Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Apr 11th, 2006, 10:51 PM       
"It's written by a fringe group who were only "Christian" because it seemed like a trendy way to revamp their whackjob beliefs."

Wasn't it a crime to be "christian" in the second century ad?

Aren't the whackjobs the foundation of the Christian religion? There certainly wasn't a roman catholic church around in 200 ad, because the romans were the ones persecuting the Christians. So let me ask you a question, how can a church that was founded over 250 years after the death of christ have the true teachings of Jesus? It doesn't make sense.
Your religous bias pretty much undermines your merit as an intellectual.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Apr 11th, 2006, 11:28 PM       
Are you saying that there were no Christians in Rome during the persecution of the AD 60s? 'Cuz that just seems a little awkward to me. The Catholic Church wasn't really established as "Roman" until after Constantine, I'll grant you that, but there was a Roman Church that was part of the Catholic Church ever since before Nero. The adjective "Roman" was just tacked on in later centuries to establish the primacy of Peter as leader of the Apostles, and subsequently his followers (he was the first Bishop of Rome) have primacy over the other patriarchs.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #28  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Apr 11th, 2006, 11:59 PM       
Not really. I just didn't really understand your statement/sentiment, I was just reading through the thread and thought it was weird.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #29  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Apr 12th, 2006, 03:01 AM       
"thought the Gnostic opinion was that Jesus was never actually cruxcifed and he just flew back to heaven"

I actually found the story for this in one of my books. The story basically says the following(I'm adding in information and simplifying); at baptism Jesus(the mortal) became NOUS(divine mind, I think, ill look it up later). Before his crucifixion Nous disguised Simon the mage(a 'leader'/founder of gnosticism) as jesus, who was crucified in his turn while Nous returned to his place of origin in the sky.

An interesting note with this story is that the early Christian church claimed that Simon was killed by St. Peter(more of a manslaughter type thing), possibly around the same time gnostic disciples started claiming this. I'm assuming it was a type of propaganda, perhaps on both ends(especially with simon being sacraficed as Jesus). It's kind of funny because it almost implies gnosticism was founded by Jesus, assuming this was some kind of freaky friday action.

Another thing, you guys should really find some work on Bacchus. Their stories are practically identical, and it's been presented that the early christian church mixed them up purposefully so that romans would have an easy transition period to becoming Christian. Actually, jesus is nearly identical to every single "Savior" type person ever created. All the way down to age and the amount of apostles he had. 33 is a funny age to die at, think of masonic degrees. Especially how the period in which he did the most teaching were within the last three years of his life(post baptism). Very weird. Savior-sun/son is almost too ironic.

NOUS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous
I'd say it's more akin to plato and plotinus' definition. It's funny how much of gnostic thought is derived from actual philosophy, while the influence it had on the christian church is immeasureable. Hopefully at some point in the near future I'll be able to find a website(or some other information source i can share) of notable contributions gnosticism(and other religions) have made to the Christian religion(along with philosophical and scientific contributions). Christianity is such an amalgamation.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #30  
adept_ninja adept_ninja is offline
Member
adept_ninja's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: nap town MD
adept_ninja is probably a spambot
Old Apr 12th, 2006, 09:08 PM       
yeah he founded it.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Apr 13th, 2006, 12:33 AM       
lol ok

I found some sources on immaculate conception and I plan on making a post about it once I've mulled it around long enough. Just so you know, it doesn't have anything to do with god sticking his penis into mary.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old Apr 13th, 2006, 04:35 PM       
You know, the archons did try to stick their cosmic dicks into Eve in some Gnostic texts, but she escaped by turning into the tree of the knowledge of good and evil :O
__________________
Ibid
Reply With Quote
  #33  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Apr 13th, 2006, 07:30 PM       
There's a difference between symbolism and actual events, though. Most people can't seem to tell the difference.
I kind of understand the symbolism of that, I'm just guessing but it might have something to do with Eve turning into Sophia. I could be wrong, though.

