In the Gnostic/Eastern framework, God is wholly outside of time, and stays like that.
In Christianity however, God decides not only to "enter" time, but to enter history ...
I find that idea both preposterous, illogical and fascinating. I fell in love with the idea.
I really believe that the Way to God is not through philosophy ... reading Thomas Aquinas' arguments and proofs for the existence of God is a waste of time. Mental acrobatics ... there are two gods to be honest. One is "God of the philosophers" and the other is the God of the Bible, Christ. They have NOTHING in common!
The god of spinoza, the god of Leibniz, the god of Descartes ... it was just an idol, a deus ex machina that functioned only to furnish ontological security. "There is a God therefore he is good therefore he does not deceive me therefore" - what crap!
Have these false Christians never learned even the Lord's Prayer? It says "LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION" - why did Christ teach His disciples to pray like that? Obviously because God does lead people into temptation!
The Scriptures do not speak of an abstract mechanical God of the philosophers that deduces categories and furnishes ontological security. But of a living God that is "DREADFUL": "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31)
Anyway, sorry for the long rambling rant , the point of this post is simply to say that when philosophers speak of God it's not the God of poets or the God of the faithful. I really believe the only way to God is to read the New Testament and simply FALL IN LOVE with it. There's no other way ... it's not intellectual.
what I find interesting about the gospels is their complete anonymity of the authors, there is no evidence of them being any sort of historical person !
I think joseph atwill's thesis that the gospels and christianity was a put up job by the roman empire as a "conqueror friendly religion" in particular targeting the replacement of that very "conqueror unfriendly" religion, Judaism, has some credence !
All of the interesting elements of Christianity, such as the pslams, were taken from Zoroastrianism. For example, the Gathas of Zarathustra resemble many psalms (i'll find the one I want to link later). Zoroastrianism was an offshoot of Ancient Indic Religions... In a sense, many religions can be traced back to them.
I always found Zarathustra and Mani more interesting historical characters. We know next to nothing about Zarathustra because of the crazy Sassanids though.
The Sassanids completely bastardized Zoroastrianism though. We do not really know what Zarathustra really preached, but evidence seems to indicate he was real. Those bastards totally betrayed the Achaemenid approach towards tolerance, and instead, they persecuted Buddhists, Manichaeists, and Christians. Both the Roman Empire and Sassanian Persians were insane. For example, look at how Bahram I killed Mani and persecuted other Manichaeists. Most people don't know a Persian named An Shigao was the first to bring Buddhism to China, and it never had a big community in Persia because of persecution by Sassanian Zoroastrians. All of this can be Googled.
The Sassanids kind of deserved being invaded by the Arabs... I think it was also better for Persia/Iran in the long-run because of the period of intellectual growth during the Iranian Intermezzo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Intermezzo) and Safavid Empire. You had figures like Omar Khayyam (who my parents still read), Al-Khwarizmi (without him, there'd be no computers), Rhazes, Avicenna (who my parents still read), and much more pop up during those time periods.
The new regime is stupid with its dogmatic interpretation of Islam. Khomeini's library, for example, was full of shit and he never even read stuff like Omar Khayyam or Sa'di. He was just a wannabe transsexual (he obsessed over it...)... His book was quite possibly some of the most sadistic gibberish put out there (e.g., he talks about how if there is an earthquake and if you fall in it, having sex is fine and still harem... wtf).
The Shah should have had Khomeini killed when he had him banished.
Andrew, you should check out Robert Bresson's films. Au Hasard Balthazar is very good.
"My movie is born first in my head, dies on paper; is resuscitated by the living persons and real objects I use, which are killed on film but, placed in a certain order and projected on to a screen, come to life again like flowers in water." -Robert Bresson
"Don't run after poetry. It penetrates unaided through the cracks." - Robert Bresson
In the Gnostic/Eastern framework, God is wholly outside of time, and stays like that.
ReplyDeleteIn Christianity however, God decides not only to "enter" time, but to enter history ...
