Warrior
User
Platinum Boarder
| Posts: 128 |   |
|
Re:Theophysics - 2005/05/14 18:34
Why was it funny? 
I thought you leaned toward pantheism. It shows in your essays.
I understand what you mean by it I think, although I dislike pantheism as it is a basic tenet of the Hindu faith (alongside polytheism) All is Brahman, I am God, God is me, we are all one etc.
But I think know where you're coming from with this, at vleast in part.
I don't actually have a problem with God bringing things into creation that are not a part of him/his substance etc. He alone can create something from nothing. Its by his word that all things have their existence, that which was not becomes that which is when God speaks.
He made Adam from the dust on the ground. I have no problem with believing that dust was not a part of God. God is holy, that which is not holy cannot be "God" in any shape, way or form. Being holy means to be set apart, not a part of.
I don't think God is restricted to using "himself" to create, but I have no way of explaining this properly so I won't try to.
However, we're still restricted to clumsy words here Mars, so you might well be explaining something where words are inadequate for the task. You might think it's a joke (for some reason) but I'm still keeping a bit of an open mind on this topic because I still don't fully understand exactly what you're saying.
Still, it's an interesting topic. 
Post edited by: Warrior, at: 2005/05/14 18:38
|
Forum 
