The only thing worse than ethnic charity is no charity at all.

God is described as omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent but not necessarily omni-professional. Life isn't the same as a package holiday or a trip on a cruise ship. If we were to die and meet God we can't ask for our money back and seek to switch to a different tour guide! I don't recall signing a contract to have been born into a life with such inclement weather! One reason historical generations were far more religious than our era is that they were less accustomed to capitalism and free trade. The royal hierarchies of feudalism allowed them to conceptualise God as being regal in appearance. By contrast a request to worship contradicts our modern sense of entitlement. The problem is that a loving relationship isn't always the same as a professional or business relationship.

In an infinite universe there simply isn't enough room for there to be two fundamentally distinct souls! Otherwise we'd need to duel!

The scary thing about reincarnation is not only embodying a new person but also being "adopted" into a new family. In a metaphorical sense you'd be floating away into the unknown:

The Prince of Egypt - River Lullaby

Talking to yourself or imagining your inner voice as being projected out loud can be a symptom of a mental illness. But such a thought experiment could also serve as a reference for keeping your thoughts clean. After all you wouldn't curse under your breath if you thought everyone could hear you! Purifying your thoughts are often a religious ideal. The random nature of the thoughts that pop into our head might make it difficult to fully achieve though.

They say never to judge people by appearence yet a divine being would likely be far more accurate in their preception than us. Sometimes people can report feeling creeped out by someone as if it were a sixth sense. We can't tell what someone is like by specific features of their facial appearence and any inference is more holistic in nature. Despite all the psychology articles there isn't any biological factor in particular that means someone is definitely evil. After all speaking in a strange accent isn't creepy when the person is from a foreign country. Moreover in our individualistic culture it's acceptable to be eccentric these days. Eating the legs of frogs isn't a weird pastime for a French person! We need a preponderance of evidence to convict someone for a crime. Although we don't need the same level of scrutiny to decide whether we should passively avoid someone. Unless someone is shown to be deceitful then I'd tend to give them the benefit of the doubt even if they could be dubbed creepy. The only exception might be if I had to be alone with them. Anyway I'd never verbally accuse anyone of a negative trait simply by their first impression. There is far too much room for error in our judgements when we know nothing of their background. Overall with regards to divine judgement my point is that a God with an infinite amount of knowledge and experience could likely tell the emotional state and ethical beliefs of a person just by looking at them.


"Researchers have identified many things — like unpredictable laughter, pale skin, unkempt hair — that people tend to find unsettling in others. But they’ve also realized this: We humans are pretty poor judges of who we should trust, says psychologist Julia Shaw."
https://ideas.ted.com/what-makes-a-person-creepy-and-what-purpose-do-our-creep-detectors-serve-a-psychologist-explains/

"Stranger danger is the idea or warning that all strangers can potentially be dangerous."

The Simpsons - Marger is a Witch Part 1

Is Christianity a victim of its own success? In other words has it lost some of its rebellious image by becoming such a large religion? Perhaps it's all to easy to "free ride" by relying on the mass attendence of others!

"Reverse psychology is a technique involving the assertion of a belief or behavior that is opposite to the one desired, with the expectation that this approach will encourage the subject of the persuasion to do what is actually desired." Wiki

Jesus rejected death with a belief in heaven and in doing so rejected aspects of the physical world. God is often believed to be the creator of the physical world and so Jesus "rebelled" against a segment of God. God is defined as omnipotent and so to defy God is to make yourself superhuman. In some sense to believe in one religion is to disbelieve in other religions. If we view all religions to be equally part of God then it's possible to interpret one religion as a misotheist of the others. Although it's far more likely that people's religious affiliations are indepent rather than an active rejection of other beliefs. In other words people can be Christian out of its own merits rather than out of a dislike of other religions. Anyway my point of the comparison is that to tempt evil people into converting to religion, we could emphasize the countercultural aspects of God such as humility. This would appeal to their anti-authoritarian beliefs. Does God have a capacity for self-hatred?!

"Ironically, as the church tried to modernize, the counterculture had a growing interest in the occult, popularizing books and films that paved the way for “The Exorcist.” The film became a social phenomenon, and suddenly priests were being inundated with people demanding exorcisms."
https://theconversation.com/amp/the-catholic-churchs-views-on-exorcism-have-changed-a-religious-studies-scholar-explains-why-182212

Joan of Arc trial - Simpsons

Marilyn Manson - Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This)

Pantheism is "a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God". But what exactly does this mean when taken literally? — Michael McMahon

This is my first response in this thread so I'm responding to the OP.. Here's an excerpt from an article I'm working on which is relevant to the question.

How may we describe the relation of the universe to an immanent, impersonal God? Two analogies come to mind.

