I am not talking so much about being an authority - I am talking about making anything you say on the topic of buddhism completely irrelevent
Have you considered that you display the same character qualities with anyone who disagrees with you?
Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion
- Thread starter river
- Start date
Oh well. Perhaps the Calvinists are right.
Irrelevant.
I am not claiming to be other people's only connection to God.
Theists do claim to be other people's only connection to God.
You keep refusing to acknowledge this.
On the contrary its very relevant to a discussion on why you say its only a particular creed that displays these behaviour characteristics
neither am I
There are numerous scriptural quotes to refute this.
You keep refusing to acknowledge this
:shrug:
False accusation.
I have never claimed that it is only theists who display those behavior characteristics.
People in general do. But those behavior characteristics become problematic when it comes to theists - ie. people who are the only link to God.
The way you speak certainly does not suggest that.
You present yourself as totally certain of what you say, and so in the name of God.
Myself, I have never seen any.
Please, by all means, bring them on!
as opposed to people who are the only link to medical procedures, education, car repair or plumbing?
then it begs teh question why you have problems when I say god can certainly approached by different approaches
Geez
The BG is all about the different means, generically categorized as bhakti, jnana and karma yoga
Yes.
One doesn't have to trust math teachers, car mechanics etc. in eternal matters, in matters of God. But one has to trust theists - or one is doomed to a God-less life.
With math teachers, car mechanics etc., the required trust is limited in scope. With theists, it is complete - there isn't an aspect of life for which one wouldn't have to trust theists for.
Math teachers, car mechanics etc. are usually legally responsible for what they do. If they mess up, one has some legal recourse for them to admit their mistake and to make amends. Theists take no such responsibility on themselves. If a theist fucks up a person's life by teaching them wrong things about God, the theist never answers for that.
With math, cars, health and other worldly things, one has some realistic hope and ability to achieve a level of expertise oneself, to learn for oneself whether something is right or not whether it works or not. With theism, there is no such thing: one is forever enslaved to the theist to explain the world to one; if one refuses to go along with those explanations, one offends the theist, and thus severs one's link to God.
I do not recall you saying that "god can certainly approached by different approaches".
You've mentioned the three, but you've also made it clear that jnana and karma yoga are inferior. And if they are inferior, then they are not certain approaches to God.
Why do you act with such toxicity against me, almost all the time?
instead you trust them in regards to maths, etc
car repair also becomes an issue for someone who has problems with mechanics as a creed
perhaps in the mind of a fanatic kannistha .... which probably explains why spiritual life often turns out fatalistic for them
more kannistha ideology I'm afraid ...
I recall you even criticized a devotee for recommending that you give Christianity a try. I mean what is the problem if someone, in their professional opinion, offers you something which, according to their own level of performance, is inferior? Is it because you are actually greatly advanced and anyone who dares offer you anything less than the best of the best must have some sort of communication problem because they can't understand that you are the best?
One thing a kannistha just can't get their head around is the variegated level of performance ... much less assess their position in the strata. This is why their endeavours in spiritual life are always tinged with an unpredictable element.
:shrug:
Red herring, as you have not shown the slightest correlation between church attendance and certainty in a concept of god, or even which faith. Lack of attendance only has a direct correlation to perhaps a commitment to organized religion, but that only reflects on social institution, not personal belief. Your idea of "sketchy" is one you have been completely incapable of showing any evidence for. That you think completely unrelated polls have any bearing is only an indication of your cognitive bias.
It is uncommon to assume that the majority (~80% Christian) see any criticism of god in the problem of evil. This majority finds any of several theological explanations of the problem of evil completely sufficient.
Like I said, you already admitted that what you said was qualified, but you did not qualify your initial statement.
If you were not using "common" as meaning prevalent then I fail to see how you have made any point at all, other than perhaps empty, argumentative trolling. If the notion that "Yahweh sucks" is simply shared by some people and is in no way special (for example, by being prevalent) then you completely failed to establish that "gnostics [won]" or that "religion is confused" in any way whatsoever.
Try again, but learn to quit digging your hole deeper.
