Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The Cathars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism
http://www.cathar.info/1201_beliefs.htm

The "conventional" christian history likes to pretend that the catholic church was the main authority on christianity, until the protestant reformation or maybe the orthodox church. Actually this strain of christianity was only one of many rival strains throughout history, with the rest now rendered extinct through the cruel efforts of popes throughout history.

Ironically, I feel like this interpretation of christianity is much more sensible and moral than the conventional interpretation...

The Gnostics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

That second article tries its hardest to make Gnosticism sound horrible. However I can't help but to laugh, because almost every "negative" thing it brings up, I actually agree with. An early strain of christianity, this actually rivaled the catholic interpretation in size in the early church. If history had been slightly different, what we nowadays considered "christian" would be radically altered.

We are used to considering mormons, rastafari, or unification church as some screwy mutation of christianity. However, the "real" christian theology, was as tenuous as those back in the day.

It seems to me like it would have been much more beneficial had the gnostic interpretation come to be dominant. Actually, most of the contradictions that christians have spun in circles trying to explain away to me, are easily resolved in this system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

Why should any of these be treated less seriously than any other christian book? They were excluded entirely for political reasons. In the early days of the church, every bishop used the books they had to teach from, and it varied from church to church. Today's bible is a world apart from what the earliest christians experienced.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It seems to me like it would have been much more beneficial had the gnostic interpretation come to be dominant. Actually, most of the contradictions that christians have spun in circles trying to explain away to me, are easily resolved in this system.

The Simonians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simonians
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13797a.htm

A popular sect of the 2nd century that was especially strong in the eastern Roman Empire. In the Catholic bible, Simon Magus is merely a bit-villain, but in this interpretation he takes center stage as God, with his female partner as the Holy Spirit. It is gnostic, attributing the creation of the world to fallen angels rather than God. They had the perspective that only God gave salvation, not good deeds, and that morals were a practical matter more than a spiritual one. They believed in free love and kind of had a male-female dualism that I find a fascinating departure from the catholic interpretation.

Also, apparently their baptisms were so frenzied with god-energy that it set the water on fire. Which is pretty cool I suppose.

They are the only church and Religon that actly did not separted into little groups like other Religions. Which pretty much speaks for its self.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
They are the only church and Religon that actly did not separted into little groups like other Religions. Which pretty much speaks for its self.
Do you live on the planet Earth? There are thousands of separate groups of Christians operating right now.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The Cathars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism
http://www.cathar.info/1201_beliefs.htm

The "conventional" christian history likes to pretend that the catholic church was the main authority on christianity, until the protestant reformation or maybe the orthodox church. Actually this strain of christianity was only one of many rival strains throughout history, with the rest now rendered extinct through the cruel efforts of popes throughout history.

Ironically, I feel like this interpretation of christianity is much more sensible and moral than the conventional interpretation...

The Gnostics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

That second article tries its hardest to make Gnosticism sound horrible. However I can't help but to laugh, because almost every "negative" thing it brings up, I actually agree with. An early strain of christianity, this actually rivaled the catholic interpretation in size in the early church. If history had been slightly different, what we nowadays considered "christian" would be radically altered.

We are used to considering mormons, rastafari, or unification church as some screwy mutation of christianity. However, the "real" christian theology, was as tenuous as those back in the day.

It seems to me like it would have been much more beneficial had the gnostic interpretation come to be dominant. Actually, most of the contradictions that christians have spun in circles trying to explain away to me, are easily resolved in this system.

Catholicism isn't older than Orthodoxy by any stretch of imagination. In fact, prior to the great schism, Catholics practised customs still practised in Orthodoxy today.

In fact, Orthodoxy is the closest thing to the original Christianity that exists today. If anything, Catholicism is the schismatic branch of Christianity and can be considered younger than Orthodoxy/

Orthodoxy isn't as violent nor zealous as Catholicism - unlike the Catholic Europe, they never waged holy wars nor had witch trials nor inquisition. Worth noting, I think.

As I recall (although I could be wrong) Orthodox Christians of the East and East Europe hated the Crusaders for they showed no mercy to their villages, women or land, regardless of the fact that they too were Christians.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Catholicism isn't older than Orthodoxy by any stretch of imagination. In fact, prior to the great schism, Catholics practised customs still practised in Orthodoxy today.

In fact, Orthodoxy is the closest thing to the original Christianity that exists today. If anything, Catholicism is the schismatic branch of Christianity and can be considered younger than Orthodoxy/

Orthodoxy isn't as violent nor zealous as Catholicism - unlike the Catholic Europe, they never waged holy wars nor had witch trials nor inquisition. Worth noting, I think.

As I recall (although I could be wrong) Orthodox Christians of the East and East Europe hated the Crusaders for they showed no mercy to their villages, women or land, regardless of the fact that they too were Christians.
That's just one more way the catholic viewpoint is flawed. I would totally agree with you, I personally consider all of the sects i've mentioned, vastly superior to catholic/most protestant beliefs.

The Manichaeans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
http://www.tecmalta.org/tft323.htm

This popular 3-4th century interpretation was one of the biggest religions in the world during its day. Basically this may be described as "Zoroastrianized" Christianity. It also bears a certain resemblance to Islam in that although Christ is a powerful figure, it is the "Last Prophet" (here claimed as Mani) who carries the greatest weight. This Last Prophet concept is based in both testaments of the bible, and Mohammed would claim it for himself.

This is also notable as the original religion of St. Augustine, before he converted to Christianity. It teaches a gnostic worldview and had a church hierarchy similar to the Catholic one, growing to enormous size.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The Manichaeans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
http://www.tecmalta.org/tft323.htm

This popular 3-4th century interpretation was one of the biggest religions in the world during its day. Basically this may be described as "Zoroastrianized" Christianity. It also bears a certain resemblance to Islam in that although Christ is a powerful figure, it is the "Last Prophet" (here claimed as Mani) who carries the greatest weight. This Last Prophet concept is based in both testaments of the bible, and Mohammed would claim it for himself.

This is also notable as the original religion of St. Augustine, before he converted to Christianity. It teaches a gnostic worldview and had a church hierarchy similar to the Catholic one, growing to enormous size.
I think Manichaeism has some interesting concepts, I particularly like how they do a better job of answering the problem of evil by having God be an Ultimate but non-Omnipotent being who is nonetheless destined to prevail over evil if not necessarily destroy it.

Indeed. There are many parts of these religions that are stronger theology imo. The problem of evil is also easily resolved in any of the gnostic sects.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Indeed. There are many parts of these religions that are stronger theology imo. The problem of evil is also easily resolved in any of the gnostic sects.
I think the problem lies in the fact that an absolutist religion (IE something like Islam or Christianity where God is all good, all perfect, all powerful, all knowing, etc) while having plenty of theological goofs and contradictions as a result of their attempt at making absolute, unequivocal statements about such tricky concepts is also likely to be much better at grabbing adherents and holding them in awe.

