Thread: Gnostic Christian Mystery School Secret Truth #1.

I kind of agree with most of this, though I take issue with the first paragraph: stating God exists can be a true statement if it is objectively true and the speaker believes he has enough evidence. It not being enough evidence for you, wouldn't diminish its truthfulness. I should also mention that I don't believe in any God, but am just playing advocate.

As for the questions:
Neither, as there is often no moral intent behind how you read a book. Subsequent actions may have a moral slant to them that may have been influenced by literal reading, but if you're going to argue its mostly the fault of the book, where does the chain of causation end?

Mostly bad, but some good have come out of it, if only for some genuinely believing in heaven and doing good deeds for that.

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

I kind of agree with most of this, though I take issue with the first paragraph: stating God exists can be a true statement if it is objectively true and the speaker believes he has enough evidence. It not being enough evidence for you, wouldn't diminish its truthfulness. I should also mention that I don't believe in any God, but am just playing advocate.

As for the questions:
Neither, as there is often no moral intent behind how you read a book. Subsequent actions may have a moral slant to them that may have been influenced by literal reading, but if you're going to argue its mostly the fault of the book, where does the chain of causation end?

Mostly bad, but some good have come out of it, if only for some genuinely believing in heaven and doing good deeds for that.

Some good might come from such beliefs for sure but if you look at history, the Dark Ages and inquisition and continuing discrimination against women and gays, I would suggest that there is a lot more harm than good that has come out of literal reading of the Christian myths.

Regards
DL

I think it's been agreed that religion as it is now is pointless and very potentially harmful and as it were, just the same. It's only advantage is creating some kind of morals in a period without them, and since we had nothing better at the time religion was a necessary evil and not only an exceptionally intriguing subject but also serves as an interesting reference point into the human psyche and culture. Now that we don't need it, we should pretty much just study it and philosophize with it. Since we already know we can't just love each other with it.

Originally Posted by snoop

I think it's been agreed that religion as it is now is pointless and very potentially harmful and as it were, just the same. It's only advantage is creating some kind of morals in a period without them, and since we had nothing better at the time religion was a necessary evil and not only an exceptionally intriguing subject but also serves as an interesting reference point into the human psyche and culture. Now that we don't need it, we should pretty much just study it and philosophize with it. Since we already know we can't just love each other with it.

No argument but for the world to start using religion as it once was used, to as you say, be studied and philosophized over, literal reading of those myths would have to stop.

I do not think the Abrahamic religions can because they have murdered way too many people for literal reading to ever be able to apologise to the world and just revert to the old and better way.

When you lie that long, you cannot start to tell the truth and expect forgiveness.

As a Gnostic Christian, I think it would be nice as that would mean that most of the world would basically be Gnostic Christians but again, I do not see the world of Christianity repenting of their sins against humanity.

Regards
DL