Are you talking about HANK?
Seriously, I like your comments. They remind me to some degree of either Krishnamurti or Alan Watts, about the identity and soul and ego. A little of Chan Buddhism as well.
Besides the Gospel of Thomas are there any other Gnostic tests you would recommend for me to look at?
Well, it does and it doesn’t. Frankly, one of the reasons I love The Bible is that it’s so diverse. It’s a really great tool for bibliomancy. When I’m confused or bored, sometimes I’ll pick up a Bible, open it and random, and see what my message for the day is. It’s all in there.
Just like the Koran. It’s all in there. There’s good stuff about how women are actually pretty awesome and people that hurt them are assholes. There’s also bad stuff about killing infidels. Like Christians, Muslims pay attention to the parts they like and ignore what they don’t. Luckily, like most Christians, most Muslims like the good stuff and ignore the violent.
If you take anything away from your new knowledge, I hope it’s a better understanding of how there can be good Muslims, even if their religious text includes violent stuff, just like you already know there are good Christians, even if their religious text includes violent stuff. The moral isn’t “Christians are just as bad as Muslims,” it’s that most Muslims are just as good as most Christians. 
True. And get this : other Muslims are absolutely in agreement with you, not the least bit because ISIS regularly declares them false Muslims for not doing as they do. Then, yanno, shoot them.
You have to understand that ISIS is an abomination by Muslim standards. ISIS rejects the 1000+ years of scholarly work and tradition that has been accumulated on the Koran and hadith to interpret them and build a coherent theology/jurisprudence based on it, instead asserting that they’re the only ones who know what the Koran is about.
Furthermore, as I said they’re takfiri, branding most every *other *Muslim false and explicitly condoning violence against them, which causes the very thing Islam was “built” to address : strife within the community. To a large extent, the Koran and Islam was an attempt to have a large, diverse community living together without any conflict (that’s why they say “Islam means peace”), because any conflict could be solved within the bounds of Islamic law and furthermore the whole faith, subservience to Allah, charity and rejection of material possessions thing would remove the grounds for most inter-human conflict.
All this to say that Muslim-on-Muslim violence (fitna) is pretty much anathema, and is obviously severely chastised in both Koran and hadiths. Which is why ISIS, who mostly kill other Muslims, are very much disliked by their every neighbour (regardless of their ancillary kooky beliefs and perverse self-serving theology). Incidentally it’s also why there’s such antipathy between sunnis and shi’a in general (because hardline sunnis view shi’a as the OG community dividers while shi’a never liked getting persecuted for some reason).
You claimed, or at least very strongly implied that you had a much better understanding of the Bible then Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine, two men who to this day are viewed as amongst the greatest theologians.
That’s an extremely strong statement comparable to claiming I know more about theoretical physics than Stephen Hawking.
I merely suggested you demonstrate for us why we should take your claim more seriously.
Respectfully the fact that you were unaware of this does little to inspire confidence in your knowledge or understanding of the Bible.
I’m also genuinely astonished you didn’t know about this since you claim to be a fan of San Harris who’s gone to great lengths to demolish the image of Jesus as being some sort of pacifist hippie.
I will not be answering any more of your “questions” until you answer this point. Any response that details what “I (Robert) don’t know” instead of actually dealing with the point head on will not engender a desire from me to talk to you further. This, of course, is merely a suggestion. Made out of respect. There is no fundamental need that you and I continue our discourse. The choice is yours as if you want to continue or not.
3- Mohammed most certainly DID advocate war and slavery and other forms of violence. He even participated in these acts. Talking about Aquinas will not change that. It is merely your attempt to distract us from this fact.
Perhaps you can show us where Jesus condemned slavery? He referred to it and to slaves all the time(often translated as “servants” so as not to offend modern sensibilities) without ever once condemning or calling for an end to the institution.
You really should read Sam Harris since he discusses it at length.
He did, but he did not instigate the war he was in, and ultimately resolved it peacefully, turning enemy into ally. He only ever advocated war in defence of the community (though obviously many people, then as now, have stretched defence to justify aggression. Hi, Mr. Bush !). Muhammad was not a bloodthirsty savage.
I don’t know where you get the slavery stuff, as I’m not aware Muhammad ever had any. While he was not against the notion altogether (neither was Jesus, BTW), he was, as in many things, rather progressive about it compared to the baseline Arab society of his era and tried to limit its extent, frequently encouraging giving slaves their freedom back. As well he emphasized that the master had duties too, forbade cruelty or rape etc… which is why Islamic slavery in practice was a very different beast from the chattel slavery you know from American history.
If the person who starts the religion is violent and instructs his followers to be violent then I don’t see how you can make that statement.
Yes, we have the clashes of religions throughout history and we’ve had religions used as tools of power.
But when you cut away the layers, Buddha wasn’t a violent person. Jesus wasn’t a violent person. Mohammad was a violent person.
People in general don’t want to live in a violent society and seek out religion as a source of guidance. It’s easy for the majority to ignore any sins of their religion. It’s also easy for the minority nut jobs within the religion to embrace the words and deeds of their prophet. And therein lies the violence we see today.
And unlike many of the other religions Islam is specifically designed to be a political force. It comes with it’s own legal construct which covers every aspect of life.
