More Than One "god", More Than One Path...

[peach_cube]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1331229' date='Jul 16 2007, 06:25 PM']Equal meaning the same choices and potential?[/quote]
If that's how you want to phrase being equal on whatever god like plain we are on in this idea, sure. But am I just as much a god as a rock or say a chicken?

[Kosh]

[quote name='Anthony' post='1331381' date='Jul 16 2007, 08:43 PM'][mod]personal attack[/mod][/quote]
This is a DEBATE table.

So carrdero, how does us ALL being gods fit in to the idea of a god by definition being omnipotent? I'm certaintly not omnipotent so am I not a god? How 'bout Aquinas' theology of the atributes of divinity? The perfection of god? I don't quite get what you're saying.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Lil Red

[MichaelF]

To use a nasty bit of reductive logic:

1.) If: All paths are true.

2.) Then: Jesus Christ spoke the Truth.

3.) And If: Christ states that His is the only True way.

4.) Then: There is only one True way. Christianity.

The "all paths are true" argument breaks down when one of those "true paths" demands exclusivity.


From your sig: Kemetic Orthodox?

Edited July 17, 2007 by MichaelF

[carrdero]

[quote]Kosh writes: So carrdero, how does us ALL being gods fit in to the idea of a god by definition being omnipotent? I'm certaintly not omnipotent so am I not a god?[/quote]
I don’t believe omnipotence is an aspect or goal of all gods. There are many things that I can do that others may not be able to do. There may be things that I know that others may not know but this is not a reason for me to hold authority or judgment over someone or to feel superior to anyone.
[quote]Kosh writes:How 'bout Aquinas' theology of the atributes of divinity? The perfection of god?[/quote]I believe that GOD had to learn just as anyone has to learn. I believe that GOD had at one time made mistakes (probably before there was anyone around to laugh at Him). It takes a great deal of time, effort and practice to become perfect but in time I believe that we too (if we desire) could reach this perfection. This may be one of the examples Jesus was trying to teach us during his human existence.

Edited July 17, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Peach cube: If that's how you want to phrase being equal on whatever god like plain we are on in this idea, sure. But am I just as much a god as a rock or say a chicken?[/quote]I think any living entity would qualify as a god. I would think we would be on equal terms with GOD as far as existence, experience and creation.

[Hirsap]

[b]There is more than one "God" in this world, more than one path and more than two places to spend eternity"
This is what I believe, but I understand that the people here may not share this belief, so my "question" is why do you feel that your path/belief is a better or the best way?

In Her light,
Belinda [/b]

Replying to Belinda's first post ^^^ (I would quote but cannot due to some problem either with the phorum or me)

As a preliminary observation, it can be shown through sound philosophy that there can only be one God. This is actually independent of whether one accepts the Catholic religion as the true religion. I hope to have captured sound philosophical proof for the unity of God. Please, anybody on the phorum, who perceive problem with these arguments, correct me. But I am pretty sure that below is a representation of the argument propounded through Natural Theology.

The self-existent Being (God) is identical with its nature (of being existence itself). (This is distinct from all other beings, which merely 'have' existence) With other beings, such as man, nature is something possessed by a number of distinct individuals. That is, human nature, is something possessed by a number of individuals. Whereas, the Being that is existence can only be one, for the same reason existence itself can only be one, since there is no middle ground between existence and non-existence.
For there to be more than one Being of this nature, there must be a distinction between the two or more. For instance, if there is no distinction between what is meant by A and what is meant by B, A and B are identical, i.e.: differing only insofar as they are called different things (A and B). Self-existence consists in unlimited perfection, and therefore, to suppose two or more beings that are self-existent, is to suppose two or more beings that are unlimited perfection. This means there would be no distinction, (i.e.: they are exactly the same being), and so there is only one Being in the first place. The only way to get a distinction is to suppose one being to have more or less perfection, i.e.: some difference between the two self-existent Beings through which they get a distinct identity. More perfection is contradictory, as it is already unlimited. Less perfection would signify a limited perfection - something impossible for something self-existent.

[carrdero]

Hirsap (just trying to see if I am following this correctly),
Could the amount of moments be a factor to consider and differentiate two self-existing BEings? For example, if given time to develop, could the amount of intelligence, personality and individuality expressed be detected in self-existing Beings to distinguish one from the other?

Edited July 17, 2007 by carrdero

[Hirsap]

[b]Hirsap (just trying to see if I am following this correctly),
Could the amount of moments be a factor to consider and differentiate two self-existing BEings? For example, if given time to develop, could the amount of intelligence, personality and individuality expressed be detected in self-existing Beings to distinguish one from the other? [/b]

Just to clarify. Do you mean 'moments' as in instances, one moment being another instance in succession to the previous moment? If you do, then consider that God is eternal. Though we may think of eternity as being time with endless duration, it actually means the absense of time and therefore succession and different moments. Though it's difficult to speak of eternity, one expression used to describe is not an eternal duration, but an ''eternal [i]now[/i]". No before or after. An endless 'now'.

