• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Would you choose to be a God of dumb animals?

1 Timothy 2:11-15​

King James Version​

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


11 Let the men learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a man to teach, nor to usurp authority over the women, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Because a male Yahweh stupidly forgot Yin for Yang.

14 And Adam was not deceived,
True. God put Stan there to deceive Eve. Adam was to stupid to be worthy of it.

14 but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Other passages say that Adam was the first sinner, which exonerates Eve.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Yahweh reneged on this when he murdered A & E with neglect and aforethought by locking away what would have kept them alive. The tree of life, that A & E had intelligently rejected for a life of knowledge of all that was.

Regards
DL
 
Stop attacking people, concrete example "fuck Christians". Discuss your point of view without attacking people, individually or collectively. Discuss ideas, not people.

We do not censor ideas. But don't beat a dead horse. We get it. You don't like the Judaeo Christian God. Let's move on.
I showed why I was using the term, which had been introduced by our friend.

Reciprocity is fair play where I come from.

I do not like personal B S either, and try to live by that quote, but do reply in kind when fairly reciprocating.

Regards
DL
 
Stop attacking people, concrete example "fuck Christians". Discuss your point of view without attacking people, individually or collectively. Discuss ideas, not people.

We do not censor ideas. But don't beat a dead horse. We get it. You don't like the Judaeo Christian God. Let's move on.
Ack!

And all this because I said I respect people who can hold onto religion in times like these :D funny how things play out, sometimes

I guess I just have to tolerate the intolerance and move on, it's just not going to happen
 
I am French and do not recognize ad hominess as a meaningful term.

Speak English , express yourself better, and I might understand you without having to debate the meaning of terms..

Regards
DL
English is the lingua de fraca my dude... so I'll say again, "English mother fucker, do you speak it?"

I think you do bring up a lot of interesting stuff GB, which makes conversing with you interesting. I just think that your deeply held preconceived notions about certain monotheistic religions makes debating you on the topic a task akin to Sisyphus's daily burden.

Try and grasp the fact that there are christian's and jews out there that aren't immoral, misogynistic, and homophobic. The most common interpretations and applications of the scripture are none of those things. I won't deny that those beliefs aren't a prominent facet of the church, but I will argue that all things considered, the laymen Christian is more often than not a perfectly decent person.

As the most common interpretations of the bible are the opposite of what you believe, I hate to say it but by extension that means that the scriptures themselves are not inherently genocidal, homophobic, misogynist, etc. And thus by proxy that kinda makes you a little bit wrong.
 
I can describe in different terms.. the nature of reality..

There is a mind-limit-imperative.
 
But each piece((layer of order reality) desribes at best can.. that the reality of the others was indeed true..

Solving piece ridddles ZAIN..

M'Midddles..
 
^^ one step too far Brendan ;)
 
I am not a Christian. But living the way Jesus was portrayed in gospels, at least how I understand it, is great way to simulate. Jesus was socialist in the sense that "we are all one family because we all come from the same source, so we have to look after each other like we would look after ourselves". It is a very "namaste" philosophy. He was also in the camp of what is in USA considered "Republican", in sense that we are all responsible for our life. He was also a big opponent of the corrupt state, not in actively promoting revolution "out there" but by "living the revolution within". He was a revolutionar as example. If Jesus was a real person and not the mode of being, I think that he was one brave, honest and compassionate being. The kind of being that we need more in today's world. I believe that Jesus, if he appeared today, would be locked up in a mental institution, killed or imprisoned. Too much heretical thinking that is contrary to both state and institutionalised religion...
Try and grasp the fact that there are christian's and jews out there that aren't immoral, misogynistic, and homophobic.
...and here is the reason why I think @Gnostic Bishop is pissed. Jesus said "not to cast a stone if one is not without similar errors", and "to look into your vision/mode of being before you start judging others". But still he was furious in front of the temple and wasn't in line with any institution, be it secular or religious. What GB is trying to say, at least how I read it, is that Jesus would be the first person to stand in opposition to the todays institutionalised religion. I can't see how a person that was described as Jesus was could be part of any institutionalised religion. Because that means looking away from atrocities committed by parts of those communities. I believe that he would condemn todays Christian churches and would certainly not involve himself in it. In a Gospel of Thomas it is written:"Jesus said: 'Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there.' ". It is a gospel that was destroyed by those that were compiling Bible, but it resurfaced in Nag Hammadi. So Jesus is in many places clearly stating that "He" is everywhere and everything, and that kingdom of God is within and without already, if we just have the vision or proper "eyes to see" (video, vidja, true veda that comes from clear vision).

