I am a bit of an exception. I criticize Kardecism and Rajneesh and Thelema with far more passion than I do Christianism.
It is a matter of perceived harm.
It is a matter of perceived harm.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Always Atheism vs Christianity?
- Thread starter dgirl1986
- Start date
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
I have heard of the third one but not the first two you mentioned.
Kardecism spiritism is a médium-based faith that is very popular in Brazil.
Rajneesh is a poisonous Guru that is best known as "Osho" these days. A dangerous but skilled con man that teaches inconsequence and co-dependency. Sort of a more recent Alesteir Crowley with a somewhat different language.
Rajneesh is a poisonous Guru that is best known as "Osho" these days. A dangerous but skilled con man that teaches inconsequence and co-dependency. Sort of a more recent Alesteir Crowley with a somewhat different language.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
Is that where the Osho Zen tarot cards come from or is that something different? the cards seemed fine.
Yep, same guy. He learned a lot of legit Dharma back in the day, but hardly ever taught it unpoisoned.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
What are your thoughts on the Osho cards? They seemed to have balanced messages in the card meanings.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
Crowley wasn't neccesarily a bad guy in my opinion. He didn't promote imposition of will on others, which is the only objective morality that I have come to conclude, althought I would agree that some of his practices enticed people to "walk the line" so to speak, and many people are not ready to walk the line in my opinion.
I don't know what they've evolved into, but both spiritism and Rajneesh seem pretty legit to me, atleast in principle from the beliefs associated to them in wiki.
Rajneesh movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spiritism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why don't you like them?
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
what is legit Dharma in your opinion?
BlandOatmeal
Active Member
I believe the atheists are, as a group, obsessed as you say. They see Christians as the main threat to their godless doctrines (and hence to their pride): The very prosperity of Christians and Jews is testimony to God's invisible hand at work. It's like Caligula waging war against Neptune (according to Graves, but not Suetonius). In Graves' fictitious account, Caligula afterwards celebrated a triumph; but Neptune had actually won -- or at least won a stalemate.
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
There are no godless doctrines. There is no doctrines, that is kind of the point of atheism I think...they speak out against doctrines.
Prosperity? Say what now?
You should consider checking the thread that I created recently in Same Faith Debates. Personally, I do not criticize or reject doctrines as a straight funcion of how theistic they are, but rather by critérios of moral validity.
@nash8: I am not on the fence about those doctrines, believe me.
@nash8: I am not on the fence about those doctrines, believe me.
I never saw them, and if I did I would be careful with what they teach.
I attempt to avoid casual mention of Rajneesh in order to not encourage the difusion of bis teachings. Much of what he teaches is somewhat useful. Almost like bait.
Dharma that encourages healthy, sustainable, moral attitudes.
I so disagree!
All three are deeply corrupt doctrines. Crowley teaches empty vanity; Kardecism teaches intelectual dishonesty and fear; Rajneesh is just a dangerous con man.
You do not give the impression of having a very informed or accurate understanding of Atheism, I am sorry to say.
It even looks like you might assume that Atheists are believers deep down but decided to defy God for some reason. And that is very inaccurate a view indeed.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
By paganism, do you mean religions other than abrahamic?
Or are you talking about neopaganism?
I think atheists don't talk much about neopanism because of how it is particularly of little importance on the context they live in.
Neopaganists rarely accuse Atheists just for being Atheists. That helps a lot.
Someone I know well spent some years with the Sanyassin - I always got the impression that the Bhagwan was on some other spiritual plane (or airheaded and naive depending on your point of view.. no prizes for guessing which one I tend towards), but surrounded by a small clique of dangerous conmen. I don't think he personally was as venal and grasping as some of the things done in his name, he'd need to have been conniving and ethically bankrupt and a stonkingly good actor. I find it far easier to believe that he was simple-minded enough (or simply blinkered enough) not to take in what was being done by those around him.
I could be wrong, of course.
I thinking you are. But even if you are right... I do not think such a scenario lends a lot of worth to his teachings.
How worthwhile could they be if he had failed so spectacularly at realizing what was happening in his own close quarters?
I will admit that it would help explain some of his reputation. But his teachings are hardly that naive and innocent. In fact, he was fairly cynical and quite judgemental.