Pantheism and Panentheism, what's the difference, exactly?

Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Pantheism and Panentheism, what's the difference, exactly?

On Cpt Pinapple's request I'm lifting this discussion out of it's obscurity at the end of an unrelated thread. 

The story so far:

spike.barnett wrote:


Maybe I missed the boat on this, but Pantheism and, to a lesser extent, Panentheism seem to relabel existence as God. Does Panentheism include some form of supernatural consciousness? Any comments Eloise?



spike.barnett wrote:

Eloise, are you a Pantheist or Panentheist? You seem to be using the terms interchangeably. I'm a little confused by the usage in the linked thread.


Eloise wrote:

I identify Panentheist where panentheism defines all in God/ God in all.

According to me a Panentheist is basically a Pantheist with a different concept regarding the nature of the universe. We both think the universe and god are one thing but what we conceive of when we think universe, is generally, not the same thing.

A pantheist, for example, does not conceive of a universe wherein every infinitessimal part and the whole are indistinct. To a pantheist the whole universe is god and the assumption is that the whole universe is the very large everything we perceive around us thus God is distinct from the smallest fraction of the universe.

For a Pantheist the concept of God as all-powerful follows from this definition of the universe being large and distinct from pieces making it up. Pantheism conceives a powerful God as an extension of a determining relationship by the massive causal influences of a large universe on the small and insignificant objects occupying it.

I see this concept as a relic of severely weakened assumptions about how the universe works. The perception of a universe in motion, underlying the laws of Netwonian mechanics leads directly to the prediction that the greatest mass exerts the greatest force. But we know also, since, of immense forces carried in a universe which relative to Newtonian motion, doesn't move at all and is for intensive purposes, massless.

I see the Pantheistic concept that the greatest power must necessarily constitute the greatest mass, as merely a concession to an idea with a long history of influence over our politics. It doesn't come from the stories about God, those stories describe an entity whose power is exerted through the smallest and most insignificant of things.

So if "God", then Panentheism, which is essentially Pantheism sans a troubled assumption regarding the nature of potency.

This is one major distinction I make between the two, there's more, but I will suppose thats enough to be going on with for now. I hope, at least, I have given you some idea why I identify one way but essentially define them as the same. The difference between them is not a difference between Gods but a difference between universes.

 

Mosst recently Spike replied with a couple more questions that I will address here.


spike.barnett wrote:

Thank you for answering my queries, but there are a few details I'm still fuzzy on.

You're Welcome Spike. Fire away.

spike.barnett wrote:


Does the Panentheistic God purposefully intervene in the world?

Yes, there is a definite sense in which this god pursues an intent in the world. You could say she has the singular intent of being as opposed to not being, and thereafter a diversified intent, which is actually inherent in the singular intent, toward creatively fulfilling an unbounded range of individual values through existence, where individual "values' are inherent in the will to exist as an extent to which being can be pushed.

So to bring this back to the kind of questions you're probably wanting to ask - notions of Heaven, Hell and their in-betweens are straightforwardly implied by the god which has a singular intent of unboundedly extending existence. Existence can get as low as individual values purvey, and likewise as high. And this is, of course, relative to your own ideals, or that of indivduals with which you share intents. 

spike.barnett wrote:

Does it help along things that fit it's whims and hinder things that do not?

This god doesn't hinder any particular individual values from being, no. At least not in any initial sense. However, it is conceivable, as a matter of course, that a certain individual set of values could distance itself so far from something anthetic to it that for all practical purposes it is the same as though that individual had hindered something against its own whim.

spike.barnett wrote:

Does it have a sort of consciousness?

absolutely, it is 100% as conscious as we are, to the extent that we really start to concede the utterly natural and banal reality of this magical thing we call conciousness.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
http://www.panentheism.com/

http://www.panentheism.com/

Precepts of Panentheism are clearly stated at the link above.

That said... I'm fucking nauseated by the Panentheistic garbage I just consumed.

No question that Panentheism is substantially different from Pantheism,
and I'm no fan of Pantheism.

As you'll find at the link above, Panentheism clearly encompasses many of the traditional elements of
organized religions, unlike Pantheism.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:

treat2 wrote:
http://www.panentheism.com/ Precepts of Panentheism are clearly stated at the link above. That said... I'm fucking nauseated by the Panentheistic garbage I just consumed. No question that Panentheism is substantially different from Pantheism, and I'm no fan of Pantheism. As you'll find at the link above, Panentheism clearly encompasses many of the traditional elements of organized religions, unlike Pantheism.

1. That group names themselves, distinctly, "Symbiotic Panentheism" which clearly indicates that the beliefs they espouse come with unique qualification. They are not claiming to be the authority over the beliefs of every possible correspondent Panentheist, and neither should they.

2. I am not claiming to be an authority on the above either. I have told you over and over again, my reasons for identifying as a panentheist are philosophical not religious. I don't have to join a sect in order to have a claim to a belief.

