Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

[Shrooms00087]

Evil is what lacks and good is what provides. That's why greed is a polished sin. If Spirit then is life giving, then, what is lacking? Call evil good, pfft. For Christ's sake be selfless

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Evil is what lacks and good is what provides. That's why greed is a polished sin. If Spirit then is life giving, then, what is lacking? Call evil good, pfft. For Christ's sake be selfless

I would rather show my love.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soDZBW-1P04

For Christ sake, look at the immorality of the Christian theology. It is satanic.

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Joseph Campbell reads Christ's crucifixion as a Journey Inward. As with all pilgrimages it comes with baggage, he likens it with the mythology of "Finding the Father". Becoming a father you must make the ultimate sacrifice, so on and so forth. I have my doubts you understand Christian Theology. As I have my doubts I even understand the basic underpinnings of most mythologies or epic poems.

 

[RichardMooner]

There you go. Christianity has lost any credibility it used to have with the corrupted and immoral views that they have decided to put to their myths. They call evil good.

Regards
DL

The Church has never had any credibility and has always used the Bible as a means for gaining power. That doesn't mean the Bible was supposed to be used as a means to gain power.

If someone hits a soccer ball with a baseball bat, does that mean that a baseball bat is supposed to be used to hit a soccer ball? Are you going to discredit baseball bats and their value in baseball, and attribute them to soccer just because they can be used to hit a soccer ball?

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Joseph Campbell reads Christ's crucifixion as a Journey Inward. As with all pilgrimages it comes with baggage, he likens it with the mythology of "Finding the Father". Becoming a father you must make the ultimate sacrifice, so on and so forth. I have my doubts you understand Christian Theology. As I have my doubts I even understand the basic underpinnings of most mythologies or epic poems.

If Christian theology was worthy and understandable then we would not have the plethora of Christian sects and cults now would we?

Their consolidated from many other religions religion is garbage and always has been. What else can come from a religion based on barbaric human sacrifice.

I became garbage when the esoteric view you recognize was ignored for a literal interpretation. Hence the Dark Ages that Christian theology is still in.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

The Church has never had any credibility and has always used the Bible as a means for gaining power. That doesn't mean the Bible was supposed to be used as a means to gain power.

If someone hits a soccer ball with a baseball bat, does that mean that a baseball bat is supposed to be used to hit a soccer ball? Are you going to discredit baseball bats and their value in baseball, and attribute them to soccer just because they can be used to hit a soccer ball?

Religions are based on myths that have been given reality and turned to lies.

They have lost all their value to us regardless of the stick or ball. If only garbage comes from them then we can know that it is garbage going into them.

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

If Christian theology was worthy and understandable then we would not have the plethora of Christian sects and cults now would we?

This question actually caused quite a stir in my head today. It wasn't you that prompted it but rather a conversation with Daniel Dennett and Lawrence Krauss:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8&feature=youtu.be#t=1h10m49s


Where they all argue that Theology is dead. However Dennett is still partial to Philosophy.

Is it not that Theology is nothing but a language to cover up the inexpressible? All while giving authority to live authentic lives in accordance with the laws of its own language and culture? Sure the militant atheists have a point, religion has brought death and destruction. But so has research grants! Is math not another language that is cloaked in a hierarchical understanding? To have this heavy burden of knowledge to filter it down to the people who do not understand the language (IE membranes colliding into each other and having universe babies)? Is Theology, here, not the exact same in expressing Philosophy? Is math/physics not the caretaker of the knowledge of Genesis?

The fools who easily sweep away religion are the ones cashing checks to fund their curiosity. However only the people writing those checks have changed, it was once the church, now a secular government. Rightfully so, except I believe both Dennett AND Krauss are fatally wrong in their attack against religion. Attacks against religion should be based not on interpretation but on how actions are being carried out and this includes rationalism as well as the structure of money. To quote Dawkins quoting someone else, "Humanity, since discovering radio waves, has a 50/50 chance of living". Well you can't blame that on the Dark Ages. Christianity can change, it has done so many times, and sometimes it even splinters, but it stands the test of time. To confirm Hitchens nightmare "God will judge you even after your death". "God is dead" quoting Nietzsche.

It seems the only eternal things are Ideas.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

This question actually caused quite a stir in my head today. It wasn't you that prompted it but rather a conversation with Daniel Dennett and Lawrence Krauss:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8&feature=youtu.be#t=1h10m49s


Where they all argue that Theology is dead. However Dennett is still partial to Philosophy.

Is it not that Theology is nothing but a language to cover up the inexpressible? All while giving authority to live authentic lives in accordance with the laws of its own language and culture? Sure the militant atheists have a point, religion has brought death and destruction. But so has research grants! Is math not another language that is cloaked in a hierarchical understanding? To have this heavy burden of knowledge to filter it down to the people who do not understand the language (IE membranes colliding into each other and having universe babies)? Is Theology, here, not the exact same in expressing Philosophy? Is math/physics not the caretaker of the knowledge of Genesis?

The fools who easily sweep away religion are the ones cashing checks to fund their curiosity. However only the people writing those checks have changed, it was once the church, now a secular government. Rightfully so, except I believe both Dennett AND Krauss are fatally wrong in their attack against religion. Attacks against religion should be based not on interpretation but on how actions are being carried out and this includes rationalism as well as the structure of money. To quote Dawkins quoting someone else, "Humanity, since discovering radio waves, has a 50/50 chance of living". Well you can't blame that on the Dark Ages. Christianity can change, it has done so many times, and sometimes it even splinters, but it stands the test of time. To confirm Hitchens nightmare "God will judge you even after your death". "God is dead" quoting Nietzsche.

It seems the only eternal things are Ideas.

On this we can agree.

Theology has been killed by literalists. If they had not reared their ugly heads then religions, especially the Abrahamic cults, would still have the respect of the world.

Because of their stupid and mentally lazy literal reading, they have killed religions. Education and intelligence was doing it anyway but they speeded up the process and I am quite pleased to see it as they have stopped contributing to society.

I do recognize some of the work they still do as good but overall, they need to change drastically or die. Gnostic Christianity is their only way to a longer life as we, unlike them, do not discriminate against women and gays.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

P.S on science.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRLR9jhP_DM&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Regards
DL

 

[RichardMooner]

I would like to see science give man morality.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I would like to see science give man morality.

Secular man already has. Note how we have surpassed anything the Gods had to give us.

You can prove that statement for yourself with an answer to a simple question.

Should you first moral tenet be centered on others or should it be self-centered?

Who does God center on?
Who do you center on?

If not the same answer then you see whose morals and laws are superior.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/733371-Only-man-is-fit-to-be-God

Regards
DL

 

[Shrooms00087]

I would like to see science give man morality.

You have. Have you ever read any ancient philosophies? Ancient mythologies? Ancient Epics? They do the EXACT same thing as the Bible. In a theatrical plea it plays on your INNATE morality to change how one thinks! Through mythology, poetry, religion, etc..You already have seen science give Man more morality!

 

[RichardMooner]

Secular man already has. Note how we have surpassed anything the Gods had to give us.

You can prove that statement for yourself with an answer to a simple question.

Should you first moral tenet be centered on others or should it be self-centered?

Who does God center on?
Who do you center on?

If not the same answer then you see whose morals and laws are superior.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/733371-Only-man-is-fit-to-be-God

Regards
DL

Without God, what gives man any defined right or wrong? Everything would simply be. Not right, not wrong; just is.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Without God, what gives man any defined right or wrong? Everything would simply be. Not right, not wrong; just is.

B. S. a complete falsehood and a cop out on simple questions.

Answer my simple questions please.

You seem to think you have learned morals from God. Let's see them.

Should we center our morals on ourselves or on others? Who comes first? I cannot make it any simpler.

Regards
DL

 

[RichardMooner]

B. S. a complete falsehood and a cop out on simple questions.

Answer my simple questions please.

You seem to think you have learned morals from God. Let's see them.

Should we center our morals on ourselves or on others? Who comes first? I cannot make it any simpler.

Regards
DL

Your question is bull shit. "Should we center our morals on ourselves or on others? Who comes first?" That question in and of itself is morally subjective. What God are we talking about here? Yaweh? Zues? Shiva? Ra? Melek Taus? If we're talking about morality in a biblical perspective, I would say that we are to center our morals on ourselves.

