• A Gnostic Agnostic
    53
    Is "belief" a virtue? Please feel free to share your views on "belief".

    I find "belief" to be the agency required by what is referred to as "satan" to confuse people into "believing" such: whatever "good" actually is, is really evil, and whatever "evil" is, is actually good - like an inversion. I find "belief" therefor to be like chains that enslave people to something that is not actually real and, as it happens, the reality is actually the opposite. How potent can a god be if it requires "belief"? Is it not the goal of "satan" to make people "believe" that satan is god? In what possible scenario would "belief" be a virtue if so? To indulge in the very thing satan needs to confuse? This is why I do not grant for a moment that "belief" is any kind of virtue.

    There is an alternative to "belief". It is to "know". This is a kind of knowledge; likened to the same as knowledge of good and evil: knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and if *not* to "believe". This kind of knowledge would protect a being from ever becoming 'bound to believe' something that is actually not true. "Belief" is thus the agency required for this, as it is for any person to become confused regarding what is right and what is wrong - to "believe" one did the right thing instead of the wrong thing, and to "believe" one is working for a "greater good". This is ignorance: a product of a false "belief", like a fruit that merely looks ripe and good for indulging, but in reality it is deadly over time. Ifind this to be the Edenic mystery: "beliefs" can appear as a ripe fruit that demand indulgence, but their real substance is the manifestation of death over time. This is a false "belief".

    Can one imagine what it would be like for a "believer" to "believe" that "belief" is the highest virtue one can have, only to learn in the end that their "belief" was/is actually not true? This is the reality for many: people irrationally fear the unreality of their "belief" as they would otherwise be free in knowing what no longer to "believe" and why. It is a kind of madness that can be seen clearly in Judaism, Christianity and Islam - that fear of god is the beginning of wisdom, one must be bound to "believe" in something; a so-called mercy upon mankind idol such as Jesus or Muhammad. From the eyes of the author, this presently is the putrid patriarchal state eroded into from the simple and pure Edenic one: one man and one woman sharing a garden being given leave to eat from any tree they so desired... except for one tree that "surely" causes death.

    I find this tree of knowledge of good and evil to just as surely be "belief" itself and people who indulge in this practice of "belief" are not a part of the solution at all, but rather the problem itself. The problem is "belief" itself, and these "beliefs" happen to be the very idols that people protect and spill blood over if challenged to a degree they deem uncomfortable (ie. "blasphemous"). Secretly, though humanity doesn't seem able to comprehend this generally, this so-called "blasphemy" is actually the seed-root of socialist-fascism: the idea that certain "beliefs" are not to be challenged. This invariably leads to the erection of male central figure dictator military commanders who use the entire power of a state to commit genocide as a "final solution". The strikingly resemblance between Muhammad and Hitler here is something even the late Dr. Carl J. Jung picked up on. It is true that Judeo-inspired Islam is the root of fascist-Nazism and should be obvious enough through the deeply embedded antisemitic and military intolerance of "unbelievers" in Islam. The goal of the believers, therefor, is to make "believers" "believe" that "belief" is a solution to something, rather than the problem itself. And this is just what "belief" is: a problem, not a solution, and is rooted in the "belief" that a book is perfect and can not be surpassed, a religious figure is exemplary and can not be surpassed, and a "belief"-based ideology is perfect can not be surpassed. This is totalitarian, which is promptly scapegoated onto "unbelievers" and bought up by the "believers" who dwell in hatred and "us vs. them" mind-traps that keep them subdued in conflict "believing" they are on the side "against evil". In the case of the Edenic mystery, and the global conflict, the solution of good and evil is in knowing the problem itself: it is belief.

    The Middle-Eastern war is, has been, and always will be rooted in this:

    "believers" vs. "unbelievers"

