Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: Advocate]
    #19646127 -

Before I leave to give my girlfriend a ride back from work, would you mind saying which translation you're using?  And why you think said translation, not to mention the edits made by countless people along the expansive history of the entire Catholic/Protestant Church, is valid compared to others?

I personally think the Gnostic Gospels contain more spiritual truth than the entire Bible combined, but perhaps that's my personal prejudice.  Tell me, have you actually read them?


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: Advocate]
    #19646141 -

Why does that strike you as complicated?

Well now hold on, I am a pagan sinner who has never read the Bible, go easy man.

Okay, that was a fair explanation.  I don't think you've saved me, but it was fair.

I have to wonder how one guy's death at the hands of the some Roman governor somehow absolves all sins.  What about the holocaust does that erase?

I'm still confused, forgive me, I..I..don't feel it yet.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #19646144 -

I would love to hear you explain the Gnostic gospels in light of your last post, but I fear I would be sat here for a long time reading the resulting essay.

I appreciate your search for truth, but I contend that you are going about it from a focus that is not wholly devoted to God, which is the downfall of any so-called believer who tries to find truth where God has not already provided it instead of in his Word.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: deCypher]
    #19646157 -

deCypher said:
Before I leave to give my girlfriend a ride back from work, would you mind saying which translation you're using?  And why you think said translation, not to mention the edits made by countless people along the expansive history of the entire Catholic/Protestant Church, is valid compared to others?

I personally think the Gnostic Gospels contain more spiritual truth than the entire Bible combined, but perhaps that's my personal prejudice.  Tell me, have you actually read them?


I'm using the NIV, but the ESV and several others are good. But the KJV is provably riddled with faults due to biases and a lack of scholarship. Newer translations refer back to the original manuscripts instead of copies of copies.

And yes, I have read the Gnostic Gospels. Where the Bible strikes my very instinct as good truth, the Gnostic Gospels strike me as instinctively wrong down to their cores. There is simply no historical evidence connecting them to Jesus in any way; they arose generations after his death.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #19646186 -

DividedQuantum said:
Why does that strike you as complicated?

Well now hold on, I am a pagan sinner who has never read the Bible, go easy man.

Okay, that was a fair explanation.  I don't think you've saved me, but it was fair.

I have to wonder how one guy's death at the hands of the some Roman governor somehow absolves all sins.  What about the holocaust does that erase?

I'm still confused, forgive me, I..I..don't feel it yet.


Sorry...I do get a little harsh when so many people are challenging me, but it's nothing personal, I promise.

If you want a better explanation about that question, The Problem of Pain is a really brilliant book. I would be more than happy to explain the necessity for pain and even for hell if you don't want to go hunting for this book, though!

As for the death of Jesus, it helps to have context. Under the old Law of Judaism, sin could only be forgiven by bloodshed. This is the whole "eye for an eye" thing; evil could only be erased through sacrifice. For this purpose, the best and healthiest animals were typically slaughtered. Jesus, being the only person to ever live without evil, was therefore the only one whose sacrifice could absolve the sins of everyone else. Again, many wiser men have given much more eloquent and holistic descriptions, but I can still try and answer any further questions you have about it.

I'm not sure what you mean about the Holocaust. Forgiveness of sins and the removal of evil from the world are two different things. The Holocaust was done by humans; God does not condone it and he will not forget it.

No problem. The whole point of discussion is to get this stuff out in the open. I'm not here to convert you, just to talk.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: Advocate]
    #19646454 -

That was a very respectful and thoughtful reply and I appreciate it.  I am having a hard time understanding why anyone outside of Judea around the time of Christ would attribute his dying for absolution of our sins based upon an archaic, barbaric system of law to anything other than expediency.  I mean, if there's no more transcendental or even practical explanation for his "dying for our sins" than first century Judaic law and its utterly pedestrian applications, I feel something is definitely missing from the equation.

Something doesn't add up...


