|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 16, 2015 5:45:45 GMT 1
Jeranisms side of the story, its only fair he has a say FakeSpaceman InSpacePublished on Nov 15, 2015 haha, I enjoyed the sad music along with his clips. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 16, 2015 5:52:25 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 6:54:14 GMT 1
Nice video. However, it is now time for FakeSpaceman InSpace to attack: 1) MrThriveAndSurvive, especially after his latest video: fsr.boards.net/post/3194/thread2) Mark Sargent for his behavior (superficial, and brainwashing, and contradictory about his spirituality) 3) Patricia Steere for corrupting the flat earth movement with her superficiality 4) all flat earthers who are wasting their time singing songs |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 17:17:09 GMT 1
"It appears that Jeran is a deist" is how this "lecture" begins, and it is so complicated that I can't even follow it, but the two scholars on religion / philosophy cal and dionysios might appreciate this video below: Flat Earth - Jeranism's Deism Refuted Southern Israelite He seems the most "academic" flat earth YouTuber I have ever come across, probably together with Rob Skiba. minute 11-12-13 what he thinks about Hitler, the Jews and the Catholic church ------ He just replied to me that the video he was referring to is this one: GOD vs. SCIENCE - Dogma vs. Dogma - Problems with each jeranism |
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145 
|
Post by cal on Nov 19, 2015 20:47:54 GMT 1
Acenci, Thanks for posting this video and drawing my attention to him, Southern Israelite. He is no sloucher, that is sure. He knows his stuff for the most part, although he does have some lacunas in his knowledge/understanding of biblical things and history. I took notes as I went through the above video. I can see why you had difficulty understanding what he was saying. I myself would need further study in order to fully comprehend him, at least in the areas of philosophy and epistemology. I do hope that heathen will chime in here. Southern Israelite (SI) says that Jeran[ism] is a deist. I don't know whether he is or not since I really don't know much about Jeran[ism], nor have I watched the video to which he is refering. I appreciate that SI recommends three books on epistemology, and I will have to read them. I also downloaded all the articles he has on his google download drive, as well as all his videos. The definition of Deism is: or: Theism is defined as: Deism vs. TheismI am not sure that I understand atomism and monism sufficiently to be able to comment here. Again heathen may be able to shed some light on this aspect of SI's discussion. However, in my opinion SI has not proven his case for theism as opposed to deism. And I myself may be leaning more towards deism as I come to understand more about the Bible, that it is not necessarily the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God as we are led to believe. If it was entirely written by man without the inspiration of God, then this leads to the conclusion of deism rather than theism, since God did not intervene in the affairs of man and give us his Word. However, if the global flood was indeed caused by God, then theism is the correct understanding in that God does act in the affairs of men. He just doesn't give us a book to tell us about it. SI is obviously a theist since he says he believes that Jesus/Yeshua was the Messiah (3:40). At 8:40 SI says that there is no doctrine of eternal hell taught in the bible. He is partially right. He should read Edward Fudge's book, The Fire that Consumes. The bible most certainly does teach eternal punishment. This is actually annihilation of the soul, although it is debatable whether hell is a real place. He also says that there is no soul taught in the bible (9:20). I will have to check out Samuel Bacchiocchi's book, Immortality or Resurrection?, but the bible most certainly talks about the soul. See C.E. Chandler's book, What is the Soul? Again, perhaps he is referring to the soul's destiny in which case the bible does teach the conditional immortality of the soul (1 Tim. 6:16; 2 Tim. 1:10). I do have to agree with his statements at 11:55 and 13:20 that the R.C.C. and Jesuit papacy are behind all the problems of the world, and that Yeshua was not God. At about 19:00 he says that Jesus did not die on Friday. I really must question his position on this. The day of preparation was the Friday before the Saturday Sabbath. At 21:50 and later he encourages protestants continuing the protestant reformation of which he sees himself part of. Perhaps he doesn't know that the protestant reformation was a false flag event, and his idol Martin Luther was a scumbag sellout? Or at 22:00 where he says that he hates atheists and deists and prays for their destruction and annihilation in the world??? Nice guy. You wouldn't know that he lives in the South Land of America and supposedly holds to the ideals of America of the free pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness by all? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2015 22:13:21 GMT 1
In vulgar down to earth logic, which is the only thing I can afford, being very ignorant, I will tell you what I have found so far, through my YouTube research (not by reading books). Demons seem to exist and to act. I did not see much evidence of the action or even existence of another god, usually considered a good one. What does that make me in academic / philosophical terms?
