Gnosticism
-
Ah but then again this all depends on if logic is generated by human minds or if a perfect law of logic already exists, and it is minds that try to comprehend this logic. Does the mind create logic or does it 'see' logic?Originally posted by Cenarious:If logic can lead one to believe that humans can never fly or even touch the moon, how reliable can logic be? Be flexible.
I believe it's the latter, saying that logic can be anything or subject to any sort of change is as good as saying that logic is nothing at all. It is apparent that this Logic (Perfect tense), is also not some things, as much as it is some things. All men accept this principle, even those who claim that there is no absolute truth, in which they assert that the lack of absolute truth is an absolute that has to hold for their talkings to make sense. They then will have to construct their reasonsings why their absolutes make sense... I have yet to see a convincing reply though, beyond appealing to a lot of emotions.
It is entirely true that certain things that once seemed illogical may now become logical. But that was not because they were illogical to begin with but because they were logical all this while, just that we have yet to perceive it. When finally understood, it would have been found that they have never contradicted anything to begin with.
First and foremost, when we distil logic down to it's components we have first principles. That is basic pieces of reasoning that cannot be reasoned themselves, they have to be self-apparent and self-supportive. A good example would be the law of non-contradiction, where if A is equal to B, then B cannot be equal to A. This law cannot be denied in any way without changing all other forms of thought. The only way to get around this rule is to find some form of harmonization which removes the contradiction, but the law itself cannot be destroyed.
Your binary and telephone ideas are good examples of how certain 'contradictory' concepts can become congruent with logic. But then they hardly mean that things which are really and truly contradictory can ever be reconciled. No matter of working in the universe can undo that, because they have been set in stone by absolute logic.
Is it possible that Jesus might be what the Gnostics say He is as well as what traditional Christianity says, if some form of harmonization can be found. But as of yet if this harmonization is a reasonable one or even one that can preserve the truth of both without compromising them in either way is highly dubious, or at least a very long shot based on mostly speculation. Can I say they are absolutely irreconcilable? Certainly not because being absolutely sure is an impossibility.
But I know that in the end we have to make a choice at the end of all possible reasoning. This matter either is, nor is not. Either what the Gnostics imply is true or is not, as is the same for Traditional Christianity. There are many arguments but I throw my wager with Traditional Christianity, not so much because the mass of people is there, but because my own personal rational reasoning point me towards there. I'm sure the Gnostics have their own compelling reasons as well, but it turns out that often only one of us can be correct.
This then is a matter of debate. But I am dubious the Gnostics and Christianity can be absolutely reconciled. I suspect it could be a lot of wishful thinking.
I suspect the view that anything can be harmonized... if the apporiate logic is found, to be one suspect of logic itself. If you change one thing in logic you change everything else that is implied by that very logic. Also if logic itself is always subject to change on a whim ala. no absolute logic style... then on what grounds do we believe this logic to be sound? By what standard do we measure it? What makes us think this logic is more or better then the other? Which logic then is true? Do we have a whole many sets of logics, feminist logic, stoic logic, atheistic logic, materialistic logic, humanistic logic, and all the other logics without ever cosidering if these logics are true? I don't know but it's a compelling question.
And often I wonder why we want to change it at all. Is it because we have compelling reasons to change the way we see things... or is it because it is the way we'd wished to see things? -
Did Judas have a choice? Should he be blamed or not? Pls click article for some ideas: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2133311,00.html
-
Wow, did you have to type this whole text of irrelevant content just to reply to my one liner? Anyway, you are assuming that we know the whole truth of something that happened 2000 years ago based simply on a book compiled by people of disputable intentions.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Ah but then again this all depends on if logic is generated by human minds or if a perfect law of logic already exists, and it is minds that try to comprehend this logic. Does the mind create logic or does it 'see' logic?
I believe it's the latter, saying that logic can be anything or subject to any sort of change is as good as saying that logic is nothing at all. It is apparent that this Logic (Perfect tense), is also not some things, as much as it is some things. All men accept this principle, even those who claim that there is no absolute truth, in which they assert that the lack of absolute truth is an absolute that has to hold for their talkings to make sense. They then will have to construct their reasonsings why their absolutes make sense... I have yet to see a convincing reply though, beyond appealing to a lot of emotions.
