Isn't time that Humanity was more important than any religion

[cole grey]

Believes in God- absolutely certain
71%
Believes in God- fairly certain
17%
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.

your statistics say that they believe in God, any God, or any version of any concept for which they use the word "god". It is far from a support for your complaint about my use of the word "sketchy" to describe many people's concept of God. You still didn't answer what you thought. Do YOU believe 80% of people have a well-defined and thorough concept of what God is? Please explain.

Wow, that is a far cry from your original statement...
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....
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.

my original idea was explained in the post IMMEDIATELY following my original statement - like literally the next thing i said - "I think there are many people who simply believe in a higher power, and christianity is the ad hoc religion for them. They are basically free to make their decisions on morality without agreeing with a particular biblical idea, so they share this gnostic quality. I am not saying they are actually gnostic, though, just pointing out that ideas can continue to fight for this war of the "mind", after physical or "political" war is over. " You could have addressed concerns with that in any number of ways that didn't involve being an ass. Just sayin'. i realize it is my fault too for taking the bait on your red herrings and straw men and ad homs.

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?

because "reality tunnel" is pretty self-explanatory. I don't worry that someone is going to be left behind when i say "flying machine" or "talking bird" either. It doesn't take a genius to get the idea from the phrase. It can be a purposefully derogatory description of a narrow perspective, but it could also just be taken as "that way people do things with their brains". It automatically applies itself the first way to those who can't understand it applies to everyone in the second way.

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.

i very much do place stock in that model, as i think it is a very useful model among other very useful models.

If you do not wish such a natural perceived association then simply do not make one.

an association is, "that leary thing". An ad hom is "stick to pot smoking. "Own" the difference.

Hey, if you are a pot smoker, own it.

really? still trying to go with that? haha.

If you seriously want to assume that it was a remark on your intelligence then you probably have some personal issues you should address.

I am not worried about my intelligence. i just think it is a dick thing to say, and an evasion and another "red herring straw man ad hom" from you. I just have to remember to ignore these things you say. I keep forgetting though.

If you honestly think Leary is so grand:

No. Leary is definitely not someone i have ever held as a personal hero. He was pretty f*d up, although there were obviously some pretty bright spots in his intellectual career.

 

[cole grey]

this is part 2 of my post and the other part is being moderated too long i guess.

"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.

i guess you forgot what i said. "here we would have to discuss, and decide, whether lack of practice of a principle is evidence of lack of belief in a principle to make any sense out of this. We could easily say that the practice demonstrates belief in the higher principle of "serve yourself", as being stronger than belief in any particular biblical principle." In response to you saying this "People believe things they are not fully devoted to all the time." In real life, as opposed to the syne's mind version of me, I expressed the reality that it is unclear that you were correct. I didn't even propose that you were certainly incorrect by saying we could easily propose the opposite view. Perhaps if i hadn't said we had to discuss and decide it, immediately preceding the statement that we could easily propose the opposite, you could have taken it the way you did.

Now you have nonsensically reversed that as another red herring. I only said that belief can exist without being expressed.

i never said there was no way someone could experience a "lack of devotion" such as you proposed. I merely said that there are different ways to look at this idea of belief and action, and that we should leave that aside for the sake of not turning this into what we turned it into.

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.

whoa, you mean to tell me you don't have to DO anything for an autonomic action to occur? That's amazing... oh yeah and also, i know that. Are you going to call my heart pumping an action? Weird. And I specifically would not say, and did not say, belief always follows action, not because of your weird autonomic example that doesn't make sense, but because there are actions one could take that couldn't really be tied any belief. There are quite a few actually pertinent examples to show your point, which is why i never said, "always", nor would I. I imagined you talking about sleepwalking, which is at least a step above breathing as an example. You disappointed me with that one. Anyway, this topic is a whole other discussion like i said a million times already.

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.

i am the one who said let's not talk about belief and action because it is off topic. I guess you forgot that. I like how we have escalated into double fallacies with the "red herring straw man". I think you provide "red herring straw man ad hom", so you have the triple fallacy going. haha.

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?).

i would be reasonable in saying that orthodox believers have a more settled and less "sketchy" idea of God. So unorthodox people who don't have a belief system reinforced every week, or even every month, do experience drift from orthodox ideology as other concepts are brought in and original concepts not reinforced. The orthodox traditions have a systematic pursuit of reinforcement of belief. And yes, going to a church on a normal basis has a direct relation to your understanding of God. You say this is "nonsense" so to you the average non-churchgoer has as strong and defined a concept as the person who goes to church twice a week???? That is the nonsense.

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​

Your assertion that we can winnow out this division in the case of original gnostic practice based on attacks and study of texts is not realistic. Like i said it is quite probable that some were of the belief that were only descriptive ethics, and others would believe that when someone says, "do x", they "should do x".

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.

The reason we even got to this was that i said Iranaeus may or may not be trusted as to what the original Gnostics did in practice.

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".

Normally, "do x" is a stronger prescriptive than "you should do x", or "you ought do x". Not as strong as "you must do x" admittedly, but stronger than the other two. sorry.

Damn, I really should not have to educate someone you has claimed my understanding was lacking.

straw. I said it seemed from your apparent level of understanding, that neither of us is an accomplished Gnostic scholar. I wouldn't expect you to be, and don't consider a lack of a master's thesis on the subject a "lack" in this situation. That was you who said that i shouldn't even discuss the subject due to a "lack", remember?

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).

"Speak concerning the truth to those who seek it and of knowledge to those who, in their error, have committed sin. Make sure-footed those who stumble and stretch forth your hands to the sick. Nourish the hungry and set at ease those who are troubled. Foster men who love. Raise up and awaken those who sleep. For you are this understanding which encourages. If the strong follow this course, they are even stronger. Turn your attention to yourselves. Do not be concerned with other things, namely, that which you have cast forth from yourselves, that which you have dismissed. Do not return to them to eat them. Do not be moth-eaten. Do not be worm-eaten, for you have already shaken it off. Do not be a place of the devil, for you have already destroyed him. Do not strengthen your last obstacles, because that is reprehensible. "
So there is the lack of an additional modifier to the words and phrases that begin with "do". If i tell someone, "do x", i have to say, "you must do x"?????? Or if i leave out "do" and just tell them what to do, it is not normative? So when i command the the dog by saying "go to bed", i should say "you must go to bed"??? I sure the heck am not going to tell anyone "you ought to do x", or "you should do x". That is how you tell people to do something when you are specifically trying not to command them to do something by saying "do x".