Nope, now you are explicitly changing your use, ex post facto, from an adjective to an adverb, where you are now referring to the "use of" or "belief in" religion instead of the religion itself. And I have already asked you how religion is only concerned with the particular purpose of explaining god, rather than that, morality, afterlife, etc. to no avail. As a explanation of god, it would only be lacking in generality if it only purported to explain god in a particular situation. The well-known characteristics of god (omnipotence, omniscience, etc) cannot be any more generalized. "Omni" means "all".
Who said anything about Leary being "unintelligent"? That is your inference, not any implication of mine. Good for you for not doing drugs. You may want to consider how you might come off as a psychotropic using surfer, or just a teenager, when using words like "whatevs dude" and touting the ideas of a psychedelic drug advocate. Or if you just do not want to be taken seriously, so be it.
Again, who said ANYTHING about "opportunus" being in common usage? Seems another red herring to avoid supporting your usage of "ad hoc", which you have yet to do in the slightest. Instead you are running with your complete straw man that I disparaged Leary in any way.
What "SPECIFIC principle"? You have not said anything at all. Only vague arm waving, apparently intentionally vague so you can then claim this lost in translation.
That still does not make contingent necessary. As per your example, "fulfillment of certain conditions" does not preclude someone welshing on the payment. It seems a dictionary does not even help you. Your intellectual dishonesty is far too thick.
What you "feel" and what you may be able to evince are two completely different things. This is also a false compromise, usually used by those who know their point is untenable. Belief does not require "indication". There have been periods of religious oppression where indication of religion would have even been life-threatening. You have yet to give me one example of any action that would be contrary to believing. Lack of action is no indication, and assuming so is only an argument from ignorance.
Again, who said gnostics were "lawless"? You have provided absolutely no counter reference to the fact that gnostics only value descriptive moralities as a means to an end. Those same strictures in Christianity are seen to be normative and valid of their own inherent value.
No, a gnostic would say "do x because if furthers gnosis, allows for civilized society, etc.". The only inherently good a gnostic recognizes is that which arises of their own subjective understanding. Everything else only serves a purpose or is an artifice.
You are once again erroneously conflating belief and action. Neither necessitates the other.
Again, favoring your "feelings" over any substantial argument. Gnostics do not believe the creator was the ultimate godhead, only an inferior demiurge.
"In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood." -gnosis.org
You do not understand the notion of gnosis if you think they told each other "don't sin". Descriptive moralities are no more condemning than they are salvific in gnosticism. Again, show me some gnostic source which claims otherwise.
More like slow to think, especially if that requires supporting your "feelings" with any real information.
Syne
to your reference of the Gnostic attitude I agree
to add
to quote from John lash's book , NOT in his IMAGE , PG 112
" Gnostic scholar K.-W. Troger estimates that one third of the Coptic corpus is anti-Judaic. I reckon that anti-Judaic and anti-Christian elements combined amount to well over half on the material in the NHC ( Nag Hammadi Codices ) . The Second Treatise is exemplary of the Gnostic protest against salvationism . It contains page after page of scathing attacks on Judaic and Christian beliefs and customs. It ridicules the biblical forefathers and castigates those who follow patriarchal religion , unable to see how it corrupts their very sense of Humanity:
And Adam was a laughingstock , and Abraham , and Jacob, and David, and Solomon and the Twelve Prophets , and Moses, and John the Baptist.... None of them knew me , the Revealer , nor my brethern in the Mysteries..... They never knew the truth , nor will they know it , for there is a great deception upon their soul, and they cannot ever find the mind of freedom, in order to know themselves , in true humanity . ( 62.27; 63.34; 64.20 ff )
river
to your reference of the Gnostic attitude I agree
to add
to quote from John lash's book , NOT in his IMAGE , PG 112
" Gnostic scholar K.-W. Troger estimates that one third of the Coptic corpus is anti-Judaic. I reckon that anti-Judaic and anti-Christian elements combined amount to well over half on the material in the NHC ( Nag Hammadi Codices ) . The Second Treatise is exemplary of the Gnostic protest against salvationism . It contains page after page of scathing attacks on Judaic and Christian beliefs and customs. It ridicules the biblical forefathers and castigates those who follow patriarchal religion , unable to see how it corrupts their very sense of Humanity:
And Adam was a laughingstock , and Abraham , and Jacob, and David, and Solomon and the Twelve Prophets , and Moses, and John the Baptist.... None of them knew me , the Revealer , nor my brethern in the Mysteries..... They never knew the truth , nor will they know it , for there is a great deception upon their soul, and they cannot ever find the mind of freedom, in order to know themselves , in true humanity . ( 62.27; 63.34; 64.20 ff )
river
Find me one - one - theist who wouldn't criticize me over something I think, feel, say or do.
