I believe in Jesus, but not in God.

[astrocat5]

I believe in myself, I believe only in what I see, the problem you're not seeing is that there are different traditions with their own pantheon of Gods which are much older than Gnosticism, even though these different gnostic traditions say the same thing in phylosophy and psychology they say different things about their mythology. I am interested in the God of the Gods in those traditions or the perfect one(as you call him the Father) in Gnosticism. When youngsters begin to question things about the religions that they were brought up in much of it doesn't make any sense, they seem very unlikely and if the idea of a religion has got any chance of surviving in this 21st century world then a lot depends on how much truth exists in these gnosis traditions. These gnosis traditions say that the pleroma of god exists in each and everyone i.e the perfect one exist in each and everyone of us and to know whether he exists or not is my only hope.

 

 

 

If the perfect one made God and if God went on to make imperfect things then isn't it that it is the perfect one who made imperfect things and that would make him the imperfect one not the perfect one.

 

Your view is a depressing view, this is the Sethian view of Gnosticism but that's not how the Valentinians see it, man is imperfect not because he was created by god man is imperfect because he is ignorant of the true nature of the perfect one and so are other gods and angels. Its not that we are evil, we are just ignorant of the perfect one and its wrong to see the world as evil, the world is very much important in sowing the seed of knowledge in individuals to alleviate them to have gnosis. Therefore the world, the God and man is not evil but just ignorant. If we were evil then we all came from the perfect one and that would make the perfect one imperfect.

 

 

 

 

I never said that the Bible is garbage, that's not what I said. I said it has a deep different hidden meaning behind it and we should stop taking it literally making inferences about this world of empiricism from the bible.

God was made by the Perfect One, our Heavenly Father, but God thought he was as good as, if not better - than the Perfect One. That's vanity. Too bad you can't see it.

The Perfect One has nothing to do with material. He lives in a Spiritual World which satisfies him perfectly. When God made all the Hydrogen, it probably didn't please the Perfect One - the Heavenly Father.

 

We came from God. God is imperfect, just as we are. The world is imperfect, and anything imperfect will self-destruct. When the world ends, that will be a good thing, as seen by the Perfect One.

 

Who made the world? According to jEsus, the world belongs to the devil. Jesus well knew that God made the world - but Jesus calls him the devil. That's good enough for me. Too bad you can't see it.

 

When you die, you come to these huge Pearly Gates with 'God's People' written above it. It seems like there's a heck of a party going on inside, but it's just speakers and a cliff.

 

God's people are pushing and shoving to get in, but me and this kid on crutches, we get pushed out. So we go looking along the wall, tll we find a narrow entrance - and it's always Jesus sitting outside. Him or his girlfriend. They invite us in. Jesus always said, 'Enter by the narrow gate,' and that's what we do.

 

Except, you make the decfision here, in this world. If you get married and have kids, a house and a [pool, that's what you get. Me, I never wanted children - I'll have mine in Heaven, and they'll be angels.

 

That's the way it works. What you don't have in this world, you will have in the next. What you have in this world, you won't have in the next. What's stolen from you will be returned - by the person who stole it. Jesus' justice is perfect, like him.

 

But Jesus was made by the Perfect One, not God. The Perfect one decided to save this world - not physically, of course, but spiritually. Jesus was perfect, and so were his miracles and cures.

 

Someday, you'll see it. I just hope it's not too late.

 

I believe in the Sun God, the one who emanated from the golden egg - Hiranyagarbha. He is a natural god not a sky god and I believe in him because I comprehend a lot about his mythology and studied it quite well. But I don't always defend him in my arguments. Sometimes I argue for the whole of religious thinking and sometimes I argue in favor of my personal beliefs.

So now we have it - you worship the sun.

 

Me, I've moved on from there, to a Spiritual master, the Perfect One, the Heavenly Father. But I'm interested that you don't believe in the God of Abraham. Jesus called him the devil.

 

Yes, believing in something natural, something you can see and feel is a good idea, or it used to be, thousands of years ago. Sometimes, though, you argue for 'the whole of religious thinking,' and that's gotta include the God of Abraham. But this you deny - well I wish you would make up your mind. The 'whole of religious thinking' must cover the God of Abraham, the way I see it. Maybe you're just being slippery. Maybe you're slipping and sliding along, never willing to state your beliefs, on your guard against any heretics.

