Originally posted by Bosse de NageRead in conjunction with other parts of the Gospel of Truth:
What do you make of that?
"Since forgetfulness existed because they did not know the Father, if they then come to know the Father, from that moment on forgetfulness will cease to exist.
That is the gospel of him whom they seek, which he has revealed to the perfect through the mercies of the Father as the hidden mystery, Jesus the Christ. Through him he enlightened those who were in darkness because of forgetfulness. He enlightened them and gave them a path. And that path is the truth which he taught them. "
Remember that we are dealing here with a mystical path, therefore knowledge referred to here is experiential.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIn LJ's case, definitely 'incendiary'. But at least he's bothered to read through the extract. DavidC did not look beyond the fact that it was I who posted it - I think I would get the same response even if it had been the abstract of Einstein's paper on Brownian motion.
"Incendiary"? I think the word you're looking for is "ridiculous" (in the eyes of David C and LJ).
Originally posted by lucifershammerI lack your ability to read people's minds, so I can't say what was going through David C's. Although I also think that the language used in the first post is quite silly (from my perspective).
In LJ's case, definitely 'incendiary'. But at least he's bothered to read through the extract. DavidC did not look beyond the fact that it was I who posted it - I think I would get the same response even if it had been the abstract of Einstein's paper on Brownian motion.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell - you seem to have no problem reading my mind at various points on this forum.
I lack your ability to read people's minds, so I can't say what was going through David C's. Although I also think that the language used in the first post is quite silly (from my perspective).
Care to elaborate on which aspects of the language you felt was silly?
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. Your humourous post simply reinforces the perception that your religion embodies extreme arrogance and ultimately displays a lack of understanding of the motivations of those who have chosen not to follow your faith. "Prundece and respect" is pious code for "condescension and disdain".
DavidC did not look beyond the fact that it was I who posted it - I think I would get the same response even if it had been the abstract of Einstein's paper on Brownian motion.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIndeed, but even more than this.
Experience is the crux on which this knowledge hangs.
The Apochryphon of James:
"it is fitting to be diminished while you can still be filled, and to be filled while it is still possible to be diminished, in order that you can fill yourselves the more. Therefore become full of the spirit but be diminished of reason. For reason is of the soul; and it is soul."
or as expressed in The Cloud of Unknowing:
"Of God Himself can no man think, and therefore I would leave all that thing that I can think, and choose to my love that thing that
I cannot think. "
"The universes which are amenable to the intellect can never satisfy the instincts of the heart. "
Originally posted by David CHere's where that arrogance and ignorance comes from:
My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. Your humourous post simply reinforces the perception that your religion embodies extreme arrogance and ultimately displays a lack of understanding of the motivations of those who have chosen not to follow your faith. "Prundece and respect" is pious code for "condescension and disdain".
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
btw Jeez and they called Pius IX a liberal LMAOOOOOOOOO
Originally posted by David C"Prudence[sic] and respect" means precisely that - prudence and respect.
My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. Your humourous post simply reinforces the perception that your religion embodies extreme arrogance and ultimately displays a lack of understanding of the motivations of those who have chosen not to follow your faith. "Prundece and respect" is pious code for "condescension and disdain".
Your post contains more condescension and disdain than anything said in the interview. Far from a lack of understanding of the motivations of those who chose not to be Christian, P. Pius IX's position is validated in everyday pastoral experience. Indeed, I'd say that Christianity gives you far more respect than you give it.
As I have said before, religion and philosophy have to do with questions about how we, as individuals, live and grapple with the issues of life (except for those who are simply academic explorers). Some emotional responses ought to be expected.
The dis-illusionment process can be painful. There are people on here who, from a sincere and self-critical perspective, claim to have become dis-illusioned from certain religious/philosophical beliefs. I am one of them. I will doubtless have more dis-illusioning experiences as I go through life. I hope to have the courage to remain open and self-critical enough to learn from them—in fact, I would hope to have the courage to want to be dis-illusioned at every turn! (Am undoubtedly not there yet, though.)
With that said, I didn’t take the Pope's remarks to be as condescending as my friend LJ did. And I am sure that my remarks here could easily be taken as condescending to the extent that I claim to be dis-illusioned from some beliefs/understandings about the world that others do not find illusive. My plea here is simply to not assume that our “truth” is so clear that we dismiss the others’ as automatically being self-deceptive and self-protective (the presumptuous accusation, “You just want to keep your sinful lifestyle”—that has been leveled at me by people who haven’t the foggiest notion of what my lifestyle is—comes to mind; as well as similar one’s hurled in the other direction). Actually, if someone is honest enough to acknowledge that they hold to some of their beliefs out some self-protective instinct or need, such that they feel threatened if those beliefs are challenged—all I can say is, kudos for their self-awareness and honesty.
In the end, I still think the question is: “What happens if I let go of this or that belief, and the ‘need’ to hold onto it?” If you want to know what your (religious/philosophical/psychological) idols are, measure your own fear-factor in the face of the thought of having to relinquish certain beliefs, world-views, etc. This is not to say that we necessarily ought to let go too easily, without the testing-fire of argument…
Originally posted by vistesdAlways a pleasure reading your objectively moderate posts: even when your conclusions and mine are so far removed, they intersect on many other (albeit lesser) points.
Actually, if someone is honest enough to acknowledge that they hold to some of their beliefs out some self-protective instinct or need, such that they feel threatened if those beliefs are challenged—all I can say is, kudos for their self-awareness and honesty.
In a word, your post is about integrity, in the traditional definition. In short, [/b]loyalty to the truth[/b] is tantamount to grabbing hold of integrity... or better, allowing integrity to grab ahold of us.
Originally posted by lucifershammerpontificate
Very interesting.
verb, intr pontificated, pontificating
1. To pronounce one's opinion pompously and arrogantly.
Thesaurus: preach, expound, harangue, sound off (slang), lecture, sermonize, hold forth, lay down the law, moralize, dogmatize, declaim, perorate.
2. To perform the duties of a pontiff.