Which gnostic text was it?
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old Apr 14th, 2006, 02:45 AM       
I believe it was either Hypostasis of the Archons or the unnamed tractate On the Origin of the World, or maybe the Apocalypse of Adam. Maybe more than one of them.
I don't believe it was Eve who ever turned into Sophia, but I believe in one of those texts Pistis (faith) was described as the original female divine entity from whon emanated Sophia, who then became the mother of the demiurge for some reason and so on.

Gnostic creation mythology seems to be a lot more detailed and rich in symbolism than the Christian creation mythology. Although that probably has something to do with the fact that there's like half a dozen related 'gnostic' creation myths, and just one christian one. It's kind of important to remember that gnosticism wasn't actually a specific religion, it's really just a term used to describe a bunch of similar christian heresies, confused neoplatonist movements and other assorted weirdos. I think we use the term 'Gnostic' actually because of the phrase 'against those... who falsely claim to possess 'gnosis'' or something in the title of Iraneus' antiheretical polemic.

The symbolism of it was that Eve's spirit escaped her body (and soul) and became the tree, which was representative of the spiritual knowledge of good and evil. In the gnostic anthropology the spirit represented the divine portion of the human being, while the soul and body were the material parts. The spirit is also of course what allowed humans to become 'gnostic', in that it was the only part of the human being that could be aware of divine 'gnosis'. I think the Mandeans talked about themselves as the 'Tribe of Souls' but they're an exception. And I'm pretty sure what they really meant was 'Tribe of Spirits' anyway.


There's supposed to be a bunch of other gnostic myths about archons raping women and making them give birth to 'giants' or some such, though I haven't read that in any of the few texts I've looked at. I don't think I ever read enough about that to even get an idea of what the meaning of it was, but, hey, more examples of cosmic raping.


Ah, it was from the Hypostasis of the Archons:
Quote:
And when they saw his female counterpart speaking with him, they became agitated with great agitation; and they became enamored of her. They said to one another, "Come, let us sow our seed in her," and they pursued her. And she laughed at them for their witlessness and their blindness; and in their clutches she became a tree, and left before them her shadowy reflection resembling herself; and they defiled it foully
AGITATED WITH GREAT AGITATION

I guess I'm kind of assuming that her spirit escaped to become the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in any case, but the idea of a 'shadowy reflection' is consistent with a body/soul deprived of a spirit in the gnostic symbolism, and the fact that she was able to escape from them because they were blind and unable to take hold of her indicates that by 'her' it is meant her spirit. Earlier in the text it talks about some divine spiritual being that the archons were also 'enamored' with:

Quote:
As incorruptibility looked down into the region of the waters, her image appeared in the waters; and the authorities of the darkness became enamored of her. But they could not lay hold of that image, which had appeared to them in the waters, because of their weakness - since beings that merely possess a soul cannot lay hold of those that possess a spirit
The whole idea that a spirit dispossesed of its body and soul is superior to the gods of creation is to me one of the most important of the gnostic beliefs. It carries the implication of unlimited, but secret and untapped human capacity to escape or alter reality, and is analagous to the whole modern totalitarian project of recreating human beings in order to recreate the world.

anyway, my whole opinion on this stuff is mostly just from the fact that I just took a class on that crazy German, Eric Voegelin, who thought that everything bad that ever happened was because of the gnostics. And I pretty much wear my recent studies on my sleeve all the time :/
__________________
Ibid
Reply With Quote
  #35  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Apr 14th, 2006, 06:56 PM       
"There's supposed to be a bunch of other gnostic myths about archons raping women and making them give birth to 'giants' or some such"
Sounds like the book of enoch, or as it is often called the Book of Giants. The giants were created by fallen angels(notice archons are often related to angels) who bred with humans.

