|
Post by johnblutarsky on May 30, 2017 18:30:42 GMT
So if I own a mansion, a jet, a yacht, etc......that's not materialism? Not necessarily. OK. For curiosity sake, are you using one of these definitions or a different definition?... materialism [muh-teer-ee-uh-liz-uh m] noun 1. preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. 2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on May 30, 2017 19:15:24 GMT
So if I own a mansion, a jet, a yacht, etc......that's not materialism? Materialism, in the philosophical sense, is "a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental things and consciousness, are results of material interactions." (Wikipedia) I don't have a mansion, jet or yacht, but I believe in materialism. And people who own jets, yachts or mansion can still believe that there is something other than matter in the Universe; or believe in a spiritual sphere. EDIT: Saw your latest post. I am using the second definition, which is the correct one when discussing Religion, Faith or Spirituality.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on May 30, 2017 19:35:49 GMT
So if I own a mansion, a jet, a yacht, etc......that's not materialism? Materialism, in the philosophical sense, is "a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental things and consciousness, are results of material interactions." (Wikipedia) I don't have a mansion, jet or yacht, but I believe in materialism. And people who own jets, yachts or mansion can still believe that there is something other than matter in the Universe; or believe in a spiritual sphere. EDIT: Saw your latest post. I am using the second definition, which is the correct one when discussing Religion, Faith or Spirituality. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 30, 2017 21:38:50 GMT
tpfkar Upon reconsidering your board oeuvre, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that you in fact have just as much brain as geese do. People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 30, 2017 22:49:12 GMT
First of all "you" was plural. If "you" singular missed out, here you go. The Pope, the Dalai Lama, the various Imams, Franklin Graham and any other religious leader you can imagine all refrain from claiming to be "gnostic" despite being quite familiar with the divine. That's because there is no generally accepted and certainly is no generally understood definition of "gnosis" just as I said. If they don't claim to be "gnostic" how do you get off claiming to know what one is? When there are definitions already established for words, but people don't want to use them...that's not my issue. If someone wants to use different definitions for words or disregard definitions for words, it's hard to carry on any kind of reasonable exchange. I can claim to have an understanding of the word gnostic, because it references "knowledge" by every definition I've seen. With that said, the steps required to gain knowledge on a particular subject is a different conversation all together. The "definition" you have has no standard. It's as useless as a circular definition because while "knowledge" of concrete bricks is commonly understood and anyone can see them, "knowledge" of abstract ideals is essentially different in a way you appear not capable of understanding. There is no common vision possible as there is with bricks, thus no use for "gnostic." By the way, that's the reason many atheists are atheists, they expect a "concrete" (with "physical" characteristics) god, usually anthropomorphic. That severe mental limitation and incapacity to deal with the abstract is the whole problem.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 30, 2017 23:33:34 GMT
tpfkar It would at minimum need to make a lick of sense and have some substantial version that wasn't profoundly immoral to it's core. People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 30, 2017 23:48:45 GMT
tpfkar It would at minimum need to make a lick of sense and have some substantial version that wasn't profoundly immoral to it's core. People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed. Isn't that what people say about atheists all the time?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 30, 2017 23:53:00 GMT
tpfkar Within goose brains, I suppose so. People of God did not have to kill them either because God killed them for us. The point remains that homosexuals are dumb, senseless animals that might need to be killed.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 31, 2017 5:59:14 GMT
OK. For curiosity sake, are you using one of these definitions or a different definition?... materialism [muh-teer-ee-uh-liz-uh m] noun 1. preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. 2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies. It looks as if phludowin handled this one already, but I am using the second definition. Sorry, had to leave for work. It is possible to own a jet, a yacht, and numerous other possessions without being materialistic by the first definition.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on May 31, 2017 16:02:00 GMT
The "definition" you have has no standard. It's as useless as a circular definition because while "knowledge" of concrete bricks is commonly understood and anyone can see them, "knowledge" of abstract ideals is essentially different in a way you appear not capable of understanding. There is no common vision possible as there is with bricks, thus no use for "gnostic." By the way, that's the reason many atheists are atheists, they expect a "concrete" (with "physical" characteristics) god, usually anthropomorphic. That severe mental limitation and incapacity to deal with the abstract is the whole problem. The definition of gnostic has as much of a standard as any other word that's defined. Are you looking for an official certificate from the "Word Academy." I also said...."the steps required to gain knowledge on a particular subject is a different conversation all together." Maybe that's where you're getting hung up on this issue. I'm past the point of caring, however.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 31, 2017 16:15:40 GMT
The definition of gnostic has as much of a standard as any other word that's defined. Are you looking for an official certificate from the "Word Academy." I also said...."the steps required to gain knowledge on a particular subject is a different conversation all together." Maybe that's where you're getting hung up on this issue. I'm past the point of caring, however. That information is as useful as any other you have, which is no use at all. Aside from how people identify themselves, which has a different standard in each case (therefore no standard), how do you decide who is and is not gnostic?
|
|