egotheistic pantheism revealed...

No, Rob, we all "perceive the point." A non-exclusive religion such as Pantheism says that even though you as a Christian believe that the only path to God is through salvation from Jesus that that is a path to God. Your own exclusivity in your own beliefs does not mean that there are not other paths to God. It does not mean that your exclusive path is indeed the only true path.I guess you are seeing exclusivity on the pantheists' part in that they do not believe that your path is the only path even though you do. They are not excluding your path at all, though. Yes, the paths to God lead to God. That is not to say that any of the paths is the exclusive truth, just that the path itself leads to truth. The path is not the truth, the destination is (kinda like Jar's Maps and Territories bit). See Matthew 25:31-46 Possibly, but they are not excluding your belief that it is true. For them the destination (finding God/the truth) is what is important.

I guess that all depends on who you believe is telling the truth no doesn't it?

So Judaism and Islam or any other exclusive religion have the same things going for them as Christianity? So, within Christianity, Roman Catholics, Coptic Christians, Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, Southern Baptists, etc all have an equal claim to the truth because they exclude others and (claim to) be consistent and non-contradictory?Wow, what a great test you've got there. It should be really easy to figure out the truth, now. But does their supposed deception (I'm just going along with you for the time being) make their claim any less true than yours or or anyone else's?You (or the Bible) saying that there is only one path to God does not mean that the claim that there are infinite paths to God is invalid. It just means that your belief in exclusive salvation through Jesus is as valid as any other path or belief (I'm not saying that this is what the Pantheists say, but as it is the point you seem to be making I'm, again, going with you**). No contradiction there.**BTW I don't think Pantheism (of any strictly defined form) means what you think it means from the context of your OP and subsequent discussions in this thread.The belief that "All is God" (literal definition) or that "We're all connected" (loose interpretation of Naturalistic Pantheism) or that "We're all from God and are within and of the one essence of God" (loose interpretation of Monistic Pantheism) do not in any way imply that the adherendts believe that all religions or paths are true. Of course, many people with varying beliefs identify themselves as Pantheists (as is their right) and do indeed say this, but, maybe you should change your OP to say that you have run into some people who claimed that all religions are true paths to God and re-attempt to knock them down from there.

Ahhh...now you are including love and harmony into the mix when your basic premises haven't been validated. What is the "law of love?" What is the "law of harmony?" And pray tell, what does this have to do with "Pantheism revealed?"

Beautiful, Archer. Thank you

You know this, how?I'm not saying any of this is the case, but could it not be that a spot in a realm of eternal happiness might seem appealing to people who toil and hurt with nearly no reprieve. That they might be conned into believing that if they say the magic words that they might be relieved of their hardships? Who can say either way? Can you tell me for sure that they are not just gobbling up the message without truly welcoming Christ into their hearts? That (gobbling up the message) is not itself a "bad" thing. I believe that much of the Christian philosophy is beautiful and may affect people in ways that would make them love their fellow man more and "do unto others" and all that, but are you sure that all these impoverished people that are eating up the words of the Bibles they buy are truly accepting salvation?If you cannot answer this how can you truthfully say that "they are more in touch with reality?" How can you speak for them at all?This probably off-topic, but I would like to know. If I need to propose a new thread for this I will do so. Just let me know.Edited by Jaderis, : fixed a typo

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.

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.

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.

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.