Psychology And Religion

~ That was my point.

 

https://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/moonotheism.htm

 

It sounds like your opinions are bases on some unfortunate experiences you have had with some atheists. But whether or not God exists had nothing to do with how well you like the people, but with the facts themselves. Christianity teaches that people of other faiths will face eternal damnation and that is just sadistic.

 

https://reasonsforjesus.com/historical-evidence-shows-jesus-had-a-biological-brother/

 

You might find the story of another brother Judas Didymus Thomas to be interesting. I loved it but some parts were kind of shocking.

www.thomastwin.com/

http://www.thomastwin.com/6 A Thomas background.html

 

I don't know why you responded w/ your article to my post. The article is about responding to either attacks by, specifically, Muslims, against Christianity, or to false claims exalting Islam.** Perhaps you thought I was Muslim, simply because I mentioned that Islam accepts Jesus as a great prophet. That is what I have heard, more than once, from scholars of Islam. I, myself, am not a Muslim-- I simply have a well-rounded education. I cannot help but think that your confusing of the two may be seen as an implicit compliment to the followers of Muhammed's faith. At the very least, it is a back-handed insult to Christians, to represent them as leaping to such baseless assessments of those they see as, "other," than themselves; in other words, as being aggressively prejudiced. This goes even beyond my post's suggestions that, from time immemorial, institutionalized religions have been prejudiced TOWARDS AGGRESSION. And neither the Catholic Church, nor Protestant & non-Catholic Christianity, unfortunately, have been exceptions to this rule. To paraphrase comedian George Carlin: people aren't so bad; the thing to watch out for, is people in GROUPS.


** (from your posted article on answeringislam.org) Our first priority is to answer Muslim attacks on Christianity. Our second priority is the critical evaluation of Muslim claims about Islam being the only true religion of God. The never ending stream of new attacks on the Bible and the Christian Faith produced by Muslim missionaries gives little reason that our priorities should change any time soon. Our purpose is to answer arguments by MUSLIMS against Christianity or for Islam, but NOT THE REFUTATION of every existing argument made against Islam by ATHEISTS, or HINDUS, or MORMONS, or BUDDHISTS, or even by OTHER CHRISTIANS.

For the record, I am pantheist. Does that mean I don't get the same exception as the above groups? Or, more likely, that you do not even respect the principles laid out by the organizations you wish to use as a cudgel, in lieu of argument in your own voice? Well, I have little use, or respect, for such a (supposed), "debater."


PS-- You may wish to point out, however, to the website you are using, that they made an important typo in their material: the only sensible ending to the quoted material should read, "...not the refutation of every existing argument made against CHRISTIANITY (not, "against ISLAM") by atheists, or Hindus,...etc.
Perhaps a widened learning (or, at least, reading) is not such a bad idea for others as well.

 

Quitted from gotquestions article on pantheism.
What is pantheism?

Question: "What is pantheism?"

Answer: Pantheism is the view that God is everything and everyone and that everyone and everything is God. Pantheism is similar to polytheism (the belief in many gods), but goes beyond polytheism to teach that everything is God. A tree is God, a rock is God, an animal is God, the sky is God, the sun is God, you are God, etc. Pantheism is the supposition behind many cults and false religions (e.g., Hinduism and Buddhism to an extent, the various unity and unification cults, and “mother nature” worshipers).

Does the Bible teach pantheism? No, it does not. What many people confuse as pantheism is the doctrine of God’s omnipresence. Psalm 139:7-8 declares, “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.” God’s omnipresence means He is present everywhere. There is no place in the universe where God is not present. This is not the same thing as pantheism. God is everywhere, but He is not everything. Yes, God is “present” inside a tree and inside a person, but that does not make that tree or person God. Pantheism is not at all a biblical belief.

The clearest biblical arguments against pantheism are the countless commands against idolatry. The Bible forbids the worship of idols, angels, celestial objects, items in nature, etc. If pantheism were true, it would not be wrong to worship such an object, because that object would, in fact, be God. If pantheism were true, worshiping a rock or an animal would have just as much validity as worshiping God as an invisible and spiritual being. The Bible’s clear and consistent denunciation of idolatry is a conclusive argument against pantheism.

