• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Dualist Playing GOD

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
some of us believe in pantheism, or panentheism. some believe that god creates things from nothing.

some of us know we're playing out god as alan watts said. John 14:20

some don't yet know that.

so why would a dualist play god, if their god is omnipotent? why would a dualist interfere and not be indifferent when loving everyone as their brother and sometimes even as their enemy? is their faith, belief somehow skewed? is the unconscious leaking at some point into the consciousness?


the song of solomon says not to wake the beloved until ready. some are not ready to love, do not find love a treasure?


 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I’m not sure that I understand what you are saying and/or potentially asking @Fool Could you rephrase it a little for me, perhaps?


Humbly
Hermit
If God is pantheistic, or panentheistic, then the pantheist/panentheist is God playing/creating. Pantheists/panentheists are basically monists.

A dualistic doesn't believe God is inherent. God is somewhere, something else. But then each dualistic is behaving as if God can't accomplish the task of righteousness without help. What happened to their omnipotent God? Why is he not present?
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
If God is pantheistic, or panentheistic, then the pantheist/panentheist is God playing/creating. Pantheists/panentheists are basically monists.

A dualistic doesn't believe God is inherent. God is somewhere, something else. But then each dualistic is behaving as if God can't accomplish the task of righteousness without help. What happened to their omnipotent God? Why is he not present?

Why not both.

Can't God be both here, and there?

Both One, and the Many.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
There is one being having many states or forms. There is one universe having many states and forms

Therefore God is Many, and One. So Dualism and Monism are both equal pursuits in the eyes of the Gods. No?
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Therefore God is Many, and One. So Dualism and Monism are both equal pursuits in the eyes of the Gods. No?
Dualism is an illusion. The being is infinite, endless. It's forms are temporal. It's action is eternal, constant
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
Dualism is an illusion. The being is infinite, endless. It's forms are temporal. It's action is eternal, constant

Yet it chooses to display itself to us in personal ways, here and now. Taking on a myriad of mental forms for Us.

Therefore it takes a dual-nature to be percieved. Because we cannot transcend that space until death (most of us).

Like Plato's forms, we are shackled by our perceptions. And the Gods are willing to work with that.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Yet it chooses to display itself to us in personal ways, here and now. Taking on a myriad of mental forms for Us.


Therefore it takes a dual-nature to be percieved. Because we cannot transcend that space until death (most of us).

Like Plato's forms, we are shackled by our perceptions. And the Gods are willing to work with that.

You're ignoring the dualist person. The forms believe they are the part that is eternal. They don't like change. They don't want change. They want tradition. What they can define, control; especially things not like them. I'm not implying that the infinite can't have infinite. So the forms are endless, formless, and the forming is eternal
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
You're ignoring the dualist person. The forms believe they are the part that is eternal. They don't like change. They don't want change. They want tradition. What they can define, control; especially things not like them. I'm not implying that the infinite can't have infinite. So the forms are endless, formless, and the forming is eternal

I'm not ignoring the dualist person. I specifically said that we are shackled by our dualistic nature.

And the Gods aquiesce to that notion, to display themselves to us, in their myriad of formless forms.

But you are ignoring that you're shackled.by your own perceptions of deity. Which aren't the same as All perceptions. Hence the All in All? No?

Edit: The problem as is see it. Is that if everything is percieved as One. There is no reason to believe that the Other exists. And that is Solipsism and that's a Sin imo.
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I'm not ignoring the dualist person. I specifically said that we are shackled by our dualistic nature.

And the Gods aquiesce to that notion, to display themselves to us, in their myriad of formless forms.

But you are ignoring that you're shackled.by your own perceptions of deity. Which aren't the same as All perceptions. Hence the All in All? No?

Edit: The problem as is see it. Is that if everything is percieved as One. There is no reason to believe that the Other exists. And that is Solipsism and that's a Sin imo.
The question isn't about anything more than the dualist being attached to an exact self. The self is impermanent in form. It is permanent and eternal, infinite in action.

The bible even tells the dualist that it has no form but some think of it in anthropomorphic form.

In Hinduism it is understood as Lila and Maya. The divine play.

So then why is the dualist person interfering with their god's omnipotence? Can't it accomplish it's divine purpose without them?
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
The question isn't about anything more than the dualist being attached to an exact self. The self is impermanent in form. It is permanent and eternal, infinite in action.

The bible even tells the dualist that it has no form but some think of it in anthropomorphic form.

In Hinduism it is understood as Lila and Maya. The divine play

The divine play of Lila is different imo. But what your referring to is close to Plato's Allegory of the cave.

My point is Dualism is as necessary in explaining reality as Monism is.

So I see no difference.

The Gods are one and Many simultaneously.

The real experience imo is my own philisophical invention of Trialism. There are really 3 perceptions. The left hand path, the right hand path and the middle path. All of which lead to the Gods. So the Gods are as mixed up in this divine play as we are. Which is another important part of both Hinduism, and Norse mythology.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
The divine play of Lila is different imo. But what your referring to is close to Plato's Allegory of the cave.

My point is Dualism is as necessary in explaining reality as Monism is.

So I see no difference.

The Gods are one and Many simultaneously.

The real experience imo is my own philisophical invention of Trialism. There are really 3 perceptions. The left hand path, the right hand path and the middle path. All of which lead to the Gods. So the Gods are as mixed up in this divine play as we are. Which is another important part of both Hinduism, and Norse mythology.
dualists do not recognize the divine in all things, in all places, at all times. They are hypnotized by the illusion of contrast. They eat from the tree of knowledge but not of understanding. Everything is either good or evil. The monist sees forms as shades of black and white.

That is the difference. There is no problem with forms, diversity. There is in becoming attached to a form and trying to fit everything into that form
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
dualists do not recognize the divine in all things, in all places, at all times. They are hypnotized by the illusion of contrast. They eat from the tree of knowledge but not of understanding. Everything is either good or evil. The monist sees forms as shades of black and white.

That is the difference. There is no problem with forms, diversity. There is in becoming attached to a form and trying to fit everything into that form


I disagree with your assumption of Dualists.

I see myself as having a dial nature. I don't subscribe to what you're saying.

I have experienced Monism. It is not the only Reality.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I disagree with your assumption of Dualists.

I see myself as having a dial nature. I don't subscribe to what you're saying.

I have experienced Monism. It is not the only Reality.
reality is a singular word. It's not plural for reason.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
The better word should be realities. As we all experience our own personal one. ;)
Those are within the whole.

The all in all is


ALL(singular) in all(plural). The only absolute(action) is that there are no absolutes (forms).

Paradox, mystery
 
Top