    and the former persecutes the latter - not the other way around as the "believers" would have people "believe". There is a lot of other-way-aroundness when it comes to considerations of good and evil, as prolonged "belief" in something untrue ultimately lands as an inverse, such as people "believing" war is a means to peace. People who rely on "belief" almost invariably are drawn to sin - dwelling in emotions which prevents reason, rationale, and the conscience from managing what should otherwise be a simple understanding of something that challenges a deeply held "belief". This sin is in (and of) fear, guilt, hatred, anger, resentment, envy, "us vs. them" and religiously becoming "offended" and/or "outraged" and is precisely how "believers" are controlled by the religious Patriarchal Man-Idol States: controlling people through emotional/psychological attachments to religious idols which would not exist if not for the idol worship itself (ie. "belief" in these as authorities) in the first place. Because Islam is comprised of "believers" it is too-fitting to use Islam as an example for what idol worship really is. There is such a reverence for Muhammad in Islam that some extreme Muhammadans will openly spill blood over any mockery of the man - if even done to illustrate his inadequacy as a model for the living (being dead) and having been polygamous while alive, upsetting any possibility of "peace" through a simple balancing of the genders which correctly reflects nature (ie. 1:1 instead of 1:4 or 1:9). This is precisely what reveals the idol worship of Islam: that "believers" will spill blood over this dead man and imitate his polygamous life as it suits their own, just as Muhammad's Allah invariably suited his own (ie. his lower organ) while he cut down his political adversaries.

    Eve giving the fruit to Adam reflects the lower organ commanding the higher organ wherein the brain only works to satiate lustful endeavors. This is, in reality, what Muhammad(ans) and his Islam is a product of - patriarchal and self-serving while reducing women into a commodity/accessory: slaves to the wills of their husbands as they fight their jihad. The original sin of Adam blaming Eve "it is this woman whom thou hast given me" for his own iniquity is contained in the wearing of the hijab/niqab by the Muslim women: wearing the iniquity of the men as they are blamed, by the men, for men sexually objectifying and abusing them. The sexualization of children (instigated by Muhammad's relationship with a nine-year-old A'isha) is permanently embedded in Islam just as it is permanently embedded in the life of Muhammad, thus ever-serving as a global precedent for pedophilia on the planet, a behavior the House of Islam would endeavor to any length to confuse "believers" into "believing" pedophilia is somehow *not* an Islamic problem. One can know it is - it takes "belief" to "believe" it is not, and this is how "belief" suits those who make it to be whatever serves themselves.

    Unfortunately, the House of Islam is a house of mastery in deception: turning "believers" into people who "believe" the problems of the world are due to Jews, Christians, Atheists, "unbelievers", "infidels" and perpetually scapegoating the problems that plague Islam onto anything that is not Islam to keep attention off itself. It does this militarily by suppressing criticisms of itself and branding critics as "racists", "bigots", (usually "white") supremacists (demanding that people acknowledge such a thing exists, which I find it does not), and even "Islamophobes" (a term that better describes themselves for irrationally fearing criticisms of Islam, the Qur'an and Muhammad). In reality, the Jew is the scapegoat for the Muhammadan, and the House of Islam will scapegoat the iniquities of its own House onto Jews and other "unbeliever" adversaries to take attention off of itself. This projection really defines Islam: accuse the adversary of what one is guilty of, and this is the mark of the beast that I see in people who try to blame others for what they themselves are guilty of. The accuser is the accused. This rather Canaanite mark of scapegoating and projection is deeply embedded in the Middle-Eastern religions that culminate into the monstrosity that is Islam, which includes Christianity itself in the scapegoating of the sins of all of mankind onto a single man, and includes Judaism with the notion that fear of god is the beginning of wisdom. Fear of god is not the beginning of wisdom - it is the beginning of madness. Understanding fear is the beginning of wisdom. Is it better to suffer fear, or understand it? It is the opposite of what people "believe" it is just as much as Islam is the opposite of what real "peace" is: it is upside-down and backwards because this seems to be the nature of excessive "belief": inversion.

    In my view the agency of "belief" is what inverts perception such that people will "believe" over time that what is evil is somehow good and/or justified, often by a god. "Believers" use books and idols to justify what would otherwise be depraved behavior, and as long as they do not (have to) feel guilty, they will indulge and "believe" whatever suits their own ends, such as others can be "sacrificed" to "pay" for the "sins" of the tribe. This is Canaanite, and this seems to me to be the common characteristic of the Middle-Eastern religions of Judaism/Christianity/Islam which is dragging all of humanity into a "belief"-based war.

    I should hope humanity chooses to demote "belief" as a viable 'state' and replace it with a model (preferably not a book or a man) that promotes the pursuit of truth itself as the highest authority, rather than any "authority" acting as the truth. This inversion of "belief"-based authority over pursuit of truth seems to define the dark ages - we need less "belief" and more "knowing" what not to believe.

