Enjoyed reading your post and thanks for the compliment. There will always be a sector lost to intelligent thinking and who wish to damage their thinking by a real belief in some supernatural genocidal prick, --- that is somehow really good. I say ignore those immoral homophobes and misogynous. They are few in modern lands. The Pope just indicated that only through the church can god be accessed. For such reasons, I cannot agree with you. What you put applies more to Gnostic Christianity. Christianity took the supernatural and false instead of the esoteric and true. I do not agree. Religions sell the lie of a god while atheist sell a show proof attitude. IOW, atheists take the intelligent view as compared to proselytisers of the god religions. The religious in this case are demonstrably lying. If good morals is what you seek, look to atheists and not the religious liars. If you want the best, the Gnostic Christianity is where you should look. Regards DL
To some degree it is the guardian of morality. Not always successful, however. It provides a system for belonging, something that is quite important to some people. It proves answers to some for mysteries. Many people are uncomfortable with mysteries. In short it does more good for society than bad. There are exceptions, of course - the religions of ancient central american native tribes, the medieval catholic church, the islamic religious conquests. Luckily those are all in the past.
Yes...well stated Mr. DEFfinning...IMO The uniqueness that the artist or the composer or even an Einstein presents.... does not come from "mind" or from "thinking"....it arises from the same "essence" as you have stated The misunderstood "concepts" that you are referring to are not my own...and they are understood by many. I believe they are needed...they are what people are searching for. But they have to at least be open to looking beyond their "religions".
I'm still waiting for you to translate your words, from your OP, "it's time to BURY your religions." Frankly, it seems disingenuous, to me, to continue criticizing someone for, "misrepresenting," your argument, when you have been so unclear as to what your thesis actually is, and you go on ignoring my multiple requests for clarification. If someone were addressing your own replies, in this manner, I'm relatively sure you would consider them to be insincere.
Of course you are correct....I am using BURY as in this definition... To put an end to; abandon: buried their quarrel and shook hands. That is not the same as abolish or remove....it's more like simply to "move on".... Some have even used the word "evolve".
No it does not. If you cannot live without the supernatural, you cannot be a Gnostic Christian as the Jesus we follow is just a man. Most forget that he asked us in scriptures, indirectly of course, when he asked, have ye forgotten that ye are gods? Most have, but not Gnostic Christians. We just do not name god other than I am, and yes, a Gnostic Christian will mean himself or herself. We define that I am as the best rules and laws we can find to live with. This prevents the vile Christian habit of idol worship. Regards DL
I agree, as that would go against their fascist and inquisitorial/jihad ways. Without inquisitions, Christianity would have died out to Gnostic Christianity. Regards DL
It is irrelevant that the ideas you espouse are not your own original concepts, and it was not my contention that they were. My point was that they are not standard understandings. This is not the same as my discrediting your ideas, on that basis-- any more than I would automatically dismiss a mathematical formula, just because I didn't clearly understand it. In both cases, however, I think that the assertion that anyone wanting to advocate for some non-traditional paradigm, should EXPLAIN it, so that those with which one is trying to discuss their unconventional idea, will grasp it, is a valid one.
and two sentences later it says.. "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." So I guess all you Christians can have are two AR-15's for the whole lot of you... and stop hogging all the ammo.
Of course....but it is not as simple as that. That is the reason Jesus spoke in parables...he said "the kingdom of heaven is like this..." or "the kingdom of heaven is like that..." there are as yet no adequate words to describe what the spiritual teaching is pointing to. I hope you are really as interested in this as you seem to be... because perhaps you will come up with the right words and help us all out.
Well then you are mistranslating MY words, or at least making a simply semantic argument. My word, "abolish," absolutely fits your definition, above, "to put an end to." But if you prefer I use the word, "end," I have no problem with that substitution; it does not make an iota of difference to my points. I only wish you had given me this correction, from the get-go, instead of playing this guessing game of precisely how you meant a particular word; as you are probably aware, most words have multiple shades of meaning. So now that we've straightened that out, how about you address any of my other arguments, within which those words, to which you have been objecting, occurred? (The terms, "removing," and, "abolish," were not, in & of themselves, my counter-arguments.) And, I'll now clarify for you, that I do not believe that it is, at all, realistic to believe that a large percentage of the population will, en masse, move on, from religion. There has been a very slow leak, seemingly affecting some religions more than others. But there is a floor to this drain-off, which still represents a quite sizable part of humanity, at least in the foreseeable future. So, as I recently post-guessed, your thread is, despite using present-tense language, really a utopian vision for the distant future.
