Is it actually impossible to reason with a devout christian?

[Joshpantera]

20 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

One thing comes immediately to mind....that although there may be different manifestations, they all don't possess the same abilities.  For example a leaf on a tree is alive for a time....then it takes a different path back toward life after it falls to the ground.  This is still a pantheistic approach yet seemingly contradicts your eternal life statement.  But, that's just quickly off the cuff.  I'll think some more.  Again, thanks for the effort.

 

I joined the World Pantheism Movement (WPM) several decades ago, while researching eastern religions. I figured, what the hell. I understand it. But I understand it from a philosophical perspective, but I do not subscribe to it as a religious belief perspective. The philosophical issues surrounding unity and interconnectivity are what interest me.

 

The leaf is a manifestation of the eternal god. The form or manifestation of the eternal god that looks like a leaf, is what comes and goes. Appears to live and die. Now you see it, now you don't. But the underlying essence which is the existence of the leaf, is always there. That is pantheistic philosophy in a nut shell. Ancient religious oriented pantheism. 

 

In the Upanishad's (off the cuff as well, I'll have to find the citation) you'll encounter a man asking a boy to break open a seed of a banyan tree - in order to direct the boys attention towards the eternal, transcendent. He asks the boy what he sees. The boy says more seeds, increasingly small. They get down to the final seed. He tells the boy to break it. Then asks what he sees. 'Nothing,' the boys says. Then man says, ' from that which you do not see, this great banyan tree arises.' 

 

Everything is a manifestation of Brahman, this transcend, energy conscious which pervades all space and time, and transcends it all. You don't directly see the transcendent informing energy consciousness - which is the eternal source of everything and IS everything. But you do see it through everything in existence. The leaf is no different than the banyan tree example. This is religion for a lot of people east of the Suez. This is what spirituality entails. And that which is transcendent is immanent in all things. It's existence itself. So existence is eternal, no beginning or end. Everything that exists, IS a manifestation of existence itself. To them it's Brahman. That's the placeholder term for ultimate reality. 

 

There is no sense of the eternal being absent from anything according to pantheistic philosophy. No need that the eternal should come down to earth from some far off place. There can't be some far off place where the eternal dwells (heaven), because the eternal dwells everywhere and through everything. No coming down to the earth as a one off event. No second return as a one off event, either.  This is not reconcilable with orthodoxy christianity. 

 

What sense does it make, raising dead bodies, or raising spiritual bodies, or any type of "body" for that matter? 

 

These bodies weren't anything other than the god producing leaves out of itself. It's a process, an ongoing process of forever producing out of itself, over, and over and over again forever without end. Why back track and pull up physical manifestations (bodies) that have already come and gone? This is why ancient religious pantheist's have the doctrine of reincarnation. It's the underlying primary "consciousness" that keeps moving as new bodies arise and fall, like leaves falling from a tree. Reincarnating as bodies continue to arise, over and over across Aeons of time (see Yuga's). But the bible's plan of salvation has nothing to do with reincarnating, primary consciousness taking on new bodies all the time. It's about raising up physical bodies out of graves, which, parts ways with how pantheistic philosophy plays out. 

 

The christian "plan of salvation" doesn't gel with pantheistic philosophy at all. 

[TruthSeeker0]

On 10/19/2019 at 12:52 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes... ice cream.  That will make a life of sexual slavery and brutal atrocity worthwhile.  god is good.

Hes particularly good where the child in question isn't a good little Christian but a Muslim or non believer or anything else besides a Christian... Because according to them, after such a miserable life this child will be headed to hell because ya know, god just didn't see fit to enlighten them according to the correct belief. 

 

Sometimes I seriously despair over human beings. To believe this god is great trash... I wonder if we'll ever evolve to level where the human brain more readily grasps that if it behaves like a monster and has the ethics and morality of a monster, it is indeed a monster. 

[Joshpantera]

You will know the god by IT"S fruits, basically....

