Are Christians, Muslims and atheists idolaters?

[Keith&Co.]

Your basic assumptions are flawed.
And that's not the salient detail of my post.

It was to me.

I understand why you refuse to answer.

I did answer. My answer, however, doesn't slot into one of your pigeonholes.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Modern Gnostic Christians name our God "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.


The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Huh. It sounds like somebody is engaging in idolatry by holding his belief system supreme.

Superficially, yes, but not in reality.

Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers.
Sure we all have a thinking system we think is the best or supreme at this point in time, but it sits on a bar that we are always trying to raise.

We seek to reject it as supreme and thus are not idolizing it. We see it as an interim ideal. If we did not, then we would be no better than the revealed religions that have stagnated in ancient centuries.

What we have is never good enough.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Your basic assumptions are flawed.
And that's not the salient detail of my post.

It was to me.

I understand why you refuse to answer.

I did answer. My answer, however, doesn't slot into one of your pigeonholes.

Now you are just lying.

I asked you, ---If you do not hold your belief system supreme, whose system do you hold supreme?

Quote the answer you said you gave.

If you are just to lie and try to deflect, again, do not bother replying.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

Superficially, yes, but not in reality.

A succinct description of your OP...

 

[Keith&Co.]

I asked you, ---If you do not hold your belief system supreme, whose system do you hold supreme?

Quote the answer you said you gave.

Second, I don't hold my belief system supreme. I'm an atheist because I haven't seen any compelling reason to adopt any belief system.

I don't hold ANY belief system supreme, Gnostic.

I have beliefs, but I am not so arrogant as you.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Superficially, yes, but not in reality.

A succinct description of your OP...

Thanks.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I asked you, ---If you do not hold your belief system supreme, whose system do you hold supreme?

Quote the answer you said you gave.

Second, I don't hold my belief system supreme. I'm an atheist because I haven't seen any compelling reason to adopt any belief system.

I don't hold ANY belief system supreme, Gnostic.

I have beliefs, but I am not so arrogant as you.

I see insecurity in your thinking then.

Your non-answer is noted. Asking again would be futile.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

I see insecurity in your thinking then.

How so?

Your non-answer is noted.

That's not a non-answer. I reject your assertion that I worship my worldview. Your efforts to weasel-word it into fact have failed.

 

[Jobar]

Perhaps it might be fair to accuse those who have some supreme holy book of being bibliolators; in essence, holding their scriptures (written by human beings, even if they claim divine inspiration) as objects of veneration akin to idols.

But I really don't see how you can call an atheist, who doesn't worship anything, an idolator.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Perhaps it might be fair to accuse those who have some supreme holy book of being bibliolators; in essence, holding their scriptures (written by human beings, even if they claim divine inspiration) as objects of veneration akin to idols.

But I really don't see how you can call an atheist, who doesn't worship anything, an idolator.

I do so because we all tend to idolize and hold as supreme our own thinking system.

Note the resistance to admit it by most above.

It might have to do more with mind set and the use of language and terms, which to me, knowing 3 languages, I find just an exercise in semantics.

What is idolized is the thinking you hold supreme. If an atheist, you hold your atheism thinking supreme. You are an idolater.

Break that logic trail if you can.

This link might drive my point home. Ignore the tail end preaching and think of the definition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... kZg1ZflpJs

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Modern Gnostic Christians name our God "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.


The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Huh. It sounds like somebody is engaging in idolatry by holding his belief system supreme.

Superficially, yes, but not in reality.

Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers.
Sure we all have a thinking system we think is the best or supreme at this point in time, but it sits on a bar that we are always trying to raise.

We seek to reject it as supreme and thus are not idolizing it. We see it as an interim ideal. If we did not, then we would be no better than the revealed religions that have stagnated in ancient centuries.

What we have is never good enough.

Regards
DL

So ... what's the difference between that and atheism, then?

Why would atheism fit your definition of idolatry and not what you just said?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Superficially, yes, but not in reality.

Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers.
Sure we all have a thinking system we think is the best or supreme at this point in time, but it sits on a bar that we are always trying to raise.

We seek to reject it as supreme and thus are not idolizing it. We see it as an interim ideal. If we did not, then we would be no better than the revealed religions that have stagnated in ancient centuries.

What we have is never good enough.

Regards
DL

So ... what's the difference between that and atheism, then?

Why would atheism fit your definition of idolatry and not what you just said?

I do not think that atheists, like most people, want to have their views changed.

They do not look around for what might change it while a Gnostic Christian does.

An atheist, again, like most people, will argue to win, while I and other Gnostic Christians argue to lose.

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, we’re fine with having our views changed. We’re atheists because that’s where the evidence has led us. If new evidence arises which leads us somewhere else, we’d stop being atheists and be something else.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

No, we’re fine with having our views changed. We’re atheists because that’s where the evidence has led us. If new evidence arises which leads us somewhere else, we’d stop being atheists and be something else.

Good.

That does not refute my views as then you will idolize your new ideology.

The same think happens to all including me until I remember to raise my bar of excellence yet again so as to not stay stuck in anything but the best that can be found. To stop improving an ideology is to stop evolving our ideas.

1. And he said, "Whoever finds the correct interpretation of these sayings will never die."

2. Jesus said, "The seeker should not stop until he finds. When he does find he will be disturbed. After having been disturbed, he will be astonished. Then he will reign over everything. [Having reigned, he will rest.]

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom-davies.html

The "die" in this quote, I take to mean mentally stagnate and not a physical death as there is no stopping that end to our individual evolution.

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wut?

So ... the fact that we'll change our ideology based on new evidence is more proof of our idolatry, but the fact that you'll change your ideology based on new evidence is more proof that yours isn't idolatry?

