information on panentheism (moral, Creator, salvation, beliefs, creation)

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by mball1297

It's easier to decide whether to accept or reject something once you are clear on what it is.

I don't think it can be more clear: the effect, the individual, is not greater than or equal to the cause.

Infinity transcends the chaos that divides us, it transcends the multiple, the "we," but we do not. The diverse parts are not the whole even if they include it.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I don't think it can be more clear: Infinity implies unity but does not exclude diversity. "Between me and thee there is chaos, else there would be no me and thee (no diversity)." Infinity transcends the chaos that divides us, it transcends the multiple, the "we," but we do not. The diverse parts are not the whole even if they include it.

OK, but wouldn't that be a broader definition of existence? You're saying that we are part of existence, but isn't existence a part of us too?

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by mball1297

OK, but wouldn't that be a broader definition of existence? You're saying that we are part of existence, but isn't existence a part of us too?

I reiterate: this is not a debate. Read what was said.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I reiterate: this is not a debate. Read what was said.

I'm sorry you feel it's a debate. I thought it was more of a discussion, in which I was trying to get clarification.

[Rolling_Stone]

Let's return to common sense and move away from the pitfalls of solipsism. Can we, having consciousness, mind, and ideal-values, possess more and therefore be more than All-That-Is? The difference may be only in degree, but it's still a difference.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Let's return to common sense...

Sounds good. I'm already here, when are you getting back?

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Queston: Are you familiar with The Urantia Book?

Somewhat, I looked at it 20 years ago and it was way too much to digest back then (was more into chasin girls at that time ) I recall it having a great deal of info about choirs of angels and the bureacracy of Heaven, and how th Cosmos is much much older than anybody realizes, and such. But beyond that its a bit fuzzy.

Originally Posted by mball1297

OK, but wouldn't that be a broader definition of existence? You're saying that we are part of existence, but isn't existence a part of us too?

I agree partly with mball, and disagree strongly with Immanual Kant, on this--Existence is a predicate, i.e. a property of a thing. Kant said its not, but I think existence is relative to the effect something has on something else, so the relative existence of something is measured in terms of how it relates to other things, and vice-versa. Not sure if this is the "chaos" to which RS refers, but for me it ties into Quantum Theory and the many-worlds interpretation/ or how in General Relativity there is no preferred inertial reference frame for any motion in the Universe, as an example.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

Somewhat, I looked at it 20 years ago and it was way too much to digest back then (was more into chasin girls at that time ) I recall it having a great deal of info about choirs of angels and the bureacracy of Heaven, and how th Cosmos is much much older than anybody realizes, and such. But beyond that its a bit fuzzy.

The reason I asked is that many of your ideas seem to be derived from it.

for me it ties into Quantum Theory

Bingo. Between observations (measurements) we cannot say an electron even exists, let alone whether it's a particle or wave. It is this inability to observe the in-between that makes "we" possible (edit: and the Infinite transcends). The point I was trying to make is that a strictly monistic view loses sight of experience and common sense; on the other hand, a strictly dualistic view (the universe composed of isolated parts) denies the logical necessity of the unity of infinity. Hence, my view is basically panentheistic, but with a strong emphasis on the theistic for reasons that are too involved to go into here.

But if you really want me to get into it, just say the word. But it might be long-winded.

Edit: If you were still into chasing girls 20 years ago, yer still a kid.