"There is no power and no strength save Allah" is a lot easier for an uneducated farmer to get behind than "yeah evil exists and its pretty damn powerful, but hey good wins out eventually...just maybe not in your lifetime".

I've wondered a few times how different the world would be if Islam had never come to be and if Augustine had never converted, the Roman Empire converted to Manichaeism, etc causing Manichaeism to be the top dog faith. I'm not saying there wouldn't be intolerance or violence (I'm a firm believer that religion doesn't cause violence, violent people who happen to be religious and use religion as a motive/excuse do) but one has to wonder if a less absolutist world view might make for a more tolerant, contemplative world.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you live on the planet Earth? There are thousands of separate groups of Christians operating right now.

Christians not Cathlics.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Christians not Cathlics.
Catholics aren't unified either.

There are a number of small sects completely divorced from the Vatican and within the main Catholic body plenty of sub-compartments like Irish Catholics and the Chinese Catholic Church.

Edit: Scratch the Irish Catholic part, they're not a separate sect.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Christians not Cathlics.
Catholicism split into itself and Protestantism. You're wrong.

Exclaim what you are talking about?

Explain*

He could exclaim it as well, but to do so might be a small breach of internet etiquette.

And he's talking about how the Catholic Church split into two major factions. Martin Luther, notice pinned to a church door, ring any bells? It's probably the most historically significant split in church history, and directly involved a splitting of Catholics into Protestants.

modestly off topic: found out today that one of my most intelligent friends actually had never heard of the reformation...

History not his strongest subject?

Originally posted by Digi
Explain*

He could exclaim it as well, but to do so might be a small breach of internet etiquette.

And he's talking about how the Catholic Church split into two major factions. Martin Luther, notice pinned to a church door, ring any bells? It's probably the most historically significant split in church history, and directly involved a splitting of Catholics into Protestants.
And even before that you had the Great Schism between Catholics and the Orthodox Church.

Originally posted by King Kandy
History not his strongest subject?

apparently not, I got to rant about awesome stuff to her for like an hour.

ya, I know, smooth operator

Ok I am goingt to the beach till Sunday so i will read your posts when I get back. But I still don't think anyone knows what they are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

Yes, obviously I just made this up, right?

Originally posted by inimalist
modestly off topic: found out today that one of my most intelligent friends actually had never heard of the reformation...

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Ok I am goingt to the beach till Sunday so i will read your posts when I get back. But I still don't think anyone knows what they are talking about.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm always finding surprising things that people still believe.

Or don't believe, I guess.

lol, to her credit, she did know about the 99 theses

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's just one more way the catholic viewpoint is flawed. I would totally agree with you, I personally consider all of the sects i've mentioned, vastly superior to catholic/most protestant beliefs.

Yes, indeed.

I am down with the Orthodox Christians of the East - mostly because they don't have issues with abortion, historically had no issues with Jews and for the most part managed to chill with the Muslims.
They also aren't into Jesus like Catholics, Baptists and few other American Christian sects are.

I haven't figured that out yet, though...while Jesus is important (i'm guessing) he's nowhere near as invoked as he is Catholicism, Baptism and few other Christian sects. They're all about God...it's like reverse from the Western Christianity. Jesus is seen more like an example of how one should live or something...but not quite the same as God. (from my understanding. Again, I could be wrong, so anyone may correct me)

I'm going to go ahead and assume that's a result of living around Jews and Muslims for 2 millennia and they tend not to worship their prophets... I'm just guessing here, I've got nothing to support my claim...

The Arians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

This was an even earlier schism in the Catholic church. The Bishop Arius taught that Jesus was not God, but was literally God's son and is a separate being, with powers inferior to Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit is a force rather than a being. You can say in some senses they resemble modern Jehovah's witnesses. Popular in the 4-7th century, this sect was popular among the Germanic tribes, while the Catholic church was more prevalent among the old Roman Empire. Some early protestant church's adopted his philosophy as well.

An amusing anti-Manichean polemic by St. Augustine, where they cover such important theological issues as "should you eat rancid bacon", and what I believe is one of history's first blowjob jokes.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1402.htm

If you want a more serious, even handed discussion, this debate between Augustine and bishop Faustus of the manicheans may be interesting; one thing to note is that not only is Faustus's belief very different than modern Christianity, but Augustine's is as well. This is quite a lengthy read though, I warn. You may prefer to just read a few chapters; they are basically all independent of each other.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1406.htm

I still don't quite understand Augustine's logic for claiming God has no responsibility for evil's genesis.

How could it be otherwise if God is the origin of all reality and possibilities?

Edit: Also lol...its like reading an ancient BattleZone.

It is interesting how much emphasis Augustine puts on typology. I hardly ever see Christians argue these days that the old testament's purpose was to bring forth events symbolic of Christ. But this notion informs Augustine's ideas to the core.

It seems he utilizes a bunch of Ad Hominems and makes a lot of statements that rely on self evidence.

I still can't believe people once considered him a peer to people like Aristotle.

I agree on the ad hominem thing which is especially interesting because Augustine used to be good friends with Faustus back when he was a manichean. As far as the self evidence, a lot of it is because of the frame of the debate; both of them believe in the new testament so they can kind of take that aspect as "given" (though Faustus argues that some passages are fake).

God and Jesus are the same. Just wanted to point that out,.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
God and Jesus are the same. Just wanted to point that out,.

We're aware of mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It adds little to the discussion at this point. Did you read up on the Reformation? I seem to remember you saying that you doubted it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I still don't quite understand Augustine's logic for claiming God has no responsibility for evil's genesis.

How could it be otherwise if God is the origin of all reality and possibilities?

Edit: Also lol...its like reading an ancient BattleZone.


I thought about that, too.

It could be that God created the everything, even us, and the evil is our own creation. Why?

Well, God created us...and he gave us a weeeee bit of His qualities which includes creativity/a form of free will (I don't know if I believe in LFW, but I do believe we exercise some free will). So we are the creators of evil. This can even extend to fallen angels if you want to invoke Lucifer as an actual being and not an abstract representation of the evil of man or a state of mind.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought about that, too.

It could be that God created the everything, even us, and the evil is our own creation. Why?

Well, God created us...and he gave us a weeeee bit of His qualities which includes creativity/a form of free will (I don't know if I believe in LFW, but I do believe we exercise some free will). So we are the creators of evil. This can even extend to fallen angels if you want to invoke Lucifer as an actual being and not an abstract representation of the evil of man or a state of mind.
The problem with free will is that if God is truly omnipotent and omniscient then it is at best a conceptual asset for mankind.

I think Jean-Paul Sartre discussed the Origin of Sin and how it would tie into his view of free will. From what I recall he says that the essence of Adam (in this case a byword for sin, imperfection) is indeed part of Adam but not chosen by Adam for if we are to presume the existence of an all powerful, all knowing creator God then the essence of Adam and Adam's existence is not chosen by Adam but rather by God.

