Christian Discussion Thread V

[Grave_n_idle]

i dunno, i think we can point to the leaning tower of pizza as archaeological evidence that the world came screeching to a halt one day thousands of years ago.

Leaning tower of pizza?

You know when you stack a lot of pizza, and then it starts falling over?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I was trying to avoid poes law


Something tells me that somewhere in the bowels of NSG there is a YEC who would read that statement and think its a great argument.

[The Alma Mater]

Sidetrack: is there actually any "cult" of christianity who believes Jesus was a challenger of God ? As in, a mere man who challenged God to get rid of original sin and won said challenge through a series of trials ?

Actually, yes. Well, sort of

The Ophites were a sect of early Christianity, before the Church we know now actually came into being and the new testament we know now was fully compiled and agreed to be the central doctrine of Christianity.

They believed, like some of the other Earlier sects, that the God of the Old Testament was evil. Some early Christian sects held that Jesus, while a divine figure, was separate from that God.

The Ophites took it even further. Not only was Jesus separate with the OT God, he was always in combat with him. Jesus was the Serpent that tempted Adam and Eve to gain knowledge, so they would become independent from the harsh laws of the OT God. And his coming in human form/his teachings was his way of overturning the Laws of OT God.

And his death and ascension into heaven was his ascent to his final stab at God (sort of) . They believed he is seated at the right hand of the Father, but they believed from that seat he drains "The Father" of his power over humanity. Slowly making people free from "God"'s rule.

They still believed Jesus was a divine figure, though. And some other weird Gnostic stuff goes into it. But they're pretty interesting, I think.

Thanks I do admit their version is vastly more interesting and inspiring than the trinity one.

[Tafhan]

Actually, yes. Well, sort of

The Ophites were a sect of early Christianity, before the Church we know now actually came into being and the new testament we know now was fully compiled and agreed to be the central doctrine of Christianity.

They believed, like some of the other Earlier sects, that the God of the Old Testament was evil. Some early Christian sects held that Jesus, while a divine figure, was separate from that God.

The Ophites took it even further. Not only was Jesus separate with the OT God, he was always in combat with him. Jesus was the Serpent that tempted Adam and Eve to gain knowledge, so they would become independent from the harsh laws of the OT God. And his coming in human form/his teachings was his way of overturning the Laws of OT God.

And his death and ascension into heaven was his ascent to his final stab at God (sort of) . They believed he is seated at the right hand of the Father, but they believed from that seat he drains "The Father" of his power over humanity. Slowly making people free from "God"'s rule.

They still believed Jesus was a divine figure, though. And some other weird Gnostic stuff goes into it. But they're pretty interesting, I think.

And this, kids, is what happens when you read your Bible backwards.

Actually, "The Bible" they were reading actually was nowhere near the Bible you have now, They used several other Scriptures deemed heretical once The Sect that became Catholicism beat them all to the runway. Or did You think that the New Testament had always been that way?

A heretic is really just another name for a free thinker. (normally). And I, personally, Think their ideas are a pretty interesting way to look at our relationship with God. It's weird. But It's not so crazy, really. Even if I don't believe in it.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

No one should feel offended or "stung" by statements that basically amount to "you should not have sex". Chastity is a very good thing. For many people (including all who are gay, but probably an ever greater number who are straight), chastity is their calling. There are precisely two Christian approaches to sexuality - chastity and marriage - and although marriage is the right one for the majority of people, the minority who are called to chastity is not tiny. It is, in fact, a sizable minority.

There have been Christian societies in history where 10-20% of the population was engaged in the monastic life (as monks and nuns). I would guess that the proportion of people for whom chastity is the correct approach hovers somewhere in that interval - ten to twenty percent (and note: you don't have to be monastic to live in chastity).

To live in chastity is a great and holy thing. The fact that our culture abjectly devalues the chaste life is a tragedy. Actually, it's more than a tragedy, it's an outrage. Christians should be actively - indeed, aggressively - celebrating chastity as a noble way of life. We should be aggressively pushing back against our hyper-sexualized culture, against the notion that you need to be having sex to be happy, against the idea that having sex is a measure of personal or social success. We need to celebrate - widely and openly - the call to chastity, especially in the form of the monastic life.

Could not agree more

[Constantinopolis]

Thanks I do admit their version is vastly more interesting and inspiring than the trinity one.