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: Advocate] * 1
    #19647592 -

All of the selected gospels arose after the death of Y'shua ben Miriam. Of the selected gospels, even John's gospel (circa 90-120 CE) was almost rejected as being too mystical or gnostic. The Gospel of Thomas is at least as old as the 'Q' (Quelle) source from which mark was culled. Mathew and Luke modified the Marcan material. Thomas offers a theology of Self-Realization, not the standard vicarious sacrifice theology that Paul proffered. This should come as no surprise inasmuch as Thomas went to India to found a church (some evidence still exists there today), and India already had a long tradition of this type of theology. "The Kingdom of God is inside/within you (and all about you), not in buildings/mansions of wood and stone. (When I am gone) Split a piece of wood and I am there, lift the/a stone and you will find me." - Logion 77, The Gospel of Thomas

Unlike you, I was not content to swallow only that which a politically motivated group of men (no women!) selected as acceptable writings to support their new power structure. I wasn't born into these myths. I was raised Jewish, explored deeply Eastern faiths, learned from yogis Buddhists, and others before receiving catechism in a Catholic Church. When I decided against Catholic monasticism, I entered a very ecumenical United Methodist seminary. You have been programmed, and do not wish to deprogram yourself for a more objective look. The Gnostic gospels as well as the canonical Bible are a collection of myths, metaphors, and metaphysics that emerge from the creativity of the Collective Unconscious of the human psyche. What metaphysical source beyond the psyche through which these biblical authors wrote is up to each one of us to decide. How one lives unto God is a matter of personal style and capacity. There is no historical evidence for the historical existence of one Y'shua ben Miriam aside from brief references from the Roman historians Josephus, Tacitus, and Saturnius. Faith in Christ, as faith in God does not require a historical object. God is not a historical reality, God is Ultimate Reality that is ontologically prior to history.

Best wishes on your journey though life, but "Remember: Be Here Now."


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #19647777 -

DividedQuantum said:
That was a very respectful and thoughtful reply and I appreciate it.  I am having a hard time understanding why anyone outside of Judea around the time of Christ would attribute his dying for absolution of our sins based upon an archaic, barbaric system of law to anything other than expediency.  I mean, if there's no more transcendental or even practical explanation for his "dying for our sins" than first century Judaic law and its utterly pedestrian applications, I feel something is definitely missing from the equation.

Something doesn't add up...


I get it, and got it since I had to read the book Christus Victor during my first semester in seminary school. http://www.amazon.com/Christus-Victor-Historical-Study-Atonement/dp/0020834004/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1393912832&sr=8-2&keywords=christus+victor ; The thing is, there are alternative theologies of atonement, and some of them demonstrate that the goal is not expiatory atonement for imaginary sins based upon an extra-biblical (Augustinian) hypothesis of Orginal Sin. There are Gnostic notions of atonement as at-one-ment with God, or Christ (strictly speaking, in Pauline Christianity, there is no God-mysticism only Christ-mysticism. Albert Schweitzer points that out better than anything Ive ever read in his The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle) http://www.amazon.com/Mysticism-Apostle-Albert-Schweitzer-Library/dp/0801860989/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393913129&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=the+mysticism+of+paul+the+postle (Parenthetically: When I picked up my copy from the bookstore of Fairleigh Dickinson University, a very hot black chick looked at me aghast and asked, "Are you really going to read that?" I was maybe 23 or 24. Everyone else I knew in 1976-77 was taking Quaaludes, doing cocaine, and trying to get laid as much as possible. I'm a Sheldonian Cerebrotonic Meso-Ectomorph, and an INTP (like C.G. Jung). Thinking is my dominant function, so singing hymns and doing the churchy thing does not bring me closer to God). :shrug:

