The religious right or left?

[Timber Loftis]

It's a Timberism. [img]tongue.gif[/img] I didn't feel like typing out "the substance that everything is comprised of."

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I think Lao Tzu would prefer to be called a Taoist...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Taoism is a pantheistic religion.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by 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.

Not at all. I love my God. I love others. I love with much passion, verve and feeling. To suggest that I am loving myself, rather than other awarenesses is as I described it. Is it a crude definition? Yes. Is it a simplification? Yes. It breaks the whole theory down into it's basest form. Which is the essence of true understanding. Simplify, simplify, simplify. The fool overcomplicates things.

Now, that said, any argument against that simplification should challenge the assertion itself, not whether someone should make that assertion. What a challenge on free speech, on discussion that it. Not being allowed to accurately describe a theology or worldview in simple, understandable terms?

That is my issue with pantheism. That is why I do not accept it. Are we all to remain in the dark about how things really are?

If someone has a problem with Jesus, with giving their life to God, has a problem with Grace, I would prefer to hear it. Honesty. Speak out your problem in the simplest way possible. What I have problems with are MISCONCEPTIONS and halftruths.

So, considering my issue with it, explain to me how I am incorrect, if you indeed believe I am. To simply extol some ethereal wonderment and joy is meaningless. Let me be the judge of whether I find something joyous based on my own point of reference.

It's like Buddhas Nirvana. He describes it as bliss. Yet when we look deeper into what it is, it is described as the loss of self, obliteration. In effect ceasing to exist as an awareness.

Now, that to me is not bliss. Based on my own standard of joy that is horrifying to me. In actual fact, that is my "hell". Ceasing to exist is what I believe eternal seperation from God is.

Therefore, it is pointless to simply speak about 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.

How you may or may not FEEL does not provide any rebuttal, any proof or any reason to accept the theory. I could come back an present my own deep profound joy and pronounced feelings.

What am I feeling if I am correct? Let's look at it disconnected from emotion for a moment. What am I feeling? I am loving a seperate awareness. What am I feeling if I am incorrect? I am loving myself.

However you word it, however you describe it - awe, bliss, uncomprehending wonderment - COMPARED TO loving a seperate Creator awareness, if using the ANALOGY of sex, the METAPHOR of physical love, the ALLEGORY of love, it is indeed like masturbating when compared to sex with another.

Allegory, metaphor, analogy. Elaborate and complicate all you want. We can both do that. When both are reduced to their simplest terms that is what we are left with, and that is my deepest problem with accepting it as truth.

[Faceman]

I am not a Pantheist nor do I know enough about Pantheism to constuctively enter a serious discussion about it.
I have never contested your view on Pantheism Yorick, but you choice of words.
I love simplifying, I really do. And when I'm discussing with only people I know I will often use the most crude and simplicistic metaphors available even if they are offensive.
This however is a public board and in public discussion you gotta be a bit mor careful. If some of your metaphors offer obvious possibilities of offense you should IMHO find other metaphors that do not.
Whatever your concept of it may be, "to wank" or "wanker" are swear-words and to compare another's religion to such may be offensive to him.
If it's only a metaphor I can't see why you won't let it go and just find another.

[Maelakin]

In simplistic terms, religion is nothing more than an attempt to explain what we do not understand. So, according to your own sentiment, why do you believe again? It sure isn’t the simplest reasoning.

In response, do not provide any garbage hearsay about what you have witnessed. You cannot prove that so it is not evidence. If you can’t provide proof, tell me why I should have allowed you to take offense at my signature.

Anyways, as usual in conversations in these circumstances….

Hello, meet brick wall.

[Timber Loftis]

My religion is the simplest of all. The universe simply IS. It is eternal. It wasn't PUT here by some being I can't fathom. It IS and always will be. Why create an "unmoved mover" to explain that which can be explained with a two-letter word: IS.

If you can't fathom eternity, extrapolating it one level and personifying it won't make it any easier. You still end up with something that is "all" (all-knowing, infinite, all-powerful, etc.) -- why not simply accept that "all" is above you, around you, beneath you? In the rock, the air, the water. Feel it flow through you and become as one.

Oh, wait, I'm Yodaizing again.

[ 11-05-2003, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Chewbacca]

More expressions of my panthiestic thinking....
...Refering to a previous thought...God, the whole infinite universe, thinks of itself in finite ways for various reasons that can be considered. One reason, this pantheist beleives, is because being infinite and omnipresent is mutually exclusive to being finite and simply present. One is inconcievable to another. Try conceiving infinity in a lifetime, it can only be impossible unless your individual consciousnous spends eternity doing it.

The infinite universe, so completely knowing itself as one, created the temporal and finite reality as we know it so that it could creatively explore what it was like to percieve reality while 'forgetting' being infinite and omnipresent.

The catch is, how does a infinite and omnipresent mind "forget" it is infinite and omnipresent? That answer is creativity. God created the finite and temporal reality that we know in order to expirience "seperate" awareness therefore creating a reality that allowed for "forgetting". A reality that made truly concieving being infinite infintely temporarily impossible.

By creating this reality of percieved seperateness, God made it possible for seperate awarenesses, individuals, to give and receive love.

God made it possible to disbelieve God.

God made it possible for life to exist in ways that it cannot if it's knowable defintion was purely infinite and omnipresent.

God made it possible for the universe to hold mystery, revelation, and beauty to behold.

Ect.

God made finite in order to love, be creative, to live, and to think in different terms than infinite, yet at the same time still being infinite and omnipresent. At the same time loving and creating and thinking in the inconcievable way that only infinite omnipresence can.

Participating in the expirience of oneness, expiriencing love not only with God, but as part of God and all of interconnected existence, with individuals near and far, is so beyond a crude example like "having a wank with itself" that I do not have space for the words to describe how beyond, for the words would go on for infinity.

