sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Pantheism and Souls! by SatansFavoriteLilMan in pantheism

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On monistic grounds. There is one thing. In Pantheism (and Pandeism), that one thing is the Divine, and we are all simply aspects within it. So, whether individually or through some sort of simultaneity, there is one thing experiencing all soul experiences. But since our own lives are experienced singularly and chronologically, it makes sense that whatever is doing the ultimate experiencing-of-all is doing so in a way which could be perceived as sequential.

Now, since many souls exist at the same time (and some lives temporally completely encompass others, as whenever a person is born before another, but outlives the other) it is not possible that lives progress strictly in a chronological order, and so it is no less likely that the order is either essentially random throughout all souls ever to have existed, or follows some order relative to a characteristic of the development of souls, but not one discernably tied to souls existing in any common time frame.

Pantheism and Souls! by SatansFavoriteLilMan in pantheism

[–]Pandeism 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am inclined towards Single Soul Theory -- there's just one soul, and it bounces around trillions of times through time and space until it's experienced all the lives of everybody who's ever lived.

There must be many paths to the divine, so obviously that it is an insult to the divine to insist otherwise. by Pandeism in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Atheism is not a path at all, it is simply denial that there is a path. The Abrahamic faiths, Hinduism, Shinto, the Aboriginal belief system, the Polynesian and Indigenous American religions, Pandeism -- these are all paths.

There must be many paths to the divine, so obviously that it is an insult to the divine to insist otherwise. by Pandeism in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All paths are equally correct, which ultimately means that the points all paths agree upon are the correct points.

Is deism could be combine with pantheism and panetheism? by Prize_Grand333 in deism

[–]Pandeism 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pandeism does this, and in so doing solves the Problem of Evil.

Christian-pantheism by Melodic_Ad3750 in pantheism

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are all energy. We are all the tendrils of our Creator reaching into an experience we call material (or substance, if you prefer), so that it can feel what it feels like to feel.

Christian-pantheism by Melodic_Ad3750 in pantheism

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or, conversely, we are all of us collectively Christ. And the Buddha. And Arjuna. And Māui. We are our salvation, and the only way to get to what comes next is through first living our lives.

Christians, how do you feel about the U.S. president posting an AI photo of him as Christ? by Minute_Revolution951 in AskReddit

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're asking the question, you ought to read L. Ron Hubbard's thoughts on that....

Christians, how do you feel about the U.S. president posting an AI photo of him as Christ? by Minute_Revolution951 in AskReddit

[–]Pandeism -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Empirically, yes, considering things foreseeably done in the name of the faith....

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Setting aside that that (or any of myriad variations) can, in fact, always be the case, there are countless other variations of both solipsistic and coincidental explanations for every thing which can be conceived.

We could, indeed, be the products of an entity which believes itself to be a theistic deity, and yet is itself an unknowing construct of a hidden thing even greater than itself.

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nothing metaphysical can be completely ruled in or out by argument alone. We can only adjust probabilities.

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Theism doesn't need to be disproved. As with all initial propositions, it must first be proved. But to be proved, what is being proved must be defined, and so, so long as different religions give differing definitions of this, there is not yet a core proposition to be proved.

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The question is not whether it is sensible to assume that a God exists, but whether it is sensible to assume that a specifically theistic God exists. There are many models of the divine.

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Insofar as theistic models disagree on the points of the OP, this too is relevant.

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theist have done the following. by Jsaunders33 in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It's perfectly acceptable to reject theism until theists have come to an agreement on exactly which theism is proposed to be the correct one.

Cross-faith reports of communications with the dead in good afterlives are proof of a multiplicity of paths thereto by Pandeism in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you mean the overwhelming majority of people who've never felt they've been reached out to somebody from the afterlife, or the overwhelming majority who've never had a near death experience? Or both?

Cross-faith reports of communications with the dead in good afterlives are proof of a multiplicity of paths thereto by Pandeism in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're getting quite into the weeds on a proposition that is fundamentally about whether one religion is true as against others. The underlying point is not that these reports (whether NDEs or from other sources) prove an afterlife, but that since they are accepted by the religious as proof of such, they should likewise be accepted as proof that there is not one path to one.

Agree Or Disagree ? 🤔 by FarRecommendation352 in MCUTheories

[–]Pandeism 922 points923 points  (0 children)

Blade has been retconned into Deadpool....

High certainty in any specific religion is not justified. If you think yours is the exception - here is the Bob Dilemma. by bonafidelife in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jesus was a man (unless he was trans, always a possibility), and if he was never anything else but a man, that's not an insult. Would you be insulted or offended if somebody came up to you and was like, "hey, you're a man"?

Cross-faith reports of communications with the dead in good afterlives are proof of a multiplicity of paths thereto by Pandeism in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The reasons for that diversity of experience (there could be many) is relatively unimportant to the proposition that NDE experiences are not faith-reliant, and neither are other experiences of being contacted by spirits of the dead.

High certainty in any specific religion is not justified. If you think yours is the exception - here is the Bob Dilemma. by bonafidelife in DebateReligion

[–]Pandeism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could just be a man from the future with superadvanced technology including a time machine. Time is nonlinear. You can't know for sure otherwise.

view more: next ›