3. Why do you even bother responding with the comment tha you have nothing to say? What gives? Isn't it just a bit pointless?

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Ok. I'm convinced. The

Ok. I'm convinced. The theist badge is rightfully yours. I had thought that Panentheism was of a more deistic slant, but the way you describe it seems theistic in nature. Not much of a spin off I guess.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:Ok. I'm

spike.barnett wrote:

Ok. I'm convinced. The theist badge is rightfully yours. I had thought that Panentheism was of a more deistic slant, but the way you describe it seems theistic in nature. Not much of a spin off I guess.

Hey guy, checkout the link I posted in my previous post above and skim all the way down to where they list the fundamentals of Panentheism IN PLAIN ENGLISH.

If after reading that "list" you've got any questions regarding Panentheism VS.Theism, I'll suck my own dick!


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:Ok. I'm

spike.barnett wrote:

Ok. I'm convinced. The theist badge is rightfully yours.

Ummm... I'm not sure what to make of that?

spike.barnett wrote:

I had thought that Panentheism was of a more deistic slant, but the way you describe it seems theistic in nature.

What had you thinking that Panentheism was deistic? I'm aware of Panendeism, which would cover any deistic-all-in-god concepts, I suppose. The theism in panentheism as in pantheism refers directly to belief in an entity of a personal nature and/or of the ancient stories of man. Those would be the questions I'd expect you to ask in order to determine whether my beliefs are deistic or theistic.

For example Deism directly refers to belief in an entity which can only be supposed by reason. I hold that my god can be supposed by reason, but not exclusively.  To that end I am a theist, not a deist.

 

spike.barnett wrote:

Not much of a spin off I guess.

Well, one is not exactly a spin off of the other, really.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:treat2 wrote:

Eloise wrote:

treat2 wrote:
http://www.panentheism.com/ Precepts of Panentheism are clearly stated at the link above. That said... I'm fucking nauseated by the Panentheistic garbage I just consumed. No question that Panentheism is substantially different from Pantheism, and I'm no fan of Pantheism. As you'll find at the link above, Panentheism clearly encompasses many of the traditional elements of organized religions, unlike Pantheism.

1. That group names themselves, distinctly, "Symbiotic Panentheism" which clearly indicates that the beliefs they espouse come with unique qualification. They are not claiming to be the authority over the beliefs of every possible correspondent Panentheist, and neither should they.

2. I am not claiming to be an authority on the above either. I have told you over and over again, my reasons for identifying as a panentheist are philosophical not religious. I don't have to join a sect in order to have a claim to a belief.

3. Why do you even bother responding with the comment tha you have nothing to say? What gives? Isn't it just a bit pointless?

 

Extending the knowledge of others maybe poinless to you.
It isn't to me.

What "dialect" of Panentheism
you believe in is not of interest to me because you happen to believe in
whatever.

I made no claim as to any authority on Panentheism, but did poit out that readers interested in it could read about it on a web site of apparent Panentheists that explain the religion, AND IT IS A RELIGION, in very clear terms.

What aspects of Panentheism you pick and chose to buy, and whatever spin you might apply to your own version of it are of no interest to me.

The thread title did not indicate anything even approaching "My personal version of Panentheism", nor did anything in the thread post.

Just because you have your own version Panetheism does not mean that other people should be ignorant of Panentheism CLEARLY EXPLAINED
and in terms explained in an impersonal and detailed manner, just as one could find in a reference book.

At any rate, if whatever you claim to be Panentheism is not a religion, then one can be certain that you are not a Panentheist, even though you claim to be. That much is quite clear, regardless of the "dialect" Panentheism IS a religion. Sorry if that irritates you, but it's not simply something one can discover on a single web
site, but on many web sites.

I leave that for you to prove false by reference to a specific denial of it being a religion, from any Panentheist web site.

I'm talking about
Panentheism, not your interpretation of it!

What's your problem?


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Ummm... I'm not

Eloise wrote:

Ummm... I'm not sure what to make of that?

Nothing bad or anything. I just see the reason for distinction now.

 

Eloise wrote:

 

What had you thinking that Panentheism was deistic? I'm aware of Panendeism, which would cover any deistic-all-in-god concepts, I suppose. The theism in panentheism as in pantheism refers directly to belief in an entity of a personal nature and/or of the ancient stories of man. Those would be the questions I'd expect you to ask in order to determine whether my beliefs are deistic or theistic.

The personal nature of the God is what I was trying to get at. That is why I asked about it's consciousness and ability to interact with the universe. I wanted to know if it was interested in the world enough to intervene. I probably did not word it sufficiently.

Eloise wrote:

Well, one is not exactly a spin off of the other, really.

I was referring to this thread, not Panentheism. I hope I didn't offend you in any way.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: I'm talking

treat2 wrote:
I'm talking about Panentheism, not your interpretation of it! What's your problem?