God in this case is responsible for creating the situation/reality wherein Adam exists and sins and in that view (which is the one I hold) free will also carries the burden of responsibility for one's actions and existence. I think the notion of a divine plan somehow allowing true free will is a little screwy personally.

Another thing I don't understand is how in many Christians' view sin and thus evil were created in the Garden of Eden because of human free will but at the same time some angels who supposedly don't have free will also managed to fall and oppose God.

How does that come about? Am I totally misrepresenting the mainstream Christian view?

I have always felt that the Garden of Eden story gave an absurd message. God forbids Adam and Eve the fruit of knowledge; what kind of idea is this? It seems inconceivable a loving creator would desire ignorance above all else in their creation. Surely, knowledge should be a gift for man, not a curse? Well, the Gnostics agree with me; in the secret gospel of John, a completely inverted version of the story is given. The demiurge Yaldabaoth (Jehovah) creates man, and when man is gifted with a soul, Yaldabaoth is jealous when he realizes Adam is actually superior to him. So he clouds Adam's mind with ignorance and forbids him from eating the fruit of knowledge, to keep him from realizing the truth (that his soul is eternal, and Yaldabaoth's creation is a sham). Finally, Jesus Christ himself appears to Adam and gives him the fruit (not a serpent). IDK but this seems like a more sensible version for me because knowledge is desired, not condemned, and the real God is he who brings knowledge.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I have always felt that the Garden of Eden story gave an absurd message. God forbids Adam and Eve the fruit of knowledge; what kind of idea is this? It seems inconceivable a loving creator would desire ignorance above all else in their creation. Surely, knowledge should be a gift for man, not a curse? Well, the Gnostics agree with me; in the secret gospel of John, a completely inverted version of the story is given. The demiurge Yaldabaoth (Jehovah) creates man, and when man is gifted with a soul, Yaldabaoth is jealous when he realizes Adam is actually superior to him. So he clouds Adam's mind with ignorance and forbids him from eating the fruit of knowledge, to keep him from realizing the truth (that his soul is eternal, and Yaldabaoth's creation is a sham). Finally, Jesus Christ himself appears to Adam and gives him the fruit (not a serpent). IDK but this seems like a more sensible version for me because knowledge is desired, not condemned, and the real God is he who brings knowledge.
The people who believed this...they were rooted out and killed during the Middle Ages weren't they?

I think trying to reconcile Old and New Testament gets really hairy because you can see that they're two very different Gods.

Old Testament God would never send his only son to die for our sins, Old Testament God would realize he'd screwed up again and would make another flood.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The problem with free will is that if God is truly omnipotent and omniscient then it is at best a conceptual asset for mankind.

I believe that for lesser minds, he has those qualities. But to philosophers, he does not truly have those qualities. He has partial Omniscience and omnipotence. (But that's like dividing infinity by 2: it's still infinity.)


For instance, someone had an NDE (near death experience) and evil was explained to them by an "angel": God knows all potential paths we can take but he does not know which one you will take. That means he is aware of an almost infinite number of outcomes (because humans...well, all of life creates a very complex web that even changing one item can have "vibrations" very far down the line) but he cannot be sure on the specifics for every individual due to our free will.


Most Christians I talk to about my "idea" do not like it. But I don't like their idea that God creates a spirit that he knows is going to be evil and never come back to Him and hate Him. Why? What a waste of a creation especially if you think he wants all of us to come back.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think Jean-Paul Sartre discussed the Origin of Sin and how it would tie into his view of free will. From what I recall he says that the essence of Adam (in this case a byword for sin, imperfection) is indeed part of Adam but not chosen by Adam for if we are to presume the existence of an all powerful, all knowing creator God then the essence of Adam and Adam's existence is not chosen by Adam but rather by God.

God in this case is responsible for creating the situation/reality wherein Adam exists and sins and in that view (which is the one I hold) free will also carries the burden of responsibility for one's actions and existence. I think the notion of a divine plan somehow allowing true free will is a little screwy personally.

Some Christians (Mormons) think that God designed for Adam to "fall" from the beginning. And that was the plan the whole time. But that's hard for some to accept because that means God planned sin very directly making him an aspect of Evil.

Still, apologists to that perspective say that God actually furthered righteousness by his plan of evil because it allows His spirit children to grow and progress in a way that they cannot in His presence. So, technically, by that perspective, evil is actually a tool of righteousness.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Another thing I don't understand is how in many Christians' view sin and thus evil were created in the Garden of Eden because of human free will but at the same time some angels who supposedly don't have free will also managed to fall and oppose God.

How does that come about? Am I totally misrepresenting the mainstream Christian view?

That's simple: Angels also have free will.


As it goes, Lucifer and a third of the host of heaven disagreed with God about something and "fell".

Mormons explain that in their theology as Lucifer wanting to be the Christ but instead of giving glory to God, Lucifer wanted the glory to be his and for him to be the worshiped God. God selected Jesus/Jehovah as the one that would atone for obvious reasons.


Apparently, Lucifer's plan was one of pure determinism but the determined outcome was one of perfect retainement of souls. No one would have a choice and all would be forced to be righteous so that all souls would be saved and return o God's presence. That completely defeated God's plan of "growth and development" as eternal beings/children so God was like, "Well....that's not going to work out, son. You kind of missed the point of everything."

And thus began Lucifer's fall from grace. Apparently, Lucifer held quite the highest position in heaven because he was able to convince a third of all the souls/angels to agree with him. I don't understand how that is even possible since God's plan was supposed to be simple, but I guess it's due to those billions of souls being fearful not being able to "make it" and failing.




That could be a horribly simplified version of what actually went down but that's the best account that the Mormons have, at this point.



We don't know how much is allegorical and how much is "for reals".

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The people who believed this...they were rooted out and killed during the Middle Ages weren't they?

I think trying to reconcile Old and New Testament gets really hairy because you can see that they're two very different Gods.

Old Testament God would never send his only son to die for our sins, Old Testament God would realize he'd screwed up again and would make another flood.
The gnostics who used these gospels went through various transformations in the early church and were gone mostly before the middle ages. However, the Cathars of the middle ages believed a similar thing, that the world was not created by the good God, but by "Rex Mundi" (the king of the world), and that this is why Satan is called the prince of the world: he was the one who created it. The Cathars were exterminated by the church and governments of the middle ages in the most cruel fashions; thousands and thousands were slaughtered for no real reason other than disagreeing with the church. People use the crusades as the example of the medieval church's brutality, but I think this is a much worse case; this was no war with another government, but the wholesale butchery of people with no power to defend themselves.

The earliest Christians were Jews, and they had no problem accepting the old testament; they had accepted it already before Jesus came around. But when Gentiles were converted, they had no background in the old testament and often dismissed it as a completely different pagan religion unrelated to Christianity. You can see Faustus in that book I posted arguing extensively that the old testament prophets are no more related to Christ than the oracle of Delphi is. This was the "kind" view. The not so kind view was that the old testament God was a brutal demon trying to bend mankind to his rule, and that the purpose of Christ was actually to free us from him and his laws. For as it says in "On the Origin of the World":



For the followers of this brand, Christ's goal is no less than the complete destruction of the world and the old testament God, and the liberation of humanity from him (if they have the knowledge to be delivered).

