ForumGarden

LarsMac;1488410 wrote: It is always a mistake to label an entire religious organization based upon the behavior of a few adherents. Look at what the Westboro folks in Topeka have done for Christians, and what if we all formed our opinion of all Gnostics based upon our interactions with the ones we have met here on FG?


All Gnostic Christians are beyond reproach.



:-3:yh_rotfl

That aside, you too seem to have forgotten much.



Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1488411 wrote: You forget your own history of every man of means having a mistress or two but if your grandfather and father did not talk of such things you would never know.

As to your young generation drinking so much, I agree that it is really stupid when everyone knows that smoking pot is a lot healthier.



Perhaps your UK parents should talk to them more about such things than your parents did to you of their own past.

Regards

DL


That's one of the reasons I said "most of the UK"- not so many folk could be called 'men of means', and my Grandpa certainly didn't have a mistress. Or my Father/Mother! Sure, there were exceptions to this, but most folk didn't go in for polygamy, or overt sexual displays! Nowadays, just about anything goes, especially if you're 'bladdered'...

I would agree (more or less) with you about 'Jamaican Woodbines', though over-indulgence in anything 'aint healthy, especially if it's very strong....

Smaug;1488413 wrote: That's one of the reasons I said "most of the UK"- not so many folk could be called 'men of means', and my Grandpa certainly didn't have a mistress. Or my Father/Mother! Sure, there were exceptions to this, but most folk didn't go in for polygamy, or overt sexual displays! Nowadays, just about anything goes, especially if you're 'bladdered'...

I would agree (more or less) with you about 'Jamaican Woodbines', though over-indulgence in anything 'aint healthy, especially if it's very strong....


That is the future social drugs. Intelligent use of freedom of choice. Our new government has legalization on the agenda.

I nearly went to jail for up to 18 years for fighting for just that about 30 years ago.

I was quite head strong in my youth. I still am in some things.

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1488412 wrote: All Gnostic Christians are beyond reproach.



:-3:yh_rotfl

That aside, you too seem to have forgotten much.



Regards

DL


I've not forgot. Funny how many people think that religion is the conscience of society, but it is more often the reflection.

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1488400 wrote: The exemptions to homophobia and misogyny that come to mind in the mainstream are Buddhism, Quakers


You rather make my point for me. Neither Buddhism nor the Quakers have any dogmatic belief in an external, omnipotent, omnipresent eternal creator God which is good and judgmental. If the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox Christians reach that stage of evolution then we might see women in leadership there too.

Judaism has a reformed wing in which women have positions of leadership, there are peripheries of Islam where the same movement has happened, every religion has these side-chambers. That doesn't excuse the majority of the religion, whichever it is that we're discussing. You might have mentioned the Unitarians too. They and the Quakers, if you exclude that extraordinary offshoot "conservative Quakerism", are a welcome development. The Salvation Army is. British Methodism is. None of it excuses the Cardinals.

spot;1488420 wrote: You rather make my point for me. Neither Buddhism nor the Quakers have any dogmatic belief in an external, omnipotent, omnipresent eternal creator God which is good and judgmental. If the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox Christians reach that stage of evolution then we might see women in leadership there too.

Judaism has a reformed wing in which women have positions of leadership, there are peripheries of Islam where the same movement has happened, every religion has these side-chambers. That doesn't excuse the majority of the religion, whichever it is that we're discussing. You might have mentioned the Unitarians too. They and the Quakers, if you exclude that extraordinary offshoot "conservative Quakerism", are a welcome development. The Salvation Army is. British Methodism is. None of it excuses the Cardinals.


A religion that is not a Universalist religion is not worthy.

Religions are human tribal units. If a human tribe excludes any human in its theology or philosophy, then it is not worthy of man.

That is what is meant I think by as above so below and speaks of man living by the rules of heaven that are to be compatible to the rules on earth.

Men are to name the rules of heaven and not the other way around the way idol worshipers think.

Man is supreme. Not some absentee God.

If you find a supernatural God. Kill it.

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1488441 wrote: A religion that is not a Universalist religion is not worthy.


Every religion is a crime against humanity.

In my view all men and women are equal in the sight of God or their concept of the divine. I believe all are created equal.

I see spot is trying to throw the baby out with the bath water again.

