Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Felix]

Karpel Tunnel: "Jesus was even more stringent about sinning sexually even just in one's heart"

Perhaps not.... The so-called Gnostic Gospels, scriptures omitted from the orthodox bible (when the church fathers compiled it in 325 AD), present a much different picture of Jesus. In these texts, Jesus speaks of illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and repentance, like the Jesus of the New Testament.

The acts and sayings attributed to him in these texts are quite different. For example, consider this excerpt from the Gospel of Phillip:

The companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But he (Jesus) loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended; they said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you as I love her?”

[Karpel Tunnel]

Karpel Tunnel: "Jesus was even more stringent about sinning sexually even just in one's heart"

Perhaps not.... The so-called Gnostic Gospels, scriptures omitted from the orthodox bible (when the church fathers compiled it in 325 AD), present a much different picture of Jesus. In these texts, Jesus speaks of illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and repentance, like the Jesus of the New Testament.

The acts and sayings attributed to him in these texts are quite different. For example, consider this excerpt from the Gospel of Phillip:

The companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. But he (Jesus) loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended; they said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Savior answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you as I love her?”

HOnestly I am finding this discussion odd. I am not arguing that really, the meaning of Jesus and Christianity if one cut through all the false documents and lies, is not pro body and sensuality. I am saying that the great mass of Christianity is this way. There is a very, very small minority of christians who take gnosticism as the real Christianity.

But even with the nice kissing scene here, the overall gnosticism is rather ascetic...

Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious ideas and systems, originating in Jewish Christian milieux in the first and second century AD. These systems believed that the material world is created by an emanation or 'works' of a lower god (demiurge), trapping the divine spark within the human body. This divine spark could be liberated by gnosis, spiritual knowledge acquired through direct experience. Some of the core teachings include the following:

All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good.

There were other core teachings that are less relevant.

Perhaps heterosexuals and bad committees and poor scribes and bad translaters ruined Christianity and the real one was body, sex, and sensuality loving. But the real one is but a firecracker, in that case, compared to the nuclear explosion of what most humans experienced as christianity.

[Felix]

"All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good."

That idea is suspect because they had no conception of "matter" back then. At any rate, Jesus was not a traditional gnostic and did not think in such dualistic terms. But as you say, he was surely not a sensualist either. Sensuality is frowned upon in all the mystical traditions, not because it is evil per se but because it tends to be an impediment to spiritual realization.

[GaryLouisSmith]

the great mass of Christianity is this way.
the nuclear explosion of what most humans experienced as christianity.

In a way I agree with you. Today when we use words we must look to what the masses think the words mean. Historical criticism, theologizing, phenomenological analysis, scholastic hair-splitting, and darkroom prayer are all one hundred percent irrelevant if you are concerned with the social good. All the bookish Lumpen Proletariat should be made to get off their lazy a**es and get to work for The People. The People are paramount. It is they who control the meaning of words and what history really means.

[Karpel Tunnel]

"All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good."

That idea is suspect because they had no conception of "matter" back then. At any rate, Jesus was not a traditional gnostic and did not think in such dualistic terms. But as you say, he was surely not a sensualist either. Sensuality is frowned upon in all the mystical traditions, not because it is evil per se but because it tends to be an impediment to spiritual realization.

It certainly is viewed that way. I disagree. I think that always includes a hatred of body and emotions, though it is never couched as these forms of self-hatred in the religions, it is that. And the community will express this hatred at you if you do not hate yourself in those ways. It is also an internalization of a split. Or it is a struggle between the chakras, with the upper chakras becoming jailers to the 'bad' lower ones.

[Felix]

Well, I guess I just don't blame the founders of religions, who may not have wished to found a religion at all, for what their followers make of their teachings, which is often completely at odds with the founder's views.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Well, I guess I just don't blame the founders of religions, who may not have wished to found a religion at all, for what their followers make of their teachings, which is often completely at odds with the founder's views.

I try not to blame people for what others do.

[anonymous66]

There seem to be two ways of "finding God".

One is social and is basically a game that has nothing to do with spirituality, aside from helping those of one's "tribe".

Alternatively, finding God via mystical experience points the way to the next step, because once you have a mystical experience you will never forget it and what it tells you about the potential joy that underpins this seeming vale of tears. When one has such an experience, it may or may nor be interpreted as God, but it is always treasured.

I don't know of anyone finding God via reason. It always seems to be an attempt to prove what one would prefer to be true. If one is absolutely straight with oneself, the only possible response is to acknowledge that there is an awful lot about reality that does not make sense and to accept it rather than make over certain suppositions. Many people present their guesses as indisputable facts.

There's a lot we don't know and it seems a tad far-fetched that only the simple people of the Middle East 2,000 years ago worked out the puzzle of reality. Why not China 1,500 years ago or Africa 6,000 years ago or Indonesia 8,000 years ago? Because Constantine saw what was believed to be a comet and when he afterwards won his battle he took it as a sign from God and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. That is the only reason why.