 

YHWH was a tribal war god, something akin to Aries. Ordering deaths, rapes, slavery, etc., etc., and geared towards desert nomad life and conquest. As times changed and the people changed, the god changed. It was one god among many, then eventually it was changed around to universal deity status. All together the god is a bunch of contradicting human emotions and feelings projected outward at space and placed on some imaginary being, always just out of sight. 

 

@Edgarcito that is the god(s) of the bible. And that's why it can not be reconciled. It's years worth of various mythology rolled together into a contradicting presentation. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

And that's why it can not be reconciled. It's years worth of various mythology rolled together into a contradicting presentation. 

Maybe that was god's plan. 

[Edgarcito]

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I joined the World Pantheism Movement (WPM) several decades ago, while researching eastern religions. I figured, what the hell. I understand it. But I understand it from a philosophical perspective, but I do not subscribe to it as a religious belief perspective. The philosophical issues surrounding unity and interconnectivity are what interest me.

 

The leaf is a manifestation of the eternal god. The form or manifestation of the eternal god that looks like a leaf, is what comes and goes. Appears to live and die. Now you see it, now you don't. But the underlying essence which is the existence of the leaf, is always there. That is pantheistic philosophy in a nut shell. Ancient religious oriented pantheism. 

 

In the Upanishad's (off the cuff as well, I'll have to find the citation) you'll encounter a man asking a boy to break open a seed of a banyan tree - in order to direct the boys attention towards the eternal, transcendent. He asks the boy what he sees. The boy says more seeds, increasingly small. They get down to the final seed. He tells the boy to break it. Then asks what he sees. 'Nothing,' the boys says. Then man says, ' from that which you do not see, this great banyan tree arises.' 

 

Everything is a manifestation of Brahman, this transcend, energy conscious which pervades all space and time, and transcends it all. You don't directly see the transcendent informing energy consciousness - which is the eternal source of everything and IS everything. But you do see it through everything in existence. The leaf is no different than the banyan tree example. This is religion for a lot of people east of the Suez. This is what spirituality entails. And that which is transcendent is immanent in all things. It's existence itself. So existence is eternal, no beginning or end. Everything that exists, IS a manifestation of existence itself. To them it's Brahman. That's the placeholder term for ultimate reality. 

 

There is no sense of the eternal being absent from anything according to pantheistic philosophy. No need that the eternal should come down to earth from some far off place. There can't be some far off place where the eternal dwells (heaven), because the eternal dwells everywhere and through everything. No coming down to the earth as a one off event. No second return as a one off event, either.  This is not reconcilable with orthodoxy christianity. 

 

What sense does it make, raising dead bodies, or raising spiritual bodies, or any type of "body" for that matter? 

 

These bodies weren't anything other than the god producing leaves out of itself. It's a process, an ongoing process of forever producing out of itself, over, and over and over again forever without end. Why back track and pull up physical manifestations (bodies) that have already come and gone? This is why ancient religious pantheist's have the doctrine of reincarnation. It's the underlying primary "consciousness" that keeps moving as new bodies arise and fall, like leaves falling from a tree. Reincarnating as bodies continue to arise, over and over across Aeons of time (see Yuga's). But the bible's plan of salvation has nothing to do with reincarnating, primary consciousness taking on new bodies all the time. It's about raising up physical bodies out of graves, which, parts ways with how pantheistic philosophy plays out. 

 

The christian "plan of salvation" doesn't gel with pantheistic philosophy at all. 

Right....I don't expect Pantheism to fit perfectly with Christianity, but I can see aspects in Christianity.  Can't see how that disqualifies putting the puzzle together.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

What if the puzzle doesn't exist, or if what does exist isn't a puzzle?

[Karna]

The turn that this topic has taken hits close to home! I dated a devout christian for close to two years. We were on the same page on almost everything except for religion (or should I say culture?). I am a cultural Hindu.