What's your problem? We're having a constructive conversation. We don't require or desire your input.

 

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:Eloise

spike.barnett wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Ummm... I'm not sure what to make of that?

Nothing bad or anything. I just see the reason for distinction now.

 

alright, thanks for saying, it's better to be sure.

spike.barnett wrote:

The personal nature of the God is what I was trying to get at. That is why I asked about it's consciousness and ability to interact with the universe. I wanted to know if it was interested in the world enough to intervene. I probably did not word it sufficiently.

Nah, that's seems sufficient on recount, I just took it all with a different nuance.

Just aside, I should probably say that it's not really a god with interest to intervene that I'm professing here. The notion of intervention implies that there is also indifference, which doesn't really make much sense applied to a god whose primary interest is in existence for it's own sake.  This god sponsors all existence by diversification of values while intervention, in principle, would come under the auspices of a particular value.

spike.barnett wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Well, one is not exactly a spin off of the other, really.

 

I was referring to this thread, not Panentheism. I hope I didn't offend you in any way.

Oh oops, my bad, sorry.

I agree with that sentiment, it did fall a bit flat huh?


 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Why do you refer to God as

Why do you refer to God as "she"?

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
D:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Why do you refer to God as "she"?

 

 

 

 

 

Not everyone's gods are male? Mother Earth, she is female yes? The womb of creation? Yes yes?

 

 

I try to help, mon amie.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
On the flip side, George

On the flip side, George Carlin thought no woman could mess up the universe this badly.  Hmm...


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Why do

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Why do you refer to God as "she"?

 

Oh mighty Isis!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:On the flip

Balkoth wrote:

On the flip side, George Carlin thought no woman could mess up the universe this badly.  Hmm...

 

 

I also think that there would be just a single commandment:

 

"You know why I'm mad and if you don't you're obviously not sorry."

 

 

 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
We've now entered the realm

We've now entered the realm of an amusing thread, apart from it's claimed original
intent. I'm interested!

The thread is open for input from all members of the Board.

Whatever your irritated about
is of no personal concern to me, although I thought it would be of interest. Hence, my question was posed.

Now you have yor answer in response.

What you choose to investigate is up to you. I
already have done so and you have been provided with a link to a web site that clearly explains Panentheism.

Remember, this thread is entitled "Pantheism and Panentheism, what's the difference, exactly?"

You can ignore the subject.
unlike some of the posters in the thread, I chose to investigate it and provide a reference to at least one of the 2 religions.

If your irritated by the reference, that's your collective problem.

If your irritated by my input, that's also your collective problem.

My response in short is: Too fucking bad. I don't give a shit if your irritated or not and unless and until otherwise, I post when and where it amuses me to do so.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: Remember, this

treat2 wrote:
Remember, this thread is entitled "Pantheism and Panentheism, what's the difference, exactly?" You can ignore the subject. unlike some of the posters in the thread, I chose to investigate it and provide a reference to at least one of the 2 religions. If your irritated by the reference, that's your collective problem. If your irritated by my input, that's also your collective problem. My response in short is: Too fucking bad. I don't give a shit if your irritated or not and unless and until otherwise, I post when and where it amuses me to do so.

 

So you openly admit that you're here to troll?

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
She's a heretic! Burn the

She's a heretic!
Burn the witch!


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4250
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
eloise, just a few

eloise, just a few questions:

1. your elucidations of these two terms are immensely satisfying, as your posts usually are, but where exactly do you get your definitions?  can you direct me to some theorists of pantheism and panentheism?  in my experience, these kinds of labels get stuck on philosophers or theologians after the fact, e.g., in spinoza's case.

2. are you familiar with different trends in mysticism?  your definition of panentheism reminds me a lot of jewish sefira mysticism and especially hasidism, with its belief in "fragments" of the ein sof "trapped" in every part of creation (rocks, trees, humans, etc., etc.) which must be "liberated" by the performance of mitzvot.  i did my bachelor's thesis on possible connections between medieval rhenish mysticism (eckhart, et al.) and wolfram von eschenbach's parzival, so if you're conversant in the development of mysticism, we could have some interesting conversations indeed.  if not, allow me to recommend gershom scholem's major trends in jewish mysticism and martin buber's the way of man according to hasidism, as well as his ecstatic confessions.

3. is there any sort of eschatology involved with your idea of panentheism?  by that, i mean is god moving toward some sort of "goal," with or without the aid of humans, e.g., the "reconstruction" of god/the world ("tikkun olam" ) as in hasidism or hegel's "end of history" (though hegel of course was an idealist), or is your idea of panentheism a sort of "closed system," with or without a kind of cycle ("breathing," i want to say), as in the "kalpas" of hinduism or the rhythms of philosophical taoism (i'm thinking here chiefly of chuang tzu).

