Amanda's & Jay's gospel

[Checkmate]

TK421, I did not choose that... did you choose 'Strong Minded'? Perhaps some wonderful moderator thought that I was, of all things, a traditional understanding of a 'fundamentalist'... and now they are giving me the benefit of the doubt?  ...and that's a good thing... 

 

Nah, I didn't choose "Strong Minded". If it were up to ME, mine would say "Asshole"!

 

Just curious AND trying to keep things "light". Things have been getting WAAAAYYY too serious around here lately. Later. Time for beddy-bye!

[Ouroboros]

Nah, I didn't choose "Strong Minded".  If it were up to ME, mine would say "Asshole"! 

 

Just curious AND trying to keep things "light".  Things have been getting WAAAAYYY too serious around here lately.  Later.  Time for beddy-bye!

After 500 (IIRC) postings you can set it yourself.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Absolutely NOT! I personally think that God is experiencing life through us. Physical pleasure is a wonderful element we are given the honor to experience for a lifetime... at a time!!! I believe the qualifier is to be respectful of self and others... and that about sums it up. "Physical experience" is something not to be taken for granted... it is something that seems so simple, yet is such an amazing state of being for our spirit!

 

I think that what can enhance this state is the position of this inner world. The war between heaven and hell may be predominantly within our self.... and the side that wins is the side we feed the most. If we are selfish, self elitist, narcissistic, or believe we are less than who we are... then the repercussions are not so good. If we have no solid foundations on which to stand, maybe that is the bottomless pit? If the land came by volcanoes erupting, then this may be the 'lake of fire' on which we stand and have weeping and gnashing of teeth? If we have solid peace and contentment within us, then that is being in heaven... no matter what is going on in the world. These teachings of Jesus is to liberate us into having life abundantly... IMHO.

 

This is pretty cool, Amanda. And your idea that God is experiencing life through us sounds a little bit like the German idealism of Hegel and others.

[BuddhistCommunist]

Amanda, Hinduism came from the same place that most Founding Religions come from, Civilization. The Indus River Civilization is one of the oldest in the world, obviously giving Hinduism its old age.

[Poonis]

Mostly, I've just studied the Bible, by a special method I've explained numerous times on ths site, and have since learned on this site that it is probably how the Gnostics interpreted the Bible too.

 

Amanda, if you think your interpretation of the bible is similar to gnosticism, I'm sure you understand that Gnosticism is a dystheistic religion, whereas Christianity is an Eutheistic religion.

 

* Eutheism is the belief that God exists and is good.

* Dystheism is the belief that God exists but is not good.

 

Gnostics held that god existed, but was malevolent. I am certain that you do not hold that your god is malevolent, but the literal opposite, benevolent.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystheism

 

Amanda, how is it that you believe god is good, while thinking you interpret similar to the Gnostics, who believed god is not good?

 

If you follow gnostic interpretations of the bible, your whole debate on Original Sin falls flat on its face.

[Skankboy]

Amanda,

 

Anyone every tell you that you'd make a decent Buddhist?

 

[dogmatically_challenged]

Amanda,

 

Anyone every tell you that you'd make a decent Buddhist?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ive heard someone else say that about Amanda as well. Funny how she is superior to her god in every way when it comes to being a gentle soul.

[Amanda]

Amanda, if you think your interpretation of the bible is similar to  gnosticism, I'm sure you understand that Gnosticism is a dystheistic religion, whereas Christianity is an Eutheistic religion.

 

    * Eutheism is the belief that God exists and is good.

    * Dystheism is the belief that God exists but is not good.

 

Gnostics held that god existed, but was malevolent. I am certain that you do not hold that your god is malevolent, but the literal opposite, benevolent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks Poonis for that information!!! My knowledge of labels and history of Christian religion, outside the Bible, is not good. I learned how to study the Bible, by the president of my seminary, via a different way than I have seen anyone else do it. I explained the technique I use on this site and someone from here said that is the way the gnostics did it. IDK, others mentioned it too... so I thought maybe that's it... Yet what I said on the post you are referring is this:

 

Mostly, I've just studied the Bible, by a special method I've explained numerous times on ths site, and have since learned on this site that it is probably how the Gnostics interpreted the Bible too. Looking up Gnosticism, I am not in great alliance with them. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Researching their religion, I didn't find my belief systems like Gnosticism! So, I didn't know if it is the same technique for interpretating the Bible or not. Considering your new information, I suppose it is not... because of what you said, an I came to different conclusions than they did. Thanks again for clearing that up!

