The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Andromeda Islands]

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?

[Mardla]

None. Same goes for my brother. And yet now they're picking up the tab for his mortuary and funeral expenses. I'm pretty overwhelmed.

You’re not alone! Even if we can’t help you pay for the expenses, you have our support!

it's appreciated

Merry Christmas.

Christ is born!

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?

I don't believe the past and the future don't exist, I think they are just as real as the present. I also believe heaven can be experienced on earth but as theosis, not as something secular.

[Andromeda Islands]

Can you change the past? Can you know the future?

As far as "secular*":

That means pluralism within a nation. It does not mean that all religions are the same. Of course, they are not, but
those religions that teach "don't do evil, do good**" etc***, do have at least that in common.

***and there is a lot of etc

**also, for example, Buddhism teaches that verbatim

*if you tell me what your idea of "secular" is, I can elaborate

[GnosticChristian]

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.

If you will not believe what a Gnostic Christian tells you about his religion, that is on you.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

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.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

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

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

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.

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]

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.

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]

[ 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.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

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]

Does one have to be a Christian to post in this thread?

No.

Regards
DL

[The Archregimancy]

Christ is born!

Glorify Him!

[GnosticChristian]

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.

Not to me. We are tribal by instinct and seek fellowship naturally. Singing and dancing add to the ecstasy of being close to our fellow man.

That is why even the atheists are starting up churches. To give their kids a place of fellowship so that they do not end in seeking out the immoral mainstream religions and churches.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

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

[Salus Maior]

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

If he cared about the Trinitarian position, why would he, as our resident archaeologist and overall historical authority noted, flip flop between both positions based on political convenience?

The reason why it wasn't proclaimed as dogma until the council was due to the fact that the issue of Christology wasn't dividing the Church until Arius started popularizing his view. And that's how the church generally operated, they usually didn't confront issues unless they proved themselves to be issues in the unity of the church. This precedent was first set by the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in the New Testament, where the issue for debate was whether Christians and Christian converts were required to be circumcised and generally apply themselves to Jewish law.

Also, that was not what caused the split between the East and West. If you're going to call people stupid maybe you should be more knowledgeable yourself?

If you will not believe what a Gnostic Christian tells you about his religion, that is on you.

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.

[Tarsonis]

> 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

It's not that we don't believe that you believe this. The problem is that you're claiming label of Gnostic, while professing a belief that is not in keeping with Gnostic beliefs.

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.

And you may believe that but that is neither a Gnostic nor a Christian belief. By all accounts and evidence, (Scripturally traditionally etc) The term "I Am" has an actual meaning. When God tells Moses "I Am Who I Am" he is indicating that he's not a God of function. His name is not invoked to make the rain fall, or the nile flow, or the harvest good. He is above all that nonsense. He is the God their Ancestors made covenant with. In Christianity, when Christ claims "I AM" he is not merely speaking poetically. He is claiming to be God, which is why the Jews wanted to stone him for blasphemy.


Further the belief in that "I AM" refers to yourself is not a Gnostic belief. Gnostics had a pantheon of deities, that varied per group but at the most basic professed belief in two deities, the Demiurge, creator of the Physical Universe, and the Monad, Supreme Spiritual God in Heaven. The I am my own God, meme trends from Laveyan Satanists, not Gnostics or Christians.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

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.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Nobody says this.

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

Those interpretations have removed those verses so far from their context that they're completely erroneous and meaningless. Matthew is instructions to avoid sin, John is instructions to obey christ and Romans is St. Paul encouraging early Christians. The only way to interpret them in the manner you wish is to cherry pick them and ignore all other material. It completely ignores the true Hypothesis of Christ:

John 3:11 “Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you[g] do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.[h] 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Regards
DL

And yet it's you not the Bible that's calling those things childish.

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

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.

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

1. Not necessarily. When we say he didn't care we mean he didn't care about the particulars. He just wanted order. Further, at Nicaea all but two Bishops present signed on with the Creed. Those two were expelled and it was Constantine who let them return a few years later. Constantine also actually later sided against the Trinitarian understanding, instead backing the Arian interpretation of the Creed. So in fact his influence was contrary to what the Church ultimately decided. Though as Arch has pointed out, it's a bit more complicated than that.

2. That's an extremely ignorant statement. Christianity was an underground religion until the 4th century, and in no way could have policed doctrine in such away prior to the 4th. It had nothing to do with the quality of dogma and everything to do with circumstance. Also as an aside, I'd like to point out that if you want us to respect your beliefs, you'd do well to respect ours

3. The East and Western Churches all profess the Trinity. This is not what divided them.

[ 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.

You're grossly twisting these out of context. These quotes refer to inheritance of guilt. A child is not guilty of their father's crimes, and we don't punish sons for their parents transgressions. That doesn't violate substitution of atonement.

