Paul was a gnostic

[Pauliesonne]

Aw, c'mon guys...

Why are we arguing about a bloated sack of protoplasm like Paul?

 

[lifegazer]

I'm saying that when you look at the history of beliefs and theology and consider all philosophies there is nothing that sticks out about gnosticism that would make it somehow special in comparison to all other beliefs. Nothing that would make me think that this set of beliefs is representative of the truth in a way that the others are not.

I will concede that there is similarity between what a gnostic says and one or two other religions.
But you're missing the point of this thread...

Look at the influence which [literal] christianity has had upon mankind. Unbelievable at how many lives have been affected by it - even today.
Yet it was all for nothing since all of those people were brainwashed into believing a message that was never given by Jesus, Paul, or most other notable characters of that time.
The message was corrupted - albeit ignorantly - to something far far less than was given.
History would have been vastly altered if that message had not been corrupted.
The future can follow along the same wasted lines, or... it might not - not if the truth is revealed.

Further, atheists will no longer have the reasons to abhor christianity which they might presently have, since the new christianity is vastly different to the old.

 

[Diamond]

As the title says, Paul was a gnostic. This is significant because most modern christians aren't. In fact, modern christians are biblical literalists who considered gnostics to be heretics... and in the earlier centuries after the advent of Christianity, heretics usually ended up biting the dust.

Yes but what about John, George and Ringo?

 

[RandFan]

I will concede that there is similarity between what a gnostic says and one or two other religions.
But you're missing the point of this thread...

Look at the influence which [literal] christianity has had upon mankind. Unbelievable at how many lives have been affected by it - even today.
Yet it was all for nothing since all of those people were brainwashed into believing a message that was never given by Jesus, Paul, or most other notable characters of that time.
The message was corrupted - albeit ignorantly - to something far far less than was given.
History would have been vastly altered if that message had not been corrupted.
The future can follow along the same wasted lines, or... it might not - not if the truth is revealed.

Further, atheists will no longer have the reasons to abhor christianity which they might presently have, since the new christianity is vastly different to the old.

You are missing MY point. Look at the influence FAITH has had upon mankind.

Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Falun Gung, Scientology, Anism, Bahia, Paganism, etc.

I keep telling you that it is NOT simply focusing on Christianity. There are so many religions that there is no reason to believe that some offshoot of Christianity is somehow significantly different.

 

[lifegazer]

"Don't mock what you don't understand. Makes you look like a retard."

That's quite possibly the most juvenile, asinine thing I've seen you write.

To this point, there have been 17 other responses (excluding my own), including one of you moaning about me saying this.
So let's examine 9 of those other 16 responses:

a) Really? I'm agnostic too!
b) I love gnostics. Boil them lightly and serve them with thick sauces, e.g., marinara.
c) Jeremiah was a bullfrog.
d) Cream, butter, garlic infused!!
e) [a sarcastic face icon]
f) Oh, yes...
g) I find it hard to care about the politico/religious affiliations of a 1st century tent maker turned hit man turned born again evangelist. We have enough fatheads like that in the here and now.
h) Why are we arguing about a bloated sack of protoplasm like Paul?
i) Yes but what about John, George and Ringo?

And you complain because I allow myself to become frustrated by this?
Fair enough. I'll try to ignore them.

 

[lifegazer]

Your missing the point. Look at the influence FAITH has had upon mankind.

Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Falun Gung, Scientology, Anism, Bahia, Paganism, etc.

I keep telling you that it is NOT simply focusing on Christianity. There are so many religions that there is no reason to believe that some offshoot of Christianity is somehow significantly different.

Do you know what 'gnosis' means?
Nothing to do with faith... or hope.

 

[RandFan]

Do you know what 'gnosis' means?
Nothing to do with faith... or hope.