Just wondering. Back to you and the other scholars on the subject.
On this forum, we certainly lack quantity in terms of people, but our quantity and quality in terms of culture and intelligence is quite high.
Southern Israelite would be a great member of this forum. I'll go and invite him, just in case he is interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 20, 2015 5:12:09 GMT 1
In vulgar down to earth logic, which is the only thing I can afford, being very ignorant, I will tell you what I have found so far, through my YouTube research (not by reading books). D emons seem to exist and to act. I did not see much evidence of the action or even existence of another god, usually considered a good one. What does that make me in academic / philosophical terms?Just wondering. Back to you and the other scholars on the subject. On this forum, we certainly lack quantity in terms of people, but our quantity and quality in terms of culture and intelligence is quite high. Southern Israelite would be a great member of this forum. I'll go and invite him, just in case he is interested. A dystheist, I would guess. I partially listened to that video. I don't have time to watch it right now and I would like to listen to the video of Jeran's he is talking about as well. I know what deism is but I am really curious how staunch his deism is. I will understand SI better after I know what he is referring to. I know some of the things he is talking about so far, but I don't read books by philosopher such as Hume, though I know who they are from reading/watching debates. I mostly like to read arguments to learn about these things. I think I get why he might be talking about atomism and monism but I'd like see what Jeran actually said, so we'll see. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2015 6:57:59 GMT 1
Thanks for the feedback. One important comment from below the video you're discussing:  |
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Nov 20, 2015 7:21:08 GMT 1
A dystheist does believe in god though: You are probably a cross between a partial dystheist and you also have a belief in demonology: Demonology - Related Beliefs |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2015 15:22:49 GMT 1
Thank you for the information and links.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 21, 2015 7:22:35 GMT 1
I still haven't watched the whole video but I did read some of his responses. If I were to be a Christian I would not be his brand of Christianity. I can only see one way how the nature of the Christian God could possibly be Love, as they say he is, and that is with the doctrine of the trinity. I think the doctrine of the trinity allows for God to be love. If God is a monad, you might be able to say God did something loving, but you could not say his nature is love, as he would be the One Monad loving Himself. Comments from the video link~  In the above, speaking of Jesus, SI says, He is talking about propitiatory atonement. I am not a fan of his view of God or Christ in this particular case. If I were a Christian I would believe that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The way that Christ would be reconciling the world to God would be that Christ became man so that we may share in what Christ is. He would be healing humans and the whole creation by becoming and internalizing our experience and making it a part of himself and in doing so be lifting up creation. Christ, on the cross, would be God entering an experience of suffering, even becoming separated from God, where we could then identify with God in Christ's experience of our human condition. Thereby we would become "saved", or have salvation, in believing and having faith in Christ. Well, some variation on that, I used to be better with this. That is how God, in Christ, acts as a mediator. There's much more that can be said. I disagree with his logic and I don't particularly like how he is trying to change a fundamental doctrine of a 2000 year old religion. There's no detectable elegance of salvation in his argument, which is the best way I can say what I felt like actually saying. I just find it surprising, considering that in the video he speaks in many big words with many references and then says this as an argument? |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 21, 2015 8:05:48 GMT 1
I do know what he is talking about at 18:00, and I do remember that I felt the same way. So, I know I heard what Jeran said before.