The idea that the Old testament God is virtuous was dismissed by virtue of his self given title "jealous God". For as it says in the Secret Book of John:



A legitimate enough complaint, imo. I always thought that the Old Testament God seemed petty and jealous, and its comforting to know that almost half of the early church agreed with me. What defines a Christian? If it is believing in the modern Bible, then you would have a hard time finding any Christians in the early church; it is a world apart.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A legitimate enough complaint, imo. I always thought that the Old Testament God seemed petty and jealous, and its comforting to know that almost half of the early church agreed with me. What defines a Christian? If it is believing in the modern Bible, then you would have a hard time finding any Christians in the early church; it is a world apart.

It is difficult for me to see that interpretation of "jealous God" as legit, even from early Christians.

Jealously, in it's use, has just as much relevancy as "zealous".


In addition, people distinguish "unrighteous" versus "righteous" jealously. Jealousy and envy are two completely different concepts in those original works. Jealousy is not always bad.


It could also be a figure of speech that really represents God's desires for his children to not go down vain paths of worship against gods that do not exist. (The actual reason).

He could also want it to be quite clear that giving other non-existent gods "glory" is Him conceding that they are real. That would make him a liar by indirect admission.




Next, their's the jealousness of something that belongs to you and then their's jealousness of something that doesn't belong to you.



Finally, Jealousness may simply be a human term that most people can understand. The real interpretation could be much more lengthy of what God intended. It could be like, "You'll be sad to know that these vain idols of yours took you further from My grace and you will regret that for Eternity because not only do you not realize that you have an eternal desire for My grace, but you are My life and glory as well and I love you more than creation I made for you."


Translation: uh... basically, God is jealous of you worshiping non existent things.

I don't really see those as legitimate either. If that's what God meant, why wouldn't he just say that? That rewording of yours is only one (long) sentence; smaller than many of God's commandments.

In the gnostic view, Jehovah is not really the source of humanity, so it would be case two: jealousy of something that doesn't belong to you. Again, i'm an atheist. I don't believe in Jehovah, and I don't believe in Yaldabaoth. But in comparing the two as if they were true, I don't think the old testament gives a good lesson there regardless. If God wants people to abandon false Gods, he shouldn't be petty and make it a punishable offense-he should just explain the correct view and leave it up to people. That's the way I see it at least.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't really see those as legitimate either. If that's what God meant, why wouldn't he just say that? That rewording of yours is only one (long) sentence; smaller than many of God's commandments.

In the gnostic view, Jehovah is not really the source of humanity, so it would be case two: jealousy of something that doesn't belong to you. Again, i'm an atheist. I don't believe in Jehovah, and I don't believe in Yaldabaoth. But in comparing the two as if they were true, I don't think the old testament gives a good lesson there regardless. If God wants people to abandon false Gods, he shouldn't be petty and make it a punishable offense-he should just explain the correct view and leave it up to people. That's the way I see it at least.

I see the argument of "jealousy? God is childish and evil" as a false dilemma. One created by the gnostics with the idea of multiple gods being players.


Also, in the ideas of punishment, the punishment is the people punishing themselves, not God. The punishment is themselves damning their progression or it could the torturous thoughts from a perfect memory of the things you have done.

Unless of course you consider the Jews getting God Smacked (literally) for their badness.



Some interpretations have God only giving knowledge of stuff, never directly interfering (othodox Jews...from what I read).

The Mana? No idea how that fits into the orthodox view that God never directly interferes. Parting the red sea?
No idea either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see the argument of "jealousy? God is childish and evil" as a false dilemma. One created by the gnostics with the idea of multiple gods being players.


Also, in the ideas of punishment, the punishment is the people punishing themselves, not God. The punishment is themselves damning their progression or it could the torturous thoughts from a perfect memory of the things you have done.

Unless of course you consider the Jews getting God Smacked (literally) for their badness.



Some interpretations have God only giving knowledge of stuff, never directly interfering (othodox Jews...from what I read).

The Mana? No idea how that fits into the orthodox view that God never directly interferes. Parting the red sea?
No idea either.
It was hardly created by the gnostics (you can see the exact same point in that Mark Twain book I posted and he'd never read any gnostic books; for that matter, I thought the same thing myself long before i'd read gnostic apocrypha.) Ever since that "jealous" line was first committed to writing, people have been arguing about it.

As well, I would argue there is not "multiple Gods" in gnosticism. Yaldabaoth is hardly worthy of the title God since any wise human is more divine than he is. Aeons are like archangels (bad analogy; they are more like the amesha spenta of Zoroastrianism). At any rate there is only one supreme God.


I could believe that punishment idea if I saw any evidence that non-christians are actually less spiritually progressed. I don't really see that bearing out except in the accounts of the bible itself. And in the bible there are many instances (flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, tower of babel etc) where this punishment actually does take the form of literal violent retribution. In this case, it is hardly the people punishing themselves. All of these actions are easy to understand if they are actions of a tyrant. I believe there was a thread recently where a guy was questioning the moral behind the tower story and I agree.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It was hardly created by the gnostics (you can see the exact same point in that Mark Twain book I posted and he'd never read any gnostic books; for that matter, I thought the same thing myself long before i'd read gnostic apocrypha.) Ever since that "jealous" line was first committed to writing, people have been arguing about it.

As well, I would argue there is not "multiple Gods" in gnosticism. Yaldabaoth is hardly worthy of the title God since any wise human is more divine than he is. Aeons are like archangels (bad analogy; they are more like the amesha spenta of Zoroastrianism). At any rate there is only one supreme God.

Like I said, I see that as a false dilemma and it literally did not come around as official doctrine until the gnostics. And, no, that jealous line hasn't been argued about until post-Jesus.

I believe you're referring to Marcion's interpretation but he's not quite Gnostic.





Originally posted by King Kandy
I could believe that punishment idea if I saw any evidence that non-christians are actually less spiritually progressed.

That makes no sense. No one group has "spiritual" progression over the other. Hell, I'd argue that Buddhists (hardcore ones) are more spiritually progressed than any other religious group.


My understanding: 99% of this life is simply mastering it and being good or goodness' sake...not because you get benefits from it. The theological details work themselves out in the next life .


Only hardcore (and possibly self-righteous) Christian holy rollers demand that you "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" in order to make any progress in this life. That's bollocks as their very own bible disagrees with them. Even an atheist can make large amounts of spiritual progression, well beyond that of a "faithful" Evangelical Christian, in this life (assuming there is a next life with a benevolent God on the other side).

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't really see that bearing out except in the accounts of the bible itself. And in the bible there are many instances (flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, tower of babel etc) where this punishment actually does take the form of literal violent retribution. In this case, it is hardly the people punishing themselves. All of these actions are easy to understand if they are actions of a tyrant. I believe there was a thread recently where a guy was questioning the moral behind the tower story and I agree.

