Sure... pantheism. My problem with pantheism is that if it's right, the universe is having a big wank. Whereas Christianity paints a picture of a creator God loving us. Loving another person vs masturbating. Which would you do if you were omnipotent and able to do anything and everything?
</font>[/QUOTE]Yorick, this is offensive. Maybe he doesn't believe as strongly in Pantheism as you do in Christianity but if he does this is a thoughtless insult to his spiritual beliefs :(

Yorick, this is offensive. Maybe he doesn't believe as strongly in Pantheism as you do in Christianity but if he does this is a thoughtless insult to his spiritual beliefs :( [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]??? Insulting? How so.If the universe is all one being, then me loving God is me loving myself. I'm simply telling it like it is. If all is the one entity, then through life we are simply exploring ourself.

I'm pointing out, that if God is omnipotent and can do anything, why would he choose to explore himself/itself, instead of creating seperate awarenessess to give and receive love?

I used a crude example, but that's intentional. It's how I see it. Wank or sex, what would you choose?

I believe God IS omnipotent, and if he could, would do the most wonderful thing he could, simply because as an artist "he can".

If we are God, or if we are made in his image, the way of reaching that conclusion is the same. Know yourself, and you can get a window into the mind of God. I know what I would do if I were an omnipotent, eternal awareness. I would create another entity to share everything with.

[ 10-30-2003, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

IF, yorick. that's exactly the point. YOU believe that, but others dont, or may not necessarily. Faceman's just pointing out the need for consideration.

I was hoping that after your soul baring post you would have tried harder than this to be understanding of others. :confused:

You have pointed out on another thread that you are not insulted by truths.
Yet other people are not as calm as you on this. I for example am currently VERY overweight (need to loose about 40kgs). I know I am, but if someone told me to the face I still would be insulted/offended, because it hurts me to be reminded of that truth :(
So it's not about proving if your statement was right. It simply carried the possibility of being offensive by choice of words: <font color=#00FFFF>"So you believe in a masturbating universe, big deal"</font> <font color=#009999>not an actual quote, just paraphrasing</font>) which diminishes the value of the presumed divine essence by connecting it with something which in religions is commonly referred to as unclean or even sinful.

Many Christians would find it offensive if somebody diminished the importance of Jesus by calling him factually correct but simplicistic names, probably I would find that offensive myself, though an agnostic, only because I was raised in a Catholic enviroment and don't like my childhood pictures being shattered.


So whether or not your statement may be deemed correct, I think it is possibly offensive to people who strongly believe in pantheism in a similar way Maelakin's sig was offensive to you at the beginning of the other thread.

[ 10-30-2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

IF, yorick. that's exactly the point. YOU believe that, but others dont, or may not necessarily. Faceman's just pointing out the need for consideration.

I was hoping that after your soul baring post you would have tried harder than this to be understanding of others. :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]??? I put down an "IF". IF so, then THUS.

Look, should I couch the terms? Soften them up? How else do I make a point? The point remains whether it's euphemistic or not.

I used the example to a pantheist friend the other day. He goes to my church. Great guy. He laughed when I made it. He wasn't offended because IT'S TRUE!!

If the universe and everything is one entity, then I am loving myself when I love my God.

If the Creator is a seperate awareness to me, then when I love my God, I am loving another being.

How else do you want me to put it? That is my singular problem with pantheism. What am I to do?

"Oh yes... I have a problem with pantheism, but I can't express it here". ;)

A dedicated pantheist would agree with me... "oh yes it is like that". What's the big deal? A dedicated pantheist would agree and then say "but I still believe this is how it is. I believe I am part of a being having a toss".

We all need to know the pro's and cons of our worldview. If that's what it is, then that's what it is.

For the umpteenth time, Maelakins sig targetted PEOPLE. It made derisive remarks about people who hold certain ideas.

Where is the insult in my comment? It is focussing on the IDEA.

Argue the point, not the person is the mantra for forum discussion. I am indeed arguing the point. A pantheist could be a genius. I know many Pantheists are brilliant. Confucious being one. Pantheists can be compassionate, explorative, retentive, self aware and spirited individuals like any other.

The IDEA is what i challenged. Lets understand the difference, please. ;)

Oh and Faceman... what is the problem with self love again?

There are two types of men. Ones that admit they masturbate, and ones that lie about it. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

But in this case people are a part of the IDEA (which is the whole point of the idea). And these people might be offended if you're calling them "A part of a big wank". That's all I was saying.

ADD] Maelakin's sig was also targetting an idea ("Religion") and not people directly, but because religion is an idea which implies people as a part of it. the sig was offensive.

[ 10-30-2003, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

The problem is that (due to the people that lie about it) it is not commonly accepted and widely considered shameful.
You know very well that this is again not the point.
Calling someone an ass and then going on explaining that an ass is actually a very smart animal and that he shouldn't be feeling insulted is not incredibly mature.
Again, possible offensiveness lies in subjective observation not in objective argumentation.

[ 10-30-2003, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

As Faceman stated, I also was targeting an idea. His example actually proves his point very well. He is stating that even though you meant no offense towards people, they still might find offense in what you said.

This is why I actually believe in true freedom of speech. If we go around censoring everything we find offensive, sooner or later someone will find something we say offensive when we do not see it that way.

And then we get censored. Stupid cycles...