Gnostic Christian Mystery School Secret Truth #1.

[Gnostic]

Gnostic Christian Mystery School Secret Truth #1. All that can and is said of all Gods is speculative by nature as none of it is provable. To state that God exists cannot be a true statement unless one has a God to show. This is irrefutable as it can be shown that all Gods are based on ancient myths and stories. They are always to remain mysterious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkgGPvClF4 All religions are based on myths, legends and hope in an afterlife that unfortunately turned to literal belief, --- and this one issue created the war against free thought that led to the purge of many cults that did not want to read literally and to the Inquisition and the Dark Ages. It ended the Mystery Schools. Literalists cannot help but be wrong unless they rely on blind faith and that faith of fools has pushed Christians and Muslims to kill many due to this blind faith mind set. Christians will kill again, --- just like Islam is doing today thanks to literal reading, --- given the chance. Cristian literalist won against free thinking religions thanks to Constantine’s support --- but they cannot win today thanks to an intelligent population who are not superstitious nor as gullible as in past times and do not believe in fantasy, miracles and magic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA Is literal reading of any scripture or holy book mentally good, or mentally evil? Has literal reading done the damage I alluded to or has it been a good influence for mankind? Regards DL P.S. This thinking is the Gnostic Christian’s goal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRN...layer_embedded This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

[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.

[Gnostic]

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

[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.

[Gnostic]

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