4. finally, you allude to another way of approaching god besides reason.  can you elaborate?  is it a form of meditation or "prayer" that results in ecstatic union (some form of hesychasm, perhaps?) or a sudden spontaneous insight, rather like a satori?  or both, or neither?

btw, i dig your theist badge and i'm glad not everybody here sees it as a sort of yellow star of david, and those that do are just fuck-ups.  my only complaint is that nobody sees things holistically here.  where are the "hegelian" badges?  or the "neoplatonist" badges?  or the "swedenborgian" badges?  shit.

oh, and don't waste your breath on treat.  that's like blu greenberg arguing with a retarded michael savage. 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I also

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


I also think that there would be just a single commandment:

"You know why I'm mad and if you don't you're obviously not sorry."



Bravo.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:So you openly

todangst wrote:

So you openly admit that you're here to troll?



That ship has long since sailed. treat is trying to get banned, for some reason, and the dynamic created is the classic:



Masochist: Hurt me.



Sadist: No.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:My response in

treat2 wrote:
My response in short is: Too fucking bad. I don't give a shit if your irritated or not and unless and until otherwise, I post when and where it amuses me to do so.


Wow, you're so full of freedom that you can be a prick any time you want. That's so bad-ass of you.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:eloise, just a

iwbiek wrote:

eloise, just a few questions:

1. your elucidations of these two terms are immensely satisfying, as your posts usually are, but where exactly do you get your definitions? 

1. Taa very much for the compliment. Smiling

2. My definitions are a synthesis of common statements specifying Panentheism and the objective science of explaining the universe. I feel this is appropriate because the reference to "the universe" in the general definition of panentheism* is a projection of human experience, such that the transcendent quality referred to in the definition is not exclusive regarding the objective universe, but only regarding a universe projected in the mode of human experience.

A Hindu text (stotra), widely believed to explicate the concept of Panentheism, the Vedasara Shivastotram, states "this universe of forms [emerges]" "from you" and "It is you in whom it finally disappears". This clearly involves an idea that the universe which panetheistic god "transcends" is ultimately the 'part' of the universe characterised by certain states relevant to human experience. (ie forms).

So the trancendence of God in panentheism (by any traditional account that can associate itself with this Hindu theology or its likeness) doesn't predict an entity falling outside of objective naturalism but an area of objective naturalism which falls outside the mode of human experience contained in the idea of forms, identities and mutual exclusivity, that area is the 'perfection' of God. 

Of course, this we have and all our understanding of it is almost exclusively within the domain of the ongoing scientific endeavour to describe the universe** hence why I synthesise my definition with the knowledge in that domain.

*General definition of Panentheism:- belief in a god which is the universe and also transcends it.

**where "the universe" implies everything everywhere in existence not to be confused with the other "the universe".

iwbiek wrote:

can you direct me to some theorists of pantheism and panentheism?  in my experience, these kinds of labels get stuck on philosophers or theologians after the fact, e.g., in spinoza's case.

Historically we have Charles Hartshorne, Karl Krause and Alfred North Whitehead.

More recently there is Paul Davies and Joseph Bracken.

iwbiek wrote:

2. are you familiar with different trends in mysticism? 

I'm somewhat familiar. The bulk of study I've done is in Gnostic Alchemy which (sometimes only superficially) covers a wide range of mystical trends.

iwbiek wrote:

your definition of panentheism reminds me a lot of jewish sefira mysticism and especially hasidism, with its belief in "fragments" of the ein sof "trapped" in every part of creation (rocks, trees, humans, etc., etc.) which must be "liberated" by the performance of mitzvot.  i did my bachelor's thesis on possible connections between medieval rhenish mysticism (eckhart, et al.) and wolfram von eschenbach's parzival, so if you're conversant in the development of mysticism, we could have some interesting conversations indeed.  if not, allow me to recommend gershom scholem's major trends in jewish mysticism and martin buber's the way of man according to hasidism, as well as his ecstatic confessions.

In an alchemy study group I am a member of (noncontributing at the moment) one of my partners was a jewish mystic... that's the kinda lame extent to which I've been exposed to it, but if it's of any value, she, clearly, perceived commonalities too.

That said, we could still probably have an interesting conversation on mysticism, I'm not completely in the dark.

 

iwbiek wrote:

3. is there any sort of eschatology involved with your idea of panentheism?  by that, i mean is god moving toward some sort of "goal," with or without the aid of humans, e.g., the "reconstruction" of god/the world ("tikkun olam" ) as in hasidism or hegel's "end of history" (though hegel of course was an idealist), or is your idea of panentheism a sort of "closed system," with or without a kind of cycle ("breathing," i want to say), as in the "kalpas" of hinduism or the rhythms of philosophical taoism (i'm thinking here chiefly of chuang tzu).

To steal a line from Hawking you might say it's closed but unbounded.

Principally this god is teleologically involved with existence, ie it is unequivocally for "something rather than nothing" to coin another old chestnut^.

