08 Apr 2016, 8:31 pm
09 Apr 2016, 10:12 am
09 Apr 2016, 10:45 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,453
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
09 Apr 2016, 1:37 pm
09 Apr 2016, 7:54 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,453
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
09 Apr 2016, 8:13 pm
10 Apr 2016, 3:12 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,453
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
10 Apr 2016, 5:32 pm
10 Apr 2016, 6:59 pm
10 Apr 2016, 7:35 pm
10 Apr 2016, 7:45 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,453
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
10 Apr 2016, 8:22 pm
10 Apr 2016, 8:33 pm
10 Apr 2016, 8:43 pm
GnosticBishop wrote:
Eisbaer wrote:
It seems that, over time, the excitement your average man surely felt when first given the freedom to interpret holy texts and debate the spiritual has not waned. What better way to control masses of people who believe themselves enslaved by spiritual dictatorship than to relinquish that control to them? They'd be so busy obsessing over their individual beliefs and killing each other for praying incorrectly they might never notice their rights in the physical world quietly being locked away.
If one interprets that he can kill for beliefs, then his spiritual interpretations are obviously wrong.
Christianity already showed how foolish that thinking is when helping to usher in the Dark Ages against free thought and Inquisition.
An average moral man will remember that and not go there so your view of an average man is not correct.
I hope.
Regards
DL
My view of the average man (regardless of spiritual belief, time period, racial composition or political leaning) is that he tends to get curious and even excited about doors opening that were previously nailed shut. Curiosity may have killed the cat but aided man in building airplanes and automobiles.
In the case of diverse spiritual belief, there seems to exist a need by some (but not all) to be on the "right" side of god(s) or to be "right" in general. The point I'm arguing is that debate is not "constructive" unless you're actually building something, i.e. a relationship, a network of aqueducts, a system of law and so on. Destructive debate is the specialty of those seeking either to break down and assimilate the opposition or to further oneself socially and therefore superficially.
Any man may calmly declare or shout angrily about the purity and truth of his position until achieving a smug shade of blue and/or pale white though none of it will ever be universally true.
Perhaps we need a new manuscript. Something of a "mode d'emploi". Something that will insist "thou shalt not suffer a different to post"
10 Apr 2016, 8:56 pm
Eisbaer wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Eisbaer wrote:
It seems that, over time, the excitement your average man surely felt when first given the freedom to interpret holy texts and debate the spiritual has not waned. What better way to control masses of people who believe themselves enslaved by spiritual dictatorship than to relinquish that control to them? They'd be so busy obsessing over their individual beliefs and killing each other for praying incorrectly they might never notice their rights in the physical world quietly being locked away.
If one interprets that he can kill for beliefs, then his spiritual interpretations are obviously wrong.
Christianity already showed how foolish that thinking is when helping to usher in the Dark Ages against free thought and Inquisition.
An average moral man will remember that and not go there so your view of an average man is not correct.
I hope.
Regards
DL
My view of the average man (regardless of spiritual belief, time period, racial composition or political leaning) is that he tends to get curious and even excited about doors opening that were previously nailed shut. Curiosity may have killed the cat but aided man in building airplanes and automobiles.
In the case of diverse spiritual belief, there seems to exist a need by some (but not all) to be on the "right" side of god(s) or to be "right" in general. The point I'm arguing is that debate is not "constructive" unless you're actually building something, i.e. a relationship, a network of aqueducts, a system of law and so on. Destructive debate is the specialty of those seeking either to break down and assimilate the opposition or to further oneself socially and therefore superficially.
Any man may calmly declare or shout angrily about the purity and truth of his position until achieving a smug shade of blue and/or pale white though none of it will ever be universally true.
Perhaps we need a new manuscript. Something of a "mode d'emploi". Something that will insist "thou shalt not suffer a different to post"
I see nothing wrong with debates that are designed to break down an opponents position if it is the wrong position.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
Imagine the crap world we would be living in if no one bothered to correct poor thinking. We would likely till be living in caves and trees.
I agree that a new manuscript is required. I saw Gnostic Christianity as mine and am quite pleased with my choice to date.
I doubt that it will pan out to it's potential before all religions are basically scrapped because of the immorality of the mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam.
Regards
DL
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,453
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
10 Apr 2016, 9:26 pm