I must add, I am not trying to prothlysize, or debate the meaning of God. I am offering a glimpse at what a 'devout' self-taught and self-proclaimed Pantheist believes about the nature of the universe simply because it is a distinct alternative to the debasing simplification that the universe is 'having a wank with itself'.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: In simplistic terms, religion is nothing more than an attempt to explain what we do not understand. So, according to your own sentiment, why do you believe again? It sure isn’t the simplest reasoning. In response, do not provide any garbage hearsay about what you have witnessed. You cannot prove that so it is not evidence. If you can’t provide proof, tell me why I should have allowed you to take offense at my signature. Anyways, as usual in conversations in these circumstances…. Hello, meet brick wall.

I'm not sure what you mean here... "we"? I was under the impression you are not religious, and/or don't possess faith. If this impression is correct, how then are you able to make a comment such as this? Are you speaking for every human?

Speaking purely personally, my faith is based on understanding, and is the result of knowledge. Without understanding and knowledge I would have no faith.

Surely I should comment on what MY faith is rather than you. My religion, would be a series of actions. My Christianity is a faith, a relationship, not a religion per se, as it is not based on works and actions.

Therefore, just as in any other relationship, knowledge is what increases the relationship. Knowledge of self, of the second party and knowledge of the nature of relationship itself.

As for the brick wall, that insult is both incorrect and uncalled for. One does not need to agree to demonstrate either comprehension of, nor open assessment of opposing ideas. Unless you are dictating that only your methods and conclusions are valid.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: More expressions of my panthiestic thinking.... ...Refering to a previous thought...God, the whole infinite universe, thinks of itself in finite ways for various reasons that can be considered. One reason, this pantheist beleives, is because being infinite and omnipresent is mutually exclusive to being finite and simply present. One is inconcievable to another. Try conceiving infinity in a lifetime, it can only be impossible unless your individual consciousnous spends eternity doing it. The infinite universe, so completely knowing itself as one, created the temporal and finite reality as we know it so that it could creatively explore what it was like to percieve reality while 'forgetting' being infinite and omnipresent. The catch is, how does a infinite and omnipresent mind "forget" it is infinite and omnipresent? That answer is creativity. God created the finite and temporal reality that we know in order to expirience "seperate" awareness therefore creating a reality that allowed for "forgetting". A reality that made truly concieving being infinite infintely temporarily impossible. By creating this reality of percieved seperateness, God made it possible for seperate awarenesses, individuals, to give and receive love. God made it possible to disbelieve God. God made it possible for life to exist in ways that it cannot if it's knowable defintion was purely infinite and omnipresent. God made it possible for the universe to hold mystery, revelation, and beauty to behold. Ect. God made finite in order to love, be creative, to live, and to think in different terms than infinite, yet at the same time still being infinite and omnipresent. At the same time loving and creating and thinking in the inconcievable way that only infinite omnipresence can. Participating in the expirience of oneness, expiriencing love not only with God, but as part of God and all of interconnected existence, with individuals near and far, is so beyond a crude example like "having a wank with itself" that I do not have space for the words to describe how beyond, for the words would go on for infinity. I must add, I am not trying to prothlysize, or debate the meaning of God. I am offering a glimpse at what a 'devout' self-taught and self-proclaimed Pantheist believes about the nature of the universe simply because it is a distinct alternative to the debasing simplification that the universe is 'having a wank with itself'.

Again, I have problems with this on a number of levels.

Firstly, your perception may be correct for you, but not for me. In a physical sense I perceive myself as finite, yes. However in a life sense I perceive of myself as infinite. I perceive of myself as an eternal awareness that will live forever. That is my perception of self. Yours is clearly different. It does not seem that your worldview allows for my selfperception however. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Secondly, again I ask, what is the greater achievement?

To intentionally forget oneself so one can rediscover oneself.

or

To create other awarenesses to discover and have relationship with oneself.

With Pantheism, I see no motive for creation. Why would a perfect God do this forgetting? Wouldn't an omniscient God already know what it is to rediscover oneself? To me it makes life purposless and bleak. Honestly. I confronted pantheism and gave it serious thought 14 years ago. The prospect of it being reality filled me with such bleakness, lonliness and purposelessness.

It's intentional limitation for what purpose? To rediscover what one already knows??

Compare it to the worldview that God created everything as an expression of love, and created human souls to experience that love, and give it back in return. The universe is created as both a means for discovery and to simply be enjoyed. Every discovery is subsequently new, not reclaiming lost ground.

I use myself and my understanding of what it is to create as a litmus test. As an artist, I get most enjoyment when others appreciate my art. I can get self satisfaction sure... but more satisfaction comes from sharing it.

So again, I reason that a God that CAN do anything, WOULD do the greater acheivement with the most gain.

The God I believe in is beyond limitation. The God I believe in expressed and loves, and I newly discover, receive and then give love back.

[ 11-05-2003, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: It's like Buddhas Nirvana. He describes it as bliss. Yet when we look deeper into what it is, it is described as the loss of self, obliteration. In effect ceasing to exist as an awareness.

We? The idea put forth is nothing like what I have gotten out of studying buddhism and practicing buddist methods. Basically this is merely your opinion, your interpretation, and I think it is flawed.

Therefore, it is pointless to simply speak about 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. How you may or may not FEEL does not provide any rebuttal, any proof or any reason to accept the theory. I could come back an present my own deep profound joy and pronounced feelings.

I wasn't providing a rebuttal, for I am not debating or prothlysizing for that matter. In the most simple terms I can muster, I am providing a veiwpoint on panthiestic thinking to contrast a biased, inadequate, and shamelessly debasing veiwpoint put forth by a non-pantheist.