Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chili]

I am sure that his Cave is where Limbo is at and from there the shepherds are good news while in a state of sin that he called oblivion.

It may be that your mind is in Plato's allegorical cave or limbo for that matter. But from there, neither the shepherds, nor your words, bring us any news at all. If there is good news for those in oblivion, it isn't coming out in translation. Why is limbo like Plato's cave, or worse yet since the cave is allegorical, in it? Surely you didn't really mean the shepherds (how did shepherds get into this sentence anyway?) are good news. Did you mean they brought good news? Did they bring this news from Plato's cave/limbo, or did they come from Plato's cave/limbo, or both? How do you come from an allegory? Or perhaps you meant we are in the cave and shepherds are messengers to us. Who called sin oblivion? Plato? The shepherds? You? God? Is it the shepherds who are in a state of sin? Or Plato? Or us?

I could recast your sentence to say a number of things you might have meant:

Limbo is like Plato's cave, and the shepherds are messengers from the outside bringing us good news about how to escape what Plato called sinful oblivion.

Or:

Limbo is in Plato's cave and it is good news that shepherds have come out of the sinful oblivion within the cave.

Or

Plato's cave and limbo are both allegories for a particular state of sin which Plato called oblivion, and allegorical shepherds emerging from state of sin are good news.

Your sentence could be interpreted any one of the above ways and more. But none of them has much to do with anything I know about the allegory of the cave, limbo, or the shepherds in the gospels for that matter. So, even if your sentence were grammatically clear, more explanation would be in order.

None of the above.

Our Original Sin equals Plato's State of Oblivion, and therefore shepherds are good news, and are good news without even saying a thing. They just give us a sense of belonging so we will know where the manger is at. That is the only reason for this and then please know that the manger was missing in Matthew as an early foreshadow that hell will be destiny for him.

Limbo would be with no shepherds to guide the us, and that comes with communion with the saints in heaven to show direction for us, also again without saying a word.

Original Sin does not equal sinful, and shepherds also are inside the Cave with only a connection to the outside and therefore can be our guide.

Of course they are allegory but be reminded here that we are the illusion our self, as in each one of us while inside the cave.

The shepherds in the Gospels merely were insights in the mind of Joseph the Jew, but that is not part of the argument here.

Moving on to your latest missive. And it isn't much better, though unlike the above, at least the sentence structure works:

Even the word Gnosticism reeks with ignorance if gnostic means 'to know.' And would that translate into 'knowism' then?

Gnostic does mean to know, but you are confusing the Greek word gnostic, with the religious groups (there were a number of them) called the Gnostics.

Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "learned", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) describes a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world created by the demiurge and embraced the spiritual world. Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions that teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, completely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others. However, practices varied among those who were Gnostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

Of course the same is true with the word "Christianity" that cannot be perceived to exist if the word Christian means the end of religion where destiny is found in Christen domain.

Once again something has gotten lost in the translation between your mind and your words. For one thing, I think you've lost track of the subject of your sentence. Is it really the word "Christianity" that does not exist (or isn't perceived) or do you mean Christianity itself doesn't exist? Do you mean something different by "perceived to exist" than to be perceived, or just to exist? The phrase "where destiny is found in [the] Christ[ian] domain," doesn't appear to modify anything in particular, it just dangles there floating around meaninglessly.

And what makes you think the word Christian means the end of religion? Literally, the word "Christian" means follower of Christ. Christ simply means "the anointed." Christians identify Jesus as the Christ, or sometimes just Christ.

Yes I know, but that also makes the Gnostics an illegitimate group because the -ism does not belong in the same way as the -ity does not belong to the word Christian. Let's just call "the mind of Christ" the end that we seek where gnosis would be ours, and would that not make Gnosticism and Christianity a denial of that and a contradiction in terms?

It is just philosophy dear, but these words are crucial in seeing the end while we are believers and doubters looking for destiny our self.

The answer is very simple and that is "know who you are" in the end and that can be called Christian (if you like or not like), but that surely means that religion is not any part of it then = no -ity or -ism for sure.