To finish - what GB is pointing at is that Jesus wouldn't be a Christian today. He would be against religion professed in his name. He would be a heretic and a troublemaker and certainly not a member of any Church that is dominant in todays world.

@Gnostic Bishop sorry if I misrepresented your view, but I extrapolated from that few posts I have read that you wrote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well played @Psycho_Logic. I totally agree with the first part of your post. It’s a nice summary of Jesus as most Christians are likely to understand him. However, the loaves and the fishes and the water out of wine parables suggest he was just as much a Democrat as a Republican. That said, He did preach the virtue of charity from person to person though and wasn’t trying to get the Romans or Pontius Pilate to establish welfare state.

I am waiting for GB’s response to your charitable interpretstion though. As far as I can recall he has barely mentioned Jesus in any of many threads. From GB’s prosletysing here it is hard to locate the Christ in Gnostic CHRISTinity. Plus he seema to think Christians are as dumb as sheep in one recent thread.

But I’ve definitely got an open mind to his clarification of these things.
 
English is the lingua de fraca my dude... so I'll say again, "English mother fucker, do you speak it?"

I think you do bring up a lot of interesting stuff GB, which makes conversing with you interesting. I just think that your deeply held preconceived notions about certain monotheistic religions makes debating you on the topic a task akin to Sisyphus's daily burden.

Try and grasp the fact that there are christian's and jews out there that aren't immoral, misogynistic, and homophobic. The most common interpretations and applications of the scripture are none of those things. I won't deny that those beliefs aren't a prominent facet of the church, but I will argue that all things considered, the laymen Christian is more often than not a perfectly decent person.

As the most common interpretations of the bible are the opposite of what you believe, I hate to say it but by extension that means that the scriptures themselves are not inherently genocidal, homophobic, misogynist, etc. And thus by proxy that kinda makes you a little bit wrong.

The scriptures are what they are, and have produced a vile and immoral fascist religions.

All who plan to abdicate their responsibility for their sins and lay them on Jesus are immoral sinners.

Scapegoating is the sin you want to buy into. Are you ready to sin?

Regards
DL
 
Which people are being genocided? Who exactly are the Christians trying to wipe out these days?
 
I am not a Christian. But living the way Jesus was portrayed in gospels, at least how I understand it, is great way to simulate. Jesus was socialist in the sense that "we are all one family because we all come from the same source, so we have to look after each other like we would look after ourselves". It is a very "namaste" philosophy. He was also in the camp of what is in USA considered "Republican", in sense that we are all responsible for our life. He was also a big opponent of the corrupt state, not in actively promoting revolution "out there" but by "living the revolution within". He was a revolutionar as example. If Jesus was a real person and not the mode of being, I think that he was one brave, honest and compassionate being. The kind of being that we need more in today's world. I believe that Jesus, if he appeared today, would be locked up in a mental institution, killed or imprisoned. Too much heretical thinking that is contrary to both state and institutionalised religion...

...and here is the reason why I think @Gnostic Bishop is pissed. Jesus said "not to cast a stone if one is not without similar errors", and "to look into your vision/mode of being before you start judging others". But still he was furious in front of the temple and wasn't in line with any institution, be it secular or religious. What GB is trying to say, at least how I read it, is that Jesus would be the first person to stand in opposition to the todays institutionalised religion. I can't see how a person that was described as Jesus was could be part of any institutionalised religion. Because that means looking away from atrocities committed by parts of those communities. I believe that he would condemn todays Christian churches and would certainly not involve himself in it. In a Gospel of Thomas it is written:"Jesus said: 'Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there.' ". It is a gospel that was destroyed by those that were compiling Bible, but it resurfaced in Nag Hammadi. So Jesus is in many places clearly stating that "He" is everywhere and everything, and that kingdom of God is within and without already, if we just have the vision or proper "eyes to see" (video, vidja, true veda that comes from clear vision).

To finish - what GB is pointing at is that Jesus wouldn't be a Christian today. He would be against religion professed in his name. He would be a heretic and a troublemaker and certainly not a member of any Church that is dominant in todays world.

