Moderator: Dan~
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Jesus should probably have avoided walking on water, raising the dead, healing the sick, returning from the dead himself, making psychic claims and repeatedly placing himself as aligned with the OT if he hated believing in the supernatural. Of course these are perhaps merely the stories of his followers only. But then that's what's in the book we're dealing with.
I don't see much evidence of his hate of those with supernatural belief either. I can see ways to interpret things he says in gnostic terms, but that is not the same as saying he hates those who believe in supernatural things. And of course many gnostics believed in supernatural things. Though some gnostics will say those gnostics are not true gnostics. Which is a lot like how other Christian groups have viewed each other. Hatefully.
In any case I do see some instances where Jesus got pissed off. I don't see much to think he wanted people to hate any particular group. There is a fascinating speech where he says only people who hate their families can come to him. Though a literal interpretaiton of this is contradicted by many quotes where he says on should not hate ones brother or family. Reconciling that is not my problem, but I would guess he or the authors meant not letting people be stopped by their families if their families did not love God, however one interprets God.
But overall he seemed to emphasize love and acceptance.
The Bible teaches one to start a spiritual journey from the
bottom, i.e. from a stage where he must consider himself as a born sinner and starts his journey upwards from there. One reaches the second stage when he realises that he is the son and God is his father. The final realisation is when he realises that he and the Father are one.
I don't see that as necessarily hatred. It's a criticism, sure.Greatest I am wrote:Scriptures have Jesus showing his hate in a number of places.
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Even less here. Again, a criticism.Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Is that hatred?Jesus also said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and one can logically extrapolate from that that he would also say that religions and Gods were made for man and not man for them.
I've shown you quite a while ago that one of the gnostics you quoted had supernatural beliefs. Even the notion of the Demiurge has supernatural interpretations.If you think Gnostic Christians believe in the supernatural, you are not looking very deeply into what we believe. Here is an example.
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.
I do not think the NT was intended as a myth.Further, we do not read our myths literally as they were written to put against the bible when all knew that myths should not be read literally.
Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls. For example.Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Well, they are quoting from the NT which has stories told about hte miracles of Jesus. And these are not told in the mythical form of most cultures, even the OT's genesis. They are talking about a guy, over here, walking around, who he knew, what he did, and then a miracle happens.Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
A Shieldmaiden wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:The Bible teaches one to start a spiritual journey from the
bottom, i.e. from a stage where he must consider himself as a born sinner and starts his journey upwards from there. One reaches the second stage when he realises that he is the son and God is his father. The final realisation is when he realises that he and the Father are one.
Satan's first two lies spoken to humankind, namely: “You shall not surely die,” and “You will be like God
The twin lies of human divinity and immortality have been Satan’s foundation for his counterfeit religion throughout the ages.
A Shieldmaiden wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:The Bible teaches one to start a spiritual journey from the
bottom, i.e. from a stage where he must consider himself as a born sinner and starts his journey upwards from there. One reaches the second stage when he realises that he is the son and God is his father. The final realisation is when he realises that he and the Father are one.
Satan's first two lies spoken to humankind, namely: “You shall not surely die,” and “You will be like God
The twin lies of human divinity and immortality have been Satan’s foundation for his counterfeit religion throughout the ages.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Greatest I am wrote: 2) Jesus predominantly focuses on forgiveness and love.
Venture wrote:A Shieldmaiden wrote:[b]
The Bible teaches us to accept the truth of scripture, the teachings of Christ, and your imperfect human nature in relation to God's planwith.
You will be like God sure sounds ok when God says that A & E did become like Gods. You call what God confirmed a lie.
Feel free to demonstrate this.Greatest I am wrote:Hogwash on this last.
INcluding one of the people you quoted. IOW your own demonstrations depend on support from people who believed in the supernatural and this undermines your position.There were hundreds of Mystery schools and to think that none of them investigated the imaginary realm of the supernatural, would be silly.
There are Christians who recognize this but are not gnostics. It's actually complicated, however troubling that might be for people who want it neat and binaryIt is not surprising as well, given that we lost the God wars to the inquisitions, that theists do not recognize that they have been spoon fed a falsified history by religious Christian liars.
I am disagreeing with points you make because they are not presenting a correct, more complicated image of, in this case, amongst other things, Jesus as presented in the Bible. And you still fail to respond to the specific points made.You look to the past to see what an evolving religion was, while not wanting to believe what a modern Gnostic Christian is telling you of what we have evolved into.
Sure, it might be nice if we could just order other people around to change their minds, but I live in the real world.Change that mindset, please, or we will just be word fighting instead of having a meaningful dialog.
A Shieldmaiden wrote:Greatest wrote:You will be like God sure sounds ok when God says that A & E did become like Gods. You call what God confirmed a lie.
Where exactly in the Scriptures does it say this?
Mowk wrote:who's bible? what makes it mine, even paradoxically? When I've wanted to read it I've gone on line and borrowed it, there are a lot of translations on line. I'm hardly fluent in the language it was written in. So who's bible is it again?
Venture wrote:Don't call me a goof when you're afraid of matter. .
Venture wrote:Don't call me a goof when you're afraid of matter. .
Venture wrote: Stop enshrouding yourself in the idea that knowledge is above morality. If it wasn't for the Judeo-Christian movements, you would have no literature to base your beliefs on because your ideas wouldn't have flourished. It seems to be a way to pervert the scriptures through offering secret knowledge. I'm interested in studying how the antithetical ideas flourished during the first few centuries, those defined heretical, because there's something seriously wrong with these supernatural magical obsessors who are into rituals, angelic rankings, and 'spirituality' (kabbalah, hermeticism, gnosticism). Something slithered into early Christian movements through Rome, originating in a human lust for power by offering secret knowledge and practices, ancient snake oil salesmen.