    I find "believe is not a virtue, as one can "know", via conscience, who, what, where, why, when, how and if *not* to "believe", and this is necessarily superior to "belief".
    1. Is "belief" a virtue? (4 votes)
        Yes (necessarily).
        25%
        No (or not necessarily).
        75%
  • 3017amen
    166


    Hello fellow philosopher!

    Your concern, to me, has a real simple answer. Most sciences require inductive reasoning to discover things. Intrinsic to that mental process, is a component of belief. Or in its absence a sense of wonder.

    Otherwise ask yourself, what carries one to move the hypothesis (or any human idea) forward? A Belief of some sort?

    To argue against that, the only thing you're left with is a sense of wonder. What is wonder? Why do we have it?

    Here's an Existential question: what if we didn't have belief and wonder? What would that look like?
  • Shamshir
    741
    Patience is a virtue.

    Now, shall you be patient to believe, or be ardent to cast lots?
  • A Gnostic Agnostic
    53


    Hello.

    what carries one to move the hypothesis (or any human idea) forward? A Belief of some sort?

    No - it can be just the opposite, a rejection of "belief" replaced with a desire to "know" no matter what the truth happens to be. For example, a "belief" can either stagnate and become "protected" as in the case of religion, or it can be challenged and replaced with another "belief" or "known" which is more reasonably sound. Subjecting "belief" to what is "known" seems to me to be imperative when it comes to evolution and certainly addresses the wonder problem:

    What is wonder? Why do we have it?

    Perhaps to evolve beyond what we presently are? How does one evolve if/when "belief" is the very thing that is binding?

    Here's an Existential question: what if we didn't have belief and wonder? What would that look like?

    That "belief" is not a virtue should not mean it should be abandoned. It means it is not a virtue - that no person is made virtuous by a "belief" they hold. Right now, as has been going on for thousands of years, people are judged based on whether or not they hold a certain "belief". In reality, "belief" is not a virtue and those who "believe" something and judge others for not "believing" in the same thing are not virtuous for doing so. However, "belief"-based religious institutions would have people "believe" that "belief" is a virtue and those who do not "believe" are inferior. The point is: "belief"-based religious institutions are the root of socialist fascism because they empower "belief" over knowing who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to "believe".
  • 3017amen
    166


    I don't mean to take the wind out of your sails and respect your trying to rigorously think this through. However you may be overthinking it.

    Using the reasoning you provided for a lack of belief you said, is a desire to know. The desire to know is a sense of wonder.

    You are smart enough to know that indeed this is a rant, but I would suggest another question, what is behind your rant?
  • A Gnostic Agnostic
    53


    I don't mean to take the wind out of your sails and respect your trying to rigorously think this through. However you may be overthinking it.

    Using the reasoning you provided for a lack of belief you said, is a desire to know. The desire to know is a sense of wonder.

    I did not provide reasoning for a "lack of belief" anywhere - that "belief" is not a virtue does not mean lack of a belief. I understand "belief" has a utility, but the point is it is not a virtue. That "belief" itself is "believed" to be a virtue is a problem. One can have a belief, but when it is made into a virtue it becomes problematic as there is a state superior to "believing", which is "knowing". This includes knowing what not to believe, which requires conscience (ie. self-inquiry).

    You are smart enough to know that indeed this is a rant, but I would suggest another question, what is behind your rant?

    I don't understand the question - can you be more specific? Also the rhetoric isn't serving any purpose - trying to make another seem unintelligent reveals the opposite to be true.
  • Gnostic Christian Bishop
    685
    Is "belief" a virtue?A Gnostic Agnostic

    I voted yes because of how I define belief as compared to faith.

    Faith is more or less a hope, not a belief without evidence or proofs.

    One believes something based on something. If the belief is based on faith it becomes garbage.
    If one believes based on observed evidence, then I see no problem with that.

    That switches the conversation to what is being observed, as compared to what is just assumed by faith without facts.

    Facts lead to belief, not faith.

    Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

    Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

    The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

    How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

    Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
    “Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
    “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

    This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the believers mind as it is pure idol worship.

    Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

    Regards
    DL
  • 3017amen
    166


    I apologize and understand however it's called tough love.

    Post-modernism/existentialism in part for illustration purposes was a result of the realization that certain philosophy before it became too extraneous, superfluous and redundant. Ironically enough the birth of existentialism primarily came from The Book of Ecclesiastes.

