What should we call a position that is both theistic and deistic?

[Jaded Sage]

That is: the position that God both does and does not intervene in the world. I don't mean that God does sometimes and sometimes does not. I mean that God does both simultaneously, by doing it automatically, and by nature. I suppose it is a pantheistic position. Or a panentheistic one.

[Nick_A]

Hi JS, I agree with Simone Weil on this question:

“It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures.” Simone Weil ...

Panentheism makes the most sense for me and from this perspective the universe is the body of God. The universe continues the process of existence that taking place within NOW. Where the body of God is limited by time and space, God IS. God is NOW which is outside the limitations of time and space. God is within creation and creation is within God, within NOW. This is like a water soaked log in a pond is in the pond yet the pond water is in the log. The Trinity as ONE is God and the Trinity as three is a son of God within creation and deals with the possible.

[Dalek Prime]

A: Confused.

Either he acts, or he doesn't. It still doesn't mean his acts, if he does or can, are good. For him maybe, but for anyone else? Meh.

I used to be a deist, until I came across misotheism and dystheism.

[Harbal]

Panentheism makes the most sense for me and from this perspective the universe is the body of God. The universe continues the process of existence that taking place within NOW. Where the body of God is limited by time and space, God IS. God is NOW which is outside the limitations of time and space. God is within creation and creation is within God, within NOW. This is like a water soaked log in a pond is in the pond yet the pond water is in the log. The Trinity as ONE is God and the Trinity as three is a son of God within creation and deals with the possible.

That's a vivid imagination you've got there.

[Jaded Sage]

A: Confused.

Either he acts, or he doesn't. It still doesn't mean his acts, if he does or can, are good. For him maybe, but for anyone else? Meh.

I used to be a deist, until I came across misotheism and dystheism.

Google pantheism and panentheism and it might make more sense how he could both act and not act.

[Dalek Prime]

A: Confused.

Either he acts, or he doesn't. It still doesn't mean his acts, if he does or can, are good. For him maybe, but for anyone else? Meh.

I used to be a deist, until I came across misotheism and dystheism.

Google pantheism and panentheism and it might make more sense how he could both act and not act.

I'm not a pantheist, nor a panentheist. I disagree with God, and think he's a shit. And it wouldn't matter if he is in everything. I still think he's a shit.

[Jaded Sage]

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

[Dalek Prime]

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Okay. But why ask me then, if you already have the answer to the thread? That's what we can term it; Panentheism. Thread closed.

[Jaded Sage]

Yeah, I came up with that half way thru typing. Plus I'm not 100% certain that's what it is. Plus the concept is fascinating to talk about: how he both does and does not interfere.

[Dalek Prime]

Yeah, I came up with that half way thru typing. Plus I'm not 100% certain that's what it is.

I'm cool with that. We could always coin a new term?

That's why I'm a misotheist. I'm neither happy with his system, nor the way he interferes with it, or doesn't. Either way, he's the root cause of it.

[Jaded Sage]

You're skipping the main point.

Plus, misotheism is USUALLY just childish these days.

[Arising_uk]

That is: the position that God both does and does not intervene in the world. ...

A logical contradiction and therefore always false.

[Harbal]

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Forgive me but the hallmark of all your posts is that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Hobbes' Choice]

That is: the position that God both does and does not intervene in the world. I don't mean that God does sometimes and sometimes does not. I mean that God does both simultaneously, by doing it automatically, and by nature. I suppose it is a pantheistic position. Or a panentheistic one.

What should we call a position that is both theistic and deistic?
I think this would be: "confused".
A pantheistic god, in the model of, say, Spinoza would be neither a Theistic god, nor a Deistic god; but nature itself. Not desirous, not intervening, but embodied in the necessity of causality, absolute, boundless.

[Nick_A]

A_uk wrote:

A logical contradiction and therefore always false.

How old fashioned you are. You must learn to think out of the box. For example:

"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door." - Simone Weil

You want to slam the door shut. How old fashioned!