 

[wynn]

Nothing covers up the fact that when someone has something to say about a point, they address the point, not the personality.

Religion/spirituality is a topic where personal credentials may be of vital importance, hence addressing the personality is not automatically a fallacious ad personam.

 

[Syne]

Nothing covers up the fact that when someone has something to say about a point, they address the point, not the personality.

Religion/spirituality is a topic where personal credentials may be of vital importance, hence addressing the personality is not automatically a fallacious ad personam.

Good point, Wynn. And fallacious arguments do not necessarily make a person wrong, which is why I do not dismiss fallacious arguments altogether.

 

[Syne]

i guess you forgot what i said. "here we would have to discuss, and decide, whether lack of practice of a principle is evidence of lack of belief in a principle to make any sense out of this.

There is no discussion or decision necessary, as it is readily evident and demonstrable that belief can exist without necessitating action. Quit equivocating and just think for a moment. It is completely pointless, to this discussion as well as in general, to attempt to examine the lack of something as evidence for the lack of something else. If that were in the least bit valid, you could go around saying that the lack of unicorns is evidence for the lack of it raining today. There is just no way to demonstrably connect two absent things.

We could easily say that the practice demonstrates belief in the higher principle of "serve yourself", as being stronger than belief in any particular biblical principle." In response to you saying this "People believe things they are not fully devoted to all the time." In real life, as opposed to the syne's mind version of me, I expressed the reality that it is unclear that you were correct. I didn't even propose that you were certainly incorrect by saying we could easily propose the opposite view. Perhaps if i hadn't said we had to discuss and decide it, immediately preceding the statement that we could easily propose the opposite, you could have taken it the way you did.

You can "easily say" whatever nonsense you want, but that does not make it meaningful. We cannot "easily" propose the opposite view, for the reasons above, and you have yet to give me any reason whatsoever to do so, other than your bare assertion.

Now you have nonsensically reversed that as another red herring. I only said that belief can exist without being expressed.

i never said there was no way someone could experience a "lack of devotion" such as you proposed. I merely said that there are different ways to look at this idea of belief and action, and that we should leave that aside for the sake of not turning this into what we turned it into.

What a mess of non sequitur and vague justification. You have not shown ANYTHING contrary to the simple fact that belief can exist unexpressed. Put up or shut up. Quit evading supporting your own claims.

whoa, you mean to tell me you don't have to DO anything for an autonomic action to occur? That's amazing... oh yeah and also, i know that. Are you going to call my heart pumping an action? Weird. And I specifically would not say, and did not say, belief always follows action, not because of your weird autonomic example that doesn't make sense, but because there are actions one could take that couldn't really be tied any belief. There are quite a few actually pertinent examples to show your point, which is why i never said, "always", nor would I. I imagined you talking about sleepwalking, which is at least a step above breathing as an example. You disappointed me with that one. Anyway, this topic is a whole other discussion like i said a million times already.

Yes, as usual, you find something you think an easy target for an appeal to ridicule rather than engage the actual point. If you do not like that example then how about picking your nose? Do you have to have some certain belief about that to accomplish the action? Are you now equivocating "belief" as no more than an errant thought (much like you castrated your own point about things being common)? I did not say you said "belief always follows action" (straw man), I said you claimed that "belief always precedes action". See the difference? Can you read?

If some actions can be taken without any belief then what was your point? Just argumentative trolling? The only reason you keep claiming that things are "a whole other discussion" is to evade them. You are the one who keeps making these claims you apparently refuse to backup with even the barest of reasoning.

i am the one who said let's not talk about belief and action because it is off topic. I guess you forgot that. I like how we have escalated into double fallacies with the "red herring straw man". I think you provide "red herring straw man ad hom", so you have the triple fallacy going. haha.

YOU are the one who insisted on questioning the simple fact that you have just admitted to being true, i.e. that belief can exist without action. So it is YOU who insisted on discussing it, and YOU who keeps claiming it off-topic only because you do not seem to have any point at all. You are just determined to keep at it until you have nullified every argument you have made here.

i would be reasonable in saying that orthodox believers have a more settled and less "sketchy" idea of God. So unorthodox people who don't have a belief system reinforced every week, or even every month, do experience drift from orthodox ideology as other concepts are brought in and original concepts not reinforced. The orthodox traditions have a systematic pursuit of reinforcement of belief. And yes, going to a church on a normal basis has a direct relation to your understanding of God. You say this is "nonsense" so to you the average non-churchgoer has as strong and defined a concept as the person who goes to church twice a week???? That is the nonsense.

Prove it. I have already given you solid statistics refuting the idea that chruch attendance is necessary to a certainty in the concept of god. You have only been talking out of your ass. You make the false dilemma that ALL non-church-goers are "unorthodox" or require their concept to be reinforced. Just more empty bare assertions. Go back and look at the statistics again. It is call "attentional bias" when someone's bias prevents them from examining information in conflict with their existing ideas.

Your assertion that we can winnow out this division in the case of original gnostic practice based on attacks and study of texts is not realistic. Like i said it is quite probable that some were of the belief that were only descriptive ethics, and others would believe that when someone says, "do x", they "should do x".
The reason we even got to this was that i said Iranaeus may or may not be trusted as to what the original Gnostics did in practice.

More completely unsupported, and unsupportable, bare assertions. No, the reason we got into this is because you ignore EVERY reference on gnostic morality (even those of gnostics themselves) in favor of whatever is rambling around in your head.

Normally, "do x" is a stronger prescriptive than "you should do x", or "you ought do x". Not as strong as "you must do x" admittedly, but stronger than the other two. sorry.

