DividedQuantum said:

Excellent post, Markos. 

---

redgreenvines said:

DividedQuantum said:

Excellent post, Markos. 

---

agreed

Advocate said:

I'm not saying that humans alone are all that God cares about. But if we are created in his image, the implication is that we are the beings most similar to him, and therefore most beloved by him.

The Bible supports this idea, by the way.

---

Advocate said:

My goodness, but don't you love long posts and using as many words as possible to make your arguments. I'm sure that tactic is great for keeping people from adequately responding. Why do't you actually prove to me that the Bible is wrong, not that is has implications which you find to be unpleasant?

Because I ASSURE you there is less than no proof for your lofty ideas about universal spiritual consciousness or whatever idea you happen to be teaching at any given moment. There is a reason why almost no serious religious thinkers are gnostics. There is simply no foundation for the ideas you hold.

---

redgreenvines said:

I assure you Mark is immersed in foundation, he is practically as buried in foundation as any person could ever become without a full sarcophagus.

your thin bible references pale in comparison like those of a newly reborn midwest revivalist preacher.

this is just about the worst forum for thumping bibles; may as well smack bongo drums.

---

redgreenvines said:

so you think the "lord" is speaking through you, and that therefore, what you speak is based upon faith  and not thought - upon faith which is different than thought and better than thought?

I say that faith is just one of the many varieties of mental formations, not more nor less valid than any other variety of thought or sensation.

There are however, drastic difficulties when conversing with someone rationally and they happen to trip out on some tangent that is faith based and therefore "fundamentally unquestionable" - and probably made of straw to have such defense around it.

One wonders - do we call a spade a spade, or shall we pretend to be very British about it and keep decorum around the table - but we are now being taken hostage by a person of faith, and that wont fly anymore.

For you to throw down a gauntlet like you have done in this way is in my eyes very primitive. The term visigoth comes to mind only as you mention it.

---

Advocate said:

My goodness, but don't you love long posts and using as many words as possible to make your arguments. I'm sure that tactic is great for keeping people from adequately responding. Why do't you actually prove to me that the Bible is wrong, not that is has implications which you find to be unpleasant?

Because I ASSURE you there is less than no proof for your lofty ideas about universal spiritual consciousness or whatever idea you happen to be teaching at any given moment. There is a reason why almost no serious religious thinkers are gnostics. There is simply no foundation for the ideas you hold.

---

This response is more of an emotional response to an intellectual writer than anything else. Moreover, there is no proof of the rightness or wrongness of biblical writ, it is a matter of understanding the mentality of the eras in which it was written and finally compiled as a canon. Your statement, "There is a reason why almost no serious religious thinkers are gnostics" is preposterous because you obviously have no idea what the intention of gnostic religion is if you are wed to dogma and doctrine. I may call myself a Gnostic or a Gnostic Christian but that is only my attempt to be as Paul wrote, "all things to all men." It is also my attempt to say that I am NOT a Christian in ANY sense of the term as used in this, our era. The Bible-thumping anti-intellectual parroting of scripture is a burlesque of anything that may actually have arisen in 1st century Judea. I don't want anyone to see me as a proponent of that shallow and stupid set of beliefs that pass for Christianity today. The early Christians were spiritual explorers on the vessel of the Christian mythos, not puerile believers in myth as if it were history. The Ante-Nicean 'fathers' were still exploring the Christian mythos before the "brain police" laid down doctrines that would be maintained by torture and terror. I reject dogma utterly. Theological formulae are all contrivances and belief qua belief is merely programming - the diametrical opposite of any "serious religious thinkers."

The Perennial Philosophy is a philosophy of universal salvation, of the righteous people that the biblical Y'shua is said to have recognized before the machinations of Christian theology created the game rules for salvation and damnation. These opposites were more metaphor than metaphysics among the Jews of Y'shua's day (assuming he was an actual historical person). This statement is your unfounded opinion: "There is simply no foundation for the ideas you hold." I have explored the Bible from the inside out, having assumed the faith stance of orthodoxy, and from the outside in, having assumed a heterodox perspective. You seem to be trapped in the former, without realizing it is a trap. You are still in the dogmatic "Matrix" as it were, and have yet to deconstruct and demythologize your automatic and thus unconscious assumptions about religious myth. Read these two books if you dare. They are both like taking the "Red Pill," but most 'Christians' I've met are still too afraid to challenge their own religious assumptions. These two books can break down the rigidity of indoctrination and allow an understanding of the construction of scriptures on a 'quantum' level. But, unfortunately, you are probably not ready to have your comforting illusions of religion shattered, given the defensive tone of your response. As a believer in dogmas and doctrines as an epistemological way of knowing, you are not in a position to criticize a gnostic way of Knowing. Nevertheless, if you wish to undo the threads of your religious cocoon and fly (think critically), read these books. Otherwise the Orwellian notion, "Freedom is slavery" applies to the unquestioning adherence to dogma. Belief is not faith. Beliefs are a prison, whose bricks are false ideas. Faith opens out to spiritual freedom, it is expansive, formless, open to Ultimate Reality, not shut in by the false ideas of long-dead men.

redgreenvines said:

I can see from reading that that I should actually be speaking with Paul, he has a lot of explaining to do.
you on the other hand, got me wrong 100% about 3 things:

• Nothing I do is text book.
  
• I am already in heaven &
  
• half the time it sucks.
  

---

I was actually arguing with Markos, not with you, so disregard my post as it may relate to you.

You are easier to talk with. You at least keep things concise. I have a certain respect for you because you're very down-to-earth. Still, I'm not sure that your philosophy offers real satisfaction in a tangible way. Say what you will about my beliefs; I'm probably happier than anyone else who spends as much time thinking as I do.

I've seen the darkness and I came out smiling because God came with me.

CosmicJoke said:

You guys are all a bunch of kants....

---

redgreenvines said:

but what about Paul?
he is putting a terrible kink in your views

---

redgreenvines said:

the problem with prisoners and chains is...

well, a fisherman is a much better template

and a farmer or gardener is even better because they take care of nature for a living. (used to anyway)

---