Pantheism

[Sy Borg]

If you were the only person in existence then you'd probably feel much more special. Some people seek a hermetic existence in order to connect more with spiritual and mystical forces.

The last living human would pay far more heed to their relationship with other species instead of treating them like either nuisances or resources. Still, some personalities would probably prefer death to settling for friendships with "mere animals".

[Michael McMahon]

So you're a vegetarian, yes?

The first question to ask about the ethics of eating animals is their level of sentience. This is a big topic. However a further question is whether a God could imbue an element of Himself in animals the same way that religions claim that humans share a sacred soul. A potential excuse is that praying to God before a meal as a form of gratitude could also be seen as a kind of atonement from a pantheistic point of view. We tend not to see the animal being slaughtered and so there might be less of a temptation to express spiritual thanks before a carnivorous meal.

[Sy Borg]

So you're a vegetarian, yes?

The first question to ask about the ethics of eating animals is their level of sentience. This is a big topic. However a further question is whether a God could imbue an element of Himself in animals the same way that religions claim that humans share a sacred soul. A potential excuse is that praying to God before a meal as a form of gratitude could also be seen as a kind of atonement from a pantheistic point of view. We tend not to see the animal being slaughtered and so there might be less of a temptation to express spiritual thanks before a carnivorous meal.

Descartes famously believed that only humans were imbued with a soul, leading him to perform public atrocities on dogs, believing that their cries were just blind reflexes rather than actual pain. Yes, I think grace probably started with gratitude towards the slaughtered animal, but then the church adapted it to their needs. It's like marriage, which was not religious at all for most of human history but these days many believe that marriage is a religious institution. Ultimately, it's a realisation that we must kill or exploit to live.

The common view is that only brained animals are sentient. Certainly, they are the only ones to feel emotions, so I'm not big on pantheism, though I am open to panvitalism because I'm not convinced that only biology is alive, as such, rather it's a type of life.

[Belindi]

So you're a vegetarian, yes?

The first question to ask about the ethics of eating animals is their level of sentience. This is a big topic. However a further question is whether a God could imbue an element of Himself in animals the same way that religions claim that humans share a sacred soul. A potential excuse is that praying to God before a meal as a form of gratitude could also be seen as a kind of atonement from a pantheistic point of view. We tend not to see the animal being slaughtered and so there might be less of a temptation to express spiritual thanks before a carnivorous meal.

People who say grace before a meal are mostly the same people who believe animals don't have immortal souls and are to that extent, autonoma.

[Sy Borg]

So you're a vegetarian, yes?

The first question to ask about the ethics of eating animals is their level of sentience. This is a big topic. However a further question is whether a God could imbue an element of Himself in animals the same way that religions claim that humans share a sacred soul. A potential excuse is that praying to God before a meal as a form of gratitude could also be seen as a kind of atonement from a pantheistic point of view. We tend not to see the animal being slaughtered and so there might be less of a temptation to express spiritual thanks before a carnivorous meal.

People who say grace before a meal are mostly the same people who believe animals don't have immortal souls and are to that extent, autonoma.

Darkly ironic.

[Michael McMahon]

Jesus didn't directly liberate Israel from Roman rule. Yet it's possible to interpret the Christian conversion of the Roman Empire as an indirect form of liberation. The followers of Jesus helped to break up Ancient Rome even though there were also other factors at play like the barbarians. You could also make the argument that the Romans didn't fight as hard against the barbarians because they eventually realised that an evil empire wasn't worth fighting for. Thus it's possible that these factors were connected.

"Although the Scripture spoke both of the sufferings and of the victories of the messiah, the victorious aspect had become uppermost in the minds of the common people because of Roman domination. This "lopsided" view of the Messiah has stuck with many Jewish people, and the politicization of the messianic hope has continued to this day. This is not to say that all Jewish people rejected the claims of Jesus. On the contrary, all the first followers of Jesus were Jews."
https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/what-pro ... e-messiah/

[Michael McMahon]

(Night view from Limerick train station)

To say God is finite can still mean that such a being is gargantuan. For example in maths infinities can sometimes be ignored because of how incomprehensible they are. So claiming God is literally infinite might not always produce awe in those who are less imaginative. For example when we go to a city we can be inspired by its immense size while being limited enough for us to conceptualise the vibe of the city. If New York City had hundreds of thousands more skyscrapers much like "Gotham City" in "Batman" then we might fail to fully appreciate the uniqueness of each borough.

"The infinite nature of God simply means that God exists outside of and is not limited by time or space. Infinite simply means “without limits.” When we refer to God as "infinite," we generally refer to Him with terms like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence."
https://www.gotquestions.org/infinite-God.html

[Belindi]

Jesus didn't directly liberate Israel from Roman rule. Yet it's possible to interpret the Christian conversion of the Roman Empire as an indirect form of liberation. The followers of Jesus helped to break up Ancient Rome even though there were also other factors at play like the barbarians. You could also make the argument that the Romans didn't fight as hard against the barbarians because they eventually realised that an evil empire wasn't worth fighting for. Thus it's possible that these factors were connected.

"Although the Scripture spoke both of the sufferings and of the victories of the messiah, the victorious aspect had become uppermost in the minds of the common people because of Roman domination. This "lopsided" view of the Messiah has stuck with many Jewish people, and the politicization of the messianic hope has continued to this day. This is not to say that all Jewish people rejected the claims of Jesus. On the contrary, all the first followers of Jesus were Jews."
https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/what-pro ... e-messiah/

"The Christian conversion of the Roman Empire" was a political strategy initiated by Constantine. It was less expensive for Rome to control far-flung colonies when everyone believed in a single ruling Deity instead of the variety of pagan or mystical deities.