What good is religion?

Mythically speaking, who can say from the conflicting reports and Christian burnings of better manuscripts than their own.

Reality speaking, the dogma is what is causing the harm to women and gays and I am here for harm reduction.

All our god's are man made and do not deserve too much historically focused time.

Morals of the gods is what is important. Not their names.

Regards
DL

 

Keep the personal to a minimum. Less clutter and useless opinions.

Yes all the myths you listed should be seen as anything you like, but not a literal truth.

Yes, we were and are a part of the intelligentsia that existed before the stupid literal reading practice began.

Here is some of the Gnostic writings.

You will note that it is based on science and nature and has nothing to do with some supernatural garbage.

===========

Let me speak to the lie of Gnostic Christians hating matter.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religion’s originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

-----------


The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.

[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

 

Ok.

Thanks for the chat.

Best to ignore each other if we think the other a liar or someone twisting the dialog.

Regards
DL

 

Indeed.

All we can know for a certainty is that the vast majority of the world was Christian and that many of the murderers, the vast majority, were Christians.

I think it becomes even more complex when believers try to blame victims, like atheists who were dying for nothing.

Regards
DL

 

I think that most Gnostic Christians would read purifying as saving or perfecting. When we speak of a savior, we mention that the only thing we want saving from is poor moral thinking.

Cathars, for instance, had their highest office ad a Parfait.

Regards
DL

 

Yes - agreed, but I was talking not about what you or I think, nor about what the average Christian thinks - but what the Bible says.

What I am saying is that if one professes to believe in the Bible - then - one should believe that

"YHWH is a Son of the Most High - one of El's many sons

Jesus is different than YHWH - and the other Sons - as Jesus is born of Man -- hence there phrase "Son of Man" - the offspring of God and Woman - and even that is pushing it if we stick to the Gospel of Mark - where Jesus chosen by a Patron God ( Which patron God we are not told - Enlil (EL) and YHWH being the two candidates

YHWH is the offspring of God - God"

because that is what the Bible says , but this is not what Christians believe.

One point you made which is interesting is about the burnt books. After Constantine - at the beginning of the 1000 years of horror. - the church tried to destroy anything , and anyone, that conflicted with the new Dogma. Books that were deemed to conflict with Church Dogma in any way were burned .. it was illegal to read the Bible if one was not of the Cloth.

In addition - this new Church went about destroying knowledge - dumbing down the people such that by the time we get to the middle ages - even kings and queens are illiterate .. "God's word" is what the Pope - or the local Priest - say it is . . and one would be burned for stating what is stated above from my previous posts - even though it is in the Bible - part of the reason the people were not allowed to read the Bible.

 

so what are we to conclude from that? That the definition of religion is dogma and ritual?

 

so I suppose you dont wanbt to talk about scientology, ok how about dark matter? einee weeners blunders?

 

napolean did the same thing, dogs marking their territory comes to mind

 

two entirely different belief systems

 

I'll bet even a higher percentage had eyebrows than were Christians. Shall we blame the eyebrows?

 

I am genuinely sorry that you've interpreted my participation, in your thread, as, "pointless critical ranting." If I wished to be contentious about it, I would defy you to provide examples, or even a single contribution of mine, that would qualify as being what you critically describe it to be. I believed that I was only trying to better understand your thesis, which I feel was not clearly expressed in your OP. As I requested a link to any of your posts that I might not have seen, which made your meaning clearer-- which went unanswered by you-- and my request for clarification was met with your explanation that you really can't clearly describe the idea, it would seem to me, that I was making a valid point, which would necessarily impact on all participants' ability to productively engage in a discussion of your thread's unexplainable idea. Not ranting.

I certainly cannot rewrite your concept, without fully understanding what it is. And I have no desire to start a similar thread, of my own. The principal thing that drew me to this discussion, was that it was your thread, which I wanted to support. Clearly, my posts are being seen by you, instead, as interference. It is a shame I couldn't entice, from you, a more active participation in your own thread. I thought we would be making good progress, if you answered my request directed to you, through a mention, in my post to greatest i am, asking for either your differentiation from, or agreement with, a particular aspect of great estiam's perspective, which he was able to unambiguously explain.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-good-is-religion.588493/page-9#post-1072687151

Perhaps, after this post of yours, you did respond (I see that I have several subsequent replies from you). But if you do not appreciate my contribution, I will simply stay out of your thread (provided that others don't address my remarks, so far, in such a way that causes me to wish to reply). I will, therefore, follow this course, after evaluating whether any of your other, new replies, calls for a response. I am here for a fruitful discussion, not to create sour grapes.

 

Yes...that is my own opinion. That is the most of what I hear
when I listen to "religious" people.
Do you see "religion" as more than just thoughts in someone's mind??
Thoughts that they either latched onto as true...or created themselves.
Do you see "religion" as more than that?