I came away from this video more skeptical of this dude than of Jeran. Not that I take what Jeran says seriously about religion though. This guy had a whole mixed bag of things which made me feel skeptical and the ending of his video was over the top.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2015 17:06:26 GMT 1
He just replied to me that the video he was referring to is this one:
GOD vs. SCIENCE - Dogma vs. Dogma - Problems with each
jeranism
|
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Nov 21, 2015 20:55:11 GMT 1
I still haven't watched the whole video but I did read some of his responses. If I were to be a Christian I would not be his brand of Christianity. I can only see one way how the nature of the Christian God could possibly be Love, as they say he is, and that is with the doctrine of the trinity. I think the doctrine of the trinity allows for God to be love. If God is a monad, you might be able to say God did something loving, but you could not say his nature is love, as he would be the One Monad loving Himself. ... In the above, speaking of Jesus, SI says, He is talking about propitiatory atonement. I am not a fan of his view of God or Christ in this particular case. If I were a Christian I would believe that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The way that Christ would be reconciling the world to God would be that Christ became man so that we may share in what Christ is. He would be healing humans and the whole creation by becoming and internalizing our experience and making it a part of himself and in doing so be lifting up creation. Christ, on the cross, would be God entering an experience of suffering, even becoming separated from God, where we could then identify with God in Christ's experience of our human condition. Thereby we would become "saved", or have salvation, in believing and having faith in Christ. Well, some variation on that, I used to be better with this. That is how God, in Christ, acts as a mediator. There's much more that can be said. I disagree with his logic and I don't particularly like how he is trying to change a fundamental doctrine of a 2000 year old religion. There's no detectable elegance of salvation in his argument, which is the best way I can say what I felt like actually saying. I just find it surprising, considering that in the video he speaks in many big words with many references and then says this as an argument? ________ Heathen, many doctrinal issues are relevant here. It is getting far afield to discuss religious issues such as these on a mainly flat earth forum, but theoretically we can discuss mostly anything. If the administrator wants he can move our discussion to another thread. At best, we will only be able to touch on these issues. A truly deep understanding and much study is necessary to fully comprehend them. You mention that: I have rejected the doctrine of the trinity as unbiblical. I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning in only accepting a God of love if we accept that he is a trinity and not a monad. Here we are really getting into the metaphysical. It seems to me that atomism really leads to materialism, whereas monism leads to a type of pantheism. This distinction reminds me of Joseph P. Farrell's book, Thrice Great Hermetica and the Janus Age. In that book Farrell discusses what he calls "Topological Metaphor of the Medium." Something about the set of being and non-being. However, if God was the first to exist then this requires some kind of monism, where his creation did not exist at one point. So if trinity is true, then the Son of God must have existed at the same time as God the Father. Southern Israelite does seem to accept traditional christianity in that at 3:20-3:30 of his video he says "I believe in the New Testament. Jesus/Yeshua was the messiah. He was the Son of God." In traditional christianity there is a distinction between God the Son (i.e. member of the trinity), and the Son of God (i.e. Jesus Christ whom the second person of the trinity took the form of in the incarnation--see Philippians 2:6-8). You quote SI as saying that: Yes, this is the doctrine of propitiatory atonement, which is exactly what you said that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). However this is not the same thing as Jesus being God, but rather having dual natures. In response to Julio C. "This guy just said that Jesus is not God, which is to me, the greatest heresy. If Jesus is not God then there is no salvation for anyone," SI said, "It's the opposite. If Jesus is God he is not the mediator between man and God." See 2 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus." It seems to me that SI has a good grasp on the doctrine of propitiatory atonement, and the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Heathen, you stated: We are getting to the crux of the issue though. This traditional/fundamental view of Christianity depends on this logical acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God, the Trinity, Jesus being a real person who made a real sacrifice in history. If any of these arguments are not true then the whole house of cards falls. Thus in order to become "saved" one must accept essentially all of the above. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 21, 2015 21:56:27 GMT 1
At about 15 min mark he talks about being an atheist and mentions who he listened to. I could tell that just by listening to him and that's why he still comes across as an internet atheist sometimes, in my opinion.
