The only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian. True or false?

I have been promoting the flesh as the temple of God.

Then you see him as saying to abandon the ears that begins the process, while he is talking to ears. Your interpretation I am sure makes sense from your POV, but it does not from mine.

You are correct that words alone do nothing. It is the work we do with those words that create Gnosis and or apotheosis.

Again, we are close in thinking but I am not about to take what has worked for me and discard it for a system even harder to sell than Gnostic Christianity.

Regards
DL

 

I do not interpret the Bible literally in many cases. And in some I do.

[/quote]

We recite the Nicene Creed in my Church, which is Eastern Orthodox. And you have not seen a church with more crosses in it than an Eastern Orthodox one.

No.

Perhaps there is a just cause, or more accurately reason, for the Church to recognize homosexuality as a sin and endorse different roles for men and women.

Calling these positions homophobia and misogyny is prejudging the situation.

It is your thread and if you don't want me to participate I will respect your request. But, if not, I will participate on my terms. I have a point of view which may not fit into your narrow framing of the questions.[/quote][/quote]

 

I know that.

Very well.

 

Arian Christians for example did/do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. ("Aryans" (German word: "Arier") have by the way absolutely nothing to do with "Arians" (German word: "Arianer") - that's totally different.)

 

It's interesting what you find out when someone says "sigh".

 

In my view, it is as follows.

Christianity is defined by the sacrifice of a Christ (or messiah or redeemer, not exactly sure where the line is drawn), atoning for the sins of the many. For this to be meaningful, there needs to be some concept of sin which is universal (or very near universal), like original sin, Otherwise, Jesus' sacrifice isn't really a sacrifice, just someone dying. Finally, there needs to be a monotheistic god to in some way be responsible for the atoning, and also from whom the concept of sin is made objective. So in total, sacrifice of a Christ, concept of sin, monotheistic god. Anything above that seems to me to be extras. They may be common extras that do important theological things, but not ones that are important for whether Christianity is the right word.

 

Then they aren't christians.

 

Impossible, as the human psyche is devoid of any such capacity. Any attempt to will anything to happen, or to not happen, is merely the human ego trying to achieve such hegemony over its circumstances as God has over the Universe.

 

We recite the Nicene Creed in my Church, which is Eastern Orthodox. And you have not seen a church with more crosses in it than an Eastern Orthodox one.




No.




Perhaps there is a just cause, or more accurately reason, for the Church to recognize homosexuality as a sin and endorse different roles for men and women.

Calling these positions homophobia and misogyny is prejudging the situation.



It is your thread and if you don't want me to participate I will respect your request. But, if not, I will participate on my terms. I have a point of view which may not fit into your narrow framing of the questions.[/quote][/quote][/QUOTE]

You asked if my morals were better than yours. Yes they are as I am not homophobic and misogynous.

You wanted to talk morals.

Make your case against gays.

Regards
DL

 

Relying upon other brains is what you do, or so it seems. My path has not been in that area, although long ago I did read most of the philosophical and religious works from various people.

Yet what many of these people did involved a personal quest, and that required hands on experience, for what we are talking about cannot be given to you, by another person. For some authority to tell you what a peach tastes like, something you have never tasted is useless and a distraction, IMO. And yet many here are relying upon this paradigm. Never having tasted a peach yourself, only means that the words given to you by an authority cannot be tasted. So, never experiencing the taste of a peach, you give me words, which are tasteless. And what good is that, really. It will help to insure the peach is never tasted, and yet the experience of another, who has tasted it, does give one something to believe in. And that is what I see here, from many.

Most of the things I have posted on this issue does not come from a book, but delving into my own consciousness, for decades, an ongoing activity. It is based upon direct experience, something so few will ever have, given how easy and lazy it is to just use what some religious or spiritual authority has told you. Be in the Dali Lama or anyone else.

All that can really be done by the individual is the act of trying to taste a peach, so that you are not relying upon some authority to tell you something you never saw. All that I know is that second hand knowledge takes one nowhere. But when one has never followed a pointing finger, and instead grasped it, clung to it, this road leads nowhere. One can point in the right direction, but it is up to the each of us to follow where the finger points, or to grab the finger and cling to it for some sense of psychological security. We tend to grab the finger and cling to it.

Trying to understand consciousness, what the ego is, is a religious path, into a pathless land. No one can give to you the fruits of that quest. And yet some think this can be given, by another. And instead of speaking of direct experience of what this path yields, instead we get what so and so said, second hand stuff, that remains on the intellectual level, and therefore superficial, and worthless, unless one is teaching a class on it, so that one can file it in memory.

For me personally, and I can only speak of myself, this path yields a greater morality, as lived, without any conscious attempt to be moral, and it yields understanding why people do what they do, good and bad. It also yields a more correct perception of what the ego is, and the way that it operates, which in return places the ego in its proper place and role in human existence. One is no longer ignorantly ruled over by this ego, due to an understanding of what this thing is and its great power to affect and determine human existence. As well as how we related to other people, based upon an image created by the brain, and one becomes acutely aware of this. This allows one to live a life of intelligence, and understanding, being less apt to create disorder and conflict in the world, because all disorder and conflict manifested in society, originates from within the each of us. What you see in the world, the chaos, disorder, ignorance, is due to the inner quality of being, of consciousness, so that what is inside becomes outside. And you would be surprised at the great number of people who are not even aware of the clear and obvious nature of this. This IMO, is the darkness of ignorance, for the content of this is to be found by self awareness, and observation and yet most are oblivious to this fact. For the time needed, the energy needed to see this obvious fact, is consumed by what you are doing, with your videos and creation of religious authority, of others who are depended upon, to give you something, which they cannot give. But even realizing that simple fact seems to be beyond the ability of so many people.