[Amanda]

Amanda = H-E-R-E-T-I-C. Hehe!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks DC!!!

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks DC!!! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL! You earned it in my opinion. Your so going to hell! You aint fundy at all. We will roast in hell together! My old preacher would probably insite a riot to tie you to the stake. Or have you dunked in the river to see if your a witch. hehe.

 

Yea. I new you were a heathen. Questoning tradition is a sin....hehe.

[pandora]

Modern theology is fascinating. I tried for so long to make myself adjust to it and become a modern Christian of sorts, but I couldn't get past the fact that I didn't need Christianity or Jesus to learn these new truths, that trying to make Christianity a religion that makes sense is like chasing a rainbow (even with the help of modern theologicans like Tillich and others), and that it seems like a cop out. Similar to my views on on liberal Christianity. They keep calling themselves Christians only in hopes of preserving the tradition or because they can't psychologically let go of the label and identity.

[Amanda]

Hey, my sincere appreciation to ALL of you that I didn't get the 'firing squad' yet although I know it might not be all over...

 

I've been in humbled admiration of most of the people on this site, as it seems many got to this place of enlightenment, and higher, on thier own! And you all have continued to help me refine and redefine my own beliefs. It says more than you all could probably imagine...

 

I feel very fortunate for my teacher in seminary to have led me on a three year sebatical to find out... its ok to do everything as long as its done with respect for self and others. Three years! The journey was a really great adventure though.

 

Now, to stir a little controversy... if I dare. I'd like to ask about the 'conscience'. When do you think that was formed in our psyche? Do the Buddhist or any other religions make any reference to it? According to the KJV it is never mentioned till the NT. I've looked to philosophers on such matters as far back as 2500 years ago to Hippocrates (not sure about spelling), and find nothing BCE. There was an alliance to integrity for its own sake. Yet that little voice that says... no, no, no , or perhaps as in the model of the id, ego, and super ego... when did that first get recognized. I found it first at the time of Jesus, and it is defined as a copereception between two past entities... the truth and the adamic nature... in which Jesus brought the clearing, where the words came pouring forth.

 

What's your take on that? I haven't lost you all, have I?

[Saviourmachine]

Now, to stir a little controversy...  if I dare.    I'd like to ask about the 'conscience'. When do you think that was formed in our psyche? Do the Buddhist or any other religions make any reference to it? According to the KJV it is never mentioned till the NT. I've looked to philosophers on such matters as far back as 2500 years ago to Hippocrates (not sure about spelling), and find nothing BCE. There was an alliance to integrity for its own sake. Yet that little voice that says... no, no, no  , or perhaps as in the model of the id, ego, and super ego... when did that first get recognized. I found it first at the time of Jesus, and it is defined as a copereception between two past entities... the truth and the adamic nature... in which Jesus brought the clearing, where the words came pouring forth.

 

What's your take on that? I haven't lost you all, have I? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The contras of evolutionary ethics

Darwin thought already about it in his 'M' notebook (the metaphysical consequences of his physical theory). Morality is a natural outcome when you combine instincts with intellect. It's a pity this article is not obtainable for free: Evolutionary Ethics: Its Origin and Contemporary Face. In the abstract several problems with in are mentioned (and said to be solved), namely:

1. group selection dependency is necessary to account for altruism (and group selection is disputed)
   
2. ought statements can't be derived from is statements alone (values can't be derived from facts alone)
   
3. evolutionary explanation would entail biological determinism and therefore the impossibility of having free will, what is the cornerstone of ethics
   
4. social politics based on evolutionary theory seem to be unethical (the right of the strongest, the fittest will survive)
   

No problem in 4, but the others!?

Number 4 I think I know how to tackle. That the best adapted wouldn't use his/her emphatic / ethical abilities doesn't seem to fit the label fit. If I chose to use only a foreign language on this forum, I can do that, but that doesn't work out. I guess even rights can be bestowed upon the ones that speak the right language overhere. I can even be warned and banned. I think it is easy to see how morality, conscience, altruism could arise, but the difficulty is what makes morality morality. Are conventions arbitrary? Are results of evolutionary processes arbitrary?

