The Gospel of Thomas

Cypress said:
I think a lot of the debate is actually happening just at the margins.

Probably only five percent of people believe all of nature and all of reality just popped into existence at random for no discernable reason.

I think 95 percent of people believe there is a higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos, something beyond physics, beyond chemistry, beyond biology.

Sure we can debate or ridicule the ritual of religion, the historical accuracy of the sacred texts.

But I think the vast majority of humans accept the mystery of the infinite, as a first principle

. And to a large degree, the west has accepted as morally binding the ethics of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and in the East they accepted the binding moral framework of Confucianism/Buddhism, -- even when we choose to strip it of it's religious context and language.
Click to expand...

The precursor human to us did the best they could with the little they actually knew



We know more now


So it’s not really an insult to say it turns out they needed more information to get closer to the reality of existence
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agnosticism is the most logical position. The more one strays from "I don't know" the further one gets into belief...or "disbelief" as the atheist weenies squeal about.

Richard Dawkins, rich atheist who made a fortune being an atheist, had a good scale: the Spectrum of Theistic Probability. Even he waffles on the "Strong Atheist" end by claiming to be a 6 to 7 since he knows "Strong Atheist" is like saying "Strong Idiot". The opposite end can be equally idiotic but gets into a different area with truly pious people like the Amish or Buddhist monks.


http://www.eoht.info/page/Dawkins scale


https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/atheists/richard_dawkins_existence_of_god_scale.html
Click to expand...


Most atheists I have ever know would NEVER self identify as a strong atheist on that scale


It’s a scale


It has to have the most variation including an extreme position of “I know everything”

I never met one of the “I know everything” extreme

I don’t think there are many
 
PostmodernProphet said:
have you noticed that you didn't respond to a single issue I raised today?.......all you did was say I lied and was going to hell.......what does that tell you about what you believe?......
Click to expand...

You are the one here that has displayed the least of Jesus’s philosophical teaching in your debate dude


You are a cruel and JUDGMENTAL person who says “so what” to the pain of others


It’s Christians like you who drive people away from religion
 
evince said:
Most atheists I have ever know would NEVER self identify as a strong atheist on that scale


It’s a scale

It has to have the most variation including an extreme position of “I know everything”

I never met one of the “I know everything” extreme

I don’t think there are many
Click to expand...

Good because anyone who does is a fucking moron. LOL
 
evince said:
The precursor human to us did the best they could with the little they actually knew



We know more now


So it’s not really an insult to say it turns out they needed more information to get closer to the reality of existence
Click to expand...

We of course know the laws of physics and biology better than they did.

They were a story telling oral culture.
We are a technological culture.

We still don't really know anything about the origin of all reality. And I don't think we ever will.

But in some very real sense, they had the correct intuition that there was a moment of creation, and that human conciousness and the living spirit is more than the sum of it's parts. I refuse to believe a collection of quarks and electrons could have created Michelangelo's Pieta.

Naturally, we are free to dismiss the more mystical and supernatural stories in the Hebrew bible and the New Testament.
 
Cypress said:
I tend to be agnostic, but the only thing I disagree with is that atheists only and uniquely go only by facts.

I maintain there are plenty of things to believe in that do not require empirical facts or experimental results.

I believe in fairness, equality, freedom, aesthetic beauty but there isn't any natural physical laws, equations, or universal constants supporting my beliefs
Click to expand...

I see you more of a searcher for universal truth than having hard and fast beliefs
 
Cypress said:
We of course know the laws of physics and biology better than they did.

They were a story telling oral culture.
We are a technological culture.

We still don't really know anything about the origin of all reality. And I don't think we ever will.

But in some very real sense, they had the correct intuition that there was a moment of creation, and that human conciousness and the living spirit is more than the sum of it's parts. I refuse to believe a collection of quarks and electrons could have created Michelangelo's Pieta.

Naturally, we are free to dismiss the more mystical and supernatural stories in the Hebrew bible and the New Testament.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't dismiss anything until you have 100% proof that it's not true.
 
evince said:
You are the one here that has displayed the least of Jesus’s philosophical teaching in your debate dude
Click to expand...
so desh, where does saying its no big deal that you lied about me claiming to be a woman, rank in the display of Jesus "philosophical" teaching.....
 
AProudLefty said:
This subject (partially) came up in other thread. So I thought I'll create a new one off in, perhaps, a new series of threads. This, in my opinion, is what Jesus taught and they didn't like it. Hence a different canons because they don't want the teaching of Jesus to give the little people more power.