More unsupported bare assertions. Are you going to make any actual arguments at all? You know, arguments that are substantial enough to warrant being refuted. You just continue to equivocate to justify your lack of argument.

"Speak concerning the truth to those who seek it and of knowledge to those who, in their error, have committed sin. Make sure-footed those who stumble and stretch forth your hands to the sick. Nourish the hungry and set at ease those who are troubled. Foster men who love. Raise up and awaken those who sleep. For you are this understanding which encourages. If the strong follow this course, they are even stronger. Turn your attention to yourselves. Do not be concerned with other things, namely, that which you have cast forth from yourselves, that which you have dismissed. Do not return to them to eat them. Do not be moth-eaten. Do not be worm-eaten, for you have already shaken it off. Do not be a place of the devil, for you have already destroyed him. Do not strengthen your last obstacles, because that is reprehensible. "
So there is the lack of an additional modifier to the words and phrases that begin with "do". If i tell someone, "do x", i have to say, "you must do x"?????? Or if i leave out "do" and just tell them what to do, it is not normative? So when i command the the dog by saying "go to bed", i should say "you must go to bed"??? I sure the heck am not going to tell anyone "you ought to do x", or "you should do x". That is how you tell people to do something when you are specifically trying not to command them to do something by saying "do x".

So how is that prescriptive rather than just advisory? "For by the fruits one knows the things that are yours" You evaded this before, and no doubt will do so again. You are inferring things that can only be determined by verbal inflection. If a person says they are tired and you say "go to bed", you are not commanding them, but only suggesting. Nice red herring about a dog though. You tell a dog, "go to bed" because it is always prescriptive for a dog, but a human would require more to imply a normative command. That is why humans have such words as "should", so inflection devoid in written word can be expressed.

 

[cole grey]

I said you claimed that "belief always precedes action". See the difference? Can you read?

can you read? I never said "always" specifically because i know there are many times when a belief is unnecessary. Then i showed you what i said, and it didn't claim "always". And YET you still aren't going to admit that i didn't claim what you said i claimed?????
Anyway, belief in bridge functionality is however, a normal test for the action of going across a bridge. Is pointing out that i can take a baby across a bridge without their belief useful here? no. Breathing? no. address the point. This is precisely why this argument is stupid - neither one of us is claiming something that isn't true. You say "belief doesn't always precede action" which has nothing to do with what i said, and i already know, hence my intentional omission of any claim of "always". You said, "People believe things they are not fully devoted to all the time." I said, rather than looking at it this way we could "easily" say one belief can be said to supersede another belief. The fact that you are having a problem with such a simple idea is because you have a bias against me, and don't accept that what i said is basic common knowledge, i.e. that there are multiple ways to look at the idea of action and belief. The fact that you can't accept that there are multiple ways to look at that, once again, shows how thick the walls of your reality tunnel are.

Prove it. I have already given you solid statistics refuting the idea that chruch attendance is necessary to a certainty in the concept of god.

your poll posting talks of people who believe in "god". Until we can distill which concepts of God have deist and pantheist ideas, and other various ideas, included within them, the poll isn't addressing the question. The poll does not address the fact that people use the word "God" for various "sketchy" concepts, along with the more solid ones. Your original poll merely separates out the people who don't use the word "God" to describe a universal spirit or any other concept they may have. Those people may believe God is an alien that put us on earth as an experiment, and they will still say they believe in "God". There are plenty of people who use the word "God" to describe a universal spirit. People even use the word "god" to describe the collective unconscious. I just saw a (bad) documentary, where people were interviewed on the street and they had a ton of people saying "i'm God", and "god is all of us". The fact that people use the word "god" to describe all types of concepts of God only goes to show how unusable your evidence is in this case.

So how is that prescriptive rather than just advisory? "For by the fruits one knows the things that are yours" You evaded this before, and no doubt will do so again. You are inferring things that can only be determined by verbal inflection.

my point all along has been that there are different ways these texts could be practically applied. This is a concept you seem to have difficulty with, since you still insist that Gnostics have no prescriptive ideas or normative statements. i merely said, the Gnostics may have had practical application other than Iranaeus suggests, and that they probably had some adherents who used these texts as more than a rulebook for people who don't have any rules.
Also, you didn't respond to my point that "you should do x" is commonly understood as less commanding than "do x" with anything beyond an assertion that that was incorrect. You can't explain why because there isn't a reasonable explanation why, otherwise please explain. Although the idea that "must do" is more commanding than "do" is true, the idea that phrases are not prescriptive because they leave out "should", or "ought", is not sensible.

 

[Syne]

Believes in God- absolutely certain
71%
Believes in God- fairly certain
17%

your statistics say that they believe in God, any God, or any version of any concept for which they use the word "god". It is far from a support for your complaint about my use of the word "sketchy" to describe many people's concept of God. You still didn't answer what you thought. Do YOU believe 80% of people have a well-defined and thorough concept of what God is? Please explain.

And? It does not matter what version. Just because one person's concept of god does not match that of another does not make it any less certain to that individual. You are making a false dilemma that it should based solely on a hasty generalization of all concepts of god. Just because all concepts of god, taken collectively, may be said to be "sketchy" in their variance with one another does not mean they are individually "sketchy".

Now I suppose you will say you were only ever talking about the collective concept, but "the idea that some undefined God is really in charge" is only held by those who have a single concept of god. So you seem to have once again made your initial statement completely pointless.

The above statistics speak for themselves as to how people view their own concept of god. I can only accept what can only be learned by self-report. It is not open to my opinion, but apparently it is open to your confirmation bias.

my original idea was explained in the post IMMEDIATELY following my original statement - like literally the next thing i said - "I think there are many people who simply believe in a higher power, and christianity is the ad hoc religion for them. They are basically free to make their decisions on morality without agreeing with a particular biblical idea, so they share this gnostic quality. I am not saying they are actually gnostic, though, just pointing out that ideas can continue to fight for this war of the "mind", after physical or "political" war is over. " You could have addressed concerns with that in any number of ways that didn't involve being an ass. Just sayin'. i realize it is my fault too for taking the bait on your red herrings and straw men and ad homs.

