Existential Pantheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-12-2012, 01:03 AM
RE: Existential Pantheism
(24-12-2012 12:55 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Are you calling God "screwed up"?
Imbarre is screwed up, Imbarre is God. QED.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
24-12-2012, 01:14 AM
RE: Existential Pantheism
(24-12-2012 12:55 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 01:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I mean... is using the quote function really that mind-blowing?

I can understand maybe screwing it up once.. but after viewing your post and realizing, "Oh crap... I screwed that up" I think you should be able to figure it out.

That and putting your cursor below the line isn't all that technical.


Well, if you don't believe in the quote function then it might be difficult to master. However, I've been convinced by Imbarre that existence itself -- including the forum's quote function -- is God, and therefore perfect. Are you calling God "screwed up"?


Actually, lmbarre, not Imbare.


I am not saying that any particular thing is God. Everything altogether is God, rather like a pulsating organism. This was the view of the ancient Egypitians. Of course, they had many many gods, but they also had a word for God, netjer.


No, God is anything but perfect or the universe would be perfect in every way and somehow reach some unimaginable conclusion.

I see God as rather like a good person, who although he expresses evil at times, its intent and progress is toward an ever-increasing and perpetual manifestation of the greatest Good. This drive is deeply embedded in human beings most of all, all of whom, however they define it are always seeking a better life. As the proverb states, "There's always room for improvement." Indeed, this would be the function of evil, something to be gradually overcome. So in this sense I agree with "process" theologian. God is not nor will he ever be perfect, and he is certainly not immutable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2012, 06:13 AM
RE: Existential Pantheism
(24-12-2012 01:14 AM)lmbarre Wrote:  
(24-12-2012 12:55 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Well, if you don't believe in the quote function then it might be difficult to master. However, I've been convinced by Imbarre that existence itself -- including the forum's quote function -- is God, and therefore perfect. Are you calling God "screwed up"?


Actually, lmbarre, not Imbare.


I am not saying that any particular thing is God. Everything altogether is God, rather like a pulsating organism. This was the view of the ancient Egypitians. Of course, they had many many gods, but they also had a word for God, netjer.


No, God is anything but perfect or the universe would be perfect in every way and somehow reach some unimaginable conclusion.

I see God as rather like a good person, who although he expresses evil at times, its intent and progress is toward an ever-increasing and perpetual manifestation of the greatest Good. This drive is deeply embedded in human beings most of all, all of whom, however they define it are always seeking a better life. As the proverb states, "There's always room for improvement." Indeed, this would be the function of evil, something to be gradually overcome. So in this sense I agree with "process" theologian. God is not nor will he ever be perfect, and he is certainly not immutable.

1. Reread that again. I spelled your name correctly. Why the correction? You're lending evidence to KC's assertion that you don't even do a basic proofread with that and the fact that you messed up the quote function -- AGAIN.

2. I'm just poking fun here at your idea of pantheism, and you're giving me plenty of fodder. The Egyptians were not pantheistic but rather polytheistic, but it wouldn't matter even if they were patheistic because it wouldn't make it true simply because an ancient culture believed it. And neter is the Egyptian word for "god", not netjer. But it didn't mean "God" as in "an all-encompassing being", but rather was a generic word for a god in the same way that "neteret" was their generic word for goddess.

3. It doesn't matter how many times you define "God". There's absolutely no reason for any of us to agree with you. You've made no attempt to prove that God is everything, but rather you just keep telling us it is. If I believed that this mug of coffee I'm holding was God, it would be very easy to prove to anyone nearby that "God exists", but they'd question why I wanted to define God as a mug of coffee. And I wonder why I would, too. It would be even harder to prove further assertions such as my mug of coffee being "good". When you further define God as "good", and not everything fits the definition of "good" (unless you want to define that into something meaningless, too), then there's plenty of counter-evidence against your idea of God being everything.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: