egotheistic pantheism revealed...

And an honest one!Thanks again for your well reasoned participation...

deleteEdited by scottness, : No reason given.

I know... Is that why you don't ignore me?
Because I am irrelevant?Not a very Christian thing to say jar... 'that one doesn't matter'.
I have always thought you mattered, and that is why I beat my head against 'this mad buggers wall' of yours....'and after all it's not easy!'As for your comment, that depends on what 'murder' / 'killing' is...You're a Christian. Surely you know...Matthew 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

​

John 7:19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?"

​

John 8:37 I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word.

​

John 8:40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.John 7:20 "You are demon-possessed," the crowd answered. "Who is trying to kill you?"I will not contend with you forever jar...

deleteEdited by scottness, : No reason given.

What you say is irrelevant.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I did not say this.
I believe you are referring to anglagard.

quote:

---

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
It is a carbon copy, not an original since we are dealing with the eternal reality here and not the relative and linear insertion in time of the concept.

​

As John the baptist said of Christ in his time: John 1:30 This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'

---

I do not think you have refuted me at all. You may interpret this particular Bible passage as "proof" that Monism did not precede Christianity, but it is not, by any means, proof.How is Monism not a part of "eternal reality?" What exactly does that mean, anyway?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed quote boxes.

When, Rob? When did you state that you were specifically discussing "egotheistic pantheism?" {Note to latecomers, the title thread changed on 1/15/06 from "Pantheism revealed..." to "egotheistic pantheism revealed..." after it was pointed out multiple times that Rob should define exactly what he was arguing against instead of attacking the more vague umbrella of Pantheism...just in case anyone is confused by my question}Could you please provide a quote? Edited by Jaderis, : fixed quotes

This is at least the third time in a week Rob Scottness has misattributed a post.If someone regularly fails to process basic information about texts right in front of his face, what basis do we have for confidence in his claims to be able to assess texts from ancient times?___Edited by Archer Opterix, : revision.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Rob, do I matter? Do you often find my posts irrelevent and hindering to your discussion with 'important' people? Do you patronize me? Do you ever apologize for your judgements or for assuming that I just want to be 'in'?Can we talk about pantheism? Even the kind which says 'I am God'? There have been sects in the course of history who taught this view, and there have been notable figures who have proposed as much, though I don't believe it is as common as the fundementalists who quotemine say it is.Can we again discuss why it is a fraud?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Do you have anything remotely resembling evidence for any of these points? So you wanted to kill Christians (either physically or metaphorically...or both, I suppose) before you became one?It is interesting that you speak of projection because you seem to be projecting your own past motives to any and all who do not adhere to your religion. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way, Rob. We are not each other or anyone else and you cannot presume to speak to anyone else's motives. Personally, I save my mocking for individual people who prove to me that they are deserving of my derision. I don't do whole groups. However, Muslims have been covered by many equal opportunity mockers (and probably some more specialized mockers as well). So your "Pantheists" are commie terrorist sympathizers who only make fun of poor, trampled upon Christians and would love nothing more than to see the downfall of the church, but other mono-theistic religions (especially Islam) are just dandy?I think that that is the most strawmen I have ever seen in one post...nice job!

Oh, Rob, Rob, Rob. You poor, tired, huddled mass.Let's talk. Speaking accurately about anything starts with taking care about categories.You are not 'Christianity.'And it impresses nobody when you romanticize yourself as the embodiment of an entire religion and all its martyrs combined, then congratulate yourself in the next breath on your humility.Humility starts by owning your own ideas. Others decide the worth of those ideas. That includes everyone, corporeal and incorporeal, within earshot.That's how these things work. It works that way regardless of the approach you take. No one gets to write their own myth.You may as well proceed on a reality basis. Why not just state your case as clearly as you can, and then sit back and do some listening?___Edited by Archer Opterix, : title.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brevity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I enjoy listening to other points of view...even Robs. I think that Rob is undergoing a learning curve if he chooses to embrace it. If God could speak through a donkey, he certainly can speak through a room of eclectic EvC irregulars!

I've just been busy. I think the conversation between Mod and myself showed the reasonable side of reasonable parties.If anyone has a problem with the edited post #1, then have at it.My apologies for misattributing those qualitites to pantheists 'in general'. Of course there is a learning curve.The rest of you seem use the opportunity of correction to throw out the baby with the rest of the cliche.I firmly believe, that egotheistic pantheists, have taken pantheism to it's logical conclusion. That doesn't make 'pantheism proper' correct. It just distinguishes it from the more active and relevant form today.That may be a moderated opinion from the original OP, but it is an honest one that explains what I saw, without having completely put the pieces together.There are really only one or two others here besides myself who appear to be interested in actually developing the theme, and looking at it with an open and reasonable mind. I am not implying they agree either.My thanks to them...By the Way, C.S. Lewis almost became a pantheist. And he said 'that it is not sso much false, as hopelessly behind the times. At one time it would have been correct to say that all is God. but then God created things to be other than Himself.'In other words, God created an angel who is Chaos. A beautiful creature if it's place is used rightly, as are we.There is more to consider about these last two satements, but I cannot get to it now, and this is really not the thread (technically). And I maust go to work and will not return for at least a day.Time to go truckin'...Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

I was looking for critical attribution (the baby) that formed the thesis of your OP. You still have not provided that.I am not even sure that egotheism holds that "all path lead to where they are". I am not sure egotist would reject/accept your narrow view. All you have said to date is that you have talked to someone that holds that belief.You have not done your homework.You are attacking a windmills with all the same imagined nobility of Don Quixote and comparing yourself to the martyrs. If you want to be a martyr go preach the gospel somewhere in the middle east, not anonymously on the internet. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.