Advertisement
by Andromeda Islands » Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:03 am
by Mardla » Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:13 am
The blAAtschApen wrote:Merry Christmas.
Andromeda Islands wrote:The path to "salvation" is to find "salvation" in this life, not in the next.
Why not wait until after this life to discuss whether there is an afterlife?
The future like the past doesn't exist, so we can't know the future.
Live in the moment. Learn from the past. Prepare for the future.
It's all one. Linear time is an illusion.
As far as the atonement goes, if Jesus showed you the right way to live, then by example, live that way.
I haven't read the entire Bible, but I understand what life is about.
(I don't need to know who begat whom, for example, if I want to be a 1/2 decent human being).
Universalism, to me, means to live together in peace.
What's wrong with that?
by Andromeda Islands » Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:39 am
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:08 am
Luminesa wrote:GnosticChristian wrote:
Better to ask me what I think rather than telling me of the lies you have swallowed that the inquisitors put out to discredit us. I will speak of matter.
I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religions originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.
The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------
The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.
Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?
Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.
Regards
DL
> Gnostic Christian Jesus.
Uhhhhhh need I explain to you that Jesus Himself was...Jewish? What verse are you quoting in that bit? I don't think you were actually quoting any verse, in fact, because not only are you giving me absolutely no doctrine that tells me about Gnosticism, you refuse to actually explain what was incorrect about the 'Inquisitors' view of Gnosticism. Again, St. Augustine was a Gnostic at some point. He had a firsthand view of what they believed. Your view of Gnosticism is nothing more than some modern, skewed version of what the ideology actually entailed. And because you're not refuting me with any sort of coherent argument, I don't see what somehow makes Gnosticism so special.
Also, "Inquisitors"? Fam, the Vampire: The Masquerade RP is in Portal to the Multiverse. I'm in, we can use more players if you wanna make one. I actually play an Inquisitor, now that I mention it!
'Lust' and 'pride' are referred to as deadly sins, which are contrary to charity and humbleness, which John speaks of in the same letter. Lust results from a warped view of love, pride results from a warped view of the self. Remember that Jesus in the Bible calls us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:11 am
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:What I really want to know is: Who was "Gnostic Christian Jesus"?
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:14 am
Northern Davincia wrote:GnosticChristian wrote:
I see that you have to corrupt math to make your ridiculous Trinity garbage to work.
One cannot be more than 100% anything except to liars with poor math skills. That is why Constantine had to force this idiocy down the churches throat when he bought the church.
Regards
DL
If Jesus were not 100% human, His sacrifice means nothing (or significantly less) to mortal men. What is divine cannot truly die.
If Jesus were not 100% God, then scripture misleads us, which cannot be the case. The dual natures of Christ are a mystery that we cannot easily comprehend.
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:24 am
Salus Maior wrote:GnosticChristian wrote:
I see that you have to corrupt math to make your ridiculous Trinity garbage to work.
One cannot be more than 100% anything except to liars with poor math skills. That is why Constantine had to force this idiocy down the churches throat when he bought the church.
Regards
DL
Constantine didn't do anything to the doctrine of the Church. He ordered that the Nicene Council assemble, yes, because the conflict between the Nicenes and the Arians was a threat to Imperial social stability. But even then, he didn't respect the results of that council (which was that Arianism was condemned and the Trinitarian formula was made dogma) because in the years afterwards he would take the Arian side of the conflict and sent Athanasius (who was the champion of the Trinitarian position, and wrote its defining document; the Athanasian Creed) into exile.
Constantine couldn't have cared less what the Christians decided to keep as dogma, so long as the result was social stability for his Empire.
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:29 am
Luminesa wrote:[ We are not meant to be our own gods, when God has given us every blessing He has in His death and resurrection.
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:33 am
Reikoku wrote:I really recommend ignoring DL, there's no point arguing with him. I have no idea if he's a bot, multiple people, or the Time Cube guy, but he's been arguing this for around a decade. Nothing you say is going to get through.
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:58 am
by The Archregimancy » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:06 am
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:06 am
Stonok wrote:Finally broke out of my shell and sung in the congregational hymns at church today. I didn't think I missed out on much by not singing but it does give you a nice feeling. Weird how that works.
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:10 am
Andromeda Islands wrote:The path to "salvation" is to find "salvation" in this life, not in the next.
Why not wait until after this life to discuss whether there is an afterlife?
The future like the past doesn't exist, so we can't know the future.
Live in the moment. Learn from the past. Prepare for the future.
It's all one. Linear time is an illusion.
As far as the atonement goes, if Jesus showed you the right way to live, then by example, live that way.
I haven't read the entire Bible, but I understand what life is about.
(I don't need to know who begat whom, for example, if I want to be a 1/2 decent human being).
Universalism, to me, means to live together in peace.
What's wrong with that?
by Salus Maior » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:19 am
GnosticChristian wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
Constantine didn't do anything to the doctrine of the Church. He ordered that the Nicene Council assemble, yes, because the conflict between the Nicenes and the Arians was a threat to Imperial social stability. But even then, he didn't respect the results of that council (which was that Arianism was condemned and the Trinitarian formula was made dogma) because in the years afterwards he would take the Arian side of the conflict and sent Athanasius (who was the champion of the Trinitarian position, and wrote its defining document; the Athanasian Creed) into exile.