Again, those natural events may have been "designed" before the universe even existed (according to those Orthodox Jews I mentioned earlier) and God would told them about them before they occurred.

The Great Flood is another example: I think as the "scriptures" or holy writ got transferred and passed along, it was exaggerated (no good evidence of a global event). Most likely, it was a localized flooding event (decent evidence for this). But, again, had those around "Noah" (or whomever the story is naming at that moment) listened, they would have been saved. The event would have occurred regardless of any actions taken before, during, or after because it was designed to happen long before the universe existed.

Tower of Babel is almost assuredly complete allegory. It could have simply been the "confounding" of a tribe's relationship with God and it was a metaphor for the group of people having an explosion of theology (language is the symbol of the relationship with God, in that allegory) all at once. Similar to Noah's flooding event, it most likely was just a small group of people that gradually progressed to "DAH WHOLE WIRLD!" lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
Like I said, I see that as a false dilemma and it literally did not come around as official doctrine until the gnostics. And, no, that jealous line hasn't been argued about until post-Jesus.

I believe you're referring to Marcion's interpretation but he's not quite Gnostic.
Well admittedly, I can't find a direct citation for someone arguing about this before 1 AD, it is argued about in the Babylonian Talmud which shows that Jews of antiquity who had no belief in Jesus grappled with this issue themselves. I can see no reason to attribute Christians alone to this argument. It is as much a problem for Jews as it is for Christians.

I have never read Marcion, I am drawing those concepts from the various Neg Hammadi gospels, particularly the Secret Book of John. It is definitely gnostic and I don't see why you call it multiple Gods. There is one God and a descending series of powerful supernatural entities. As there is in regular Christianity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That makes no sense. No one group has "spiritual" progression over the other. Hell, I'd argue that Buddhists (hardcore ones) are more spiritually progressed than any other religious group.


My understanding: 99% of this life is simply mastering it and being good or goodness' sake...not because you get benefits from it. The theological details work themselves out in the next life .


Only hardcore (and possibly self-righteous) Christian holy rollers demand that you "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" in order to make any progress in this life. That's bollocks as their very own bible disagrees with them. Even an atheist can make large amounts of spiritual progression, well beyond that of a "faithful" Evangelical Christian, in this life (assuming there is a next life with a benevolent God on the other side).
But you just said, that if we worship another God before him, then we are punishing ourselves by damning our progression. So I really don't understand your line of thought here. If you can spiritually progress just by being good for goodness sake, then why does it matter what god you hold before him?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, those natural events may have been "designed" before the universe even existed (according to those Orthodox Jews I mentioned earlier) and God would told them about them before they occurred.

The Great Flood is another example: I think as the "scriptures" or holy writ got transferred and passed along, it was exaggerated (no good evidence of a global event). Most likely, it was a localized flooding event (decent evidence for this). But, again, had those around "Noah" (or whomever the story is naming at that moment) listened, they would have been saved. The event would have occurred regardless of any actions taken before, during, or after because it was designed to happen long before the universe existed.

Tower of Babel is almost assuredly complete allegory. It could have simply been the "confounding" of a tribe's relationship with God and it was a metaphor for the group of people having an explosion of theology (language is the symbol of the relationship with God, in that allegory) all at once. Similar to Noah's flooding event, it most likely was just a small group of people that gradually progressed to "DAH WHOLE WIRLD!" lol
Well if you don't think the old testament actually describes the interference of God but is just an exaggerated supernatural depiction of normal floods and earthquakes etc, I would agree with you. But I wouldn't exactly say there are any lessons to be learned beyond "don't build your tower unless its quake-proof".

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well admittedly, I can't find a direct citation for someone arguing about this before 1 AD, it is argued about in the Babylonian Talmud which shows that Jews of antiquity who had no belief in Jesus grappled with this issue themselves. I can see no reason to attribute Christians alone to this argument. It is as much a problem for Jews as it is for Christians.

I have never read Marcion, I am drawing those concepts from the various Neg Hammadi gospels, particularly the Secret Book of John. It is definitely gnostic and I don't see why you call it multiple Gods. There is one God and a descending series of powerful supernatural entities. As there is in regular Christianity.

I don't find any arguments before early Christianity about the "jealous God" stuff. That's mostly because it is a "lost in translation" argument and makes no sense as it transformed intellectually and literally.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you just said, that if we worship another God before him, then we are punishing ourselves by damning our progression.

And I just implicitly stated that that only accounts for 1%.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So I really don't understand your line of thought here.

I don't know why: I made it very clear. I'm not even mincing words as I often do.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If you can spiritually progress just by being good for goodness sake, then why does it matter what god you hold before him?

Because, in the end, most of the "gods" are all different interpretations of the same one HOWEVER, these "Gods" are not necessarily a Creators at all. Idolatry and "obsessions" also work as "gods before me".

But, as I stated, there's that 1% that could make a major difference for you in the next life. You have all the less to learn.

Edit - Think about it. From my perspective, mastering your emotions and vices in this life is pretty much 99% of the "gospel". It's the same in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, as well. All the other precepts and rites are almost superfluous to progressing as a spiritual/eternal being. As a Mormon, I believe all of the theology specifics and rites can be easily taught/done in the next life. Just the same as any other Christian, I also believe that people are judged (they judge themselves, actually) based on what they did with the moral knowledge they had.


For instance, if you truly and honestly believe that not kneeling 34 times towards the east, first thing in the morning, is a horrible sacrilege, then you have committed a sin EVEN THOUGH your neighbor doesn't believe in it. This fits much better with "we will judge ourselves" than "you must do these rites perfectly or be damned!"


Originally posted by King Kandy
Well if you don't think the old testament actually describes the interference of God but is just an exaggerated supernatural depiction of normal floods and earthquakes etc, I would agree with you. But I wouldn't exactly say there are any lessons to be learned beyond "don't build your tower unless its quake-proof".

Sort of. I don't even deem it supernatural. If it was designed before the universe began, it's perfectly natural because the supernatural event already occurred (however, I do not hold that same exact position as the Orthodox Jews concerning this. I still think God does interfere, but subtly.)

The lessons are actually "repent, don't ignore prophets that tell you to repent, and stop being such scumbags".

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't find any arguments before early Christianity about the "jealous God" stuff. That's mostly because it is a "lost in translation" argument and makes no sense as it transformed intellectually and literally.
I don't see why you are somehow associating this with Christians. Hebrew-literate non-Christians also discussed this. For instance this Talmud passage discusses it. Now the logic in this passage baffles me but at any rate it is evidence of it being discussed in a Hebrew-only, non-christian context. So there was no "lost in translation" here.

Additionally, even if we make a "good" vs "bad" jealousy distinction, I would argue the actions portrayed in the bible put it in the latter category.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I just implicitly stated that that only accounts for 1%.

I don't know why: I made it very clear. I'm not even mincing words as I often do.

