What defines religion (split from correlation w/poverty)

[immortal]

"Saying that someone is wrong with valid evidence is not insulting, you said I have distorted opinions, let's see whose visions are distorted and whose aren't, saying that my visions are simply distorted won't do anything, you need to show how."

OK, (I think this link will work,, it's what I got when I typed "define religion" into Google.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+religion&aq=f&oq=define+religion&aqs=chrome.0.57j60l3j0l2.6057&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Whereas what you said was "That's what being religious means to become identical with God. Being religious means not to establish the Gospel all over the earth and not converting as many people into Christianity, the latter are not religious people for they don't know what being religious means."

 

So, compared to all the accepted definitions of the word, your vision of what "religious" means is distorted.

 

Not really. There is no room for such ignorance in this age and time and I will not allow it.

 

 

Sufism

 

 

Rumi or Jelaluddin Balkhi (1207 – 1273), from the book “Rumi: Selected Poems”; Penguin; trans Coleman Banks, 1995.

 

“It's the man who was looking for treasure... He wants me to finish his story...

Don't think of him as a seeker, though. Whatever he's looking for, he is that himself. How can a lover be anything but the beloved?

Every second he's bowing into a mirror. If he could see for just a second one molecule of what's there without fantasizing about it, he'd explode.

His imagination and he himself, would vanish, with all his knowledge, obliterated into a new birth, a perfectly clear view, a voice that says, I am God.

That same voice told the angels to bow to Adam, because they were identical with Adam.

It's the voice that first said, There is no reality but God. There is only God.”

(from the poem In Between Stories)

 

Judaism

 

 

Kabbalah: The meaning of God

 

"An impoverished person thinks that God is an old man with white hair, sitting on a wondrous throne of fire that glitters with countless sparks, as the Bible states: “The Ancient-of-Days sits, the hair on his head like clean fleece, his throne–flames of fire.” Imagining this and similar fantasies, the fool corporealizes God. He falls into one of the traps that destroy faith. His awe of God is limited by his imagination.

 

But if you are enlightened, you know God’s oneness; you know that the divine is devoid of bodily categories — these can never be applied to God. Then you wonder, astonished: Who am I? I am a mustard seed in the middle of the sphere of the moon, which itself is a mustard seed within the next sphere. So it is with that sphere and all it contains in relation to the next sphere. So it is with all the spheres — one inside the other — and all of them are a mustard seed within the further expanses. And all of these are a mustard seed within further expanses.

 

Your awe is invigorated, the love in your soul expands."

 

"The essence of divinity is found in every single thing — nothing but it exists.... Do not attribute duality to God. Let God be solely God. If you suppose that Ein Sof emanates until a certain point, and that from that point on is outside of it, you have dualized. God forbid! Realize, rather, that Ein Sof exists in each existent. Do not say, “This is a stone and not God.” God forbid! Rather, all existence is God, and the stone is a thing pervaded by divinity."

 

- Rabbi Moshe Cordovero

 

God is that which Is — YHVH, one of the main Hebrew terms for this Reality, might even be translated “Is.” God is not an old man;God is What Is. The Infinite is everything. It is the only thing.

 

“God” is an imprecise name for the only thing in the universe that actually exists.

 

Christianity

 

"Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15).

 

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

 

Buddhism

 

Padmasambhava said:

 

My father is the intrinsic awareness, Samantabhadra (Sanskrit; Tib. ཀུན་ཏུ་བཟང་པོ). My mother is the ultimate sphere of reality, Samantabhadri (Sanskrit; Tib. ཀུན་ཏུ་བཟང་མོ). I belong to the caste of non-duality of the sphere of awareness. My name is the Glorious Lotus-Born. I am from the unborn sphere of all phenomena. I act in the way of the Buddhas of the three times.

 

Hinduism

 

Shankara, the eight-century Indian saint, whose insights revitalized Hindu teachings, said of his own enlightenment:

 

"I am Brahman… I dwell within all beings as the soul, the pure consciousness, the ground of all phenomena... In the days of my ignorance, I used to think of these as being separate from myself. Now I know that I am All."

 

Rabbi Moshe Cordovero calls such people as fools.

[John Cuthber]

So, what you are saying is that everyone apart from you is wrong about the definition of religion.

 

No inheriting the earth for you then.

[Moontanman]

Immortal, I have to admit that if told under threat of death that I had to choose a religion... your version would probably be my default choice but so far you have failed to back up your version of religion any more than any other version of religion and to be honest I see no reason what so ever to give you the prize just because your version seems harmless... I require something besides opinions and appeals to authority, empirical rationalist, it's what i am... I require actual testable evidence... not a vision or any other reveled "truth" that cannot be repeated and tested by anyone else... if you can't show it then it's not evidence... no matter how many times you assert it is evidence...