Constantine couldn't have cared less what the Christians decided to keep as dogma, so long as the result was social stability for his Empire.
If he did not care, he would not have threatened those who voted against it.
If a all popular or believed, it would not have taken 400 years for Christianity to finally declare the stupid Trinity concept as dogma.
If worthy, the concept would not have created the rift between the Roman Christianity and the Eastern Christianity that split away.
Regards
DL
GnosticChristian wrote:
If you will not believe what a Gnostic Christian tells you about his religion, that is on you.
by Tarsonis » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:45 am
GnosticChristian wrote:Luminesa wrote:> Gnostic Christian Jesus.
Uhhhhhh need I explain to you that Jesus Himself was...Jewish? What verse are you quoting in that bit? I don't think you were actually quoting any verse, in fact, because not only are you giving me absolutely no doctrine that tells me about Gnosticism, you refuse to actually explain what was incorrect about the 'Inquisitors' view of Gnosticism. Again, St. Augustine was a Gnostic at some point. He had a firsthand view of what they believed. Your view of Gnosticism is nothing more than some modern, skewed version of what the ideology actually entailed. And because you're not refuting me with any sort of coherent argument, I don't see what somehow makes Gnosticism so special.
Also, "Inquisitors"? Fam, the Vampire: The Masquerade RP is in Portal to the Multiverse. I'm in, we can use more players if you wanna make one. I actually play an Inquisitor, now that I mention it!
'Lust' and 'pride' are referred to as deadly sins, which are contrary to charity and humbleness, which John speaks of in the same letter. Lust results from a warped view of love, pride results from a warped view of the self. Remember that Jesus in the Bible calls us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
If you will not believe what a Gnostic Christian tells you about his religion, that is on you.
Regards
DL
GnosticChristian wrote:Soldati Senza Confini wrote:What I really want to know is: Who was "Gnostic Christian Jesus"?
He is the more Eastern mystic Jesus that I see in these quotes that I use in describing the way that Jesus taught to find knowledge and wisdom.
Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.
You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.
The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.
While I won't deny that many Christians are Lazy, to follow Christ is not something you have unique claim to, all Christian denominations teach this.In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.
Nobody says this.That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded
Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU
And yet it's you not the Bible that's calling those things childish.
The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.
Regards
DL
GnosticChristian wrote:Northern Davincia wrote:If Jesus were not 100% human, His sacrifice means nothing (or significantly less) to mortal men. What is divine cannot truly die.
If Jesus were not 100% God, then scripture misleads us, which cannot be the case. The dual natures of Christ are a mystery that we cannot easily comprehend.
If a mystery, unknowable and unfathomable as scriptures indicate, then nothing can be known of God, let alone that he has three heads. Anything said of God becomes speculative nonsense.
Regards
DL
GnosticChristian wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
Constantine didn't do anything to the doctrine of the Church. He ordered that the Nicene Council assemble, yes, because the conflict between the Nicenes and the Arians was a threat to Imperial social stability. But even then, he didn't respect the results of that council (which was that Arianism was condemned and the Trinitarian formula was made dogma) because in the years afterwards he would take the Arian side of the conflict and sent Athanasius (who was the champion of the Trinitarian position, and wrote its defining document; the Athanasian Creed) into exile.
Constantine couldn't have cared less what the Christians decided to keep as dogma, so long as the result was social stability for his Empire.
If he did not care, he would not have threatened those who voted against it.
If a all popular or believed, it would not have taken 400 years for Christianity to finally declare the stupid Trinity concept as dogma.
If worthy, the concept would not have created the rift between the Roman Christianity and the Eastern Christianity that split away.
Regards
DL
GnosticChristian wrote:Luminesa wrote:[ We are not meant to be our own gods, when God has given us every blessing He has in His death and resurrection.
Garbage.
You would have Jesus break the law he said he came to fulfil. These laws.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
One quick question, should you answer honestly should be your bottom line on your immoral substitutional punishment.
Do you agree that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral? Do you agree that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.
GnosticChristian wrote:Reikoku wrote:I really recommend ignoring DL, there's no point arguing with him. I have no idea if he's a bot, multiple people, or the Time Cube guy, but he's been arguing this for around a decade. Nothing you say is going to get through.
Logic and reason and a decent moral position would sway me, but all Christians have ever had was and is their inquisition tactics as they have no moral arguments to justify idol worshiping a genocidal son murdering God.
Many Christians already run from discussions on morality so you advice is already being taken by those of low morals who do not care if they follow Satan.
Regards
DL
GnosticChristian wrote:Andromeda Islands wrote:The path to "salvation" is to find "salvation" in this life, not in the next.
Why not wait until after this life to discuss whether there is an afterlife?
The future like the past doesn't exist, so we can't know the future.
Live in the moment. Learn from the past. Prepare for the future.
It's all one. Linear time is an illusion.