Because, in the end, most of the "gods" are all different interpretations of the same one HOWEVER, these "Gods" are not necessarily a Creators at all. Idolatry and "obsessions" also work as "gods before me".

But, as I stated, there's that 1% that could make a major difference for you in the next life. You have all the less to learn.

Edit - Think about it. From my perspective, mastering your emotions and vices in this life is pretty much 99% of the "gospel". It's the same in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, as well. All the other precepts and rites are almost superfluous to progressing as a spiritual/eternal being. As a Mormon, I believe all of the theology specifics and rites can be easily taught/done in the next life. Just the same as any other Christian, I also believe that people are judged (they judge themselves, actually) based on what they did with the moral knowledge they had.

For instance, if you truly and honestly believe that not kneeling 34 times towards the east, first thing in the morning, is a horrible sacrilege, then you have committed a sin EVEN THOUGH your neighbor doesn't believe in it. This fits much better with "we will judge ourselves" than "you must do these rites perfectly or be damned!"
Well, I would agree that's what should be the case, but the Old Testament to me portrays exactly that "you must do these rites" attitude. Even for the new testament I disagree that many of the ethical precepts are good to follow. For instance I think the attitude on divorce is very backward. So if that is the kind of vice-mastering we are talking about I would call it a bad thing.

And if we are talking about "don't eat shellfish", any God who would grade on that kind of thing is indeed a tyrant. It is too bad the Jews didn't get this kind of message and could have saved themselves so much trouble. I mean you talk about the 34 kneels as absurd; but this isn't something they dreamt up. The bible would claim these rules were presented by God himself. In which case I can't see the motive for instilling such absurd rules in their heads, that they are judging themselves based on them even though much looser personal rules could have been fine if they hadn't heard of these stricter ones.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sort of. I don't even deem it supernatural. If it was designed before the universe began, it's perfectly natural because the supernatural event already occurred (however, I do not hold that same exact position as the Orthodox Jews concerning this. I still think God does interfere, but subtly.)

The lessons are actually "repent, don't ignore prophets that tell you to repent, and stop being such scumbags".
Wait, so now you are saying it was to punish sinners? I thought it was designed from the beginning of time? If so, he sounds worse now than he ever did. If he planned the whole world so that flood could punish sinners, then how is he giving people a chance to repent? His whole set up depended on them NOT doing that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Wait, so now you are saying it was to punish sinners? I thought it was designed from the beginning of time? If so, he sounds worse now than he ever did. If he planned the whole world so that flood could punish sinners, then how is he giving people a chance to repent? His whole set up depended on them NOT doing that.

Nope.

It rains on the righteous and the wicked.


In other words, those events would have happened regardless of who was there. God warned them all the same...sinner or saint.


The Good left...because they listened to the warning. In fact, the "good" tried to persuade those to leave.


Also, no, the "flood" event was local, at the very best. It become "global" as stories were orally transmitted (imo). God was like, "YO! Thought I'd drop a line because you are a really nice guy to those around you. There's a really bad flood that's about to happen. Do x and y and don't forget to tell everyone around you to get ready and behave."


Think of it more like this: trillions of events were pre-planned before the universe's creation. Various sentient life will act according to their will. God will give warnings for some nasty stuff and His spiritual offspring can choose to listen or not listen. Those that listen benefit either physically or spiritually...sometimes both. Those events will happen regardless of what they do. What about the "earthquake" in the middle of nowhere? No one cares about those.



Question: Why didn't we see that with the Haitian Earth Quake?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see why you are somehow associating this with Christians. Hebrew-literate non-Christians also discussed this. For instance this Talmud passage discusses it. Now the logic in this passage baffles me but at any rate it is evidence of it being discussed in a Hebrew-only, non-christian context. So there was no "lost in translation" here.

Additionally, even if we make a "good" vs "bad" jealousy distinction, I would argue the actions portrayed in the bible put it in the latter category.

That looks like a discussion very similar to the "apologetics" I already presented.

Additionally, what is the date?


And, obviously, I disagree with the latter category. I see more of a twist on what actually took place and what God's actual words were. I'm a Mormon, remember? I see the bible, especially the old testament, as flawed due to passing through too many hands.


Originally posted by King Kandy
but the Old Testament to me portrays exactly that "you must do these rites" attitude. Even for the new testament I disagree that many of the ethical precepts are good to follow. For instance I think the attitude on divorce is very backward. So if that is the kind of vice-mastering we are talking about I would call it a bad thing.

A lot of the old testament "rites" were archaic, barbaric, and just fitting for the people. The story of the poisonous snakes and looking at the statue come to mind. If something were proven to be 100% effective, no matter how silly, would you not do it?


Yet, they didn't.


I'm not justifying that God made darn good rules. He didn't. I honestly don't think that God handed down most of those rules.

And, the attitude toward divorce...

Do you have anything specific? I'm curious?



Additionally, Mormons believe that the gospel is living. Meaning, what would be appropriate for a different age is not appropriate now.


Originally posted by King Kandy
And if we are talking about "don't eat shellfish", any God who would grade on that kind of thing is indeed a tyrant. It is too bad the Jews didn't get this kind of message and could have saved themselves so much trouble. I mean you talk about the 34 kneels as absurd; but this isn't something they dreamt up. The bible would claim these rules were presented by God himself. In which case I can't see the motive for instilling such absurd rules in their heads, that they are judging themselves based on them even though much looser personal rules could have been fine if they hadn't heard of these stricter ones.

But, you see, those rules were "right" to them. Violations were bad to them. So if they truly believed it, then they would sin by violating them.


Like I said, sin is more of a state of mind rather than specific x.


I don't know how that applies to a person that thinks killing is righteous (cue the city of Jericho). Some Christians argue (not me) that we are all born with the light of Christ and know right from wrong at a base level.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nope.

It rains on the righteous and the wicked.


In other words, those events would have happened regardless of who was there. God warned them all the same...sinner or saint.


The Good left...because they listened to the warning. In fact, the "good" tried to persuade those to leave.


Also, no, the "flood" event was local, at the very best. It become "global" as stories were orally transmitted (imo). God was like, "YO! Thought I'd drop a line because you are a really nice guy to those around you. There's a really bad flood that's about to happen. Do x and y and don't forget to tell everyone around you to get ready and behave."


Think of it more like this: trillions of events were pre-planned before the universe's creation. Various sentient life will act according to their will. God will give warnings for some nasty stuff and His spiritual offspring can choose to listen or not listen. Those that listen benefit either physically or spiritually...sometimes both. Those events will happen regardless of what they do. What about the "earthquake" in the middle of nowhere? No one cares about those.
So you are saying that God planned natural phenomena, but not the actions of organisms? And that the earthquake was not intended to kill sinners, but, it was kind of appropriated for that purpose when God warned people? That's a interesting personal take on it. I still think this is a bad scenario because God is selectively warning people (like you said with Haiti).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Question: Why didn't we see that with the Haitian Earth Quake?
Because God doesn't exist?

