Well, there's no separation between politics and religion in Islam, so... it's all good. Anyway, we started it.
is allah shaking his head in disbelief?
- Thread starter mario
- Start date
Cris said:
To "cheat" death?
That is an odd way of saying.
Why would wanting to survive mean to "cheat" death?
Wanting to survive is about avoiding situations that could result in death.
But using "to cheat" implies a certain ethical position on death and life.
As if death were certain, and life is merely a try to cheat this certainty. Well, to me, this is a statement of faith.
Speaking with theoretical precision, you do not actually *know* that you will die, you accept *on faith* that the same will happen to you that happened to others of your kind.
Until you actually die, your knowledge (" ") of the certainty of your own death is merely a statistical induction. Statistical inductions are inherently relative, so science.
Water,
Mankind has invented the concept of gods, whether that was instantaneous or developed over thousands of years is irrelevant to the argument.
Two thirds of the world population are considered religious. The term “purpose” here is being used in the context introduced by Jenyar.
Cheat: “to elude”. The word has multiple definitions and is appropriate in the context used.
So what is your point? I don’t consider death a certainty and have stated so many times in these forums.
Mankind has invented the concept of gods, whether that was instantaneous or developed over thousands of years is irrelevant to the argument.
Two thirds of the world population are considered religious. The term “purpose” here is being used in the context introduced by Jenyar.
Cheat: “to elude”. The word has multiple definitions and is appropriate in the context used.
So what is your point? I don’t consider death a certainty and have stated so many times in these forums.
Cris said:
It is relevant inasmuch that if a concept is developed over a longer period of time, and is a regular part of the social discourse, it then cannot be regarded as a delusion.
The same way, the judicial system was developed over thousands of years -- we do not consider it a delusion.
But to go your way, and make no difference between a concept that emerged instantaneously, and a concept that developed over thousands of years -- then everything, every human concept is to be regarded as an illusion.
Technically, everyone else could think the way you do.
In fact, observing people, you'll see the prevalent premise of "It won't happen to me".
If it so be that people don't consider death a certainty, why then say that gods were invented in order to cheat death?
If death is not certain, why try to cheat it then?
It makes no sense.
The reason behind the "invention" of gods must be some other, and not that of "cheating death".
"Cheating death" is ONLY the *present* image of why we seem to need gods/God.
If something is a present image, does not mean that it has always been so, or that the present image is a veritable link to the actual reason.
Nonsense. I know a man who, over the past 10 years, has developed far beyond what his delusions originally entailed. Much like anything, a delusion doesn't just remain constant or vanish. No, it adapts and changes depending on many factors. It can be seen most clearly within religious beliefs.
Sumerian texts with many gods and reasons for creation, which was then adapted and became the OT, which was then adapted and became the NT and so on. It doesn't make it any less of a delusion. Why do you think all modern people believe in modern religions? I've never met anyone who actually believes in Tiamat and Gilgamesh, and worships them appropriately. The delusion just changes shape.
How would you relate the judicial system to belief in sky entities?
Do you honestly think mankind are all idiots? Death is certain, everyone knows that. They employ methods with which to try and get out of it. As you've seen, in Cris' case he's hoping for a scientific advancement that will prolong or prevent death. While this scenario is eventually quite likely given the rate at which we progress, it is an attempt to outwit death. Even if people say "it wont happen to me", they bloody well know it will - but to aid their arguments they provide a "guarantee", be that scientific advancement or sky beings.
For the early people it would have served as a wonderful explanation to the world itself. Without knowing what a volcano, lightning, aurora borealis, swamp gas, tectonic plate movement, or even rain was, these people would provide any answer they could dream up. This would undoubtedly entail something they did know - which would be something that looks and acts like a human, but is better.
The judicial system shows a faith - a strong belief - in justice. Religion shows a strong belief in God (or gods). Such faith is not automatically true or reasonable by its own merit, but it's not automatically false either.
This would suggest that people who believed in gods would somehow be too hamstrung to make any scientific discoveries - already having a satisfactory "explanation". Yet history tells a different story. Some have even proposed that a belief in God supposes that the world has rational beginnings, in that it was intelligently created and given order - an order that could be expected to be visible in nature: the beginning of science. As religion was a search for God, it was also a search for his order in nature, "signs of God". Panteism and animism were bound to be explored as possibilities.Snakelord said:
Last edited:
I really don't see how you can try to compare the two. Justice does what it considers in the best interest of the people - which is not a matter of faith, but a matter of understanding. Something that is a danger to themselves or others would be considered an issue - not because they have faith that so and so is a danger, but it is known to be a danger. The 'judicial belief' comes from the knowledge. Religious belief comes from the lack of knowledge.
