Authority of the ancients vs authority of progress

In antiquity, religious cults had to be able to refer to ancient origins in order to be taken seriously. Plato summed it up in one of his texts, letting an Egyptian priest speak of the Greeks as “children”, whose traditions were only a couple of hundred years old. The ancient Greeks were very impressed by the ostensibly more ancient traditions of the Egyptians, Jews, and Persians – “Chaldeans” -, all the while maintaining a sense of superiority over these “barbarian” peoples.

Sometime, around the Enlightenment era maybe, this changed. New discoveries, progress, innovations were increasingly valued over the wisdom of the ages. Ancient texts were subjected to studies to determine their editorial history and age. New religions could arise with only a slight nod at tradition.

Now the tension between reformers and conservatives is not what I’m referring to. After all, even reformed Christians like to read the Books of Moses, Baha’i study the Quran and Gospels, and so on.

Do you feel your religious tradition would lack something if it did not have a sense of deep time, of the authority of the ages? Or do you feel that new insights or revelations give it the significance and relevance it has for you?

 

(Discussion in ‘Belief and Spirituality‘ started by CinoJul 29, 2021)

Follow thread:

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19802/

 

 

What are we?

Starting a new thread so as not to completely derail the original one.

The following got me thinking. What, according to our diverse world-views, are we, really?

Ella S. said: 

I don’t believe that God created this world. I believe he created our souls, and that they have been imprisoned in the bodies of material animals.

So the Gnostic view as I understand it, we really are souls of divine origin, “wearing” a body which is not really part of us?

Theravada Buddhists, as I understand their teachings, have the doctrine of the “five khandhas” (body, feelings, perceptions, cognitions, awareness) which interact in a process to form a human being, but there is no “core being” that is apart form this temporal process. In any case, there is a belief in rebirth, which implies some sort of continuity of this process across bodies. @seattlegal how about Vajrayana, I expect they have more intricate teachings?

As I understand @Thomas, Catholic Christians believe the body and soul to belong together to form the human being, hence the teaching on bodily resurrection?

How about Islam? @muhammad_isa ?

What is the Jewish view, @RabbiO ?

Hinduism, @Aupmanyav ?

What is the Baha’i view, @Tone Bristow-Stagg?

Theosophy, @Nicholas Weeks ?

whom did I miss? Please tag them

Please correct me where I’m not correctly characterizing your faith’s understanding of what is a human being.

 

 

(Discussion in ‘Belief and Spirituality‘ started by Cino 11/11/2021)

Follow thread:

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19910/

 

 

 

EUHEMRISM- Mythology as Symbolically Glossed History

This thread is for those who suspect mythology as hiding human history and real persons in prehistoric times. That mythology is the only place we can go to for extracting historical fragments of times long forgotten. The debate revolves around a few things: Mythology is not “fiction” because the ancients did not see their his(“stories”) as unreal or fictional but very real. the characters in mythology are ancient prehistoric persons “apotheosis-ized” (deified into “gods”) by later superstitious descendants of the Tower of Babel, the older ancestors to cultures like the Greeks and Egyptians, etc. Another debate is whether to add to mythographic studies the Hebrew Genesis account and especially the chapter 10 Table of nations (Patriarchs).

The argue goes two ways: 1.) Believers (Biblicists) say it speaks of real human events and people, therefore, should be looked at as an ancient history – they, at the same time deny this argument to the Gentile world mythologies – the genesis stories of other nations. 2.) The secular world (non-biblicists), as a general rule, will argue that Hebrew Genesis is fictional (mythological) like the other nations myths- but is kept separate out of being equal with mythology but allowing minority exceptions In other words, Biblicists avoid the paganistic polytheism of mythology because it’s “devilish” and full of fake gods. The secularists avoid Genesis because its fictional and adds nothing to “real history.” The only exceptions that deal with the Genesis stories of both the Hebrews and Gentiles are Biblical Euhemerists, those who SEE NOAH, his family, Genesis 10, and their histories in non-Biblical genesis accounts.

This last position “Biblical Euhemerism” is the one we take in this Thread, that ALL the genesis stories of all nations including the Semitic peoples Genesis 10 RELATE to ONE universal mono-mythological his-“story”.

The following are the main premises or prospective means of character and ethnological identification and verification, comparative analysis, and ultimate synthesis of a mytho-history (i.e. history that has not yet been “proved” by archaeology).

1. Genesis 10 and Mythological Pantheon comparisons.
2. Comparative biographies – Constructs.
3. Political intrigues derived from above comparisons.
4. Synthesis of a proto-history.

The following is an outline “list” of the comparative biographies of individual “gods” “deities” characters and figures used in synthesizing such proto-histories. So far, the last 200 years, it is now the only comprehensive list allowing a full sweep and synthesis of the pantheons and genesis stories of the world with the Hebrew Genesis. you will NOT find this in contemporary “psychologist-mythologists” such as Joseph Campbell or any others. And so far, the only indication of any synergism of pagan and biblical euhemerism are those who have happened upon NIMROD being Sargon the great of Akkad. This is only ONE of the many figures in Genesis 10 and until all the other patriarchs are considered equally as valid comparisons, a synthesis can never be done.

The studies of Dr. John D. Pilkey and myself have done just this in over 3000 pages or seven volumes of books and is published on Amazon.