 

I would contend that, in this post, it is you who is doing the, "ranting," of which you accused me, in your prior post. And it is really a humorous thing that you would fault me, for incorrectly understanding something you have said that you really can't explain. So, unless you want to reduce yourself to a merely semantic argument, I see no legitimate complaint here, from you. I thought you believed in following, more truly, this inexplicable, inner essence. I thought this idea, of being more one's true self, was analogous, for the purpose of my conversation w/ G.I.A., to the idea, in the Gnostic texts, of "purifying," one's inner essence, which I think I put in quotes because that was the terminology used in some reference material (as from wikipedia, etc.) which I'd quoted. Actually, I would say that what the historical Gnostics attempted to do, was possibly better called, "rarifying," or "transmuting," their essence, if it bore a strong resemblance to Alchemy, as is contended by C.G. Jung, whose fascination with these groups, led to his researching them, as extensively as was possible, with the resources available at that time. But if that is a misreading of your ideas, by all means, enlighten me, as I have been asking you to do, in numerous, earlier posts, which you now classify as, "pointless criticism." Or is this also something, you can't quite put into words? Except, of course, the critical words, here, of blaming me for not being able to read your mind.

But you are correct: if you cannot respond with any clarification of your ideas, then I would be left--in my posts to you, at any rate-- as only debating myself which, as I said in my last post, I will cease to do, as soon as I catch up with your new replies to me. Two more, to go.

 

Exactly...nor can I rewrite to your satisfaction.
I welcome your insights into these concepts...but constantly criticizing the wording
of the OP...without being able to correct it accordingly isn't accomplishing anything.
I have some (IMO) ....important questions to ask.
Do you think "religion" is going to prevent
humans from destroying this planet?
If not...then what do see "religion" is good for?

 

Lets try a different approach...
Give me one sentence from my OP that you wish to be clarified...
but do not add another 1000 words to the request.
Keep it short and to the point.

 

I don't understand your comparison...how are Christians like eyebrows?

 

Thanks
I can comprehend that idea.
I've seen quite a few of your posts here
and in other threads that express ideas similar to my views.
Do you think there are teachings from any other religions
that are as effective as the Gnostic? Or is the Gnostic the only way?

 

Again, your minimalist quote, allows no reader, including myself, to see the context of the remark. I will point out that, as far as official Forum protocol, this practice you are frequently employing with me, is frowned upon.

But, to address it as it is, and as you did: you are wrong. The fact that something has lasting mass-appeal, does prove that it is addressing some need, or unsatisfied, strong inner desire. You would be misreading my comments-- or, in the terms you used in your last reply to me, would be, "accusing me of your own delusions"-- if you were trying to imply, by the words, "accomplishing anything," that I have called religions, "constructive." I think there are arguments on both sides of that question, which I don't believe has been much a part of my opining, here. I have merely pointed out that religions must satisfy some human need. I am not saying there could not necessarily be another means to satisfy our Sapiens' yearning. Stipulating one, I would think, would be a natural part of your OP, saying that it was time for people to bury their religions and move on. To not suggest options as to what, they should, move on to, would seem a deficit in your thread's POV, in my mind, but I don't wish to be once more blasted with your accusation of pointless criticism, so I will merely defend against your current charge. To wit, the small snip, above, was part of my argument that the destructive, and hateful tendencies of humanity which, currently, are vented through religion, are not created by religion, per se, and would still exist in the human psyche, with or without it; if we, "moved on," from religion, these forces, like a disembodied demonic spirit, would only find some new vehicle, to be used to express itself.

You might well disagree with this theory. I would have thought that would have made for interesting debate, when I presented the idea. Nonetheless, you have yet to make that argument; nor, to any real degree, do you make it, above.

 

Religions are worthless, have died and need burying? Did you have a bad experience with religion to be so bitter?

Currently there are over 5 billion people who belong to a religion and live in peace. There must be more to it than your superficial dismissal and negative focus.

Man, before recorded time, has had one religion or another. We seem to be wired for it. One explanation, that I agree with, is that it imparts an evolutionary advantage to an individual and a group. religious people are statistically happier and live longer. That could be because of increased social connections and group discouragement of unhealthy behavior. Group advantages include set mores that are advantageous to the group, increased group bonding, ones sense of altruism extends beyond kin, group anxieties explained, good behavior rewarded and the bad made to suffer after death. There's more but you get my drift.

 

So you believe that this, "true self," or whatever you wish to call the thing which, elsewhere, you have told me you thought that we merely needed to surrender to, is NOTHING at all, but an idea (which is what @Greatest I am states)? I must point out that:
1) this makes no sense, whatsoever.
2) this directly contradicts what you previously stated, in this thread, that ideas are NOT part of our inner essence.

Explanation?????????

 

Think it was a bit different .. but don't know much about that aspect of Nap.. do know he was not a fan of the church

 

Religion, when done correctly, is a compliment to a person's worldview. And if you're concerned with being logically consistent, you will be religious.

 

I am suggesting that there is difference between finding correlation and making a leap, and finding causation and making a leap. He has supplied as much evidence that Christianity is a cause of murder in Europe, as I have supplied evidence that having eyebrows is a cause for murder in Europe.