 

After one breakup we ended up getting together to try again! I think I was more invested in the relationship because for a complete year, I did the 'dirty work' of trying to reconcile and bring out common themes in both religions!

 

I had never delved much into religion before this. Almost all Hindus have an upbringing that resonates with what the RigVeda says - The Truth is one, sages call it by different names. Or what Gita says - Whatever path people travel, is My path. This basically, without all the fluff, means that all religions are valid and no one holds the monopoly on Truth! (For realizing the Truth is one thing and believing it is another. A 'believer' will never understand this. But now we are treading into the realms of Mysticism here...)

 

I still hold the same view now but I have now realized it is hard to get past people's conditioning that happens through culture and self-bias. Hinduism, being an Eastern philosophy, utilizes a lot of pantheism. Hence it does not really have a problem of absorbing Christianity. It is like this huge set in a Venn diagram that includes other sub-sets. And hence I did not have a problem dating my ex as I thought I knew where she is coming from. 

On the contrary, Christianity is this tiny subset that could be a part in this big set of pantheism. The problem is that the folks in this tiny subset think they have monopoly on the truth and cannot see anything beyond their subset. So she stuck to her views about everyone else going to hell, about her having a savior, and other stuff fed to her by her culture and seemed to have a problem with me not thinking about god and jesus like she did!

 

So yes, I think Pantheism can account for Christianity. But a Christian will really need to cherry-pick his stuff to allow for Pantheism.

 

Long story short - as a last ditch effort, I found a 'church' that literally honored saints of all religions in their prayers and took my ex there in an attempt to open her eyes beyond her subset.

She must have thought it to be too heretical for her tastes.

 

I then gave up.

 

PS: I said 'almost all Hindus have an upbringing that resonates with......'. 

I wont be surprised if this changes soon given the narrow mindedness and disrespect and proselytizing that they are subjected to by people who Believe they have the Truth.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I mean to say, what if life is just about finding meaningful contentment within the delicate balance between what you have and what you want?

[Joshpantera]

On 10/21/2019 at 11:25 AM, Edgarcito said:

Right....I don't expect Pantheism to fit perfectly with Christianity, but I can see aspects in Christianity.  Can't see how that disqualifies putting the puzzle together.

 

If we were to put this all into a puzzle, then Karna has it pretty well pieced together in my opinion: 

 

On 10/21/2019 at 12:53 PM, Karna said:

On the contrary, Christianity is this tiny subset that could be a part in this big set of pantheism. The problem is that the folks in this tiny subset think they have monopoly on the truth and cannot see anything beyond their subset. So she stuck to her views about everyone else going to hell, about her having a savior, and other stuff fed to her by her culture and seemed to have a problem with me not thinking about god and jesus like she did!

 

So yes, I think Pantheism can account for Christianity. But a Christian will really need to cherry-pick his stuff to allow for Pantheism.

 

Pantheism is oriented towards thinking in terms of a bigger religious picture than christianity.

 

We can (and I have) detail where small mindedness exists in christian orthodox thinking. Such as claim to have an omnipresent god, but on the next breathe start denying the gods existence everywhere and in everything and condemning the logical conclusion of the omnipresent god claim, as pantheism. That's small minded religion, Edgarcito. They are playing in a small, kindergarten sand box in terms of their imaginary outlook. 

 

The Hindu can easily look at christianity as a sub set, one path of many that if followed to a logical conclusion, could orient someone to truth. Perhaps that's where you're headed with these heretical ideas, Edgarcito. But, the egotistical minded christians can not see themselves as but a sub set. No, they are superior to any and everyone, period! The people who are actually looking at the bigger picture, are beneath them - simple savages in need of salvation. But that's the opposite of what's true. These simple savages are far more sophisticated with much less contradiction. They are not simple savages at all. Their mythology is much more well thought out. 