    Anyway, the missing piece here is the element of faith. Think of it in a secular way. Faith in one's belief to carry a scientific idea forward or faith in carrying the sense of wonder or will to know forward to me is all the same. I don't understand the need to parse it.

    Sure the psychological concern of superiority I would share with you. But don't let that manipulate yourself. It's all about the Psychology of Being. And that's a title of a book by the way...lol.
    . .

    My intention is not to disparage you. I just caution about overthinking something. So if you take inductive reasoning out of that explaination I gave earlier, you're left with the human sentient element of motivations people have to puff themselves up. So don't take the fact that some knuckleheads out there consider themselves Superior personally, just because they have a different belief system or some pathology they're unaware of.

    So yeah you're right, in that context, it would not be a virtuous thing. Ethically they would be using it incorrectly
  • T Clark
    4.2k
    I find "believe is not a virtue, as one can "know", via conscience, who, what, where, why, when, how and if *not* to "believe", and this is necessarily superior to "belief".A Gnostic Agnostic

    I don't know what to think of your ideas, but the OP is very well written and pretty clear, given the complexity of your ideas.

    I did not provide reasoning for a "lack of belief" anywhere - that "belief" is not a virtue does not mean lack of a belief. I understand "belief" has a utility, but the point is it is not a virtue. That "belief" itself is "believed" to be a virtue is a problem. One can have a belief, but when it is made into a virtue it becomes problematic as there is a state superior to "believing", which is "knowing". This includes knowing what not to believe, which requires conscience (ie. self-inquiry).A Gnostic Agnostic

    Until you wrote this, I didn't get that you are making a distinction between belief and the virtue of belief. You also make a distinction between belief and knowledge that I don't agree with in this context.

    I find "belief" to be the agency required by what is referred to as "satan" to confuse people into "believing" such: whatever "good" actually is, is really evil, and whatever "evil" is, is actually good - like an inversion. I find "belief" therefor to be like chains that enslave people to something that is not actually real and, as it happens, the reality is actually the opposite. How potent can a god be if it requires "belief"? Is it not the goal of "satan" to make people "believe" that satan is god? In what possible scenario would "belief" be a virtue if so? To indulge in the very thing satan needs to confuse? This is why I do not grant for a moment that "belief" is any kind of virtue.A Gnostic Agnostic

    I think this is what lead me astray. Are you only talking about religious belief? On the forum, we talk a lot about beliefs of all kinds and how they relate to knowledge.

    You are smart enough to know that indeed this is a rant, but I would suggest another question, what is behind your rant?3017amen

    I don't want to put words in @3017amenn's mouth. I'm not sure he is talking about the same thing I am, but I had the same thought. Your posts have a lot of anti-Islamic content, e.g. comparing Muhammad to Hitler. Are the other monotheistic religions different? Do your feelings come from personal experience with Islam. Calling yourself "Gnostic Agnositc" gave me the impression that you come from Christianity.
  • Tzeentch
    339
    I voted no, but this comes with an important caveat.

    In these sorts of discussions it is usually assumed that the belief that is being questioned must be connected with some form of religion. What tends to be overlooked is the fact that most of the things we consider we know, are actually beliefs as well.

    if we are to take a critical stance towards religious beliefs, why not all beliefs?
  • Gnostic Christian Bishop
    685
    Calling yourself "Gnostic Agnositc" gave me the impression that you come from Christianity.T Clark

    If so, I would imagine our friend would label himself a Gnostic Christian.

    Remember that one can be Gnostic to any religion. There are even Gnostic Muslims.

    Gnostic, more or less, just says that one is a free thinker and esoteric ecumenist and likely a naturalist.

    Regards
    DL
  • Gnostic Christian Bishop
    685
    if we are to take a critical stance towards religious beliefs, why not all beliefs?Tzeentch

    This.

    Regards
    DL
  • A Gnostic Agnostic
    53


    I appreciate your response.



    Thank you for your response - I do not take things personally anymore, as I find this would be ones own personal fault before any further considerations be made about anything perceived on the outside of (a) being. I still question whether or not one is truly a separate "I" or if one merely "believes" to be distinct from the whole. The "belief" element affects everything, but subtly - this is why I find the Biblical serpent to be just that: "belief". What is one willing to "believe"?