 

Because that's what Gnosticism is - a heresy. I'm a heretic- they used to burn us at the stake. St Francis of Assissi (who made money betraying these Gnostics) always wondered why tthey seemed so cheerful to die and wanted to die for God himself.

 

Are you not interested in Jesus, or is it God yo're not interested in? Allah? Suva? What are you interseted in, Iggy. You should tell me - this is my thread. Are you interested in Astronomy? Girls? I think you should tell me.

 

 

 

I'm not interested in your preaching. Please stop addressing it toward me.

So whatare you interested in, Iggy, I think you should tell me. Is it Astronomy? Girls? What? You are in my hread and I just want to talk to you.

 

Also, while I might respect the 106 year old for his determination to teach, that's no reason for me to respect the people who wrote the bible. They were not teaching English to 5th grade students. So, once again: what have the authors done to earn my respect?

Authors of the Bible - nothing. Authors of the New Testament - a heck of a lot of work. What do you believe, John? Why won't you tell me?

[Moontanman]

I feel a bit slighted

[iNow]

I feel a bit slighted

I feel a bit saddened about the state of belief among my fellow humans...

[Moontanman]

I feel a bit saddened about the state of belief among my fellow humans...

 

 

yeah but i wanted to be asked what i believe...

[immortal]

So now we have it - you worship the sun.

 

Me, I've moved on from there, to a Spiritual master, the Perfect One, the Heavenly Father. But I'm interested that you don't believe in the God of Abraham. Jesus called him the devil.

 

I doesn't want to comment on the Abrahamic God. It would be inappropriate since I have not fully studied the bible and doesn't know much of the origin of Judaism. Perhaps I should look to read a good scholar in this field. There are many different views in Christianity and I really doesn't want to comment on it when I have not yet studied it completely.

 

Yes, believing in something natural, something you can see and feel is a good idea, or it used to be, thousands of years ago. Sometimes, though, you argue for 'the whole of religious thinking,' and that's gotta include the God of Abraham. But this you deny - well I wish you would make up your mind. The 'whole of religious thinking' must cover the God of Abraham, the way I see it. Maybe you're just being slippery. Maybe you're slipping and sliding along, never willing to state your beliefs, on your guard against any heretics.

 

Because that's what Gnosticism is - a heresy. I'm a heretic- they used to burn us at the stake. St Francis of Assissi (who made money betraying these Gnostics) always wondered why tthey seemed so cheerful to die and wanted to die for God himself.

 

 

I don't have any fundamental beliefs and whether it is the Sun God or the Abrahmic God they mean nothing to me, I don't have any personal attachments to these traditions. Much of the orthodox religions do nothing to satisfy our intellect and I don't know what it is like to be religious. I doesn't want to personalize things here and please stop assuming things about my beliefs. You don't know why some of us ended up holding these beliefs or what intellectual changes led me to these beliefs or what I have experienced. My beliefs are based on my intellect and not on some kind of personal agenda. I had to say this because you're assuming too many things about me.

 

I have to admit that there is no connection between the Jewish God and the Sun God. Its a huge challenge for any theist to give reasonable explanations for these two seemingly disconnected religious traditions.

[Moontanman]

I have to admit that there is no connection between the Jewish God and the Sun God. Its a huge challenge for any theist to give reasonable explanations for these two seemingly disconnected religious traditions.

 

 

I have to say that I have read, right now I can't remember for sure where, that the people who are now considered Jews were sun worshipers originally and the idea of monotheism came from that beginning. I'll think on it and see if I can remember.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Moontanman

[PeterJ]

I feel a bit saddened about the state of belief among my fellow humans...

Saddened? Suicidal more like. But this is an unusual forum in my experience, and no good for deriving general conclusions about the human race.

 

It seems relevant that for the esoteric interpretation of the Christian cross, (and perhaps for Valentines gnosticsm, but I'm not quite sure about that) the horizontal would represent the world of time and space, and the upright would be the unchanging reality that is ever present in the moment. In this way the imagery of the crucifixion story is allowed to make some sense.

 

Plotinus has it as a hypersphere, in his Enneads, with the world of time and space as the extended surface, and the changless world of our deepest being as the center point, sizeless, and immediately connected to every point on the surface.

