Jobar

This exchange between Amos and myself occurred on Xeren's "Why would god send me to hell?" thread. Like many other points brought up in that excellent topic, I felt this one deserved a thread of its own.

Amos: "...it is possible that we become one with God in the Beatific Vision and will henceforth be of singular identity in the I AM."

Jobar: And at that point, we may say with all humility "I am God" because we realize this is at root true for all "I"'s. THOU art THAT. Remember that I once said I found your expression of pantheism in the language of Catholicism to be like trying to do quantum mechanics in Chinese, Amos? Well, perhaps it's possible to come to correct answers using Chinese, after all.

Amos: Your "at that point we may say . . . " sounds futuristic and that is not my intention. I just wrote that the possibility exist, and if that is true, it certainly has come to pass for many who have travelled that road and is why we have "the Church Triumphant" (without humility).

Jobar: "Futuristic" Amos? What an odd word for this. Surely you must know that the idea I am expressing is ancient, despite my own and others' attempts to harmonize it with modern physical science. Why do you call it futuristic? And do you still deny that it is consonant with your own beliefs, given that you also say

Amos: ...the transcendence of God can be described and evidence of this is found in the transparency of different mythologies from around the world. We can describe the same idea of God using words and phrases that are taken from various mythologies and still know what we are trying to say.

Jobar: You know, I have been trying to find the common ground where 'different mythologies' and science can stand comfortably together, for most all my adult life. To do this, I examine the individual elements and beliefs of the thousands of religions for similar ideas, and then see if these ideas can be fitted within the always-skeptical worldview of science. The similarities I find are the same, I am sure, as what you refer to as the 'transparency of different mythologies'.

Most of the elements of mythology and religion fall away, pared by the sharp blade of Occam's Razor and the fact that those elements contradict observed reality. We have no least objective evidence for reincarnation, the immortality (or existence) of the soul, heaven and hell as physical (as opposed to psychological) places, or any verifiable supernatural entities- including a God apart from 'creation'.

'Most' is not 'all', though. I find that the idea of transcendence, of the union of the finite with the infinite, and of the mundane with the mystical- those ideas withstand my skeptical scrutiny. Like the identity of matter and energy, or the difficulties in defining reality at the quantum level, I can't really claim that I *understand* it- I do not always have clear and readily explainable concepts. There are convergences between the scientific and pantheistic view which are clear to me, though.

I want to address some of my fellow infidels on why I call myself an atheist/pantheist. I've said numerous times that the meaning of 'theos' here is not the Western one, and I am comfortable using 'pantheist' to describe myself. I have seen some who used mystic or Buddhist or Taoist- I object to none of those, but use pantheist to indicate that I draw my ideas from all those different traditions, and not just one of them. I am aware that some find pantheist rather grating- but just like the common English uses of such words as 'goodbye' or 'spirited' or 'heavenly' or 'hellish', we can use the meaning we wish without having to carry the superstitious baggage too. If anyone cares to suggest some alternative, I would be willing to discuss the matter.

Devilnaut

I admit that I am somewhat fascinated by many of Amos' posts and also pantheism in general.

I am curious as to whether Amos sees christianity as a largely metaphorical "guideline" to achieving 'heaven' (or Zen, which seems to be the buddhist equivalent). I find many interesting parallels between pantheism and the core messages of christianity, such as the annihalation of the ego and becoming one with reality. It strikes me that christianity is a less direct method of achieving the same goals as pantheistic religions.

Jayhawker Soule

Humpty Dumpty, seeking approval ...

By the way, I suspect that most find "pantheist" not grating, but superfluous.

You write: "There are convergences between the scientific and pantheistic view which are clear to me, though." Given that "convergences" is not the same as 'identity', what is implied by pantheism that is not convergent? In short, in a crowd of philosophical naturalists and other atheists, what do you bring to the party that you find otherwise missing?

Jobar

RD:
"In short, in a crowd of philosophical naturalists and other atheists, what do you bring to the party that you find otherwise missing?"

In short: synthesis, of the thesis of theism and the antithesis of atheism. Or at least an honest attempt at it.

Jobar

RD: "Humpty Dumpty, seeking approval ... "

Jobar grins back, showing big, sharp, pointy teeth

And you should recall that the Tao, like water, always seeks the lowest level, and has nowhere to fall to.

Amos

Excellent Jobar and my comment that your "at that point we may say with all humility 'I am God'" sounds futuristic is because in Christianity today it is firmly believed that the Beatific Vision is yet to come and cannot come until the second coming of Christ.

My objection to this is that the second coming of Christ is in a personal way and no universal second coming is to be expected. The second coming is Parousia which is the final ousia, or the final Form of the Good, or the final round of samsara, or the final mass called Christ-mass.

The panteist position takes hold after the final mass, or the final round of samasara which is the end of our searching when we finally and rightfully can say "Amen" to "this is my body" or "this is my blood" or "this is Buddha."

Who was it that said "The whole world is tormented by words and nobody can do without words, but to the extent that we are free from words do we really understand words?" (I'll call it a praphrase because I am sure that somebody will correct me).

Amos

Hi Devilnaut
In my strict definition Christianity is a state of mind in Christendom and never a religion. It has no theology of its own but to achieve this end each religion has its own path and this is what theology is all about. Some are right and some are wrong and this same will be true in all major mythologies.

Along this path many religious people can benefit from a deep intimacy with their inner self, here called Christ, which is especially true for women who's own heart is equal to the heart of Christ. Hence freedom is gained in "know thyself" even while in prison or under the veil of submission.

Jayhawker Soule

That's what I thought.

Answerer

Sorry to ask but what do the whole issue have to do with chinese?

Jayhawker Soule

Nothing. The productive work in 'quantum mechanics' is done using the language of science.