egotheistic pantheism revealed...

I will do what is right. I worship the law of God and the God that lives that law.Certainly I do not have to conform to your relative law. The whole purpose of the relative law is so that I can do what I want.You ask for what you do not understand.And why would my thoughs be of value to you, when you have your own to worship.C.S. Lewis said, 'there are no original thinkers really. We're all just plagiarizing to one extent or another.'I agree with him, Ravi, and John the baptist... wholeheartedly.The truth preceded us all.

Scottness, what is your goal here at EvC?If your goal is to persuade others to find faith in God through quotation and disjointed, off-topic preaching, I suggest to you that your current tactics are a dismal failure.If your goal is simply to annoy people and disrupt and derail productive discussion, then I'd say you have been quite successful.So, I ask again, what is your goal here?You are actively repelling the very people you presumably wish to reach.

As I said to Jaderis in post 163: http://EvC Forum: egotheistic pantheism revealed... -->EvC Forum: egotheistic pantheism revealed...Jaderis:Yes... it is discarded and trampled as inane! (thanks Phat / jar)So, I do what I think is right Schraff. Not to gain popularity or peace at the expense of truth.SchrafThak you...But interupting productive discussion? ...please...If a band of thieves is carrying on in a brothel having a good time and making their plans... Do you think they would be annoyed and feel derailed to have a preacher come into their midst and remind them in point blank terms of the error of their ways?Would they repent and accept his sound counsel?Some will...But many will plot in every conceivable way to undermine and discredit the preacher. And if given the chance, some will kill him if they think they can get away with it.Mt 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.If you put those two together, you may understand the latter for the first time...

Then why are you talking about pantheism at all then? Why not just talk about egotheism, it isn't a phenomenon that is unique to pantheism...in fact it is less common that in some other religions. The egotheism ones are Hinduism and Buddhism. Let me give you the complete overview once again. There are pantheists and there are egotheists. Some pantheists may be egotheists but it all seems very much against the grain of pantheism and I have never heard of a pantheist egotheist. They might exist. However - the issue you are raising is got nothing to pantheism itself, it seems purely about egotheism.It would be like me saying, "Monotheism revealed...all monotheistic religions reject the wisdom of the Domovoi. They do this because they believe there Mohammed received wisdom from Gabriel. The idea that Mohammed was a prophet of god is fraudulent therefore monotheism is an imposter".It simply doesn't make sense. Surely my argument would be better served by putting the appropriate terms in there. Instead of 'monotheism' I should have put 'Islam'. Instead of 'pantheism' you should have put 'egotheism'.Indeed - my example isn't perfect because Islam is always monotheistic and vice versa (with some highly unusual heretical exceptions) but egotheism isn't always (or even necessarily commonly), pantheistic. Likewise pantheism isn't necessarily egotheistic. Indeed - much of pantheism isn't and until you claimed otherwise I'd never heard of a egotheistic pantheist. I've still not actually seen one, but I'm happily accepting their existence to not distract from the fundamental fault in the OP.To restate my sentence then: The common thread here is egotheism. The common thread is not pantheism. Pantheism is superfluous to the discussion. It is only related because you claim that some pantheists are egotheists. Do I understand the issue I am trying to communicate to you? Yes. Egotheism is not related in anyway to pantheism, anymore than colourblindness is. There may be colourblind pantheists but that is about as far as it goes. We wouldn't call out monochromes with a 'Pantheism revealed...' thread. I am trying to drive a simple point forwards and am finding the communication between us difficult because you don't seem to be addressing the simple point I'm trying to put forward. I am not trying to refute your points against egotheism, I am just trying to show that you haven't actaully discussed anything that has anything to do with pantheism other than show that some pantheists may be egotheists. Some Christians may be egotheists too - why choose pantheism as the thread title? Why not just settle for the correct and accurate unambiguous label of 'egotheist'? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Simply not TRUE.Rob thinks he knows a way to get there. Rob may think he has been there, may think he has a correct Map but until he actually gets there and find the job is there, it is all just a belief.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And He claimed non-exclusivity in black and white terms that cannot be refuted or misconstrued by any honest investigator.Matthew 25:31-46.But Rob. Can you ever post anything that is on topic?Why do you continue to post off topic inane stuff like: that is not just pointless, but has NOTHING to do with Pantheism?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You write beautifully Archer, and I normally have to plow through my own reason to reach the end that you easily elucidate.I required the flow of the thread to show me in a simplistic way what it is to be a christian panantheistic in practice.It is the concept on non-denominationalism (a logical fallicy of its own IMO) which say there is no religion equal to God/good and no collection of religions equal to God/good.It is opposed to the idea that one religion is the true path, such as the RCC teaches...that the church is itself the embodiment of good, even though the members are not perfect.You will see above that I think you can meld the idea of good vs evil into that of God vs Creation...not entirely, but the same idea I think.Creation is not evil per se, but the fallen nature of man is what is considered to be temporal or temporary and 'evil' as in not following the Divine Plan.

Amazing, isn't it? That a mental patient could be so irrational? He'd seen enough, apparently.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Understood sir, without re-posting the entire sequence, I will say that there was a good understanding of pantheism by many already in the thread, and my analogy was more to illustrate the 'exclusive/inclusive' idea rather than pantheism itself.It was more to the point that the other workers were excluding the idea that there was only one path...not so much about where they felt the path would ultimately take them. Whether they all reach what they are seeking is yet to be determined.

jar, it was a loose analogy, but as I told Jaderis, the point was not about who was right or wrong, it was about the logic of the action.If some believe the Boss is on every corner, it is logical to drive anywhere you like to reach a corner.If some believe the Boss is on ONE corner, it is logical to drive straight there.The first group has excluded the belief that the Boss is only on one corner.The second has excluded the belief that the Boss is traveling.Both are logical but excluding something.But...if the first group drives in all directions, there is probably more of a chance someone will get to work than if the second group all drives to the same place and finds out there is nothing there.

If you're not going to tell us what you think you can piss of as far as I'm concerned. I'm done with you.Edited by Larni, : SpellinkEdited by Larni, : No reason given.

Scottness, you're wasting your time. Nobody who doesn't already agree with you 100% is gonna find any of this garbage convincing.And now for my opinion on pantheists: they're atheists who call the totality of existence "god."

Very good.I learned this last night after wasting way too much time.Rob started out eager to apply a pat answer (The law of Non-Contradiction) to the illogical nature of a religious ideology that is *all* inclusive.He had no idea what this inclusive religion was called or who practices it, but his response was so brilliant that he created this religion from straw and set it aflame for us all to warm ourselves.When pushed for a reference to this inclusive religion he finally responded that he had talked to some people at one time that held to this belief. And if someone suggested a label for this inclusive religious ideology he jumped at it without doing one scrap of research.He also implied that since his exclusive position is logically it is reasonable and obviously true (ignore the fact that most religions are exclusive).However I did learn some thing of pantheism, panentheism, egotheims, etc. along the way from others. I hope Rob learned something too... but I wonder.

Rob I wrote that quote you misattributed to Jaderis, you were replying to me.Although I am flattered to be mistaken for Jaderis, please be more careful in your attributions in the future. Such sloppiness detracts from your arguments.

Whatever, rob.If you don't care that your message is not getting through to people due to the method of your delivery, then it's your choice to waste your time using ineffective tactics....spitting into the wind, one could describe your way as.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.