|
Post by greatestiam on Feb 17, 2021 22:35:55 GMT
Do you argue to win or to lose?
I see many feisty debates and apologetics, with little potential for a happy conclusion and wondered what motivates us all.
Preach, teach, or learn comes to mind.
Do you want to loser arguments or win them?
Which gives you the most pleasure and pain?
Regards
DL
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 1, 2021 9:11:54 GMT
Democracy and Science had been born within Christianity, the rest views had (de)generated nothing, but tyranny and barbarian gibberish. New Dark Ages era is being summoned by blind force-squanders, fed-up maniacs, and wandering-within-virtuality idiots. So what to expect from non-Christian views except for stinky moronity down-at-heel confuse? I expect, if I go by the stats, a much better world with more peace and law abiding people. The sooner we rid the world of Christianity and Islam the better. Regards DL I don't think Muslim will go. They'd rather destroy all the science, scientists and citizens, than to change their faith. Tha science for them is the European devil. Even if they left it, no chances for them to drop off their religion.
|
|
|
Post by greatestiam on Mar 1, 2021 18:17:42 GMT
I hear you.
They are even less civilized than Christianity.
Their theology is nearly a mirror image of Christianity and to try to split one vile Abrahamic cult from another is a not a good use of time.
By any name, all the Abrahamic cults and gods are garbage.
Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 4, 2021 18:46:02 GMT
I hear you. They are even less civilized than Christianity. Their theology is nearly a mirror image of Christianity and to try to split one vile Abrahamic cult from another is a not a good use of time. By any name, all the Abrahamic cults and gods are garbage. Regards DL Even previously I wished to post this text to ya, but I forgot about it. It's a Russell's quote from his "History of Western Philosophy" book. Here's the text:
The view that the Jews were the Chosen People remained, however, obnoxious to Greek pride. This view [of choosiness] was radically rejected by the Gnostics. They, or at least some of them, held that the sensible world had been created by an inferior deity named Ialdabaoth, the rebellious son of Sophia (heavenly wisdom). He, they said, is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, while the serpent, so far from being wicked, was engaged in warning Eve against his deceptions. For a long time, the supreme deity allowed Ialdabaoth free play; at last He sent His Son to inhabit temporarily the body of the man Jesus, and to liberate the world from the false teaching of Moses. Those who held this view combined it, as a rule, with a Platonic philosophy; Plotinus, as we saw, found some difficulty in refuting it.
Gnosticism afforded a half-way house between philosophic paganism and Christianity, for, while it honoured Christ, it thought ill of the Jews. The same was true, later, of Manichaeism, through which Saint Augustine came to the Catholic Faith. Manichaeism combined Christian and Zoroastrian elements, teaching that evil is a positive principle, embodied in matter, while the good principle is embodied in spirit. It condemned meateating, and all sex, even in marriage. Such intermediate doctrines helped much in the gradual conversion of cultivated men of Greek speech; but the New Testament warns true believers against them: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science [Gnosis] falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith."
Gnostics and Manichaean continued to flourish until the government became Christian. After that time they were led to conceal their beliefs, but they still had a subterranean influence. One of the doctrines of a certain sect of Gnostics was adopted by Mahomet. They taught that Jesus was a mere man, and that the Son of God descended upon him at the baptism, and abandoned him at the time of the Passion. In support of this view they appealed to the text: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -- a text which, it must be confessed, Christians have always found difficult. The Gnostics considered it unworthy of the Son of God to be born, to be an infant, and, above all, to die on the cross; they said that these things had befallen the man Jesus, but not the divine Son of God. Mahomet, who recognized Jesus as a prophet, though not as divine, had a strong class feeling that prophets ought not to come to a bad end. He therefore adopted the view of the Docetics (a Gnostic sect), according to which it was a mere phantom that hung upon the cross, upon which, impotently and ignorantly, Jews and Romans wreaked their ineffectual vengeance. In this way, something of Gnosticism passed over into the orthodox doctrine of Islam.
[ Bertrand Russell History of Western Philosophy, 1945. pp. 324-225 The Link] I wonder what would you say about it. Would you reject these Russell's thoughts or not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 22:33:11 GMT
To do the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 4, 2021 22:34:30 GMT
What about to do some left? ;)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2021 2:16:49 GMT
For sure.
|
|
|
Post by greatestiam on Mar 8, 2021 21:07:03 GMT
I hear you. They are even less civilized than Christianity. Their theology is nearly a mirror image of Christianity and to try to split one vile Abrahamic cult from another is a not a good use of time. By any name, all the Abrahamic cults and gods are garbage. Regards DL Even previously I wished to post this text to ya, but I forgot about it. It's a Russell's quote from his "History of Western Philosophy" book. Here's the text:
The view that the Jews were the Chosen People remained, however, obnoxious to Greek pride. This view [of choosiness] was radically rejected by the Gnostics. They, or at least some of them, held that the sensible world had been created by an inferior deity named Ialdabaoth, the rebellious son of Sophia (heavenly wisdom). He, they said, is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, while the serpent, so far from being wicked, was engaged in warning Eve against his deceptions. For a long time, the supreme deity allowed Ialdabaoth free play; at last He sent His Son to inhabit temporarily the body of the man Jesus, and to liberate the world from the false teaching of Moses. Those who held this view combined it, as a rule, with a Platonic philosophy; Plotinus, as we saw, found some difficulty in refuting it.