It is entirely true that certain things that once seemed illogical may now become logical. But that was not because they were illogical to begin with but because they were logical all this while, just that we have yet to perceive it. When finally understood, it would have been found that they have never contradicted anything to begin with.
First and foremost, when we distil logic down to it's components we have first principles. That is basic pieces of reasoning that cannot be reasoned themselves, they have to be self-apparent and self-supportive. A good example would be the law of non-contradiction, where if A is equal to B, then B cannot be equal to A. This law cannot be denied in any way without changing all other forms of thought. The only way to get around this rule is to find some form of harmonization which removes the contradiction, but the law itself cannot be destroyed.
Your binary and telephone ideas are good examples of how certain 'contradictory' concepts can become congruent with logic. But then they hardly mean that things which are really and truly contradictory can ever be reconciled. No matter of working in the universe can undo that, because they have been set in stone by absolute logic.
Is it possible that Jesus might be what the Gnostics say He is as well as what traditional Christianity says, if some form of harmonization can be found. But as of yet if this harmonization is a reasonable one or even one that can preserve the truth of both without compromising them in either way is highly dubious, or at least a very long shot based on mostly speculation. Can I say they are absolutely irreconcilable? Certainly not because being absolutely sure is an impossibility.
But I know that in the end we have to make a choice at the end of all possible reasoning. This matter either is, nor is not. Either what the Gnostics imply is true or is not, as is the same for Traditional Christianity. There are many arguments but I throw my wager with Traditional Christianity, not so much because the mass of people is there, but because my own personal rational reasoning point me towards there. I'm sure the Gnostics have their own compelling reasons as well, but it turns out that often only one of us can be correct.
This then is a matter of debate. But I am dubious the Gnostics and Christianity can be absolutely reconciled. I suspect it could be a lot of wishful thinking.
I suspect the view that anything can be harmonized... if the apporiate logic is found, to be one suspect of logic itself. If you change one thing in logic you change everything else that is implied by that very logic. Also if logic itself is always subject to change on a whim ala. no absolute logic style... then on what grounds do we believe this logic to be sound? By what standard do we measure it? What makes us think this logic is more or better then the other? Which logic then is true? Do we have a whole many sets of logics, feminist logic, stoic logic, atheistic logic, materialistic logic, humanistic logic, and all the other logics without ever cosidering if these logics are true? I don't know but it's a compelling question.
And often I wonder why we want to change it at all. Is it because we have compelling reasons to change the way we see things... or is it because it is the way we'd wished to see things? -
I am surprised you see my 'whole text of irrelevant content' as a reply. I was not questioning your powers of observation, but rather it was your observation that I found thought provoking, hence the 'whole text of irrelevant content'.Originally posted by Cenarious:Wow, did you have to type this whole text of irrelevant content just to reply to my one liner? Anyway, you are assuming that we know the whole truth of something that happened 2000 years ago based simply on a book compiled by people of disputable intentions.
And you must understand that the notion that it is irrelevant eludes me, namely so because you quite rightfully rose up the question of how and why we should understand things, without which there can be no basis of making any sort of rational statement at all. It is quite important indeed, and has to be relevant, or we would have nothing to argue about at all.
And it's vitally important to begin with because should we start with a flawed grasp of logic, it follows that all our subsquent conclusions would be for naught. There is no point arguing about the utility of red as a danger-colour if we start colour-blind. Indeed, all arguments can even carry on because people agree on a certain absolute standard to begin with. All men accept this principle.
And no, I do not for a moment assumes I know the whole truth based on some book complied 2000 years ago. Though I might dispute the fact (on certain compelling reasons) that the persons who compiled it had less-then-honest intentions. What I can say is that a certain some book does have some rather intriguing incongruities with the normal proceeding of statistics we would accept of normal historical documentations that require a second look.