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you are saying that God planned natural phenomena, but not the actions of organisms? And that the earthquake was not intended to kill sinners, but, it was kind of appropriated for that purpose when God warned people? That's a interesting personal take on it. I still think this is a bad scenario because God is selectively warning people (like you said with Haiti).

He made a path for sentient life (around human level). He can't force them to choose but he can make a strong case for why they should do certain things.


I believe I already covered that. Some of his creations do not have the intellectual capacity to "listen" to his warnings. The Christians believe a couple of things: those lesser beings are saved through Christ's grace (not to be mean, but the same applies for children and the mentally handicap/ill) OR the animals do not have eternal souls.


I do NOT believe the latter. I think animals have souls...just not human-level souls. Some Mormons think that even bacteria/viruses have souls...or they are just pinches of one major soul: Earth/Gaia. Yes, Mormons belief the Earth has a soul.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Because God doesn't exist?

It was mildly a trick question. They were warned by experts that mumbo- jumbo could occur (not all "prophets" have to be holy men...common sense and science).

The Mormon apostles and prophets had (they haven't preached it in about a year now, however...I wonder what's up?) preached for years about the necessity to get proper food storage and water to last for at least 3 months. Some Haitian Mormons listened and did so but most of them saw their supplies quickly depleted as they shared (or were pillaged by) with those around them.

The Mormons also built their churches to withstand the quake after careful prayer and preparation (all 9 church buildings were just fine). They sheltered all they could there shortly after the quake. "The Utah-based faith is sheltering about 5,000 Haitians, most of whom are not Mormons, at nine LDS chapels in the area, none of which was damaged in the quake."

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14249810


A skeptic would say, "Well, Mormons used common sense: don't build weak buildings in an earthquake prone area". I agree: that's one way to look at it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That looks like a discussion very similar to the "apologetics" I already presented.

Additionally, what is the date?


And, obviously, I disagree with the latter category. I see more of a twist on what actually took place and what God's actual words were. I'm a Mormon, remember? I see the bible, especially the old testament, as flawed due to passing through too many hands.
Circa 200 AD (apparently quoting an older tradition; the Talmud is considered oral law).

Well this thread is about alternative interpretations, so this is the place to be open to that. In terms of mental reconstructions of what it really was like, I think the gnostic interpretation still sends a better message. Both of these seem way better than a literal interpretation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
A lot of the old testament "rites" were archaic, barbaric, and just fitting for the people. The story of the poisonous snakes and looking at the statue come to mind. If something were proven to be 100% effective, no matter how silly, would you not do it?


Yet, they didn't.
This is one more reason why I find the bible impossible to believe. Any idiot would do that in the context of having seen so many miracles.

This is another "Yaldabaoth" moment in the mainstream interpretation to me. He sent the snakes because the people were complaining, to poison them and then make them use his treatment. It comes off as bullying to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not justifying that God made darn good rules. He didn't. I honestly don't think that God handed down most of those rules.

And, the attitude toward divorce...

Do you have anything specific? I'm curious?
It seems like you would almost have to think that to not consider Jehovah laughable. Those rules could only be the result of an evil god, or humans themselves.

As far as divorce, Luke 16:18, Mark 10:2-12, for examples.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, you see, those rules were "right" to them. Violations were bad to them. So if they truly believed it, then they would sin by violating them.


Like I said, sin is more of a state of mind rather than specific x.


I don't know how that applies to a person that thinks killing is righteous (cue the city of Jericho). Some Christians argue (not me) that we are all born with the light of Christ and know right from wrong at a base level.
I understood what you were saying. But they never would have believed such a thing if God hadn't revealed it to them (assuming the rules are from God--if not, then what you say makes sense even though I don't agree). So if God did reveal it to them, it was like some kind of sick joke to put that in their heads when really other forms of devotion would have been fine.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Circa 200 AD (apparently quoting an older tradition; the Talmud is considered oral law).

Well this thread is about alternative interpretations, so this is the place to be open to that. In terms of mental reconstructions of what it really was like, I think the gnostic interpretation still sends a better message. Both of these seem way better than a literal interpretation.

That was my point: the arguments started popping up after Christ due to the early Christians. In the beginning, the early Christians were Jews and Gentiles. How I was taught this particular portion of theology: it was not a problem before Christ because it was in slightly different language that did not interpret to mean a vice but rather a want for His children to pursue things of righteousness rather than non-existent gods and dead-end obsessions.

Yeah, some Christian Anti-Mormons thing that Mormons are the new-age Gnostics. That does not bother me so much as I see these theological teachings as a bit more fluid than some "direct interpreters" take it.


Originally posted by King Kandy
This is one more reason why I find the bible impossible to believe. Any idiot would do that in the context of having seen so many miracles.

This is another "Yaldabaoth" moment in the mainstream interpretation to me. He sent the snakes because the people were complaining, to poison them and then make them use his treatment. It comes off as bullying to me.

I do not think the story changed much from the original but I always thought it was utterly stupid that some of the wandering Jews were too prideful to just go look at something and be cured. That was supposed to be the moral of the story.

And, I do see the Yaldabaoth interpretation as making more sense, now that you put it that way. However, I see it this way:

How I think it really went down:

Jews wandered into an area that a lot of poisonous desert snakes were gathered (mating season? Happens. Saw some scary sh*t on Discovery where thousands of snakes converged in one general are for an orgy...in the desert). Snakes start biting them because it's mating season and they are walking all over their house. Moses gets a magical statue from God that can cure them (maybe it was an inhaled antidote? No idea how it worked). Due to being in a desert, they die quickly because they are already starved and dehydrated. Some people hear from others that the statue works but they refuse to believe something so silly works (I would try anything if I were about 24 hours away from death from a poisonous bite, especially if I lived among such a superstitious tribe).


How it was said to have gone down:

God sent poisonous snakes into the camp to weed out the unfaithful and prideful Jews because he was filtering out the bad ones because they were to become his eventual parents/family in a thousand or so years. The statue was imbued with God's power and those that looked upon it were supernaturally cured of all snake bite symptoms. It worked perfectly as a trial to weed out the unfaithful and overly prideful.


Originally posted by King Kandy
It seems like you would almost have to think that to not consider Jehovah laughable. Those rules could only be the result of an evil god, or humans themselves.

Makes sense. Some of the older Mormons hold that God had to use those strict rules because of how immature and unfaithful they were (some Mormons think that because we have a belief that the closer to the end of times it gets, the older and more righteous the souls (it's an average, not all encompassing) were before coming here to Earth.)


Originally posted by King Kandy
As far as divorce, Luke 16:18, Mark 10:2-12, for examples.

Luke 16:18

It means (as told in the old Testament) that if a man gets divorced explicitly to marry someone else, he's committing adultery. To put it in modern terms, a dude has a raging boner for a certain chick. His wife is not that hot...so he divorces her for no reason other than he wants to bone the other hot chick. So as to not come under condemnation from his peers, he makes sure to divorce the "hag" and marries the hottie.