...until you remember that they were Gnostics who believed that the material universe and the human body are evil (created by the "evil" deity of the Old Testament), and therefore they had a very puritanical view on life.

Gnostic dualism was generally based on the view that the world of matter is a prison created by an evil deity to trap our souls in these horrible, decaying bodies of flesh, and that "salvation" means being able to free your soul to become a being of pure spirit.

Thus, the Gnostics were generally far more puritanical than the Trinitarian Christians. Some Gnostics even preached that all sex is evil, always, because it's an activity of the body, designed by the evil god to delude your soul and to create more material bodies as prisons for other souls.

And this, kids, is what happens when you read your Bible backwards.

Actually, "The Bible" they were reading actually was nowhere near the Bible you have now, They used several other Scriptures deemed heretical once The Sect that became Catholicism beat them all to the runway. Or did You think that the New Testament had always been that way?

You are correct that the Gnostics did not use anything like the New Testament we have today, and instead they used many heretical scriptures... all of which had been written in the second century.

By contrast, our New Testament is mostly composed of first century texts.

"The Sect that became Catholicism" (and Orthodoxy) was the original Christian Church, using the oldest existing writings about Jesus. The Gnostics were a collection of later sects, which mostly represented syncretic attempts to combine Christian and Zoroastrian beliefs. The theme of dualism, of there being an evil god and a good god locked in struggle, of the world of matter being the domain of the evil god while the world of the spirit is the domain of the good god - that was all taken from Zoroastrianism.

(on a slight tangent, here's a fun fact: the religion of R'hllor / "the Lord of Light" in the universe of A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones is loosely based on Zoroastrianism)

A heretic is really just another name for a free thinker. (normally)

Actually, a heretic is usually another name for a religious fanatic who was being fanatical in the wrong way according to the teachings of the Church.

I don't know where modern liberals get this anachronistic impression that heretics were "free thinkers". Most of them were far more dogmatic than the Church. You only like them because they lost, so they can fit the narrative role of tragic heroes. To see what happens when heretics win, I will remind you of Geneva under John Calvin. Not exactly the most free-thinking place in the world, what with being a theocracy and all.

Liberalism and pluralism are modern inventions. In the historical periods we're talking about, no one was on the side of "free thought". Everyone agreed that it's good to impose your beliefs on others, the only issue was which beliefs are true and what is the appropriate way to impose them.

No one should feel offended or "stung" by statements that basically amount to "you should not have sex". Chastity is a very good thing. For many people (including all who are gay, but probably an ever greater number who are straight), chastity is their calling. There are precisely two Christian approaches to sexuality - chastity and marriage - and although marriage is the right one for the majority of people, the minority who are called to chastity is not tiny. It is, in fact, a sizable minority.

There have been Christian societies in history where 10-20% of the population was engaged in the monastic life (as monks and nuns). I would guess that the proportion of people for whom chastity is the correct approach hovers somewhere in that interval - ten to twenty percent (and note: you don't have to be monastic to live in chastity).

To live in chastity is a great and holy thing. The fact that our culture abjectly devalues the chaste life is a tragedy. Actually, it's more than a tragedy, it's an outrage. Christians should be actively - indeed, aggressively - celebrating chastity as a noble way of life. We should be aggressively pushing back against our hyper-sexualized culture, against the notion that you need to be having sex to be happy, against the idea that having sex is a measure of personal or social success. We need to celebrate - widely and openly - the call to chastity, especially in the form of the monastic life.

Could not agree more

Thank you!

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I simply think that our high levels of sexual permissiveness are going to fizzle out, and cultural norms will begin to slowly turn again in the other direction in a few decades. After all, there have been periods of sexual permissiveness in history before (although they did not go quite as far as this one). The wheel always keeps turning. All that is old will be new again.

What makes you think so?

I've always seen it as kind of hopeless, something that will never change while I'm alive.

But I suppose that's what society wants us to think, that the sexual 'revolution' was good and progressive and going back against it would be a step backwards.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I simply think that our high levels of sexual permissiveness are going to fizzle out, and cultural norms will begin to slowly turn again in the other direction in a few decades. After all, there have been periods of sexual permissiveness in history before (although they did not go quite as far as this one). The wheel always keeps turning. All that is old will be new again.

What makes you think so?

I've always seen it as kind of hopeless, something that will never change while I'm alive.

But I suppose that's what society wants us to think, that the sexual 'revolution' was good and progressive and going back against it would be a step backwards.