One, imagine light projected onto a movie screen. The light is one, but because of the way it moves on the screen, because of the different colors it shows, we see images of people, places, and things. In some similar sense, the people, places, and things of the world are images of God. In New Theology, we are literally an image of God, in which we live and move and have our being.

The movie analogy portrays an immanent God as the basis of physical objects. But a truly monist view must portray God as the basis of all: physical, emotional, and thought, space and time. So, we turn to another analogy.

In a dream, we create the people, their emotions and thoughts, and the universe in which they live. A person in a dream is a disguised version of our self. Or we might imagine the universe as existing in the mind of God, just as figures do in our dream. (This dream analogy suggests the idea that our impersonal and immanent God is, in some sense, conscious.)

Both analogies portray one reality underlying the universe (i.e., the universe as an image or the universe as dreamt.) Science also has the idea of one reality underlying the universe; for physics has found that as we go deeper, towards center, we go towards unity. An oak chair and oak table are distinct objects, but at the deeper level, they are both oak. At a deeper level, a chair and a cat are both a collection of subatomic particles. Physical objects on Earth are composed of about ten thousand different chemical compounds, which, in turn, are composed of about a hundred elements. Looking deeper, science finds the seventeen particles of the Standard Model, and hopes someday to discover some Grand Unified Theory, a single theory of everything. Science’s world view tends toward monism.

Moreover, science has found that matter is not “dumb” but almost infinitely subtle and complex. Quantum Field theory—the science that searches deepest into the heart of matter—has discovered a dance of energy with “virtual” particles popping in and out of existence at any moment. We look into the heart of matter and find something which, as far as we know, cannot be created or destroyed. If, in fact, the foundation of matter cannot be created or destroyed, we easily reach the conclusion that matter is a manifestation of something which is eternal.

New Theology’s view of the universe resembles science’s view: both have the idea of one reality underlying the universe, forming the universe’s foundation.

Pantheism in a nutshell: God = Universe i.e. God is a synonym for universe. God, universe, same thing!

It's worth investigating what happens to the properties of theism's god and the universe. How do they interact and what's the end result of this interaction?

If this God has free will, then how do you know he will always do good? — Michael McMahon

God's mind contains everything and is omniscient (also proven by the duality between ontology and epistemology, and God's omnipresence), which means God has no ignorance. Evil is a product of ignorance (as per both Western and Eastern religions), so God never chooses to commit evil.

How do they interact and what's the end result of this interaction? — Agent Smith

I think they both interact with the practice of faith and doctrines. At least, these are one of the main basic principles of theism, the pursue of developing the witness of God.
So, the result of this interaction could be the construction of "arguments" which root for God's existence.

Can you elaborate on that.

Sure, I would put an example related to Buddhism.

You already know that there were been different schools around the pursue of Siddhârtha Gautama. I.e Tendai Shû the important Chinese T'ien T'ai School, founded by Chih I in 575 AD.
Tendai became the institutionally and politically dominant form of Japanese Buddhism when Saichô began what later turned into a vast establishment of temples and hermitages (the "Three Pagodas and Sixteen Valleys") on the sacred mountain, Mt. Hiei. Most of the Kamakura schools were essentially spinoffs from Tendai, which emphasized Nirvâṇa in this life, the power of the Lotus Sutra.

But how they put it on practice?

Tendai practice on Mt. Hiei was Lotus Sutra in the morning, Pure Land in the evening. This was vividly formalized by the Abbot Ryôgen in 936, when corresponding adjacent halls for Lotus and Pure Land practice were joined by a covered walkway -- creating a , Japanese Ninaidô, or "carrying hall," (i.e. by analogy to the two buckets at the ends of a carrying pole).
This duality is expressed in the saying Asa Daimoku, Yû Nembutsu. "Morning Daimoku/Evening Nembutsu."

Interesting, to say the least. My question as to what the end product of the union/merger of God with the universe is is to, at the end of the day, ask what are we dealing with here?

what are we dealing with here? — Agent Smith

We deal with the pursuit of equilibrium in our minds. Fulled by those products of union.

We deal with the pursuit of equilibrium in our minds. Fulled by those products of union. — javi2541997

That's a sensible thing to do, but would depend, at least in part if not wholly, for some if not all, on what emerged out of the fusion of God and universe.

Also, some might be of the view that God is the universe, end of story; at no point did God exist separate from the universe and so the former becoming one with the latter is moot.

Also, some might be of the view that God is the universe, end of story — Agent Smith

Both end and beginning of the story :sparkle:

Both end and beginning of the story :sparkle: — javi2541997

:ok:

As @javi2541997 seems to be aware of, pantheism is probably a both selection - get the best of both worlds - by merging God with the universe. Through the universe God becomes (more) tangible and through God, the universe acquires a sanctity worthy of worship. A synergistic relationship develops due to which we can carry on worshipping God, only now He's so real!

Addendum to ...