    Regarding "belief" - I do not distinguish "belief" in any way, it is one thing to me, religious or otherwise. The statements "I believe..." and "I do not know..." are technically equivalent, because if one "believes" something, they do not actually know what the "believe" is true... they just "believe" it is. That is the reason for the distinction between "I believe..." and "I know..." as they are a dichotomy only if/when the "I know..." is actually a known, and not "believed" to be known and confused. This is why I tied "belief" to confusion and find that confused people are "believers" of something that is not true.

    I am not good with logic, but I know many others here may be, so something like:

    If:
    i. satan requires "belief" in order to confuse "believers" into "believing" that "belief" is a virtue, and if
    ii. satan requires "belief" in order to confuse "believers" into "believing" that Satan is God,
    Then it necessarily follows that:
    iii. "belief" is not a virtue over knowing what not to "believe".

    This defeats "belief"-based states that require "belief" in something as opposed to "knowing" it.

    "Your posts have a lot of anti-Islamic content, e.g. comparing Muhammad to Hitler. Are the other monotheistic religions different? Do your feelings come from personal experience with Islam. Calling yourself "Gnostic Agnositc" gave me the impression that you come from Christianity."

    What do you mean by "anti-Islamic" content? I don't understand this - Islam, as a "belief"-based state has every right to be criticized as any. That it shields itself from criticisms behind labeling others as "anti-Islamic" or "Islamophobic" is a part of the fascist nature of "belief"-based states such as Islam.

    To answer your question: yes, Islam is different from other monotheistic religions. It claims to be in possession of the "final" revelation and Muhammad is the "final" messenger whose conduct is exemplary for all of humanity. This makes it different from all others - it imposes itself as the final/only "solution" to humanity just as Adolph Hitler attempted to do: male central figure fascist dictator warlord who weaponizes the states against his political adversaries and constructs a genocide machine against Jews/unbelievers. Both Hitler and Muhammad did this - the House of Islam cowers from the association because there is a relationship between Islam and Nazism that results in the same: socialism, fascism and genocide. This happens to be an ongoing problem, so Islam will not be enjoying any special treatment given it, like "belief", is a problem, and not a solution.



    Thank you - the object of the "belief" doesn't matter to me, I know it does to others because they probably wish to protect their "beliefs", but I see all "belief" held as virtue to be problematic.

    "Believers" persecute "unbelievers" for not "believing" things that are not true. This is fascism - forcing a "belief"-based state on an "unbelieving" populace that does not wish it requires force.
  • S
    11.4k
    The question doesn't seem to make sense. Belief is a necessity, and is no more or less a virtue than breathing. Perhaps you mean something else.
  • A Gnostic Agnostic
    53


    I take gnostic as 'knowing' thus 'a gnostic agnostic' means "what I know, I know, what I do not know, I do not know" and for me the rest is "belief" which has no virtue in it at all.



    Yes, all "beliefs" should be scrutinized to no end. If you attempt to scrutinize certain "belief" systems involving books and male central figures, people who worship these things start becoming filled with enmity and desire to spill blood, which is precisely what distinguishes Kain from Abel. It takes "belief" to "believe" ones prophet/god is insulted by utterances of their true nature. In reality, the one who worships is insulted, hence the enmity and desire to spill blood. Asia Bibi is a good example of this: men who desire to spill the blood of a woman for "insulting" their male central figure idol.
  • 3017amen
    166


    Sure I think the answer to that question is that people have all sorts of intrinsic fears.

    From time to time I study my own fears and what motivates me to do certain things as a result of same. Self-awareness is critical there... it's a dynamic not static journey .

    On the plus side I take negative behavior and turn it around and use it as a teaching moment of how not to be... So it's reverse inspiration!!!
  • A Gnostic Agnostic
    53


    It wouldn't make sense if there were not people who "believed" that "belief" *is* a virtue, but they do. Religious institutions indoctrinate people into "believing" that, no matter what, this is a test of ones faith (which requires "belief"). You are ultimately correct: it is absolutely neutral like breathing in reality.
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    I find "belief" to be the agency required by what is referred to as "satan" to confuse people into "believing" such [...] I find "belief" therefore to be like chains that enslave people to something that is not actually real and, as it happens, the reality is actually the opposite.A Gnostic Agnostic

    Belief is not a virtue, but a necessity. There are so many things we cannot know (objectively), but feel we need to know, that we guess, and we guess our guesses are correct: we believe. Those unaware (or frightened) of our ignorance may shy away from 'belief', but in the real world it is a universal part of everyday life.