One creates invisible talking characters without anything to substantiate it, whereas the system of justice is substantiated.
What a bizarre notion. Why would you consider this to be true? You know man has been to the bottom of the ocean. Does that mean he'll never bother going there again? Your statement would mean that to this date we would all still think the earth is flat.
Firstly you need to understand that not every single person on the planet agrees with each other - whether that other person is right or not. As a result you end up with different groups of people believing different things. In the ancient days it was different gods, how to worship, what they looked like and so on. As time passed there were other groups that thought the world was flat, that killed anyone of a differing religion, and so on down through the ages. Nobody, even those that knew or thought they knew, just sat down and stopped. You must know this, which makes me wonder why you made the statement you did.
While it can make people feel all gooey inside, it doesn't have any value.
Religion wasn't a search for god. You can read any religious text you like and you'll see that apparently god made the move, not mankind. god came down and barked orders and demanded followers. If you look at your own bible you'll see that mankind spent more time trying to get away from him than search for him. He came down and sat on mountains, came down and plagued peoples dreams, came down and set fire to bushes, came down and told people how to behave. Then all of a sudden.. *blip* he vanished.
Of course nowadays people have to search for him.. because he isn't there.
Again, it wasn't a search. It was thrust upon humanity whether they looked or not. Some poor woman holding her young son turns round and notices a gigantic wave crashing along the ground. A bunch of jews in the desert get shaken around by a trememndous earthquake before succumbing to a nasty god given plague. Some folk sitting at home having a brew come out to see giant sulphur balls falling out of the sky. Were they "searching"? Hell no.
Of course nowadays it's harder, and people do have to 'search'. The reason being that we know better than to think earthquakes, floods and the like are godly acts. No no, even the religious man will say, they are natural. The search is in vain and all I see is natural. But wait, there must be something there - someone 4,000 years ago said so. True, he knew nothing about disease or disaster, but why would he lie?
Ha.
i read it again, but if you arent referring to a search for god what are you refferring to when you say:SnakeLord said:
SnakeLord said:
do you mean it is harder to see god because we understand earthquakes, floods?
i'll tell you what isnt adding up for me then maybe you can enlighten me. in your sentence what is it that is harder nowadays? and and what do you attribute the reason of our knowing 'better than to to think earthquakes, floods and the like are godly acts'
Basically what I was trying to get at was that in the old days anything could be attributed as a sign of god - be that anything from an earthquake to a lightning bolt. As such these people witnessed signs of god on a regular basis. As man progressed, signs of god slowly became less and less as man's understanding improved.
It's why the bible is full of god given plagues, whereas nobody says god caused the bubonic plague because he was pissed at Europeans. No, man's understanding had improved, and as a result something that would have once been a sign of god, was now a sign of rats and germs.
It would be extremely naive for anyone to assume that god was once around causing plagues, floods and the like, but then decided to stop and let them occur naturally. So we are left with two possibilities:
1) god was never an issue. All the events that occur and have occured are completely natural. For example: An earthquake is not caused by an angry sky being, but by movement of tectonic plates.
Or..
2) These are acts of god. For whatever reason, he decides to cause these things as he has always done. As a result of this, the tsunami victims must have been evil sinners, the victims of mudslides, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions must also have been evil sinners. The man that got struck by lightning down the road must have done something worthy of serious punishment, and so on.
But basically even the religious masses realise there comes a stage where they must accept science. As a result god's authority has been negated in comparison to how it used to be. Science and understanding have taken over from god. As a result, if a religious person wanted to see a sign of god, they have a lot less choice, instead having to rely on invisible and unsubstantiated claims. Back in the old days it wasn't an issue... "Look the ground is moving, it's god", and people would agree because they could see it, feel it, and hear it, but not understand it. Now people just acknowledge the fact that it's tectonic plate movement and done with it.
So what I was trying, perhaps not sufficiently, to express was that people now 'do' have to search if they want to see signs of god. Whereas before the signs were right there, they no longer are. Do you get what I mean? I'm not saying people search because we understand earthquakes, I'm saying as people can no longer use them as signs of god, if they did want to see a sign, it would require a lot more searching.