As far as the atonement goes, if Jesus showed you the right way to live, then by example, live that way.
I haven't read the entire Bible, but I understand what life is about.
(I don't need to know who begat whom, for example, if I want to be a 1/2 decent human being).
Universalism, to me, means to live together in peace.
What's wrong with that?
Being in a universalist creed, Gnostic Christianity, I see nothing wrong with that.
Tell it to all those who presently are in the divisive religions which are homophobic and misogynous, like Christianity and Islam, as they need to end their discrimination without a just cause.
Regards
DL
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:53 am
Salus Maior wrote:If you will not believe what a Gnostic Christian tells you about his religion, that is on you.
by Tarsonis » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:00 pm
GnosticChristian wrote:Salus Maior wrote:
All we have to say that you're a genuine "Gnostic Christian" is your word. And as far as anyone can tell, you're just making this stuff up as you go along and tagging yourself with the name of a dead religion to appear legitimate.
My word and what I quote from the old records.
If that is not good enough for you, too bad.
Regards
DL
by GnosticChristian » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:08 pm
Tarsonis wrote:
It's not illogical to acknowledge that human cognition is limited by its perception. a being that transcends the physical universe would be incomprehensible to a being that does not transcend the physical universe. That is not to say we know nothing about God, as God has revealed aspects of his nature to us and from that we can surmise a great deal. But God will always be incomprehensible to us, we simply don't have the brain for it.
by Andromeda Islands » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:21 pm
by Andromeda Islands » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:24 pm
by Andromeda Islands » Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:28 pm
by Tarsonis » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:46 pm
GnosticChristian wrote:Tarsonis wrote:
It's not illogical to acknowledge that human cognition is limited by its perception. a being that transcends the physical universe would be incomprehensible to a being that does not transcend the physical universe. That is not to say we know nothing about God, as God has revealed aspects of his nature to us and from that we can surmise a great deal. But God will always be incomprehensible to us, we simply don't have the brain for it.
I do not have the time to write the wall of text that you would basically ignore to refute or correct your misconceptions. I will speak to this issue though.
I agree that God is incomprehensible, so all you think you know of God is speculative nonsense regardless of what you think has been revealed.
This thinking was known by most before Christians started reading their myths literally and turned into idol worshipers.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental trash that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
Jesus said the same thing. But he also said a great deal more, like about having to die for the sins of mankind and all that. That's the problem with cherry picking quotes, when you remove those quotes from the context, they lose all true meaning.Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
"they (my inser, do share what DeConick calls “a type of spirituality that was so revolutionary that ancient religion was turned on its head,” that self-knowledge was to know God).
Gnosis shows us that what we call the spark of God is our ultimate perception of what a God is and that is only found in each of our heads and when we express any of that it is like God speaking through us and that is why we say that God is I am and we mean ourselves.
That logic applies to whatever you say of God or whatever ideology you follow as it is only your opinion based on what you know. That is why your ideal or God, when you express it, is your own interpretation of what you think you know.
The Carhars called that final name for God Parfait, perfected one, and as perfected beings, if you would have asked them the name of their God they would have said, I am.
by Tarsonis » Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:51 pm
Andromeda Islands wrote:This idea of a divine spark seems similar, if not identical to what Friends (so called Quakers) believe.
Those who have opposed orthodoxy do have diverse views but they have one thing in common, they have usually been seen as heretical (rather than heterodoxical) by many Christians in the past and probably the present unless things have radically changed during my own lifetime.. and I doubt that they have.
The Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin is an example.
He refers to "cults" as any that hold heretical views.
One heretic I am familiar with (and have met actually) is John Shelby Spong, and his views are hardly what traditional Christianity teaches. You could say that he is an atheist, perhaps.
by Andromeda Islands » Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:29 pm
by Tarsonis » Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:46 pm
Andromeda Islands wrote:If you take everything in the Bible literally, how do you reconcile the contradictions?
If you don't everything in the Bible literally, how is one to determine what is literal and what is not?
Not so for the Church. We compiled the Scriptures based on our teachings, not the other way around. While yes modern versions are translations, they're mostly pretty solid. However it does take great amounts of study to truly understand scripture. Some of it reads plainly, others require a good deal of knowledge and wisdom to understand. It really can be difficult. But do you need to understand every word to go to heaven? No.As far as "cherry picking" goes everything in the Bible out of context, unless one were to read the entire Bible in its original languages; do I need to read and fully every understand every word to avoid eternal damnation?
The trinity (the Divine literally existing in three persons) which isn't explicitly taught in the Bible, is not logical, and is a dogma derived from extra-biblical ideas, is not easily explained (and I don't think that it can be), nor is it strictly speaking "monotheistic*.
*whether it is monotheistic or not may be a moot point, at least in my mind
What if I were to quote John 21:25, would that be cherry picking?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bovad, Celritannia, Duvniask, Gudetamia, Hekp, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Jerzylvania, Luziyca, Myrensis, Ors Might, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, Rusozak, Southland, Teclana, Tungstan, Uiiop, Valrifall, Vassenor, Zetaopalatopia
Advertisement