 

https://reasonsforjesus.com/jesus-vs-buddha-historical-evidence-comparison/

 

https://reasonsforjesus.com/the-difference-between-god-source-are-they-the-same-thing/

 

I am sure that an explanation to you of pantheism from an actual pantheist will fall on deaf ears, but the explanation you quoted from gotquestions is a facile, if not infantile, understanding, mixed w/ a generous helping of misunderstanding, at best. The fact that it goes into what Christians think of pantheists, makes me believe this is not a neutral information site, like wikipedia, but rather a Christian propaganda site, which is maligning pantheists, & misleading Christians (and potential Christians), likely on purpose. Using it, really doesn't do much to present a case that Christians have respect for the rights of non-Christians to worship in the way they choose, or for anyone to find their own path, free of Christian attempts to deceive (was that one of your complaints w/ psychology, or are you OK with lying?); in other words, you're helping make my case, to which you are apparently trying to object.

There is no one definition for pantheism; it is an even broader category than monotheism or polytheism. The defining element is the concept of IMMANENCE, vs. TRANSCENDANCE. That is, to the monotheist, God is ABOVE, OUTSIDE OF, the Creation; to the Pantheist, God DWELLS WITHIN IT. A good analogy for this view can still be seen to mirror Biblical ideas. For example, "God made man in his own image." What if one interprets that to mean that God, like us, has a BODY? And if one thinks of that Body as all Creation, the Universe & whatever else exists, then the constituent parts are like cells in that Body. But we don't think of a strand of our hair, for example-- though it is undisputedly a part of us-- as equivalent to ourselves. This shows how patently disingenuous is the claim that just because something is part of God, that would mean that it would be thought of as being the same as the WHOLE. A tree is as much a part of God as any cell in our body is a piece of our self; it is also as much "God" as your dandruff is, "You."

To finish with the analogy, that is why one should, "love your neighbor as yourself," or, "love God with your whole heart, mind, & soul:" because we are all part of the SAME BODY. ONE. So your neighbor is the same, in a sense, as yourself.

I would, lastly, point out that, even if that utter nonsense you posted from that, "helpful," Christian answers-site were true, it tied pantheism to Hindus & Buddhists, not to Muslims, which your previous post, to me, was aimed at. If you make no distinction between any of these, the best advice I can offer is for you to unplug yourself from your online brainwash-feed, and crack a book; or maybe just have a conversation w/ someone without either condemning, or trying to proselytize them.

 

@The Amazing Sam's Ego

By Steven Bancarz| "Everyone claims to have their own way of understanding God, experiencing God, defining God, and relating to God. But the seemingly subjective experience of God within individuals has led many people within the New Age to believe that God is a subjective being that can be defined however we like or however makes the most sense to us."

"But when we talk about 'God', we have to keep in mind that we are talking about an objectively existing Being that created the universe who has objective qualities and properties that exist as part of His (or It’s, or Hers) essential nature."


That's what's called SPECIOUS reasoning. When I see that, I stop reading, 'cause I know that more bullshit is on the way. This author tries to reason from the STARTING POINT that one's maintaining that we EXPERIENCE God in a subjective way is somehow the same as saying that God is not a real thing, with actual attributes. Both things are true for ALL REAL THINGS. Don't believe me? Broccoli is real, right? Does that mean it tastes the same to everyone?

Taste bud distributions aside, since every one of our brains is UNIQUE, and because everything we see, hear, smell, touch, or taste, we experience IN OUR BRAINS, it has been proven that no two of us sees the blue of the sky exactly the same way. Does that mean anyone disputes that, whatever it looks like to each of us, we call that blue, and that it's a verifiable, light wave phenomenon?