What is progressive depends on the times.

Right now, within our lifetime, perhaps a more permissive, libertarian society is taking root, however, libertarianism is not the default state of humans. Human societies go back and forth between liberty and control, what is good and what is evil, and what the ideal and the practical are.

My father told me something the other day that makes sense: the times never change, only technology does. People have seen freedom as an ideal as of late or even further back than liberalism seems to imply, however, in a practical sense not everyone sees absolute freedom as a state to achieve. I certainly do not believe in freedom as an ideal. I believe in freedom as a convenience, and as a practical consideration far more practical than micromanaging beliefs and actions, but I don't think freedom is an idea that can be easily manifested, let alone achieved in the sense of absolute freedom libertarianism or anarchy.

This is kind of where me and Constantinopolis had our initial disagreements with, if I recall correctly. that he starts from a point of authoritarianism whereas I start from a point of liberalism/libertarianism and we go to either side (me more or less libertarian, while he goes more or less authoritarian) when we discuss policy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is that so? And yet, such a "sexually repressive dogma" was the norm in many human societies for many hundreds of years.

And I don't mean just Christian societies. There have also been Buddhist societies with a similarly large section of the population living in chastity. And others that I'm not aware of, most likely.

The modern idea that all humans "need" sex, in some sense, looks absolutely ridiculous in the face of history. In many parts of the world and at many points in history, there have been long-lasting human societies where the expectation for something like 80-90% of people was that they would get married and have a single sexual partner their entire lives, while the rest lived in chastity (typically religious chastity in some more-or-less-monastic environment). Of course, there were always individuals who did not follow these cultural norms - no culture is ever embraced by all the people born into it - but a few individual exceptions do not disprove the general rule. It is possible to have a stable, long-lasting human society with a culture based around the kind of sexual morality I support.

Meanwhile, it's still an open question whether the present-day sexual culture of the Western world can be stable or long-lasting. No society since the agricultural revolution has been as permissive in regards to sex as Western society is today. You have to go back all the way to hunter-gatherers to find anything close to what we are doing today.

This is not to say that present-day sexual permissiveness is going to cause any kind of social disaster, like some of the more deluded conservatives believe. No, no. That's ridiculous historical idealism. Societies don't rise and fall based on who has sex with whom. I simply think that our high levels of sexual permissiveness are going to fizzle out, and cultural norms will begin to slowly turn again in the other direction in a few decades. After all, there have been periods of sexual permissiveness in history before (although they did not go quite as far as this one). The wheel always keeps turning. All that is old will be new again.

I think that the current form of sexual permissiveness that pervades society has to do with the fact that medical advances and knowledge of sex has permitted us as a society to not be scared of sex anymore, nor are we preoccupied with finances as we did before.

I mean, we have a lot of contraceptive methods available (abortion is a separate issue, contraception being big as a preventative measure against pregnancy), and we have more sexual education than simply "well, when you get to your wedding day make sure the sheets are bloody after you stick your penis in there" (putting it in simplistic terms). So it is not surprising that, for us in the modern age, sex carries little consequence and we manage to enjoy it more than other generations did.

There's also the issue of how cultures in the West have approached sex during the last couple centuries. To be fair, most of the "liberal" attitude of sex is a 20th century phenomenon, not a centuries-long one. Sure, we're going to be just over the century in a couple more years, maybe, but that doesn't make it "long" when you consider the sexual morals of other times and cultures.

I think that my generation is tipping the scales back into sexual morality to be more the kind you support though, as the rise of sexually transmitted diseases makes it a risk many people do not want to go through, and that, in many ways, is making people more conservative than before, because even if the consequence is not pregnancy, the consequences can also mean a life-long disease.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Stop right there.

Think about the implications of this joke. Yes, I know it's one of the most common jokes on the internet, and seems utterly innocent. Joking about how people who spend a lot of time online (or playing computer games, or being otherwise "nerdy") don't have sex. It's funny, of course, especially when we use it in a self-deprecating manner like that, but leaving aside the fact that it's funny, think about the implications.

It implies that having sex is an achievement. And therefore being a virgin, or otherwise not having sex, is a personal failure. It's an unfortunate state that some people find themselves in, against their will. Thus, the joke perpetuates the stereotype that everyone wants to have lots of sex, and this is a good thing, and the people who don't do it are at best weird, or at worst losers who can't get laid.