When has any theist ever answered for the wrongs they've done to others, believing that it was right for others to take action against the theist?
I don't recall any devotee ever recommending that I should give Christianity a try.
As usual, you put in effort to avoid the issue and to just blame me.
Must be great to think you have God on your side. I wish I knew what that is like.
do you actually believe that 80% of the people have a well-defined and thorough concept of exactly what God is? If they don't, then there are probably a bunch of them who have concepts to which "sketchy" applies.
when did i use the word "majority"? i don't believe the majority of people think yahweh/jesus' God is bad, so why would i EVER suggest that? I didn't. Your misunderstanding of the very simple word "common" has brought this upon us.
i said that the statement was qualified because i noted the subset was not the only example, not that the statement was qualified by including a subset. Is there a point to this continual grammar discussion, other than that you can't listen to what other people are saying and accept their intent when they express it to you, but rather insist that you know more about what was intended than the writer of a statement? Or that you are going to insist on pure grammatical perfection or you are going to ad hom all night? that is all you are showing here.
common - 3a : occurring or appearing frequently : familiar <a common sight>
so my usage of "common" was quite a "common" usage. Get over it.
really adverb and adjective usage? This is just ridiculous. Their religion as what they do, or what they believe, it doesn't matter. Again you insist that i didn't mean to say exactly what i meant to say, and said what i meant to say, as expressed by my rephrasing with phrases out the dictionary definitions. Your silly proposition as trying to disallow the use of "ad hoc" it is nothing but your endless defense of your ad hom, followed by more ad hom.
Why would i link your ideas of tim leary with "sticking to pot smoking"? maybe because you said, "Between the Tim Leary "reality tunnel" and the "whatevs dude", maybe you are better off sticking to the pot smoking." A misdirected ad hom, with my use of a perfectly functional descriptive phrase being used as a reason I should just "stick to pot smoking". If you mean that "sticking to pot smoking" is a thing people should aspire to, that makes little sense. "I'm Syne, let me defend YET another ad hom."
So now you are saying i should put phrases in that people don't often use, so i can feel cool that i am asking the average reader to look something up? Like i said, that's a dick move.
you certainly connected him with "sticking to pot smoking". If you meant that as a compliment, I am confused, but glad to see you are tolerant of some people's views althugh they may differ from yours... Oh wait... I forgot i'm talking to the person who calls people with differing opinions "trolls".
i said "a specific principle", i.e. ANY specific biblical principle. Do i need to make you a list of principles just to express the fact that i wasn't talking about "belief in God", i.e. your straw.
a payment contingent on having the money necessitates having the money. Also, ad hom. You are making me laugh more than comedy central, with this endless ad hom stuff, so thanks for that.
Iranaeus
You have provided no reference, so how am i going to provide a "counter reference"?
"allows for a civilized society" is not normative???? what? because the word "civilized" has no normative function, it is just a descriptive word such as "nomadic".
i never said they necessitate the other, but rather that it is as simple to claim that any action necessitates a belief, or that actions can essentially create beliefs, as it is to claim (here is your statement) "your actions are inconsequential to your belief", and that this isn't the place to go into that subject, because it is a whole chunk of a discussion. You are the one who took my statement about belief and action and brought in the unrelated idea that you can take an action and then have an unrelated belief later.
that is what i said. The creator is the bad dude.