.
Could you explain how entropy and the anthropic principle lead to this being the only possible world and the best world. And isn't the anthropic principle in the realm of supernatural ideas? I mean, it's teleology.Greatest I am wrote: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
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Could you explain how entropy and the anthropic principle lead to this being the only possible world and the best world. And isn't the anthropic principle in the realm of supernatural ideas? I mean, it's teleology.Greatest I am wrote: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
Yup. Though entropy doesn't make this any more true or less obvious. And it has nothing to do with the anthropic principle.Greatest I am wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote:Could you explain how entropy and the anthropic principle lead to this being the only possible world and the best world. And isn't the anthropic principle in the realm of supernatural ideas? I mean, it's teleology.Greatest I am wrote: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
DLEntropy is, yes, a concept having to do with the arrow of time and irreversability (and order to disorder) but I am not sure how it weighs in on inevitability or value judgments like 'best possible world'. Many scientists, for example, believe in entropy, but also believe in a multiverse.It is science that recognizes that the time line only flows the one way.
Further you say nothing about how the anthropic principle demonstrates best possible worlds.I don't know what you are talking about here. I have denied the conditions that got us to this point of time. I asked you about how the anthropic principle and entropy lead you to the conclusions you drew.If you deny the conditions that got us to this point in time, then there is nothing I can say.If your parents had not mated at exactly the time they did, you would not be here.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Entropy is, yes, a concept having to do with the arrow of time and irreversability (and order to disorder) but I am not sure how it weighs in on inevitability or value judgments like 'best possible world'. Many scientists, for example, believe in entropy, but also believe in a multiverse.It is science that recognizes that the time line only flows the one way.
Further you say nothing about how the anthropic principle demonstrates best possible worlds.
Yup. Though entropy doesn't make this any more true or less obvious. And it has nothing to do with the anthropic principle.[/quote][/quote]I don't know what you are talking about here. I have denied the conditions that got us to this point of time. I asked you about how the anthropic principle and entropy lead you to the conclusions you drew.If you deny the conditions that got us to this point in time, then there is nothing I can say.If your parents had not mated at exactly the time they did, you would not be here.
Well, if there is a multiverse than our world, our lives, our experience, is just one possibility amongst an infinite number.Greatest I am wrote:I do not see the conflict between those ideas.
But many do, many because it is way of retaining determinism. Further there is evidence, just not confirmation.I would not think many would have a belief in a multi-verse though as those theories have yet to be proven. Strangely, the math works for both a 9 and 12 dimension models where multiverses and branes would exist.
Further you say nothing about how the anthropic principle demonstrates best possible worlds.
I'm still not seeing the anthropic principle brought in.If this is the only possible world, which it is and must be given our past, then it is obviously the best of all possible world that there can be if we ignore our wish lists for better. Those wishes can only aply to the future and not the past. We can aim for better but must also recognize that we are at our best possible starting point at all points in time.
Yup. Though entropy doesn't make this any more true or less obvious. And it has nothing to do with the anthropic principle.[/quote][/quote]I don't know what you are talking about here. I have denied the conditions that got us to this point of time. I asked you about how the anthropic principle and entropy lead you to the conclusions you drew.If you deny the conditions that got us to this point in time, then there is nothing I can say.If your parents had not mated at exactly the time they did, you would not be here.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with entropy or the anthropic principle. It does have to do with determinism or saying that we are affected by changes - so identity type issues or causation.You would be, if you are at all, would be in a completely different time line, and I do think that that fact is rather obvious. Change any one thing in your past and you change all of your history.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Well, if there is a multiverse than our world, our lives, our experience, is just one possibility amongst an infinite number.Greatest I am wrote:I do not see the conflict between those ideas.
But many do, many because it is way of retaining determinism. Further there is evidence, just not confirmation.I would not think many would have a belief in a multi-verse though as those theories have yet to be proven. Strangely, the math works for both a 9 and 12 dimension models where multiverses and branes would exist.
Further you say nothing about how the anthropic principle demonstrates best possible worlds.
I'm still not seeing the anthropic principle brought in.If this is the only possible world, which it is and must be given our past, then it is obviously the best of all possible world that there can be if we ignore our wish lists for better. Those wishes can only aply to the future and not the past. We can aim for better but must also recognize that we are at our best possible starting point at all points in time.
[/quote][/quote]I don't know what you are talking about here. I have denied the conditions that got us to this point of time. I asked you about how the anthropic principle and entropy lead you to the conclusions you drew.If you deny the conditions that got us to this point in time, then there is nothing I can say.
Simply the recognition that things cannot be other than they are.
To change what you are right now, something different would have had to happen in your past. Right?Yup. Though entropy doesn't make this any more true or less obvious. And it has nothing to do with the anthropic principle.If your parents had not mated at exactly the time they did, you would not be here.
[/quote]Sure, but that has nothing to do with entropy or the anthropic principle. It does have to do with determinism or saying that we are affected by changes - so identity type issues or causation.You would be, if you are at all, would be in a completely different time line, and I do think that that fact is rather obvious. Change any one thing in your past and you change all of your history.
It doesn't have anything to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics - except that I am in this universe and the 2nd law has to do with this universe - or with the anthropic principle.
And nothing in science, so far, justifies value judgments.
Greatest I am wrote:Venture wrote:Don't call me a goof when you're afraid of matter. .
Quite the assumption. Why would I fear matter?
That would be stupid seeing as I have to eat to live and like to eat 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 religions 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
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]