Again, since you have qualified you original statement into complete triviality and insignificance, it no longer matters. Apparently it is being an "ass" to call you on statements you had to add all sorts of qualifiers to for your meaning to be the least bit clear. And you have not show a single red herring or intentional straw man on my part, so your fault cannot be so justified (except to yourself, but that is what cognitive bias is all about).

because "reality tunnel" is pretty self-explanatory. I don't worry that someone is going to be left behind when i say "flying machine" or "talking bird" either. It doesn't take a genius to get the idea from the phrase. It can be a purposefully derogatory description of a narrow perspective, but it could also just be taken as "that way people do things with their brains". It automatically applies itself the first way to those who can't understand it applies to everyone in the second way.

Yes, I know it is an uncommon phrase which requires you to make all sorts of justifications for using it. Apparently where common usage is concerned you also have a serious double standard.

an association is, "that leary thing". An ad hom is "stick to pot smoking. "Own" the difference.

No, you are mentally deficient if you cannot see an obvious association with the most well-known psychedelic drug use advocate and drug use.

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.

really? still trying to go with that? haha.

Really? Dishonest, quote-mining troll. Here, I added (bolded) what you intentionally left out solely to make a lying appeal to ridicule.

I am not worried about my intelligence.

All evidence to the contrary.

can you read? I never said "always" specifically because i know there are many times when a belief is unnecessary. Then i showed you what i said, and it didn't claim "always". And YET you still aren't going to admit that i didn't claim what you said i claimed?????

No, you did not say "always", but without it your statement is completely pointless. If you prefer that, so be it. I just assumed you had some point. I guess not.

Anyway, belief in bridge functionality is however, a normal test for the action of going across a bridge. Is pointing out that i can take a baby across a bridge without their belief useful here? no. Breathing? no. address the point.

What point? Do children or the mentally handicapped have to know ANYTHING about bridges to cross them? No.

This is precisely why this argument is stupid - neither one of us is claiming something that isn't true. You say "belief doesn't always precede action" which has nothing to do with what i said, and i already know, hence my intentional omission of any claim of "always". You said, "People believe things they are not fully devoted to all the time." I said, rather than looking at it this way we could "easily" say one belief can be said to supersede another belief. The fact that you are having a problem with such a simple idea is because you have a bias against me, and don't accept that what i said is basic common knowledge, i.e. that there are multiple ways to look at the idea of action and belief. The fact that you can't accept that there are multiple ways to look at that, once again, shows how thick the walls of your reality tunnel are.

Like I said, since you admit that belief does not necessitate expression, you apparently had no point to begin with. Sorry for overestimating you. Seems you are all about empty argumentative trolling.

your poll posting talks of people who believe in "god". Until we can distill which concepts of God have deist and pantheist ideas, and other various ideas, included within them, the poll isn't addressing the question. The poll does not address the fact that people use the word "God" for various "sketchy" concepts, along with the more solid ones. Your original poll merely separates out the people who don't use the word "God" to describe a universal spirit or any other concept they may have. Those people may believe God is an alien that put us on earth as an experiment, and they will still say they believe in "God". There are plenty of people who use the word "God" to describe a universal spirit. People even use the word "god" to describe the collective unconscious. I just saw a (bad) documentary, where people were interviewed on the street and they had a ton of people saying "i'm God", and "god is all of us". The fact that people use the word "god" to describe all types of concepts of God only goes to show how unusable your evidence is in this case.

No, as addressed above, just because there are a variety of concepts does not make each individual concept "sketchy". Belief in god is not about conformity to one particular notion, it is a highly subjective and individual certainty. This is all a very sad red herring which only proves you, once again, had no point at all. Again, only extremely trivial facts masquerading as intelligence.

my point all along has been that there are different ways these texts could be practically applied. This is a concept you seem to have difficulty with, since you still insist that Gnostics have no prescriptive ideas or normative statements. i merely said, the Gnostics may have had practical application other than Iranaeus suggests, and that they probably had some adherents who used these texts as more than a rulebook for people who don't have any rules.

All completely unsupportable supposition. That is no argument at all.

Also, you didn't respond to my point that "you should do x" is commonly understood as less commanding than "do x" with anything beyond an assertion that that was incorrect. You can't explain why because there isn't a reasonable explanation why, otherwise please explain. Although the idea that "must do" is more commanding than "do" is true, the idea that phrases are not prescriptive because they leave out "should", or "ought", is not sensible.

"Do" is simply not a prescriptive word. Find me one definition that claims it is. It is completely dependent on context, and must be given authoritative value to be a command. Quit with all the vague, arm-waving generalities already. If you have a specific text you wish to examine, do so.

 

[cole grey]

And? It does not matter what version. Just because one person's concept of god does not match that of another does not make it any less certain to that individual. You are making a false dilemma that it should based solely on a hasty generalization of all concepts of god. Just because all concepts of god, taken collectively, may be said to be "sketchy" in their variance with one another does not mean they are individually "sketchy".
Now I suppose you will say you were only ever talking about the collective concept, but "the idea that some undefined God is really in charge" is only held by those who have a single concept of god. So you seem to have once again made your initial statement completely pointless.

unless the person defines thoroughly the God they believe in, they have a viewpoint which is "sketchy". (sketch�y/ˈskeCHē/Adjective: Not thorough or detailed.) I personally don't attach any positive or negative connotation to that BTW. A person with a 'sketchy" concept may have a better concept because it is free from some illogical idea, or the person with a strong concept may in fact be closer to the truth. It is not up to me to judge whether "sketchy" is a good or bad thing, but the dictionary tells me i can certainly use that word to describe any viewpoint which is not thorough, or any viewpoint which is not detailed. You keep implying that the 80% applies to people who have a concept of God that is thorough and detailed, apparently, otherwise you wouldn't protest the use of the word "sketchy". Also, i am not sure why you would say that things people disagree about are sketchy, "taken collectively". If you mean "sketchy" as it is often used in slang to mean untrustworthy, or not worth assurance over, then perhaps you would have a point, but I meant the normal definition. That is why i wrote this a long while back... "your idea of sketchy and my idea of sketchy may be different," so i wouldn't have to argue with you over this ridiculous assertion that i shouldn't use the word sketchy for concepts that are not thorough, or concepts that are not detailed.