I find that idea both preposterous, illogical and fascinating. I fell in love with the idea.
I really believe that the Way to God is not through philosophy ... reading Thomas Aquinas' arguments and proofs for the existence of God is a waste of time. Mental acrobatics ... there are two gods to be honest. One is "God of the philosophers" and the other is the God of the Bible, Christ. They have NOTHING in common!
The god of spinoza, the god of Leibniz, the god of Descartes ... it was just an idol, a deus ex machina that functioned only to furnish ontological security. "There is a God therefore he is good therefore he does not deceive me therefore" - what crap!
Have these false Christians never learned even the Lord's Prayer? It says "LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION" - why did Christ teach His disciples to pray like that? Obviously because God does lead people into temptation!
The Scriptures do not speak of an abstract mechanical God of the philosophers that deduces categories and furnishes ontological security. But of a living God that is "DREADFUL": "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:31)
Anyway, sorry for the long rambling rant , the point of this post is simply to say that when philosophers speak of God it's not the God of poets or the God of the faithful. I really believe the only way to God is to read the New Testament and simply FALL IN LOVE with it. There's no other way ... it's not intellectual.
Thanks for reading this!
what I find interesting about the gospels is their complete anonymity of the authors, there is no evidence of them being any sort of historical person !
DeleteI think joseph atwill's thesis that the gospels and christianity was a put up job by the roman empire as a "conqueror friendly religion" in particular targeting the replacement of that very "conqueror unfriendly" religion, Judaism, has some credence !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451087/American-Bible-scholar-claims-ancient-confessions-prove-story-Jesus-Christ-entirely-fabricated-Roman-aristocrats.html
All of the interesting elements of Christianity, such as the pslams, were taken from Zoroastrianism. For example, the Gathas of Zarathustra resemble many psalms (i'll find the one I want to link later). Zoroastrianism was an offshoot of Ancient Indic Religions... In a sense, many religions can be traced back to them.
DeleteI always found Zarathustra and Mani more interesting historical characters. We know next to nothing about Zarathustra because of the crazy Sassanids though.
The Sassanids completely bastardized Zoroastrianism though. We do not really know what Zarathustra really preached, but evidence seems to indicate he was real. Those bastards totally betrayed the Achaemenid approach towards tolerance, and instead, they persecuted Buddhists, Manichaeists, and Christians. Both the Roman Empire and Sassanian Persians were insane. For example, look at how Bahram I killed Mani and persecuted other Manichaeists. Most people don't know a Persian named An Shigao was the first to bring Buddhism to China, and it never had a big community in Persia because of persecution by Sassanian Zoroastrians. All of this can be Googled.
The Sassanids kind of deserved being invaded by the Arabs... I think it was also better for Persia/Iran in the long-run because of the period of intellectual growth during the Iranian Intermezzo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Intermezzo) and Safavid Empire. You had figures like Omar Khayyam (who my parents still read), Al-Khwarizmi (without him, there'd be no computers), Rhazes, Avicenna (who my parents still read), and much more pop up during those time periods.
The new regime is stupid with its dogmatic interpretation of Islam. Khomeini's library, for example, was full of shit and he never even read stuff like Omar Khayyam or Sa'di. He was just a wannabe transsexual (he obsessed over it...)... His book was quite possibly some of the most sadistic gibberish put out there (e.g., he talks about how if there is an earthquake and if you fall in it, having sex is fine and still harem... wtf).
The Shah should have had Khomeini killed when he had him banished.
Andrew, you should check out Robert Bresson's films. Au Hasard Balthazar is very good.
ReplyDelete"My movie is born first in my head, dies on paper; is resuscitated by the living persons and real objects I use, which are killed on film but, placed in a certain order and projected on to a screen, come to life again like flowers in water." -Robert Bresson
"Don't run after poetry. It penetrates unaided through the cracks." - Robert Bresson
wow !
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQTxU5mug8s