Well, screw that. (pun absolutely intended)

We should not participate in the cultural devaluation of chastity in any way. We should refrain from even making jokes which imply that being a virgin, or otherwise not having sex, is a bad thing or an undesirable thing.

Chastity, not promiscuity, is the real achievement for a Christian. And we should always treat it as such.

As someone who was a virgin until, well, relatively recently (until I was 23), pretty much this.

Being a virgin isn't a bad thing. Having sex is not a bad thing either. It is a sin, but it is not something that won't happen to you. It will happen, and you will have opportunities. Just think about what you are doing before doing it. I didn't give a shit, having a mentality of "I'll cross the river when I get to it" most of my life, not to include the mixed responses I was getting from many sides ("why haven't you gotten laid? You seem like a good guy" or "don't worry about it, you'll get there" or "there's nothing wrong, cherish your virginity" from people who have had sex, which honestly irritated me to all hell and made me feel even more alone than I already felt) didn't help at all; but just because I said "fuck it" doesn't mean you should.

Also, just to note, sex is neither an achievement or a bad thing, nor is it a need. It is a normal thing. I know, it sounds ironic coming from someone who has had sex already to say this to people who are virgins, and almost like a turnaround of what I just said irritated me in the previous paragraph, but honestly, it isn't. The pressure to have sex shouldn't be there, and you'll meet someone and marry and have sex, but you may not end up doing it that way, and that's, while sinful as a Christian, also normal.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Just because I'm not having sex doesn't mean I'm "sexually repressing" myself. I'm a virgin. I've never had sex ever. But I still have totally embraced my femininity. I love being a girl, I love who I am as an individual, I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and that's how it should be.

That's the difference between sexual repression and...well, Theology of the Body. Understanding
the latter brings one fulfillment and peace in life, knowing that I can totally and happily be a girl-sexual being-and I can express my sexuality in ways besides hopping in bed with people. The former indeed brings pain and confusion, but if we take the time to learn who we are and how beautiful our bodies are, we don't have to live and to be afraid of ourselves.

Eh. I mean, I am a guy, and although I am not a virgin, I am perfectly content nowadays with who I am and what I have achieved. Yes, I am not a virgin anymore, but I don't feel bad about it, nor do I feel good about it. It happened it happened, fuck it. My having sex, or not, doesn't define who I am, and I am perfectly okay with that.

I think that the most painful and confused stage of my life had to deal more within my own family and local community's views of my sexuality than whether or not I was having sex. Part of the annoyance of being a virgin was the ridicule from my own brothers that I wasn't having sex and many people assuming I just wasn't interested in women or that I was homosexual because I wasn't having sex while being oh so very handsome, another part was the very people who were telling me to cherish my virginity calling women who had sex "whores" and "easy women". Both sides were wrong, and that conflict of views within the community I lived in actually made me reconsider my stances and just go with the flow, which is why I ended up having sex and I still am carefree about the issue. I mean, I am not having sex right now or every Friday night, but if it happens it happens, at least for me.

But just to note, not everyone has a happy experience with their sexuality, let alone with how they choose to express it. If you are the kind of person who doesn't have a conflicting background, good for you, but I didn't have that and I don't doubt many other people do not have that, nor the kind of genuine support needed to accept yourself the way you are; not the kind of backhanded support which is meant to make you feel better at the expense of hearing someone else's character being destroyed just because they had sex and you haven't.

[Czechanada]

Is that so? And yet, such a "sexually repressive dogma" was the norm in many human societies for many hundreds of years.

And I don't mean just Christian societies. There have also been Buddhist societies with a similarly large section of the population living in chastity. And others that I'm not aware of, most likely.

The modern idea that all humans "need" sex, in some sense, looks absolutely ridiculous in the face of history. In many parts of the world and at many points in history, there have been long-lasting human societies where the expectation for something like 80-90% of people was that they would get married and have a single sexual partner their entire lives, while the rest lived in chastity (typically religious chastity in some more-or-less-monastic environment). Of course, there were always individuals who did not follow these cultural norms - no culture is ever embraced by all the people born into it - but a few individual exceptions do not disprove the general rule. It is possible to have a stable, long-lasting human society with a culture based around the kind of sexual morality I support.

Meanwhile, it's still an open question whether the present-day sexual culture of the Western world can be stable or long-lasting. No society since the agricultural revolution has been as permissive in regards to sex as Western society is today. You have to go back all the way to hunter-gatherers to find anything close to what we are doing today.