For the rest:
Makes sense, the reason I assumed it had to do with becoming Sophia is because A) Sophia is related to Nature, materiality and Wisdom, which the tree would represent(seeing as how it's a tree of knowledge) B) Sophia was created by the "Divine female", as you said, and eve is considered that. Adam and eve were originally divine, then as the story goes they succombed to sin.
C) Sophia was, according to some of what I've read, created by emanating without her male counterpart. From what I understand in the gnostic approach there are no true males or females(as far as the spirit goes), only androgyne/triune(triune= male, female, androgyne, which is kind of weird if you consider the garden of eden had a male, a female and a "Snake"). Makes it kind of confusing, but anyway, the reason we supposedly fell is because we lost a piece of our Triune and our spirit is no longer complete, and I'm assuming the incasing in the material is a way to make up for it or fill the hole. Also the material is often considered the lack of a spirit, hence the story of Christos disappearing before his death. Hence my reasoning.

From what I understand of gnostics their actual philosophy goes back pretty far, and intermingles with many different cultures, so it makes sense there would be more than one consensus. Also, even when simon the magus was around there was several other people operating as gnostics, all of whom had different ideas of existance.

From what I've heard the "Soul" of the human is actually the blood. The 'spirit' exists within the heart, like the jewel in the lotus and the mustard seed of Christians. What you were saying about the spirit being weighed down by the material seems accurate enough.

I think part of the reason there is so many different creation myths is because they are explaining different processes by use of symbology. Scroll back to the part where I said alot of the use of gods and such has to do with psychology or some similar term(i really can't think of an appropriate word, but they are designed to represent certain transpired events).

"The whole idea that a spirit dispossesed of its body and soul is superior to the gods of creation is to me one of the most important of the gnostic beliefs"

You know, this brings something up I've been wondering about. Some people believe the fall(or our encasing in the material) happened because of a human mistake and we need to get back to where we were(hence the dread feeling you might get from most gnostics), while others believe it was actually divinely influenced and part of a "Plan"(maybe I'm over-extending on that point, but all the same). So I've been curious as to if coming here was supposed to make us superior to what we were before, or if we just got sucker punched.

Sorry if that's hard to read, I'm unfocused today.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #36  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Apr 16th, 2006, 02:24 AM       
An interesting thing about gnosticism and christianity is the following:

In the bible there were the, "Three wise men" who came from the east. More than likely, and I'm pretty sure on this, they were from india (or some similar country). As the story goes Jesus supposedly went and traveled to meet the three wisemen and learn from them, most likely inheriting the indian philosophies. Another interesting thing is that some/many of the revered philosophers also traveled to India(or egypt, or any other numerable places) to learn their ways; such people as Pythagoras, socrates and plato, among many others.

[There is actually a saint-type figure in a few indian texts who is considered to be jesus. Saint Isa might be the name.]

The culturally perverse and inspired gnosticism might actually be a better representation of the true Christian belief system, especially seeing as how the beliefs of their philosophers, like Thomas Aquinas and Origen, had seemingly gnostic-like influences. Obviously gnosticism has been influenced by other religions, their belief system is nearly identical to that of India or any other school of mysticism. I'd like to say that Christian gnosticism is the purest form of christianity, while the christianity of the masses is more of just that; christianity for the masses. Origen is known to have attested to just that, and perhaps his lackluster approach to the Christianity of the masses is why he was expelled. I believe that theory has been put forward on many occasions.