Implicit in existence, of course, are "modes in which to exist" which equally involves the assignment of values. So the teleology is actualised by the establishment and consequent fulfillment of values. This gives us the unboundedness. Closure is derived further from the values having relationship to each other thus implying order which gives us combinations of values closed under the event of their addition.

To that end, we can assume an eschatology which applies to forms, or modes of existence through combinations ie the ends of worlds, but the unboundedness leaves us to conclude that the passing of one world essentially implies its replacement with another one.

 

 

^silly mixed metaphor alert! Score 1 for Eloise.

iwbiek wrote:

4. finally, you allude to another way of approaching god besides reason.  can you elaborate?  is it a form of meditation or "prayer" that results in ecstatic union (some form of hesychasm, perhaps?) or a sudden spontaneous insight, rather like a satori?  or both, or neither?

Both. But with qualification on the result.

I would advocate that it should be uncontroversial to approach an understanding of God through freely exercised intuitions and/or contemplations, and to respect the claim of having successfully acheived a vision or inspiration of sorts as a result of this activity. However, it is a given that such insights are simply not objective and as such are intrinsically not equipped with much by the way of transferable value.

That is to say, just having a revelation doesn't automatically impart respect on one's delusions of grandeur (although to have them is probably par for the course) however given such an insight can be logically followed to it's confirmation by the reciever, god can be found prior to and apart from the exercise of reason.

 

iwbiek wrote:

btw, i dig your theist badge and i'm glad not everybody here sees it as a sort of yellow star of david, and those that do are just fuck-ups.  my only complaint is that nobody sees things holistically here.  where are the "hegelian" badges?  or the "neoplatonist" badges?  or the "swedenborgian" badges?  shit.

I second that suggestion... though I understand it entails a heap of extra work for those running the site so likewise that it probably won't happen.

iwbiek wrote:

oh, and don't waste your breath on treat.  that's like blu greenberg arguing with a retarded michael savage. 

what can I say, iwbiek? you're right again.

oh and finally: Thanks for the brilliant reply.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Too fucking

treat2 wrote:
Too fucking bad. I don't give a shit if your irritated or not and unless and until otherwise, I post when and where it amuses me to do so.

LULZ You are so easy to manipulate. Once again you've responded exactly as expected.

By the way. If I wanted a well rounded view of Monotheism, I wouldn't just look at Islam and call it good. I'd look at multiple versions of it. Panentheism is as much a single religion as Deism. It's a general idea of God and not specific.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4250
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: I feel this

Eloise wrote:

 

I feel this is appropriate because the reference to "the universe" in the general definition of panentheism is a projection of human experience, such that the transcendent quality referred to in the definition is not exclusive regarding the objective universe, but only regarding a universe projected in the mode of human experience.

still trying to wrap my brain around this completely.  it's as slippery as a rainbow trout: once i get a good grip on it, it pops out in one direction or another.  you'd have been very much at home in 18th century prussia.  can we as humans bring an end to god's "transcendent" aspect?  can we ever completely close the gap between the universe of our experiences and the objective universe through science?  can we throw out kant altogether?  i'm sure you realize, but just to make sure, these questions are in no way rhetorical.

Eloise wrote:

Historically we have Charles Hartshorne, Karl Krause and Alfred North Whitehead.

More recently there is Paul Davies and Joseph Bracken.

i'm a man with a whole hell of a lot of books queued up, currently reading 5 simultaneously.  where's the most comprehensive yet concise place to start?

Eloise wrote:

I'm somewhat familiar. The bulk of study I've done is in Gnostic Alchemy which (sometimes only superficially) covers a wide range of mystical trends.

alchemy can be interesting but i find it somewhat clumsy (my opinion) and overwrought in its esoteric symbolism.  when it comes to medieval europe, i'd honestly rather go to the "christians" like eckhart, tauler, and julian of norwich.

Eloise wrote:
 

That said, we could still probably have an interesting conversation on mysticism, I'm not completely in the dark.

you clearly are not in the dark at all.

Eloise wrote:

To that end, we can assume an eschatology which applies to forms, or modes of existence through combinations ie the ends of worlds, but the unboundedness leaves us to conclude that the passing of one world essentially implies its replacement with another one.

better and better?  (i.e., more perceptive of the objective universe, more "unified with god"?)

Eloise wrote:

However, it is a given that such insights are simply not objective and as such are intrinsically not equipped with much by the way of transferable value.

can one be trained in achieving such insights, as, e.g., in the tradition of the zen masters?  is there any value to such insights that can be manisfested in the objective world (e.g., eithically)?  what do you think of the buddha and the noble eightfold path?

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:2. are you

iwbiek wrote:
2. are you familiar with different trends in mysticism?  your definition of panentheism reminds me a lot of jewish sefira mysticism and especially hasidism,...