 

[abaddon]

I do so because we all tend to idolize and hold as supreme our own thinking system. Note the resistance to admit it by most above.

This is projection. You resist input that's different from your preconceptions. But to achieve the openmindedness that you idealize, you resort to "I'm not dogmatic... like you people are". By creating a contrast with others, you get to boast a superiority.

It's like trying to prove "I'm cool" by asserting "you all are assholes". It undermines the point.

It might have to do more with mind set and the use of language and terms, which to me, knowing 3 languages, I find just an exercise in semantics.

It has to do with you preaching your belief about others at them, rather than talking with them.

The jargon doesn't help -- "your god", "idols", "worship", et al. People have to translate that crap into plain English: "you people are dogmatists".

What is idolized is the thinking you hold supreme. If an atheist, you hold your atheism thinking supreme. You are an idolater.

To me "atheism" is a happenstance of having theists around. When other folk carry a stone around that I don't carry, that can be a difference that makes a difference. But if you want to know my "belief system" it's eclectic and I know no "ism" that summarizes it well.

I haven't fleshed out a full "atheology". The only problem I see with doing so is that I don't identify theism as the worst problem in the world, so it's not top on my list of priorities.

Break that logic trail if you can.

It's not a logic trail, it's sloppy writing/thinking.

Theists often misname naturalism or physicalism or scientism as "atheism". Maybe you're doing the same.

If someone wanted to flesh out an "atheology", it could well remain fully open to new info and retain its ideal too. After all, what's an atheist supposed to "evolve" to, when there's no meaningful use for the word "god"? There are supernaturalist theists actively distracting from reality... And there are some "esoteric" obfuscators trying to resurrect an ideal from crumbling ruins. Why can't a worthy ideal translate easily to modern English, and not get muddled with god-talk?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Wut?

So ... the fact that we'll change our ideology based on new evidence is more proof of our idolatry, but the fact that you'll change your ideology based on new evidence is more proof that yours isn't idolatry?

No. More like you should seek to evolve it at all times instead of accepting the new as the best and idolizing it anew.

Atheists are on the extreme side of belief and I would imagine that a paradigm shift would be quite hard to take.

Not that I am recommending it as to go to a full supernatural belief would be insane.

I am thinking more of perhaps recognizing the worth of the meditative wisdom seeking religions like Buddhism, Gnostic Christianity or Karaite Jewry if you happen to be a Jew. All of those put man above God.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

This is projection. You resist input that's different from your preconceptions. But to achieve the openmindedness that you idealize, you resort to "I'm not dogmatic... like you people are". By creating a contrast with others, you get to boast a superiority.

It's like trying to prove "I'm cool" by asserting "you all are assholes". It undermines the point.

It has to do with you preaching your belief about others at them, rather than talking with them.

The jargon doesn't help -- "your god", "idols", "worship", et al. People have to translate that crap into plain English: "you people are dogmatists".

What is idolized is the thinking you hold supreme. If an atheist, you hold your atheism thinking supreme. You are an idolater.

To me "atheism" is a happenstance of having theists around. When other folk carry a stone around that I don't carry, that can be a difference that makes a difference. But if you want to know my "belief system" it's eclectic and I know no "ism" that summarizes it well.

I haven't fleshed out a full "atheology". The only problem I see with doing so is that I don't identify theism as the worst problem in the world, so it's not top on my list of priorities.

Break that logic trail if you can.

It's not a logic trail, it's sloppy writing/thinking.

Theists often misname naturalism or physicalism or scientism as "atheism". Maybe you're doing the same.

If someone wanted to flesh out an "atheology", it could well remain fully open to new info and retain its ideal too. After all, what's an atheist supposed to "evolve" to, when there's no meaningful use for the word "god"? There are supernaturalist theists actively distracting from reality... And there are some "esoteric" obfuscators trying to resurrect an ideal from crumbling ruins. Why can't a worthy ideal translate easily to modern English, and not get muddled with god-talk?

My delivery is what it is and nowhere did I get close to calling anyone an ass hole.

If you are eclectic that is close enough to perfect for me.

As to atheology, that is secondary to my seeking the best moral rules to live by and I like to thionk I know why and how religions get started.

I think there is a useful use of the word God. That use is shown in this link.

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

Way more intelligent than what we have in the mainstream religions today. Right?

Regards
DL

 

[Jobar]

No, we’re fine with having our views changed. We’re atheists because that’s where the evidence has led us. If new evidence arises which leads us somewhere else, we’d stop being atheists and be something else.

This. Atheism is, in our opinion, the best present hypothesis concerning the existence/nonexistence of some being that could fairly be called a god.

As I've often said, I consider myself a pantheist, as well as an atheist. But I still say that there is no being apart from the totality of existence, which qualifies as a god. That may constitute a synthesis of the thesis of theism, and the antithesis of atheism. But after long and careful thought on the matter, I find it to be more like atheism than theism.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

No, we’re fine with having our views changed. We’re atheists because that’s where the evidence has led us. If new evidence arises which leads us somewhere else, we’d stop being atheists and be something else.

This. Atheism is, in our opinion, the best present hypothesis concerning the existence/nonexistence of some being that could fairly be called a god.

As I've often said, I consider myself a pantheist, as well as an atheist. But I still say that there is no being apart from the totality of existence, which qualifies as a god. That may constitute a synthesis of the thesis of theism, and the antithesis of atheism. But after long and careful thought on the matter, I find it to be more like atheism than theism.

Given the lack of evidence, and the immorality of the mainstream Gods, who can blame you.

If I did not see the benefits of local churches, I would likely go atheist.

Thanks to atheist churches, it looks like they are coming closer to my side.

Regards
DL