[imatfaal]

I love the double standards that allow you to say both this

 

 

Everyone knows the truth about Timothy that it was deliberately forged ....

 

And then quote from the gospel of Phillip as proof of the nature of christianity when that gospel is not held as canonical by a vast majority of those who call themselves Christian. You hold your opinions as incontrovertible facts that would deny those who assert their own christianity if it is at odds to your interpretation - and yet when challenged claim not to position yourself as an authority on religion. The whole point of this thread was your continued differentiation of religious and not religious - and other members challenging you to give a non-personal response; so far you have not.

 

 

Rabbi Moshe Cordovero calls such people as fools.

 

Cos the opinion of a 15th century cabbalist is real currency on a science forum.

[swansont]

Quoting someone who agrees with you is not proof of anything other than that person agrees with you. All you've done here is assert your opinion as fact and then proclaim that nobody else's opinion matters. THAT is what is getting you in trouble. What you're doing is the equivalent of saying "X, because bite me"

[immortal]

I love the double standards that allow you to say both this

 

 

And then quote from the gospel of Phillip as proof of the nature of christianity when that gospel is not held as canonical by a vast majority of those who call themselves Christian. You hold your opinions as incontrovertible facts that would deny those who assert their own christianity if it is at odds to your interpretation - and yet when challenged claim not to position yourself as an authority on religion. The whole point of this thread was your continued differentiation of religious and not religious - and other members challenging you to give a non-personal response; so far you have not.

 

 

Do you know that the bible can be interpreted at three different levels: cosmic, kenomic and pleromic. The Christians that you are speaking of are at the cosmic level and hence they were called as lower Christians, the quoted passage from Gospel of Philip is at the highest pleromic level and contains the heart of the truth about Christianity. So you should love their double standards and not mine for they don't accept the things which exists in their own religious scriptures. Its not my problem if the majority of the Christians don't understand or have higher knowledge about the secrets of the kingdom of God.

 

Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.'

 

Its not just a problem with Christianity, its a problem with Hinduism and Buddhism as well, I have gone to Hindu forums and criticized Hindus for not seeing the truth which exists in their own religion.

 

Smarta Tradition includes the followers of all the six Darsanas (systems) of Hindu philosophy. The basic idea of Smartas was belief in Vedic practices.Vedas are non-sectarian . The Smartas found that you can not bring about a unity among different sects or revive the Vedic practices without bringing together the six systems of Philosophy. The Vedic rituals are based on Purva Mimansa. The Bhagavad Gita which contains the Sankhya and Yoga concepts is revered by the Smartas.

 

I have gone to Buddhist forums and criticized Buddhists for not seeing the truth that exists in their own religion.

 

According to Tibetan Buddhism and Bön, Dzogchen (Rdzogs chen or Atiyoga) is the natural, primordial state or natural condition, and a body of teachings and meditation practices aimed at realizing that condition. Dzogchen, or "Great Perfection", is a central teaching of the Nyingma school also practiced by adherents of other Tibetan Buddhist sects. According to Dzogchen literature, Dzogchen is the highest and most definitive path to enlightenment.

 

It doesn't change the fact that at one time in the history of humanity these were the dominant religions on earth and were widely discussed by our ancients everywhere on earth.

 

There is no such thing as one true biblical canon which is the only divine inspired book of all, we need to analyse each work case by case and consider all the works of late antiquity into account.

 

The Gnostic Bible

 

 

INTRODUCTION

1. The Gospel of Thomas

2. The Gospel of John

 

PART TWO

 

Literature of Gnostic Wisdom

 

INTRODUCTION

3. The Book of Baruch • Justin

 

SETHIAN LITERATURE

4. The Secret Book of John

5. The Reality of the Rulers

6. The Revelation of Adam

7. Three Forms of First Thought

 

CONTENTS

8. The Three Steles of Seth

9. The Vision of the Foreigner

10. The Sermon of Zostrianos

11. The Baptismal Ceremony of the Gospel of the Egyptians

12. Thunder

13. The Letter of Peter to Philip

 

VALENTINIAN LITERATURE

14. The Gospel of Truth

15. The Gospel of Philip

16. The Letter to Flora • Ptolemy

17. Commentary on the Gospel of John • Herakleon

18. The Treatise on Resurrection

19. The Prayer of the Messenger Paul

20. Valentinian Liturgical Readings

21. The Secret Book of James

22. The Round Dance of the Cross

 