And a second look that must be taken with an open acceptance of both possibilities. If it is fake we should indeed reject it with vigor, but if it is true it has several ground-shattering implications that cannot be ignored. Lest the believer say that he is unwilling to entertain the possibility of becoming a skeptic, and the skeptic a believerÂ… this discourse is in vain, and is of fruitless one-upmanship. Which I have absolutely no intention of engaging in. By all means we should question and debate, but for the sake of discovering truth and not of showing superiority of ways (though an honest discourse might reveal inherent superiorities).
What I will dispute is that the belief that the book in itself flawed beyond belief, and easily proven false quickly. This seems to me to be an assumption that likes to fly before considering all the evidence. -
I told you liao .. NT2 was referring to logical truths.The law of non-contradiction .. you heard of that?Originally posted by Cenarious:If logic can lead one to believe that humans can never fly or even touch the moon, how reliable can logic be? Be flexible.
No-one is arguing whether humans can fly or not, that's beside the point. -
ya...man cannot fly. we all knowOriginally posted by Icemoon:I told you liao .. NT2 was referring to logical truths.The law of non-contradiction .. you heard of that?
No-one is arguing whether humans can fly or not, that's beside the point.
-
Put it this way
Why Mark, why John, why Matthew?
Of all the gospels in the early days of the church, the church leaders have heavy hand in choosing what gospels to put into the New Testament, what not to put in.
True they are heretical using the convention of present day church teachings, but we got to be more specific here.
They are only heretical to the early days church leaders, and over time, it had become the so called universal truth that they are heretical and cultic in nature.
Not forgetting what i had replied to, i think casino king, when he tried to ask whether the existence of Jesus is real, and i said we can only make assumptions using only what we had as so called evidence, and most 'evidence' is what left of what the church decreed which gospels to burn, what not to burn.
Kinda unjust on Judas and his lot. Anyone read or watch about Cleopatra? -
Of course it can. It is call freedom of religion since religions is based only on beliefs and not facts..Originally posted by NT2:My personal point of view: I am against it totally.
The gnostic gospels are all distorted truths and deceptions leading people to a false Christ.
The gospel of Thomas
The gospel of Philip
The gospel of Mary Magdalene
The gospel of Judas
I am sure there are more 'gospels' to come
Gnosticism can never co-exist with Christianity. -
I was a baptised mormon, I joined the church at a young age, and as I grew older, I didn't agree with the teachings of the church and decided to leave the mormon church once and for all. However, I've never lost my love and interest for God and Christ. I continue to be intrigued by christianity. I visited couple of churches over the years, methodist, catholic, etc, but I've never settled for any church. I guess I'm still searching and I'll let God show me to the right one.
One of the reasons I didn't go back to a church was becoz I always feel that churches have to look after their own interests, and their teachings sometimes can be bias and they tend to draw conclusions on certain issues too quickly. Like I'm very sure, church leaders will quickly dismiss the credibility of the gospel of judas when they know it was going to be showed in NG, and surely advise ppl not to even bother with the gospel of judas.
That is just one example I dont enjoy going to church. I'm intrigued about god, and I want to learn every and anything about him whether gnostic or not. orthodox or not.
Dont you all ever ask yourself, what if the discovery of gospel of judas and various gospels was part of god's plan? what if god has more things install for us? Are we reading his signs wrongly? These are just some of the things I sometimes ask myself. -
Of course it can. It is call freedom of religion since religions is based only on beliefs and not facts..
How typical of someone who thinks that secularism is based upon facts and doesn't require faith. I daresy it requires tremendous faith to be an atheist. -
hmm .. but secularism is not the same as atheism.Originally posted by plo30360: How typical of someone who thinks that secularism is based upon facts and doesn't require faith. I daresy it requires tremendous faith to be an atheist. -
If you have never seen a whale up front and touched a whale and people show you evidence that whales exists; you require "faith?"Originally posted by plo30360: How typical of someone who thinks that secularism is based upon facts and doesn't require faith. I daresy it requires tremendous faith to be an atheist.
Don't be so shallow in your thinking....
Show me evidence that God exists...
Show me evidence of heaven and hell...
Heck since you believe in a soul and spirit that are supposed to be in you or part of you... show me the evidence. Go on, show me. -
Yes, actually you do. Here your placing your faith in the credibilty(among other things) of the witness.
