I certain know what you meant there.

However, I think we can state some obvious 'truths'.

For example, we can state that we are either spirit beings, nor not spirit beings.

That's not a conclusion about which might be true, it's just an observation that these are the only two possiblities we can think of (for now)

As you say, we may come to a time when we can imagine something different from 'spirit' and add a their possiblity to our list. Right now I can't imagine what it would be.

But just because we can't imagine it doesn't mean that we aren't open to it. It simply means that we haven't yet been able to imagine what it might be.

In the meantime, if we are recognizing two differnt possiblities (i.e. spirit versus non-spirit), then it makes sense for us to example precisely what the differences are.

Maybe by examing what the differences are we will be able to devise a method to determine which must be 'truth'.

On the other hand, if we can't even make a distinction between spirit and non-spirit then maybe we're barking up the wrong tree in the first place.

Like Jeannie often says, I don't claim to know truth, I merely seek it.

But a lot of these people claim that they already have truth in some form or another. So we question those people to see why they have come to their conclusions, but all we see is smoke and mirrors.

I have yet to see anyone give a concrete reason why anything they hold to be true must necessarily true.

In the meantime I remain agnostic. Although I also confess to be leaning toward the spiritual picture and I give me reasons for my leanings.

I do not imply that they are proofs.

I'm ulimately agnostic.

I DON'T know what the hell is going on!!!

I OPENLY admit that.

When I try to explain my veiw of pantheism I'm not trying to "prove" it. I'm merely trying to explain what the view is.

I would like to hear what Creative has to say about how he makes a distinction between atheism and pantheism.

I'm not asking him to PROVE the distinction!

I'm simply asking him to describe his views so I can better understand where he's coming from.

I'm in agreement with Miguel on this one.

If our true essence is in fact spiritual, then it makes perfect sense to assume some level of anthropomorphic character to spirit.

That's the whole point to spirituality in the first place as far as I can see.

In the pantheistic view, we are spirit.

We are created by spirit. It is the spirit that gives us our anthropomorphic nature!

That's the whole idea behind spirituality as far as I'm concerned.

To deny that there can be any anthropomorphic association with spirit is to demand atheism.

That's how I see it. This is just my view of things of course.

From my point of view spiritual pantheism is the proclaimation that our true nature is spiritual. We are spirit.

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello

I may just be a little naive here but I am having trouble making that association work in my head ...

If we are indeed made manifest into a human form by a creative source or a Creator of some sort why would it necessarily follow that the Creator must have an anthropomorphic nature?

Couldn't we just as plausibly assume that it is our soul ... our own spirit ... that is the non-human part of us ... the part that links us to the truth of this creative source or Creator and that it is this physical manifestation of human ... with its receptors, emotions, brain, experiences, perception, ego etc...that gives rise to this very human existance that is not 'from' or 'a part of' the Creator at all?

I create alot of things but that doesn't mean they then take on my characteristics of being human...

A painting may evoke emotion in another but the painting itself does not feel ... at least not in a 'human' experiential way ...



...maybe I am just lost today ...

I suppose this all come down to what is meant by anthropomorphic nature.

If it's intended to mean physical attributes then the whole notion is moot to begin with because spirit isn't physical.

It's it's meant in a spiritual sense (which is the only way it can possibly apply), then why not?

If we are a manifestation of the spirit then surely we are going to have a spiritual nature.

This is like Miguel was saying, we can hardly claim to be made in the "image" of God, and then turn around and claim that God is nothing at all like us.

Just change the word "God" with the word "Spirit" and what's the difference?

In other words, if the "Me" of who I am is spirit. Then the spirit is necessarily similar to the "Me". Anthropomorphism is imlpicit by the very nature that my fundamental essence is spirit.

If I'm not spirit, then I'm an atheist.

I don't how we can seperate the spirit from our nature and simultaneously claim that our true nature is spiritual.

Seems kind of meaningless doesn't it?

This is why I asked Michael to describe the difference between atheism and pantheism as he views them.

If You Want To Live Your Soul.


The soul within our individual souls
loves the one who runs and falls down
more than the one who sits and watches.

The soul within the soul lives in a lover.

Consider this metaphor: how you love is
the open sky. These personal selves are
the seperate rooves of a town.

Your tongue, the guttering where words flow.

If the roof is not clean, the water words
get thick and murky.

Some people have elaborate systems that
drain water from other rooves.

This is not wise. There's a false eloquence to it.

A lover is one who waters a garden from the rain barrel
that fills under his own roof.

Roses that grow from that have tears in them.

Sometimes the scale pans may weigh correctly,
but the balancer is off.

A sweet doctor may give bitter medicine.
A foot finds the right shoe in the dark.

Love moves on its way through the pleasures it feels.

Even though the time you live in
is violent and frightening, you're safe.

If you want to know who someone is, hang around
with their friends. They know.

The rule that covers everything is:
How you are with others, expect that back.

If you want to know love, enjoy the company
of lovers. If you want to be thought a great person,
learn some subtle point and say it with many variations
as the answer to every question.

If you want to live your soul,
find a friend who knows Love and stay near.


- Rumi.

( I'm with him on this one)

I am so on the same page regarding the nature of spirit ... the spiritual part of me is that piece of the greater Spirit...

...but forgive me as I fail to see the relevance in relation to being anthropomorphic which means 'human' attributes ... not spirit ...

Would those 'human' attributes not potentially include ...vengence, wrath, ego, love, senses, emotions, jealousy ... all those pieces that are dualistic and which are and are not 'form'...