gospel of philip - "He who has knowledge of the truth is a free man, but the free man does not sin, for "He who sins is the slave of sin" (Jn 8:34). Truth is the mother, knowledge the father. Those who think that sinning does not apply to them are called "free" by the world. Knowledge of the truth merely makes such people arrogant, which is what the words, "it makes them free" mean. It even gives them a sense of superiority over the whole world. But "Love builds up" (1 Co 8:1). In fact, he who is really free, through knowledge, is a slave, because of love for those who have not yet been able to attain to the freedom of knowledge. Knowledge makes them capable of becoming free. Love never calls something its own, [...] it [...] possess [...]. It never says,"This is yours" or "This is mine," but "All these are yours".
gospel of philip - "Above all, it is not proper to cause anyone distress - whether the person is great or small, unbeliever or believer - and then give comfort only to those who take satisfaction in good deeds. Some find it advantageous to give comfort to the one who has fared well. He who does good deeds cannot give comfort to such people, for he does not seize whatever he likes. "
gospel of philip - "No one can know when the husband and the wife have intercourse with one another, except the two of them. Indeed, marriage in the world is a mystery for those who have taken a wife. If there is a hidden quality to the marriage of defilement, how much more is the undefiled marriage a true mystery! It is not fleshly, but pure. It belongs not to desire, but to the will. It belongs not to the darkness or the night, but to the day and the light. If a marriage is open to the public, it has become prostitution, and the bride plays the harlot not only when she is impregnated by another man, but even if she slips out of her bedroom and is seen. Let her show herself only to her father and her mother, and to the friend of the bridegroom and the sons of the bridegroom. These are permitted to enter every day into the bridal chamber. But let the others yearn just to listen to her voice and to enjoy her ointment, and let them feed from the crumbs that fall from the table, like the dogs. Bridegrooms and brides belong to the bridal chamber. No one shall be able to see the bridegroom with the bride unless he become such a one."
so you are saying these people had normative statements, full of "good and bad", only in so much as they could make a metaphor out of it, but it was totally cool to do "bad" as long as the person who does it thinks it is cool? Like i said, I am sure there were some gnostics who operated that way, but i also don't doubt there were some who actually tried to do good because they attached ideas of right and wrong to them. If you are going to say the enlightened gnostic is like the enlightened zen master, to whom right and wrong are inconsequential, that is a totally different statement than saying that they had no normative religious practice.
another ad hom? Hahaha
You have yet to show anything at all to the contrary, other than your usual bare assertions.
Let us take another look at what you claimed:
If "common" and "standard" only mean they occur frequently, but NOT predominantly, then what argument were you making about the gnostic opponents having "lost", or anything else? You are so unabashedly intellectually dishonest that once I have clearly demonstrated that you are equivocating over one word you simply backpedal to do so of another. Now it is "lost". Apparently you seem to think that anything shy of totally obliterating an opponent is a loss, even though those "losers" are a vastly overwhelming majority. So much so that the gnostic codex was not even found until 1945. So where is this supposed loss?
I must say, your confirmation bias is impressive. Very few people have both the intelligence AND the intellectual dishonesty to paint themselves into a corner so thoroughly.
Yes, your evasions are ridiculous. I never once questioned what you meant, as I accept what you claim you meant. You are only too stubborn to accept that you erroneously used the phrase "ad hoc". Get over it and quit trying to justify your every little error til you are blue in the face. As usual, you take the part of what I say easiest to ridicule and completely ignore the rest (bolded above) because it is so damning.
But I will give you another chance to redeem yourself. How exactly does "for the special purpose or end presently under consideration" and "for a particular purpose only; lacking generality or justification" mean "readily accessible" or 'first "at hand""?
And where in what I said did you find anything about anyone being "unintelligent"? Nowhere. I have known quite a few straight-A student potheads. YOU inferred something I never implied. Simple as that. But if you insist, we can take a look at why you would jump to that particular conclusion, even after I already explained how it made you sound juvenile and lackadaisical or glib.
Again, I never said anything of the sort. I was only offering you a more fitting Latin phrase, and only if you insisted on using using one. You know, you really are one hell of a hypocrite. All this hubbub about ad hominems while generously poisoning the well, which is a form of ad hom itself.