 

Immortal old friend - For a good book on the Christian God I'd recomment Keith Ward's 'God - A Guide for the Perplexed'. It is straightforward and very good.

Edited June 15, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

I have to say that I have read, right now I can't remember for sure where, that the people who are now considered Jews were sun worshipers originally and the idea of monotheism came from that beginning. I'll think on it and see if I can remember.

 

 

Thank you.

 

---

 

PeterJ

 

Immortal old friend - For a good book on the Christian God I'd recomment Keith Ward's 'God - A Guide for the Perplexed'. It is straightforward and very good.

 

Thank you very much. As you know there is just too much misinformation over the internet.

[iNow]

Misinformation often comes in book form, too. Bear that in mind as you jog down to your local library or login to amazon...

[immortal]

Misinformation often comes in book form, too. Bear that in mind as you jog down to your local library or login to amazon...

 

I think this is an important issue. Recently people who were victimized by the leader of a religious cult were not uneducated people, all of them were highly qualified people with engineering and medical degrees and also some of them were Phds, this is sad for everyone. One of the things which I'm arguing is that there must be an organization which studies religion and provides genuine information or facts to people who wants to study about them and should guide and educate the public in the process. It helps to minimize ignorance in the world.

 

The scientific community does a fairly good job in identifying frauds and the pseudoscience there in and in setting up the standards but that doesn't happen in religion. If those people were aware about their religion and its deep teachings they wouldn't have blindly followed a self-proclaimed leader accepting what ever he says and even drinking the water after it was being used to wash his feet.

 

There is a lot of confusion in the world as to who is God, what is its true nature and where he exists. I think it is the responsibility of the government to educate the public about religion so that we can minimize the ignorance creeping out of it again and again.

[iNow]

I think it is the responsibility of the government to educate the public about religion so that we can minimize the ignorance creeping out of it again and again.

I would love to see comparative religion classes brought into the schools where different worldviews and relics... commonalities and differences... and other dynamics and evolution of the worlds religions were explored objectively... Like a history class for world religions. I'd also like to see civics courses brought back, but that's another topic...

 

 

[PeterJ]

I think this is an important issue. Recently people who were victimized by the leader of a religious cult were not uneducated people, all of them were highly qualified people with engineering and medical degrees and also some of them were Phds, this is sad for everyone. One of the things which I'm arguing is that there must be an organization which studies religion and provides genuine information or facts to people who wants to study about them and should guide and educate the public in the process. It helps to minimize ignorance in the world.

 

The scientific community does a fairly good job in identifying frauds and the pseudoscience there in and in setting up the standards but that doesn't happen in religion. If those people were aware about their religion and its deep teachings they wouldn't have blindly followed a self-proclaimed leader accepting what ever he says and even drinking the water after it was being used to wash his feet.

 

There is a lot of confusion in the world as to who is God, what is its true nature and where he exists. I think it is the responsibility of the government to educate the public about religion so that we can minimize the ignorance creeping out of it again and again.

Sorry to reprint all of this it, but I thought it deserved it. We should send it to the Guardian letters page. Not that I agree about the washing water. These are teaching stories.

 

I agree that generating some common understanding is a vital issue. But I see the issue a little differently. It is scientists who command the respect of the public at the moment, with philosophers trailing somewhere behind. These are the people who should be doing what you suggest. But most just won't take any serious interest in the topic. I have done my best to convert the central or most widespread religious doctrine into something like a language that scientists might accept but have failed so far. I came here to experiment some more. My conclusion after a few years of experimenting is that it's all about temperament, not science and philosophy, or even reason and rationality.

 

I have followed one debate on consciousness for two years on philforums, a professional philosophy site, and in all that time not seen one reference to the explanation given in the Abidhama literature, or in yoga psychology, or even in Kant and Hegel. It's like they live in some distant world with no bookshops.

 

One sage says that once we have a right understanding of religion we will read the scriptures and say 'oh yes, that's what I think'. I would say that this is the crucial test. When it begins to seem to us that all the sages are saying much the same thing then we are on the right track. This is a coherence theory of interpretation.