If you have never seen a whale up front and touched a whale and people show you evidence that whales exists; you require "faith?"Show me evidence that God exists...
Depends what evidence you want.
Before I show you, answer me this question, do you belive in the mind(not brain)?
Heck since you believe in a soul and spirit that are supposed to be in you or part of you... show me the evidence. Go on, show me. -
These are questions that are certainly too deep to be answered via the means of a humble forum like this. Before one considers any evidence however, one needs to remember that how one consider's evidence is directly a result of his or her thinking, which ought to be based on logic.Originally posted by casino_king:If you have never seen a whale up front and touched a whale and people show you evidence that whales exists; you require "faith?"
Don't be so shallow in your thinking....
Show me evidence that God exists...
Show me evidence of heaven and hell...
Heck since you believe in a soul and spirit that are supposed to be in you or part of you... show me the evidence. Go on, show me.
Let's say we have compelling evidence that whales do exist, however you do come across a person who for certain reasons, believes that it is impossible for such an animal to exist. No matter what. No matter how convincingly you might show him, or even get him to touch and see the actual animal he can claim that all this is a delusion or a trickery of the senses, or appeal to some alternative reason as to why the very evidence he is seeing is not proof of a whale. It boils down to if the person's particular point of view is open to the possibility of the existence of a whale or not. Evidence can help to strengthen one's logic, but it can never create the logic itself.
It is the evidence that appeals to the logic, not the logic that is birthed by the evidence. If the logic was created by the evidence then there would be no reason whatsoever to consider why this or that logic should be generated from that particular evidence. In fact, it is as good as saying we can use any kind of logic on any evidence as we do so, which is as good as saying nothing. Obviously one needs the logic first before evidence is considered.
Of course, 'seeing to believe' is a very common logic that a lot of people use in order to believe in something. However one needs to think if this logic of belief is applicable to everything, and if not, why. Indeed if one uses this logic only to go about life, then it is no surprise that a lot of things will have to be taken on faith, even though with a little shift of expectations many unreasonable things may suddenly become perfectly logical and obvious.
Obviously, it's an issue of philosophy, first and formost. Obviously philosophy can be strengthened or weakened by various logics that can demostrate their truths in various ways.
The real question one should ask themselves before asking various questions on the existence of a soul, heaven, hell or God is this: are these notions that in my own point of view that are absolutely impossible? Or are my expectations of their proofs unreasonable? What do I consider more likely or less likely indeed? Is what I am thinking logical, or emotional? If we have many things in our own way of thinking that sets ourselves up from the start towards disbelief, then it might not be very fair to answer these questions on the sheer existence of hell, heaven or God at all.
Really, what indeed are your expectations? And if granted evidence, how would you take it in? How much proof do you need?
I am certainly not sure, because first and formost I am not you. But let me say first of all that among Christians I tend to be the rather skeptical kind, and my personal conversion was hardly emotional or wanting to buy pie-in-sky dreams. I don't think I 'reasoned' myself into faith (in the end you still have to leave some things to belief), but first and foremost I would like to say that the assumption that the belief in God or religon is illogical or things that like to fly in spite of the evidence.
There are good and compelling reasons to be theist, even if you are not a Christian. And obviously if you are a theist, one needs to consider if polytheism or monotheism is more reasonable. And lastly, if one chooses the either, one needs to wonder if any of the either is to be the best form of the sort. But of course these are yet again too complex questions to be answered in such a forum without much cutting out of important concepts and questions.
And also I am not convinced that we are yet ready to engage in a civil and fair discussion of things. It seems to me that many of us are still raving to get our shots in at the opposite party, and not really willing to listen or answer any questions at all. All too often one might realize that one actually shares 90 percent of his opponent's views when they truly start to debate. Obviously if the skeptic here should view the Christians as cardboard characters unworthy of trustful speak from which every world is hopelessly marred by biblical bias, and the Christian viewing the skeptic as a cutout of unbelief in 'obvious' things and just disrespect towards God waiting to be put down... we shall get nowhere.