THOMAS AND OTHER SYRIAN LITERATURE

23. The Songs of Solomon

24. The Song of the Pearl

25. The Book of Thomas

 

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE OF GNOSTIC WISDOM

26. The Exegesis on the Soul

27. On the Origin of the World

 

CONTENTS VII

28. The Paraphrase of Shem

29. The Second Treatise of the Great Seth

30. The Gospel of Mary

31. The Naassene Sermon

 

PART THREE

Hermetic Literature

 

INTRODUCTION

32. Poimandres

33. The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth

34. The Prayer of Thanksgiving

 

PART FOUR

Mandaean Literature

 

INTRODUCTION

35. The Ginza

36. Hibil's Lament from the Book of John

37. Songs from the Mandaean Liturgy

 

PART FIVE

Manichaean Literature

 

INTRODUCTION

38. On the Origin of His Body

39. The Story of the Death of Mani

40. Kephalaia

41. The Coptic Manichaean Songbook

 

VIII CONTENTS

42. Parthian Songs

43. The Great Song to Mani

 

PART SIX

Islamic Mystical Literature

 

INTRODUCTION

44. The Mother of Books

 

PART SEVEN

Cathar Literature

INTRODUCTION

45. The Gospel of the Secret Supper

46. The Book of the Two Principles

 

Some of the texts which didn't had a place in the New Testament. Therefore all the works should be analyzed individually case by case and should be classified and their doctrines should be put to test and falsified.

 

Cos the opinion of a 15th century cabbalist is real currency on a science forum.

 

The only ones who are experts in interpreting the oral traditions of Mishnah, Talmud, Zohar and Midrash and follow it correctly.

[ydoaPs]

Do you know that the bible can be interpreted at three different levels: cosmic, kenomic and pleromic. The Christians that you are speaking of are at the cosmic level and hence they were called as lower Christians, the quoted passage from Gospel of Philip is at the highest pleromic level and contains the heart of the truth about Christianity. So you should love their double standards and not mine for they don't accept the things which exists in their own religious scriptures. Its not my problem if the majority of the Christians don't understand or have higher knowledge about the secrets of the kingdom of God.

You can't use Philip; it's a forgery. Those are the rules, right?

[immortal]

You can't use Philip; it's a forgery. Those are the rules, right?

 

There is a good agreement among the scholars that Gospel of Philip is an Valentinian Text.

 

Paul-->Theudas-->Valentinus(divinely inspired)-->his followers-->Gospel of Philip.

 

Paul-->Pauline Epistles<--Pastoral Epistles(deliberately forged and deceived to have been written by Paul) <--third person(politically motivated to suppress freedom of women).

 

Even a school kid knows the truth about it.

[ydoaPs]

There is a good agreement among the scholars that Gospel of Philip is an Valentinian Text.

 

Paul-->Theudas-->Valentinus(divinely inspired)-->his followers-->Gospel of Philip.

 

Paul-->Pauline Epistles<--Pastoral Epistles(deliberately forged and deceived to have been written by Paul) <--third person(politically motivated to suppress freedom of women).

 

Even a school kid knows the truth about it.

Irenaeus, who was divinely inspired, says that Valentinian texts aren't divinely inspired.

[Moontanman]

There is a good agreement among the scholars that Gospel of Philip is an Valentinian Text.

 

Paul-->Theudas-->Valentinus(divinely inspired)-->his followers-->Gospel of Philip.

 

Paul-->Pauline Epistles<--Pastoral Epistles(deliberately forged and deceived to have been written by Paul) <--third person(politically motivated to suppress freedom of women).

 

Even a school kid knows the truth about it.

 

 

Immortal, insults do not improve your position...

[John Cuthber]

Immortal, insults do not improve your position...

True, but since his position is "anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant", the insults hardly spoil it. It hasn't a lot to lose.

[immortal]

Irenaeus, who was divinely inspired, says that Valentinian texts aren't divinely inspired.

 

That's funny, you are saying as though the Holy Spirit guided only Irenaeus and did not guided Valentinus. The fact of the matter is both of them defend their theology using the works of Paul, the divine cannot be broken, just as the deliberately forged pastoral epistles will deceive no longer even the refutations of Irenaeus will deceive no longer.

 

At the heart of the problem was the nature of Christ, his body is not made of flesh and blood instead the totality of divine powers(Aeons) make up his body and hence in Christ dwells all the pleroma of Deity in bodily form. How can Christianity bear any fruit when majority of the so called Christians for over thousands of years do not even recognize that these Aeons exist and that they form the body of Christ?