 

Edgarcito, what you seem to be trying to piece together is a way in which christianity can maintain a superiority stance over all other religions, such as pantheism. As if christianity can consume pantheism and not the other way around. But it's the Pan ("all") in pantheism which is all consuming. It consumes you, not the other way around. Because christainity is limited in scope and depth, and pantheism is unlimited in scope and depth and therefore necessarily runs circles around and beyond christian theological reasoning. 

 

I can see that most of this has not sunken in. I don't know if it ever will. Right now your'e still trying to resist these points. And that's fine. I'll let you off the hook and grant you an agree to disagree pass on the whole thing because you're not ready for it. If you do suddenly get it ( get what's wrong with christianity), don't be embarrassed if you want to come back and discuss it again. You'll be just as welcome as anyone else who finally gets it and wants to join this community as an ex christian. 

 

Thanks for your time. 

 

 

[Jagdish]

I was told by a xtain friend that if people speak ill of Christians then they don't feel secure about their own beliefs. When I reminded him that Christians do that exactly, and berate other Gods he got so upset he has not spoken to me lately. Good luck trying to reason with them

[WalterP]

On 10/21/2019 at 1:32 PM, Joshpantera said:

You will know the god by IT"S fruits, basically....

 

YHWH was a tribal war god, something akin to Aries. Ordering deaths, rapes, slavery, etc., etc., and geared towards desert nomad life and conquest. As times changed and the people changed, the god changed. It was one god among many, then eventually it was changed around to universal deity status. All together the god is a bunch of contradicting human emotions and feelings projected outward at space and placed on some imaginary being, always just out of sight. 

 

@Edgarcito that is the god(s) of the bible. And that's why it can not be reconciled. It's years worth of various mythology rolled together into a contradicting presentation. 

 

Josh,

 

I really don't think there's much point in using the Bible as a source which Edgarcito will feel bound by.  It's already been established in this thread that he holds views that are not compatible with Biblical Christianity.  As far as I can see He makes his own unique path.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[florduh]

52 minutes ago, WalterP said:

It's already been established in this thread that he holds views that are not compatible with Biblical Christianity.  As far as I can see He makes his own unique path.

Don't they all?

[Edgarcito]

On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 8:14 AM, WalterP said:

 

Josh,

 

I really don't think there's much point in using the Bible as a source which Edgarcito will feel bound by.  It's already been established in this thread that he holds views that are not compatible with Biblical Christianity.  As far as I can see He makes his own unique path.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

You're a stubborn yet seemingly educated man Walter.  My unique path seems fitting considering God made each of us unique.  You would wish to employ your brain on this one?

[WalterP]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You're a stubborn yet seemingly educated man Walter.  My unique path seems fitting considering God made each of us unique.  You would wish to employ your brain on this one?

 

Edgarcito,

 

You and I have moved no further than this...

 

Posted October 9

  On 10/9/2019 at 1:44 AM, Edgarcito said:

I guess my question is, is it expected that the same input should yield the same output?

 

Yes.

Otherwise, why would the number of books of the Bible need to be agreed upon in the council of Nicaea?  Why would the creeds needs to be agreed upon?  Etc. Etc.

The standardization of the Biblical canon requires that there be one gospel of Matthew, of Mark of Luke and of John, but not of Thomas.

Nor that there be such books as the Didache, the Sherpherd of Hermas, the Protoevangelion of James or the Holocaust of Peter.

Edgarcito, if you agree that the Bible must consist only of 66 books and only 66 books, then you are saying that there is only one input - the standard Bible.

But if you are saying that the output of those 66 books need not be in accordance with the content of those 66 books, then why bother standardizing?

A limited input does not logically yield an unlimited output.

Walter.

 

But my Saturday post was for Josh's attention, not yours.  Mainstream Christianity agrees that there is one god, one Bible and one correct interpretation of the Bible.  He was trying to hold you accountable to that mainstream standard.  I was merely pointing out that since you hold unorthodox and heretical views, his efforts would come to nothing. 

