... I wrote : Logician: it doesn’t take anyone’s spiritual well being into consideration as that is a secondary goal in a world that is ripping itself apart.
Where does it say that the spiritual well being is not important? It clearly states that my theory does not take it into consideration as it is a SECONDARY goal. The PRIMARY goal of the theory is to give a logical reason for the cessation of hostilities between nations. Nowhere have I stated that I think the physical is the ultimate, only, form of existence, you drew that conclusion all by yourself, but I will tell you something, right now, the physical form of existence is the only form of existence everyone in the world can relate to. Right now, it is the physical, that is doing all the killing, so forgive me if I think with every fibre of my being, that right now it is more important to sort out physical problems facing our species.
Sp demonstrates both the physical and spiritual are real and significant to the dynamics of the whole of reality.
This is the third manner by which the model symbiotic panentheism demonstrates its validity.
Again with the validating? What is this need you have to validate your own work? Others with validate it by believing in it.
Djs: There is no inventing or new interpretations involved with symbiotic panentheism.
Of course there is, otherwise by now everyone in the world would understand the concept of “sp” and it would be a widely know as the bible, but it isn’t. It is a new interpretation of existence, presented to the world for the very first time by YOU, so don’t state otherwise.
Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and moves forward from there.
Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is the creator of the physical universe, and moves forward from there.
The existing definition of God is a best guess scenario to suit a human need for immortality, according to you (and some others) we do not know if we exist, let alone God, it’s a question of personal belief.
Djs: Symbiotic panentheism takes no rights away from anyone other than the right to interfere with another’s journey.
It takes away the right to believe that God is a human invention.
Djs: Symbiotic panentheism is simply a model and as a model it clearly demonstrates there is no saving involved, for the essence of the individual is timeless, immortal, never dies.
Well that’s a shame, my theory saves lives, the lives of everyone needlessly suffering because of ignorance and denial.
Djs: My hackles rose, as you say, when you suggested you had the right to take what I said and interpret it as you saw fit. I stated that what I said is what I meant and just because you might say I meant something else does not make it so.
That goes both ways, my friend.
I also stated that I am human and do make mistakes, have made mistakes, and will in the future make mistakes in terms of how it is I verbalize the model.
There was no anger, resentment or sensitivity involved. I simply made a factual statement, namely: Regardless of how one personally interprets my statements, my statements are what they are, my statements are not open to the twisting, misinterpretation or misdirection of others.
All statements are open to the “twisting, misinterpretation or misdirection of others” otherwise they wouldn’t be statements, they would be facts.
Djs: But the model clearly demonstrates not only that God can circumvent eternal recurrence but demonstrates how God can circumvent eternal recurrence. Your model only states God can circumvent eternal recurrence but has nothing to offer regarding how God can circumvent eternal recurrence other than we don’t know how God can but It can.
You obviously have no sense of humour, you put up the “eternal recurrence” thingamajig as a problem God has to deal with, whereas I have never believed it to be a problem for a God. In my book (don’t get in a tizzy, it’s only a saying, I don’t really have a book) Gods can do things we humans cannot.
Djs: You would suggest otherwise? If one suggests God is not a rational being than there is no rational discussion to take place and this very exercise becomes irrelevant.
God? Rational? You have got to be joking, what rational being would allow the suffering of billions? I know that in your model you state we come from the whole, only to return to give a “sit-rep” so it can learn, but tell me, how much suffering does it take before it has learned enough about the ease in which humans can hurt each other?
Djs: I am not suggesting that God thinks like me but rather that I think like God.
Part II of V: Whoa there Sir, you haven’t got a clue...