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.

Depends. The key variable here would be consent. For instance it is ostensibly wrong to punish an innocent man for a guilty man's crimes. But we understand the immortality of that, because of the nature of punishment: a negative consequence forced upon someone by those who've passed judgment on them. A guilty man we say has "earned" the punishment due to their actions, while the innocent man has not. Therefore its ethically acceptable to force this negative effect upon the guilty, and not upon the innocent.

However, the parameters change when consent is introduced to the equation. The innocent man volunteers to the place of the guilty man, there is no ethical quandary. Say for instance a man is required to pay a fine. If another man who was not fined, volunteers to pay the fine on their behalf, it is not illegal nor unethical. The guilty man is still condemned but the fine is still paid. All parties are satisfied.

Same goes for here. Christ was innocent, but voluntarily undertook this payment for our transgressions. If we had forced Christ into the situation, then it would be absolutely immoral. But he voluntarily undertook this sacrifice for us. "13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. " - John 15:13

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.

Logic we have. (The Trinity is fruit of extensive philosophical and theological debate) The problem here is your condition of a "decent moral position." Morality is inherently subjective to mandative authorities. You're not interested in a divine position, your interested in your position. As I said earlier, rather than pursue God's teaching, you instead seek to fashion a God in your own image. Because in this case what you consider the the arbiter of what is considered a "decent moral position" is you, not God. So long as you're seeking find God in accordance with your ideas, and not His, you will never find Him.

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

Something about a pot and kettle here. Also you can't invoke Satan when you openly reject the supernatural.

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

Again, you keep saying Gnostic but you adhere to none of its core tenets. Gnostic Christianity was equally as exclusive, it was not unitarian universalist. In fact far from it. You're essentially throwing words around with no regard for what they actually mean, you're picking words you like and claiming them to mean what you want them to mean, rather than what they do mean. Your allegiance to Gnostics and Eastern seem to stem from a romanticizing of these groups, and not what these groups actually believe of profess.

Further your candor here has been nothing but divisive, so you don't have much leg to stand on in that regard.

[GnosticChristian]

If you will not believe what a Gnostic Christian tells you about his religion, that is on you.

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.[/quote]

My word and what I quote from the old records.

If that is not good enough for you, too bad.

Regards
DL

[Tarsonis]

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

The problem for you is that many of us in this thread have legitimate degrees in the subject. From what I've seen, his assessment isn't far off

[GnosticChristian]

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.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

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.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

I will recheck your wall of text to see if there is anything in particular I want to speak to but if I miss something you are particularly interested in, please ask.

==============

I did find this that you questioned my use of I am for the name of my God. I would speak to as well.

"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.

Regards
DL

[Andromeda Islands]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/

That's a good encyclopedia for those who want to study comparative religions. There is a lot there to digest.

If anyone knows of a better site, I would be interested in seeing a link to it.

[Andromeda Islands]

As far as whether the Bible is "paradoxical", it always makes me think of Zen with all it's depth.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Can anyone answer that?

[Andromeda Islands]

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.

[Tarsonis]

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.

Firstly, No. You don't get to pull that card. I have addressed every point you made, even after you repeatedly ignore mine, and I will continue to address your points. You don't get to come in here and accuse us all of lazy theology, and weak ability to reason, and then duck and dodge all the counter points of your opponents with " you would just ignore or not understand what I have to say." All that tells us is that you're full of crap and can't defend your claims. If you're not going to debate/discuss, then piss off. If you want to have a dialogue then let's do it.

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'm honestly not sure what your point is here.

You cite this source: https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2, but you don't seem to really take it to heart. What Armstrong refers to as the "modern period," based on her description of it would be late 19th early 20th century. This coincides with the rise of the Christian Fundamentalism. (And if your beef is with Christian fundamentalism, well I'd say then we find ourselves on the same side of that conflict.) So by that token I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "everyone knew that before X." Firstly, those types of statements are almost invariably untrue, secondly your source cites Christian sources as "getting it right." We know that our words are limited and cannot totally describe God. Everything we say is by approximation. St. Leontius of Byzantium openly admitted than when we describe theological things like the Trinity or the Dual natures of Christ, these are all done by approximation, using borrowed language from Greek philosophy. This is also what we say when we claim things are a "mystery." because we acknowledge that by virtue of this incomprehensibility, we'll never be able to fully describe it.

However this doesn't mean we can't understand anything about God. It just means we can't comprehend the totality of God, and this is not new reasoning, this is a very ancient philosophical concept. We can understand the nature of a thing, but the only way to comprehend the thing is to be the thing.


Ms. Armstrong also however seems to fail to grasp this particular concept. She fails to realize that by our own admission any words we use to describe God are inadequate to the task, but that doesn't make them un-useful.