Or picture yourself sitting at the edge of a lake, at night.There are some others, you notice, across the water, on the opposite shore. Then the glowing, full moon rises into the dark sky and, atop the slightly choppy water, you see the moon's reflection making a beeline straight to you. Eventually, you glance over to see if the other lakeside nature-lovers notice this amazing coincidence. But they don't seem to see the way that the moon has zeroed-in on you, with her reflection. Instead, they're looking directly at the moon, except for one who is pointing at the water, directly in front of them. Can you guess why? Because, from their perspective, it appears that the moon is casting her circular smile directly AT THEM! They do not see the same reflection that you do, nor do you see the reflection that they see. Nevertheless, reflected light IS actually there, in BOTH places. If you have any doubt, find a friend & take an evening, waterside walk.

 

God can't be nature because God created nature.

 

Do you likewise feel that your identity can't reside in your mind & body? If your only obstacle is the idea of Creation, there are creatures that can reproduce themselves, asexually, for example. But GOD, one could not deny, might be able to to bring Itself into Being out of nothing but Will.

 

People do not fight over religion. They fight over land and other resources. However, a nation that is unified by a religion has an advantage over a nation that is not.

 

Reply #2--

-- Here are some different, potential models of how the Creation can share an identity with the Creator. Consider, for example a spermatozoan: so small, yet full of half the capacity to become an adult human being-- if only it meets up with that other half, then BANG! Maybe the God of our reality is, in fact, the result of the merging of two other, godlike precursors.

You don't like that idea? No problem, let's try another. Are you one of those who believe that a soul chooses the body, the fetus, which it wishes to inhabit? Well, there's another model. You must surely agree, if you are Christian, that a soulless body is not a true person; so it is the spirit which CREATES the human being. And yet, the two are bound for the full breadth of the body's life. Similarly might God, be the Spirit that animates our universe.

I cannot, myself, help but wonder if it could be a different dynamic: that spirits are trapped by creations of flesh; but I'm not saying this is the case. I am open, however, to consider it, because pantheism-- other than its 2, previously mentioned, defining characteristics-- is not dogmatic. Even if that means that I will always conceive of the spiritual realm-- before I am a part of it-- as a speculative place, I would rather not (& no longer could) delude myself to think my answer was THE correct ONE. I personally doubt that anyone's is.That so many faiths, nevertheless, share significant overlapping ideas, suggests to me that there may be some degree of truth, albeit seen from a very limited perspective, in many of them.


P.S-- It is expected that you would find my way of looking at the unfathomable to be a disconcerting method. It is certainly not suitable for most-- and the importance of one's faith fitting (or at least being compatible with) the adherent's own nature, is one of my main points! To relate all this to the thread's title (Psychology & Religion), I am adding a bit more.

The human mind gives us the extremely useful ability to consider the future. This, of course, allows us to plan ahead, prepare, anticipate, even predict things that are likely to occur in that future. But life will always have an unpredictable element to it, and this leads to anxiety among our species. The same capacity we use to imagine better alternatives, possible improvements, going forward, when deprived of facts, can speculate for ourselves all sorts of nasty possibilities, in an unlit future.

So a fabricated sense of security is the more tolerable option, for most, than acknowledging life's unknowable mysteries. And what happens to us after we leave this life is, by definition, something we cannot know beforehand. This insecurity must, in large part, provoke man's compulsion to have a definite model for the unseen fate that, we are only sure, awaits us.

Regardless of whether it comes out of our personal experience with life, or we get it from some old texts, it's still just a guess. I realize this is not as comforting message, on its face, as those of most other faiths. The sole advantage I can assure anyone of my perspective-- & it is just that, not necessarily representative of other pantheists-- is that it is TRUE.

 

...and has found it easier to get its people to fight for those things, without even needing to tell them the real reason they're fighting.

 

(addition for post #32)
@The Amazing Sam's Ego

I forgot to include what some might consider the one recompense of my viewpoint (that some things are inaccessible to verification): any INTIMIDATING imaginings I may concoct of the Great Beyond-- just as with whatever inspiring images I may hope to be true-- are, I know, most likely wrong!