On the contrary, any claims that, scientifically, it can be proven that a universal force, which many term, "God," definitely does not exist, are demonstrably charlatans; until recently, science was unaware of the existence of dark matter-- now we know that it composes the overwhelming part of the mass of the universe. To not concede that there is, still, more truth YET to be discovered, than all we currently do know, or think we know, is the apogee of hubris. Certainly you understand that new knowledge, often enough, doesn't just fall into place to fill in the framework that science has already constructed. It is far from unheard of, for scientific understandings of things-- even of very large, important, basic things-- to be shown to have been wrong, by later scientific advancements. Quantum physics, is just one case in point. The prevalence of fractal-geometry in nature, is another recent discovery that caught the scientific community completely by surprise. We still do not know what life is at the deepest parts of our own planet's oceans. We are at near utter loss, when it comes to what inhabits the tree-canopy environments of our world's rainforests. Biologists estimate that man has only identified 10% of extant species, with which we share our home. And, it goes without saying, we are clueless about most of what we will find on distant planets. Science, in fact, while accepting the idea of a Big Bang origin for the universe, has absolutely no explanation for the presence of any of the material which concentrated, in order to create the explosion, and which is the origin of all matter constituting our universe. I state these facts, not as proof of the existence of God, but as proof that there is no, sound, scientific basis to exclude the possibility that some force, even some consciousness-- with which we are unfamiliar and for the detection of which, our science has yet to develop the necessary technology-- roughly equatable to the concept of God, does, actually exist. What you are doing is making the, "logical," argument against the reality of viruses, or casting as a fantasy of the weak-minded, atomic or sub-atomic particles, while we still lack the tools to ascertain the truth, with any degree of certainty. In short, you are trying to offer your belief, as fact, just like the religions you disparage. The main difference is that religions are clearly pitching something unprovable, whereas you conceal your biases behind the patina of, "science." The only truly objective (i.e., scientific) view, is that facts about a spiritual dimension to our universe, & perhaps extending beyond it, cannot be evaluated by current methods; therefore, any contentions, related to it, can neither be confirmed, nor denied, as containing truth. P.S.-- Please do not take my disagreement with you, over what I see as just honest logic, as a sign of hostility. I am treating you as an adult, who has the integral maturity, personal sense of security, & psychological character, to be able to have a good-natured exchange with someone whose ideas contrast with your own. I am sure I will hear good insights, and find interesting ideas presented (like your theory of, "the Greatest," desire), from you, just as much as it is a given that I will have my own, differing opinions on some matters. Sincerely, DEF
I suspect our disagreement here, if you are presenting yourself to be a modern-day Gnostic, is one of differing interpretations. To my mind, Gnosticism refers to the historical movement, as so would the term Druidism. That does not mean that there are not contemporary practitioners of Druidism, who share some of the basic precepts of the original Druids. Their present understanding, however, is bound to differ from historical beliefs, as it is being formed under such drastically different circumstances, and so, from such incontestably-divergent perspectives. I am not especially knowledgeable about Gnostics but, as an admirer & fan of Carl Jung, I am aware that Gnosticism was the basis for the later Alchemy movement. And while, ultimately, many alchemists came to regard their quest to be a symbolic one, focused upon transforming their own, base essence, into gold, this does not alter the fact that it began as a, "scientific," physical pursuit. Likewise, while I have no doubt you would be able to offer symbolic explanations for things like the Demi Urge, it does not seem credible to me that Gnosticism, originally, as a splinter-movement off Christianity (which most certainly did believe in the supernatural), had nothing of this foundational belief in their own variant. So, I have a couple of points that, I hope, will hasten our getting past this impasse. First, whenever someone refers generally to an historical movement that is, at best, only a fringe-pursuit in modern times, the natural assumption is that the speaker is referencing its heyday. If you meant Gnosticism, as currently practiced, well that would clear up our dispute. I would contest, however, your assertion that contemporary practice mirrors that of the past, based simply on the fact that there is no unbroken tradition of Gnosticism, from ancient times to modern. In truth, any, "Gnostic," of today is really a Neo-Gnostic. An analogy could be drawn between traditional practices of, "witchcraft"-- and there are extant grimoires from that period-- and modern day Wiccans. Despite their practices having some historical bases, "Wicca," the religion of witches, was invented, in the 1950s, I believe, by Gerald Gardner. There were, of course, many different traditions of paganism & natural magic, in the past, just as there are all sorts of modern Wiccans and Pagans, today. But to assume only minor differences between groups, of the two disparate time-frames, is obviously a delusionary belief. A second possible cause of our difference of opinion, it occurs to me, could be a semantic one, over the difference between believers in, "supernatural," phenomena, and adherents of, "esoteric," principles. My recommendation is that you lay out your own understanding of Gnosticism, from which you are drawing your interpretations. But if Gnostic practices do have anything to do with purifying some intangible, inner essence-- akin to that which this thread's creator, @gabmux , seems to endorse-- then I submit that you are making an arbitrary discrimination. Best wishes, as you compose your replying thoughts; I look forward to reading them, DEF
50%+1 doesn't make. Whatever the "right" wants to get away from doesn't make your schism of the statist religion any less mystical in nature.
I too like the Avengers and the Marvel spinoffs. I think humans are just very creative and generally susceptible to ideas that sound good but probably aren't good when analyzed with reason. Politicians are people who are very good at winning over people emotionally. Humans are emotional creatures. I'm sure that there are. It just means we need more reason to overcome mysticism.
No man has a right to choose another man's leader, if they choose any at all. That's called "freedom of association". I am an anarcho-capiltalist. Read my signature, perhaps?
The question is...what great and powerful civilizations lacked religion. What countries ...great or not...were founded on the principals of atheism. Can atheism courageously stand up within a totalitarian religious state or do they simply succumb to the stronger will. Do people who don't believe in a higher power stand out as those who take courageous risks of life and limb for freedom ? Really....religion has enough of a track record to spell out its importance.