Sigh.
I haven’t been insulting you. I’ve merely been pointing out the errors in your argument.
If you can’t take such criticisms without getting upset then I’m not sure this is the Site to make such arguments.
Beyond that, once again, not to sound like a broken record, but didn’t you claim to be a fan of Sam Harris?
If so, read his Letter to a Christian a Nation where he puts forth numerous such passages.
You are familiar I assume with Jesus’ command that his followers cannot get into heaven unless they follow “every jot and tittle” of the Law?
You also do realize what following ever “jot and tittle” would mean when it comes to slavery, war, torture, the treatment of heretics etc.?
You’re really grasping at straws on this one. Jesus turned over the table of the money changers. He was a social protester who took his non-violent views literally to his grave.
I’m not even going to bother discussing Mohammad’s violent life. His actual deeds are well known.
Biblomancy: foretelling the future by interpreting a randomly chosen passage from a book, especially the Bible.
cool, I learned new word 
I know there are good Muslims, I’ve met a lot of them when I lived in NYC and I had a couple Muslim Roommates in boarding school/college. But they are good people - in spite of the Koran - and not because of it. That is not to say that Islam is not a good influence. Certainly it was for Malcolm X and Muhammad Ali. Religion can be a good force for many people at many times. But that is in spite of Mohammed, not because of him. Unless you consider warlords and slavers to be role models.
Why can’t you deal with point #3 head on? I mean I pretty much predicted your exact response. Perhaps I too, am a Prophet.
Yes, I am familiar.
LOL, you are the one who keeps banging on and on about him. The whole idea of comparing Christian Palestinians to Muslim Palestinians comes directly from here. At what point I actually don’t remember. But the first 20? minutes clearly outline the rest of the debate. Harris’s main point is Islam is more potentially violent precisely because Mohammed called for and did horrific things, stuff the “hippy” Jesus would never say or do.
You might actually like the video…
Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur Clear the Air on Religious Violence and Islam
BTW, I agree with most of what Harris has to say, in this Video and other places. I disagree, strongly, with his “first strike” opinion.
Unfortunately there is not that much left of the Gnostics, the Christians did a pretty good job of killing them off. I’ve only read Thomas and Mary, and even though I would recommend both of them they can be hard to understand unless you’ve had some experiences/insights into the nature of consciousness yourself. A lot of it is in the form of parables and with code words (like stone meaning truth etc) and before you “see it” for yourself it may not make as much sense. But it is good stuff.
I’m not really familiar with Krishnamurtis (neither J or U.G.) teachings but I very much enjoy and admire mr. Watts. But in the end it’s all about exactly the same thing, it’s just different approaches and aspects of it, with different techniques and methods to look through the illusion. To me it does not matter at all what name you slap on it, the only interesting thing to my mind is whether it works or not. In a way it is about getting out of the linguistic trap that your mind is caught in, where this ego entity acts as a filter and obscures the truth of existence from you. Unfortunately it’s incredibly hard to do because You are basically the problem that You are trying to solve, and when it is solved, there is no You anymore. For some this process is very hard and painful, for others it is quite easy and harmonious.
The problem is that before you actually experience all this, it is completely impossible to understand it. And even worse, it’s very easy to misunderstand it and run off and construct a new belief system or religion based on half-truths and misunderstandings. And even though I feel love and appreciation for several traditions (Zen/Chan, Sufism, Gnosticism, Advaita etc) I can also see how hard it is to communicate the Truth effectively with language (which is why Zen encourages silence), because language is a very big part of the problem.
Just look at the word “me”. What does it actually mean, is there anything there? I can tell you for certain that no, the “me” is not real, but how does that help you? It’s like trying to explain to someone who is having a psychosis that what they are experiencing is not real. Actually that is exactly what it is. The ego is a form of insanity and the true purpose of spirituality is (or should be) to cure people from it.
There are also a lot of other fundamental insights that arrive together with these experiences that are extremely unpopular to the minds. Such as there is no “free will”, there are no “victims or perpetrators” and that time is an illusion. Once the ego is seen through it’s like pulling the plug in the bath tub and all the illusions and belief systems start disappearing one by one. This does of course not sound very appetizing to the egoic mind… so it invents religions instead :dubious:
I’m not debating that those things are not part of Christian dogma, but I would like to point out that we don’t know how much of it that actually came from Jesus. Jesus is pretty clear in the unedited gospels (Thomas and Mary) that the OT should not be followed and is extremely critical of the religious class at the time, comparing them to vipers and mean dogs.
It’s also very likely that much of the more violent parables are in fact hints and tips regarding your own spiritual development, not to be taken literally but allegorically. It should be pretty obvious for example that Jesus is not talking about a literal sword, since he was a healer who insisted his followers give away their surplus belongings, not a warrior.
By any chance did you see the HBO show True Detective , season 1? it is very philosophical, like you are talking about, ego, Illusion, what is the “me”… your mind is just a room that you think you live in that you move concepts, and people and furniture and things into and out of your whole life…
If you have seem it no spoilers for season 2 please. I’ve not seen season 2.
And who according to the Bible is supposed to come back and commit mass murder on a grand scale.