The religious right or left?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: 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. [/QUOTE][sarcasm]Oh yeah, well my God can kick your God's ass. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/sarcasm]

Seriously, out of RESPECT for the Christians on this forum, I will refrain from listing what problems I have with the idea of the Christian God here.

I already explained that I wasn't looking to prothlysize or have a God debate, so I must question your motive to replying to my post like this Yorick.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by 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.

I would like to debating you concerning what the meaning of the word "is" is.

You first. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by 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.

There is simply no other way of describing what I was seeking to describe. Sorry. Offense or no, that's how I see it. I would have hoped respect for honest and challenging discussions between searchers of truth would have been more important than censorship and euphemistic pandering to shameful insecurities. It seems I am wrong.

So.... as a result we now have divergent discussions, as a couple of issues have been raised.

Firstly, masturbation. Wanking. Self love. Whatever you want to call it, euphemisticly or bluntly.

You, the self proclaimed atheist, used religion as a justifier, citing shame, guilt and sin as elements which give it a negative connotation, therefore making it forbidden in a discussion about the nature of the universe, despite it's applicability.

I, as the fundamentalist Christian extremist, am quite comfortable with speaking about a practice generally held to be practiced by all men, and a vast majority of women.

Surely we can see the irony here. And yet a truth becomes apparent. My faith has removed GUILT and CONDEMNATION. My faith has increased SELF ACCEPTANCE.

So. Let's explore it a little further. Why do you regard it as a negative? Why is it so negative to you, that it is inadmissable as an appropriate simplification? What about it is so offensive and horrifying?

*It doesn't hurt anyone.
*It doesn't adversely affect anyone.
*It's a pleasurable experience.

The only negative thing about it is precisely why I brought it up. It is not as good as sex. Self love is not as fulfilling and satisfying as being with another person. Or to be blunt and straight to the point, wanking isn't as good as sex.

Because that is so apparent and so clear and so obvious, I made the analogy with loving, discovering, communicating with, and exploring God and his art, as seen under pantheistic and monotheistic worldviews.

My whole life is about love. The reason for existence I have stumbled upon is love. I believe the bible when it says, "God is love". I believe the bible when it says "We love him, because he first loved us".

It stands to reason, if this is my reality, that if love is my reason for existence, that I would be EXTREMELY dissatisfied with a worldview that says I am having a toss.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by 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.

There is simply no other way of describing what I was seeking to describe. Sorry. Offense or no, that's how I see it. I would have hoped respect for honest and challenging discussions between searchers of truth would have been more important than censorship and euphemistic pandering to shameful insecurities. It seems I am wrong.

So.... as a result we now have divergent discussions, as a couple of issues have been raised.

Firstly, masturbation. Wanking. Self love. Whatever you want to call it, euphemisticly or bluntly.

You, the self proclaimed atheist, used religion as a justifier, citing shame, guilt and sin as elements which give it a negative connotation, therefore making it forbidden in a discussion about the nature of the universe, despite it's applicability.

I, as the fundamentalist Christian extremist, am quite comfortable with speaking about a practice generally held to be practiced by all men, and a vast majority of women.

Surely we can see the irony here. And yet a truth becomes apparent. My faith has removed GUILT and CONDEMNATION. My faith has increased SELF ACCEPTANCE.

So. Let's explore it a little further. Why do you regard it as a negative? Why is it so negative to you, that it is inadmissable as an appropriate simplification? What about it is so offensive and horrifying?

*It doesn't hurt anyone.
*It doesn't adversely affect anyone.
*It's a pleasurable experience.

The only negative thing about it is precisely why I brought it up. It is not as good as sex. Self love is not as fulfilling and satisfying as being with another person. Or to be blunt and straight to the point, wanking isn't as good as sex.

Because that is so apparent and so clear and so obvious, I made the analogy with loving, discovering, communicating with, and exploring God and his art, as seen under pantheistic and monotheistic worldviews.

My whole life is about love. The reason for existence I have stumbled upon is love. I believe the bible when it says, "God is love". I believe the bible when it says "We love him, because he first loved us".

It stands to reason, if this is my reality, that if love is my reason for existence, that I would be EXTREMELY dissatisfied with a worldview that says I am having a toss.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: 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.

So explain Nirvana without using emotive and subjective words such as "wonderful" or "bliss". Describe to me the STATE Nirvana is that you believe Buddha speaks about.

I believe I have more than adequately understood Buddhas worldview. I have compared it tothe understanding of Buddhists with more experience than you. My last in-depth conversation with a practicing Buddhist, was with a Buddhist Monk when we were both visiting Japan. I have also compared it with a Buddhist temple medium, who discovered Christ and became a worship leader of a huge Singaporean Church. He and I recorded songs together amidst hearty discussion.