Consider also that is shown through St. Thomas' First Way that God is Pure Act, or Pure Being. There is no potentiality to become in God, since He is Pure Being. So there cannot be stages of development in God, for to do so is to require God to have potentiality to become.

[carrdero]

I think I made need to clarify my query. I hold to one of the possible beliefs that we are all eternal and that we may have all self-existed (like GOD) except that GOD was the first and may have had more time to “develop” than other entities. I do not believe that any human begins their existence in the physical realm but originates in the spiritual realm before choosing a physical existence (therefore qualifying us all as gods). Here’s where I may need further understanding from you:

[quote]Hilsap writes: For there to be more than one Being of this nature, there must be a distinction between the two or more. For instance, if there is no distinction between what is meant by A and what is meant by B, A and B are identical, i.e.: differing only insofar as they are called different things (A and B).[/quote]
Could not the soul that is self existing (by nature) be distinguishable by the different moment that it self-existed? Just like no two humans are born at the same time and the same place in a physical existence, could there be some some distinguishable traits to separate it from other entities (possibly by frequency)?

[123]

The traits for different human beings don't lie in their souls, but in the body. Souls are thought to have no personality. What we percieve as personality is what is manufactured by the human logical system. The words that you used (traits, seperating, entities.) are not sufficent to describe the seperate soul each human has. the tenets of the soul cannot be describe with human words, but only words of The Divine:

[b]On the existance of souls[/b]

The greek word for Soul is [i]Psyche[/i] ( at least I remember it as so.) this implies that, since Plato who viewed a theory of the soul, saw it encapsulated in the mind. Hence, to this day we have psycologists that are said to "peer into the soul" not literally of course. However, some feel that the soul's "personality" is reflected by the state of mind someone may be in.

A spirit that has the same human tenets and distinguishable personalties is, in greek, called [i]Soma Pneumaticom[/i], or Spirit Body. This description is different and what some religious theorists believe was primary in Judio-Christian heritage before the inception of the soul, supposedly adopted into Christianity by St. Augstine whom was once a pagan, and during his tenure in Christianity, was greatly influenced by Platonism.

These are two of the issues at hand of how there are seperations of spirits or souls are understood. But, I don't think they can be seperated like a girl is seperate from a boy, when it comes to personality traits. Besides, arent a majority traits handed down from parents? You see, these are all human descriptions, not Divine or Visonary.

Edited July 17, 2007 by GloriaIesusChristi

[peach_cube]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1331888' date='Jul 17 2007, 01:11 AM']I think any living entity would qualify as a god. I would think we would be on equal terms with GOD as far as existence, experience and creation.[/quote]

So no on the rock and yes on the chicken. What qualifies something as a living entity and therefore, a god? I suppose I am asking you to define life.

[123]

They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

-Romans 1:25

A majority of world religions turn men into gods, its very subtle, but under the mask of hyper-humanism they can be very sucessful.

god
noun
1. The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

This doesnt seem to be the right description of a human being.

human being
–noun 1.any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens. 2.a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

Ah, there that's better.

[carrdero]

[quote]Peach_cuble writes: So no on the rock and yes on the chicken. What qualifies something as a living entity and therefore, a god? I suppose I am asking you to define life.[/quote]

I would think that it is anything a soul can incarnate into (plant, animal, human, fish, insect).

[quote]GloriaIesusChristi writes: This doesnt seem to be the right description of a human being.[/quote]

One must understand that these are just suits to house the soul. Sort of like those bulky wet suits they used to go underwater with.

[img]http://www.geocities.com/carrdero/3250974035.jpg[/img]

Also wanted to say that I found your comments in Post #25 interesting but how do we account for our past physical existences and what do these accumulated experiences have on the spirit soul’s individuality (if any).

[carrdero]

On the topic of paths, I once heard a speaker discuss the many ways that people come to GOD. One of the areas he touched upon was how sometimes through tradgedy people come to believe in GOD. A mother holding her dead child or a man whose chest is riddled with bullets often realize at that moment that GOD is there. This speaker summed up his sermon by believing that it may not be important what the catalyst is that GOD must be very pleased to have made new friends.

When people ask me why I practice Patrickism, I explain that it is a way for GOD to recognize me and that it is the only religion tailored just for me.

Edited July 18, 2007 by carrdero

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1333414' date='Jul 17 2007, 11:52 PM']When people ask me why I practice Patrickism, I explain that it is a way for GOD to recognize me and that it is the only religion tailored just for me.[/quote]

That is where Catholicism differs. Catholicism is about recognizing God, not about God recognizing us.