 

I think the time is nearly here when a true understanding of religion will begin to break out in academia and professional science. There are many signs, and a few people in the trade are sensing the same groundswell. The problem of consciousness may prove to be the catalyst, being both a scientific and philosophical problem, as well as forcing us to examine the nature of our own consciousness. The longer no progress is made on this problem the more likely it is that researchers will try to understand out the perennial solution offered in the wisdom traditions.

 

But for a concensus capable of supporting a body to promote such an understanding we would have to be able to point to scientific evidence and philosophical arguments. Appeals to textual authority would be unfair and innefective. And the whole thing wiould be pointless unless this evidence and argument was provided in such a way as to encourage people to actually take up the practice, because no amount of evidence and argument can prove what can only be discovered by actually taking the journey. This is why (immortal) I disagree with your cavalier approach to science and philosophy. They are on your side, but this is no help to you if you dismiss metaphysics as useless and appeal only to faith and scriptures.

 

A body promoting religious understanding (of which there are many) might talk about the benefits of faith, but it should be possible to asses the merits of a religious doctrine without having to have any faith in it. If this is not possible then no common understanding will ever be reached in the academic community. Of course it is possible to make such an assessment without faith or appeals to authority, and sticking to science,philosophy, psychology etc, but how to do it is very difficult to explain unless people will sit still for long enough. But why should they sit still when they already think they know it is all nonsense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited June 15, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

Sorry to reprint all of this it, but I thought it deserved it. We should send it to the Guardian letters page. Not that I agree about the washing water. These are teaching stories.

 

I agree that generating some common understanding is a vital issue. But I see the issue a little differently. It is scientists who command the respect of the public at the moment, with philosophers trailing somewhere behind. These are the people who should be doing what you suggest. But most just won't take any serious interest in the topic. I have done my best to convert the central or most widespread religious doctrine into something like a language that scientists might accept but have failed so far. I came here to experiment some more. My conclusion after a few years of experimenting is that it's all about temperament, not science and philosophy, or even reason and rationality.

 

Yes, this is not the job of scientists, its the job of theologians and philosophers. Scientists only accept empirical evidence, so if you have got any chance of convincing them then you need to bring some empirical evidence in support of your doctrine. For that to happen one needs to be a true philosopher and convince himself first before he tries to convince others.

 

 

But for a concensus capable of supporting a body to promote such an understanding we would have to be able to point to scientific evidence and philosophical arguments. Appeals to textual authority would be unfair and innefective. And the whole thing wiould be pointless unless this evidence and argument was provided in such a way as to encourage people to actually take up the practice, because no amount of evidence and argument can prove what can only be discovered by actually taking the journey. This is why (immortal) I disagree with your cavalier approach to science and philosophy. They are on your side, but this is no help to you if you dismiss metaphysics as useless and appeal only to faith and scriptures.

 

That doesn't mean that we should twist the teachings of those traditions and put them all in the same boat without making the public aware of the fact that there are differences in the teachings of these traditions. The body should not be biased towards a particular religious tradition, it should act as a presenter of these religious ideas and not as a dogmatic dictator.

 

You're trying to hide the truth from the people and playing around with them. You think that if we can somehow do away with God and merge all these traditions then more people will start accepting these things. If you want to be an atheist then please stick to any of the doctrines of Buddhism don't try to twist theistic traditions of advaita in support of your atheistic doctrine. Just because you cannot defend God with your arguments doesn't mean that he is of less importance in mysticism. You're so dogmatic that you go on to say that only Buddhism can be called as mysticism and my criticisms against you as not mysticism at all. Why such double standards? all this to attract the crowd?

 

I don't think metaphysics is useless, I have been arguing about Kantian philosophy from the time before you arrived here. Non-dualism doesn't agree with Kant in his conclusion that it is impossible to know the noumena and his doctrine that the only epistemology possible is from the sense organs but non-dualists say there is another way of knowing the world i.e without using the sense organs and through such observations they say they can know the world the way it is in itself (i.e noumenon). This is possible only with the help of God and you cannot rationalize it, its a matter of faith. Its obvious that Buddhists doesn't know about this because they're more concerned about escaping from the world and its suffering and are not really concerned about knowing God.