I would add that looked at from a Jungian analytical perspective, I could illustrate the numerous symbols that emerge from the historical descriptions of this particular crucifixion. Iesous, as human ego is suspended between the opposites: Earth and sky, between the good and evil thieves, man and God. There is a darkness that has been depicted as a total solar eclipse. The Moon is lunar, the Sun solar, as is the water and blood that issue from the pierced swollen pericardium around the Heart of Iesous. The veil across the Holy of Holies which guards the innermost sanctum of the temple is rent from top to bottom, Heaven to Earth, suggesting entrance into the inner temple, which is also the pierced Heart wherein God indwells (He art). There is lots more symbolic amplifications, all which indicate specific movements of Initiation of ancient Mystery Religion, including ancient Christianity before it lost its Initiatory meaning to insipid recitations and mere husks of the original practices. Iesous is dismembered, or quartered in the crucifixion similarly to Ixion on the wheel, Prometheus on the rock, Odin (Wotan) hanging from the World Tree, or Osiris (truly dismembered, and his 'member' not recovered). This is an archetypal theme, an invariant idea of alchemical dissolution before a resurrection ("Solve et Coagula!"). The Iesous myth is either another iteration of the Mystery Religions of yore, or, in the eyes of many Christians, a concretization of myth in history. I find it much more instructive to enter the mythic dimension for any personal transformation of myself to occur. Mere belief in a hypothetical historical event has does nothing for my inner development over the decades.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #19648704 -

DividedQuantum said:
That was a very respectful and thoughtful reply and I appreciate it.  I am having a hard time understanding why anyone outside of Judea around the time of Christ would attribute his dying for absolution of our sins based upon an archaic, barbaric system of law to anything other than expediency.  I mean, if there's no more transcendental or even practical explanation for his "dying for our sins" than first century Judaic law and its utterly pedestrian applications, I feel something is definitely missing from the equation.

Something doesn't add up...


Jesus served a number of purposes in his life. The first was to preach the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, debating against the pharisees and others when necessary. The second was to do miracles and to lead by example, if you will. His last task was to take sins upon himself in death.

Paul tells the Athenians that God had been content to let nations basically do their own thing in the past. There are passages about how the Gentiles are a law unto themselves, and how most people used to do what was right by what their hearts and minds told them. In a way, Paul is addressing your concern about nobody outside of Judea caring; the Old Law had no meaning for them. It was instituted for God's chosen nation of Israel in the covenant of Abraham, and Christ's death was the fulfillment of the covenant.

Now, because of his sacrifice, both those who were under the law and those outside of it can be saved in the same way: all have the power to ask forgiveness of their sins, which separates us from God. Before, if you lived outside the law, you were judged by standards outside of it, and if you lived under the law, the law was the standard of your judgment. Christ died so that all people could be equal; no longer are the people Israel herself God's heirs, but all people are entitled to equal inheritance with Christ in the kingdom of heaven.

I hope that at least clears up the traditional Christian view for you. I wouldn't go listening to Markos's elaborate theories...Christ didn't come just for people who could read textbooks, but also for the simple, the humble, and the willing. Gnosticism would have us believe that such people will never know the truth. It is the religion of the intellectual elite, just as scientology is the religion of the moneyed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: Advocate]
    #19649027 -

Well, not to besmirch anyone's explanations, but I don't feel any closer to God or really any more edified about these matters than I did before.

I would like to quote the Great and Powerful Robert Anton Wilson, in closing:



Everyone has a belief system, B.S. The trick is to learn not to take anyone's B.S. too seriously, especially your own.



Belief is the death of intelligence.




All I know is that books like Prometheus Rising, for example, speak to me a lot more poetically and forcefully than any Bible passage I've read.


I shall never repent.

Edited by DividedQuantum (03/04/14 10:04 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: deCypher]
    #19649483 -

deCypher said:
Isaiah 45:7
Quote:
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."


Since you said you couldn't recall where God said he created evil.  Trust me, it's there.  :wink:

Will respond to the rest of your post later.


Right on deCypher, you beat me to it. :lol:


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Kant is Wrong...But So Close [Re: Advocate]
    #19649641 -

Christ didn't come just for people who could read textbooks, but also for the simple, the humble, and the willing. Gnosticism would have us believe that such people will never know the truth.