The above statistics speak for themselves as to how people view their own concept of god. I can only accept what can only be learned by self-report. It is not open to my opinion, but apparently it is open to your confirmation bias.

the polls posted most certainly do not answer the question, "do you have a concept of God which is thorough and/or detailed, or do you have one that is not?" So the statistics say nothing to that, other than pointing out, as i mentioned already, the difference between people who use the word God and people who use the phrase "universal spirit", because they don't like to use the term "God".

Again, since you have qualified you original statement into complete triviality and insignificance, it no longer matters. Apparently it is being an "ass" to call you on statements you had to add all sorts of qualifiers to for your meaning to be the least bit clear. And you have not show a single red herring or intentional straw man on my part, so your fault cannot be so justified (except to yourself, but that is what cognitive bias is all about).

no, i called it "being an ass" because you didn't just ask me to clarify or disagree with the points, because you have to pepper add hom into most everything.

Really? Dishonest, quote-mining troll. Here, I added (bolded) what you intentionally left out solely to make a lying appeal to ridicule.

the fact that you were bringing it up again was my point. And you did bring it up again. I am really not concerned with your ideas on expression style on the internet, mostly because I think your style sucks. Although I admit there are posts where you don't use that shitty, ad hom peppering, attacking, misinterpreting, accusatory style, and those posts i do actually appreciate the style of. Whatever.

What point?

i already said this part of the conversation is just a waste of time. Trying to define action's relationship to belief is arguable from both, eithe, and other perspectives tan, the ones we have been arguing.

Do children or the mentally handicapped have to know ANYTHING about bridges to cross them? No.

even a dog gets a sense of whether a piece of wood is stable or not before it gets onto it, so that your statement is just another semantic, which is what the action/belief argument is going to be here, because neither of us is willing to actually solidify the terms for this little aside. It would take a new thread, and i really am not that interested in showing the exact relation belief has to action.
---

No, as addressed above, just because there are a variety of concepts does not make each individual concept "sketchy".

straw

Belief in god is not about conformity to one particular notion, it is a highly subjective and individual certainty.

straw

5 ad hom
6 adhom

variety has nothing to do with the definition of "sketchy" i was using, so all that you just said was an argument, that you are having, yet again, with your syne version of what i said.

All completely unsupportable supposition. That is no argument at all.

supported by the gnostic texts, as explained.

"Do" is simply not a prescriptive word. Find me one definition that claims it is. It is completely dependent on context, and must be given authoritative value to be a command. Quit with all the vague, arm-waving generalities already. If you have a specific text you wish to examine, do so.

bored with this now. Ask any person, whose native language is english, what it means if i tell someone to do something. "do X" is a command in english, often requiring modifiers even for basic POLITENESS. "will you do x?" "can you do x?" "PLEASE do x" "try to do x" "if you can, do x". If "do" was not a command, we wouldn't need all the modifiers. it's semantics time again. Whatever, it is just an english usage everyone from pre-school and up understands. The fact that you are not keyed into the politeness modifiers required for "do", is no surprise to me though, based on your apparent desire to be impolite.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river

lightgigantic

1. we are no better of with any god concept

2. they all put Humanity on the lower rung of what comes first , god first Humanity second

3. the only religion that doesn't is Gnostic

1. how do you know?

2. what are the comparisons

3. is this because such a notion is closer to your personal preference?

jan.

1. because of where we are at in this world , there have been more deaths because of religion than for any other reason , in history , think middle east as well in the modern world

2. what are what comparisons ? don't quite get this question

explain further

3. Gnostic is not a personal preference , per-say , I just happened to come across some knowledge about the Gnostic philosophy , which I like

it is far more Humanity based then any of the Abrahamic based religions

as well there is no apocalyptic prophecy in the Gnostic philosophy

 

[Syne]

unless the person defines thoroughly the God they believe in, they have a viewpoint which is "sketchy". (sketch�y/ˈskeCHē/Adjective: Not thorough or detailed.) ... the dictionary tells me i can certainly use that word to describe any viewpoint which is not thorough, or any viewpoint which is not detailed. You keep implying that the 80% applies to people who have a concept of God that is thorough and detailed, apparently, otherwise you wouldn't protest the use of the word "sketchy".

What is not detailed about all of the very well defined characteristics of a god? You can look each up in a dictionary for yourself. Are you erroneously applying a scientific criteria well beyond its domain of applicability? What would amount to "thorough and detailed" to you? Oh yeah, church attendance, which is a non sequitur you have yet to support in any way.

Also, i am not sure why you would say that things people disagree about are sketchy, "taken collectively".

Because "debatable" is a synonym for "sketchy". The concepts of many different people can be debatable while each individual concept is certain. Actually, there is no real debate without some sense of certainty worth argument.

the polls posted most certainly do not answer the question, "do you have a concept of God which is thorough and/or detailed, or do you have one that is not?" So the statistics say nothing to that, other than pointing out, as i mentioned already, the difference between people who use the word God and people who use the phrase "universal spirit", because they don't like to use the term "God".

If something is not thoroughly defined then it necessarily has some uncertain qualities. This directly contradicts the certainty expressed in the poll. You do not seem to get that this is subjective and only the individual's own criteria has any bearing. If they do not find their own concept of a god to be questionable then it cannot be sketchy. And yes, the poll does address your question.

no, i called it "being an ass" because you didn't just ask me to clarify or disagree with the points, because you have to pepper add hom into most everything.

Yes, because I am psychic and can decipher what you have taken pages to get around to explaining. And most of what you call ad homs are readily demonstrable as true. Just try me.

Really? Dishonest, quote-mining troll. Here, I added (bolded) what you intentionally left out solely to make a lying appeal to ridicule.

the fact that you were bringing it up again was my point. And you did bring it up again. I am really not concerned with your ideas on expression style on the internet, mostly because I think your style sucks. Although I admit there are posts where you don't use that shitty, ad hom peppering, attacking, misinterpreting, accusatory style, and those posts i do actually appreciate the style of. Whatever.