No, I connected liberal use of an uncommon phrase from a known drug user WITH a juvenile drug user phrase. Pretty straight forward. Poisoning the well again. I call the intellectually dishonest trolls, and you have yet to provide anything to support any of your claims.
It is no surprise that you have completely forgotten why you brought this up. I asked you how lack of devotion to any principle had any bearing on whether a person believed in a god. Instead of answering, you went off on a tangent about people believing in one of these principles.
Syne said:
This is where you waffled over belief and action, even though you have yet to show that one necessitates the other.
Now you have forgotten you own example. This is the wrong direction fallacy, as you have reversed cause and effect. The ability to make a payment is the effect of having the money, so it cannot be the cause of having the money. Not only that, but having the money does not necessitate the action of making a payment. Your reasoning skills are sorely hindered by your cognitive bias.
And only you have argued the straw man that he was any kind of authority. So quit arguing yourself already.
Now you resort to lying (or poor short-term memory), as I have already provided you with this:
Another related concept is the moral core of an individual, which is assumed to be innate. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (e.g. Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive—part of human politics. -wiki(morality)
If the words “ethics” or “morality” are taken to mean a system of rules, then Gnosticism is opposed to them both. Such systems usually originate with the Demiurge and are covertly designed to serve his purposes. If, on the other hand, morality is said to consist of an inner integrity arising from the illumination of the indwelling spark, then the Gnostic will embrace this spiritually informed existential ethic as ideal.
To the Gnostic, commandments and rules are not salvific; they are not substantially conducive to salvation. Rules of conduct may serve numerous ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. -gnosis.org
If the words “ethics” or “morality” are taken to mean a system of rules, then Gnosticism is opposed to them both. Such systems usually originate with the Demiurge and are covertly designed to serve his purposes. If, on the other hand, morality is said to consist of an inner integrity arising from the illumination of the indwelling spark, then the Gnostic will embrace this spiritually informed existential ethic as ideal.
To the Gnostic, commandments and rules are not salvific; they are not substantially conducive to salvation. Rules of conduct may serve numerous ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. -gnosis.org
Of course it is not normative, as each society has different relative standards of what constitutes civilized. In some it is civilized that women should not be allowed to vote, for instance.
You are making up bullshit now and being completely incoherent. I never said or implied anything anywhere near any action having anything to do with any unrelated belief. If you are not claiming that belief necessitates action, then you have failed to refute my point that devotion to a religion is not necessary for the belief in its god. You really are keen on going around and around until you prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you have no clue.
You have yet to show how any of these are normative. Calling something good or bad does not make it normative, as descriptive moralities do the exact same thing. Can you not just google "gnostic morality" for yourself? You will find an overwhelming supply of exactly what I have been telling you.
1. how do you know?
2. what are the comparisons
3. is this because such a notion is closer to your personal preference?
jan.
you didn't answer my question as to what YOU believed.
All i said about gnostics, was that their ideas have a similarity to an idea that is common in the modern world, in some places prevalent, therefore they didn't lose everywhere. If you ACTUALLY disagree with the idea that gnostics have a similarity to a modern idea that is common, i.e. that "God sucks", please respond to that.
And if you disagree with the idea that confusion is prevalent, well, why not talk about that instead? I am perfectly happy to hear your disagreements and appreciate viewpoints that are valuable. Your viewpoint on "ad hoc" is just your way of ad hom. As is your "stick to smoking pot".
Nothing covers up the fact that when someone has something to say about a point, they address the point, not the personality.
I used two actual phrases from a dictionary definition of "ad hoc" to illustrate my usage. The phrases fit perfectly into what i was trying to say, but you insist that there is some better way of saying it, and a usage of "ad hoc" that is more perfect, instead of addressing my point. You insist that some impromptu USAGE of a religion is not possible, but rather that the religion must be created from scratch to qualify. If your point is that the phrasing isn't grand and poignant and perfect, and probably won't end up being on a list of great quotes, i don't disagree at all, but internet postings on a forum are usually not held up to such ideals. i appreciate your great expectations of me, but I prefer to let my forum posts exist warts and all. You shift the whole discussion away from the point, and then accuse me of "poisoning the well", when i respond to your ad homs. What a joke.
