• S
    11.8k
    I'm still waiting.

    And do come with something tangible rather than insults and opinions.
    Tzeentch

    What are you waiting for? This has been a case of mission easily accomplished. That you've decided not to accept the obvious isn't really my problem, it's yours.
  • A Gnostic Agnostic
    79
    "Belief" is not so much a virtue as "knowing" who, what, where, why, when, how, and/or if *not* to "believe" and why.

    "Belief" is the agency required to confuse good with evil, and evil with good.

    If god is all-knowing, all-knowing necessarily must include knowing all of who, what, where, why,
    when, how, and/or if *not* to "believe" something/anything and why. This necessarily involves knowledge of good and evil:

    good/evil motive (love/hatred)
    good/evil intention (honesty/deception)
    good/evil will (embrace/enmity)

    as one who "knows" evil motives, evil intentions and evil will knows not to "believe" (ie. eat the fruits of) anything that comes from such evil. This protects one from becoming "bound to believe" in something that is not actually true.

    Therefor, as one tends towards oneness with god (ie. all-knowing), one tends more toward knowing who, what, where, why, when, how, and/or if *not* to "believe" and why, thus never becoming somehow "bound to believe" good (god) is evil (satan).

    I find this as the solution to the Edenic dilemma:

    ..........I AM..........
    ......../_____\........
    .I believe...I know.

    I know = tree of living
    I believe = tree of knowledge of good and evil

    wherein only the fruits of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (ie. BELIEFS) can be false (ie. poison; cause death) whereas truly (only truly) knowing is the way of the living - to truly know. Know what?

    "Belief" is not so much a virtue as "knowing" who, what, where, why, when, how, and/or if *not* to "believe" and why.

    Christ consciousness does not come lest by way of knowing the suffering of others.
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    "Belief" is the agency required to confuse good with evil, and evil with good.A Gnostic Agnostic

    It seems you're already confused, without the need for belief. Is "good" good for you, for your family and friends, for your fellow countrymen, for all humans, or for all living things in God's universe? Without this qualification (context), "good" means nothing. The same applies to "evil", of course. :chin:
  • A Gnostic Agnostic
    79


    It seems you're already confused, without the need for belief. Is "good" good for you, for your family and friends, for your fellow countrymen, for all humans, or for all living things in God's universe? Without this qualification (context), "good" means nothing. The same applies to "evil", of course. :chin:

    You're missing the point: the point is to *not* objectively define good and/or evil.

    In doing so, one invites a potential for polarization: "us" (ie. good) vs. "them" (ie. evil) and one is bound to become entangled fighting as one, against the other.

    Example:

    A "believes" B is evil (in relation to A's own "good").
    B "believes" A is evil (in relation to B's own "good").

    This certainly begs for conflict. The alternative is no polarity: observe good and evil as they are without defining either. This is the essence of the Edenic warning: do not become polarized, or you will die. It is obvious and renders "belief" demanding of scrutiny, especially as it applies to "belief" in a central figure/authority "believed" to be "good".
  • Coben
    1.3k
    If you ever want to try to stick to the issues, instead of speaking about me, I am here for you.Gnostic Christian Bishop
    1) you asked about something regarding you, so part of that post was a response to the request. 2) I did focus on the issues, even in that post. You made a false set of claims about historians. And failed to concede a single point even when it was obvious. 3)
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor RooseveltGnostic Christian Bishop
    lol, you discuss people all the time. You discuss groups of them. And you also discuss yourself, describe yourself, present yourself. Or no one would know you think you achieved apotheosis. Live up to Eleanor's values on what should be discussed and you will find others follow it more in response. Live up to rational integrity and no one will find it necessary to point out you avoid conceding points. You don't hesitate to discuss people when it seems right as part of your polemic. Gurus and dictators expect people to 'do as I say, not as I do'. Other people realize that they can be called out on their own actions and words.
  • Gnostic Christian Bishop
    955
    Qu
    vous êtes Québécois.Coben

    Québécois. Non.

    Ontarien. Oui.

    On entend dire que les gens vont être prétentieux, mais j'ai toujours été traité si merveilleusement.Coben

    Nous avon les deux caractéristique qui se balance.

    Regards
    DL
  • Gnostic Christian Bishop
    955
    Now it's time to practice what you preach....Pattern-chaser

    I have been at it for years.

    Regards
    DL
  • Gnostic Christian Bishop
    955
    Because knowing isn't an alternative to belief, it's a qualified type of belief.Terrapin Station

    I agree.

    Regards
    DL
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.