This Thread subject is designed and opened for those who want to chance the subject and give feedback, whether positive or negative. Respectful debate is the only way to learn. I say, lets have fun with mythology!

 

(Discussion in ‘Ancient History and Mythology‘ started by Ross S MarshallMay 3, 2021)

Follow Thread:

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19718/

 

 

All’s Quiet on the Western Front

The East-West religious distinction, just as with the East-West culture distinction, and the implications that arise from it, is broad and not precise.

While many Western observers attempt to distinguish between Eastern philosophies and religions, this is a distinction that does not exist in some Eastern traditions.

Why are religion and politics often considered forbidden topics in polite conversation? The answer comes from Swift’s quote. Most of us believe what we believe because our parents believed it and we simply absorbed their views as we grew up. Reason played no part. They became our “truth.”

Some of us rebelled against our parents’ views and came to hold contradicting positions, but the truth of Swift’s insight still holds true. Very little of what we believe is based upon reason.

I’m not going to argue about it

 

(Discussion in ‘Abrahamic Religions‘ started by muhammad_isa 5/10/2021)

Follow thread:

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19901/

 

 

 

Mysticism in The Matrix

For those of you who don’t know a new religion called Matrixism has been carved from the movie “The Matrix.” It is a little out there for my tastes but in the interest of religious discussion I thought we might debate whether or not it is a mystical tradition.

It seems to me that “recognition of the semi-subjective multi-layered nature of reality” might just qualify it in and of itself.

 

(Discussion in ‘Modern Religions‘ started by MalcomRazorMay 5, 2005)

Follow thread:

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/2802/page-4

 

Scriptural infallibility

The Catholic Church says:

“Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” (Dei Verbum)

This is a conditional statement. The gist of the argument is Scripture is infallible when it comes to its object – the Revelation of God and the salvation of humanity – but not inerrant in everything that is written is necessarily true.

Can I ask how other traditions view their Sacred Scriptures in light of the following:

1: The (divine) transmission of a Revelation is infallible.
2: The (human) reception of a it might well not be.

Thoughts …

 

(Discussion in ‘Belief and Spirituality‘ started by Thomas 2/10/2021)

Follow thread:

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19897/

 

 

What is God’s Law?

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.”

What is God’s law? Is it the eternal Divine principle, or is it a set of laws written in men’s books, requiring all sorts of clothing and diet and hand-washing and prayer times and other ritual demands, depending on the particular religion and scripture

What law did Jesus come to fulfil: the former or the latter?

 

 

(Discussion in ‘Belief and Spirituality‘ started by RJM Corbet 2/10/2021)

Follow Thread:

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19896/

 

 

What is Gnosticism?

I have seen a few different definitions of Gnosticism. Some define Gnosticism as a continuous movement, treating sects like the Sethians and Valentinians as schools of thought within it. Others view Gnosticism as a distinct school of thought, which some sects included in a way a sect might include Docetism or Trinitarianism. Still, I have seen others define Gnosticism by example, as an umbrella term for a variety of sects. There is also a select niche of scholars who argue that Gnosticism is a modern construct, and not something that existed before the 17th century.

There are a few edge cases. Marcionism, Catharism, Manichaeism, and Swedenborgianism are four schools of thought that I see consistent disagreement on whether they count as Gnostic or not. Discussions on each of these might warrant their own threads and help us narrow our own definitions.

I have seen two major listings of what beliefs group Gnostic sects together in general terms. The first is a short list:

  • Dualistic cosmology (spirit vs matter)
  • Dualistic theology (Monad vs Demiurge)
  • Salvation through Gnosis

The second is a longer list, which I have taken from GnosisForAll:

  • A belief in hidden salvific knowledge, and in personal experiental revelation of the divine – gnosis.
  • A pronounced spirit/matter duality with a negative view of the latter. In most Gnostic traditions this duality was produced by a divine mistake or catastrophe that resulted in both the genesis of the material world and its imperfect nature (see the fall of Sophia and other such accounts).
  • A ‘Demiurgic’ figure(s) responsible for shaping the material cosmos – who is not only seperate from the highest transcendent God (the Monad), but in fact quite far removed from such.
  • An emanationist scheme of divine beings (Aeons) that stretches from the highest unknowable God at the very top, down to the material world.
  • A belief in a Saviour/revealer figure(s), who has descended down from the Pleroma (the divine, spiritual world above) in order to help free humanity and teach salvific gnosis.
  • A belief in a ‘divine spark’ (Pneuma) carried within us all. A piece of the divine sundered from its source, which in station is exalted far above the material world in which it finds itself, and which longs to escape the cycle of incarnation in order to return to its home in the Pleroma above. As such, to the ancient Gnostics, knowledge of God and knowledge of the self were but one and the same.

How do you feel about these definitions? Do you see Gnosticism as a meaningful label? Is it its own doctrine, a broader movement, or a group of related sects? What beliefs do you see as defining Gnosticism?

I personally see Gnosticism as its own doctrine and see the short list as defining the bare minimum beliefs. Do you think I’m being too strict? Not strict enough? Do you have your own criteria? Let the forum know in a reply! This is a divisive topic, so it’s good to get a variety of opinions out there.

 

(Discussion in ‘Esoteric‘ started by Ella S. 2/10/2021)

Follow thread:

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19898/