temptations, distractions, addictions, deadly sins, etc.
This is what I mean - you can't rid yourself of religious dogma. For example, what is the meaning of sin outside Christianity? The concept of virtue or sin assumes objective moral law and knowledge of the good. One can't get such knowledge purely from observation or experience.
You are at a point where you have bought onto the idea that we cannot explore spirituality so you haven't. You don't know the good that is out there within yourself. You give your mind and soul away to man made traditions that are just controlled opposition by the same powers that you despise.
You can naval-gaze all you want, but that won't give you an objective standard for morality. Why do "spiritual non religious" people act as any spiritual endevour (aside from organized religion because it's considered unauthentic, because it's not entirely individualistic and subjective), is always positive for the individual? Isn't it possible that what you encounter in your spiritual pursuits are evil entities or at least entities that can be harmful for you? But no, new age people always consider their spiritual experience to be beneficial and leading them to growth (whatever they decide that means). It's self-worship and it appeals to one's pride and vanity. No wonder it's so prevalent in our narcissistic degenerate society.
About the "man made traditions" argument - it comes out of protestant criticism of the Catholic Church, making it part of a man made tradition itself. And what does that even mean? What is not man made in your worldview? Aren't you a man and aren't the traditions you make (even just for yourself) man made traditions too? The problem you have with traditional religion is that it's other men and not you making them up and that it's a tradition, meaning that it predates you and is not born out of your mind (but of course every idea you hold about the world also predates you and you just adopted it, or rather it won you over; what matters then is that you are the one who gets to pick and choose which ideas you prefer, i.e. consumerism).
Besides, no Christian would agree that Christianity is a man-made tradition because that would assume Christ is not God. So I don't follow a man-made tradition to begin with. I think people can get some truth outside the Christian tradition but it's not the whole package and it's intermixed with lies and deceptions. In the end the only thing that matters is what is true and I believe Buddhism or any other religion or ideology doesn't have a strong case for that (and I've come to Christianity late in life while being a pretty convinced atheist before that). Man is weak and susceptible to manipulation (Christianity explains this by our fallen nature) and should know better than to put all our faith in himself or his kind.
You have a completely installed 'belief' system. It is evidently so deeply rooted that to break free would destroy your false identity of self and you would go mad. You have convinced yourself to NEVER examine your inner being because you've been indoctrinated to believe it's evil.
Dude, I wasn't Christian for the better part of my life. I've red tons of philosophy books and did much introspection and soul-searching before I came to my current belief. It is not blind faith and I can comfortably argue for it and why it is the only truly reasonable and logically consistent position that can explain and provide justification for our reality. You don't know me and don't know what you're talking about so stop playing shrink.
But do tell, what is your worldview? What is your standard for what's good? I take it it's totally genuine and you're not subject to the things you accuse me of. But I'd be surprised if your position is not regurgitated old gnostic heresies that have been resurrected by the freemasons (jews) and popularized by the new age movement - as all antichristian ideas virtually are.
'Belief' is a direct result in the abandonment of critical thinking, logic and reason. That is the essence of my worldview.
ALL religions are man-made control mechanisms.
Edit: What could possibly lead one to have a 'belief' that the 'one true all-knowing, loving god' would send 'his one and only son' into a pack of bronze-age illiterate goat-hearding jews, and that his 'sole purpose' was to be 'sacrificed as a human' so that all the rest of the humans could be 'saved' from original sin by being 'spiritually washed in his blood'? The mental gymnastics that are required for this are at Olga Korbut levels.
Oh, so you don't hold any beliefs? Like belief in your senses and in your reason?
ALL religions are man-made control mechanisms.
Is that assertion a belief or you know it as a brute fact somehow? Kinda like a dogma?
Had you any knowledge of philosophy (and epistemology in particular), you'd know believing is a prerequisite for knowledge (JTB theory of knowledge).
For example for me to know A is the case:
A needs to be true
I have to believe A is true
I have to justify my belief of A being true.
Edit: What could possibly lead one to have a 'belief' that the 'one true all-knowing, loving god' would send 'his one and only son' into a pack of bronze-age illiterate goat-hearding jews, and that his 'sole purpose' was to be 'sacrificed as a human' so that all the rest of the humans could be 'saved' from original sin by being 'spiritually washed in his blood'? The mental gymnastics that are required for this are at Olga Korbut levels.
