The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[The Grims]

There are certainly parts of the Bible that state male homosexuality is frowned upon in the eyes of God.

Ah I am guessing these parts are not commonly preached in churches?

Depends on the church. The westboro baptist church for instance never preaches anything else.

[Menassa]

There are certainly parts of the Bible that state male homosexuality is frowned upon in the eyes of God.

Ah I am guessing these parts are not commonly preached in churches?

I wouldn't know, I don't go into churches.

[Salus Maior]

There are certainly parts of the Bible that state male homosexuality is frowned upon in the eyes of God.

Ah I am guessing these parts are not commonly preached in churches?

Depends.

[Stonok]

There are certainly parts of the Bible that state male homosexuality is frowned upon in the eyes of God.

Ah I am guessing these parts are not commonly preached in churches?

They are in the Low Church. Not so much in the High Church.

[Andsed]

Ah I am guessing these parts are not commonly preached in churches?

Depends on the church. The westboro baptist church for instance never preaches anything else.

Eh that is to be expected with the massive amounts of churches in the world that there would be a couple bad apples.

Ah I am guessing these parts are not commonly preached in churches?

I wouldn't know, I don't go into churches.

Same which is why I was kinda confused at why a few people who follow of a religion which preaches tolerance would use it to justify homophobia.

[Menassa]

I wouldn't know, I don't go into churches.

Same which is why I was kinda confused at why a few people who follow of a religion which preaches tolerance would use it to justify homophobia.

I don't know... John 14:6 seems pretty intolerant to me.

[Lord Dominator]

I mean, it is important to remember the difference between condemning the sin and condemning the sinner, which people seem to leave out frequently.

[Tarsonis]

Same which is why I was kinda confused at why a few people who follow of a religion which preaches tolerance would use it to justify homophobia.

I don't know... John 14:6 seems pretty intolerant to me.

I think exclusive is a better word

[Tarsonis]

For Wicca definitely. For Hinduism and Islam? I’d say yes

Could you elaborate?

I find the concept of Karmic Trajectory and Samsara pretty weak sauce.

Again, "I'd" say yes. Though I imagine many would disagree with me.

[Tarsonis]

What is a sin?

Let me rephrase myself. Is there any part of the bible that says that homosexuality is wrong. I am asking because of one of the more common reason I have seen someone opposing homosexuality use is religion.

That's a fairly complicated question, because it requires a definition of what is homosexuality? What is a homosexual?

If you want to say a homosexual is someone who merely has same sex attraction, the answer is no, being a homosexual is not a sin. However acting upon said attractions, engaging in homosexual relations would be sinful. So the Church teaches that those with Same-sex attraction should strive to live celibately. Keep in mind that this type of sin is a sexual sin, on par with masturbation and fornication, which is really the most benign form of sin. It's still a mortal sin, but it's not one that Christians need to turn cities to salt for.



That being said, the question becomes more complicated when you consider concepts like sexual/gender identity. When someone identifies as a homosexual, and thus lives a life that is affirming of their same sex attractions, the question "Is homosexuality sinful" becomes much harder to answer. Tentatively, I'd want to say yes but from a very specific point of view, in that they're living a life of rebellion, the same way Christians who fornicate or indulge in pornography are. They're not repenting of their sins, rather they're "living in sin" by affirming their sinful ways as "right" or "not a big deal."

[The Archregimancy]

Hi all.

I wanted to asks, what's everyone's fav bible quotes,

Eli Eli lama sabachthani

[GnosticChristian]

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.

I would call him an honest and moral man, which I cannot say for most of the Christian clergy who are perpetual liars. They have to be when they begin by saying that God is unknowable, then start reaming off all they say they know of the unknowable.

Denying that myths should be read literally by the intelligentsia has a long history.

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

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

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

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.[/quote]

"I'm honestly not sure what your point is here. "

Which is why I did not bother writing a wall of text.

You see god as some guy in the sky.

I see God the way reality is.

https://imgur.com/9eoBEyo

I note you attacked the messengers I put, the links I put, but ignored the messages except for the usual out of context cop out phrase used extensively by many Christians without showing any right, to you, context. You win that debate.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

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.

That is based on Genesis and man created in God's image.

Do you see A & E, innocent, ignorant and not even able to know that they are naked, quite stupid, as being in God's image?

Strange if you do given that God himself said and I adlib, they had to eat of the tree of all knowledge before they, became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil and having their eyes opened.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWOqHHE4upY

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

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

No, no we are very much not.

If not for what I put, what is motivating atheists to start churches?

If you are denying that they are, then you do not know how to research in the net.

You might want to learn how to communicate. If you are going to disagree, the bright thing to do is show why. I am sure you have the wit to see the wisdom in that.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

No, no we are very much not.

https://www.sundayassembly.com/story

Thanks for helping to educate our (unable to google) friend.