And so, we get second hand knowledge, which may very well be lies, while the peach is right in front of you, and all one has to do is to make the move to taste it for oneself.

 

How do you know this?

 

I disagree with your final 5 words, however, none of what you said changes anything I said which you quoted.

 

[/quote][/QUOTE]

You asked if my morals were better than yours. Yes they are as I am not homophobic and misogynous.

You wanted to talk morals.

Make your case against gays.

Regards
DL[/QUOTE]

I am making the argument here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nly-two-genders.530770/page-5#post-1068961859

You may join that discussion if you wish. I won't duplicate that discussion here.

 

What a nonsense. You have absolutely nothing to do with orthodox Christians. Orthodox Christians believe in god.

 

Christians believe in the divinity fo Jesus.

 

Yeah, well I think we can all agree that no assertion, no matter how nonsensical, ever got changed by any rebuttal, no matter how veridical, seeing what's been said can't be unsaid. That aside, I don't know what the hell your point is.

 

If every Christian leaves the Christian Community who had doubted in his life in this elementary Christian teaching then only very few people would be "Christians" any longer - and whether this very few "Christians" would really be Christians this could be a serious question too. I remember for example when I said to a priest that I do not believe everything what we say in the creed, he had answered something like: "You do not have to say something what you do not believe. If you do not believe it - do not say it." It needed some years until I was able to say all sentences of the creed because I was convinced all of them are true and/or it's makes a very big sense to say so. It needed for example also a long time until I was able to say "I believe in the holy catholic church". A longer time of my life I said instead "I believe in the holy Christian church" - as the Lutherans are doing in Germany. I thought the word "catholic" is a reason for the separation of the church - until I found out that the Lutherans had changed the expression "catholic" in the creed because they were not able to live with the word "catholic". It means "universal". That's why I say sometimes now "God is a Catholic". I'm convinced He's the universal bridge builder from all points into all directions.

It's by the way also funny what Mohammed said about the trinity. He said who believes in the trinity God father, mother Mary and son Jesus is not a Christian. This is correct, because the triune god (= trinity) is God father, God son and the Holy Spirit. But still today some Muslims, godless extremists and not people with a fundament in god although they are called "fundamentalists", think that their wrong understanding of the own religion gives them a right to murder whomever they like to murder.

 

[/QUOTE]

You asked if my morals were better than yours. Yes they are as I am not homophobic and misogynous.

You wanted to talk morals.

Make your case against gays.

Regards
DL[/QUOTE]

I am making the argument here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nly-two-genders.530770/page-5#post-1068961859

You may join that discussion if you wish. I won't duplicate that discussion here.[/QUOTE]

Sick.

Regards
DL

 

You asked if my morals were better than yours. Yes they are as I am not homophobic and misogynous.

You wanted to talk morals.

Make your case against gays.

Regards
DL[/QUOTE]

I am making the argument here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nly-two-genders.530770/page-5#post-1068961859

You may join that discussion if you wish. I won't duplicate that discussion here.[/QUOTE]

Sick.

Regards
DL[/QUOTE]

Another county heard from. But seeing as how that thread is shut down, I will ask:

How moral can your morality system be if its tenets lead to the extinction of society through demographic suicide?

That seems sick to me. Literally. It is a sickness that leads to the death of civilization.

 

So we disagree.

 

I am making the argument here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nly-two-genders.530770/page-5#post-1068961859

You may join that discussion if you wish. I won't duplicate that discussion here.[/QUOTE]

Sick.

Regards
DL[/QUOTE]

Another county heard from. But seeing as how that thread is shut down, I will ask:

How moral can your morality system be if its tenets lead to the extinction of society through demographic suicide?

That seems sick to me. Literally. It is a sickness that leads to the death of civilization.[/QUOTE]

No hyperbole there. If Russia disappeared tomorrow, civilization would still live.

 

No hyperbole at all. Liberals who espouse what GIA claims is a superior morality are notoriously infertile. They reproduce at sub-replacement levels. All of the countries in Europe are reproducing at sub-replacement levels. The Muslims immigrants, however, do not. Indeed Erdogan of Turkey urged Turks in Europe to have many babies specifically so they could replace the Europeans in Europe.

Demography is destiny, they say, and the demographics of Europeans is headed for a cliff.

 

More clearer: You do not know what you say on what reason - but you have the feeling you are right, because this means all others - completely independent from anything what they say - have to be wrong. You don't have to find reasons - you just simple have to say "We do not agree" - and that justifies everything what you
say and what you do. Do you think such a behavior makes Jesus happy? ...

 

I suspect some of this dispute re the nature of God results from combining the OT with the NT.

Indeed, one of the early Christian Church fathers, and compiler of the evolving NT (in the 1st century after Christ's death, namely Marcion, rejected the OT entirely, for its depiction of God.

Maybe we should be outing the Prophet Samuel as one of the more egregious liars in history when he says (1 Samuel:15,1-3)
"listen to the Words of the Lord: ....commit genocide, including women, children and sucklings..."

rather than identifying the Christian God with the supernatural monster of Samuel's imagination.

 

I fear a homosexual man or a heterosexual woman will only be a little confused by listening to the ideas of a lesbian man like you.