egotheistic pantheism revealed...

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, 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. 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. And here is the conclusion: You are actually calling out egotheism not pantheism.

from wiki:

quote:

---

In a New Age context, egotheism can mean the deification of the self. Identification of the self, in some sense, with the divine, is a tenet of Hinduism (Atman as the "true self"), as well as certain versions of Christianity (as in the theology of St. Athanasios, that God became man so that man could become God). Complete identification of the self with God has been equated with atheism.

---

This new age stuff you are talking about seems clearly egotheism that has come from a Hindu culture.

Not only is pantheism not monolithic - but you aren't talking about any form of pantheism at all. At no point during your discussions does the concept that 'the entirety of existence is divinity itself' or 'the cosmos is God itself' come into it. It is just going to confuse the matter if you are going to use different definitions of words.

You are still making the leap that being one with the divine is the same as being God. And you are ultimately making the point that being a small part of something is the same as being the something.Is a carbon atom on your big toe, Rob?Being one with the divine is not pantheism.
Being God is not pantheism.Sure - being made out of the same substance of the divine is closing in on the concept, though that is of course, monism rather than pantheism.I'd give it up as a bad job and simply change the words you are using because they are misleading and are distracting from whatever points your are trying to make.

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?

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.

A fair compromise, I feel.