At about 19:35
He says a distant relative and theologian said that all things in nature were endowed with a sense perception. This sounds close to animism, which I feel best describes the world. It could also be panpsychism, but I personally think panpsychism is growing in popularity only because of the philosophical problems caused by materialism (matter is the basis of reality and so mind becomes a big problem). This theologian also says that one must investigate through their own experience and their own senses which can only happen with direct contact with the natural world.
At around 21 min he says there is no devil but believes in a sense negativity and evil in the world. Right after this he specifically says the human mind is an amazing apparatus that can allow you to see things you want to see and can allow you to sense anything. He then says if you believe enough in a demon walking in to your room, it could happen. But that probably does not mean a real demon walked into your room.
At 25:38 he shows a nonsense quote by Penn Jillette and Jeran agrees as much with my opinion.
Time stamped here~
Jeran says something atheists miss all the time, if belief in God was wiped out, and yet belief would always come back, than the spiritual impulse is innate.
Jeran says, it is the religion that is false. But Jeran somehow separates religion from God.
I say, the sense of the numinous, creates what we classify as religion, and that is why religion would come back if it was hypothetically wiped out. I see that he says religion is false, yet he also appears to approve of a philosophy which encourages us too investigate the world using our senses. We have kitchens because we have this sense of being hungry along with taste buds which makes eating enjoyable. We have many different methods of cooking and foods to eat, but all those were created by the sense of hunger and the sense of taste. That being said, it is more complicated with God, and I do believe some religions are superior to other religions. Similar to how we can look at what foods are healthy and unhealthy, we can look at health of our societies.
Jeran then starts critiquing science and scientism. I think he makes a number of good points. I think he argues these things better.
At 1:15:52 is what I was talking about having the same reaction as SI did.
Time Stamped~
This illustrates why I say Jeran sounds like an internet atheist.
1:17:50
Time Stamped
Overall, I wish Jeran actually talked about what he does believe rather than these lame arguments. I would have found it more interesting to know what he believes so I could analyze that.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 21, 2015 22:06:15 GMT 1
I am not biblicalist, I would more agree with theology of the tradition of the religious community.
You state, "He was the Son of God." In traditional christianity there is a distinction between God the Son (i.e. member of the trinity), and the Son of God (i.e. Jesus Christ whom the second person of the trinity took the form of in the incarnation--see Philippians 2:6-8)"
And you state, "So if trinity is true, then the Son of God must have existed at the same time as God the Father."
Are you being serious here? The Word became flesh. That is the tradition.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 21, 2015 22:08:55 GMT 1
Cal says~
The problem becomes when it is purely propitiatory, which I reject. Because, if it is not the Word made flesh, than it is a pretty negative theology about who God is.
|
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Nov 21, 2015 22:09:51 GMT 1
Yes, agreed. My mistake. That should read "God the Son" and not the "Son of God."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2015 22:10:47 GMT 1
You guys are unbelievable: I can't believe I actually got all the smartest flat earthers on this forum, and without making any efforts. It's odd that, although I feel like I'm intelligent, too, I am totally ignorant on these subjects you're discussing, but I am glad that you're still hanging out with me. I like studious people, but, as far as reading books, I am not a studious person, as I haven't read a complete book in twenty years. And, ever since being on the internet, I have found it even harder.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 21, 2015 22:15:10 GMT 1
heathen said~
Cal~
No, it doesn't. It is the acceptance of the Word of God made flesh in the tradition of the Christian religious community. It is soteriology, religious salvation, becoming reconciled with God.
|
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Nov 21, 2015 22:17:37 GMT 1
Heathen, Not sure I understand what you are getting at here:
It seems to me that the bible is making a case for problem-reaction-solution scenario or the Hegelian dialect in other words. In order for salvation to be acquired the believer must accept the problem, i.e. that he is a sinner and in need of salvation.
Are you objecting with the message of the bible on philosophical grounds that it requires a wrathful God who will punish sinners. I guess that proves your point that the God of the Bible is not a loving god.
|
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Nov 21, 2015 22:30:49 GMT 1
Yes, I agree that one must accept the Word of God made flesh, etc. That is the doctrine of salvation, or soteriology. But what I am saying is the the Bible must be true, God must be a trinity, Jesus must have been a real person, and suffered and died in history for his sacrifice to be able to be accepted by all those who choose to accept it. If any of these things are false then logically the conclusion must be false as well.