And how bad has it become? People resorting to buying toasted cheese sandwiches for several thousand because it has a face on it. This is how desperate the situation is when there is no simple in your face kind of sign.
The same would also be true of dreams, visions and the voice of god. In the old days people saw god in their dreams, heard god talking to them and so on. Of course, these people know nothing about mental illness, knew nothing about hallucination caused by drugs, heat, exhaustion, or a wide variety of everyday herbs such as nutmeg. So we must ask if these dreams and visions were real or not. Again we're left with the same scenario as above. It would be naive to assume that god once spoke to people, visited them in their dreams, and so on, but doesn't anymore. It leaves us with two possibilities:
1) All the visions and dreams supposedly messages from an external being were in fact completely natural affairs due to a vast amount of reasons, be it the ones I have highlighted above, or other, more simplified reasons such as faulty interpretation of dreams that they couldn't really understand. For a guy with very little knowledge of himself and the world, a vivid dream can be extremely powerful and suggestive. Upon waking it would stand to reason that he would consider that dream a message or a sign.
Or..
2) All the visions and dreams are messages or signs from an external being. This would include the message from god to that woman telling her to stone her children to death. Oh it is so easy for a religious person to claim mental illness when things don't sound too peachy, and yet without valid reason to do so.
Where would a person draw the line here? Does Leo really see angels or is he deluded? Does Jenyar really talk to an external entity or has he created a voice within himself to answer all of the insecurities he suffers? (Do not take that personally, we all suffer from insecurities).
Of course in the old days it was clear as day. You had a dream or a vision and it was god. No questions asked. Again I would just point out that these people knew nothing of hallucination, mental illness, multiple personality, stress related delusions and so on. As man progressed even the visions and dreams changed meaning. It was no longer prophetic, but a sign that a person had been possessed - whereupon they would have their head swiftly detached from the rest of their body. As man progressed even more, it became a matter of illness, and undoubtedly as we continue to progress we will uncover all the how's and why's concerning it.
As a summary:
In ancient times god was everywhere. Most cultures just looked skyward and saw him beaming in space, or witnessed his actions upon the land and people. He told people things in dreams and visions, he sat on mountains and took on a host of different guises - such as burning bushes. Man knew this was god. He was there, he caused the earth to shake and the plagues to spread. Nobody would have claimed that the river turning red was due to pfisteria, no.. it was god being angry.
Man advanced, and as he did so, god slipped further and further into the void. Nobody bowed to god anymore when an earthquake occured, instead they just called it natural, nobody bowed to god when a plague was let loose - instead they made medicines to combat it and called it natural.
The religious have nothing left of their god other than an old and worn out book, a church with a leaking roof, and a few statues of a long haired white man. The minute something new is found, (such as that box, the shroud of turin, mary's face in a toastie, or some fortunate lady's cancer going into remission), the religious masses will jump for joy and shout "proof, proof", because they need it as much as anyone else does. They need to grasp onto any little thing that they can, because they realise they have been left with nothing. No signs, no powerful man sitting on a mountain, no saving them from their oppressors, no leading them on prophetic journies or showing them signs of the future. All they have left is what science tells them, no matter how much they dislike the notion.
An earthquake is no longer something to look at and marvel at the power of their god, it is just tectonic plates, a lightning bolt is no longer the hand of god punishing the deserving, it's just electricity. So they sit in their churches with their tattered old books and smartest Sunday clothes listening to a paedophile give them the lowdown on life and death, and they sigh.
Of course they have managed to secure themselves a suitable position. The god of the NT has told them that they don't have to do anything anymore. They can just sit down, smile a jolly old smile and all is well. The god of "do nothing" has spoken, so they sit and do nothing except flick to page number so and so when the paedophile tells them to. Of course not having to do anything does get boring, and so they break off into different sects just so they have someone to argue with. The man on the left creates all new ways with which to do nothing, but the man on the right disagrees with his methods of nothingness, preferring his own method of nothingness.
"We worship Mary aswell", one man says
"That's evil, Mary isn't a god, you'll burn" says the other
And so they continue arguing such petty matters because they don't have anything to do. After a while they realise that doing nothing is even more boring when you're alone, and so they go out to find new people to recruit into the camp of 'do nothing'. Their very sales pitch is: "You don't have to do anything other than love jesus".
