Message from @Dvir
Discord ID: 504510655345328131
I's funny, but that's more or less what religious people have been claiming for a while
You choose to believe in something or you believe whatever's available
Probably that phrasing made people think it was just about people being too stupid to "choose for themselves", but it was trying to get at this sort of thing
It makes sense that religious people would claim that. To say something to the effect of, "Everyone needs to eat, we just choose to eat different things." wouldn't be controversial at all.
But in terms of religions the old way of thinking would be, "My diet is the right way and that's that!"
It's amusing because people do exactly that with diets!
So that they'd also do it with other stuff shouldn't really surprise anyone
Also, phrasing it as a diet is interesting, because not every conceivable diet is equally valid or good
Which I guess is kinda Peterson's idea
I think you're absolutely correct, Malt.
Abrahamic religions should be reformed with Gnosticism to help synthesize it with a post-Enlightenment view of religion. Jung characterized this synthesis very well. And the fundamental aspects of Gnosticism would allow for the cohabitation of all of the Abrahamic religions in a way similar to the Dharmic religions.
Atheism is just another view of religion, and a particularly nihilistic and materialistic view that leaves a moral void that is susceptible to be filled by another radical ideology, like Feminism or Communism.
I think I missed the reason why Abrahamic religions should be infused with Gnosticism.
Gnosticism holds a stance that is much more compatible with modern Western sensibilities.
Men and Women are equal.
So, it should be infused because...people in the west would like it more.
There was no original sin, and that the material world is inherently flawed and was not made by God.
God is a totality that is the source from which all comes from.
Abrahamic religions also carry a whole lot of '0ld sk00l' baggage.
Not really from a timeline perspective
And Islam only 1600
1400, I think.
You right
Seventh century
But Judaism is, what, 3000, 3500 years old depending on how you count it?
Yeah, but Judaism as we know it began alongside Christianity.
Rabbinic Judaism arose at the same time as Christianity, and both came from the same line.
I mean, Buddhism is 2600 years old
And that is the youngest of the Dharmic religions I believe, excluding Sikhism.
The problem is that Abrahamic religions are exclusivists
I don't know, it just seems disingenuous to try and change religious doctrine based off of what sells, rather than what one believes the truth to be.
Gnosticism has always been here.
The earliest known Christian work, the Gospel of Thomas, was Gnostic.
The Nazarenes, the judeo-christians of the first century, were believed to be Gnostic.
And a similar (possibly equivalent) sect, the Ebionites, were stated as Gnostics by the Gentile Church.
Gnosticism has existed since at least a couple centuries before Christianity, I'm not sure where exactly you could say they started to be a distinct group.
But what's your point?
I'm trying to refute your point of changing religious doctrine to what sells.
But...changing religious doctrine to sell it better to western audiences is your point.
But who is changing?