 

 

Another objection to you is that God has a form, we can discuss how he appears, what is he wearing and where he exists in the same way even unicorns have a form and we can understand what these words are representing but this is not so in the discussion of the unity, it cannot be understood through the intellect and therefore it is pointless to discuss about it. God exists to guide us to know the unity and by doing away with God you're making your life difficult.

 

At the end of the day whether you approach it based on faith or rationalize it based on metaphysics or with comparative religion it is the evidence which counts and that's what is needed to convince ourselves the merit of their position before even trying to convince others.

[PeterJ]

Oh hell.

 

Immortal. You have no idea what I'm talking about and have made it very clear that you don't want to know. Please direct your criticisms at someone who deserves them, and not wildly mischaracterise my view in order to object to it. It's called a straw man argument and it wastes everybody's time. I'm completely bored with with your failure to engage with anyone's views except your own. You post above is complete waste of words.

 

If you have an objection to my view please make it. I'm not responding to posts like the above which seem to be aimed at someone who lives only in your fantasies.

 

You may single-handedly drive me from this forum with the way you confuse the issues so badly and then inflict that confusion on the discussion.

[immortal]

Oh hell.

 

Immortal. You have no idea what I'm talking about and have made it very clear that you don't want to know. Please direct your criticisms at someone who deserves them, and not wildly mischaracterise my view in order to object to it. It's called a straw man argument and it wastes everybody's time. I'm completely bored with with your failure to engage with anyone's views except your own. You post above is complete waste of words.

 

If you have an objection to my view please make it. I'm not responding to posts like the above which seem to be aimed at someone who lives only in your fantasies.

 

You may single-handedly drive me from this forum with the way you confuse the issues so badly and then inflict that confusion on the discussion.

 

 

Don't you actively deny the existence of God? I know you're a philosopher and you're coming from perennial philosophy or the rational philosophy. Its your constant dogmatic assertions about God as a hopeless muddle in mysticism is what is annoying me. Especially when you put the God of the advaita vedanta and the Aeons of the Gnostics as a hopeless muddle. Let me seperate myself from the scholars who support my view and argue from the point of these scriptures themselves.

 

 

 

 

15. The face of truth is covered with a

golden disc. Unveil it, O Pushan, so that I

who love the truth may see it.

 

15. "The face of Truth is concealed by a golden vessel. Do thou, O Sun, open it so as to be seen by me who am by nature truthful (or, am the performer of rightful duties)."

 

This is the 15th verse of the Isa Upanishad and it is clear that yajnvalkya is praying to the Sun God who emanated from the golden egg - Hiranyagarbha. Yajnavalkya is saying that this Hiranyagarbha is the Brahman itself. What you're not understanding is that by defending this doctrine of non-dualism you're simultaneously defending this God and you seem to be not aware of this and blindly assert that mysticism is the death of the God. Do you really know the implications of the doctrine which you're expouding?

Edited June 16, 2012 by immortal

[iNow]

You may single-handedly drive me from this forum with the way you confuse the issues so badly and then inflict that confusion on the discussion.

Don't be such a tease. You know I have a hard time with disappointment.

[PeterJ]

Oh yes. I forgot you. Double-handed then.

 

 

 

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Astrocat

A little less preaching please - whilst this might be a strongly held personal belief, the members here and the forum expects explanation, argument and elucidation; not proselytism.

!

Moderator Note

PeterJ and iNow

Even if light-hearted and amusing - please try and keep the comments directed towards arguments rather than the person; in a written arena such as this forum it is very difficult, especially from the staff's point of view, to differntiate the friendly tweak that is part and parcel of a good argument from the innocent-looking barb designed to hurt which might lead to animosity. Whilst emoticons can help, in religion especially, we really would prefer it if debate remain focused on the issues rather than moving to more personal repartee

.

[PeterJ]

My apologies. I succumbed to irritability. It was a childish response.

 

I'd vote for much tighter moderation here.

[iNow]

I'd vote for much tighter moderation here.

As pertains to what behaviors, specifically?

[PeterJ]

As pertains to what behaviors, specifically?

As pertaining to rigour.