Basically christianity is more like gnosticism(or other religions) than most people will admit, and I believe jesus himself more than likely practiced something much like gnosticism or some other Mystic-type religion. Which makes sense, considering generally cultures influence eachother, and considering the fact that they are all attempting to describe the same thing. It makes more sense than whatever it is that the bible puts forward, which is essentially nothing. "he was a magic guy who did magic stuff for you love him and we created this entire idea". I hate the lack of information that comes from the Christian idealogy(/church), because there's really no idealogy there, just blind acceptance.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Big Papa Goat Big Papa Goat is offline
Mocker
Big Papa Goat's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Missouri
Big Papa Goat is probably a spambot
Old Apr 23rd, 2006, 03:42 AM       
The big unique feature of gnosticism is that it makes the god of salvation alien and the god of creation evil and sub-godly. This basically denies the transcendent origin of creation, which is one of the essential points of christian theology.
The gnostic process of salvation is also pretty different from the christian view in my opinion. The gnostics thought salvation was acheived by the recovery of mans alienated pneumatic divine spark. Basically, it's about getting your divine essence back together after its 'fall' into the body and psyche. I don't recall a lot of that kind of symbolism in the salvation process that Christians talk about. Christian transcendent salvation is obtained through the grace of god through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Jesus and his sacrifice redeems humanity, but does not recover anything for us. Knowledge of Christ, prayer to Christ, the act of Christ's sacrifice do not cause human beings to get their original essence back in order from the disorder caused by the material world or our own sinful nature. Our sinful nature doesn't change at all, and we remain perfectable only in death.
So where the gnostics thought human beings could recover their essence through acquaintance (gnosis) with an alien god (acheived through the mediation of jesus in the christian heretical view- jesus seems more like a prophet than a sacrificed savior in this view, his role is to communicate with men about the divine so that they can get an understanding and start on the road to recovery, rather than redemption)

So ya, basically my thought on the difference between salvation for christianity and gnosticism is that christianity is about redemption through the grace of god, while gnosticism is about recovery of the spirit through acquaintance with god.

Then there's the differences between their creation myths, but I'll have to post about that later.
__________________
Ibid
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Sethomas Sethomas is offline
Antagonistic Tyrannosaur
Sethomas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Abstruse Caboose
Sethomas is probably a spambot
Old Apr 23rd, 2006, 04:59 AM       
My main problem with gnostics is that they were intellectual parasites. They'd pick up on some religion and re-interpret it within their agenda, then market the result as the original. Kind of like how if people don't like the original Superman comics, they can pick up on one of half a dozen spin-off series that suits them better. I dunno, I never got into comic books. One form of gnosticism tried to bait the Jewish people with the idea that Seth should be worshipped as the father of the human race because Adam gave us Original Sin. This is not to say that the Jews condoned or practiced worship of ANY human beings. This was particularly annoying for Christianity, which had to deal with the gnostics writing apocryphal "gospels" every year that were passed off as being genuine. Most people assume that gnostics were a sizable voice in the early Christian community that were simply deleted by medieval popes, but if you look at the historical record it's quite clear that they were never taken seriously.

Take the Gospel of Judas. The record of the Passion in the synoptic Gospels, which long predates any extant or alluded copy of the Gospel of Judas, has Christ referencing his betrayer (I believe in a conversation with Pilate, I'd have to check) as saying "It would have been better for that man never to have been born at all." Pretty clear, right? Well, the gnostics thought that Jesus could use some spicening up with a flair of Stoicism, so they have Him tell Judas before the Last Supper that he's just fulfilling his role in history and will be glorified for it. Apparently, the gnostics thought it would be an improvement in Christ's character to paint Him as a duplicitous asshole.

This is to say nothing of the integrity in writing "gospels" under the names of famous figures long after their deaths. Exemplia gratia, the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene along with countless others.

The most frustrating thing about this is that the American public is so intoxicated by Dan Brown's rewriting of history. Superfluous archeological finds such as this one are SHOCKING because they escaped the BOOK BURNINGS of the early CATHOLICS. Oh, and there's TEMPLARS in there somewhere, too! LEONARDO! Mr Brown, I do believe you neglected to give GHENGIS KHAN his fair due in the story. Except for the fact that synopsis, if not the entire texts, could be found in copious literary tracts for the vast majority of apocryphal texts even before the twentieth century, let alone before the Nag Hammadi Codices were discovered. (Remember when the movie Stigmata talked about how the Church supressed those findings of a "new gospel"?) Saying that the early Church burned gnostic texts is like saying that the unavailability of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in contemporary bookstores is due to a vast Jewish conspiracy.
__________________