You do seem to have an extensive knowledge of theology for someone with a handle such as "Heathen." Were you a christian at one point?
Acenci, reading books is not hard. You just need to tear yourself away from the internet. I know it is hard. Been difficult for me too in the last couple of months.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 22, 2015 0:54:11 GMT 1
Heathen, Not sure I understand what you are getting at here: It seems to me that the bible is making a case for problem-reaction-solution scenario or the Hegelian dialect in other words. In order for salvation to be acquired the believer must accept the problem, i.e. that he is a sinner and in need of salvation. Are you objecting with the message of the bible on philosophical grounds that it requires a wrathful God who will punish sinners. I guess that proves your point that the God of the Bible is not a loving god. haha, what the heck? I never said the God of the bible is not a loving God. I am not a Christian for reasons I have not stated nor does it have to do with God's lack of love or my perception of it. Problem, reaction, solution? Ok...The experience of the holy causes one to feel less than that which is greater than you. You would feel imperfect. In suffering, you could also feel alienated from God, such as Jesus did. The problem comes with the human condition. The human condition, such as hunger, causes one to want salvation, such as eating food to become full or whole again...Salvation is common in religions of the world, not just Christianity. The views of the atonement that I am seeing lack an understanding of the fullness of the traditional Christian soteriology. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 22, 2015 1:05:11 GMT 1
Yes, I agree that one must accept the Word of God made flesh, etc. That is the doctrine of salvation, or soteriology. But what I am saying is the the Bible must be true, God must be a trinity, Jesus must have been a real person, and suffered and died in history for his sacrifice to be able to be accepted by all those who choose to accept it. If any of these things are false then logically the conclusion must be false as well. You do seem to have an extensive knowledge of theology for someone with a handle such as "Heathen." Were you a christian at one point? Acenci, reading books is not hard. You just need to tear yourself away from the internet. I know it is hard. Been difficult for me too in the last couple of months. The comment that the "bible must be true" is loaded for I am well aware people can be Christians, within the Christian tradition, and take things as analogy even though they are written as if it were history. That is one example, other examples are more complex, which I have come across in he field of biblical criticism, and those were bible believing Christians. That is far too deep to get into. The trinity is a doctrine from the use of the accepted books of the bible in the Christian tradition and also from the Christian community itself. The Jesus movement, the Christian tradition, came first and then the books gathered together for the community. The trinity is also acquired from the logic of having a faith where they believe the Logos became flesh and dwelt among humans. It is an outgrowth from there as well. Now, what I was saying, is that for God to be love itself, God could not be a single monad, unless God is loving himself. If so, such love is below our understanding of the higher forms of love. I did say, for God to be love itself, makes more sense if God is a trinity. So, the belief in God being love itself, would create problems if God were a single monad. The belief, has an effect, on the theology and doctrines. |
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Nov 22, 2015 4:12:01 GMT 1
Heathen, thank you for your clarifications. Now I think I understand what you were trying to say earlier. Allow me to respond to a couple of points in your latest post in reverse order. I don't think that the trinity is a doctrine derived from the books of the bible, nor is it derived from logic. Rather it is from the Christian tradition and written into the bible. The word 'trinity' is no-where mentioned in the bible. And the whole controversy over 1 John 5:7-8 is entirely justified. The only Greek manuscript which contains these two verses which supposedly support the doctrine of the trinity was most likely created specifically just for Erasmus so he would insert it into the third edition of his Greek New Testament. See these links for more information on the Comma Johanneum and its defense. The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8Plus here are a few works on the doctrine of the trinity should any wish to pursue this topic further: Anthony Buzzard, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound ________, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian Robert George, The Trinity's Weak Links Revealed Richard E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the last Days of Rome Percy E. White, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Analytically Examined and Refuted Another comment you made was regarding Jeran's statement that there is no devil. Actually he is correct here, that