...Djs: This is not just semantics. There is a definite concept involved here. The concept is one regarding the structure of reality. Damnation implies reality is divided into three regions, the physical, heaven and hell.
Logician: Damnation makes me think of; physical and spiritual
Djs: The phrase no better is not analysis rather the phrase no better is judgmental in nature. I am not taking offence here, rather I am simply pointing out how easy it is to digress from a strictly analytical path.
Logician: True, it is a very judgmental statement.
Djs: So why use it? I thought we were using reason and dialectics as opposed to personal attacks.
Logician: It’s not a personal attack, just very judgmental.
Djs: Absolutely not! The model in no way indicates the soul is the property of the creator!
Logician: Certainly looks like that to me, I could be wrong.
Djs: Can you explain why it looks like it to you?
Logician: I will show you by using your own words : Djs: The individual, being given consciousness, in essence is given a piece of God. Do you get it now?
Djs: No. I have biological children. I gave each of them some of my DNA. Half of their DNA came from me, half from their Mother.
At no time have their Mother or I considered any of them to be our ‘property’. The law does not consider them to be our property. Society does not consider them to be our property. Are you suggesting children are the property of the parent? If not:
What’s the difference? I understand that in the case of DNA we are talking about the tangible and in the case of the soul we are talking about the intangible. But other than that, again I ask: What’s the difference?
Djs: Isn’t believing everything the same as believing nothing?
Logician: No. If you write the word everything, you are in fact including nothing, or it wouldn’t be everything now would it?
Djs: There is a difference in ‘believing everything exists including nothingness’ and ‘believing everything’
‘Believing everything exists including nothingness’ describes what it is one considers exists within reality.
‘Believing everything’ is a personal statement demonstrating one’s embracement of moral relativism, is a statement demonstrating one’s disbelief in ‘absolute truth’
For example: To believe everything one would have to believe two plus two base ten is four and simultaneously believe two plus two base ten is not four.
Djs: Symbiotic panentheism defines God as The Whole. Perhaps you would enlighten me as to how you would define what God is.
Logician: God, personal as it is, is an inadequate word to describe everything.
Djs: Are you suggesting God is beyond discussion and therefore you refuse to discuss the concept of God? If so isn’t such a stand a form of discretionary censorship based on one person’s fundamentalism, namely your personal decision to rationalize your unwillingness to discuss a particular topic which you find uncomfortable to discuss?
Some would describe this form of personal censorship as a form of cop out.
Djs: You sent me a tremendous quantity of material. I don’t feel this blog site is the place for huge quantities of material to be posted in a single setting. I have a separate site for my eight books, 1000 slide presentation, hour and a half audio presentation, …
The site is www.panentheism.com. I would be more than happy to mention your url after your name if you would like but I think it would be inappropriate to post your work in total. I don’t even do it for myself.