The World is Polytheistic
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Now you're just being silly (again). Here's an example of the format it should come in:
lg: Are you an atheist?
Snake: Yes I am. It is important to note however that I am of the 'weak atheist' variety. I am not a strong atheist and I am not an agnostic atheist either.
See, that wasn't hard and nor was the question 'loaded'.
So.. Are you a pantheist?
Eg: Yes, I have beliefs in suddha-advaita.
Whenever you're ready... :bugeye:
erm - suddha advaita is monotheistic
(maybe we should just keep it simple and work with the understanding that I am monotheistic)
if you can't understand language (like what suddha advaita means for instance) it's not clear why you warrant for more details within monotheism
Lol, I asked if you were a pantheist. Say yes, say no, say sort of but of this variety.. What the hell is wrong with you?
I haven't "warranted for more details within monotheism" :bugeye: I have asked if you're a pantheist. Maybe I don't understand Indian language, but you clearly don't understand English.
Let's try again..
Are you a pantheist?
you didn't read post 143?
(If I say I am a montheist, and outwardly condemn undifferentiated oneness, why on earth would you think I am a pantheist?)
:bugeye:
The only way the world cannot be polytheistic is for the one true god to be one and the same, the cause of all causes, for every religion. My condescending little friend has intimated that this is the case. I understand his eagerness to separate the one true god from a giant collection of gods that humans have amassed since they started worshipping. It is an embarassment all humanity must take credit for I'm afraid. In our eagerness to gain divine support we have mistakenly selected other heavenly entities for specialization and made them gods. We should have known the error of our ways but our ignorance is no excuse.
Essentially it came down to this. Religious text is not to be taken literally. God could jump right out at you on any page, yet it is incumbent upon you the reader, to look deeper into the written word to find God. IOW the God you see is not the God you want.
Do not make the classic mistake I made. When God said there are other gods, I should have known He was referring to entities we call gods, Himself excluded of course. Pardon my ignorance if I've led you astray. All scripture accounts are thus rendered useless in the face of this new discovery. No longer will direct quotes from religious text have any validity unless the passage has undergone deep philosophical analysis and a new more endearing meaning is attained.
One man has figured it out. One man can truly call himself God's spokesman, God's Press Secretary, the frontman for all that is righteous. The accolades keep pouring in so I'll leave it at that.
Essentially it came down to this. Religious text is not to be taken literally. God could jump right out at you on any page, yet it is incumbent upon you the reader, to look deeper into the written word to find God. IOW the God you see is not the God you want.
Do not make the classic mistake I made. When God said there are other gods, I should have known He was referring to entities we call gods, Himself excluded of course. Pardon my ignorance if I've led you astray. All scripture accounts are thus rendered useless in the face of this new discovery. No longer will direct quotes from religious text have any validity unless the passage has undergone deep philosophical analysis and a new more endearing meaning is attained.
One man has figured it out. One man can truly call himself God's spokesman, God's Press Secretary, the frontman for all that is righteous. The accolades keep pouring in so I'll leave it at that.
any type of knowledge that abandons philosophy can get quite hairy
IOW - be philosophical
perhaps philosophy is not your strong suit - at least when it comes to religion
and neither is inter-religious dialogue
The standard bearer of philosophical genius has spoken. All heed.
Last edited:
any person can read up on the philosophy behind religion. If you did, which I am sure you haven't and won't, it could perhaps cause you to rethink the merit behind your current standard you insist on holding forward for the entire world to marvel at.
1) Stating that you are a monotheist does not negate the possibility of you being a pantheist, (monistic theism).
2) I do not see where you "outwardly condemned" anything on post 143. You said: "suddha advaita is monotheistic". That's the lg version of condemnation? O..k :bugeye:
3) As this is the case and you've now stated that you are not a pantheist.. why the hell couldn't you have just said "no" 10 posts ago and saved all the hassle?
Are you a pantheist?
No.