If you want an understanding of mysticism in context of Pantheism, google:

Spinoza mysticism

Spinoza's brand of mysticism was also referred to by Einstein on multiple ocassions.

Spinoza is not easy to read/comprehend w/o considerable time being devoted to understand his idea of mysticism.

However, Einstein's references to mysticism are vert easy to understand, albeit somewhat different than what Spinoza meant.
So, for an easier answer to
what role mysticism plays in Pantheism, google:
Einstein mystic

Also bear in mind that that Pantheism in it's original form differed substantially from modern day Pantheism.
Again, google either:
Pantheism origin
or
Pantheism history
for an understanding of that.

In any case, it's garbage, and one other element of Spinoza's Pantheism that also
has evolved into what Einstein meant by "mystical"

BTW. As I've said a dozen times, you will not know what Einstein is talking about, even though you will think you do. Again, the problem is that without a clear understanding of how Pantheists redefine common English terminology, you'll be entirely mislead by what they are really talking about.

Again, for that, you need to study Pantheism, and Pantheist-speak. Some glossarys of Pantheist-speak
are on Pantheist web sites, but they're not comprehensive
enough to really be useful.

Pantheist-speak examples asnd interpretations into English have been put on some Pantheist web sires, but you're going to have to spend a long time to find such examples. (I've seen them, read them, and found them tremendously useful in decrypting Pantheist-speak examples.)


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:todangst

HisWillness wrote:

todangst wrote:

So you openly admit that you're here to troll?



That ship has long since sailed. treat is trying to get banned, for some reason, and the dynamic created is the classic:



Masochist: Hurt me.



Sadist: No.

It will be a "cold day in hell" before your Borg hive cold huurt anyone, pea-brain.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:treat2

HisWillness wrote:

treat2 wrote:
My response in short is: Too fucking bad. I don't give a shit if your irritated or not and unless and until otherwise, I post when and where it amuses me to do so.


Wow, you're so full of freedom that you can be a prick any time you want. That's so bad-ass of you.

 



Are you hard yet? It's only been a fucking week!


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4250
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:If you want an

treat2 wrote:

If you want an understanding of mysticism in context of Pantheism, google: Spinoza mysticism

i don't really need to google, as i've read spinoza fairly in depth.  i strongly contest the idea that he was a "mystic," as he clearly had no use for god's immanence and the overall goal of his thought was a rational ethic, not an ecstatic union with the immanent/transcendent god, which is the universal goal of mysticism.

in fact, spinoza is usually accused of atheism, which i also contest.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:can we as

iwbiek wrote:

can we as humans bring an end to god's "transcendent" aspect?  can we ever completely close the gap between the universe of our experiences and the objective universe through science?

It's a definite possibility, and ultimately we probably do, but although that's an enticing prospect it's not necessarily the perfect and ideal reality to close the gaps of all mystery. I mean if we lived in perfect intrigue free reality for long enough we'd get sick of it and want to come back to this one and face challenges again.  So I'll say it's totally possible and worth doing, but not having all the answers already is also part of the beauty of life. I suppose that's an important distinction about my god compared to other gods, mine doesn't mind imperfection at all.

That said, yeah, we have all we need to move beyond superstition as a human race, and I would like to be a part of that.

iwbiek wrote:

  can we throw out kant altogether? 

can you be more specific on this one?

 

iwbiek wrote:

i'm a man with a whole hell of a lot of books queued up, currently reading 5 simultaneously.  where's the most comprehensive yet concise place to start?

Well, us Panentheists are notorious for not agreeing with each other and I guess I'm no exception, rather than any of those I mentioned, for an expedient introduction to what we do commonly agree upon I'd recommend Liebniz "Monadolagie".

iwbiek wrote:

alchemy can be interesting but i find it somewhat clumsy (my opinion) and overwrought in its esoteric symbolism.

That's a fair assessment. Alchemy can be clumsy, it's not very preservationist compared to other traditions so there's a lot of seemingly disjointed and vague material to work through.

iwbiek wrote:

when it comes to medieval europe, i'd honestly rather go to the "christians" like eckhart, tauler, and julian of norwich.

 

yeah, esotericism isn't for everyone, of course, they all spoke more plainly so I understand.

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

To that end, we can assume an eschatology which applies to forms, or modes of existence through combinations ie the ends of worlds, but the unboundedness leaves us to conclude that the passing of one world essentially implies its replacement with another one.

better and better?  (i.e., more perceptive of the objective universe, more "unified with god"?)

worse and worse is also possible, but yeah, that's the point, essentially. The Christian books say god sends the good to heaven and the bad to hell at some preappointed end of days. Now every word of that is a fair esoteric depiction of the dynamics of the universe we're in; if it speaks of anything real at all then it is the configurations that a world comprising the interplay of individuality can take, not a bearded old man with a bad temper throwing lightning bolts at heathens; if you're inclined to care what esoterica teaches about the books, anyhow, and many aren't.

