egotheistic pantheism revealed...

I am loving your input on this thread anastasia, but there is one small fault in this analogy: That's not exactly the implication. The better analogy is that the other 10 hires also are seeking "Green and Packer," but they will end up there with the "BOSS" waiting no matter which route they chose (or how long it took them to get there...reincarnation, maybe?) as long as they were seeking the same destination (Green and Packer).

Are you absolutely sure about this? What if something other than God can dictate an absolute?Belief in absolutes does not necessarily equal belief in your version of God.The existence of an absolute morality or truth does not necessarily confirm the existence of your version of God no matter how smugly you might think so.

I said:

quote:

---

An irrational conclusion may still be true. Its likelihood has just not been demonstrated rationally.

---

Rob says: Not a joke at all. An acknowledgment of reality.Let's say it is a joke, though. Is it funny?You answer yes. Your friend answers no.We now have two propositions:

The joke is funny.
The joke is not funny.

One statement represents the negation of the other. Both cannot logically be true.An observer says 'Jokes can be funny to some people and not funny to others.'But you recognize that as relativism. You and your friend are not relatives.Now you and your friend have a debate. What logical argument will you present to prove beyond all doubt that the joke is absolutely, intrinsically, manifestly 100% hilarious?After hours of debate in which all your syllogisms have been sound, your terms defined and your conclusions unrefuted, will your friend chuckle?___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Bolding mine: I think you are doing a fine enough job of that yourself, not only here, but to a much greater extent, in other threads.Incidentally, how does my question regarding who is telling the truth imply that I thought you were being exclusive? If you want to respond to the rest of my posts, please feel free to actualy quote them and give a direct answer. Was I complaining about being rebuked? Here's where your logic falls apart. I can become a Christian if I give up any previously held beliefs (whether they be belief in multiple gods, the flying spaghetti monster, a pink unicorn, or nothing at all). In your view, you can become a Pantheist (or, rather, your convoluted depiction of it) if you give up the belief in One True Path to God (although that is not a requirement) or not.I don't really see the difference, except that an inclusivist wouldn't bat an eyelash if I/you held onto their previously held beliefs.Does Christianity do that? I would say, no.Does a truly inclusive religion or belief set or life path (not your strawman of Pantheism) do that? I would say, yes.If you were to align yourself with those who believe that there infinite paths to God, then you wold not find any resistance from them with regards to your personal belief in salvation through Christ as you interpret in from the Bible. You may, however, find some resistance from the people you are trying to "convert" to your own lifeview. They have chosen their own. They do not necessarily need yours.Not the same thing at all.Just because someone accepts your path as valid does not mean that they adhere to it or even wants to hear you preach about it.Please, though, preach to your heart's extent. That is your right.

To some degree, both. They often spoke of different things or from a different perspective. I would say that Spinoza had more respect for Jesus than you do because Spinoza held "The intellectual love of God is the highest good."Notice the term intellectual as opposed to through rote repetition of often unrelated or even misinterpreted quotes. From what I have seen, with the misrepresentation and obstufication, you are the one who needs to read the above more than once as you don't seem to understand what it means. After all, you are the one preaching how anyone different from yourself or who differs with your interpretation is somehow "evil."ABE - Somehow, I did not find the central message of the NT to be "despise others as you despise yourself."Personally, I don't think you love God as much as you think. I don't believe that there is room left for much after you first satisfy your own fragile ego with your own self-righteousness.ABE - Have you considered defining your beliefs in a positive manner as opposed to through putting down everyone else's?Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

I said:

quote:

---

An irrational conclusion may still be true. Its likelihood has just not been demonstrated rationally.

---

Rob says: Let me see if I can illustrate this again in a more straightforward way. I know you don't like a lot of adulerated sophistry.You're standing on a busy street corner. The Don't Walk sign is lit. You start to cross.A stranger grabs your arm. 'That's a bad idea!' he shouts.'Why?' you ask.'Because,' he says, 'a purple rhinoceras that lives in my toilet back at the mental hospital told me Dakota Fanning is the reincarnation of President Chester Arthur. Arthur was a Libra. That's a sign! It means you will die if you cross the street right now!''That's total nonsense,' you say.You step into the street--and are flattened at once by a speeding Peterbilt.The moral of the story:

quote:

---

An irrational conclusion may still be true. Its likelihood has just not been demonstrated rationally.