 

I very well know what I'm fighting for, either stop misinterpreting the Pauline Epistles and accept these explicit teachings or keep it separate from Christianity.

 

Its not my problem if some of them here are too lazy to read these pages from 264 to 271.

http://archive.org/stream/stpaulsepistles02lighgoog#page/n275/mode/2up

[Iggy]

Paul-->Theudas-->Valentinus(divinely inspired)-->his followers-->Gospel of Philip.

I admire your ability to recognize those who have divine inspiration. Would you consider making a list of which ancient authors have God's approval? I see no reason God couldn't relate this list to you. It could potentially help many of us who do not have superhuman powers so that we are not led astray by false prophets.

 

At the heart of the problem was the nature of Christ, his body is not made of flesh and blood instead the totality of divine powers(Aeons) make up his body and hence in Christ dwells all the pleroma of Deity in bodily form... not even recognize that these Aeons exist...

It's kind of funny that you can get away with that on a science forum. It's proselytizing (unorthodox preaching, in fact) and you couldn't support it with a team of sympathetic researchers.

 

Just so we're clear... at the heart of the problem is the following...

The first series of beings, the aeons, were thirty in number, representing fifteen syzygies or pairs sexually complementary. Through the weakness and sin of Sophia, one of the lowest aeons, the lower world with its subjection to matter is brought into existence.

 

~catholic encyclopedia

and that nobody recognizes that such things exist? That is the heart of the problem?

 

I'd just like to be the first to say that I'm glad I don't share your problems.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Iggy

[immortal]

I admire your ability to recognize those who have divine inspiration. Would you consider making a list of which ancient authors have God's approval? I see no reason God couldn't relate this list to you. It could potentially help many of us who do not have superhuman powers so that we are not led astray by false prophets.

 

There is no need for any supernatural powers, all it requires is simple common sense.

 

 

"Valentinus claimed that that he had a vision of the risen Christ. Following his vision, he began his career as a Christian teacher at Alexandria around 120AD."

"It is reasonable to agree that when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people in different times, places, and traditions, and when they have the same rational interpretations of the experiences; it makes sense to conclude that they are all in contact with some objective aspect of reality, unless there is positive evidence otherwise."

-Broad

Thanks for your admiration.

It's kind of funny that you can get away with that on a science forum. It's proselytizing (unorthodox preaching, in fact) and you couldn't support it with a team of sympathetic researchers.

 

Since all evidence is in favour of me I don't need to get away with it, if its anything its you guys who are getting away by not allowing me to discuss here, what are you guys afraid of? The existence of those Aeons can be tested or falsified just like any other idea and it has implications for science. This might be a science forum but in the religion sub forum we got to understand religion in its own milieu and should not try to understand religion using the epistemology of science. Big Bang and origin of life has nothing to do with religion, religion deals with different things entirely.

 

"Roger Penrose contends that the foundations of mathematics can't be understood absent the Platonic view that "mathematical truth is absolute, external and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria ... mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own..."

"Wolfgang Pauli interpreted the laws of quantum mechanics as leading to a lucid Platonic mysticism, a position intermediate between the skepticism of Western science centered on objective observer-independent facts, and the philosophies of ancient Eastern mysticism which put primary emphasis on conscious experience. Werner Heisenberg reported on Pauli's position, and his own, as follows:

...Pauli once spoke of two limiting conceptions, both of which have been extraordinarily fruitful in the history of human thought, although no genuine reality corresponds to them. At one extreme is the idea of an objective world, pursuing its regular course in space and time, independently of any kind of observing subject; this has been the guiding image of modern science. At the other extreme is the idea of a subject, mystically experiencing the unity of the world and no longer confronted by an object or by any objective world; this has been the guiding image of Asian mysticism. Our thinking moves somewhere in the middle, between these two limiting conceptions; we should maintain the tension resulting from these two opposites."

"Do not suppose that the resurrection is an illusion. It is not an illusion; rather it is something real. Instead, one ought to maintain that the world is an illusion, rather than resurrection" (Treatise on Resurrection 48: 12-17).

“The world is not as real as we think.”

- Anton Zeilinger

As you see all evidence is in favour of Neo-Platonic Christianity, you better start taking the existence of those Aeons seriously, it can be tested and falsified, I'm ain't afraid to put my beliefs to test, I am stating things as they are.

 

 

Just so we're clear... at the heart of the problem is the following...

and that nobody recognizes that such things exist? That is the heart of the problem?

 

I'd just like to be the first to say that I'm glad I don't share your problems.

 

That's a cop out to escape from the facts of nature.