Pan-a-theism: The assumption that everything – nature – is godless; therefore, inviolable (i.e. sacred).

:fire: :eyes:

Perhaps the notion of sacredness precedes that of god. The former makes sense even without the latter.

What do you make of the comedians' stance that for there to be peace & freedom, they should be allowed to ridicule anything and everything, that there can be no sacred cows in the modern world (re Islam and the unpleasantess vis-à-vis cartoonists and writers)?

I think they are right. "Sacred cows" are forms of idolatry and encourage superstition. Read Epicurus / Lucretius. Read Spinoza. Read Tom Paine. Reaf Zapffe / Camus . Read Clèment Rosset. :fire:

:up:

Question: Is everything funny? If there's such a thing as black humor (one can make a joke about children dying of starvation and disease) and there is, a fortiori, everything is ridiculous. Democritus, the laughing philosopher, it seems, knew that and that's 2.5k years ago.

Not "funny", just absurd. :death: :flower:

Not "funny", just absurd. :death: — 180 Proof

The difference being ... ?

Paradoxical laughter, a condition seen in some psychoses - it ain't funny and that's why it is? :chin:

Paradoxical crying, you see this in beauty pageants & Heraclitus' was known as the weeping philosopher - it ain't sad and that's why it is? :chin:

"Good deeds are a natural result of your faith and salvation. So in essence, they are one. Faith and good deeds go hand in hand, and you need both to get to heaven. If you are genuinely practicing your faith and striving to stay in God's grace, you'll find yourself naturally doing good things."
https://catholicsbible.com/how-do-catholics-get-to-heaven/

One possible way to think of the theory of divine judgement is that God can reject you and that you can reject God. As such using faith alone as a criterion for entry might remove free will on behalf of the deceased soul. If the "residents" of heaven still have a small amount of free without their earthly body then perhaps the people who are judged still have a residual level of free will to atone for a lack of prior faith. Yet I don't think that faith during your earthly life would be irrelevant either. For example if you go to an opera concert on a one-off basis you can enjoy some of the complex musical patterns for a little while before becoming exhausted. Although if you're an opera fan who goes to concerts every week then it makes sense that your superior experience would allow you to better understand the classical rhythms and get more pleasure in each individual concert. Likewise if you'd more faith in your ordinary life it might give you more stamina to appreciate and prolong heaven once you were to reach the afterlife. What one forgets about reincarnation is that is that you might still get to go to heaven again after you die in your next earthly life.


"Like Islam and Judaism or any other tradition, there is a faith requirement towards God.
However, works are not required for salvation.
The Bible says people are saved by grace through their faith. People are not saved by their works, which would give them reason to have confidence in themselves.
Salvation by faith is only logical. God can do everything we can and more.
What can we do that is good enough to impress him? Our actions aren't going to change his mind.
The Bible also says works are a by-product of faith. If faith exists, then actions follow out of love for God."
https://www.redandblack.com/opinion/faith-not-deeds-gets-you-to-heaven/article_8c869e05-b236-532e-bba5-060f5c798df4.html

Pandeism, like natural science and unlike anytheism, is not "faith-based" but is a 'story' that's most consistent (so far) with all of the known physical facts.

A trouble with telling evil people that they're going to hell is that it runs the risk that they'll become demons long before they die and reach the afterlife. In other words a belief in hell creates logical problems in that people who suspect that they'll be sent to hell could try to pre-empt it and rebel by committing even more evil. For example when we look at some of the most Christian countries like Germany and Russia we find that Christianity can sometimes backfire. The Nazis countered the threat of hell by ceasing to surrender until Berlin was captured. Russia has had a troubled history with Stalin and now with Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Putin doesn't seem to fear God at all by committing so many war crimes. Yet both of these countries were often wedded to God. Perhaps we need to tailor the concept of hell for a more liberal audience. The problem with telling evil people that they'll go to oblivion after death is that while this is technically acceptable under atheism, it's not quite in accordance with the metaphysical worldview of many evil individuals. That is to say evil individuals might pervert their religious beliefs rather than reject their belief in God by deluding themselves into thinking God will tolerate their crimes. In other words evil people could rebel against both hell and the threat of oblivion through endless crime or an attempt to hyperfocus after their death. Yet there are also problems with saying that evil people will go to heaven in that it could make good people reject God. Maybe we're just going to have to accept that the afterlife is a mystery or present hell in a more rehabilitative manner.

Christian countries like Germany and Russia we find that Christianity can sometimes backfire. The Nazis countered the threat of hell by ceasing to surrender until Berlin was captured. Russia has had a troubled history with Stalin and now with Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Putin doesn't seem to fear God at all by committing so many war crimes. — Michael McMahon

Did Harry S. Truman (a President of a Christian country) fear God when he ordered dropping atomic bombs on Japan?