 

Even on public philosophy forums people usually understand that it is unrigorous to make statements that can be falsified, or at best cannot be proven. Usually there are a plenty of philosophers about so posters who do this are in a minority and will have regular reminders. But here they seem to be in the majority, with the consequence that it is impossible to distinguish between an authoritative statement backed up with evidence and argument and a completely daft one plucked from thin air. Many sentences begin 'The truth is as follows...', when they should begin 'It seems possible to me that...'. When they begin 'The truth is as follows...' the writer must be able to prove it or provide an argument from evidence or axioms. You don't see physcists talking about physics in the way people here talk about philosophy and religion.

 

Maybe it's just me. Some people aoppear to think that doing philosophy is like doing astrology, while I feel it should be like doing mathematics and is not a matter of opinion.

[immortal]

The ancient Gnostic people neither knew about metaphysics nor did they knew about modern science. Religion and Science is about different worlds. If anyone applies metaphysics or modern science to mysticism and makes conclusions then they're doing bad philosophy.

 

Schroedinger knew about this.

 

 

 

My View of the World (1961)

Mein Leben, meine Weltansicht [My Life, My Wolrldview or My View of the World] (1961)

• Not one word is said here of acausality, wave mechanics, indeterminacy relations, complementarity, … etc. Why doesn’t he talk about what he knows instead of trespassing on the professional philosopher’s preserves? Ne sutor supra crepidam. On this I can cheerfully justify myself: because I do not think that these things have as much connection as is currently supposed with a philosophical view of the world.

 

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Can we keep discussions on moderation policy etc to the Suggestions Comments and Support Folder. Many thanks

[PeterJ]

The ancient Gnostic people neither knew about metaphysics nor did they knew about modern science. Religion and Science is about different worlds. If anyone applies metaphysics or modern science to mysticism and makes conclusions then they're doing bad philosophy.

 

Schroedinger knew about this.

 

[/font]

 

Just for clarity, this is exactly the sort of thing I mean. Nonsense stated as fact. No argument or evidence.

 

I'll shut up about it now.

[immortal]

Just for clarity, this is exactly the sort of thing I mean. Nonsense stated as fact. No argument or evidence.

 

I'll shut up about it now.

 

 

You're not the only one who have responded with such rudeness, PeterJ. There have been many and its not anyone's mistake. The problem is with the kind of worldview which we are trying to establish nowadays. For example:- Roger Penrose to establish that strong AI is impossible had to run through Turing machines, theory of computability, microtubules in the brain and molecular neurobiology, Godel's theorems, noncomputable mathematics and quantum physics. Hufff.

 

 

Many scholars and philosophers are trying to establish the connection of Modern Physics with eastern mysticism. I cannot repeat my position about this again and again, for some I have responded to them through PM and others like TAR understand my position that what we learn from science is one thing and what we learn through religion is another. This is because of the way the world is.

 

So just as you say that there is a reason why all metaphysical statements are undecidable, the reason being the world is a unity. I think there is a reason why scientific realism might be false and the quantum physicist Bernard d'Espagnat has went on to say that "what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind". Here is his argument for holding this position --> http://www.scientifi...197911_0158.pdf.

 

From the begining of the civilization of mankind, all the Gnosis religions of the world and the Platonic realism of Neo-Platonism have been constantly stating that scientific realism is false and the doctrine of Non-dualism or Advaita which you're defending is one among those Gnosis traditions. Therefore if Unity has to exist or if the God of the Gnostics have to exist one of the necessary pre-condition for it is that scientific realism must be false. So I think there is a reason why scientific realism might be false its because our cosmos is established in such a way that when we perceive the world in one state of mind(not brain) we see the world of emiprical reality and when we perceive the world in a different state of the mind we see the world of platonic reality or the noumenal reality.

 

Therefore this justifies my statement that "Religion and Science is about different worlds." If some scholars and philosophers are very much desperate to connect scientific or rational concepts with religion then I and Schroedinger can cheerfully say that God help them. I for one is not going to talk about science or metaphysics when talking about God or Unity in the religious forums.

 

Me, I've moved on from there, to a Spiritual master, the Perfect One, the Heavenly Father. But I'm interested that you don't believe in the God of Abraham. Jesus called him the devil.

 

When you look at it from the Gnostic point of view they call the Abrahamic God as the demiurge and go on to say that he is the cause of the evil and when you look it from the Bible point of view they call the Perfect One as the deceitful Satan, the Lucifer. So how do you decide who is evil and who is good or who is perfect and who is imperfect?