 

The moral end of man

I also think that moral action happens spontaneously, not calculating in a hedonistic or ulitarianistic way. Spencer and many other claimed that the moral end of man was happiness. This can be questioned. For others, this is maybe justice (they would rather like to be unhappy forever, than that there abusers wouldn't be done justice). And still others, it can be certainty (they would die for the truth). (Inspiration/Source: Evolutionary Ethics: From Darwin to Moore)

 

Is there a religion or ancient writing without conscience being a part of it?

Do you think conscience is not an inherent part of our emotional competence? I think guilt does have its origin for before we were able to write. That's my guess. It's already in the first chapters of Genesis. The fall is about knowledge of good and evil. Abel's blood crying out for...? Justice, vengeance, help, damnation, guilt feelings in his brother? Is Cain's yet unacknowledged guilt not the reason that he denies responsability for his brother: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

 

I've to read more about evolutionary ethics, that for sure. Sidgwick, Moore. What's the purpose of your question regarding the thread's topic?

[BuddhistCommunist]

In Buddhism as well as a personal belief I had before Buddhism, Everything is consciencess. The holy spirit is the energy of mindfulness as my bible (jesus and buddha as brothers by Thich Nayt Hahn) puts it. In other words Myself And others, actually believe the conscience is timeless and limitless power, older than anything else.

[Amethyst]

When do you think that was formed in our psyche?

 

Um...it has to do with the culture you're raised in. Good vs. evil is relative to whatever culture you are in. One culture might find human sacrifice acceptable; another (like ours) would not. We learn from our parents and everyone around us what our culture considers good, bad, etc. But our learning can be challenged later in life, too. For example, those who were brainwashed to believe that gay people are evil questioned it when science proved ideology wrong. Some people still haven't questioned it because they are still brainwashed.

 

I would personally say that for something to be wrong, it has to cause someone harm in this world, be that harm physical or emotional. I don't count the hereafter because there is no proof that it exists.

[Amanda]

Why do I have this feeling that I'm not communicating my question correctly? SaviourMachine, thanks for considering me more intellectual than I am, yet when you respond... please remember that I'm just dumbo ... a simple summary of what you're saying would be greatly appreciated, as I'm also not familiar with the authors you list.. so if you think that is giving me more insight, I'm sorry, it's not. I enjoy your posts immensely, you seem to be very well informed, just help me out here... please. (I'm from Florida, we don't even know how to vote... lol)

 

I know that a sense of right and wrong seems to be timeless... yet, before we had language, I'm wondering... if we did have that then? Anyway, what I'm saying is that I know there was a sense of a belief in right and wrong for a long, long time! The OT and other literature of that time points to a belief in alligning to certain standards for the sake of integrity... which is really an ego based motivation. We were then feeding our egos by saying how 'good' we were in maintaining what might be deemed a pious lifestyle, instead of a true condition of the heartfelt peace in doing what is right. Am I communicating a 'difference' here?

 

Sometimes when one is tempted to do something 'wrong' and a sense of conflict arrises from our hearts, accompanied by words to derail the suggestion... weighing heavy on the heart for the sake of inner peace, NOT to just an alliance to integrity for the sake of ego status integrity, for the respect of one's peers, nor even just for the alliance to a belief system. One of the reasons I ask is because Jesus said something like - the laws of the OT are written on tablets of stone, but that he would write them on our hearts and in our minds.

 

Perhaps this evolution of a true conscience is different from culture to culture? I'm just wondering when was this defining, revealing moment of a conscience as we know it today? The problem with Buddhism, is there a way to research its original manuscript from which the english translation came?

[Ouroboros]

Amanda, if you think your interpretation of the bible is similar to  gnosticism, I'm sure you understand that Gnosticism is a dystheistic religion, whereas Christianity is an Eutheistic religion.

 

    * Eutheism is the belief that God exists and is good.

    * Dystheism is the belief that God exists but is not good.

 

Gnostics held that god existed, but was malevolent. I am certain that you do not hold that your god is malevolent, but the literal opposite, benevolent.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystheism

 

Amanda, how is it that you believe god is good, while thinking you interpret similar to the Gnostics, who believed god is not good?

 

If you follow gnostic interpretations of the bible, your whole debate on Original Sin falls flat on its face.

I thought that Gnostic believed in a good god and and evil god, and the world was created when they had a fight, but man itself was created by the evil god.