 

iwbiek wrote:

can one be trained in achieving such insights, as, e.g., in the tradition of the zen masters? 

I don't totally doubt that it can be taught, but I didn't personally have that experience so I can't say for sure. 

iwbiek wrote:

is there any value to such insights that can be manisfested in the objective world (e.g., eithically)? 

we could imagine that ultimately all insights are of objective value but it is up to the person themselves to make them into objective good. The bodhisattiva is not bodhisattiva until he forgoes the glory, no?

iwbiek wrote:

what do you think of the buddha and the noble eightfold path?

I have the eighfold path on my wall.. does that answer your question? lol and the four noble truths and the three jewels, and the five precepts... on a pretty card my mum made for me.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4250
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:iwbiek

Eloise wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

can we throw out kant altogether? 

can you be more specific on this one?

i was referring to his critique of pure reason and the idea that it's fundamentally impossible for us to rationally apprehend the objective universe: that our reason (and i'm being a bit naughty and equating that with "science&quotEye-wink cannot overcome the medium of our perceptions.

Eloise wrote:

if you're inclined to care what esoterica teaches about the books, anyhow, and many aren't.

many here aren't, both theist and atheist.  whether or not you believe them "inerrant" or even think there's any ethical good to be drawn directly from them, like it or not, books like the hebrew bible and the new testament are reflections of ourselves spanning 5,000 years.  while i do not believe the writers of most scriptures had any esoterica in mind while writing them, i think that later esoterica (like the zohar, for example) can often help us get at the subconscious element that can connect us with this seemingly whacked-out writer and help us glean some useful lesson from it.

Eloise wrote:
 

The bodhisattiva is not bodhisattiva until he forgoes the glory, no?

om shanti shanti shanti

Eloise wrote:

I have the eighfold path on my wall.. does that answer your question? lol and the four noble truths and the three jewels, and the five precepts... on a pretty card my mum made for me.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:treat2 wrote:If

iwbiek wrote:

treat2 wrote:

If you want an understanding of mysticism in context of Pantheism, google: Spinoza mysticism

i don't really need to google, as i've read spinoza fairly in depth.  i strongly contest the idea that he was a "mystic," as he clearly had no use for god's immanence and the overall goal of his thought was a rational ethic, not an ecstatic union with the immanent/transcendent god, which is the universal goal of mysticism.

in fact, spinoza is usually accused of atheism, which i also contest.

I didn't say he was a mystic.

I did say he believed in mysticism (as an aspect of (god).

You've definitely NOT read ANYTHING by Spinoza.

Won't even bother debating someone like you.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
FYI. Per bodhisattiva there

FYI. Per bodhisattiva there is not one there are multiple bodhisattivas.

FYI. All of the statues I've seen of bodhisattivas have been female, not male.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4250
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:You've

treat2 wrote:

You've definitely NOT read ANYTHING by Spinoza.

riiiight.

treat2 wrote:

Won't even bother debating someone like you.

i'm devastated.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4250
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:FYI. Per

treat2 wrote:

FYI. Per bodhisattiva there is not one there are multiple bodhisattivas.

well, you see, treat, in the english language, when you add the definite article to a noun, it often makes it collective, like in nature documentaries when they say, "the manta ray is capable of injecting a deadly venom when threatened."  jacques cousteau knows there's more than one manta ray, and eloise knows there's more than one bodhisattva.  "bohdisattIva," on the other hand, as you wrote it, is a steely dan song rather than a buddhistic ideal.

treat2 wrote:
   

FYI. All of the statues I've seen of bodhisattivas have been female, not male.

well, even though you've clearly seen them all and know everything much better than anyone else here, all the same, here ya go:

avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva of compassion, of whom many tibetan buddhists believe the dalai lama is an avatar.  this is a chinese statue from the high t'ang period.  here he is clearly portrayed as male, though it is accepted among most scholars that the chinese bodhisattva kuan yin (whom the japanese call kwannon) was derived from avalokitesvara, but she also has unrelated taoist origins.  bodhisattvas can be male or female, as can buddhas.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i was referring

iwbiek wrote:

i was referring to his critique of pure reason and the idea that it's fundamentally impossible for us to rationally apprehend the objective universe: that our reason (and i'm being a bit naughty and equating that with "science&quotEye-wink cannot overcome the medium of our perceptions.

Ah, yeah, I never found accord with that conclusion anyhow.

I do give Kant credit, however, for his theory of perception, hence why I asked. A lot I what I am saying falls well within that schema, so I can hardly throw that out, can I. 

It's not impossible, I believe, to 'apprehend things as they are in and of themselves'. Projection, as our psyche requires, is easy, and even habitual, but not prohibitively so it seems. Our methodology has undergone some improvement since, and in some ways resulting from, his expositions.

