Spiritual Pandeism-leaning Ignostic

[K. Mapson]

It is never possible to fully know, but logic leads us to the path of Spiritual Pandeism as being the most reasonable theological model.

 

[Tambora]

Okey dokey.

Welcome.

 

[K. Mapson]

Okey dokey.

Welcome.

Thank you!!

 

[Mr. Peabody]

Welcome to the forum.

:e4e:

 

[freelight]

finding your coordinance.......

finding your coordinance.......

It is never possible to fully know, but logic leads us to the path of Spiritual Pandeism as being the most reasonable theological model.

Blessings in the Mighty Om!

That is one just one 'flower' in the magick garden of 'God'

However, I do recommend beginning a thread on Pandeism specifically in the 'Religion' section. I know we are touching on this in the "Materialism Discussion" thread, but it might deserve its own 'port'.


Welcome to the matrix :backflip:



pj

 

[Lon]

It is never possible to fully know, but logic leads us to the path of Spiritual Pandeism as being the most reasonable theological model.

"Pandeism is therefore most particularly the belief that the Creator of the Universe actually became the Universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity." -wiki

It might look logical to you but not a logical destination at all in my thinking. To me, it isn't remotely reasonable.

It is like the anglerfish male that unites with the female and loses it's head/body to become a lump on her back, side, or belly. Is this the most logical and reasonable reproduction? Naw, it is awkward and rare, and villifying to suggest.

Welcome to TOL

 

[K. Mapson]

"Pandeism is therefore most particularly the belief that the Creator of the Universe actually became the Universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity." -wiki

It might look logical to you but not a logical destination at all in my thinking. To me, it isn't remotely reasonable.

It is like the anglerfish male that unites with the female and loses it's head/body to become a lump on her back, side, or belly. Is this the most logical and reasonable reproduction? Naw, it is awkward and rare, and villifying to suggest.

Welcome to TOL

There's a lot packaged into that proposition, friend. Do you suppose then that your Creator does not share in the experiences of our Universe? Is it less knowledgeable, then, than those who do?

Is your Creator capable of being courageous?

 

[Lon]

There's a lot packaged into that proposition, friend. Do you suppose then that your Creator does not share in the experiences of our Universe? Is it less knowledgeable, then, than those who do?

Is your Creator capable of being courageous?

Share in the experiences? Sure, like I share in the experiences of my fish in the bowl. When I put my hand in, it does indeed become wet, but you cannot say "I'm all wet" just my hand. 'Part' of God is involved with us.

 

[Quincy]

Haha, oh the can of worms you have opened Mapson :chuckle: . The idea of an impersonal or transpersonal God really ruffles the feathers of those who think he is their buddy.

 

[Lon]

Haha, oh the can of worms you have opened Mapson :chuckle: . The idea of an impersonal or transpersonal God really ruffles the feathers of those who think he is their buddy.

K, at first this didn't make sense, but since you don't read the bible much if at all, it makes better sense that you'd think anybody reading it and can tell you what you are unwilling to learn is more 'like a buddy' to Him than you are.

 

[Dena]

Hello and Welcome

 

[Quincy]

K, at first this didn't make sense, but since you don't read the bible much if at all, it makes better sense that you'd think anybody reading it and can tell you what you are unwilling to learn is more 'like a buddy' to Him than you are.

None of what you said makes sense to me either.

 

[K. Mapson]

Share in the experiences? Sure, like I share in the experiences of my fish in the bowl. When I put my hand in, it does indeed become wet, but you cannot say "I'm all wet" just my hand. 'Part' of God is involved with us.

But that is not 'sharing in the experience' of being the fish, for there is more to being a fish than simply being wet -- and so, the fish stil has superior knowledge to your own of what it is to be a fish.

So the question follows, do you have knowledge superior to that of your god? And is your god capable of undertaking a pandeistic Creation, and having it end up exactly as ours now appears, if that were its wish?

 

[freelight]

But that is not 'sharing in the experience' of being the fish, for there is more to being a fish than simply being wet -- and so, the fish stil has superior knowledge to your own of what it is to be a fish.

So the question follows, do you have knowledge superior to that of your god? And is your god capable of undertaking a pandeistic Creation, and having it end up exactly as ours now appears, if that were its wish?

As shared before,....couldnt 'God' also in his infinity and allness of Being, be both immanent and transcendent? (not indulging in a self-forgetfulness or going into amnesia to become The Creation, but being quite able as an all-pervading Spirit truly be omnipresent). While pandeism is one possible point of view, unless a traditional theist sees it as a more consistent, logical and tenable view, they aren't likely to accept it. You're welcome to start a thread 'specifically' on the logics of Pandeism


pj