And so they sit in their church, with their tattered book, looking at a white statue, while listening to a paedophile.... doing nothing. They say a few quick 'amens' and then go home so they can get on with arguing with jews and muslims and other 'do nothing' christian sects merely to break the monotony.
No rules to follow, no laws to obey, nobody to stone to death. But then! Along comes a cheese sandwich that resembles Mary.. "Hallelujah!" they shout in unison, finally having something worthwhile to talk about. And so for a brief moment the monotony is broken, and they gain another 1,000 people who think there is joy in doing nothing.
But no matter how tedious and monotonous it gets, they will still cling onto it for dear life. After all, there's a little voice telling them they might go to hell, and religious people really don't like to gamble.
The end.
Jesus never claimed to be himself, does that mean He wasn't? Jesus never claimed to be God in so many words, because it would be construed as if He wished to replace the totality of God that was already accepted. Jesus himself did not represent God's nature in totality (not visibly anyway), but that did not make Him any less divine. Throughout his ministry, Jesus identified with God personally, but not in a way that could be controvertable. I'll explain:786 said:Jenyar if we were to acknowledged God through Christ, the way you do. Then prove to me that Jesus (pbuh) claimed to be God. You can talk all you want but you must prove it.
Peace be unto you
If Jesus had said "I am God", He would be reducing the concept of God to a mere human (since that is all that people could then perceive him to be).
John 8:54
Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
Instead, Jesus always talks in terms of a 1:1 relationship, and lets God make the claims for him. For instance, He says in John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am", identifying himself with God's words in Exodus 3 - and the Jews clearly thought his claim to be blasphemous: “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7). Not a son, but the Son:Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
Matthew 11:27
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
I hope this helps."All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
PS. It isn't a "modern interpretation" either:
John 20:27 Then he [Jesus] said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Last edited:
In you world? Lol, where do you live ellion?
In your world? Lol, in which world do you live in ellion?
Jenyar: Jesus never claimed to be himself, does that mean He wasn't? Jesus never claimed to be God in so many words, because it would be construed as if He wished to replace the totality of God that was already accepted. Jesus himself did not represent God's nature in totality (not visibly anyway), but that did not make Him any less divine. Throughout his ministry, Jesus identified with God personally, but not in a way that could be controvertable.
*************
M*W: Gnostic Jews identified Jesus as being separate from the disciples and superior to them. The disciples thought of Jesus as their appointed King. In The Gospel of Thomas 34.30-35-37, in NHL 123-130, it states:
"Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom your are like." Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out."
Jesus doesn't deny his role as Messiah or teacher, at least not to Peter and Matthew, but they share an inferior level of understanding of Jesus. Thomas cannot identify a role for Jesus, but he believes that Jesus transcends all destinations. Thomas, however, is right about his designation of Jesus, and Thomas, himself, becomes more like Jesus than the rest. Jesus tells Thomas, "Whoever will drink from my mouth will become as I am, and I myself will become that person, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him." (The Gospel of Thomas, 50.28, in NHL 119).
Elaine Pagels in The Gnostic Gospels explains: "Religious language, on the other hand, is a language of internal transformation; whoever perceives divine reality becomes what he sees; Jesus says:
"...you saw the spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father.... you see yourself, and what you see you shall become." (The Gospel of Philip 61.29-35, in NHL 137).
*************
Jenyar: I'll explain:
If Jesus had said "I am God", He would be reducing the concept of God to a mere human (since that is all that people could then perceive him to be).
PS. It isn't a "modern interpretation" either:
M*W: The living Jesus spoke cryptically, saying: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." (The Gospel of Thomas 32.10-11, in NHL 118).
Elaine Pagels states in The Gnostic Gospels that "scholars investigating the Nag Hammadi find discovered that some texts tell the origin of the human race in terms of very different from the usual reading of Genesis: the Testimony of Truth, for example, tells the story of the Garden of Eden from the viewpoint of the serpent! Here the serpent, long known to appear in gnostic literature as the principle of divine wisdom, convinces Adam and Eve to partake of knowledge while "the Lord" threatens them with death, trying jealousy to prevent them from attaining knowledge, and expelling them from Paradise when they achieve it." (The Testimony of Truth 45:23-48:18, in NHL 411-412). Another text, mysteriously entitled the Thunder, Perfect Mind, offers an extraordinary poem spoken in the voice of a feminine divine power:
"For I am the first and the last.