@Gnostic Bishop sorry if I misrepresented your view, but I extrapolated from that few posts I have read that you wrote.
I saw nothing to speak against buddy.

You are correct. Jesus, if he were real, would condemn all Christians to hell for wrecking his views of religion.

Jesus preached to cure instead of kill, yet Christians want Yahweh/Jesus to kill instead of cure, bot when he returns with Armageddon, and in hell later for the vast majority of us.

Quote the satanic god that.

Regards
DL
 
Well played @Psycho_Logic. I totally agree with the first part of your post. It’s a nice summary of Jesus as most Christians are likely to understand him. However, the loaves and the fishes and the water out of wine parables suggest he was just as much a Democrat as a Republican. That said, He did preach the virtue of charity from person to person though and wasn’t trying to get the Romans or Pontius Pilate to establish welfare state.

I am waiting for GB’s response to your charitable interpretstion though. As far as I can recall he has barely mentioned Jesus in any of many threads. From GB’s prosletysing here it is hard to locate the Christ in Gnostic CHRISTinity. Plus he seema to think Christians are as dumb as sheep in one recent thread.

But I’ve definitely got an open mind to his clarification of these things.

Do these sound Western religion or Eastern religion to you?

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.


Do you see Christianity preaching that they can be equal to Jesus and get their by their own efforts?

They do not dare empower the sheeple. Can't have thinking people when sheeple are what is wanted.

Regards
DL
 
But I’ve definitely got an open mind to his clarification of these things.
I do not care how clear or muddy some things are, given that I try to focus on morals and ethics.

If those are not peoples first concern of their religions, they have missed the boat.

The foolish look for a powerful god, moral or not, to assuage their insecurity.

Christians are basically all moral cowards.

Regards
DL
 
Which people are being genocided? Who exactly are the Christians trying to wipe out these days?

Who will Armageddon and that particular genocide target?

Who are the homophobes and misogynists discriminating against without a just cause?

Regards
DL
 
I don't think I can with you today my dude
 
@Gnostic Bishop Since you have invoked Alan Watts and his view on Jesus I just want to see and possibly confirm some of my assumptions. I believe that we have listened to similar lectures and read some similar books. Have you listened to this particular lecture?


 
@Gnostic Bishop Since you have invoked Alan Watts and his view on Jesus I just want to see and possibly confirm some of my assumptions. I believe that we have listened to similar lectures and read some similar books. Have you listened to this particular lecture?
I am aware of much in this presentation.

I tend to focus less on the myths we wrote to put against the Christian one when we all knew they were just myths and talking points.

When Christians became literalists is when the stupid that we could not call stupid entered much of the world. That being the literal reading of myths by the less astute and con men.

What are some of your assumptions buddy?

Regards
DL
 
What are some of your assumptions buddy?

Assumptions:

->you prefer personal experience over "outside authority"

->you are open to many levels of interpretations

->even if you don't agree with something personally you are aware that other people have different point of view, angle of seeing, and you respect the
them as long they are moral and live what they profess

->you haven't made up your mind what the ultimate truth is and probably are aware that you, as a human, will never get even close to ultimate truth

->you see institionalised religions as power clans, not different from mafia families or governments backed up by military

-> are knowledgeable about history and how the religion we now call Christianity came to be dominant (how "heretics" were killed as they were seen as competition in first few centuries, and how Roman church used Jesus, and is still using it, for justifying Genghis Khan type of conquests)

-> difference between what is professed in gospels and how Christians truly act

-> that Old Testament is not a wholly book but a historic account and that it was used by people that formalised Christianity so some theological (and cosmological) ground could be had

-> that Jesus isn't son or "part" of Yahweh

-> you don't even think that Jesus is the God, but a Buddha like human being

-> we are all God/reality/"choose your word" incarnated but that doesn't mean that "everything goes" regarding how life should be lived

-> that ultimately God/reality/big bang/nothingness/"choose your word" is unknowable to any particular incarnation but that personal experience and relationship with reality takes presedance over any outside authority

I realise that I am repeating myself and I came full circle so I will stop here.

Edit -> some of the things that I wrote were not assumptions but the views you expressed as I understood them. Other assumptions are not so outlandish but still I haven't see you confirming or denying them. I am probably a bit vague but I don't want to get too far ahead. Maybe this list is even too presumptuous, but I had a go. Sorry in advance for all misrepresentations I made.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top