that is the biblical teaching. I learned this from the preterist community and found that a major christian denomination, the Christadelphians, holds to this understanding. Here are a number of books regarding this issue. Note particularly the excellent works of Duncan Heaster and Peter Watkins--both Christadelphians: Paul Carus, The History of the Devil T. Witton Davies, Magic, Divination, and Demonology Among the Hebrews and Their Neighbors Kersey Graves, The Biography of Satan *Duncan Heaster, The Real Devil Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan *Peter Watkins, The Great Deceiver True, this is a deep subject. However, this is my point that just because the bible says something--this does not make it true. It could have been written by men with their own agenda. You stated earlier, "I am not biblicalist, I would more agree with theology of the tradition of the religious community." I used to be a biblicist, who believed in the verbal plenary inspiration of the bible. But the more I study it, I see that this was just the assumption/assertion of the religious community which is not necessarily true. |
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Nov 22, 2015 4:25:13 GMT 1
Regarding the issue which started this--Southern Israelite's criticism of Jeran's deism--I watched Jeran's video and found him to be very articulate about his understanding of Science and Religion. Heathen, thank you for your comments on his video. I do not see why SI was so upset about Jeran's deism. No where does Jeran say he is a deist. He did recount his experiences with Christianity as well as with atheism, and seems to have benefited from both even though he is neither now.
I guess you are right heathen that it would be nice for Jeran to say what he does believe and not just what he doesn't. I guess this led to SI's assumption that Jeran is a deist. Of course, I have to agree with most of what Jeran said both about Science and Religion. So maybe I am a deist too?
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 23, 2015 0:23:45 GMT 1
The trinity doesn't need to be spelled out. The comment that the Christian tradition was written into the bible is the whole point! Of course it is. That's why being a biblicalist separated from the Christian tradition, and community, is nonsense. The tradition comes from, experience of God, the Jesus movement, philosophy, theology, humans, and the words written in the books of the bible along with the interpretation by the religious community ( intersubjectivity).
Of course men wrote the bible, and they were men's words. The point of much of religion, and Christianity, is to help solve the human condition by creating a transformation (salvation) in the experience with ultimate reality. It is a matter of it "working" or not, and truth and what is real are included in this if creation has an organizing principle (we call God). If so, than the search for truth in regards to religion, should "work" (transformation), but no religion is going to have it all right or true.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 23, 2015 0:31:05 GMT 1
My quote about Jeran and demons was his comment about the mind and sensing. Who is Jeran to say it's all in someone's mind? As he himself says, believe in no man. So, he shouldn't be telling people to use their sense to investigate the world and in the next breath tell people demons aren't real and it was made up in the mind, or was manifested by their mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Nov 23, 2015 0:37:05 GMT 1
Regarding the issue which started this--Southern Israelite's criticism of Jeran's deism--I watched Jeran's video and found him to be very articulate about his understanding of Science and Religion. Heathen, thank you for your comments on his video. I do not see why SI was so upset about Jeran's deism. No where does Jeran say he is a deist. He did recount his experiences with Christianity as well as with atheism, and seems to have benefited from both even though he is neither now. I guess you are right heathen that it would be nice for Jeran to say what he does believe and not just what he doesn't. I guess this led to SI's assumption that Jeran is a deist. Of course, I have to agree with most of what Jeran said both about Science and Religion. So maybe I am a deist too? If Jeran believes all nature is endowed with a sense perception, that does not sound like deism. That is panpsychism, or even animism. It could be panentheism, pantheism, but I don't see how it could be deism. There are Christian theologies that could fit with that idea but mostly Abrahamic religions don't tell us the nature is endowed with sense perception. |
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Nov 23, 2015 0:45:32 GMT 1
Good point. "So, he shouldn't be telling people to use their sense to investigate the world and in the next breath tell people demons aren't real and it was made up in the mind, or was manifested by their mind."
Regarding your last post, I didn't get the idea that Jeran believed that all nature is endowed with a sense perception. Agreed, that would be panpsychism. He doesn't really say. It seemed to me that deism was merely Southern Israelite's assumption?
|
|