Just like everything else, you have no point. Just more intellectually dishonest justification.

i already said this part of the conversation is just a waste of time. Trying to define action's relationship to belief is arguable from both, eithe, and other perspectives tan, the ones we have been arguing.

Then why are you asking me to address a point you have not made?

Do children or the mentally handicapped have to know ANYTHING about bridges to cross them? No.

even a dog gets a sense of whether a piece of wood is stable or not before it gets onto it, so that your statement is just another semantic, which is what the action/belief argument is going to be here, because neither of us is willing to actually solidify the terms for this little aside. It would take a new thread, and i really am not that interested in showing the exact relation belief has to action.

No, a dog has no clue as to whether something is stable until it physically tests it. I suppose you are going to argue that dogs have higher cognitive skills than anything in evidence. No belief required, but thanks for verifying that you have equivocated yet another of your arguments into complete pointlessness. So you are saying that children and the mentally handicapped innately know stuff about bridges?

You do not have a clue, which is why you incessantly evade.

supported by the gnostic texts, as explained.

Where?

bored with this now. Ask any person, whose native language is english, what it means if i tell someone to do something. "do X" is a command in english, often requiring modifiers even for basic POLITENESS. "will you do x?" "can you do x?" "PLEASE do x" "try to do x" "if you can, do x". If "do" was not a command, we wouldn't need all the modifiers. it's semantics time again. Whatever, it is just an english usage everyone from pre-school and up understands. The fact that you are not keyed into the politeness modifiers required for "do", is no surprise to me though, based on your apparent desire to be impolite.

You have that backwards. The command phrasing typically uses a more specific verb than "do", as in YOUR contextual example, i.e. ""go to bed" and "you must go to bed". Actually, the only common usages of "do" with another verb (x) are in questions, negating the verb, for positive emphasis, or persuasion. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/do It is only used for emphasis in an imperative. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/do

You are using your vague, generalized "do x" to obscure these facts. Try making that same point using actual examples. Your "do x" evades the fact that the command value is always in the other verb, not "do".

 

[Syne]

1. because of where we are at in this world , there have been more deaths because of religion than for any other reason , in history , think middle east as well in the modern world

You have yet to show where wars justified with religion are devoid of the reasons every other war has been fought, i.e. power. You cannot say there have been more deaths due to religion without doing so. Even just assuming "religious" wars have also been motivated by power, wars over power, including secular ones, are far more prevalent.

 

[kx000]

Considering Faith a man, Wish his bride, how does one not Faith 'God?'

What the hell are you guys talking about? Atheist, Nihilist.

 

[wynn]

You have yet to show where wars justified with religion are devoid of the reasons every other war has been fought, i.e. power. You cannot say there have been more deaths due to religion without doing so. Even just assuming "religious" wars have also been motivated by power, wars over power, including secular ones, are far more prevalent.

But why wouldn't religion be about power?

Whence the idea that religion has nothing to do with power, ownership of land and other resources, ownership of people?

 

[Syne]

But why wouldn't religion be about power?

Whence the idea that religion has nothing to do with power, ownership of land and other resources, ownership of people?

Anything, including religion, can be used to control people. Just like sex sells, people can be convinced that almost anything is a solution to some problem they have. That does not mean that religion is about power any more than sex is about hamburgers. It takes the power-seeking to warp these things into tools for their purposes.

 

[kx000]

But why wouldn't religion be about power?

Whence the idea that religion has nothing to do with power, ownership of land and other resources, ownership of people?

Religion to me is singing and dancing with all my friends, and family. As far as God goes power is certainly over religion. God is all about real world. What gets it; Power, or Religion?

 

[wynn]

Anything, including religion, can be used to control people. Just like sex sells, people can be convinced that almost anything is a solution to some problem they have. That does not mean that religion is about power any more than sex is about hamburgers. It takes the power-seeking to warp these things into tools for their purposes.

It's not politically correct to connect ideas of religion with ideas of power and power-seeking. But it may be just that and nothing more: politically incorrect, but not necessarily false.

Having power and seeking power, in a variety forms, seem perfectly natural for humans, and they don't seem to be automatically bad or wrong either.
Often, we appreciate power and are expected to seek it and have it.

For example, a driver is expected to have power over his vehicle; a dentist is expected to have power over his drill; a commanding officer is supposed to have power over his subordinates.
Wielding power is the only way we can go about life.


The only problems with power and power-seeking appear when power and power-seeking seem unfair or excessive in some way.

 

[cole grey]

What is not detailed about all of the very well defined characteristics of a god? You can look each up in a dictionary for yourself. Are you erroneously applying a scientific criteria well beyond its domain of applicability? What would amount to "thorough and detailed" to you? Oh yeah, church attendance, which is a non sequitur you have yet to support in any way.

I have seen and heard a hundred descriptions of God, from people in a church, out of a church, never been to church, etc. and they all use the word God. People who go to church all the time seem to have very detailed and thorough descriptions of God however. Another interesting thing about the gallup polling is -

Do you believe in God?
2011 May 5-8 ^ 92
Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?
2011 May 5-8 ^91

Basically the same number, so even people who have a belief as undefined as universal spirit, use the word "God", if they don't have the other option. There is no reason to assume that everyone who uses the word God has a thorough or detailed concept, just because they don't like to call their concept "universal spirit", even when they are the type of people who say ,"I am god" or "the collective unconscious is god", or "nature is god", or "aliens are god".

If something is not thoroughly defined then it necessarily has some uncertain qualities.

this is not reasonable. I can have an idea that God is certainly not anything I can thoroughly describe, and still be quite certain God exists. So no, the poll does not answer the question of how defined the person's "god" is. But, just for clarification, you are saying that your belief is that 80% of the people, have a thorough and detailed concept of God? if so i am willing to just say i disagree and let this go, for the sake of moving on with our lives. Seems like there isn't anything i will accept from you you or you from me on this.

No, a dog has no clue as to whether something is stable until it physically tests it. No belief required,

the necessary belief is created when the dog tests it. That should be obvious enough. Now we can veer off into instinct vs consciousness for animals. No thanks.