But that's completely irrelevant, given that morality cannot be defined by reason, and without mysticism, it wouldn't exist. In the Bible, morality is objective, as it is defined by God and God is the governor of all laws. As flesh, we are to obey God's laws and abstain from immorality. Without design, or law, nothing is right and nothing is wrong. We can babble about what is right and what is wrong all we want, but we have no data to support it and therefore, there is no argument to be made. There is no explanation. There are what I believe to be distinctions of what is right and what is wrong that are endemic to man, but without design behind them, they have less meaning than a pile of dirt sitting on an ice block in Antarctica. My point is, we can say that something is right or wrong, but I can say that a goat is actually brick building. Doesn't mean it is.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Your question is bull shit. "Should we center our morals on ourselves or on others? Who comes first?" That question in and of itself is morally subjective. What God are we talking about here? Yaweh? Zues? Shiva? Ra? Melek Taus? If we're talking about morality in a biblical perspective, I would say that we are to center our morals on ourselves.
.

So you come first.

Do unto self what one would want to have done to self.

Is that how you love your neighbor.

No wonder it was like pulling teeth to get you to talk of morals. You have none. Just as you God has none.

Regards
DL

 

[RichardMooner]

So you come first.

Do unto self what one would want to have done to self.

Is that how you love your neighbor.

No wonder it was like pulling teeth to get you to talk of morals. You have none. Just as you God has none.

Regards
DL

That's not at all what I meant. Your question was poorly worded, "Do we center on" would imply that we center our moral beliefs on ourselves given what we believe. If I believe that my moral beliefs were subjective to the teachings of Christ, I would believe that I was to love my neighbor as I love myself, and that would still be centering my morals on myself. Not for my benefit, but they are laws that govern me, and I have no way of knowing that the distinctions I made are absolute, therefore, they are subjective to my beliefs, and subjective to me, and are centered around me. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Without someone governing the distinction between right and wrong that is outside of reason, all moral beliefs are nothing more than subjective, and that implies that anything I believe is right or wrong, wouldn't necessarily be right or wrong for another person. And because they are nothing but subjective, my distinction of right and wrong is not in anyway a meaningful distinction. So now, stop copping out of my question, how do you define what is right and wrong if you don't believe in a God? Do you define them with principles that are endemic to love? Well, not only is love mysticism, but even if it wasn't, what would make it right or wrong anyway? If someone said the opposite, what would you be able to argue?

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

That's not at all what I meant. Your question was poorly worded, "Do we center on" would imply that we center our moral beliefs on ourselves given what we believe. If I believe that my moral beliefs were subjective to the teachings of Christ, I would believe that I was to love my neighbor as I love myself, and that would still be centering my morals on myself. Not for my benefit, but they are laws that govern me, and I have no way of knowing that the distinctions I made are absolute, therefore, they are subjective to my beliefs, and subjective to me, and are centered around me. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Without someone governing the distinction between right and wrong that is outside of reason, all moral beliefs are nothing more than subjective, and that implies that anything I believe is right or wrong, wouldn't necessarily be right or wrong for another person. And because they are nothing but subjective, my distinction of right and wrong is not in anyway a meaningful distinction. So now, stop copping out of my question, how do you define what is right and wrong if you don't believe in a God? Do you define them with principles that are endemic to love? Well, not only is love mysticism, but even if it wasn't, what would make it right or wrong anyway? If someone said the opposite, what would you be able to argue?

I am a Gnostic Christian and have no problem recognizing good from evil wit or without the Godhead that I know.

Strange that you cannot know without looking into you book first instead of your heart which is where Jesus said your laws should be written.

But your question assumed lack of belief I think and even if not, looking at atheists and how they recognize good and evil is more important here than what I believe. Let's have a look to see Christians are more moral with their book and God than atheists.



My morality is outward looking to see what others need before looking at my own needs. I mostly succeed but not always.

Yours as you have shown, may not be but you are trying to justify and I don't think you have done so. You seem to be hedging towards, --- we should look outwards to the needs of others first.

If that is so and that is the best in morals and the ideal position of morality, let me point out that your God does the opposite and is quite self-centered.

Why then do you not follow your God's example and do the wrong thing?
You are told by scripture to emulate him in all things.

Regards
DL

 

[Ninae]

Actually, in the first civilisations on Earth, before Atlantis and Lemuria and way back then, men were the suppressed ones. They were considered spiritually inferior and mostly used as slave labour. Or whatever else women wanted them for.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Actually, in the first civilisations on Earth, before Atlantis and Lemuria and way back then, men were the suppressed ones. They were considered spiritually inferior and mostly used as slave labour. Or whatever else women wanted them for.

Who came up with this theory and how do they back it up.

I have gone back 24,000 years in listening to scholars and have not heard such.

This scholar does not mention any such situation but I eagerly away your information.

Mind you, she is so hard to listen to I might have fallen asleep without realizing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU1bEmq_pf0

Regards
DL