    You are ultimately correct: it is absolutely neutral like breathing in reality.A Gnostic Agnostic

    Yes! :smile: And it's as necessary as breathing too! :up:
  • S
    11.4k
    But they don't really or simply mean belief, they mean religious belief or having faith in their religion. So there's ambiguity in your question which you could have avoided if you had've worded it better. Is religious belief, or having faith in your religion, in an uncritical manner, a virtue? No, it's the opposite. So, on that basis, I'll vote for "No".
  • A Gnostic Agnostic
    53


    Understanding fear is superior to suffering it - this is precisely the grounds upon which I understood that the Judaic expression "fear of god is the beginning of wisdom" is confused. Understanding fear is the beginning of wisdom, as it is with all things, including peace.
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    Oops! Is this topic about religious belief? :yikes:
  • 3017amen
    166


    Sure! Maslow embraced Eastern thought in his Christianity. Meaning the yin and yang of fear and wisdom!!
  • 3017amen
    166


    Ha, I know I love to talk about religion! As the late George Harrison once said: everything else can wait but the search for God cannot wait.
  • Tzeentch
    339
    Do you consider there to be a difference between believing religious scripture and believing the text in a history book?
  • Gnostic Christian Bishop
    685
    I take gnostic as 'knowing' thus 'a gnostic agnostic' means "what I know, I know, what I do not know, I do not know" and for me the rest is "belief" which has no virtue in it at all.A Gnostic Agnostic

    Hmm.

    Gnostic is the root word of agnostic so I just read gnostic agnostic as basically two words that mean the same thing. Agnostic is the starting point that leads to Gnosis IMO.

    Agnostics will seek god till/when they find god and when they do, they will then graduate their label to Gnostic. We remain perpetual seekers but are on Jacobs ladder where the term agnostic does not really fit as we have decided to seek god. God defined as the best rules and laws we can follow to live a good life with.

    God is not important. Only his teaching are. Give this a quick listen. It is enlightening IMO.

    https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

    Belief based on facts has merit. No?

    "Believers" persecute "unbelievers" for not "believing" things that are not true. This is fascismA Gnostic Agnostic

    It is well known that Christianity and Islam are fascists given their inquisitions and jihads.

    Regards
    DL
  • Gnostic Christian Bishop
    685
    men who desire to spill the blood of a woman for "insulting" their male central figure idol.A Gnostic Agnostic

    I think this refers more to faith than belief as faith has no facts whereas I define belief as based on facts.

    Other than that glitch, I think we are close in thinking.

    Regards
    DL
  • Gnostic Christian Bishop
    685
    So it's reverse inspiration!!!3017amen

    Indeed.This Gnostic Christians says ----

    I keep a bible in the house even though I think this quote quite correct.

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
    ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

    Then again, I am a Gnostic Christian and know how to read the filth in it.

    Said of Gnostic Christian versus Christian bible reading practices.

    “Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
    William Blake.

    I would take this further and advise you to read any scriptures from as many POV as is within you. Question everything including yourself.

    The bible, if read as a book of wisdom, does have much wisdom though.

    You just have to read it the way Gnostics do and revers a lot of the Christian morals.

    Christians call evil good while Gnostic Christians call evil, evil.

    I E. Gnostic Christians think that bible God, the demiurge to us, is quite immoral for thinking that torturing King David's baby for 6 days before finally killing it is good justice. Gnostic Christians think that evil while Christians think that a good form of justice.

    Which group do you think is right?

    Regards
    DL
  • A Gnostic Agnostic
    53


    Do you consider there to be a difference between believing religious scripture and believing the text in a history book?

    Yes there is, but it is subtle and difficult to talk about because there is an element of *personal attachment* involved that applies to some, but not all. For example some "believe" in scripture and/or the idols associated, and thus they have a personal emotional/psychological attachment to them. If they face something that undermines the practicality of these attachments, they may take it personally and endeavor to dismiss close consideration which does undermine it.