Gnosticism afforded a half-way house between philosophic paganism and Christianity, for, while it honoured Christ, it thought ill of the Jews. The same was true, later, of Manichaeism, through which Saint Augustine came to the Catholic Faith. Manichaeism combined Christian and Zoroastrian elements, teaching that evil is a positive principle, embodied in matter, while the good principle is embodied in spirit. It condemned meateating, and all sex, even in marriage. Such intermediate doctrines helped much in the gradual conversion of cultivated men of Greek speech; but the New Testament warns true believers against them: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science [Gnosis] falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith."
Gnostics and Manichaean continued to flourish until the government became Christian. After that time they were led to conceal their beliefs, but they still had a subterranean influence. One of the doctrines of a certain sect of Gnostics was adopted by Mahomet. They taught that Jesus was a mere man, and that the Son of God descended upon him at the baptism, and abandoned him at the time of the Passion. In support of this view they appealed to the text: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -- a text which, it must be confessed, Christians have always found difficult. The Gnostics considered it unworthy of the Son of God to be born, to be an infant, and, above all, to die on the cross; they said that these things had befallen the man Jesus, but not the divine Son of God. Mahomet, who recognized Jesus as a prophet, though not as divine, had a strong class feeling that prophets ought not to come to a bad end. He therefore adopted the view of the Docetics (a Gnostic sect), according to which it was a mere phantom that hung upon the cross, upon which, impotently and ignorantly, Jews and Romans wreaked their ineffectual vengeance. In this way, something of Gnosticism passed over into the orthodox doctrine of Islam.
[ Bertrand Russell History of Western Philosophy, 1945. pp. 324-225 The Link] I wonder what would you say about it. Would you reject these Russell's thoughts or not? He was analyzing our myth, which we do not read literally. We use logos and not mythos. You might want to remember that the bible was a consolidation of many older beliefs and was written as a book of wisdom for it's talking/debate points. Our holy books were written for the same reasons. I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths. bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2Further. www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.htmlRabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it." 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." 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. Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 10, 2021 9:36:58 GMT
Even previously I wished to post this text to ya, but I forgot about it. It's a Russell's quote from his "History of Western Philosophy" book. Here's the text:
The view that the Jews were the Chosen People remained, however, obnoxious to Greek pride. This view [of choosiness] was radically rejected by the Gnostics. They, or at least some of them, held that the sensible world had been created by an inferior deity named Ialdabaoth, the rebellious son of Sophia (heavenly wisdom). He, they said, is the Yahweh of the Old Testament, while the serpent, so far from being wicked, was engaged in warning Eve against his deceptions. For a long time, the supreme deity allowed Ialdabaoth free play; at last He sent His Son to inhabit temporarily the body of the man Jesus, and to liberate the world from the false teaching of Moses. Those who held this view combined it, as a rule, with a Platonic philosophy; Plotinus, as we saw, found some difficulty in refuting it.
Gnosticism afforded a half-way house between philosophic paganism and Christianity, for, while it honoured Christ, it thought ill of the Jews. The same was true, later, of Manichaeism, through which Saint Augustine came to the Catholic Faith. Manichaeism combined Christian and Zoroastrian elements, teaching that evil is a positive principle, embodied in matter, while the good principle is embodied in spirit. It condemned meateating, and all sex, even in marriage. Such intermediate doctrines helped much in the gradual conversion of cultivated men of Greek speech; but the New Testament warns true believers against them: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science [Gnosis] falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith."
Gnostics and Manichaean continued to flourish until the government became Christian. After that time they were led to conceal their beliefs, but they still had a subterranean influence. One of the doctrines of a certain sect of Gnostics was adopted by Mahomet. They taught that Jesus was a mere man, and that the Son of God descended upon him at the baptism, and abandoned him at the time of the Passion. In support of this view they appealed to the text: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -- a text which, it must be confessed, Christians have always found difficult. The Gnostics considered it unworthy of the Son of God to be born, to be an infant, and, above all, to die on the cross; they said that these things had befallen the man Jesus, but not the divine Son of God. Mahomet, who recognized Jesus as a prophet, though not as divine, had a strong class feeling that prophets ought not to come to a bad end. He therefore adopted the view of the Docetics (a Gnostic sect), according to which it was a mere phantom that hung upon the cross, upon which, impotently and ignorantly, Jews and Romans wreaked their ineffectual vengeance. In this way, something of Gnosticism passed over into the orthodox doctrine of Islam.
[ Bertrand Russell History of Western Philosophy, 1945. pp. 324-225 The Link] I wonder what would you say about it. Would you reject these Russell's thoughts or not? He was analyzing our myth, which we do not read literally. We use logos and not mythos. You might want to remember that the bible was a consolidation of many older beliefs and was written as a book of wisdom for it's talking/debate points. Our holy books were written for the same reasons. I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths. bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2Further. www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.htmlRabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it." 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." 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. Regards DL Ok, I will. It takes some time, so I don't really know when I'll answer.
|
|