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

if you're inclined to care what esoterica teaches about the books, anyhow, and many aren't.

many here aren't, both theist and atheist.  whether or not you believe them "inerrant" or even think there's any ethical good to be drawn directly from them, like it or not, books like the hebrew bible and the new testament are reflections of ourselves spanning 5,000 years.  while i do not believe the writers of most scriptures had any esoterica in mind while writing them, i think that later esoterica (like the zohar, for example) can often help us get at the subconscious element that can connect us with this seemingly whacked-out writer and help us glean some useful lesson from it.

Absolutely. I did have a conversation about this particular subject (with some RRS members I haven't seen in a while) last year. When analysis is done on the history of spiritual thought, from the perspective of psychology, and it concludes basically, to the exclusion of all else, that the apparent subconscious influence is a mixture of fear and ignorance, it seems a tacit kind of chronological bigotry is sneaking in there, to me.

Though esoteric examinations have their weaknesses, they don't share that one.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1808
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:treat2

iwbiek wrote:

treat2 wrote:

FYI. Per bodhisattiva there is not one there are multiple bodhisattivas.

well, you see, treat, in the english language, when you add the definite article to a noun, it often makes it collective, like in nature documentaries when they say, "the manta ray is capable of injecting a deadly venom when threatened."  jacques cousteau knows there's more than one manta ray, and eloise knows there's more than one bodhisattva.  "bohdisattIva," on the other hand, as you wrote it, is a steely dan song rather than a buddhistic ideal.

OOps, it was my typo to begin with, iwbiek, but yeah. Bodhisattva are like a species of entity, treat, that's the right analogy. And there isn't, to my knowledge, any distinct plural or even nominative forms of the word. The bodhisattva, a bodhisattva, Bodhisattva is, and bodhisattva are, they're all correct.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4250
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:OOps, it was my

Eloise wrote:

OOps, it was my typo to begin with, iwbiek

i didn't notice, but then again i usually overlook that stuff.  i'm definitely not a linguistic purist.  it's only when someone else turns on the nitpicking factor, like treat attempted to do, that my eyes get really sharp.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I guess I was wrong. Turned

I guess I was wrong. Turned out fairly long.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:treat2

iwbiek wrote:

treat2 wrote:
treat2 wrote:
   

FYI. All of the statues I've seen of bodhisattivas have been female, not male.

well, even though you've clearly seen them all and know everything much better than anyone else here, all the same, here ya go:

avalokitesvara, the bodhisattva of compassion, of whom many tibetan buddhists believe the dalai lama is an avatar.  this is a chinese statue from the high t'ang period.  here he is clearly portrayed as male, though it is accepted among most scholars that the chinese bodhisattva kuan yin (whom the japanese call kwannon) was derived from avalokitesvara, but she also has unrelated taoist origins.  bodhisattvas can be male or female, as can buddhas.

Like I said, I've no idea why
all the depictions I've seen are female.

There sure isn't anything "clealy male" about that statue.

Got any other male Bodashy pics? LOL


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4250
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:There sure

treat2 wrote:
There sure isn't anything "clealy male" about that statue. Got any other male Bodashy pics? LOL

well, note the absence of breasts.  that should tell you something, hoss.

nevermind the fact that in all buddhist literature, sacred or otherwise, avalokitesvara is invariably male.

how many depictions have you actually seen?  did you do grad work under burton watson or something?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ever see a man with eyebrows

Ever see a man
with eyebrows like that?

Note the round shape of the face, and fullness of the lips.

The face and the shape of the
lowest visible part of the statue appear female.

As for the tits. Maybe it's a small titted woman.

Show me 1 Bodashy with a
10 inch erect dick,
ya dicklicker!


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4250
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:Ever see a man

treat2 wrote:
Ever see a man with eyebrows like that? Note the round shape of the face, and fullness of the lips. The face and the shape of the lowest visible part of the statue appear female. As for the tits. Maybe it's a small titted woman. Show me 1 Bodashy with a 10 inch erect dick, ya dicklicker!

sorry the male ideal of indian religions doesn't look like fuckin' vin diesel.  sakyamuni himself, for example:

and krishna:

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: The

Eloise wrote:
 

The bodhisattiva is not bodhisattiva until he forgoes the glory, no?

iwbiek, thanks for proving my point regarding the quote above.

You're killin' me. LOL!


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4250
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote: Eloise

treat2 wrote:
Eloise wrote:
 

 

The bodhisattiva is not bodhisattiva until he forgoes the glory, no?

iwbiek, thanks for proving my point regarding the quote above. You're killin' me. LOL!

you're a legend in your own mind, buddy.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A couple of pictures of what

A couple of pictures of what seem to be typical female portrayals in Buddhist temples in Cambodia, both taken by myself:

Cambodia 1  

I think the differences from the male portrayals should be clear...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:you're a legend

iwbiek wrote:
you're a legend ...

Glad you're a devoted fan.
I love your posts!


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Nice pics!

Nice pics!