The religious right or left?

[Maelakin]

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...

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: 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...

Again, the difference between your sig, and my words are mine is a blunt statement of how things ARE in that worldview.

Yours were commenting on a perceived effect on humans minds.

To compare the two is crazy.

[Maelakin]

So you weren’t suggesting that people who believe in Pantheism are in effect just practicing their “mental masturbation” skills?

That is what I got from what you said and as such, it looks like both statements have a correlation to the human mind. I could even take it as far as saying one could read into your statement and believe you meant that they could only think in circles.

As Faceman and I already said, just because you perceive a statement to mean one thing does not mean everyone sees the same in turn. Even though you cannot see the correlation does not mean others cannot. That is the point Faceman was making, and it is a valid point.

[Chewbacca]

I am a panthiest. And while people are certainly free to have problems with pantheism, simplifying the pantheistic beleif as the Universe having a 'wank' with itself is such gross an understatement and mistruth to panthiestic thought, it leads me to beleive that only someone either deeply unknowing about and/or deeply biased against panthisiem could make it.


First, a defintion of pantheism: the doctrine that the Universe taken or concieved of as a whole is God. This is an excellent dictionary definition, but it doesn't go very deep into pantheistic thought about the nature of God, other than God is taken as the whole of the Universe.

So a further defining of the pantheistic concept of God is in order. This pantheist further defines God as Living Infinite Omnipresent Creative Benificial Mind.

Another element of panthiestic thought, is that the infinite universe thinks of itself in finite ways. A most elementary manifestion is that of Gender, or male/femaleness. NOT sex, or having a wank, but qualities that are either active or passive, reflected in terms like: light and dark, yin and yang.

While it can be quite easy to debase this concept of gender and qualify the male/female interaction involved in the universal creative process as 'having a wank with itself'. The problem and error is that using such simpliftic descriptive terms does nothing to qualify the deep profound awe and utter spiritual mystery a panthiest expiriences being part of and interconnected with these inherent qualities of loving creativity, interacting infintinely and manifesting in finite.

Of course I dont expect someone who percieves God as a seperate entity than themselves and creation to understand the depth of panthiest thought and belief. This understanding allows me not to be offended by the off-handed 'wank' understatement But it does provide me with the opportunity to expand on the understatement and begin to provide a more accurate reflection of panthestic thinking.

Any other pantheists in the house? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-31-2003, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: Again, the difference between your sig, and my words are mine is a blunt statement of how things ARE in that worldview. Yours were commenting on a perceived effect on humans minds. To compare the two is crazy.

NO, Yorick, it is NOT crazy to compare the two statements at all. Maelakin and Faceman are absolutely right.

You took offense at Maelakin for making a statement about an idea or mindset because you said that "religion" is not just a generic noun...it is a concept comprised of many individuals that follow that specific mindset....and that Maelakin should have realized an insult to the concept would likely be percieved as a personal insult to the individuals that follow that mindset or believe in that concept.

Yet you make an even more insulting statement about a concept or mindset that you disagree with, then claim that nobody should be offended because you are just calling a spade a spade. You are being just as blind to the feelings of the individuals that follow the mindset or concept you insulted as you accused Maelakin of being towards yours.

And you have been on a serious jag like this for the last week or so...arguing for pages and pages and pages that people must accept YOUR literal definition of various terms (and therefore reluctantly admit that you are right), yet you give no consideration for the fact that others may choose a slightly different - yet no less valid - definition of the term that suits them better.

I'm not sure what's going on with you right now, my friend....but your posts are taking on an increasingly argumentative tone in each thread. You need to step back and take a looooong, deep breath. Then take another 6 or 12 after that. Relax and calm down a bit. Life is too short to be this worked up.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Any other pantheists in the house? [img]smile.gif[/img]

your eloquent and passionate explanation makes me want to learn more. thanks for sharing. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Please define Pantheism.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Please define Pantheism.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Pantheism

Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God ... the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "`Pantheism' ... signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson; Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work-if not pantheists.

[Timber Loftis]

I think Lao Tzu would prefer to be called a Taoist and the Presocratics would prefer to be singled out as well (since most believed in a different Urstoff that made up everything -- from water to fire).

Anyway, thx for the info.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I think Lao Tzu would prefer to be called a Taoist and the Presocratics would prefer to be singled out as well (since most believed in a different Urstoff that made up everything -- from water to fire). Anyway, thx for the info.

I am curious, is "Urstoff" actually a term in English? I would have thought that the English language would rather adopt the Ancient Greek term or a Roman term than take it from German?