Job done.
seems like somewhere along the line you got the funny idea that suddha advaita (a type of monotheism with a "M") is a sub branch of advaita (a stype of pantheism with a "P")
kind of like mistaking sugar for salt
.... but anyway
Wtf lol?
Are you a pantheist?
Loaded question! There are 5 types of monotheism
:bugeye: I didn't ask if you were a monotheist
Why on earth would you think I'm a pantheist?
Why on earth couldn't you have just said "no" 10 posts ago?
The only idea I've got is that you're an idiot - It's well evidenced.
I shouldn't have to ask then that if it has nothing whatsoever to do with pantheism... why did you mention it in the first place given that I only asked if you were a pantheist [lol] (Unless claiming that suddha advaita is what you follow which clearly isn't the case judging from your post).
Needless to say, none of this is relevant to anything. What I do want an answer to is this:
Why, given that you have stated you are not a pantheist.. did you not just say "no" when I bloody well asked if you were a pantheist? Why the pointless nonsense instead?
:shrug:
As you believe in 1 god, (in dozens of different forms with dozens of different names etc), doesn't that god invariably lose out in the stake of greatest conceivable being to one that is everything?
There are a couple of questions there. Try answering them. It would make a refreshing change.
Needless to say, none of this is relevant to anything. What I do want an answer to is this:
Why, given that you have stated you are not a pantheist.. did you not just say "no" when I bloody well asked if you were a pantheist? Why the pointless nonsense instead?
:shrug:
As you believe in 1 god, (in dozens of different forms with dozens of different names etc), doesn't that god invariably lose out in the stake of greatest conceivable being to one that is everything?
There are a couple of questions there. Try answering them. It would make a refreshing change.
does this ring a bell
You - Ok then. Needless to say then, as everything is god and god is everything, then anything anyone ever does is perfect because they're god, (unless god is imperfect). In saying, I don't understand why you often whine about other peoples habits.. it's arguing with yourself, (everything is god). What's wrong with lust? The person with lustiness is god, lust itself is god, hell - even the pubic lice are god. It's all good..
”
me - I also have a field day with undifferentiated monism too
making suddha advaita stick to pantheism is kind of like making jelly stick to the ceiling
I would have thought it was quite obvious
if I say I am a monotheist, and declare that undifferentiated monism has severe philosophical issues, its not clear you would think I was a pantheist.
And things get even more bizarre when you start talking about suddha advaita as some sort of pantheism
not really since god can also be understood as the force of contingency behind everything - hence suddha advaita, visishtadvaita, etc etc
I guess that means you have run out of arguments
You were had. I was hoping you'd latch on to this thread because I needed to confirm some preconceived notions I had about you. First I had to decide whether you're worthy of arguing against. You're just not argumentative enough for my liking. You're the worst kind of philosopher, an egoist. You may have read every religious text known to exist but you have no idea what you're talking about. The need to stroke yourself is far more important than any issue. Smugness and arrogance aside, you can't wait to deliver what you know. Maybe you can quote this bible or that but it is not philosophy. There is no analytical thinking on your part. I figure you've been stomped on too many times to actually offer an opinion or free thought lest you be ridiculed. Your techniques are meant to frustrate, you offer nothing and you preference to changing the subject isn't fooling anyone.
I learned that a short post is best so that you have less chance of turning the argument into something other than what's being argued. If you look back you'll see I mixed them up, it was deliberate. I found that when I used short posts it generally brought on an insult or some condescending remark or silly emoticons. Personally I don't care how many gods you do or don't worship. A long while back I mentioned in another thread that I really don't think you believe what you write but you enjoy the game more, and have taken on the role as religion's defender. I'm satisfied even more now that you are a big phoney, a braggadocio, a man of little importance. If it wasn't for SciForums you'd be selling flowers on street corner.
so in short - it's all about ad homs and how many you can ring off
thanks for clarifying that
Last edited:
so in short - it's all about ad homs and how many you can ring off
thanks for clarifying that
I like it. Good form Jack.