 

 

Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

- Gospel of Thomas

Atheists have not investigated religion with a honest mind, if you need empirical evidence you got to worship those Aeons and perform rituals on them. St. Teresa of Avila shattered the whole room so that nuns came running to see what happened to her, this can be evidence for the first person(Avila) and for the second person(nuns) but this cannot be evidence for the third person and if the majority of people don't even recognize or know that Aeons exists how can they bring empirical evidence for them in the first place or realize that the experiences of Avila was real without realizing it for themselves.

The default position is not that those Aeons doesn't exist, that's not how we do science and these Aeons are no longer equivalent to Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

[John Cuthber]

 

That's a cop out to escape from the facts of nature.

Exactly what facts are those?

[Moontanman]

There is no need for any supernatural powers, all it requires is simple common sense.

 

Common sense... common sense is that supernatural things are real but you cannot show them to us? I got a UFO i want to sell you...

 

 

 

Since all evidence is in favour of me I don't need to get away with it, if its anything its you guys who are getting away by not allowing me to discuss here, what are you guys afraid of?

 

I'm quite terrified you might, at some point, actually back up your claims of evidence...

 

 

The default position is not that those Aeons doesn't exist, that's not how we do science and these Aeons are no longer equivalent to Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

 

The default position is that in face of total lack of any physical evidence nothing supernatural, including gods, exists...

 

Can you falsify that statement with testable empirical evidence?

 

I didn't think so

 

Come on Immortal, you know i respect your right to believe, why do you have to ruin it by claiming things you cannot back up?

[Iggy]

There is no need for any supernatural powers, all it requires is simple common sense.

 

Your common sense disagrees with the common sense of 99.9% of religious people. There is therefore nothing common about it. If what you are saying is true then your sense is extraordinary. You have information denied to mortals.

 

If you refuse to make a list for us, I suggest you at least take to the streets and announce from a soapbox that you know who has the favor of God. Don't you think they deserve to know?

 

"Valentinus claimed that that he had a vision of the risen Christ. Following his vision, he began his career as a Christian teacher at Alexandria around 120AD."

 

That's cute. You're quoting the online Gnostic Society Library.

 

I prefer to quote Tertullian, who summed up everything that Valentinus was and everything that you are 1800 years ago in one shot:

 

Valentinus expected to become bishop because he had great abilities of mind and tongue, but another was preferred for the position because he suffered as a martyr. Angry at this, Valentinus broke with the legitimate church. Just as minds who have been excited with the hope of advancement usually burn anticipating revenge, he turned to overthrowing truth. Having discovered the trail of some old teaching, he paved the way for Colorbasus. Afterwards Ptolomaeus travelled the same path; he segregated those attributes--such as feeling, influence, and motion--which Valentinus had included in the totality of the godhead into names and positions, i.e., Aeons considered as animate individuals having their existence apart from God. Heracleon cut a few footpaths from there, as did Secundus and Marcus the seer. Theotimus evolved many things about the "forms" of the law.

 

As you see, Valentinus has disappeared, yet these are Valentinians who derive from Valentinus. At Antioch alone to this day Axionicus consoles the memory of Valentinus by a full obedience of his rules. The other heretics allow themselves to change their teachings with the same frequency a prostitute changes her makeup--and why not?--since each of them discovers that well known spiritual seed in himself: if they invent anything new, they immediately call it a revelation; they call their audacity a spiritual gift. They do not claim their sect is united, but admit it is diverse; consequently whenever they abandon their usual equivocation, we see that most of them are at odds about the meaning of certain dogmas, some saying in good faith, "this is not so"; others, "I take this in a different sense"; others, "I don't admit that." As we see their list of rules has been painted over by their innovations and looks as if it had been scribbled on by an ignoramus.

 

ADVERSUS VALENTINIANOS

"It is reasonable to agree that when there is a core agreement in the religious experiences of people in different times, places, and traditions, and when they have the same rational interpretations of the experiences; it makes sense to conclude that they are all in contact with some objective aspect of reality, unless there is positive evidence otherwise."

 

-Broad

 

No sooner had that argument been made, Bertrand Russell refuted it.

 

In fact, the website you're quoting goes on to say:

 

Russell’s position is the stronger, because his argument uproots a fundamental element of Broad’s argument. By taking away the religious experience’s gift of moral information, Broad very little to argue. Broad’s only evidence for the veridicality of these experiences were ethical truths. If the experiences have no evidence of being veridical then there is no reason to believe that they are anything other than delusions. Broad admitted this when he said that the experiences could be considered true "…unless there be some positive reason to think otherwise.(Broad 2008, 217)"

 

It is for that simple reason that Russell has the stronger position. This is a good example of how an argument doesn’t have to be long or complex to successfully refute a long or complex argument. Broad’s analysis was in-depth, and very thorough. He considered many rebuttals, and defended his hypothesis very well. However, he left a glaring hole in his logic, which was immediately seen in another situation by Bertrand Russell, and much like a complex machine, that missing piece was a fatal flaw in the whole.