"stick to pot smoking" as opposed to what then? Are you going to say it wasn't an ad hom? really? What was the point of that statement if not an ad hom? Also if "reality tunnel" is something that makes one sound "juvenile and lackadaisical or glib" then you are indeed among the rarefied few.
do you ACTUALLY believe that people take action they don't "believe"? That is the difficulty of this question, that we would have to define what it means to "believe". Believe in the possibility of? Believe it worth doing? Like an elephant with a chain tied to a little stake in the ground, humans in general are at least as often controlled by our beliefs as not. Do you ACTUALLY disagree with that?
You mentioned that you can believe someone was elected without having voted for them. I am asking, does a person vote for someone they don't believe they can vote for? If so, then you have an action related to a belief, as opposed to an action related to one belief not affecting another, unrelated, belief. Unless the person thinks they are the only voter, they would be insane to think their action was consequential to a belief in who won.
here is some stuff on "normative"
So even if you used the secondary sociological meaning of normative, (i thought you were using the philosophical definition), you would have to show that the gnostic prescriptive statements were not used for the purpose of encouraging some social activity by which these people could in fact "get along" or be "civilized" (to use your word) according to their ideas. If you were in fact using the philosophical idea of normative, you would have to show that they attached no feelings of right or wrong, good or bad to any of the statements of valentinus, and the gospel of philip examples.
ALSO, "normative" is not an irrational word used to describe a one-world normalcy, it is a word used to describe social belief within groups, its value is not destroyed by relativism.
descriptive terms in philosophy would be a person who is, "standing up", or "sitting down", not someone who is doing something "wrong", that is normative. If valentinus says, "when you get together, there will be disagreements," that is not normative. If he says, "don't do x", that is normative. If he says, "if you are good, you won't do x", that is a clever way of being normative without telling the person directly what to do.
A very large majority do (~80%), and obviously church attendance has no significant bearing:
Belief in God or Universal Spirit(US)
Believes in God- absolutely certain
71%
Believes in God- fairly certain
17%
Believes in God- not too certain/ not at all certain/ unsure how certain
4%
Does not believe in God
5%
Don't know/ refused/ other
3%
-religions.pewforum.org
Frequency of Attendance at Religious Services(US)
At least once a week
39%
Once or twice a month/ few times a year
33%
Seldom or never
27%
Don't know/ refused
1%
-religions.pewforum.org
Believes in God- absolutely certain
71%
Believes in God- fairly certain
17%
Believes in God- not too certain/ not at all certain/ unsure how certain
4%
Does not believe in God
5%
Don't know/ refused/ other
3%
-religions.pewforum.org
Frequency of Attendance at Religious Services(US)
At least once a week
39%
Once or twice a month/ few times a year
33%
Seldom or never
27%
Don't know/ refused
1%
-religions.pewforum.org
Still waiting for any comparable and relevant statistics from you to support any of your claims. So far you have only offered red herrings and non sequiturs.
Wow, that is a far cry from your original statement:
"whoever was fighting the gnostics lost, because the idea that yahweh sucks is a pretty common one, and the idea that some undefined God is really in charge, and religion is confused, is pretty close to the standard position these days. -CG
It has taken you an inordinate amount of time to finally and fully admit to the host of qualifications and equivocations you completely omitted from your original claim. And you wonder why I find you intellectually dishonest.
| You originally claimed: | And are now saying: |
| Those "fighting the gnostics lost" | Gnostics "didn't lose everywhere" |
| These ideas are "pretty common" and "the standard position" | These ideas are "common" and "in some places prevalent" |
All of this only makes your initial claim completely pointless, as your new, reworded claim can be said of just about anything. For example, polar bears are common,in some places prevalent, and have not completely lost (extinct), even though they are an endangered species.
With all of your backpedaling and added qualifications, I now completely agree that, among some small minorities, gnostic ideas are common. http://tinyurl.com/2v42xqb If that was your entire point, it was not worth one hundredth the effort you put into defending it.