Gnostics were some of the earliest depth-psychologists. They saw at least 3 types of people: the Hylics or Sarkics (sarx=flesh), the Psychics (those who lived "by faith alone"), and Pneumatics (the spiritual). Psychics could be saved by faith, but Pneumatics' faith yielded to mystical experiences, gnosis, a knowing or certainty of those thing which were written of in various scriptures (before the canonical Bible). Experience came first, and then were corroborated by writings. Psychics could become Pneumatics if and when an experience of gnosis broke through to them. Such experiences were not visionary/auditory such as Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, or his out-of-the-body experience in 2 Corinthians 12:2, since these experiences were characterized by sensory modalities (i.e., hearing words, seeing light).

The gnostic mystical experience is closer to the Realization experience of Iesous as portrayed in the "I AM" sayings in John's gospel. Iesous is the archetype or prototype of all Christians who Realize their essential identity with the Logos. His Realization was made a unique specie by biblical theology and put on a pedestal as the exemplar (THE Incarnation), but from a Gnostic perspective, this is the God-Realization that is true for every human being, and which is salvific in itself. THIS is the Knowledge that characterizes Gnostic religion, NOT any of the complicated mythologies which characterize say, Valentinian Gnosticism. It is simple Realization of Transcendental Identity, the Transcendental Ego, which is the Logos itself. Paul may or may not have grasped this, depending upon whether a Psychic or a Pneumatic Christian is reading his words today. The Princeton scholar of Gnostic religion, Elaine Pagels wrote a telling book called The Gnostic Paul, wherein, "Elaine Pagels demonstrates how evidence from gnostic sources may challenge the assumption that Paul writes his letters to combat "gnostic opponents" and to repudiate their claims to secret wisdom." http://www.amazon.com/The-Gnostic-Paul-Exegesis-Pauline/dp/1563380390/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393956048&sr=8-1&keywords=elaine+pagels%2C+the+gnostic+paul

It is well known that transcendental experiences can result in dire consequences, not just ego-inflation 'knowledge that "puffeth up"). Paul addressed one consequence. He also did not reveal the system to which his "third heaven" belonged, which is simply to say that much has been left out of the Bible that can be found in the Pseudepigraphal and Apocryphal books that are sometimes added back to modern versions of the Bible (like Tobit).
But to understand the broader context of terse sayings (like, "there were giants in those days," or "Enoch walked with God and was no more, for God took him," then one would need to read the 3 Books of Enoch, which were excluded from the Bible because obviously, the compilers didn't think that the average believer could handle the material, but one does not need to be a Gnostic to read these books, contrary to your belief.

"Our Rabbis have taught, four entered into the Pardes. They were Ben Azai, Ben Zoma, Aher, and Rabbi Akiba. Ben Azai gazed and died. Of him it is written, "precious in the eyes of HaShem is the death of his pious ones"
(Tehilim 116, 15). Ben Zoma gazed, and went insane. Of him, it is written,"have you found honey, eat your share lest you become full, and vomit it up.” (Mishlei 25, 16). Aher became an apostate. Rabbi Akiba entered, and
exited in peace.” Hagigah 14B  http://koshertorah.com/PDF/PardesLessons.pdf


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Kant's Grounding for the metaphysics of Morals shroominsmurf 1,491 19 05/10/04 03:15 AM
by shroominsmurf
* Has Kant experienced 'suchness'?
( 1 2 all )		 Patisotagami 2,775 22 09/11/08 09:17 PM
by Boots
* Are relationships selfish?
( 1 2 3 all )		 silversoul7 5,857 54 08/20/04 08:39 PM
by Mad_Buhdda_Abuser
* Is masterbation morally wrong?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 inbetween 8,993 76 10/24/02 02:16 PM
by TeKHeAD009
* Selfishness is Good
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 4,056 37 04/18/04 05:40 AM
by GazzBut
* What is the opposite position to moral relatavism? Moonshoe 984 6 03/26/06 03:25 PM
by EternalCowabunga
* Kant's Philosophy of God Psychoactive1984 547 2 03/05/05 08:01 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* Is it wrong...?
( 1 2 3 all )		 RebelSteve33 2,565 40 12/03/02 09:55 AM
by Tannis

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,131 topic views. 0 members, 20 guests and 36 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 17 queries.