 

Religious Experience: An Analysis

Were you purposefully taking your quote out of context, or did you just not read the rest of the page?

 

what are you guys afraid of?

I'm afraid of being bored senseless by this discussion.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Iggy

[immortal]

Your common sense disagrees with the common sense of 99.9% of religious people. There is therefore nothing common about it. If what you are saying is true then your sense is extraordinary. You have information denied to mortals.

 

That's not my problem, I am going with what scholarly evidence and empirical evidence are saying, just because a majority of people revere a particular belief doesn't make it true, the majority of those who call themselves religious are just wrong for they don't know the things that exists with in their own religious scriptures.

 

 

If you refuse to make a list for us, I suggest you at least take to the streets and announce from a soapbox that you know who has the favor of God. Don't you think they deserve to know?

 

I believe that everyone should know the truth, so introducing this in schools will be a better idea so that it will at least prevent a society from producing atheists and fanatics.

 

That's cute. You're quoting the online Gnostic Society Library.

 

I prefer to quote Tertullian, who summed up everything that Valentinus was and everything that you are 1800 years ago in one shot:

 

1800 years, Humanity has been in ignorance for way too long but things have changed, today's scholars have access to truth, mainly the well written Gospel of Truth.

 

 

"Through this, the gospel of the one who is searched for, which <was> revealed to those who are perfect, through the mercies of the Father, the hidden mystery, Jesus, the Christ, enlightened those who were in darkness through oblivion. He enlightened them; he showed (them) a way; and the way is the truth which he taught them."

Today's generation knows what the truth is and no one can deceive them.

 

The Gnostic Paul; heresy, secrecy, Christ myth, entheogens, fatedness

 

 

"This is the knowledge of the living book, which he revealed to the aeons at the end as his letters, revealing how they are not vowels nor are they consonants, so that one might read them and think of something foolish, but (rather that) they are letters of the truth, which they alone speak who know them. Each letter is a complete <thought>, like a complete book, since they are letters written by the Unity, the Father having written them for the aeons, in order that by means of his letters they should know the Father.

 

The Father reveals his bosom. - Now his bosom is the Holy Spirit. - He reveals what is hidden of him - what is hidden of him is his Son - so that through the mercies of the Father, the aeons may know him and cease laboring in search of the Father, resting there in him, knowing that this is the (final) rest."

 

- Gospel of Truth

 

The Aeons are at the heart of the truth about Christianity, you reject them you kill Christianity. Either the catholic church should stop misinterpreting the works of Paul and accept this explicit teachings or keep the Pauline epistles separate from their Christianity, anything else is shear double standards, today I have questioned it, tomorrow someone will.

 

 

 

 

No sooner had that argument been made, Bertrand Russell refuted it.

 

In fact, the website you're quoting goes on to say:

 

Russell’s position is the stronger, because his argument uproots a fundamental element of Broad’s argument. By taking away the religious experience’s gift of moral information, Broad very little to argue. Broad’s only evidence for the veridicality of these experiences were ethical truths. If the experiences have no evidence of being veridical then there is no reason to believe that they are anything other than delusions. Broad admitted this when he said that the experiences could be considered true "…unless there be some positive reason to think otherwise.(Broad 2008, 217)"

 

It is for that simple reason that Russell has the stronger position. This is a good example of how an argument doesn’t have to be long or complex to successfully refute a long or complex argument. Broad’s analysis was in-depth, and very thorough. He considered many rebuttals, and defended his hypothesis very well. However, he left a glaring hole in his logic, which was immediately seen in another situation by Bertrand Russell, and much like a complex machine, that missing piece was a fatal flaw in the whole.

 

Religious Experience: An Analysis

Were you purposefully taking your quote out of context, or did you just not read the rest of the page?

 

Comparative religious studies has put some broad light on religious experiences since the time of Broad, and we know a lot now, the ethical structure of those who have had religious experiences are not the only reasons why such experiences should be accepted as veridical, there is a much more stronger argument than that.