This is not to say that present-day sexual permissiveness is going to cause any kind of social disaster, like some of the more deluded conservatives believe. No, no. That's ridiculous historical idealism. Societies don't rise and fall based on who has sex with whom. I simply think that our high levels of sexual permissiveness are going to fizzle out, and cultural norms will begin to slowly turn again in the other direction in a few decades. After all, there have been periods of sexual permissiveness in history before (although they did not go quite as far as this one). The wheel always keeps turning. All that is old will be new again.

North American society acknowledges that sexuality exists and happens in private, but we refuse any infiltrations of the notion of sexuality in the public sphere. For example:

Nudity is still taboo (even in the harmless terms of female toplessness)
The stigma of watching pornography (especially in public)
Public displays of affection like making out cause discomfort
The taboo of discussing sex in public
The taboo of having sex in public
The stigma of masturbation (especially in public)
Stigmatization of non-heterosexuals
The phenomenon of slut-shaming of promiscuous women or those who are simply perceived to be promiscuous

Ah. So it's something we can't detect or measure, but you just know it's there. Got it.

And they ask us how we believe in God without proof...

That's not very Christian of you to be putting words in my mouth. I never said that it is something that is not detectable nor measurable. I would never posit a societal phenomenon if it weren't detectable. Society is comprised of many unseen symbols and social relations that we can't physically see, but can still detect and infer.

[The Flutterlands]

As a social theorist, I have to state that a such sexually repressive dogma is precisely why we have a "hyper-sexualized culture" (when it really isn't.)

Just because I'm not having sex doesn't mean I'm "sexually repressing" myself. I'm a virgin. I've never had sex ever. But I still have totally embraced my femininity. I love being a girl, I love who I am as an individual, I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and that's how it should be.

That's the difference between sexual repression and...well, Theology of the Body. Understanding
the latter brings one fulfillment and peace in life, knowing that I can totally and happily be a girl-sexual being-and I can express my sexuality in ways besides hopping in bed with people. The former indeed brings pain and confusion, but if we take the time to learn who we are and how beautiful our bodies are, we don't have to live and to be afraid of ourselves.

I'm a cisgender guy and I'll most likely never have sex in my life. Not because of some desire to remain celibate, but because I consider myself asexual and I'm okay with that. So, another difference from 'sexual repression' is just a lack of interest in having sex in the first place.

[Uxupox]

Just because I'm not having sex doesn't mean I'm "sexually repressing" myself. I'm a virgin. I've never had sex ever. But I still have totally embraced my femininity. I love being a girl, I love who I am as an individual, I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and that's how it should be.

That's the difference between sexual repression and...well, Theology of the Body. Understanding
the latter brings one fulfillment and peace in life, knowing that I can totally and happily be a girl-sexual being-and I can express my sexuality in ways besides hopping in bed with people. The former indeed brings pain and confusion, but if we take the time to learn who we are and how beautiful our bodies are, we don't have to live and to be afraid of ourselves.

I'm a cisgender guy and I'll most likely never have sex in my life. Not because of some desire to remain celibate, but because I consider myself asexual and I'm okay with that. So, another difference from 'sexual repression' is just a lack of interest in having sex in the first place.

You will still continue to experience nocturnal emissions through your life. There is no actual way to prevent this as it is a normal male bodily function in which your body decides to get rid of the old sperm.

[Tafhan]

Actually, "The Bible" they were reading actually was nowhere near the Bible you have now, They used several other Scriptures deemed heretical once The Sect that became Catholicism beat them all to the runway. Or did You think that the New Testament had always been that way?

You are correct that the Gnostics did not use anything like the New Testament we have today, and instead they used many heretical scriptures... all of which had been written in the second century.

By contrast, our New Testament is mostly composed of first century texts.

"The Sect that became Catholicism" (and Orthodoxy) was the original Christian Church, using the oldest existing writings about Jesus. The Gnostics were a collection of later sects, which mostly represented syncretic attempts to combine Christian and Zoroastrian beliefs.

Actually, no, some their texts were written in the first century...to say the "New Testament" was the only compilation whose books were written in the first century is just not correct.

"The original Christian Church" (according to themselves) also used texts from the first century. but purged the texts they didn't find consistent. Picking and choosing their books to compile, just like every other sect of Early Christianity.