---

__

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Except for the fact that the philosophy of Monism preceeded Jesus by many centuries.Just like many events and philosophies in the Bible are not original.For reference, look up flood stories predating the OT account, Hammurabi's codes (*gasp* the godless heathen Babylonians had inscribed law before the pious Hebrews), Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, etc.Please reiterate your point about imposters after addressing the history preceeding Jesus and Moses.

I am not condemning you for anything. I invoked scripture to counter your scripture.I have never "lambasted" you for preaching to me.I, however, have to say this about Matthew 25: 31-46.You just criticized me for not accepting your preaching of the "Good News", but (supposedly...let's just say I did this), I refused the word by criticizing you for not clothing me or slaking my thirst. Isn't that what Jesus is condemning in this passage? Preaching righteousness without the actions that correlate with the message? I really don't think he is being metaphorical here meaning that you didn't really try to save me (clothes, food = Jesus). I think he really means what he says...you must live the word and not just preach it.Again, I am not "condemning" you. I am simply debating point for point. Don't be so melodramatic.

So, the next question is, how do you know that your interpretation of "God's Word" is not a lie? How is your own "seducing spirit" not leading you into the bowels of hell?Because you "KNOW?"Anyone can say that. Many can even match it to scripture.As a side note, if I may ask, could you please actually respond to the rest of my (and others) posts when you respond to me. I address yours and others points and even expand on them with my own thoughts sometimes (usually if I don't respond I agree with the post/point or it is specifically addressed to someone else and I would like to see the comment from that person). Even if you don't have an answer, it would be courteous to quote and make some sort of statement ("I'll get back to you on that" or "I don't know" or a question about what I mean or even a snide comment) so as not to confuse other readers or try to give yourself props by refusing to answer the whole post/question and make it seem as if you have done any sort of independent thinking by quotemining.*PS - scripture does not count as independent thought unless, possibly, you have some take on it instead of just presenting it as fact* Could you please back up and explain this statement. I thought there were no other gods but "GOD."Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

Are their numbers increasing?How is tolerance for varying beliefs "extreme?"Why would you think that I would appreciate you belittling "these people" even if I or my friends did not agree with them?Perhaps because you can't imagine arguing for/against a side you didn't/did believe in? Otherwise known as the "devil's advocate."You don't know my beliefs.But, feel free to sound the alarm against others' ("their numbers are increasing!) inclusive beliefs and feel free to call them extreme. Goodness knows, we should have less tolerance in this world. Sounds like the "Renaissance Man." *shrug* The Renaissance wasn't so bad.

That doesn't seem to be a relevant point to bring up when I was talking about the problems in your chain of thought with regard to pantheistic concepts of being one with god and how that differs significantly from claiming to be god itself. The point I am trying to get you to see is that egotheism is a completely seperate topic than pantheism and the two are not related.Sure, some pantheists may be egotheists, as some buddhists, hindus, christians, jews etc etc. Pantheism is irrelevant to your points egotheism. What qualities that are uniquely pantheist, if any, do you want to discuss? It seems that nothing you have raised here has any bearing on the topic title.Your arguments work equally well in reference to Hindu egotheists as they do with jewish egotheists. They don't work with any form of pantheism but egotheistic pantheists.What is the common thread? Not pantheism - egotheism.Do you understand the issues I am trying to demonstrate to you?

How about telling me what you think?Stop quoting Ravi Zacharius.

Yes... it is discarded and trampled as inane!

Jaderis:Very good Jaderis, but I said in message http://EvC Forum: egotheistic pantheism revealed... -->EvC Forum: egotheistic pantheism revealed... Your clever arguments and sophistry only proove the case, so keep it up.I hope the whole world is listening so that he who has an ear may hear.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

uh... ok.. that is what I already said. Your previous statement would disagree with your second...The ego-theist needs to smuggle in a transcendant theology, they've appearently chosen yours because it does not exclude them from doing so.That's the danger of no moral law... Yes, more so all the time.With all due respect do you Mod?I know you are a very thoughtful man. Your words are few and carefully chosen. The easist way to accomplish that, to an irritating and powerful degree is to be single minded (irritating to the double minded that is).