 

 

"While Buddhism is deemed nontheistic, the Vedas are regarded as polytheistic, and the Bible is monotheistic, we have seen that the cosmogonies of Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory. Moreover, the commonality does not end there, for in the Near East, the writings of Plotinus (205-270) also influenced Islamic and Jewish theories of creation. This apparent unity could be attributed to mere coincidence, or to the historical propagation of a single, speculative, metaphysical theory throughout south Asia and the Near East. For example, the Upanishads may well have influenced the writings of early Mahayana thinkers in India, and they could also have made their way to the Near East, where they might have inspired the writings of Plotinus. On the other hand, Plotinus declared that his theories were based on his own experiential insights, and similar claims have been made by many Buddhist and Vedantin contemplatives. If these cosmogonies are indeed based upon valid introspective knowledge, then there may some plausibility to the claims of many contemplatives throughout the world that introspective inquiry can lead to knowledge, not only of the ultimate ground of being, but of the fundamental laws of nature as well."

- Alan Wallace, Is Buddhism really non-theistic.

There is a core agreement between the cosmogonies of a fringe sect of Neo-platonic Christians, Vedic Aryans and Tibetan Buddhists and it should be accepted that they were able to access an objective reality which we have not yet made an effort to access to and this is undeniable, the evidence is far too much to ignore it. Broad was right.

 

I'm afraid of being bored senseless by this discussion.

No, no, wait, don't get away, shouldn't I expose some of your double standards.

[Iggy]

That's not my problem, I am going with what scholarly evidence and empirical evidence are saying, just because a majority of people revere a particular belief doesn't make it true, the majority of those who call themselves religious are just wrong for they don't know the things that exists with in their own religious scriptures.

 

One minute you're saying that the core of religious experience is so similar among all religions that it must be true and the next you're saying that most religious people aren't religious at all. What a mess your quest for secret truth has made you.

 

I believe that everyone should know the truth, so introducing this in schools will be a better idea so that it will at least prevent a society from producing atheists and fanatics.

 

Forcing children to be educated on religion is the surest way to produce young atheists.

 

 

1800 years, Humanity has been in ignorance for way too long but things have changed, today's scholars have access to truth, mainly the well written Gospel of Truth.

 

What a stupid thing to say. Tertullian knew the gnostic fathers personally. He heard them speak. He had access to all of their writings. You suggest that we know more because we dug up 12 books buried in a jar? You have no sense of proportion or historic truth. You're just arguing as a pretense to preach your cultish beliefs, and frankly no form of communication could be more boring.

 

 

 

There is a core agreement between the cosmogonies of a fringe sect of Neo-platonic Christians, Vedic Aryans and Tibetan Buddhists and it should be accepted that they were able to access an objective reality which we have not yet made an effort to access to and this is undeniable, the evidence is far too much to ignore it. Broad was right.

 

There is core agreement between atheists of every culture that supernatural claims are bogus and it should be accepted that they are able to access an objective truth on the topic. This is undeniable. The evidence is too great to ignore.

 

Who can't play this boring game?

 

No, no, wait, don't get away, shouldn't I expose some of your double standards.

 

Trying to discuss anything with you while you use the exchange as an opportunity to proselytize your bizarre theories would be a double standard on my part.

[John Cuthber]

Immortal, please don't get so lost in the discussion of double standards that you forget to answer my earlier question.

 

immortal, on 09 Feb 2013 - 18:08, said:

"That's a cop out to escape from the facts of nature."
Exactly what facts are those?

[immortal]

Immortal, please don't get so lost in the discussion of double standards that you forget to answer my earlier question.

 

immortal, on 09 Feb 2013 - 18:08, said:

 

"That's a cop out to escape from the facts of nature."

Exactly what facts are those?

 

Sure.

 

The fact that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind and once you accept this fact you are not far away from realizing that this mind is the product of a divine God.

 

These are facts established from experiments and its a cop out by those who doesn't want to accept it and doesn't allow to discuss such things, a cop out to keep humanity in deep ignorance.

 

Quantum Enigma Controversy

[John Cuthber]

 

Sure.

 

The fact that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind and once you accept this fact you are not far away from realizing that this mind is the product of a divine God.

 

These are facts established from experiments and its a cop out by those who doesn't want to accept it and doesn't allow to discuss such things, a cop out to keep humanity in deep ignorance.

 

Quantum Enigma Controversy

So, once you accept as a "fact" something which is plainly untrue, you are not far from realising something that there is no evidence for.

 

Exactly how could you, even in principle, do an experiment that showed that reality didn't exist?

If reality doesn't exist then what do you make the equipment from?

On what do you record the results?

 

Saying reality doesn't exists is a cop out: studying reality is not.

[immortal]

One minute you're saying that the core of religious experience is so similar among all religions that it must be true and the next you're saying that most religious people aren't religious at all. What a mess your quest for secret truth has made you.