So you are saying that children and the mentally handicapped innately know stuff about bridges?

No. You also don't need a belief if the road goes over the bridge in the dark, and also a person could have the wrong belief as well, confusing the matter even further. Just like i said it would, this subject has veered off into obscurity.

Where?

in my previous points about the gospel of philip and especially valentinus. Your protest that gnostics have no normative statement is not accepted, although i do accept that there were probably some gnostics who had none. But i feel unless you are going to bring something from the gnostics to the table, it is time to let this go.

You have that backwards. The command phrasing typically uses a more specific verb than "do", as in YOUR contextual example, i.e. ""go to bed" and "you must go to bed". Actually, the only common usages of "do" with another verb (x) are in questions, negating the verb, for positive emphasis, or persuasion. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/do It is only used for emphasis in an imperative. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/do
You are using your vague, generalized "do x" to obscure these facts. Try making that same point using actual examples. Your "do x" evades the fact that the command value is always in the other verb, not "do".

First of all, your use of "must " has already been addressed, and is not applicable. I am sure on a scale of 1 to 10 gnostics were LESS prescriptive than totalitarian religious empire. Also, really? now you are going to say that because we don't say "do", that every demand i make is somehow not prescriptive???? Your point does not address my point at all. I can say "go to bed", "water the lawn", "help your neighbor", and these things are either commands or requests. I thought you would understand that the actual phrase "do x" was not a requirement for the principle to apply. Everything i said about "do" can be applied to "go", "water", or "help" in those other cases.

 

[Syne]

I have seen and heard a hundred descriptions of God, from people in a church, out of a church, never been to church, etc. and they all use the word God. People who go to church all the time seem to have very detailed and thorough descriptions of God however.

Again, you are resorting to generalizing ALL concepts of god, even though you have already said:

Also, i am not sure why you would say that things people disagree about are sketchy, "taken collectively". -CG​

Here you are directly using the differences between individual concepts to justify calling all of them "sketchy". Also, your two statements above (bolded) are contradictory. If you claim church goers have a thorough concept, you cannot then use that to define a collection of "sketchy" concepts. Make up your mind what argument you want to make already.

Although you have still yet to show ANY direct correlation between church attendance and certainty in a concept of god, where I have provided statistics that refute such a correlation.

Another interesting thing about the gallup polling is -

Do you believe in God?
2011 May 5-8 ^ 92
Do you believe in God or a universal spirit?
2011 May 5-8 ^91​

Basically the same number, so even people who have a belief as undefined as universal spirit, use the word "God", if they don't have the other option. There is no reason to assume that everyone who uses the word God has a thorough or detailed concept, just because they don't like to call their concept "universal spirit", even when they are the type of people who say ,"I am god" or "the collective unconscious is god", or "nature is god", or "aliens are god".

Explained in the statistics I have already provided:

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​

71+17+4 = 92
Imagine that. Are you ever going to provide ANYTHING that supports your claims, or just keep talking out of your ass?
17-21% accounts for all "sketchy" concepts.

If something is not thoroughly defined then it necessarily has some uncertain qualities.

this is not reasonable.

Oh, I am quite sure it is not reasonable to you, but it is necessarily so. You can try to say it does not apply, but you cannot refute that it is true.

I can have an idea that God is certainly not anything I can thoroughly describe, and still be quite certain God exists. So no, the poll does not answer the question of how defined the person's "god" is. But, just for clarification, you are saying that your belief is that 80% of the people, have a thorough and detailed concept of God?

Sure, but just because you can does not mean a majority do. I can provide you with precise definitions of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, etc., as well as theological arguments explaining any claim of paradox raised. You are simply saying that you could be within the 17-21% of "sketchy" concepts. That does absolutely nothing to refute the 71-88% (depending on how critically you wish to judge certainty) self-reported certainty.

This is the same sort of empty argument you have been making this whole time. No substance at all.

No, a dog has no clue as to whether something is stable until it physically tests it. No belief required,

the necessary belief is created when the dog tests it. That should be obvious enough.

Even if so, that only claims that belief follows action, not that action follows belief. So what is your point? I never argued that belief could not follow action, only that belief does not necessitate action (which you have already agreed with). Quit arguing your own straw men already.

So you are saying that children and the mentally handicapped innately know stuff about bridges?

No. You also don't need a belief if the road goes over the bridge in the dark, and also a person could have the wrong belief as well, confusing the matter even further. Just like i said it would, this subject has veered off into obscurity.

Only because you make so many completely pointless arguments which you have no apparent intent to ever support with anything at all.

supported by the gnostic texts, as explained.

Where?

in my previous points about the gospel of philip and especially valentinus. Your protest that gnostics have no normative statement is not accepted, although i do accept that there were probably some gnostics who had none. But i feel unless you are going to bring something from the gnostics to the table, it is time to let this go.

I am not about to go over every use of "do" in the entire Gospel of Truth for you. So if you are too much of a troll to make a single actual argument, and only attempt to shift the burden of your own claims, ad infinitum, then you only illustrate the utter pointlessness of your empty, argumentative trolling. You can deny all you like, but bare assertions have no persuasive weight.

So far, I have been the only one of us to address ANY specific examples from the gnostic text. You have only quoted it and made empty proclamations.

You have that backwards. The command phrasing typically uses a more specific verb than "do", as in YOUR contextual example, i.e. ""go to bed" and "you must go to bed". Actually, the only common usages of "do" with another verb (x) are in questions, negating the verb, for positive emphasis, or persuasion. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/d...ary/british/do It is only used for emphasis in an imperative. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/do
You are using your vague, generalized "do x" to obscure these facts. Try making that same point using actual examples. Your "do x" evades the fact that the command value is always in the other verb, not "do".

First of all, your use of "must " has already been addressed, and is not applicable. I am sure on a scale of 1 to 10 gnostics were LESS prescriptive than totalitarian religious empire.

First, that was YOUR use of "must". I was only quoting your own examples.

Also, really? now you are going to say that because we don't say "do", that every demand i make is somehow not prescriptive???? Your point does not address my point at all.