 

You cannot be held to that standard because you do not hold to biblical Christianity.  You may believe that you do, but you've revealed enough in this thread to tell us that you don't.

 

So Yes, I'm stubborn.

 

Walter. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You would wish to employ your brain on this one?

This thread poses the question of whether or not it is possible to reason with a devout christian.  In edgarcito's case, it has been established that he is not a devout Christian.  It has also been established that he cannot be reasoned with.  As a result, I've created a couple of new threads for edgarcito to play in.  Y'all have fun.

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This thread poses the question of whether or not it is possible to reason with a devout christian.  In edgarcito's case, it has been established that he is not a devout Christian.  It has also been established that he cannot be reasoned with.  As a result, I've created a couple of new threads for edgarcito to play in.  Y'all have fun.

Not sure this matters....thinking the argument is how can there be so many "correct" truths/denominations within Christianity and then simultaneously complain that somehow there is a correct one that falls under the definition "devout".   ??   Pick a side of the fence please.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Not sure this matters....thinking the argument is how can there be so many "correct" truths/denominations within Christianity and then simultaneously complain that somehow there is a correct one that falls under the definition "devout".   ??   Pick a side of the fence please.

Left side, facing the barn.

[pantheory]

On 10/16/2019 at 6:42 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I believe god's creation manifests copying and pasting.

 

Yes, copy and pasting.

 

And God said: let me create a creature in my own image. God looked at his creation based upon his own mirror image which he called Adam, and said: I guess I done good . Now let me  copy this Adam creature with interesting variations to Keep him happy. He'll probably get tired of just talking to me all the time. So God copied a version of Adam which he called Eve. God then said cool, This Eve creature is sweet-looking, I done good again. But God wanted these creatures to be obedient and follow his word so God told them both, "here is the home I created for you, you can call it 'F' land or Eden, whichever you prefer, but don't eat them apples on that tree of knowledge, otherwise you can do what you like. So things went well for awhile, then eve asked Adam, why doesn't God want us to have any natural knowledge? What if we ate of the tree of knowledge and realized that some of what God says is B.S. so we could be more god-like and have a better understand our natural surroundings. Adam agreed and they ate form the tree of knowledge. A few days later God saw some apple cores lying on the ground and asked Adam if he ate them apples. Adam said no, but God said who else is here? Either you, Eve, or both of you ate them apples. Adam confessed saying that evil Eve had tempted him. Then God said:  I told you both not to eat them apples. What are you, stupid or something. Adam said: Stupid is as stupid does. Ir we're stupid then so are you for creating us. Then Adam said: you're especially the stupid one for creating us morons.  God then said; OK, you're right. But in the future I want you both to study nature in the land of Nod instead of eating them apples. Upon studying nature, you will become less stupid. He then said, there won't be any tree of knowledge in the land of Nod so you won't be tempted again. So before Adam and Eve left Eden to the land of Nod God said : now that you have eaten of the tree of knowledge you must know how disgusting you both look naked. 

 

As to cut and paste:

 

God then Cut off some fig leaves and put them over the genitals of both  Adam and Eve. For Eve, he also put  paste-ies on her breasts. Afterwards God then talked to Eve saying: "as soon as your boy children become teenagers I'll create a poll for you and your girl children to dance on without fig leaves and pasties. to entertain Adam and the boys. Then Eve said: that sounds very excellent. Eve then said Thanks, and off they went to create a wonderful version of humanity that God destroyed in a great flood; saying, yes, I f'ed  up again -- but added; hopefully Noah and family will not piss me off so much. 

[WalterP]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Not sure this matters....thinking the argument is how can there be so many "correct" truths/denominations within Christianity and then simultaneously complain that somehow there is a correct one that falls under the definition "devout".   ??   Pick a side of the fence please.

 

Surely this is an easy call, Edgarcito?