 

No, it has made me wise, I am at rest. I can go to any extent and say that the majority of the so called Christians and Hindus are not really religious people at all.

 

There are 33 Aeons in Christianity and there are 33 devas in the Vedas and the Upanishads. There are many more core agreements like such, for now that's enough.

 

Almost 99% of so called Christians and Hindus of today aren't really aware of these 33 Aeons or do not even take their existence seriously and have deviated from the things which exists with in their own religious scriptures.

 

No one really smiles more than me when they read the secrets of the Kingdom of God daily and yet they do not understand them.

 

 

Forcing children to be educated on religion is the surest way to produce young atheists.

 

Very nice, the sooner they start questioning the beliefs of orthodox religions and come out of its grips the better, its good if they develop that scientific bent of mind at an early age so that they question beliefs which are held on strong prejudices, the sooner they go through that atheistic phase in their life the better it is for them so that they better accept and understand different points of view.

 

What a stupid thing to say. Tertullian knew the gnostic fathers personally. He heard them speak. He had access to all of their writings. You suggest that we know more because we dug up 12 books buried in a jar? You have no sense of proportion or historic truth. You're just arguing as a pretense to preach your cultish beliefs, and frankly no form of communication could be more boring.

 

The books of Nag Hammadi Library shed more light on whether the accusations of church fathers like Ireneaus and Tertullian were true or not and scholars working on such works very well know what the truth is.

 

 

"Those who attended such meetings might also hear that the bishop— Irenaeus himself—although a good man, was a person of limited understanding who had not progressed beyond faith to gnosis."

"Several Valentinian works discovered at Nag Hammadi, including the Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of Philip, offer correctives to charges that the Valentinians were immoral. In one of the few remaining fragments of his teachings, Valentinus himself, commenting on Jesus’ saying that “God alone is good,” says that apart from God’s grace, the human heart is a “dwelling place for many demons. But when the Father, who alone is good, looks upon it, he purifies and illuminates it with his light; thus the one who has such a heart is blessed, because he sees God.”

The Gospel of Truth, which may also have been written by Valentinus, offers the following ethical instruction to gnostic Christians:

"Speak of the truth with those who seek for it, and of gnosis to those who have committed sins in their error. Secure the feet of those who have stumbled, and stretch out your hands to those who are ill. Feed those who are hungry, and give rest to those who are weary. . . . For you are the understanding which is drawn forth. If strength acts thus, it becomes even stronger. . . . Do not become a dwelling place for the devil, for you have already destroyed him"

"

- Elaine Pagels, Origin of Satan

Scholar of Gnosticism.

1. Church fathers like Irenaeus and Tertullian were bishops of limited understanding which is quite well evident in their works of Against heresies.

2. Since they did not understand them, their judgement and some of the accusations of them on such sects were wrong as is well evident from the findings of the books at Nag Hammadi.

3. When they couldn't able to stop the unstoppable Valentinians they denounced them as being victims of Satan which was quite silly.

4. It gives more support to my position that women had equal opportunity with men and that religion doesn't in any way suppress freedom of women by the respect that is given to women in early Christian times.

There is core agreement between atheists of every culture that supernatural claims are bogus and it should be accepted that they are able to access an objective truth on the topic. This is undeniable. The evidence is too great to ignore.

 

Who can't play this boring game?

 

Many people don't take up science because it is boring for them but that doesn't mean it is boring for scientists who do science, what is boring to you was gold for our ancients.

 

People who under go religious experiences are healthy individuals and without positive evidence otherwise to account for such religious experiences the atheist claim that they are hallucinations doesn't really stand when compared to the amount of theological agreement that exists across different cultures and of disconnected time and places.

 

Trying to discuss anything with you while you use the exchange as an opportunity to proselytize your bizarre theories would be a double standard on my part.

 

Admit that you were wrong I'll withdraw this discussion immediately, if not all I did was offer scholarly evidence refuting your position.

[John Cuthber]

Immortal, will you please answer my question

 

Exactly how could you, even in principle, do an experiment that showed that reality didn't exist?
If reality doesn't exist then what do you make the equipment from?
On what do you record the results?

[immortal]

Immortal, will you please answer my question

 

Sure, I will.

 

Exactly how could you, even in principle, do an experiment that showed that reality didn't exist?

 

They did it like this.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407907615838

 

 

If reality doesn't exist then what do you make the equipment from?

On what do you record the results?

 

The pointer position of the apparatus will be also in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states and hence it doesn't make any sense to assume that what we cannot measure about a system has an independent reality. In simple terms empirical reality doesn't exist out there, it doesn't exist independent of us.