{sigh}

gnosis
Main Entry: gno·sis
Pronunciation: 'nO-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek gnOsis, literally, knowledge, from gignOskein
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation

GNOSTICISM: ANCIENT AND MODERN

Gnosticism consisted of many syncretistic belief systems which combined elements taken from Asian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Syrian pagan religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity. They constituted one of the three main branches of early Christianity:

 

[lifegazer]

Which part of those definitions lists 'faith' as the required attitude?

 

[slingblade]

Fine. I'll take you seriously.

Further, atheists will no longer have the reasons to abhor christianity which they might presently have, since the new christianity is vastly different to the old.

That is, quite seriously, the biggest load of sheer obtuse ignorance I've ever seen.

There is not just one reason to "abhor" (though I prefer "reject") Christianity. There are thousands. They may be taken singly or in combination, and so there are millions of permutations of these reasons. but no revamping, refurbishing, or recreating of any religion is going to remove my chief reason:

There's nothing there. God is imaginary. That is my belief. I cannot prove it, any more than you can prove the opposite. But I hold to it. New religions, or new versions of old religions, are hardly going to address my belief, because the vast majority of them are predicated on the premise that there is, in fact, a God.

Now, sir, you have been seriously addressed, and seriously dismissed.
Have a nice day.

 

[Pauliesonne]

Now, sir, you have been seriously addressed, and seriously dismissed.
Have a nice day.

Now THAT is how you finish a post!

 

[Foster Zygote]

You infer that gnosticism is not worth addressing since few are now gnostics.

Not true. I never implied that Gnostic beliefs were not worth addressing. You inferred it. In fact, I find textual scholarship fascinating. My question was: Why is criticism of modern Christian doctrine not still relevant in light of the fact that the ancient roots of Christianity were different?

My response is that gnosticism is experiencing a rebirth. Also, with ever-increasing evidence, christian-literalism will die a slow death... and it's "influence" will disappear.

Yes, Gnosticism is certainly sweeping the world. Christianity as we know it is as good as dead.

Hypothetical scenario:
Lg: X is true.
Bill: Yahoo! (he believes Lg and goes to tell his friends):- Lg says Y is true.

Bills friends believe him and tell their friends. Soon, Bill builds quite a following and their influence grows and grows.
Unfortunately, new evidence eventually crops up which shows that Lg actually said that "X is true".
The consequences to this scenario are obvious - belief in 'Y' will die and the influence of those believers in Y will evaporate.
Also, believers in X will grow in numbers.

This means that the critics of Y will also evaporate. They're wasting their time. If they're interested in the truth of X, they need to refocus their attention... and since they were interested in Y, they should be interested in X.
= that's why atheists should address gnosticism.

I find it interesting that you are the "prophet" in the above argument. I find it even more interesting that you sincerely believe that people will alter an irrational belief system for rational reasons.

You're incorrect. Pagan gnostics only appear to believe in more than one God - initiates into 'The Mysteries' understood that there was only one God.
Further, I'm specifically discussing Christian gnostics here... which two Gods are you refering to?

That above mentioned fascination with textual scholarship is why I know that Christian Gnostics in pre-orthodox Christian societies believed in two gods. An evil god of the old testament and another distinct god of the new testament. The later sent Jesus to Earth to save people from the wrath of the former. These Gnostics were not unique among the various Christ cults in their polytheism.

Atheists are people that see no credibility in the God that they're familiar with.

Or any god for that matter. So you're partially correct. But not in the way you'd like to be.

Also, they mistakenly believe that science provides answers about existence. It doesn't.

No, only Lifegazer provides answers about existence.

Also, perhaps they don't care because they enjoy their lives and are tired of feeling guilty for doing so.

Well I can't speak for all atheists but I do enjoy my life, but I can assure you I feel no guilt over disagreeing with the cult of Lifegazer or being an atheist.

It's all irrelevant.

I couldn't agree more.

Steven

 

[SezMe]

Note to self: Don't argue with Slingblade.

 

[RandFan]

Which part of those definitions lists 'faith' as the required attitude?