 

What's required is a person who fulfills two conditions.  First, they must be a Christian and the second, they must be a devoutly-believing Christian.  So, if a person devoutly believes something that clearly contradicts the Bible, they cannot be a devoutly-believing Christian.  They are a devoutly-believing 'something else'.  

 

It's been established in this thread that your god clearly contradicts Numbers 23:19,  Psalm 92:15, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17 and 1 John 1:5.  Whereas, the god of the bible does not change, is the same forever and has no sin, evil or darkness in him. 

 

Your god changes over time, regenerates himself, is unhappy with himself, has a potential for evil doing, casts part of himself away and is himself in need of healing.

 

All of the listed characteristics of your god contradict scripture and the basic Christian beliefs about the nature of god.  Therefore, even though you may consider yourself to be a devoutly-believing Christian, you are not.  You are a devoutly-believing 'something else.'  

 

See how easy that was?

[Edgarcito]

23 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Surely this is an easy call, Edgarcito?

 

What's required is a person who fulfills two conditions.  First, they must be a Christian and the second, they must be a devoutly-believing Christian.  So, if a person devoutly believes something that clearly contradicts the Bible, they cannot be a devoutly-believing Christian.  They are a devoutly-believing 'something else'.  

 

It's been established in this thread that your god clearly contradicts Numbers 23:19,  Psalm 92:15, Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17 and 1 John 1:5.  Whereas, the god of the bible does not change, is the same forever and has no sin, evil or darkness in him. 

 

Your god changes over time, regenerates himself, is unhappy with himself, has a potential for evil doing, casts part of himself away and is himself in need of healing.

 

All of the listed characteristics of your god contradict scripture and the basic Christian beliefs about the nature of god.  Therefore, even though you may consider yourself to be a devoutly-believing Christian, you are not.  You are a devoutly-believing 'something else.'  

 

See how easy that was?

No sir, nice try....based on faith, the definition of the Standard is not standard. 

[WalterP]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir, nice try....based on faith, the definition of the Standard is not standard. 

 

Then faith destroys the meaning of words. 

 

The meaning of words is agreed upon by reason, not by faith. 

 

When someone (in this case, you) chooses to assign their own individual meanings to words, then communication breaks down. 

 

Hence, this thread.

 

It becomes impossible to reason with a devout Christian (or Edgarcito) because they use their faith to destroy the meaning of words.

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Then faith destroys the meaning of words. 

 

The meaning of words is agreed upon by reason, not by faith. 

 

When someone (in this case, you) chooses to assign their own individual meanings to words, then communication breaks down. 

 

Hence, this thread.

 

It becomes impossible to reason with a devout Christian (or Edgarcito) because they use their faith to destroy the meaning of words.

Go ahead....define.....use all the words you need.

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Go ahead....define.....use all the words you need.

 

What would be the point? 

 

As I said 15 hours ago, you and I can't get past something that went down in this thread on Oct 9. 

 

Raising new stuff for us to disagree on seems pointless to me.

 

About as pointless (i.e., impossible) as trying to reason with a devout Christian.

[florduh]

4 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

What would be the point? 

 

As I said 15 hours ago, you and I can't get past something that went down in this thread on Oct 9. 

 

Raising new stuff for us to disagree on seems pointless to me.

 

About as pointless (i.e., impossible) as trying to reason with a devout Christian.

It is indeed pointless and frustrating as well. The only value of this dialog is that lurkers pop in and become informed by reading this crap. Still, 17 pages is a lot of wasted, repetitive crap. Maybe it's time to wind this one down. Thoughts?

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, florduh said:

It is indeed pointless and frustrating as well. The only value of this dialog is that lurkers pop in and become informed by reading this crap. Still, 17 pages is a lot of wasted, repetitive crap. Maybe it's time to wind this one down. Thoughts?

 

Perhaps so, Florduh.

 

Btw, I suspect that until you wrote the above message, Edgarcito was blissfully unaware of the useful role he's unwittingly played in the function of this forum.

 

So, thanks for doing that.  

 

Walter.