...now we are back to a notion of God or Spirit that makes no sense to me ...

That's a beautiful poem Jess.

I found the following words to be especially cute:

"If you want to be thought a great person,
learn some subtle point and say it with many variations
as the answer to every question."

I've known people who do this and they were indeed great people.

Rumi ... sigh

Apologies for the Rumi-nating mid thread...

I just get a little frustrated with all the toing and froing on splitting hairs and definitions...

How about we work towards BEING, and DOING, and less on who's label is the correct one, with relation to anything, and EVERYTHING?

How about we work towards honouring the SOUL, the Who of someone, and not the What?

I love the WHO of all of you here in this thread, and the amazing feast you bring to the table... why are we discussing the menu, and allowing the mice to eat the feast?

I think some would and some wouldn't.

And perhaps understanding which is which is what 'enlightenment' is all about.

Let's just take some of them,...

emotions - if a spirit cannot experience emotion would it not be dead?
senses - if a spirit cannot sense anything at all can it said to be a living spirit?

I think emotions and senses are innate not only to humans but to spirit. In fact I would go as far to suggest that both our ability to sense and to feel emotion arise from spirit. This is why most people feel that robots can never be 'alive' because even though they can be equipped with sensors than can never truly "feel" them in emotional ways.

The other things you've mentioned are choices made on what we sense and the emotions that arise from those choices.

Vengeance - you can choose whether or not to be a vengeful person.

Can you choose whether or not to have emotions? Emotions are innate.

Wrath - again a choice to take a certain disposition.

But what about the emotion that give rise to anger? You can control it via how you choose to react to it. But the emotion itself is innate. It's like waves on an ocean. The emotion itself arises from your spirit. This is way robots could not truly become emotional. But they could certain be programmed to act in ways that appear to be 'wrath'.

Ego - comparing one's self with another? Separating one's self from others. Thinking one's self is more important than others?

Those are all choices. Not innate. The ego is not innate to the spirit. Ego is a choice.

Same with jealousy that is clearly ego-driven.

How about love? That's a tough one because it implies so many things.

Love can be caring for another. But that's a choice, and requires the existence of another in order to even exist.

Unless of course, it's self love. Not selfishness, that would be ego. But true self love would be contentment, peaces, (i.e. not anger).

Love in this sense would be a calm spirit. A spirit that is not making waves.

So when we speak about anthropomorphism there's a whole range to it.

To claim that spirit is exactly like a human in every detail would be wrong. I'll be the first to agree with that.

But to claim that no human qualities can be applied to spirit I would seem to me to deny the very essence of what we believe spirit to be. Take away all human spiritual qualities and what's left?

A dead spirit? Nothingness? Atheism?

It just seem to me that the spirit needs to have at least some anthropomorphic qualities.

But, yet, hopefully it wouldn't have any reason to be vengeful, jealous, or show wrath, all of which arise from the ego.

I see no reason why spirit would need to have ego (especially in the negative sense of arrogance or making bad choices). But that doesn't mean that it can't have emotion and senses.

After all, without emotion and senses what sense would it make to speak about spirit at all? If a spirit can't sense that it is, then wouldn't that be a dead spirit? Atheism?

Like I already asked. What's the difference between atheism and pantheism.

If spirit is denied all manner of sentience then what's the point to even creating the word 'spirit'. What would it be if it cannot have any meaningful attributes? Sounds like atheism to me.

Oooh this is awesome James

It doesn't make sense to me because we have very different views about what spirit is ...

To me it is the formless observer ... the ghost in the machine as it were with no judgment ...

Emotion and senses are part of the physical construct ... and allows for processing of experience by this human form ... and the spirit is the witness...


...as far as ego goes ... to me it just means the thoughts and beliefs that make up who we think we are ...it does not have a negative connotation in and of itself ...


way cool ... I understand the differences now and can read your post with different glasses ...

That's what the WHOLE REST of the site is for Jess.

Except maybe the politics forums.

Religion discussion forums is for discussing religious questions.

Or we could just sit around smiling at each other and singing hymns.

It's kind of hard to sing hymns through a keyboard though.

It has been a long while but ok ....


Cum By Ya, my Lord, Cum By Ya
Cum By Ya, my Lord, Cum By Ya
Cum By Ya, my Lord, Cum By Ya
Oh Lord, Cum By Ya

Pass the salt.

James,

Just because one claims not to be able to know how to explain something that exceeds human understanding, does not constitute atheism, nor agnosticism.

Your view is far too narrow, my friend...

There are many more choices than those which you are aware of. It is that which you have yet to perceive that would enable a greater awareness should you gain the understanding necessary to facilitate a different perception.

We are not yet ready to delve into a conversation regarding the differences between pantheism and atheism. It would be a fruitless adventure, I am afraid...

It directly involves awareness, among a couple of other things.

Yeah, but still, if you're giving it the ability to 'observe' then there must be something to it.



You're starting to sound like Micheal now.

But still, talking about the spirit as the 'witness'?

The ability to 'observe' and 'witness' implies that there is some kind of 'being' or 'entity' that can observe and witness things even if though the physical world.

Moreover, if that entity didn't create or give rise to the physical world in the first place then what did?

It just about had to have some form of sentience in it's own right before humans (or any other life forms even evolved).

I actually have some thoughts on that, but they would be very difficult to share in words.

But I don't see how the spirit itself could require construct for its sentience, and simultaneously be said to be the creator of that construct.

Seems to me theres a fundamental problem there.

I am?

You must have forgotten our conversations at that 'other' site ...