SETH ME IMPRIMI FECIT
Reply With Quote
  #39  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Apr 23rd, 2006, 05:13 AM       
"The big unique feature of gnosticism is that it makes the god of salvation alien and the god of creation evil and sub-godly. "

Actually there's a few comments I'm going to make on this. First off, the sub-god emanates from the primary god and was created by the primary god and is actually a part of the primary god(same with any other polytheistic religion), they are like attributions of the primary God(all polytheistic religions start with a blank, chaotic water state and are fashioned from there; blank chaotic water state=god/bliss whatever). Secondly, the god who created the human realm was actually the divine human who fell in love with it's own creation, also another interesting note is that god did supposedly create this world it's just the details the lesser god filled in, as the story goes the lesser god fell into this world which means it was already here. Mankind itself WAS created by the divine god, which is really the only important thing. Last, some resources on the subject would say primary god created the lesser god explicitley for the purpose of making a stank human realm(The demiurge is sometimes considered the "Macrocosm" of man).
Like I've mentioned before, God's are actually personifications of attributions of the universe/existance.

Next, human beings are fashioned in the image of God. Keep that in mind as it's very important in gnostic and in christian thought. The bible does say that, right? WE ARE THE IMAGE OF GOD, to me, means we can become LIKE GOD. Because images of God would be like god, and what qualities are more beautiful than the transendent possibilities?

"The gnostic process of salvation is also pretty different from the christian view in my opinion."
There's a difference between what is taught in churches and what the actual message was supposed to be. If I gain my knowledge from the bible and some other asshole gains his from the church, obviously mine is more direct. I'm not going to say that makes it superior, but the implications are clear. If you read through the bible I promise you will get a very gnostic/every other religion type feel to it, especially if you recognize the symbols.

" I don't recall a lot of that kind of symbolism in the salvation process that Christians talk about."

You haven't been paying attention to me when I said that Jesus is supposedly the actual symbol. He is a personification of the "Dying God"/savior-son which is prevelant in many religions. Jesus' story itself is the story of man overcoming death(remember when he raises from the grave). Christianity means to be CHRIST-LIKE.
Considering jesus as the divine man, or Archetypical or whatever words you want to throw into that equation fills the hole. Jesus IS the man who shrugged off his materiality(his life style is exempliary of this, who could be simpler and less material). Jesus is the divine man. That's why the story is so important. He is CHRISTOS. That's how he , "Redeemed" the world. That's why, "No man may get through god except through me, the divine man". That's why we are all, "Son's of God".


JESUS IS THE DIVINE REDEEMED MAN WHO JOINED GOD AND OVERCAME DEATH AND MATERIALITY IN THREE DAYS.
Also put on his level are Enoch, ezekiel and isiah. Remember the story of the burning chariot being taken up to heaven because he was such a good follower of god?

The story also has astrological connections. When did jesus die and raise again? In the spring. When does the sun begin to rise again? In the spring. When was he born? In the winter. Winter solstice to summer solstice. Astrology and gods are always intertwined, and by simply understanding astrology you can understand the gods of any system out there since they are all pretty much based on astrology.

Secondly, three years after his baptism he dies on the cross to be raised again? And what the fuck being baptized at the age of 30? So stereotypical. After having lived 33 years? All those threes! That's exactly the type of symbolism related with dying god's and becoming enlightened. Not to knock this up with stupid bullshit, but kundalini wise there are 33 vertebrae, again symbolizing enlightenment. 33 masonic degrees, mastership begining at 30? Three degrees in most systems of initiation?

Ever hear of mithras? THE SOLAR DIETY KNOWN AS REDEEMER, or THE GOOD SHEPHERD? Jesus is a solar diety. Who was born on the 25th of december?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithrai...o_Christianity
Seriously consider reading that link.