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.

Again, what is your definition of modern? For instance Alan Watts, Joseph Cambell, and Karen Armstrong, are all modern theists, interpreting ancient sources (and in a lot of counts getting it wrong). They ignore the contexts of the text and cherry pick their quotes to support their own reasoning. When challenged on this they try to get around it by claiming no the texts have been corrupted they're uncovering the lost true meaning. And then they'll sell you a bottle of snake oil. Every two bit theist claims to recover the true meaning of the text.

The Church doesn't have to recover anything, the Church preservers the true meaning. It's never wavered in that regard.

Also, the Ancients had their issues as well. I definitely like to look backward for authority, but they also jacked up a lot of things.

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."

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.

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."

Origen wrote an entire book on how to read the scriptures. I have it on my desk right now and it's approximately 45 pages. One Bill Moyers quote taken out of context doesn't even scratch the surface of what Origen taught about reading the scriptures.
Not to mention that Quote is absolutely butchered to the point of being false, which is I'm sure why he didn't cite it.

“Scripture contains many contradictions, and many statements which are not literally true, but must be read spiritually and mystically.” is the actual quote. It doesn't say the texts can't be taken literally. It says there are parts which may not be literally true but have spiritual and mystical meanings. And this, btw is the understanding of Scripture that the Church embodies.

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.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D [/quote]


Timothy Freke is not a credible source. He's been rejected by the scholastic community at large. The Jesus Mystery's have been completely dismissed by the academic community as un-credible nonsense. You're citing the intellectual equivalent of a con-man. And even if I hadn't read his nonsense, and even if I hadn't read the critiques by his contemporaries, I could tell you he wasn't on the level. Serious scholars don't sell themselves to you. He self describes himself as an internationally Respected Scholar (Which he isn't). Timothy Freke is to religion is what Giorgio A. Tsoukalos is to history.



I did find this that you questioned my use of I am for the name of my God. I would speak to as well.

"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).

Really? You're citing the Huffington Post now? Do you have any backing for your beliefs that isn't hodgpodged from internet personalities and opinion blogs?

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.

Woaahhh no. Gnosis is knowledge the true nature of Humanity, but not the knowledge of one's self as God. The Gnostic concept of Gnosis comes from the dualistic paradigm of the Demiurge and the Monad. To learn Gnosis, is to pierce the veil of the physical realm (the Demiurge's creation) and uncover the true spiritual essence of the human soul (being form the Monad). But it's not subjectivist in the slightest. There is True Gnosis, which is why most never find it because all these different perspectives and illussions and brought about by the physical realm. Gnostisticm is far more similar to Buddhism than Christianity, in this regard. Gnostics tried to remove the illusion not revel in it. The Physical realm exists to torment humans and keep them from where they belong, in the spiritual realm. Thus, to actually call one's self "I Am" by understanding God as how they see themselves, would be contrary to Gnostic thought, because the perception of what you are is clouded by the physical reality, the sense of individuality. "We are" would be more accurate to the Gnostic belief than "I am," though would still be wrong, because humans are not the Monad, rather they are of the Monad which is an important distinction. One must pierce the physical reality, pull back these illusions to uncover the true spiritual nature of the Humanity and the world beyond. By uncovering this secret knowledge, you would then, presumably, be able to find your way back to heaven.

You're twisting the concept of Gnosis greatly to the point you're arriving at a different concept than what ancient gnostics believed. Which brings me back to my earlier point. What you believe isn't really gnosticism, at least not how the ancient Gnostics would recognize. It's more modern new age spiritualism, that tries to root itself in ancient thought for credibility, all while getting it wrong. Ironically, you're falling into the camps of those you claim to detest: modern theists and preachers.

Also, DeConick would be pretty wrong in that regard. This type of concept wasn't revolutionary.

[Tarsonis]

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.

All Christianity teaches of a spark of divinity. The Imago Dei, and the nature of the Soul are all pursuant to this concept.

[Andromeda Islands]

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?

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?

[Tarsonis]

If you take everything in the Bible literally, how do you reconcile the contradictions?

Depends on the contradiction. Likely what appears as a contradiction really isn't.

If you don't everything in the Bible literally, how is one to determine what is literal and what is not?

Very carefully.

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?

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.

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

It's extremely logical. In fact logical deduction is how the doctrine even came about. But it is admittedly very "high" logic that requires a great deal preface. To explain all the foundational logic would take me a very long time, let alone getting into the meat of the logic.

What if I were to quote John 21:25, would that be cherry picking?

Depends. If you were to quote it to say that the Bible is not exhaustive? No, because that is what is said. If you're quoting to defend your heretical belief by appealing to a false ambiguity there? Yes.