Existential Pantheism

[lmbarre]

By "existential" I mean that God(dess) is all and everything that has being. In effect, I deify existence. In no way do I think that one can distinguish God from Being. Furthermore, God is not immutable. Like human beings, (s)he is in process.
Of course, evil is part of God as is Nothingness. But I think that God can be compared to a "good" person, who in spite of manifesting evil at times, nevertheless seeks to avoid such manifestations as much as possible. More exactly, I would claim to be a pantheistic, secular humanist. My ethical absolute is the Golden Rule. All that is required of meis that I should I realize that I have manifested evil is simply to "repent," pick myself up, and carry on as I endeavor to contribute to the greatest Good. No religion necessary. Nor do I in anyway need to be "fixed" or subscribe to any ritual of salvation producing "faith" to aid me in manifesting Good rather than evil. That everyone seeks a "better" life, however defined, touches upon the Divine purpose. The fundamental metaphors for ethical behavior is Light/Darkness and Good/Evil, much as we find in the Johannine tradition in the New Testament. Also from the Bible I find support in Israelite ethics, who\ich started out and tried to maintain that they were a distinctively "upright" people. Jesus of Nazarerth, whether fictional or not, sums up the Ethical Sage. Fortunately, his ethics has strongly informed Christianity and he reflects traditional high Jewish ethics as well. I have learned the most from studying the Bible from Israelite wisdom tradition, a fine combination of intelligence and intelligent, virtuous wise sayings. It is good to be smart and smart to be good.

In a way, I have much in common with atheists. I think that an empirical investigation of the universe fully warrants its deification. In so doing, I distinguish myself from an atheist. I also share with many atheists and free thinkers, in a rejection of all dogmatism and I am fully a rationalist. Even my subscription to mysticism is a rational thing to do as rationalism is but one of two modes of perception, the other being intuition. In terms of cosmic sexuality, there is obviously male and female, or better, masculinity and femininity as part of the structure of the cosmos and the basis of life. This cosmic sexuality is misunderstood by thinking that men and women are polar opposites. Taking my cue from genetics, I instead think that men are XY while women are XX, where Y=masculinity and X=femininity. Thus men are male-female and women are female-female. Thus while women have no inherent masculinity as men do, they are twice female. Men on the other hand are half as much but complete in being male-female. Part of maleness is the ability to be objective and rational while women are whole dependent upon men for the male principle, which they can learn. Men, however, are inherently twice as weak in intuitively perception and need to look to expert woman to access this dimension of human existence. So the trick is to properly decode sexuality and thus exploit its full potential from which the greatest Light and Goodness stem to create and generate Life instead of Death. Until one grasps the someone tricky nature of sexuality, the dynamic remains dysfunctional and and non-productive. So it is by definition, a cooperative effort.

LMB

[houseofcantor]

So... what? You're looking for a debate?

I don't get where you call any of that rational, seriously comes up short on parsimony, and chicks with no dude in them? I am not familiar with that planet.

[Chas]

(16-12-2012 06:43 AM)lmbarre Wrote:  By "existential" I mean that God(dess) is all and everything that has being. In effect, I deify existence. In no way do I think that one can distinguish God from Being. Furthermore, God is not immutable. Like human beings, (s)he is in process.
Of course, evil is part of God as is Nothingness. But I think that God can be compared to a "good" person, who in spite of manifesting evil at times, nevertheless seeks to avoid such manifestations as much as possible. More exactly, I would claim to be a pantheistic, secular humanist. My ethical absolute is the Golden Rule. All that is required of meis that I should I realize that I have manifested evil is simply to "repent," pick myself up, and carry on as I endeavor to contribute to the greatest Good. No religion necessary. Nor do I in anyway need to be "fixed" or subscribe to any ritual of salvation producing "faith" to aid me in manifesting Good rather than evil. That everyone seeks a "better" life, however defined, touches upon the Divine purpose. The fundamental metaphors for ethical behavior is Light/Darkness and Good/Evil, much as we find in the Johannine tradition in the New Testament. Also from the Bible I find support in Israelite ethics, who\ich started out and tried to maintain that they were a distinctively "upright" people. Jesus of Nazarerth, whether fictional or not, sums up the Ethical Sage. Fortunately, his ethics has strongly informed Christianity and he reflects traditional high Jewish ethics as well. I have learned the most from studying the Bible from Israelite wisdom tradition, a fine combination of intelligence and intelligent, virtuous wise sayings. It is good to be smart and smart to be good.

In a way, I have much in common with atheists. I think that an empirical investigation of the universe fully warrants its deification. In so doing, I distinguish myself from an atheist. I also share with many atheists and free thinkers, in a rejection of all dogmatism and I am fully a rationalist. Even my subscription to mysticism is a rational thing to do as rationalism is but one of two modes of perception, the other being intuition. In terms of cosmic sexuality, there is obviously male and female, or better, masculinity and femininity as part of the structure of the cosmos and the basis of life. This cosmic sexuality is misunderstood by thinking that men and women are polar opposites. Taking my cue from genetics, I instead think that men are XY while women are XX, where Y=masculinity and X=femininity. Thus men are male-female and women are female-female. Thus while women have no inherent masculinity as men do, they are twice female. Men on the other hand are half as much but complete in being male-female. Part of maleness is the ability to be objective and rational while women are whole dependent upon men for the male principle, which they can learn. Men, however, are inherently twice as weak in intuitively perception and need to look to expert woman to access this dimension of human existence. So the trick is to properly decode sexuality and thus exploit its full potential from which the greatest Light and Goodness stem to create and generate Life instead of Death. Until one grasps the someone tricky nature of sexuality, the dynamic remains dysfunctional and and non-productive. So it is by definition, a cooperative effort.

LMB

Why? No, seriously, why?

Why posit the existence of a god when leaving out god is simpler and more logical?

Sexuality is only tricky when religions fuck it up.

[Bucky Ball]

The first sentence, and the last paragraph are not consistent.

[lmbarre]

(16-12-2012 06:55 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  So... what? You're looking for a debate?
Yes.

I don't get where you call any of that rational, seriously comes up short on parsimony, and chicks with no dude in them? I am not familiar with that planet.

It's not that verbose, is it?
No dude. That's why they are really not that convincing at being butch while men can be deeply and authentically effiminate.

[Vera]

(16-12-2012 08:25 AM)lmbarre Wrote:  That's why they are really not that convincing at being butch while men can be deeply and authentically effiminate.

Say what?

[Erxomai]

Egor, is that you?

[lmbarre]

(16-12-2012 08:32 AM)Vera Wrote:  I mean, woman do not display true masulinity compared men expressing femininity. What are you not understanding?

(16-12-2012 08:25 AM)lmbarre Wrote:  That's why they are really not that convincing at being butch while men can be deeply and authentically effiminate.

Say what?

[Vera]

(16-12-2012 09:40 AM)lmbarre Wrote:  I mean, woman do not display true masulinity compared men expressing femininity. What are you not understanding?

If you honestly believe this. And if yes - why.

[bemore]

*inserts sections of post in google*

Seems original

*Inserts username into google*