They were one "Original Christian Church" out of a dozen more. Some of which were Polytheistic, some of which were dualistic, some of which believed Jesus was only human, and many other beliefs. For someone who says their own church was doing the same as the others, you still put them on a high pedestal.

A heretic is really just another name for a free thinker. (normally)

Actually, a heretic is usually another name for a religious fanatic who was being fanatical in the wrong way according to the teachings of the Church.

I don't know where modern liberals get this anachronistic impression that heretics were "free thinkers". Most of them were far more dogmatic than the Church. You only like them because they lost, so they can fit the narrative role of tragic heroes
-
Liberalism and pluralism are modern inventions. In the historical periods we're talking about, no one was on the side of "free thought". Everyone agreed that it's good to impose your beliefs on others, the only issue was which beliefs are true and what is the appropriate way to impose them.
of the monastic life.

Yes. True, they were all pushing for their own agendas. Look, I am not saying they were good because they lost. Some of which, I just think were better than the one we have now (definitely not all). I wouldn't have wanted the Ebionites to survive, I wouldn't have wanted the Montanans to survive, I definitely wouldn't want all the gnostic sects to survive. I just think some, Like the Ophites, Like the Cathars, would have been nicer to at least have around today.

I have no idea what makes you think I'm a liberal...Or that you're using that as an insult even though you're clearly leftist yourself.

To see what happens when heretics win, I will remind you of Geneva under John Calvin. Not exactly the most free-thinking place in the world, what with being a theocracy and all.

Well, when puritans win, yes, it absolutely becomes terrible. And not the most "free thinking" place.

By the way. Your "One True Church" was a heretic to everyone else, and still is to every other religious group.

[Diopolis]

Just because I'm not having sex doesn't mean I'm "sexually repressing" myself. I'm a virgin. I've never had sex ever. But I still have totally embraced my femininity. I love being a girl, I love who I am as an individual, I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and that's how it should be.

That's the difference between sexual repression and...well, Theology of the Body. Understanding
the latter brings one fulfillment and peace in life, knowing that I can totally and happily be a girl-sexual being-and I can express my sexuality in ways besides hopping in bed with people. The former indeed brings pain and confusion, but if we take the time to learn who we are and how beautiful our bodies are, we don't have to live and to be afraid of ourselves.

I'm a cisgender guy and I'll most likely never have sex in my life. Not because of some desire to remain celibate, but because I consider myself asexual and I'm okay with that. So, another difference from 'sexual repression' is just a lack of interest in having sex in the first place.

Since we're apparently sharing, I'm also a cisgender(I'll admit that I'm not a hundred percent sure what exactly this means, but the general gist of how it's used seems to apply) guy who will most likely never have sex in my life, because in all honesty I don't see myself as being called to that particular vocation. My desire or lack thereof has nothing to do with it, and perfect chastity does not seem repressive at all to me(and I would posit that most people for whom it does have probably never tried it).

[Uxupox]

You are correct that the Gnostics did not use anything like the New Testament we have today, and instead they used many heretical scriptures... all of which had been written in the second century.

By contrast, our New Testament is mostly composed of first century texts.

"The Sect that became Catholicism" (and Orthodoxy) was the original Christian Church, using the oldest existing writings about Jesus. The Gnostics were a collection of later sects, which mostly represented syncretic attempts to combine Christian and Zoroastrian beliefs.

Actually, no, some their texts were written in the first century...to say the "New Testament" was the only compilation whose books were written in the first century is just not correct.

"The original Christian Church" (according to themselves) also used texts from the first century. but purged the texts they didn't find consistent. Picking and choosing their books to compile, just like every other sect of Early Christianity.

They were one "Original Christian Church" out of a dozen more. Some of which were Polytheistic, some of which were dualistic, some of which believed Jesus was only human, and many other beliefs. For someone who says their own church was doing the same as the others, you still put them on a high pedestal.

Actually, a heretic is usually another name for a religious fanatic who was being fanatical in the wrong way according to the teachings of the Church.

I don't know where modern liberals get this anachronistic impression that heretics were "free thinkers". Most of them were far more dogmatic than the Church. You only like them because they lost, so they can fit the narrative role of tragic heroes
-
Liberalism and pluralism are modern inventions. In the historical periods we're talking about, no one was on the side of "free thought". Everyone agreed that it's good to impose your beliefs on others, the only issue was which beliefs are true and what is the appropriate way to impose them.
of the monastic life.