Now, [in the Gospel of Thomas], this Jesus comes to reveal that you and he are, if you like, twins.... And what you discover as you read the Gospel of Thomas, which you're meant to discover, is that you and Jesus at a deep level are identical twins. And that you discover that you are the child of God just as he is. And so that at the end of the gospel Jesus speaks to Thomas and says, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I will become that person, and the mysteries will be revealed to him." Here, Jesus does not take the role of authority and teacher. In the Gospel of Thomas, the disciples say to Jesus, "Tell us, what do you want us to do? How shall we pray? What shall we eat? How shall we fast?" Now if you look at Matthew and Luke, Jesus answers the questions. He says, "When you pray, say, 'Our Father who are in Heaven, hallowed be...' When you fast, wash your face, don't make a show of it. When you give alms do it privately and without being showy." In this gospel, this Jesus does not answer. He says, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for everything is known before heaven." Now this answer throws you and me upon ourselves.... Here Jesus, in effect, turns one toward oneself, and that is really one of the themes of the Gospel of Thomas, that you must go in a sort of a spiritual quest of your own to discover who you are, and to discover really that you are the child of God just like Jesus.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/thomas.html

If you find Jesus under a rock, you will find yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't like the abrahamic religions.
 
I AM said:
I see you more of a searcher for universal truth than having hard and fast beliefs
Click to expand...

What, exactly, are "hard and fast beliefs?"

When discussing the REALITY of existence...a "belief" is nothing more than a blind guess. How can anyone "hard and fast" blind guess? A person who insists his/her blind guesses are correct is just being hard-headed.
 
I AM said:
I wouldn't dismiss anything until you have 100% proof that it's not true.
Click to expand...

While it is impossible to prove a negative, it seems quite irrational to accept EVERYTHING until it has been disproven.

I suppose then one would have to worship Odin, Zeus, Aharu Mazda and Krishna as well as God using this metric of not dismissing anything until you have 100% proof that it is not true.
 
evince said:
The science of the human brain are involved in things like what we find beautiful


There are things like history which demonstrate the reasons why things like fairness, equality and freedom create good outcomes for humans

It is part of human nature to lean towards helping others which helped preserve mankind


In fact other animals display compassion for others which can display ideas like fairness

Sharing resources


Helping a fellow creature in need



Science of brain structure can pinpoint areas of the brain where such processes take place


Some mental aberrations in behavior can in fact be connected to undeveloped areas of the physical human brain


Psychopathy is one

Scientific facts are involved



Beauty has perimeters that can be measured in the human mind


Symmetry for instance


Everything is tied to knowable facts


Some of those facts we just don’t know yet
Click to expand...

Well I respect that, but I know of no physical laws or chemical laws of the universe that compel justice, equality, fairness, a belief in beauty.

I've never had a dog or cat that showed appreciation for a painting or a beautiful sunset.

Anyone who has been around self-centered three year olds knows that fairness and equality are not concepts that are natural and innate to them


None of this proves or disproves anything about an Abrahamic God, The Dao, or any divine spirits.

What I am saying is that I think we are kidding ourselves if we think everything about the human experience can be explained by laws of chemistry, physics, or mathmatical equations.
 
evince said:
Most atheists I have ever know would NEVER self identify as a strong atheist on that scale


It’s a scale


It has to have the most variation including an extreme position of “I know everything”

I never met one of the “I know everything” extreme

I don’t think there are many
Click to expand...

In some real sense, I think the labels we invent have limited value. Some who claim they are devoutly religious really aren't, and atheism itself seens to come in different shades.
 
Cypress said:
What I am saying is that I think we are kidding ourselves if we think everything about the human experience can be explained by laws of chemistry, physics, or mathmatical equations.
Click to expand...

I am a firm believer that we are nothing more than "emergent properties" that arise in a complex mix of chemistry and physics of our brains.

If there is a "soul" or an "essence" it is nothing more than the summation of our memories and our normal neural network functioning.

If there is something BEYOND this, something that borders on the supernatural there is really no way to confirm that. If you look at the animal kingdom completely you see a distribution of "self-awareness" and "personality" in animals. Do they all have "souls"? Most religions deny that animals have a "soul" so for me that is an indicator that "soul" is just humans' hope that there is something ineffable about themselves that survives death or destruction.

Only problem with that is: there is no evidence of any soul or essence existing without a physical functioning brain. But we have a HUGE amount of evidence of a physical brain being damaged and the resulting "essence" of the person changing dramatically. Like the story of Phineas Gage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top