Of course not, as this is just another of your endless straw man arguments. I NEVER said the absence of "do" makes anything less prescriptive. You should SERIOUSLY work on that reading comprehension and/or intellectual dishonesty. I actually said that the absence of "do" is likely MORE prescriptive, which refutes your naively generalized "do x" argument.

I can say "go to bed", "water the lawn", "help your neighbor", and these things are either commands or requests. I thought you would understand that the actual phrase "do x" was not a requirement for the principle to apply. Everything i said about "do" can be applied to "go", "water", or "help" in those other cases.

Again, it takes you forever to get around to fully qualifying anything you say, and thereby making it completely trivial and pointless. I have already said that a prescriptive statement requires some emphasis, whether by inflection or words such as "should", "ought", etc..


We are pretty much done here. I have consistently shown that your arguments are largely trivial and pointless, and you have done nothing to support any of them. There are hardly any substantial arguments left to bother with, and those that are you consistently evade.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river

1. because of where we are at in this world , there have been more deaths because of religion than for any other reason , in history , think middle east as well in the modern world

You have yet to show where wars justified with religion are devoid of the reasons every other war has been fought, i.e. power. You cannot say there have been more deaths due to religion without doing so. Even just assuming "religious" wars have also been motivated by power, wars over power, including secular ones, are far more prevalent.

all religious wars were conducted by the thinking that they were closer to god than the other , crusades for example were fought to take the Holy Land from the Muslims

this and other religious wars were more about being closer to god , not about power

because once won by either side what power would they have really ? to do what , really , other than to claim ownership of the holy land

so for me power was not really a factor in these wars but rather the prestige of owning or being in control of the holy land

 

[cole grey]

Again, you are resorting to generalizing ALL concepts of god, even though you have already said:

Also, i am not sure why you would say that things people disagree about are sketchy, "taken collectively". -CG​

Here you are directly using the differences between individual concepts to justify calling all of them "sketchy".

dude. i asked you what you meant. What type of usage you implied that was different from how i was applying it. I wasn't passing judgement on your phrasings and grammar, because i am not rarefied like some people seem to be. Don't use my question to you as some sort of proclamation i made. The fact that there are a hundred versions, doesn't make them sketchy, the lack of thoroughness and detail makes them sketchy to me. Also conceptions that have internal contradictions can also be called sketchy.

Also, your two statements above (bolded) are contradictory.

they don't contradict at all. Did i say those people i talked to in church, are people who "go all the time"? No.

If you claim church goers have a thorough concept, you cannot then use that to define a collection of "sketchy" concepts.

people that go all the time tend to have much more solid ideas of the details of God, yes or no? do you believe weekly and daily church goers have a more thoroughly defined concept of God or not?

Sure, but just because you can does not mean a majority do. I can provide you with precise definitions of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, etc., as well as theological arguments explaining any claim of paradox raised. You are simply saying that you could be within the 17-21% of "sketchy" concepts. That does absolutely nothing to refute the 71-88% (depending on how critically you wish to judge certainty) self-reported certainty.

Unless there is a poll which shows how many believe "god" is an alien civilization, nature, themselves, the best in all of us, the collective unconscious, the christian god loosely defined, or the christian God thoroughly defined, in detail, your denial of my point is empty. As I said, I am calling many conceptions of God, "sketchy", even among christians, and the fact that many have a "sketchy" concept may be a good or bad thing, i don't know. All of this stems from your denial of the fact that we may be applying the words "thoroughly" and "detailed", differenty, just like i said a long time back in this thread.
--

as to belief and action - As i predicted, this is not going anywhere. Nothing useful is being done talking about it.
--

So far, I have been the only one of us to address ANY specific examples from the gnostic text. You have only quoted it and made empty proclamations.

i quoted the multiple examples as addressing my point, i.e. that instructions were given. It is reasonable to assume that humans would, in practice, use the instructions as rules and methods, just as zen monks sit in certain postures and do certain things, although the point for Zen seems to be to go beyond categories.

First, that was YOUR use of "must". I was only quoting your own examples.

i already pointed out that "must" is clearly more imperative, so as to put it aside, because all prescriptives clearly do not need "must". You brought "must " in again. I asked for "must" to be left aside again, because it is confusing the discussion.

I have already said that a prescriptive statement requires some emphasis, whether by inflection or words such as "should", "ought", etc.

"should" and "ought" are not required, and are actually less demanding than the simple instruction.
here is a very very tough set of rules - leviticus -

7 If your grain offering is cooked in a pan, it is to be made of the finest flour and some olive oil. 8 Bring the grain offering made of these things to the Lord; present it to the priest, who shall take it to the altar. 9 He shall take out the memorial portion from the grain offering and burn it on the altar as a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord. 10 The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the food offerings presented to the Lord. 11 ��Every grain offering you bring to the Lord must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in a food offering presented to the Lord. 12 You may bring them to the Lord as an offering of the firstfruits, but they are not to be offered on the altar as a pleasing aroma. 13 Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings. 14 ��If you bring a grain offering of firstfruits to the Lord, offer crushed heads of new grain roasted in the fire. 15 Put oil and incense on it; it is a grain offering.

Note the multiple instructions presented that don't say should or ought, or anything else (just like valentinus' do not). Note the one use of the modifier "may". Note the use of shall is used when talking about a second person, and not used when instructing. All of this clearly shows that instructions do not need a modifier, just as i have been pointing out to you, so the ONLY part of your statement that makes any sense at all is inflection.
But this only proves my point about english usage not requiring "should" or "ought".
As to the translation - the nasb uses the word "shall". Unless we go further and know the translations of valentinus, and the gospel of philip and other texts, we can't even start to talk about inflection. You and I, I mean.

pre�scrip�tive/priˈskriptiv/Adjectivef or relating to the imposition or enforcement of a rule or method.

My point on this is that we may not be sure of the "inflection" used in all the cases of Gnostic practice, but if we are going to think rationally about a religious practice observed by humans, and apply our knowledge of humanity to them at all, many of the gnostics were quite likely imposing a method, even if it was only by social pressure or cultural idealism.