Where did you get the notion that "faith" was an attitude?

Faith

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see [SIZE=-1]BELIEF[/SIZE]

Ok so "faith" is one or more of the following:

1. A trust in and loyalty to God.
2. Belief in traditional doctrines of a religion
3. Firm belief in something for which there is no proof
4. A system of religious beliefs
5. Synonymous with BELIEF.

Now, scroll back to the definition of "gnosis" and please tell me how any of these definitions are not copacetic?

 

[RandFan]

So you don't have to scroll back.

GNOSTICISM: ANCIENT AND MODERN

Gnosticism consisted of many syncretistic belief systems which combined elements taken from Asian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Syrian pagan religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity. They constituted one of the three main branches of early Christianity:

If you want to be taken seriously you should educate yourself of the terms you use and not simply make up definitions as you go along.

...You know what, never mind. We've been here before and you refuse to educate yourself.

 

[Foster Zygote]

And you complain because I allow myself to become frustrated by this?

It wasn't a complaint it was an observation. The slur "retard" is more suited to a 3rd grade playground than this forum. Your use of it was obstreperous and immature and your attempts to defend this use pathetic.

Steven

 

[lifegazer]

Not true. I never implied that Gnostic beliefs were not worth addressing. You inferred it. In fact, I find textual scholarship fascinating. My question was: Why is criticism of modern Christian doctrine not still relevant in light of the fact that the ancient roots of Christianity were different?

Address the X & Y scenario seriously and you'll have your answer. True christianity was given as 'X' - not 'Y'.

I find it interesting that you are the "prophet" in the above argument. I find it even more interesting that you sincerely believe that people will alter an irrational belief system for rational reasons.

Evasive. The scenario served a constructive purpose.

That above mentioned fascination with textual scholarship is why I know that Christian Gnostics in pre-orthodox Christian societies believed in two gods. An evil god of the old testament and another distinct god of the new testament. The later sent Jesus to Earth to save people from the wrath of the former. These Gnostics were not unique among the various Christ cults in their polytheism.

Jehovah is akin to Zeus when comparisons are made with gnostic beliefs.
Fundamentally, gnostics believe in the existence of just one God. Other Gods serve to construct the 'outer mystery narratives'.

No, only Lifegazer provides answers about existence.

Evasive and irrelevant remark.

Well I can't speak for all atheists but I do enjoy my life, but I can assure you I feel no guilt over disagreeing with the cult of Lifegazer or being an atheist.

Immature remark.

You don't have to talk to me about this subject if you don't want to. I really can't be bothered unless you keep it serious.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm tempted to take the OP to a Christian forum and watch their reactions... but I really can't be bothered tonight.
Was hoping for some extensive decent discussion from this. I guess atheists really don't give a ****. Sobeit.

 

[KelvinG]

Immature remark.

You don't have to talk to me about this subject if you don't want to. I really can't be bothered unless you keep it serious.

Yes, perhaps he should use the word retard more.

 

[lifegazer]

Yes, perhaps he should use the word retard more.

The people who disrespectfully tried to turn my thread into a circus were acting like retards.
Why is it that none of you find offence in their behaviour?

Regardless, I regret my actions. I should have used a less offensive word - something like 'moron'.

 

[RandFan]

I'm tempted to take the OP to a Christian forum and watch their reactions... but I really can't be bothered tonight.
Was hoping for some extensive decent discussion from this. I guess atheists really don't give a ****. Sobeit.

It is really hard to have a discussion with you lifegazer. You lack so many fundamentals yet you come here and act as if you are some expert. You don't even understand the definition of faith. You don't comprehend that different religions are different faiths. You don't have a rudimentary understanding of the history of theology. And that is fine if you want to come here and a have a discussion with a non-authoritative perspective. The problem is that you do have that perspective so from the start we have to deal with your ignorance. And you won't even make the attempt to educate yourself on the issues you are discussing. You simply make unfounded assumptions. Whatever gazer.