Here is another link to a new atheist church as well as a link that has a prominent atheist explain some of the logic and reason for opening such churches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRtJPSmI9pY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

Regards
DL

[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.

Singing is one of the best parts of Church, in my opinion. Always be sure to focus on the theological message of the hymn, and search for / recommend hymns that contribute to theological understanding. As an example I've given before, a hymn helped me understand the Eucharist.

Nicely thought out.

I have many Christians run from a discussion on the contradiction that the Exulstet hymn sings when calling Adam's sin a happy fault and necessary to God's plan, while at the same time calling that same sin the fall of man.

You might have an explanation for this contradiction, especially given that the Jews wrote man's elevation in Eden and not our fall.

Regards
DL

[The Archregimancy]

GnosticChristian, I write this in the awkward interface of being both a thread participant and a site moderator, but with the emphasis on the former.

But...

This posting style is likely not helpful to either the thread or your cause.

Setting out a wall of successive posts from a single individual in reply to a range of individual posts before vanishing for several days before doing the same thing again a few days later isn't against the rules as such, but could be seen as a breach of forum etiquette.

It's just not the done thing in these forums.

I would gently posit that it does little to advance the arguments you want to make, and in fact might be actively undermining your point(s). At the very least, it can appear to be discourteous towards other regular thread participants.

And I assume you would not want to be intentionally discourteous.

[GnosticChristian]

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

Are you suggesting that a being of infinite wisdom and power is easily knowable? God has properties that we cannot understand. We ascertain the qualities (revealed in scripture) that bring us closer to Him.

You ascertain speculative nonsense.

If "him" is the genocidal son murdering Christian God Yahweh, then why in hell would you want to get closer to that vile satanic God? Demiurge in my religious myths.

Yahweh's desirability is answered easily if you answer this question honestly.

Who is more likely to see justice in and demand the punishment of the innocent Jesus instead of the guilty? Satan or God?

Regards
DL


Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

We don't understand genetics all to well. We know what certain genetic proteins relate to, but we don't know how they do that. Now, is genetics superstition? Truly, it would be quite superstitious to think we know something entirely, without any room for the unknown!

Is their scientific evidence for anything spiritual? Science doesn't have all the answers, but it is based on empirical evidence, can you say the same thing about religion? To put it more bluntly spirituality isn't natural.

Without getting into the definition of that word too deeply, you might be wrong based on imperial surveys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IqYHiejTVM

I also have a Ted talk where the mostly atheist and agnostic audience was asked if the they were religious or spiritual. The large majority said they were spiritual but not religious.

That spiritual itch, so to speak, is what had me seek God to the result of suffering an apotheosis.

The religious use that word but I just see it as reaching/opening what the mystics call our third or inner eye.

My religion uses Gnosis to gain that insight and that is one of the reasons I chose to be a Gnostic Christian. Strangely, that all happened at about the same time that I satisfied another internal itch that telepathy was real. That was a hell of a year for me. Unfortunately, I have no proof to offer for either accomplishments as it is all internal and happens in our minds.

For apotheosis, you might be best to see it as finding what Jung and Freud name the Father Complex.

I see that as equivalent to opening our inner eye, which is basically finding where we store our basic instincts passed on up to us.

Our minds are more complicated and capable than we think.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

[
Spirituality, in reference to human attraction to the spiritual, is natural. There are a handful of miracles with scientific backing.

Please back that up.

There are reasons why God never cures amputees and they mostly center on fraud.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

[

Spirituality and religion are incredibly natural. To be even more blunt, in the history of humanity and civilization, widespread atheism as we see in modern Western society (though still a minority) is decidedly unnatural and without historical precedent.

You are not reading history the way I do.

This shows how the ancient intelligentsia thought and it is more agnostic/atheist than theist.

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

We are all born atheist with a touch of agnostic and that is why almost all of us end in following our parents religion, whatever it is, instead of seeking a real and true God.

What is natural is our tribalism and we tend to stay in our familiar tribes/religions.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

[.

There is historical evidence for Christ.

The majority or research belies that view.

The Jewish messiah was to return and rule. Not go zombie and disappear.

Read your bible as it shows Jesus saying to his disciples that some of them would see the end time where Jesus would rule.

Further, if you cannot see more than one Jesus in the scriptures themselves, you are not looking the right way. There is the Roman invented pacifist wimp with piss poor morals that would slave you to religion and there is the more Eastern mystic that Gnostic Christians recognize and quote that the church never quotes as that Jesus wants to free us from religions and not slave us to them.

Regards
DL

[Lord Dominator]

Could you please put all of your posts into one posts instead of 10?