Quote:
Originally posted by Cloudbringer:
Yorick, I realize all to well you are fired up and full of zest for your topic but it may be a bit overpowering for some of the people here and I'd like to ask you to ease up just a little bit. Take a break, please and then come back and re-read some of what has been posted, before you post again on this thread.
In general, Religion is one of those topics that can raise people's ire faster than any other I know, possibly including politics.  If we want to keep it open as a potential discussion issue on IW, we need to keep the discussion civil and respectful. When people start feeling irritable and angry or frustrated with anyone else or the topic at large, it's time to take a break.
|
Cloudy, if you'll notice there is a three day break in my posts where I actually did do that.
Religion can be touchy, yes, but it should be noted I am debating IDEAS not people. The mantra for discussion is "debate the idea, not the person". I have not said:
Panthesists are stupid.
Pantheists do not think for themselves.
Pantheists are arrogant.
Pantheists are heartless self centred people.
I have not made generalised comments of derision about the people. I have made comments about IDEAS. I have explored those ideas. Even the much maligned "having a wank" is applied to ME, if I apply MY WORLDVIEW into a pantheistic context.
Christianity and more commonly CHRISTIANS on this forum is attacked consistently. Whenever another worldview gets some flak people cry foul.
It is impossible to debate an idea properly without either saying the other person is wrong, and therefore risk offending them.There is however a line between attacking a person, and attacking an idea they hold.
If you enter a discussion about religion, you have to be aware that people will suggest you are wrong, and people will argue against your ideas. As long as they do not insult you personally, suggest you are a moron, sheep, or whatever, all should be expected.
Debates about religion can be immensely enjoyable. I have said exactly the same thing to pantheist friends of mine, and we have laughed about it. If a person is offended by a challenge to an idea, they CHOOSE to be offended. Or they can choose to take it on board and explore the weaknesses of an idea, and strengthen it through the debate. Or change it as the case may be.
If you believe the universe is God exploring himself, there are certain logical consequences of that thought, just as if you believe God created everything, there are certain consequences to that thought.
If I had jumped up in arms the first time someone explained a logical consequence of my beliefs like "Oh, you believe God created everything? Then he must have created evil"
Oh the offense!!!
No
Not at all. I looked and explored the consequence and came to the greater realisation that negative is necessary to have positive. That for love to exist, free will must exist, and that it must include the opposites of attraction and love - rejection and fear.
So while I rejected the conclusion "God created evil" I accepted the assertion "God created the possibility and potential for evil, when he created "good"" Just as in creating life, he created death if that life will at some point end. Death is actually necessary to have a concept of life. An alternate state of existence must exist to give knowledge of a situation, or the situation simply "IS" and remains uncomprehended.
I was 18 or so, and heard a record by Roger Waters "Amused to death". An anti-God song called "What God wants". It led to an open challenge of what I believed, and to what I believe is now greater understanding, and greater awe for the genius, courage and love my God has and is.
So... in explaining a logical consequence of pantheism, I am simply offering some challenges a pantheist can use for enlightenment, either within their existing worldview, or without. The worldview "Panentheism", is one such result.