Maybe. What's your standard for determining this to be false? What's your alternative grand-narrative and how did you verify it?
Just as I was expecting you spouted normie-tier level stuff. I hope it's just an age thing because I used to say things like that in my early 20's thinking it was deep.
This is what I mean - you can't rid yourself of religious dogma. For example, what is the meaning of sin outside Christianity? The concept of virtue or sin assumes objective moral law and knowledge of the good. One can't get such knowledge purely from observation or experience.
You can naval-gaze all you want, but that won't give you an objective standard for morality. Why do "spiritual non religious" people act as any spiritual endevour (aside from organized religion because it's considered unauthentic, because it's not entirely individualistic and subjective), is always positive for the individual? Isn't it possible that what you encounter in your spiritual pursuits are evil entities or at least entities that can be harmful for you? But no, new age people always consider their spiritual experience to be beneficial and leading them to growth (whatever they decide that means). It's self-worship and it appeals to one's pride and vanity. No wonder it's so prevalent in our narcissistic degenerate society.
About the "man made traditions" argument - it comes out of protestant criticism of the Catholic Church, making it part of a man made tradition itself. And what does that even mean? What is not man made in your worldview? Aren't you a man and aren't the traditions you make (even just for yourself) man made traditions too? The problem you have with traditional religion is that it's other men and not you making them up and that it's a tradition, meaning that it predates you and is not born out of your mind (but of course every idea you hold about the world also predates you and you just adopted it, or rather it won you over; what matters then is that you are the one who gets to pick and choose which ideas you prefer, i.e. consumerism).
Besides, no Christian would agree that Christianity is a man-made tradition because that would assume Christ is not God. So I don't follow a man-made tradition to begin with. I think people can get some truth outside the Christian tradition but it's not the whole package and it's intermixed with lies and deceptions. In the end the only thing that matters is what is true and I believe Buddhism or any other religion or ideology doesn't have a strong case for that (and I've come to Christianity late in life while being a pretty convinced atheist before that). Man is weak and susceptible to manipulation (Christianity explains this by our fallen nature) and should know better than to put all our faith in himself or his kind.
You have a completely installed 'belief' system. It is evidently so deeply rooted that to break free would destroy your false identity of self and you would go mad. You have convinced yourself to NEVER examine your inner being because you've been indoctrinated to believe it's evil.
It's sad really. So many people like this.
Dude, I wasn't Christian for the better part of my life. I've red tons of philosophy books and did much introspection and soul-searching before I came to my current belief. It is not blind faith and I can comfortably argue for it and why it is the only truly reasonable and logically consistent position that can explain and provide justification for our reality. You don't know me and don't know what you're talking about so stop playing shrink.
But do tell, what is your worldview? What is your standard for what's good? I take it it's totally genuine and you're not subject to the things you accuse me of. But I'd be surprised if your position is not regurgitated old gnostic heresies that have been resurrected by the freemasons (jews) and popularized by the new age movement - as all antichristian ideas virtually are.
'Belief' is a direct result in the abandonment of critical thinking, logic and reason. That is the essence of my worldview.
ALL religions are man-made control mechanisms.
Edit: What could possibly lead one to have a 'belief' that the 'one true all-knowing, loving god' would send 'his one and only son' into a pack of bronze-age illiterate goat-hearding jews, and that his 'sole purpose' was to be 'sacrificed as a human' so that all the rest of the humans could be 'saved' from original sin by being 'spiritually washed in his blood'? The mental gymnastics that are required for this are at Olga Korbut levels.
Oh, so you don't hold any beliefs? Like belief in your senses and in your reason?
Is that assertion a belief or you know it as a brute fact somehow? Kinda like a dogma?
Had you any knowledge of philosophy (and epistemology in particular), you'd know believing is a prerequisite for knowledge (JTB theory of knowledge).
For example for me to know A is the case:
Maybe. What's your standard for determining this to be false? What's your alternative grand-narrative and how did you verify it?
Just as I was expecting you spouted normie-tier level stuff. I hope it's just an age thing because I used to say things like that in my early 20's thinking it was deep.
So how can anyone know all of this does NOT apply to you? How would anyone know this isn't all a bunch of projection and hypocrisy and accusation?
"Ohhh, i am so ELITE, ohhh he is a PEASANT,, ohhh i am ABOVE HIM!!!!!"