Robert Tulip wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:If people are going to insist that thought systems have to be accepted or rejected in one piece, not sorted through for gems, then they are going to find that lots of people reject their system.

Jesus Christ explains this point very clearly.

Jesus Christ wrote:Matthew 13:24-30 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

The wheat is the lost Gnostic secret cosmic wisdom, while the tares are the false literal teachings of the church. They grow together until the end of the age, when they will both be fully ripe and it will become possible to separate them from each other, retaining the wheat and discarding the tares.

If only the scribes had put the word Gnostic in their writings.

Let us pray to all the imaginary Gods that the end of the age comes quickly.

Regards
DL

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote: I do hear you on not throwing out babies with the bathwater, as an esoteric ecumenist, I shamelessly cherry pick from any ideology if the rule or law is worthy.

Cherry-picking is only a problem if it is done with evidence, to give a partial picture of the facts. With values and wisdom, cherry-picking should be practiced regularly! Individuals and traditions, especially ancient traditions, have a partial picture of matters, and they should have the "worthy" parts (as you aptly put it) lifted up, not as evidence that the source is wonderful, but as insight to be pondered.

I agree but your word "evidence" threw me off a bit.

Logic and reason is what I use to choose what I think is the best rules and laws.

If that is what you meant with that word then I am all in.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:

Harry Marks wrote: Cherry-picking is only a problem if it is done with evidence, to give a partial picture of the facts.

I agree but your word "evidence" threw me off a bit.
Logic and reason is what I use to choose what I think is the best rules and laws.

Actually I had in mind something even further afield. There are lots of complaints about "cherry-picking" evidence that, say, Christianity is a force for good in the world, or Christianity is a force for evil in the world, or complexity has no path to arise via evolution because partial complexity doesn't function. Cherry-picking has gotten a bad name. But in the kind of use you are making of it, I simply wanted to underline that I think it is entirely appropriate.

Cherry-picking rejects relativism, and in this insane postmodern world in which we live in, to quote Sir Paul's grammastrophe, rejecting relativism involves discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. That is why the King of Hearts was unable to discern the difference in meaning between important and unimportant. Such discernment involves cherry-picking. Perish the thought that anyone could tell true from false or right from wrong.

Edit: corrected to state "rejecting relativism involves", replacing "relativism".

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:

Harry Marks wrote: Cherry-picking is only a problem if it is done with evidence, to give a partial picture of the facts.

I agree but your word "evidence" threw me off a bit.
Logic and reason is what I use to choose what I think is the best rules and laws.

Actually I had in mind something even further afield. There are lots of complaints about "cherry-picking" evidence that, say, Christianity is a force for good in the world, or Christianity is a force for evil in the world, or complexity has no path to arise via evolution because partial complexity doesn't function. Cherry-picking has gotten a bad name. But in the kind of use you are making of it, I simply wanted to underline that I think it is entirely appropriate.

Thanks.

Unless one finds a full system or ideology that suits all of us, I agree and think that is the best way to go.

That is why I chose to label myself a Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL

Robert Tulip wrote:Cherry-picking rejects relativism, and in this insane postmodern world in which we live in, to quote Sir Paul's grammastrophe, relativism is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong. That is why the King of Hearts was unable to discern the difference in meaning between important and unimportant. Such discernment involves cherry-picking. Perish the thought that anyone could tell true from false or right from wrong.

Discrimination gives or is both positive and negative according to the definition.

Given two or more concepts to choose from, one discriminated for the best and discriminates against the others.

Relativism, is defined as discriminating what is knowledge and truth, which is silly as truth is truth and knowledge is knowledge and they are fixed.

I do agree with the definition when it speaks of morals.

The dictionaries do not quite agree on the definition though so take what I put with a grain of salt.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Relativism, is defined as discriminating what is knowledge and truth, which is silly as truth is truth and knowledge is knowledge and they are fixed.

Usually when people talk about relativism they mean "it all depends on what you think is right," or some such idea that right and wrong are too subjective to apply to others.

I am what you might call a limited relativist. I think there are things that are clearly wrong, and it is important to teach young people what that is about. But I also think that many values can be "right" at the same time, without contradiction. This sometimes leads to moral quandaries, in which one can justify either of two mutually exclusive alternatives depending on which "partial value" you emphasize (equality vs. freedom, for example, or fidelity vs. emotional fulfillment).

When discussing knowledge, it is helpful to remember that the English term corresponds to two different concepts in the Latin tradition: to "know" a fact and to "know" a person or place. In the second it means to be familiar with the person or place - to know what they are like. I think a lot of "knowledge" about morality works like that. In fact, it is more important to have experience with choosing to do the right thing (in spite of pressure to the contrary) than to "know" what is in theory the right thing to do. That is a concept that Gnostics could benefit from working with.

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Relativism, is defined as discriminating what is knowledge and truth, which is silly as truth is truth and knowledge is knowledge and they are fixed.

Usually when people talk about relativism they mean "it all depends on what you think is right," or some such idea that right and wrong are too subjective to apply to others.

I am what you might call a limited relativist. I think there are things that are clearly wrong, and it is important to teach young people what that is about. But I also think that many values can be "right" at the same time, without contradiction. This sometimes leads to moral quandaries, in which one can justify either of two mutually exclusive alternatives depending on which "partial value" you emphasize (equality vs. freedom, for example, or fidelity vs. emotional fulfillment).

When discussing knowledge, it is helpful to remember that the English term corresponds to two different concepts in the Latin tradition: to "know" a fact and to "know" a person or place. In the second it means to be familiar with the person or place - to know what they are like. I think a lot of "knowledge" about morality works like that. In fact, it is more important to have experience with choosing to do the right thing (in spite of pressure to the contrary) than to "know" what is in theory the right thing to do. That is a concept that Gnostics could benefit from working with.

An open mind will always look at all conditions before making a moral choice.

I agree that the same moral tenet, even if usually moral, can have an immoral aspect, --- just as the reverse applies depending on the subjective position of the observer.

As to Gnostic Christians, if like me, they look at all conditions before making our final judgements.

As free thinkers who try to keep a flexible ideology that can incorporate any good ideas regardless of where we find them. Gnostic Christianity is about the only bridge between secular law and biblical law, as we are able to scrap the lesser biblical law for the better secular law.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:As free thinkers who try to keep a flexible ideology that can incorporate any good ideas regardless of where we find them.

Free thinking is what I always liked about Gnosticism.

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:As free thinkers who try to keep a flexible ideology that can incorporate any good ideas regardless of where we find them.

Free thinking is what I always liked about Gnosticism.

That is a big plus. If we are to live in bubbles, we may as well build a moral bubble for ourselves as compared to the immoral Christian and Muslim bubbles.

The last thing any organized religion wants though are free thinkers as they tend to call lies, lies, which the religious just take in like brain dead zombies and actually pay to be lied to.

Human psychology is

Regards
DL