Yes. True, they were all pushing for their own agendas. Look, I am not saying they were good because they lost. Some of which, I just think were better than the one we have now (definitely not all). I wouldn't have wanted the Ebionites to survive, I wouldn't have wanted the Montanans to survive, I definitely wouldn't want all the gnostic sects to survive. I just think some, Like the Ophites, Like the Cathars, would have been nicer to at least have around today.

I have no idea what makes you think I'm a liberal...Or that you're using that as an insult even though you're clearly leftist yourself.

To see what happens when heretics win, I will remind you of Geneva under John Calvin. Not exactly the most free-thinking place in the world, what with being a theocracy and all.

Well, when puritans win, yes, it absolutely becomes terrible. And not the most "free thinking" place.

By the way. Your "One True Church" was a heretic to everyone else, and still is to every other religious group.

Don't like their dualistic belief at all, really two Gods? And the Ophites have linked the serpent (Which is a symbolic meaning to the devil) with Jesus.

[Tafhan]

Actually, no, some their texts were written in the first century...to say the "New Testament" was the only compilation whose books were written in the first century is just not correct.

"The original Christian Church" (according to themselves) also used texts from the first century. but purged the texts they didn't find consistent. Picking and choosing their books to compile, just like every other sect of Early Christianity.

They were one "Original Christian Church" out of a dozen more. Some of which were Polytheistic, some of which were dualistic, some of which believed Jesus was only human, and many other beliefs. For someone who says their own church was doing the same as the others, you still put them on a high pedestal.

Yes. True, they were all pushing for their own agendas. Look, I am not saying they were good because they lost. Some of which, I just think were better than the one we have now (definitely not all). I wouldn't have wanted the Ebionites to survive, I wouldn't have wanted the Montanans to survive, I definitely wouldn't want all the gnostic sects to survive. I just think some, Like the Ophites, Like the Cathars, would have been nicer to at least have around today.

I have no idea what makes you think I'm a liberal...Or that you're using that as an insult even though you're clearly leftist yourself.

Well, when puritans win, yes, it absolutely becomes terrible. And not the most "free thinking" place.

By the way. Your "One True Church" was a heretic to everyone else, and still is to every other religious group.

Don't like their dualistic belief at all, really two Gods? And the Ophites have linked the serpent (Which is a symbolic meaning to the devil) with Jesus.

I don't find it all that bad. The concept of two gods is interesting. But what I like is the overturning of an age of sacrifices and wrath with one of benevolence and knowledge. Love of God rather than Fear of him.

"The Serpent" as the Ophites saw it was Jesus, "Jesus" had given Adam and eve the fruit of knowledge. Knowledge that unbound them from the compulsion of "God's" laws and rule. I don't entirely agree with it. But I really do admire the concept.

[New confederate ramenia]

good and progressive and going back against it would be a step backwards.

Progressive implies progress, a movement towards an end goal, which may be good or may be bad. If you call something progressive, you're recognizing a progress of society, a movement towards something. If you use progressive as a synonym of good, you're believing in the guidance of humanity in a fixed direction, towards a fixed end, and supporting this. Progressive does not mean good.

[Salus Maior]

Thanks I do admit their version is vastly more interesting and inspiring than the trinity one.

I suppose, for a self-proclaimed misotheist like yourself.

[Salus Maior]

They could - after all, the Bible acknowledges the existence of magic. It just does not call it divine

Yes, they call it the opposite of divine ;P

[Gim]

They could - after all, the Bible acknowledges the existence of magic. It just does not call it divine

Yes, they call it the opposite of divine ;P

I think that is heresy, right?

[Salus Maior]

Yes, they call it the opposite of divine ;P

I think that is heresy, right?

I guess you could call it that. I'd refer to it more as "unholy".

[Gim]

I think that is heresy, right?

I guess you could call it that. I'd refer to it more as "unholy".

And pretty much "irrelevant", considering the fact that there is only one person here in NS who believes in it.

[Salus Maior]

I don't find it all that bad. The concept of two gods is interesting. But what I like is the overturning of an age of sacrifices and wrath with one of benevolence and knowledge. Love of God rather than Fear of him.

"The Serpent" as the Ophites saw it was Jesus, "Jesus" had given Adam and eve the fruit of knowledge. Knowledge that unbound them from the compulsion of "God's" laws and rule. I don't entirely agree with it. But I really do admire the concept.

That basically happens in the...Shall we say...Classic story of Jesus, as a part of God's Will.