    For the two examples you gave (wherein I'll take as (x) and (y) respectively) (x) may have accessory figures, such as male central figures often imbued with fantastical qualities acting under a god-inspired mission, which add a level of attachment that would not otherwise exist in the case of (y). In the case of (y), a person who is reading a history book may be doing so to scrutinize it for any/all inaccuracies, such as whether or not it is even a preserved text as claimed. Emotional/psychological attachments to figures related to the text(s) is essentially what distinguishes "history" from "religion" in that the latter adopts a political worldview as it relates to god (ie. either a "believer" or an "unbeliever" in whatever the 'state' holds as god's "truth") which is the political elements of Christianity and Islam. In both cases, both rely on male central figures which are touted as being a 'mercy upon mankind' and serve as a model man for the empire. The point of my argument is it is possible to "know" who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to "believe" which *is* a virtue because it eliminates there ever being a possibility to becoming 'bound to believe' something that is not true. For example:

    The word "Satan" in its original Semitic form is written shin, tet, nun (final), the characteristics of which I understand respectively as expression of being (shin) bound (tet) in an ongoing state (nun final) rendering a rough English translation of "Satan" as:

    "an expression of being bound in an ongoing state"

    which is the natural 'state' of any "believer" who "believes" something that is not true. I understand, therefor, the "father" of the "house" to be the most principle "belief" and/or "object of faith" a being carries as their own "father". For some people, their "father" is a lie - they "believe" in things that are not real, which requires "belief" as opposed to "knowing" what not to "believe".

    I find knowledge of good and evil and "knowing who/what/where/why/when/how *not* to believe" as the same "thing" that is not actually a thing, but more an equation:

    understanding
    (begets)
    wisdom
    (begets)
    truth

    or in the reverse: the truth of the way of life. Christians "believe" this is a man. This is the idol worship I am talking about, and whereas a Muhammadan might enjoy my saying of the Christians they worship a MAN, the Muhammadans do the same with their Muhammad calling him a mercy upon mankind like the Christians their Jesus. And it is two rivaling idols as their worshipers. Where is this "us" vs. "them" actually coming from, if god is supposedly "one"? I say stop worshiping books and idols, because that is what Christians and Muslims are doing without UNDERSTANDING what idol worship actually is.

    I propose the 'idol worship test'. It is very easy, just one question does it:

    Are they willing to spill blood over it?

    If yes: they are worshiping it.
    If no: they are not worshiping it.
  • A Gnostic Agnostic
    53


    Belief based on facts has merit. No?

    If someone has reason to "believe" in something, I'd rather them forget the "belief" part and give me their reason instead. The reason is: "belief" can merely be a projection of what one *wants* to be true because it suits their own desired worldview, and they will creatively choose/adapt the "facts" to suit their projected/desired worldview. For example "god is love" might suit the worldview of a person who is themselves deprived of feeling love. Likewise, ones religion can be a religion of "peace" if they are themselves deprived of peace - and the pursuit of it reveals the opposite to be true, just as "belief" is not a virtue and required by satan to confuse.

    This problem becomes most obvious in religion wherein a "fact" is not actually a fact, such as a book has never been altered and remains in its original form. This not-a-fact "fact" contributes to the degree to which one "believes" in the god/deity (really: 'state') that is built on a false "belief" based on a false assertion taken as 'true' but is actually false. This is the power of "belief": it can overtake what real "facts" are and people begin denying the reality. Denying reality in favor of a "belief" is madness.

    It is the disease that is in Liberalism, and the same disease is found in (actually as) Islam: "belief" overtakes reality such that the reality is rejected and substituted with a "belief"-based one that adapts to ones own desire at that time. This is the same pathological nature of Muhammad adapting Allah to suit his own desire at that time, hence the contradictions in/of the Qur'an which Muslims vehemently "believe" do not exist, but do. The expression "liberalism is a mental illness" has an equal: "Islam is a mental illness" because both empower "belief" over reality. In the reality, the first victim of Islam is the "believing" Muslim who "believes" their suffering is coming from somewhere outside of Islam.

    A'isha allegedly stated "I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman" and, if true, confirms to me beyond any reasonable doubt that she was much more intelligent than Muhammad was. 1400 years later and she is still right.
  • Tzeentch
    339
    I didn't really understand the point you were trying to make, but if you boil it down to this:

    Are they willing to spill blood over it?A Gnostic Agnostic

    History is filled with people willing to spill blood over historical claims.

    In fact, I'd argue there is no difference between believing religious scripture and historical accounts.

    When reading a history book, aren't we believing the words of the writer? And doesn't that writer believe events happened a certain way? So we are believing the beliefs of the writer! There's even a good chance that the writer of the book got his beliefs from someone else's beliefs.

    It seems that if we choose to be critical about beliefs, that has a lot of implications about the things we think we know.
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.