Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Discuss.
-
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!
Came across this interesting graph.
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
Discuss.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Personally, if there's a god I feel that the panendeistic concept would make the most sense, albeit I would also think that the whole of the universe and everything within it would be a part of god rather than separate from. Also, if it's conscious I don't believe that it would have thought processes, emotional responses, or egos that are similar to those of our simian brains.
Last edited:
Considering that I refer to myself as a "Panentheist", i would say this is relatively accurate. especially since, in many ways, God in Vaishnavism is more of an observer than an intervener.
Does anyone else wonder if people usually keep a consistent stance regarding all eight of those expectations about a deity?
The whole matter feels somewhat overblown to me, personally.
The whole matter feels somewhat overblown to me, personally.
I like all our "no"s in a row.
Deity is such an abstract concept. Weighting it down with eight fairly specific expectations and holding a consistent answer to how it deals with each feels... a bit too serious, IMO.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
If I were to adopt a concept of "God" then it looks like pantheism would be my way to go. That is, God literally being the inexorable stuff and laws of the universe.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Perhaps pandeism? It depends which parts of the chart you would replace with no.Oh boy. Now I'm confused.
Time to study up.
I don't fit any of those. Now what?
I'm sort of a Deist/Atheist. It's there such a thing?
Deitheist?
can you provide a link/source? Thanks!
Discuss.
It's an interesting take on things, in spite of being very flawed. On the whole, the chart makes way too many assumptions about the additional qualities present in a particular form of theism. Having a "not applicable" category would have helped with that. In pantheism, for example, the column "intervenes in the world" would be better described as "not applicable" or "poorly worded question for this type of theism" than "no."
I don't know; I've met some pretty dogmatic deists.
Discuss.
The breakdown into dogmatic and non-dogmatic is one of the most flawed things about that graph, IMHO. Though it makes one wonder what the author actually means by those terms.
There must be some more explanations that accompany the chart.
Uncaused first cause?, transcends? Individual sentience/sapience? Intervenes vs involved in controlling? Aware of life? Dogma permissible vs agnostic/undogmatic? Pantheism vs Pandeism?
Posters here can't even seem to grasp the difference between strong and weak atheism. How are we to make heads or tails of the terms used in the graph, without explanation?
Uncaused first cause?, transcends? Individual sentience/sapience? Intervenes vs involved in controlling? Aware of life? Dogma permissible vs agnostic/undogmatic? Pantheism vs Pandeism?
Posters here can't even seem to grasp the difference between strong and weak atheism. How are we to make heads or tails of the terms used in the graph, without explanation?
I wonder who decides when dogma is "permissible" and when it isn't.
I picture the Grand High Popes of Panendeism and Pantheism both issuing fatwas, one forbidding dogmatism and the other granting permission for it.
Skwim
Veteran Member
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Theist as you now, but, I accept God to also be the universe and part of all within the universe.