It's a very small baby, and an ocean of bath water.

Maybe it's just a question of perspective....

Seriously though, we should all be considered equal, regardless of faith, sex, or 'station' in life.

My short answer is no it should not.

spot;1488494 wrote: It's a very small baby, and an ocean of bath water.


What if you were that baby?

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1488729 wrote: What if you were that baby?

Regards

DL
Ted is of the opinion that there's somewhere, hidden away in monotheism, something truthful which is worth saving. As a practicing Christian, I'd agree with him. He and I might even agree on what it is, I'm not sure.

Monotheistic mystics have mapped out the inner contemplative world through an assortment of traditions and built up an encyclopedic manual, complete with a vocabulary with which to discuss their journeys. Their cultural dogmatic straitjackets notwithstanding, that's the baby which could be and should be saved. Translating their world view while rejecting belief in a self-sustaining God, omnipotence, goodness, judgment and creation isn't a simple proposition but that foul bathwater just has to go down the drain, it's insanitary.

spot;1488738 wrote: Ted is of the opinion that there's somewhere, hidden away in monotheism, something truthful which is worth saving. As a practicing Christian, I'd agree with him. He and I might even agree on what it is, I'm not sure.

Monotheistic mystics have mapped out the inner contemplative world through an assortment of traditions and built up an encyclopedic manual, complete with a vocabulary with which to discuss their journeys. Their cultural dogmatic straitjackets notwithstanding, that's the baby which could be and should be saved. Translating their world view while rejecting belief in a self-sustaining God, omnipotence, goodness, judgment and creation isn't a simple proposition but that foul bathwater just has to go down the drain, it's insanitary.


Believers think strangely for sure. And yes, they have a lot of garbage to flush.

Regards

DL

We need to get back to being "The people of the way". Give up any thought of the right belief. We need to follow in the footsteps of all of the ancient sages.

Ted;1489144 wrote: We need to get back to being "The people of the way". Give up any thought of the right belief. We need to follow in the footsteps of all of the ancient sages.


We were well on our way to that when Christians and Muslims decided to be idol worshipers of their Godinabook instead of God seekers the way Jesus said we should all be.

It is all tied to unhealthy literal reading of myths.

What you want is what this link speaks to.

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

How would you convince a bunch of idol worshipers that they should start seeking God and scrap the immoral God they are idol worshiping?



Regards

DL

Gnostic. We do agree on many things such as the above post..

Ted;1489294 wrote: Gnostic. We do agree on many things such as the above post..


We do except that you continue to preach for an immoral God.

Regards

DL

Gnostic. God is God. We don't have an immoral God and a moral God. If one so believes one only. Now having said that you simply don't know what I preach.

Ted;1489690 wrote: Gnostic. God is God. We don't have an immoral God and a moral God. If one so believes one only. Now having said that you simply don't know what I preach.


God is a myth.

Regards

DL

If that is what you think go for it. In the lives of millions of Christians God is an experiential reality.

Seems to me, with reference to the OP, that most of the people on Forum Garden don't mind about being taken over by Muslim laws, if one reads the thread "Paris". I do hope that they do not swallow too much sand !

G#Gill;1489898 wrote: Seems to me, with reference to the OP, that most of the people on Forum Garden don't mind about being taken over by Muslim laws, if one reads the thread "Paris". I do hope that they do not swallow too much sand !


Deary me Gill, you are putting your opinion over and we are responding.

You don't like the way one thread is turning out so you bring it to another, what's that all about...

BB, surely I'm entitled to pass an opinion on more than one thread ! I read the title here and made a comment appropriate to the title.

The title was in question form and I made an answer and suggested that many members here seemed to be not too worried, referring to another thread where there were several comments by members suggesting that the massive influx of economic migrants was nothing to worry about, and that reports were exaggerated and deemed to be propaganda. The only propaganda that I can see is the slavish following of the government line that multiculturalism and mass immigration is good for this country. How can this be when there is already so much pressure over housing, jobs, hospitals, schools, and resources etc. and that is just for our own home-grown residents.

It seems that these several members are happy about the potential Muslim take over of the UK with their restrictive and male-orientated laws.

This massive influx of economic migrants is already having a huge cultural impact on the UK and will doubtless fuel the rise of the far right (which is hardly an improvement) !

I am also sick and tired with the inference that anybody who dares to disagree with the official party line on multiculturalism and mass immigration is a racist !

Explain then 'home grown residents'?

Since when have we been 'home grown' with our history :-3

Betty Boop;1489905 wrote: Explain then 'home grown residents'?

Since when have we been 'home grown' with our history :-3


Oh do behave BB, you know perfectly well that people born in this country or have ancestors who were born in this country are quite often referred to as 'home grown' OK ?

G#Gill;1489907 wrote: Oh do behave BB, you know perfectly well that people born in this country or have ancestors who were born in this country are quite often referred to as 'home grown' OK ?


That's me told off by the teacher!

Yes Maam, I won't be so impertinent again and dare to ask questions on what is a discussion forum.

You don't answer them properly anyway.

I admit I don't know the actual figures, but I suspect that the majority of Muslims in the UK were probably born here.

Betty Boop;1489912 wrote: That's me told off by the teacher!

Yes Maam, I won't be so impertinent again and dare to ask questions on what is a discussion forum.

You don't answer them properly anyway.




Oh for pity's sake BB, what are you trying to do ? I get the feeling that you are trying to needle me. Well, sorry, but I ain't playin'.

Just as a post script, people born in England shortly after the Norman Conquest of 1066 (the last time England was invaded and colonised), are considered as native to this country - 'home grown', I would have said ! Is that a 'proper' enough answer for you ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_co ... of_England

I consider anyone born in this country as native & home grown. Nobody has any choice in their country of birth.

G#Gill;1489926 wrote: Oh for pity's sake BB, what are you trying to do ? I get the feeling that you are trying to needle me. Well, sorry, but I ain't playin'.

Just as a post script, people born in England shortly after the Norman Conquest of 1066 (the last time England was invaded and colonised), are considered as native to this country - 'home grown', I would have said ! Is that a 'proper' enough answer for you ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_co ... of_England


Haven't got time to be needling you Gill, too busy getting on with my life.

1066!! Good god, that's forever ago, a lot has changed since then, thankfully.

Betty Boop;1489949 wrote: Haven't got time to be needling you Gill, too busy getting on with my life.

1066!! Good god, that's forever ago, a lot has changed since then, thankfully.


Oh come on BB, let's kiss and make up. :yh_flower Life's too short to be sniping at each other isn't it ?

The kissing part sounds like fun. LOL

G#Gill;1489950 wrote: Oh come on BB, let's kiss and make up. :yh_flower Life's too short to be sniping at each other isn't it ?


I've not been needling and I've not been sniping, I asked a couple of questions regarding what you consider to be home grown. :driving:

Betty Boop;1489973 wrote: I've not been needling and I've not been sniping, I asked a couple of questions regarding what you consider to be home grown. :driving:


Oh OK, I'll take your reply as a sort of 'call it quits' ? Unless you feel it is not, for some reason :-3

Ted;1489967 wrote: The kissing part sounds like fun. LOL


Behave yourself Mr. Ted ! :yh_giggle :yh_whistl

Ted;1489885 wrote: If that is what you think go for it. In the lives of millions of Christians God is an experiential reality.


Indeed. They have become idol worshiping dangerous fools.

Islam did the same with the same vile results of Jihadists to go with the Crusade-ists.

Jesus said to seek God. he never said, seek me. Idol worshiping fools no longer seek.

Regards

DL

G#Gill;1489898 wrote: Seems to me, with reference to the OP, that most of the people on Forum Garden don't mind about being taken over by Muslim laws, if one reads the thread "Paris". I do hope that they do not swallow too much sand !


I will check it out but hope you are wrong. I do not like the idea of that many fools and immoral a hole in one site.

Regards

DL

FourPart;1489920 wrote: I admit I don't know the actual figures, but I suspect that the majority of Muslims in the UK were probably born here.


Ideology, to me, is more important that the place of birth.

There is a huge difference between a U.K citizen of Muslim decent and a Muslim who happens to live in the U.K.

What one thinks of themselves as first and foremost is what guides him.

A Muslim who puts Sharia ahead of the U.K.'s law should not call himself a U.K. citizen.

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1490165 wrote: A Muslim who puts Sharia ahead of the U.K.'s law should not call himself a U.K. citizen.


That, in itself is an ideology. After all, the right to believe in one's own faith is paramount in our own culture. What they choose to call themselves is neither here nor there. If they were born in the UK, then they are a UK Citizen. Religion makes no difference there, as Religion has no Race. If it did, then all supposed Christians would be Israelis. There is also a difference from the Sharia Law that tends to be publicised by the Media, and the Sharia Law that most UK Muslims would like. For the most part, Muslims already live by Sharia Law, such as not drinking, not eating pork, only eating halal meat, etc. in perfect harmony with everybody else, yet all the Media puts across are the extremist sides of things, such as amputations & stonings. There is a lot more to Sharia Law than that.

FourPart;1490181 wrote: That, in itself is an ideology. After all, the right to believe in one's own faith is paramount in our own culture. What they choose to call themselves is neither here nor there. If they were born in the UK, then they are a UK Citizen. Religion makes no difference there, as Religion has no Race. If it did, then all supposed Christians would be Israelis. There is also a difference from the Sharia Law that tends to be publicised by the Media, and the Sharia Law that most UK Muslims would like. For the most part, Muslims already live by Sharia Law, such as not drinking, not eating pork, only eating halal meat, etc. in perfect harmony with everybody else, yet all the Media puts across are the extremist sides of things, such as amputations & stonings. There is a lot more to Sharia Law than that.


Sharia is a political system and you are right that there are many flavors. All of then are homophobic and misogynous.

Would you let your government tell you what to eat and wear?

You talk of a right to believe as you wish in terms of religion. This is pure B.S. as preaching hate is outlawed in most moral nations. This right you speak of is given by governments and are subject to them.

Sharia demands action against whatever existing system there is in many of it's flavors and if in power, you would think twice, would you not, before allowing an enemy to your ideology into your country.

Your key words of in ones own culture is key here. They are entering a new culture and when in Rome, etc.

The bottom line is that Satan does not belong in heaven.

Regards

DL

Warning - contains some offensive language.

It is never religions fault.

Regards

DL

FourPart;1490181 wrote: That, in itself is an ideology. After all, the right to believe in one's own faith is paramount in our own culture. What they choose to call themselves is neither here nor there. If they were born in the UK, then they are a UK Citizen. Religion makes no difference there, as Religion has no Race. If it did, then all supposed Christians would be Israelis. There is also a difference from the Sharia Law that tends to be publicised by the Media, and the Sharia Law that most UK Muslims would like. For the most part, Muslims already live by Sharia Law, such as not drinking, not eating pork, only eating halal meat, etc. in perfect harmony with everybody else, yet all the Media puts across are the extremist sides of things, such as amputations & stonings. There is a lot more to Sharia Law than that.


If someone wants to live under religious law that is their right the problem is when they believe and start advocating that it suopercedes secular law. There are both christian and muslim who if given half a chance would impose their demented beliefs on all if onloy they could. Look atb wht is happening in america where there is a constant campaign by fundamntalists against women's rights and attempts to change the education system to one where the ability to question and think for oneself is curtailed. The ecent attack on planned parenthood is not the first act of christian terrorism in recent times and probably won't be the last.

We need to stop pretending that religion is not problem.

posted by gnostic bishop.

This right you speak of is given by governments and are subject to them.




That is bull****. Our freedom was taken by force in the teeth of vioilent opposition by goivernment and the established church. Liberal democracy is not the creation of government but of free thinkers whom pushed or freedom of thoiught despite the isk to life and limb.

The bottom line is that Satan does not belong in heaven.




God created satan as allegedly he did all things. If you actually sat down and thought about what you believe you might end uop wondering why you believe what you do. That's why the religious all over the world don't want people to question or challenge them. Even the pope justifies terrorism on the grounds that the victims asked for it, come to that the catholic church also justifies child rape on the same grounds.T here are no innocents everybody is born a sinner what an absurdity.

gmc

Who do you know that is not a sinner?

------------------

"This right you speak of is given by governments and are subject to them.

That is bull****."

Who determines if a church or mosque will pay taxes or not?

----------------

All religions are subject to the secular law of the land in Western nations. Only fools will think this is bull****.

BTW. I do not believe in any supernatural entities. Only fools do.

Regards

DL