egotheistic pantheism revealed...

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.

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.

Jerry and George are at Monk's...Seinfeld; So, I met a preacher man today.George; And?Seinfeld; Well, he said his religion was the only one that didn't contradict itself.George; How can dat be? How's dat even possible?Seinfeld; The other ones pretend to be ABOVE religion, take the pantheists...George; But that's a religion!!Seinfeld; Exactly! which means the pantheists MUST be lying! If they are liars, their religion must be wrong.Kramer comes in...George; Jerry said the pantheists are liars.Kramer; What's a pantheist?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Dear Rob, you know I don't mean to mock, and I don't mean to mock you. I had a post there which I thought was going somewhere...but I have found that I am running into walls on all sides with this one. Either over-thinking, missing something, or getting lost in the terms, I am no closer to an answer after all of this...perhaps not an answer, but an understanding.It is not about being 'in' or 'out' to me. I only feel frustrated with you in the way that others might...it is so hard to tell what you are saying sometimes. And that is NOT because of my evil spirits or lack of Spirit.I don't want to see you cop-out of your position. I want to know exactly what you are saying with your own words. No allusions, no figurative language. No room for our own interpretations.

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.

All I know is that if I were a pantheist I could not be Catholic too.
Sounds mutually exlcusive to me.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

There's a difference between talking 'through' a donkey and talking 'over' a donkey, and not one that requires elevation. Talking 'over' a donkey seems a good strategy for those who wish to be heard 'above' the braying.

Ideally, the same thing you do when you love anyone. You do what needs to be done, wash, clean the house, make dinner and pay the bills without grumbling. You respect their wishes and act in a manner that brings respect to their name. You share your sentiments of love in private and amongst friends, lest your love be misconstrued as infatuation. You maintain reason, lest your love seem irrational, and with steadfast loyalty and joy, show to others that they are worthy of that love.

I at times grow impatient as well with the questions which arise in myself, and without hope of a productive dialog and working definitons, it is all too easy to take part in the 'onslaught'.I don't often express a strong opinion one way or another here, but pantheism is a tender spot for me. Often when I would be on my way to church my cousins would more or less stick up their noses and say they prefer to be in nature, and that nature is their church. Not that they necessarily gave up the idea of a personal God...but somehow I felt sad that they had 'claimed' nature and rejected me as one of those 'organized religion' people, hopelessly lost kneeling in dark aisles. Yet, I have always had a feeling for the world and the environment that went beyond mere respect, and I can even say I feel God in the world.When I spent time at the monastery in Vermont, with acres of virgin woods and rivers, I could wander the fields all day...then always with the dawn and with the dusk, the bell would ring and we would come together and chant the psalms. Being in church was almost an extension and a natural conclusion to the order of the day and nature. Out in the 'real' world, it seems like you have to pick one 'cause' or another; you are either too rigid or too natural. Catholic papers almost denounce environmental concerns like preservation and humane treatment of animals, all around me are cries for more 'awareness' and less of this praying for invisible help. While my own theology is one of a transcendant and personal God, I am disappointed at such strict delineation of purpose. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well, wouldn't that work both ways? Why do you have to choose where to find God...church or nature?My point really has nothing to do with the architecture or grandiosity of a building...some churches entirely suck in regards to feeling 'uplifted' in them. Maybe I am going to church for the wrong reasons, since I usually get really mad at ugly churches What I am saying is that buidings are just places to house people...to have services in, to gather worshippers. Religion isn't housed in a building, but when I am done in nature I have no problem going into a building to pray. I get disappointed at the buildings, and the people in them, but I have seem some ideal situations where there was no harsh incongruity. As nuns, we DID pray in nature, every night when it was nice out. Or we chanted in church while violent storms howled outside. It was all ebb and flow, and blurring of lines. Just because it's not like that out here, I can't give up the ideal, and I don't have to chose between 'Good' and 'Good'.

I don't expect a Catholic paper to say saving trees is equivalent to saving the lives of the unborn...but I don't like quotes which sound like saving trees isn't important at ALL; Sorry, but I don't trust people who hate nature, no matter what camp they're in, and I don't like over-kill activists on any side either. I have too much trouble distinguishing the loonies from the heroes. I guess I can gracefully admit my losses, huh? Thanks though.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Yep, that's the only Phat we know. But with pantheism, that would be the only Phat there is Phat who is the sum of his creations, Phat who is in every single post whether it is long, or short, ambitious, or trivial.There's no 'real' Phat at home, or if there is he definitely doesn't have a telephone...oh, or a 'reply' button for his messages. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Statistics show that Americans are growing Phatter all the time

You said; I do hope you know what he means, Rob. I think Archer is one of the most spiritual people here. Perhaps that is my bias, but being an artist I know artists CAN NOT survive without the element of the spiritual.The Trinity is for example a logically valid conclusion given the evidence we have/don't have. Whether or not it is true or false is not possible to determine. And believe me, I have been a christian for longer than you have, and it is not possible still. Even if it is the most logical conclusion, it is not possible to say it is true, or it is false.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.