Philosophy Now Forum

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

So this is where the "Christian" comes from? Through Gnostic teachings you're elevated (elevate yourself?) to the point of kinship with Jesus. But this Jesus is not the Jesus as is traditionally understood by Christians (the latter being false)?

I don't know if I would use the word false. Myths are subject to many interpretations. The scapegoat Jesus is not so much false but more just immoral.

I like the Eastern one as I said but the one Christianity likes I do not due to his immoral policies, particularly his no divorce for women policy and his forgiveness policy via a scapegoat. I see that Jesus as anti-love. He is the one Rome invented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfGRN4HVrQ

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

David Handeye wrote:In fact, Gnostic Christian is an oxymoron.

Only to morons.

Regards
DL

Regards.

Greatest I am wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

So this is where the "Christian" comes from? Through Gnostic teachings you're elevated (elevate yourself?) to the point of kinship with Jesus. But this Jesus is not the Jesus as is traditionally understood by Christians (the latter being false)?

I don't know if I would use the word false. Myths are subject to many interpretations. The scapegoat Jesus is not so much false but more just immoral.

I like the Eastern one as I said but the one Christianity likes I do not due to his immoral policies, particularly his no divorce for women policy and his forgiveness policy via a scapegoat. I see that Jesus as anti-love. He is the one Rome invented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfGRN4HVrQ

Regards
DL

Fair enough. I may push you on this point later, but at least for now I think I understand why you refer to yourself this way.

Thanks.

Regards
DL

I think that Jesus was a man that was interested in philosophy and religion. He experienced enlightenment. (that the ego is an illusion ). He expressed this experience by saying that he was God. Most Catholic mystics report the same experience. Unfortunately, his experience was used to set up a hierarchy. Us regular people, our boss, his boss....the bosses son, God. Jesus was extremely egalitarian. He also claimed that his being the son of God was not a special status,we are all children of God.
Remember, the idea that special people were sons of God and the rest of us aren't, is a Roman idea, not a Jewish idea.
Roman emperors were routinely worshipped as sons of God.

Jesus shrieked (while on the cross) My God,why hast thou forsaken me. I think he thought that without an ego he could not suffer. He found out differently. That image is dramatically horrifying.

Jesus on the cross; "What a way to spend Easter!!"

It should be based on faith, deeds and transformation. Consequently, spiritual than being religious. Those two are different.

hazlett wrote:It should be based on faith, deeds and transformation. Consequently, spiritual than being religious. Those two are different.

Religion should be based on the individual having a religious (spiritual) experience, but almost all corporate churches have insulated it's members from having such an experience with dogma and meaningless ritual, so there is little real religion in existence today. Religion can be found in the experience of the mythology of that religion, but again the corporate church has insulated it's members from that experience. A long time ago the catholic church conducted the service in Latin which was not the vernacular language of the people, and thus expressed the mystery of Christianity to those who were really paying attention. Since translating the service into the common language they have remove the mystery, and thus have removed the possibility of the worshiper having a religious experience as opposed to participating in meaningless ritual. BTW I agree that spiritual and religious are different, one gives meaning to the worshiper, and one fulfills an obligation to the community.

hazlett wrote:It should be based on faith, deeds and transformation. Consequently, spiritual than being religious. Those two are different.

Faith without facts is for fools.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:[ BTW I agree that spiritual and religious are different, one gives meaning to the worshiper, and one fulfills an obligation to the community.

I see no obligation to the religious community but do recognize that we do have a duty to the greater community.

Please show what obligation you mean and to which part of the community.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

thedoc wrote:[ BTW I agree that spiritual and religious are different, one gives meaning to the worshiper, and one fulfills an obligation to the community.

I see no obligation to the religious community but do recognize that we do have a duty to the greater community.

Please show what obligation you mean and to which part of the community.

Regards
DL

In this case I'm referring to a voluntary obligation, agreed to by the individual, rather than an obligation imposed from the outside. My reference would be to both the religious community and to the greater community and these obligations are more in the form of a promise given by the member of those communities.

thedoc wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

thedoc wrote:[ BTW I agree that spiritual and religious are different, one gives meaning to the worshiper, and one fulfills an obligation to the community.

I see no obligation to the religious community but do recognize that we do have a duty to the greater community.

Please show what obligation you mean and to which part of the community.

Regards
DL

In this case I'm referring to a voluntary obligation, agreed to by the individual, rather than an obligation imposed from the outside. My reference would be to both the religious community and to the greater community and these obligations are more in the form of a promise given by the member of those communities.

Voluntary annuls obligation. But let's not analyse language.

We oblige ourselves to promise what exactly?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: Voluntary annuls obligation. But let's not analyse language.

We oblige ourselves to promise what exactly?

Regards
DL

Perhaps in the strict reading, you may be correct, but it is possible to voluntarily promise and then be obliged to keep that promise. I think that in most religious situations a broader definition is more appropriate than a narrow one.

The usual promise is in the form of monetary contributions and of time, the minimum of attendance to the services. Or as much as time and talents will allow. For my wife and myself, we took on the additional responsibility for 2 of our grandchildren, when we sponsored them for Baptism which included the promise to bring them along to the services and see that they are taught about God and Christianity. That was about 3 years ago and they had both been accompanying us to service since birth, and are continuing since Baptism.

thedoc wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Voluntary annuls obligation. But let's not analyse language.

We oblige ourselves to promise what exactly?

Regards
DL

Perhaps in the strict reading, you may be correct, but it is possible to voluntarily promise and then be obliged to keep that promise. I think that in most religious situations a broader definition is more appropriate than a narrow one.

The usual promise is in the form of monetary contributions and of time, the minimum of attendance to the services. Or as much as time and talents will allow. For my wife and myself, we took on the additional responsibility for 2 of our grandchildren, when we sponsored them for Baptism which included the promise to bring them along to the services and see that they are taught about God and Christianity. That was about 3 years ago and they had both been accompanying us to service since birth, and are continuing since Baptism.

Your God is demonstrably a vile and immoral demiurge, a Gnostic Christian term for a satanic God.

Why would you want to teach your grandchild your poor moral habits?

Or are you not in agreement with the verdict shown in this clip?

https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/video ... cafee&tt=b

Regards
DL