The conclusions I drew from reading Buddhas description of Nirvana, is accurate, when one removes the subjective pronouncements of positive experience, and reads only the nature of the state of (non)existence.

But if I am wrong, prove it to me. I certainly don't want to walk around with a misconception. Feel free to describe and show me the relevent descriptions which you believe prove my error. Thanks in advance.

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.

Biased? I looked at pantheism and rejected it. I know church-going Jesus lovers, who are pantheists or panentheists. I could incorporate pantheism into my worldview and yet still follow Jesus. I simply believe it to be incorrect. I cannot accept it, based on my understanding of myself, life, the world, and God. Sorry. That's all there is to it.

[ 11-05-2003, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Chewbacca]

Yorick,

Implying that people who disagree with your debasing, simplistic analogy of pantheistic belief as "the universe having a wank with itself" are only doing so out of some sort of shame or embarrassment of masturbation is absurd. Really, really absurd.

I think you are simply out to attack beliefs that are different than yours, to make you own appear superior.

I can think of no other logical explanation for your biased attacks on just about every religion and philosophy that isn't your own brand of Christianity. Why don't you go back to attacking Mormonism or Islam and leave us Pantheists out of the thoughtless, proselytizing drivel.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Yorick, Implying that people who disagree with your debasing, simplistic analogy of pantheistic belief as "the universe having a wank with itself" are only doing so out of some sort of shame or embarrassment of masturbation is absurd. Really, really absurd. I think you are simply out to attack beliefs that are different than yours, to make you own appear superior. I can think of no other logical explanation for your biased attacks on just about every religion and philosophy that isn't your own brand of Christianity. Why don't you go back to attacking Mormonism or Islam and leave us Pantheists out of the thoughtless, proselytizing drivel.

1.I was speaking specifically to Faceman (whom I quoted), who had expressed a problem with it. I was not replying to you. I was addressing his specific issue, which you can quite clearly follow if you read his argument.

2.You are wrong.

3.How about a genuine search for truth boyo? Left that out of the equation right? Try reading my words with even the slightest idea that maybe I am an openminded searcher who has found serious problems with paths he's investigated. They are not attacks, but expressions of the conclusions resultant from honest openminded exploration. If you cannot put aside whatever preconceptions you have about Christians to take what I say at FACE VALUE, instead of reading nonexistant motives between the lines, what hope is there of genuine discussion?

Belittling my endeavors to write honest, explainative words as "proselytising drivel" is a lame insult that makes me wonder if you've even been reading what I've written at all.

What a waste of time.

Why, might I ask, is Pikachu posting blatant untruths and attacks on my faith and my church, without a murmur from you, yet I am unable to debate an worldview without it being labelled "biassed" and "drivel".

It seems there are double standards amongst Wookies.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: It seems there are double standards amongst Wookies.

Prove it please. While you are at it, prove I have preconceptions about Christians.

Its plain that you constistently belittle other worldviews while at the same time putting yours up on a pedalstal. Im fed up with it.

I would rather have a ban on religious discussion on IW than put up with it anymore, as much as I enjoy exchanging ideas with people who aren't out to attack other people's philosophical stance just to push their own as better.

[ 11-05-2003, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Faceman]

To clarify some things,

1. I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic
2. I was baptized, confirmed and raised as a Catholic and unlike others I hold the greatest respect for Christian (especially Catholic) faith and if I was discussing about the objective superiority of any faith (which would be pointless because religion is a subjective matter) I'd vote for Christianity as the best.
3. I see no shame in masturbation and I have no problem with it other than the
one you describer, sex is better.
4. Even if one has no problem with masturbation it remains that "having a wank" is a peiorative figure of speech in common use of language.
5. I was not offended by you statement, I simply pointed out that others may be.
-
The bottom line is that you might have offended people, not whether you are right or wrong in either your definition of pantheism or your conception of masturbation.
And don't go playing the free speech card. If you are out to offend a group of people free speech doesn't apply anymore, because the good of the many outweighs the good of the few (you in that case) in our society. You don't go around calling homosexuals b**tf***ers just because you think that is the most accurate and simplicistic description, because it is offensive. And the offense doesn't chage if you put a "IMHO" next to it.
If it's you opinion and it clearly is offensive to others keep it to yourself and try to express it in a way that will spawn a legitimate discussion instead of just name-calling. It is called being considerate.

[Cloudbringer]

Ok- I see that tempers and or sheer frustration are showing up here. I would like to see this thread sit for a few days and let those who want to continue to participate in it have a breather.

A general reminder: If anyone feels angry at other members or their posts, the best solution is to step away and take a break before you consider posting again. Pm your concerns to the other person if needs be.

Chewie, if you are feeling 'fed up' it may be a good idea for you to just ignore such posts for a while. No sense letting them get you more worked up, right?

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.