Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God’s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am,

You may aspire to be the greatest and I agree you are but for all the wrong reasons.

Has anyone ever explained the meaning of reasoned understanding, I thought not.

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,

                    You may aspire to be the greatest and I agree you are but for all the wrong reasons.

                    Has anyone ever explained the meaning of reasoned understanding, I thought not.

Thanks for not doing so. It shows your lack of love and how you do not follow your bible.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Literalists like you are what causes other religions to do the same and we can see how much good that is doing in the Middle East.

Regards
DL

God believes we should be honest in our thoughts and actions and I am correct I feel in all I see in you, or do not see.

polyglide wrote:God believes we should be honest in our thoughts and actions and I am correct I feel in all I see in you, or do not see.

Wow. Now you know what God believes even as scriptures tell you that God is un-fathomable.

What else, oh great seer do you fathom of the Un-fathomable?

Tell us how you can do the impossible and know the un-knowable?

Not self delusion I hope.

Regards
DL

Self delusion lies with those who are deluded as a prime example you should surely be aware of this.

polyglide wrote:Self delusion lies with those who are deluded as a prime example you should surely be aware of this.

delusion
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

Irrational
adjective
not logical or reasonable.

supernatural
adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

That's not very rational by definition is it?

superstition
noun
excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.
Now lets take a look at the definition of religion.

I think that definition warrants a look at the definition of the cornerstone of modern monotheisms, namely "faith".
faith
noun
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
antonyms: mistrust
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.


religion
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Dr. Sheldon,
Like I said.

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                Like I said.

Like you said what? I'm all for you learning the art of brevity as your posts are a real effort on the senses, but this I fear is a step too far, or are you being cryptic?

polyglide wrote:Self delusion lies with those who are deluded as a prime example you should surely be aware of this.

Since my post has clearly missed it's mark again I'll spell it out as bluntly as I can. Your post above is telling someone that they are deluded and that they should "surely be aware of it". It appears the irony of this statement is completely lost on you, which is why I posted the dictionary definitions above, in the hope of shedding a little self awareness in your direction. I know accept it was doomed to fail. Mea culpa.

Dr. Sheldon,
No it was not lost, just confirmed my opinion.

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                No it was not lost, just confirmed my opinion.

Good god no it didn't you clown. You claimed GIA was delusional, then claimed he should "surely be aware of it ".

HTF can some be both delusional and be aware of it? That's a moronic claim.

DR. Sheldon,
You miss the point, it did.

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
                 You miss the point, it did.

Don't be obtuse, a person who is delusional can't by definition be aware of it, as you claimed GIA should be. You're being rather petty now.

DR. Sheldon,
As I said.

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
                 As I said.

Indeed, and as I said, it's demonstrably spurious to claim that someone who is delusional "must surely be aware of it", as you did to GIA.

Dr. Sheldon,
Then on the same basis, no one is aware of who they are.

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
                 Then on the same basis, no one is aware of who they are.

Only to if you're a complete nutjob. Do we really have to endure another of your tedious attempts to redefine the dictionary definition of a word after you've used it in error? I'll try dumbing it down with bullet points...

1. A delusional person would by definition be unaware they were deluded.
2. You claimed GIA was..
a) deluded and
b) should be aware he was deluded.

Your semantics are hilarious, but the pit your digging is just getting deeper. Far better to acknowledge a mistake right at the start.