Shall we shake hands, make that cup of tea, and seriously listen to each other for a change? Could the skeptics think more about what they are really asking and the Christians consider if they really understand what they believe and how to bring that across? That would be most nice, and most fruitful as well.
On the issue of the bible being biased. First and formost one needs to consider if this is a possibility. Was it all politics of thelogy at the hand of church elders or rather was it an agreement of the doctorine of the entire church versus a fringe group?
And is the victoring thelogy always a lie? Or are there other reasons behind why the bible is the bible today? Has one considered all the evidence? What would one like to believe? Is what one would like to believe really happening? Is it congruent with reality?
First and foremost I do not imagine for a moment one should use the argument that the most popular version today is the lie simply because it is the victoring version. It is as good as saying nothing as it means that any losing idea or theory ought to be the truth automatically simply because it was snubbed out. This means that there ought to be no winners.
And I am not too sure as well, it is also as good as saying we should not trust the accounts of WW2 written from the allies perspective and should instead listen to the 'suppressed' nazi version of history that is the suppressed truth. Yes the victors may get to write history in the end, but that act of writing has little bearing on if it is the truth or not. If the truth wins it wins, as would a lie should it win.
To seriously consider what was the real christianity back then, one needs to consider all the aspects of the case. I am disinclined to agree with Judas' account simply because he is a vilified character. One might as well agree with a gospel that paints all the white as black, and black as white.
Do we dare to really test the evidence? Or just fit it into whatever we'd like? This goes for both sides. -
hmm .. but secularism is not the same as atheism.
Yes, I'm aware but in casino king's case I lumped it together because he seems to have this concept as his guiding principle:
"What can only be tested by the experince of this life..."
Which would be classfied as secularism. -
Haiyah .. instead of writing a long post like T-Rex, I will just urge casino king to read up on what is a properly basic belief.Originally posted by casino_king:If you have never seen a whale up front and touched a whale and people show you evidence that whales exists; you require "faith?"
Don't be so shallow in your thinking....
Show me evidence that God exists...
Show me evidence of heaven and hell...
Heck since you believe in a soul and spirit that are supposed to be in you or part of you... show me the evidence. Go on, show me.
It is no use trying to show that God is as real as the mind or a whale, which he is trying to challenge you people to do. -
This is a trap. There is no credible evidence for God to date, I must confess.Originally posted by plo30360:Depends what evidence you want.
Every so called evidence/argument can be challenged. -
This is a trap. There is no credible evidence for God to date, I must confess.
Every so called evidence/argument can be challenged.
Yes true, but it works both ways. It can also be said there's no credible evidence for atheism to date and that every atheist argument can be challegened.
Actually, it all boils down to the defenition of 'credible'. -
You forget the most important point:Originally posted by plo30360: Yes true, but it works both ways. It can also be said there's no credible evidence for atheism to date and that every atheist argument can be challegened.
Actually, it all boils down to the defenition of 'credible'.
The burden of proof is on you.
-
Yes, the famous 'onus of proof'
You forget the most important point:
The burden of proof is on you.. The 'onus of proof' is something atheists have convinently misinterpreted as always being on the theist.
In actual fact it lies on anyone who makes a claim,regardless whether the claim has a value or is nil.
e.g 0+0=0 -
Just a thought, Can anyone really honestly proof that God does not exist?Originally posted by Icemoon:You forget the most important point:
The burden of proof is on you. 
-
Let's just say it is more logically to believe he not exist.Originally posted by vince69:Just a thought, Can anyone really honestly proof that God does not exist? -
Let's just say it is more logically to believe he not exist
I'm suprised, this is coming from you. Its more illogical to say God doesn't exist.
However, I trust that you have a good explanation for that statement as usual? -
Not really, there is a lot of things that also logically points to a Creater God.Originally posted by Icemoon:Let's just say it is more logically to believe he not exist.
and also a lot of things that points to Evolution being untrue.
The thing about logic is that its limited to a finite logical mind, hence also limited to experiences which again is limited.
Theologically, If God being God is infinite, can an finite mind really comprehend a infinite God?
-
T-Rex is cool, are you taking philosophy in NUS?
Nice points of view and pretty enlightening.