This has to be the most common complaint in response to having your cognitive bias pointed out. If you do not like it then quit evading and being overtly intellectually dishonest. You have hypocritically evaded many of my points in favor of poisoning the well, erecting straw man arguments, red herrings, etc..
As starkly noted above, apparently what you "try to say" and what you actually accomplish saying are very far from being the same thing. You have still completely failed to justify your previous claim that ad hoc meant "readily accessible" or "first at hand". Apparently it also takes you quite some time to get around to find the actual words you meant. I would suggest you take more time composing your posts to avoid all these needless justifications in the future.
And by now you should realize that it is wrong to accuse others of misreading what you obviously have trouble expressing in the first place. But I do not expect that to get through your confirmation bias.
First, why on earth would you use such an uncommon term (making such a big deal, as you do, about common usage) when you could easily use "perspective", or any of a number of common words for the same thing? That, as well as your touting the "eight-circuit model of consciousness", very much do make it sound as if you place stock in what Leary says, which typically indicates a person with some experience with drugs. If you do not wish such a natural perceived association then simply do not make one.
Hey, if you are a pot smoker, own it. If not, as you have said, you may want to be aware of how your words are perceived and act accordingly. But you should not really be affronted by my glib remark of "stick to pot smoking" in response to your glib "whatevs dude". If you seriously want to assume that it was a remark on your intelligence then you probably have some personal issues you should address.
If you honestly think Leary is so grand:
While they were returning from Mexico into the United States, marijuana was found in his daughter Susan's underwear. -wiki
Or does that sound like a mature adult to you? Go check out the rest of his legal troubles.
"Take action they don't believe"? That short-term memory failing you again? Your claim was that if there was belief there would be action to indicate it. Now you have nonsensically reversed that as another red herring. I only said that belief can exist without being expressed. I even gave you examples. You have yet to come back with anything relevant or even reasonable, including reversing causation.
But do you think you have to have some belief to breathe? If you claim belief always precedes action, a child could not breathe until cognizant enough, of what it means, to "believe". This is just another case of your nonsense equivocating justifications, ad infinitum.
Again, this is only your red herring straw man. It is obvious, and completely trivial, that people have some belief related to actions which indicate some cognitive decision. Your point? You have strayed completely off-topic, and for no discernible reason other than perhaps evasion or some misguided justification.
The point you seem to have forgotten is that a person's belief does not have to be expressed (remember your nonsense about church attendance being directly related to conception of god?). Now can you manage to address the actual point for once?
I am using the philosophical definition. You have yet to show any "gnostic prescriptive statements".
Descriptive ethics: What do people think is right?
Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act? -wiki
Where is "ought", "should", or any derivation thereof in the Gospel of Philip you gave as an example? If you could manage to read without your heavy confirmation bias, you would find that there are only descriptions of what people believe to be moral, without any prescriptive language. Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act? -wiki
Now you may confuse these as prescriptive:
"the free man does not sin"
"Above all, it is not proper to cause anyone distress"
"He who does good deeds cannot give comfort to such people, for he does not seize whatever he likes"
"These are permitted"
But nowhere do they say "should", only what people do and what they believe.
Just compare this:
But "Love builds up" (1 Co 8:1). In fact, he who is really free, through knowledge, is a slave, because of love for those who have not yet been able to attain to the freedom of knowledge. -Gospel of Philip
To this:1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. -1 Corinthians 8
Do you see where the Gnostic text refers to the Christian text, but excludes the prescriptive language? The gnostic text only makes declarative statements if what is, not what should be. Notice all of the "does", "is", and "are" without any "should", "ought", or "must".
Damn, I really should not have to educate someone you has claimed my understanding was lacking.
No, descriptive ethics still makes statements about existing morality, and hence cannot possibly avoid statements of "good" and "bad". Otherwise descriptive ethics would have absolutely nothing to do with morality at all. "Don't do x" is not necessarily prescriptive, depending on context. Must, should, commanded, or ought "not do x" is normative. The only cleverness is in your confirmation bias (you fooling yourself).
No doubt you will only continue to evade all the telling questions in this post.