I find that the Chinese Tao concept and the ideas of Buddhism far more mature and considered than the Abrahamic ideas, which rely on incredibly generous metaphorical interpretations to make sense - certainly more generous interpretations than creationists will ever apply to scientific findings.

Many in the ancient world used reason to argue for the existence of something that might be referred to as God- for instance: Epicurus, the Stoics, Socrates/Plato, Aristotle.

What if someone was convinced by this argument? It is either the case that everything exists because of chance, in which case we can't trust our senses- or it is the case that there is a reason that everything exists, and that is the reason we can trust our senses- and that reason could be referred to as a Prime Mover or God. I propose that the person who held that belief would only believe that chance was not the cause of everything. The Prime Mover in this case would have none of the usual baggage that goes along with theism (worship, following a religion, etc).

PS. why is there something rather than nothing? Because there apparently has always been something. It's been found that there is no such thing as a true vacuum - every tiny part of reality is roiling with energy. The energy does not appear and disappear but changes form.

If that is the case- then why is there energy rather than nothing?

[anonymous66]

now what?

I know many people like to make arguments for God's existence. Let's say you convince someone. Is there anything else that follows? If so, what? And why?

I'm asking because I think arguments for God's existence are interesting, and I think they do provide a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". I don't think it's irrational to believe in God. I can even see myself believing in God as some kind of intelligent mind (I'm partial to arguments for panpsychism and a conscious universe... a conscious universe that could be considered to be God) that is the reason that everything exists. It's just that I don't see what, if anything, must follow from that belief.

You must do as god tells you and behave in the approved way. Funnily this often seems to involve someone else telling you what god says thus ensuring you do what they say. Far be it for me to suggest that this is the real purpose of religion.

Why must religion be involved? Aren't there people who believe in God and yet also reject religion?

[Mark1955]

You must do as god tells you and behave in the approved way. Funnily this often seems to involve someone else telling you what god says thus ensuring you do what they say. Far be it for me to suggest that this is the real purpose of religion.

Why must religion be involved? Aren't there people who believe in God and yet also reject religion?

I'm sure you can believe in the concept of a god and not participate in an organised religion and given the cherry picking that goes on in the organised religions about which bits to follow, or new bits to make up, you might argue that really everyone makes up the god they want and does as they like while saying it's what god told them to do; but I suspect that a lot of people choose to believe in god to allow some religion or other to give them the answers they can't figure out for themselves and a significant minority join a religious body so they can be the one doing the telling.

[anonymous66]

now what?

I know many people like to make arguments for God's existence. Let's say you convince someone. Is there anything else that follows? If so, what? And why?

I'm asking because I think arguments for God's existence are interesting, and I think they do provide a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". I don't think it's irrational to believe in God. I can even see myself believing in God as some kind of intelligent mind (I'm partial to arguments for panpsychism and a conscious universe... a conscious universe that could be considered to be God) that is the reason that everything exists. It's just that I don't see what, if anything, must follow from that belief.

I have been posting quite a bit on this thread and arguing with people. Have you found anything worth while in response to your question? Or did it deviate into nothing interesting?

I don't post here very often, and I got distracted by life... I just read through all the posts up to this point- it's an interesting deviation from what I thought would be a discussion about various assumptions that people make when someone says, "I've been convinced that God exists".

[anonymous66]

Anonymous66 wrote;

I'm asking because I think arguments for God's existence are interesting, and I think they do provide a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?".

That there is something rather than nothing is only part of the answer and the remainder of the answer is that the something whatever it may be is ordered.

Is it ordered? Or is it merely the case that humans want to see order? Perhaps it is rather the case that "order is in the eye of the beholder."

[anonymous66]

It seems to me that the evidence very clearly suggests that if God exists, He did not intelligently design His creation. That is, if given the choice between intelligent design and evolution- evolution is clearly the best choice.

Evolution is intelligence. I think of Stephen Hawking’s definition of intelligence as “ability to adapt to change.”

I don't find this to be compelling. There are all kinds of things that adapt to change- rivers for instance. I don't consider a river to be intelligent.

[Mark1955]

It seems to me that the evidence very clearly suggests that if God exists, He did not intelligently design His creation. That is, if given the choice between intelligent design and evolution- evolution is clearly the best choice.

Evolution is intelligence. I think of Stephen Hawking’s definition of intelligence as “ability to adapt to change.”

I'd suggest that evolution is mostly dumb luck, a random mutation produces a new base pair in the DNA and your offspring don't die [most mutations are deleterious so this is not normal]. If they actually breed better than you do it proves you're intelligent? Recombination during meiosis is just as non structured, you get few bits from one parent and few from the other in a pretty random fashion as far as we can tell to date. I think Hawking should have stuck to his field.

[Sculptor1]

Evolution is intelligence. I think of Stephen Hawking’s definition of intelligence as “ability to adapt to change.”

LOL.

Stephen Hawking rarely commented on evolution, and if he did, he would never had made the mistake of saying it was intelligence.
In fact evolution is everything that intelligence is not.
Natural Selection is a completely unconscious, unintentional process.