being God, he or she does not like to be challenged. God owns Himself / Herself. He is His own. If you challenge them, they will collectively suspend your backside for speaking with disrespect to the Kings and Queens of the universe. Like they did to Jesus, they will slap you for your arrogance. Obviously not talking about what I or Spinoza believe. Show me where either of us have claimed to be God. Also, clearly there were no Spinoza Panthiests slapping Jesus while on earth. That is easily refuted: From Wikipedia:
quote:
Benedictus de Spinoza or Baruch de Spinoza (Hebrew: ‘ —) (November 24, 1632 - February 21, 1677) was a Dutch philosopher of Jewish origin, considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy and, by virtue of his magnum opus the posthumous Ethics, one of the definitive ethicists.
Was Jesus in human form on earth between 1632 and 1677?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Rob, posted 01-13-2007 12:47 AM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 4:52 PM | | anglagard has not replied |
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 44 of 308 (376984)
01-14-2007 4:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by Rob
01-14-2007 4:49 PM
|
|
Re: AN ADDENDUM FOR CLARITY
scottness writes: Is your religion true? Obviously I think so. Is yours?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 4:49 PM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 46 by Rob, posted 01-14-2007 4:54 PM | | anglagard has replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5880 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 45 of 308 (376985)
01-14-2007 4:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by anglagard
01-14-2007 4:49 PM
|
|
Re: Not Applicible #1
Was Jesus in human form on earth between 1632 and 1677? No, but my comment was a metaphor for slapping the truth in it's metaphysical form. In that form, the truth exists eternally. He is here now, stalking us; examining us. Trying to bring us to our senses. Edited by scottness, : No reason given.
Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by anglagard, posted 01-14-2007 4:49 PM | | anglagard has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2