I am the honored one and the scorned one.
I am the whore and the holy one.
I am the wife and the virgin....
I am the barren one, and many are her sons....
I am the silence that is incomprehensible...
I am the utterance of my name."
(Thunder, Perfect Mind 13:16-14:15, in NHL 171-172)
The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979.
*************
M*W: Gnostic Jews identified Jesus as being separate from the disciples and superior to them. The disciples thought of Jesus as their appointed King. In The Gospel of Thomas 34.30-35-37, in NHL 123-130, it states:
"Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom your are like." Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out."
Jesus doesn't deny his role as Messiah or teacher, at least not to Peter and Matthew, but they share an inferior level of understanding of Jesus. Thomas cannot identify a role for Jesus, but he believes that Jesus transcends all destinations. Thomas, however, is right about his designation of Jesus, and Thomas, himself, becomes more like Jesus than the rest. Jesus tells Thomas, "Whoever will drink from my mouth will become as I am, and I myself will become that person, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him." (The Gospel of Thomas, 50.28, in NHL 119).
Elaine Pagels in The Gnostic Gospels explains: "Religious language, on the other hand, is a language of internal transformation; whoever perceives divine reality becomes what he sees; Jesus says:
"...you saw the spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father.... you see yourself, and what you see you shall become." (The Gospel of Philip 61.29-35, in NHL 137).
*************
Jenyar: I'll explain:
If Jesus had said "I am God", He would be reducing the concept of God to a mere human (since that is all that people could then perceive him to be).
John 8:54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
Instead, Jesus always talks in terms of a 1:1 relationship, and lets God make the claims for him. For instance, He says in John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am", identifying himself with God's words in Exodus 3 - and the Jews clearly thought his claim to be blasphemous: “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7). Not a son, but the Son:
Matthew 11:27
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
I hope this helps."All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
PS. It isn't a "modern interpretation" either:
John 20:27 Then he [Jesus] said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
*************M*W: The living Jesus spoke cryptically, saying: "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." (The Gospel of Thomas 32.10-11, in NHL 118).
Elaine Pagels states in The Gnostic Gospels that "scholars investigating the Nag Hammadi find discovered that some texts tell the origin of the human race in terms of very different from the usual reading of Genesis: the Testimony of Truth, for example, tells the story of the Garden of Eden from the viewpoint of the serpent! Here the serpent, long known to appear in gnostic literature as the principle of divine wisdom, convinces Adam and Eve to partake of knowledge while "the Lord" threatens them with death, trying jealousy to prevent them from attaining knowledge, and expelling them from Paradise when they achieve it." (The Testimony of Truth 45:23-48:18, in NHL 411-412). Another text, mysteriously entitled the Thunder, Perfect Mind, offers an extraordinary poem spoken in the voice of a feminine divine power:
"For I am the first and the last.
I am the honored one and the scorned one.
I am the whore and the holy one.
I am the wife and the virgin....
I am the barren one, and many are her sons....
I am the silence that is incomprehensible...
I am the utterance of my name."
(Thunder, Perfect Mind 13:16-14:15, in NHL 171-172)
The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979.
M*W, Perfect Thunder (follow the link for notes on it) is besides the point at the moment, but I think you should look closely at what you posted:
So you have to ask yourself if you really believe the words of Thomas regarding Jesus fall outside his Jewish background. They certainly "identified Jesus as being separate from the disciples and superior to them. ... their appointed King".
Set aside the part about becoming like Christ for the moment, and focus on the words in bold. The Gospel of Thomas says that Thomas showed true insight into Jesus nature, and this only supports what we read in John: “My Lord and my God!” - because of this, his "mouth is wholly incapable of saying" how anybody could be like Jesus, for He is not just a heavenly being (angel) and a wise philosopher. Not to mention that Jesus' question seems to echo the messianic Isaiah 40, which mean He again identifies himself in terms of (Thomas') God:Medicine Woman said:
25 "To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One.
Jesus then responds to Thomas' acknowledgement: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One.
So you have to ask yourself if you really believe the words of Thomas regarding Jesus fall outside his Jewish background. They certainly "identified Jesus as being separate from the disciples and superior to them. ... their appointed King".
Last edited: