What do u think about christianity

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
Gene
Posts: 11
Joined: 03 Jun 2015 21:55

What do u think about christianity

Postby Gene » 03 Jun 2015 22:05

What do u think about christianity? I mean if religious could dont let you to be a lucid dreamer?

User avatar
DesertExplorer
Posts: 749
Joined: 05 Oct 2014 20:44
Location: Xīlà

Re: What do u think about christianity

Postby DesertExplorer » 03 Jun 2015 22:09

Fortunately, the most cruel times of Christianity have passed. Now, it's about other religions.
Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it...

- Jesus Christ

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4331
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: What do u think about christianity

Postby Summerlander » 04 Jun 2015 01:55

It's bad. But Islam is far worse.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

Snaggle
Posts: 564
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 13:08

Re: What do u think about christianity

Postby Snaggle » 04 Jun 2015 05:44

Gene wrote:What do u think about christianity? I mean if religious could dont let you to be a lucid dreamer?


Neither Christianity nor Judaism are oppose to lucid dreaming. It's in the bible; but one is not suppose to listen to the "dreams one makes" God talks to his saints only in the dreams he sends.

Mixed bag as far as it's believers go. Some of them are made better people by it, others much worse people and the Troll Christians have both a ready made forum for their hating and ready made organizations to use to oppress others.
"There is only one God and his name is Death.
And there is only one thing we say to death "not today"
- Syrio Forel

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4331
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: What do u think about christianity

Postby Summerlander » 04 Jun 2015 09:47

You say it doesn't oppose lucid dreaming, Snaggle, but 'it's in the Bible'. You see the ridiculous and tedious oxymoron? The source of this confusion is the Bible, hence Christianity, as a doctrine that instigates doubt, is bad period. Christians might blame one another for not interpreting Biblical passages correctly; but then again one is pressed to ask why the revelation is not more explicit, consistent, and coherent.

This is one of the arguments covered by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet The Age of Reason where he denounces institutionalised religion and advocates a better way to believe in a Creator (deism).

Some people might be made better by Christianity -- or perhaps credit should solely go to them for interpreting the tenets of their faith in a positive way. Whichever the case, their improved condition lacks nobility since they need to be instructed to behave a certain way and seem unable to think for themselves.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

Snaggle
Posts: 564
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 13:08

Re: What do u think about christianity

Postby Snaggle » 05 Jun 2015 09:29

You say it doesn't oppose lucid dreaming, Snaggle, but 'it's in the Bible'. You see the ridiculous and tedious oxymoron? The source of this confusion is the Bible, hence Christianity, as a doctrine that instigates doubt, is bad period. Christians might blame one another for not interpreting Biblical passages correctly; but then again one is pressed to ask why the revelation is not more explicit, consistent, and coherent. - Summerland


Since Gene brought up the question of LD and religion it's a necessary point that neither Judaism nor Christianity are opposed to Lucid Dreaming, none of the pantheist religions oppose it either. Resistance to it comes mainly from your fellow scientistic believers who still mainly claim it does not exist and from ignorant Christians whom have never read their own bible and have been too lazy to consult it before expressing their Non-Christian "Christian" ideas.

You also let your hatred of Christianity blind you. The New Testament was written by Greeks and they were dominated by Platonism and Neo-platonism. Their writings were mean to be mainly inspirational. didactic and apologetic (just like the Ancient Greek Historians, e.g. we are told both what Leonidas said at Thermopylae and that their were no survivors to tell us what he said - lol at those who think Luke was a careful modern like historian). In both the the Catholic and Orthodox versions of Christianity the bible was mainly suppose to be seen the same way rather than a guide either to doctrine or real history. Protestants are the only ones who made the bible "the inerrant word of God" at least until the 19th century and Pope Pius IX (the pope whom also made himself infallible. That a collection of books written by people who were never Jews and never in Palestine and whom did not agree with each other on theology contradict each other when patched together in a single book can hardly be blamed on their God.

This is one of the arguments covered by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet The Age of Reason where he denounces institutionalised religion and advocates a better way to believe in a Creator (deism).


I don't think anyone whether or not a Christian or Jew would look to an Atheist like Paine for a better way to believe in God.

Some people might be made better by Christianity -- or perhaps credit should solely go to them for interpreting the tenets of their faith in a positive way. Whichever the case, their improved condition lacks nobility since they need to be instructed to behave a certain way and seem unable to think for themselves.


This is again a poor argument. Christians who want to love God better are always going to look to Christianity for how to not to themselves and seek to surround themselves with like minded people. That made better by it were likely always much nicer than the trolls is certain. Christianity contains plenty that will both make people more troll like and better and might do both at the same time. Reason is for the few not the many. The mass of people never were either really sane or rational and never will be - now that I've stated the true gets ready for the troll hordes ;)
"There is only one God and his name is Death.
And there is only one thing we say to death "not today"
- Syrio Forel

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4331
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: What do u think about christianity

Postby Summerlander » 05 Jun 2015 10:56

SNAGGLE wrote:

'Resistance to it comes mainly from your fellow scientistic believers who still mainly claim it does not exist...'


This is false since science has already demonstrated, objectively, that lucid dreaming is real. The sleeper can communicate with the external world from the dream world and a hybrid phase state of the brain has been identified as its signature. Anyone, today, who denies lucid dreaming is simply being unscientific.