Do you think it's a coincidence that christmas is on the 25th of december when mithras, a god who I'm saying is the same god as Jesus, was also born on that same day and shares a very similar story? Including having 12 apostles? It's OBVIOUS that the early christian church made these connections willingly and on purpose for an easy transition, and also to retain the previous belief system.
Basically what I'm implying is that the early christian church itself believed what I'm saying to you right now. Christian Authorities actually said that some of these God's were REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SAVIOR GOD AND SHOULD BE RESPECTED LIKE HIM and worshippers of him were of the same religion and should be treated like brothers.

How about attis? How about Tammuz and Ishtar. how about that crosses are related to tammuzz and almost every other solar diety? Did you know the egyptian symbol of the ankh means life and the cross means savior(I'm not positive on that one)?
Have you ever read the story of dionysus? Bacchus? Osiris? These stories are all exactly the same practically. Dionysus, the God of wine. Who turned water into wine. Who was born in a stable, of a virgin mother who later self-sacraficed because religous authorities despised him.

Why do you think the romans accepted christianity so easily? Early roman authorities stated that bacchus and/or balder both were personifications of Jesus christ. Who's balder you might ask? Odin's son called "Beautiful"(which is what the divine man is called, especially on the TREE OF LIFE which is represented by the sixth sphere which is the highest sphere man can reach which coincidentally corresponds with the spheres of gnosticism) who had twelve apostles one of whom betrayed him what a coincidink.

What I'm saying is that all of these stories represent the same process. Sorry it's scattered I had abit to drink. The fact that by using this idea I can pretty much u nderstand any religion with similar connotations, to me, says it's right. Even if it's not right-right, the fact that I can understand it properly makes it right. I've seriously bullshitted in conversations with people on multiple occasions using this idealogy and they thought I knew what I was talking about when I've never even heard of their religion or ideas before.

I'm not saying it's going to fit hand and hand and be exactly the same every time but I am saying that it's designed to represent the same idea(s).

The jewish culture itself was a gigantic melting pot of information, having been nomads who then became man-handles for almost every major nation that was around, I mean god damn they demonized every other God that was around at the time, like BAAL. He's a real god who really occured in the bible. It seems OBVIOUS to me that they incorporated other people's religious beliefs into their writings.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #40  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Apr 23rd, 2006, 05:36 AM       
"My main problem with gnostics is that they were intellectual parasites."

Agreed, but Christianity itself isn't exactly guiltless in this aspect, are they? I'm glad you agreed that the new testament was definitley influenced by plato, or by India. Whichever, I don't really know the true lineage there.
I don't really like gnostics either, I just think the basic teachings of it are a better representation of christianity.

"Most people assume that gnostics were a sizable voice in the early Christian community that were simply deleted by medieval popes, but if you look at the historical record it's quite clear that they were never taken seriously. "

How is that clear? How could we tell either way, if they were being discredited I'm pretty sure making it appear that they were never taken seriously would be a good route. I don't really understand where you come up with some of your conclusions. They seem biased.
Either way, I don't really care though. I'm just interested in the concepts of it.

"The most frustrating thing about this is that the American public is so intoxicated by Dan Brown's rewriting of history."

I hate dan brown.

"Saying that the early Church burned gnostic texts is like saying that the unavailability of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in contemporary bookstores is due to a vast Jewish conspiracy."

I think pretty much every religion did that.

Also to the gnostics rewriting gospels and shit, didn't the church do that exact same thing?

Also I don't think all of the apocrypha came from the same unified base, I don't think there was ever much of a unified gnostic religion. Also like I said they are talking in symbols not directly. There's no proof jesus ever even existed as far as I know so to me it's all the same game.

"jesus seems more like a prophet than a sacrificed savior in this view, his role is to communicate with men about the divine so that they can get an understanding and start on the road to recovery, rather than redemption"

Redemption from sin comes when you escape sin or become enlightened or whatever. You're still gaining redemption ;/

lol sorry we have two threads going on about the same thing. I don't know how that happened, but it wasn't on purpose.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.