Depends on the church. The westboro baptist church for instance never preaches anything else.
Advertisement
by Menassa » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:36 pm
by Salus Maior » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:37 pm
by Andsed » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:42 pm
by Menassa » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:47 pm
by Lord Dominator » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:16 pm
by Tarsonis » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:22 pm
by Tarsonis » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:30 pm
by Tarsonis » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:39 pm
by The Archregimancy » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:07 pm
by GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:16 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 GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:29 pm
Tarsonis wrote:GnosticChristian wrote:
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.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."
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
"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 GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:34 pm
Tarsonis wrote: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.
All Christianity teaches of a spark of divinity. The Imago Dei, and the nature of the Soul are all pursuant to this concept.
by GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:36 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?
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?
by GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:45 pm
by GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:51 pm
by GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:56 pm
Hakons wrote: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.
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.
by The Archregimancy » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:07 pm
by GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:08 pm
Northern Davincia wrote:GnosticChristian wrote:
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.
by GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:25 pm
Andromeda Islands wrote:Hakons wrote:
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.
by GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:28 pm
Northern Davincia wrote:[
Spirituality, in reference to human attraction to the spiritual, is natural. There are a handful of miracles with scientific backing.
by GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:35 pm
Hakons wrote:[
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.
by GnosticChristian » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:42 pm
by Lord Dominator » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:46 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Caurus, Foxyshire, Great Eddy, Haganham, Kannap, La Paz de Los Ricos, Lunayria, New Heldervinia, The Black Forrest, Tiami
Advertisement