It seems to me, Snaggle, that you erroneously insist on seeing science as some sort of doctrine. Science is a method of enquiry, nothing more. It formulates theories which it then tries to verify or falsify. It once held the notion that lucid dreaming couldn't be, but, as you have witnessed, such proposition was still doubted within the scientific community and subsequently falsified -- because scientists are people, too, who also experience lucid dreams! No dogmas, Snaggle. No dogmas.

SNAGGLE wrote:

'That a collection of books written by people who were never Jews and never in Palestine and whom did not agree with each other on theology contradict each other when patched together in a single book can hardly be blamed on their God.'


I couldn't care less, Snaggle. Their self-contradictory books are founded on lies and superstitions. And their god/gods cannot be blamed because they are fictions, too. Men are to blame for all that pharisaic and philistine drivel. Taking their word for it -- without evidence or a proper basis for their proposals -- is what is unreasonable and unscientific. And before you launch another one of your anti-scientific claptraps, just remember that medicine has cured more people than Jesus -- really cured them. :mrgreen:

SNAGGLE wrote:

'I don't think anyone whether or not a Christian or Jew would look to an Atheist like Paine for a better way to believe in God.'


Thomas Paine was not an atheist. He was a deist. Try reading The Age of Reason and you will see how idiotic your averment is. Also, it's not just a better way to believe in a Creator, it is the only reasonable way to be a believer given the worldly circumstances as outlined in his argument.

For a man of his time it is venial to insist that a Creator is logically required. Had Paine been exposed to modern scientific theories and observations in physics and cosmology, he would have most certainly relinquished his deistic viewpoint and embraced atheism.

SNAGGLE wrote:

'This is again a poor argument. Christians who want to love God better are always going to look to Christianity for how to not to themselves and seek to surround themselves with like minded people.'


You just shot yourself in the foot there, matey, by proving exactly what I said! A poor argument? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... :-D

For reiteration, pay attention to what's italicised in the quote. Read it again...

[ Post made via Android ] Image
Last edited by Summerlander on 05 Jun 2015 11:28, edited 1 time in total.
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

Snaggle
Posts: 564
Joined: 02 Oct 2011 13:08

Re: What do u think about christianity

Postby Snaggle » 05 Jun 2015 11:27

This is false since science has already demonstrated, objectively, that lucid dreaming is real. The sleeper can communicate with the external world from the dream world and a hybrid phase state of the brain has been identified as its signature. Anyone, today, who denies lucid dreaming is simply being unscientific.


But the believers in Scientism are just like the lazy Christians - they have certain opinions without having examined any evidence and as a group are no more "scientific" than Christians. They certainly have dogmas and act just like the Catholic church. They regard as true and scientific only what does not contradict their dogmas and faith.

It seems to me, Snaggle, that you erroneously insist on seeing science as some sort of doctrine. Science is a method of enquiry, nothing more. It formulates theories which it then tries to verify or falsify. It once held the notion that lucid dreaming couldn't be, but, as you have witnessed, such proposition was still doubted within the scientific community and subsequently falsified -- because scientists are people, too, who also experience lucid dreams! No dogmas, Snaggle. No dogmas.


You and Scientism have many dogmas you just don't realize they're dogmas, sort of making you worse than the religious as they generally don't lie to themselves about having dogmas. Science has no dog in the race between any metaphysical position and they don't matter at all as whether or not there is a God or spirit matters little to one's life. The flaw of both Scientism, all the ideologies, philosophical systems and realigions is that they're epistemologically defective and the ability to reason rationally is vital to any human being in their life.
"There is only one God and his name is Death.
And there is only one thing we say to death "not today"
- Syrio Forel

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4331
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: What do u think about christianity

Postby Summerlander » 05 Jun 2015 17:20

Oh dear! 'Scientism', that fallacious word invented for jealous and insecure religionists to somehow derogate science with. It's simple: Science just happens to be the best method of enquiry humanity has come up with. Of course it is convenient for the religious to stress that it is something imperfect, because, after all, we are God's faulty creations, without Him we are no good; we never know what we are talking about -- only God knows! :mrgreen:

If there is something better out there, I cannot imagine it to come from religion. Such method would simply be science improved as this one is not a religion or cult -- it is a method! A method that reinvents itself according to what is discovered; so already scientists recognise that its present form is not the best it can be; scientists know there is more to learn -- thus the 'scientism' pigeongole misrepresents science and is self-refuting. :-)

To reiterate what I've asserted before: real science does not claim any more than what empirical evidence implies. Perhaps science, as a human method, can only expand our ken do far -- if you want to make this epistemic argument. But you can hardly compare a method which has proved to be practical, for all of us, with mass delusions grounded on unreason. You have a computer right now, which enables you to communicate with people all over the world, because of what scientific research has uncovered about the way reality is observed to work -- not because the tenets of Christianity had something to say about computing and electrodynamics. :-D

Now here's a challenge for you, Snaggle: Name me one scientific dogma! And I repeat, 'That which contradicts scientifically established facts does not merit consideration.' :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
DesertExplorer
Posts: 749
Joined: 05 Oct 2014 20:44
Location: Xīlà

Re: What do u think about christianity

Postby DesertExplorer » 05 Jun 2015 17:36

I apologise for interrupting. I wanted to say that I like how you think Snaggle, but I wanted to point out that the difference is that in science, they release "updates" for their "dogmas", while in a religious if someone decides to be.. innovative, then the other believers must renounce him, which is the reason why the religions are and they will continue to be so broken. Only some Buddhists (though I think they are near extinction because of the corruption through the ages) I can say that they are open to possibilities and "update" their mindsets.
Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it...

- Jesus Christ


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tayloranna751 and 0 guests