[Guest gnosis.sophia]

Amanda, if you think your interpretation of the bible is similar to  gnosticism, I'm sure you understand that Gnosticism is a dystheistic religion, whereas Christianity is an Eutheistic religion.

 

    * Eutheism is the belief that God exists and is good.

    * Dystheism is the belief that God exists but is not good.

 

Gnostics held that god existed, but was malevolent. I am certain that you do not hold that your god is malevolent, but the literal opposite, benevolent.

 

Amanda, how is it that you believe god is good, while thinking you interpret similar to the Gnostics, who believed god is not good?

 

If you follow gnostic interpretations of the bible, your whole debate on Original Sin falls flat on its face.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, this is accurate to a degree. The reading I've done indicates that the Gnositcs believe the God of the Christian bible (Old Testament) to be evil and false, himself a creation from the ultimate transcendant god.

 

Also, not all Gnostic thinking is alike. There are a few fanciful creation myths that one can similarly find on Wikipedia, or in books, etc..

 

 

The teachings of Jesus, in the NT can be reconciled with Gnositicsm to a degree. "The kingdom of heaven is within", etc... As compared to the Gnositc Divine spark, and the general Illusary nature of corporeal reality..

 

I think it is innacurate to state that gnostics believed that god is not good, in the general sense of the word (God).

 

 

a few thoughts, from an armchair agnostic,

 

 

gnosis loves sophia

[Ouroboros]

Well, this is accurate to a degree.  The reading I've done indicates that the Gnositcs believe the God of the Christian bible (Old Testament) to be evil and false, himself a creation from the ultimate transcendant god. 

Yeah, I recognize this from what I read somewhere.

 

Also, not all Gnostic thinking is alike.  There are a few fanciful creation myths that one can similarly find on Wikipedia, or in books, etc.. 

The teachings of Jesus, in the NT can be reconciled with Gnositicsm to a degree.  "The kingdom of heaven is within", etc...  As compared to the Gnositc Divine spark, and the general Illusary nature of corporeal reality.. 

Agree.

 

There are Christian Gnostics that include the Bible and Jesus in their theology, and then there is Iranian Gnostics that doesn't include Jesus, and many more. It's basically a religion without any firm foundation. Anything goes, but one thing, that the knowledge (enlightenment) is the path to God. If I understand it rigth. But how can you receieve the true knowledge, if no one can agree to what it is!?

 

I think it is innacurate to state that gnostics believed that god is not good, in the general sense of the word (God).

a few thoughts, from an armchair agnostic,

gnosis loves sophia

Yes, it didn't feel right to say Gnostics believe in an all-evil god. Then what is the meaning of the religion? And how does it explain the good things in the world? If God is only destructive, evil and hateful, he wouldn't let us live at all at the moment... There must be balance somewhere. Unless its thought that humans are the good. Evil God created good humans.

[Saviourmachine]

I know that a sense of right and wrong seems to be timeless... yet, before we had language, I'm wondering...  if we did have that then? Anyway, what I'm saying is that I know there was a sense of a belief in right and wrong for a long, long time! The OT and other literature of that time points to a belief in alligning to certain standards for the sake of integrity... which is really an ego based motivation. We were then feeding our egos by saying how 'good' we were in maintaining what might be deemed a pious lifestyle, instead of a true condition of the heartfelt peace in doing what is right. Am I communicating a 'difference' here?

Before we had language we had a conscience? I don't know! There is no consensus about how our language abilities evolved. Through gestures, through singing, through mimicking, through lowering of our larinx when we started to walk upright. There is no consensus about the origin of morality either. So, I can't tell what came first.

 

The Bhagavad-Gita is certainly not based upon ego.

 

One of the reasons I ask is because Jesus said something like - the laws of the OT are written on tablets of stone, but that he would write them on our hearts and in our minds.

That's to much honour for Jesus. The author of Hebrews said something like that. But what is more important was, that the very idea of writing in hearts comes from Jer. 31:33 and Ezek 11:19, where is written about the stony heart.

 

Perhaps this evolution of a true conscience is different from culture to culture? I'm just wondering when was this defining, revealing moment of a conscience as we know it today? The problem with Buddhism, is there a way to research its original manuscript from which the english translation came? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see this transition. And I don't know that much religions that I can say that I can distinguish a pattern. Is there only one Buddhistic writing, the Dhammapadda?