I believe this, as well. A marriage is sacred. Just because you "play by the rules" doesn't mean you've committed sin in your heart. There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. As it goes, the spirit of the Law is what Jesus brought in his ministry.


Mark 10: 2-10

Same as above.


Originally posted by King Kandy
I understood what you were saying. But they never would have believed such a thing if God hadn't revealed it to them (assuming the rules are from God--if not, then what you say makes sense even though I don't agree). So if God did reveal it to them, it was like some kind of sick joke to put that in their heads when really other forms of devotion would have been fine.

Yes, I agree. I talked about that as well. Society dictates a lot of what we deem as right and wrong.


And, like I stated before, some Christians believe that the Jews needed those harsh laws to act as a purifier and a conditioner.


However, we all know how the purification turned out: the Jews became quite self-righteous by the time Jesus came around. They wore these beads on their cloaks that had a bead for every good deed that they did. Those that were considered "really righteous" had lots of beads. How self-righteous is that?


Of course, I'm not supposed to judge.



Another thought: what if God weeded out his people, like that, in such a way as to prepare them to become the self-righteous people that they were by the time he was born? It is said that only those contemporary Jews would have crucified their own savior (not antisemitism). Meaning, God had prepared a way for his entire plan to work since the very beginning and the Jews were actually performing the work of righteousness by persecuting and demanding the life of the Savior.

But wait? They were actually doing righteous by killing the apostles and Jesus? Yup.

So I guess that really pisses Mel Gibson off because he never thought about the "Jesus killing Jews" as actually being the tools of righteousness.


My personal opinion: I consider the Jews of that time as having a very important role to play. They saw Jesus as blasphemer and a sorcerer. In their eyes, they were doing very righteous works. Assuming the Jesus was the Christ, the Jews will die, go to to the spirit world, see the error in their ways, but will not come under condemnation for doing what they genuinely saw as righteousness. This all goes back to my thoughts about "you're only sinning if you truly think you're sinning".

King Kandy,

Re. Cathars. If you're claim is that these are Christians, then I'd have to say that's a rather pure attempt at history. They certainly stem from a Christian culture and adhere to "some" Christian beliefs but then again, so does Islam. The basic 'problem' with identifying Cathars as Christians is comes down to their dualism. You wouldn't have to push very far to get a Cathar to say that the world was evil, or rather, the created order is evil. Anything material is to be rejected and despised, especially sex; as sex brings about new material life which might procreate itself. As a consequence of their uberanti-materialism Cathars adopted very stict poverty lifestyles, and this is perhaps laudable according to many concepts of Virtue. I would certainly say a simple life is a good thing. However their reasons for doing it were not just a basic detachment from material goods but a rejection of materials as evil which therefore makes their lifestyle slightly worrying. Of course, the most worrying practice of the Cathars was to starve themselves to death. Eating, as it was both the ingesting of a material and it prolonged life, was evil, therefore in order to become "Perfect" the Cathars had to fast until death and their souls were freed from their material prison. The body. The problem this has for Christians is first it rejects out and out the incarnation of the Son. Cathars could not accept the incarnation and therefore their theology of redemption was utterly flawed from orthodox Christian eyes. Cathars also believed in two Creators. One who created the spiritual world "God" and the other who created the material world "the Devil". I am sure why you can see the problem with that for Christians. For non-Christians it is slightly problematic too. For one thing it renders science as evil. Studying the created order to a Cathar is essentially entering into dialogue with the devil. "Ironically, I feel like this interpretation of christianity is much more sensible and moral than the conventional interpretation..." Do you really believe that its more sensible and moral? I mean, you actually think sexual intercourse is immoral? You think eating is immoral? You think shopping is immoral? Heh, who knows. Maybe you are right.

Re. Gnosticism. Which form of Gnostic thinking do you find so coherent? Might I recommend to you Irenaeus of Lyon's "Against the Heresies"? You can find it online... Do you actually think that it would be better if Gnosticism had become the dominant form of Christianity? You are aware that nearly every Gnostic sects chief doctrine was the concept of "Secret Knowledge". Only certain select people would ever have access to the true Gospel and attain the fullest experience of heaven? Maybe you like that sort of thing, but the reason the Gnostics were defeated in arguments is mostly because their philosophical arguments at the time, and now, didn't make much sense or have any actual application...

Regarding the New Testament apocrypha. The earliest complete list of New Testament texts we have comes from the aforementioned Irenaeus of Lyons, c.180AD. We have many gloss' from the Gospels and letters from Church Fathers like Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch and their successors. I think then, it is impossible for you to claim that "Today's bible is a world apart from what the earliest christians experienced." I mean, I don't think there's a living historian or biblical scholar who would make such a claim. The reason therefore for rejecting the New Testament apocrypha is simple; the early Church did not appear to use it and they never told anyone about them if they did.... Also, most of them are were not written from within the Christian communities or even from within the first two centuries.

With regards to lil_bitchiness' comments. That's not really an accurate rendering of history and not one that I think many Orthodox patriarchs or Catholic leaders would subscribe too. The Catholic Church and Orthodox Church jointly trace their leadership back to the Apostles and the "East-West" division, one between the Patriarch of the West, the bishop of Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs was there long before the Great Schism and they were all still in communion with each other. The reason the Orthodox Church has shown so much reluctance to change is because of their belief that they cannot change without the accent of the Church catholic. That is to say, there can never be a church council unless the bishop of Rome is there. Also, the "filioque" is clearly theologically correct. so bleh! lol. You would do well to note King Kandy, that on none of the issues you have raised so far would any Eastern Orthodox believer from any period in history agree with you. On the fundamentals you have mentioned so far, they are as Catholic as the Pope.

I don't see how someone can regard the Manichean God as "God" when his powers are limited, this is really sort of, you know, not God by the usual definition anyway...

Anyway, that's enough for now I think...

Oh, the first blowjob joke in history I've ever read was one by Tertullian relating to whether or not Christians were cannibals. (You have to be aware Aristotelian biology to get it...

I'm aware I've not really said much specifically about issues... but you do seem to have spent a lot of time bigging up anything that isn't Catholic, perhaps for that reason... maybe as the discussion goes on my points will be more direct to what you are saying...

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
God and Jesus are the same. Just wanted to point that out,.

I'm pretty sure they're not. Didn't even Jesus say that somewhere in the Bible?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm pretty sure they're not. Didn't even Jesus say that somewhere in the Bible?

Well, it depends on what level you want to talk about "same". The word the Orthodox and Catholics use is "consubstantial", that is to say the Father and the Son are of the same being, they are the same type of thing. However indeed within the Godhead the Son is begotten of the Father, that is so say their is a relationship between them...

There are several scriptural texts we could throw about if you want... However, I'm not sure that is going to get us very far, you might want to read some of the literature surrounding the Council of Nicaea, google Alexander of Alexandria and I imagine some likes to his and Arius' works will emerge. A good basis for all this sort of discussion would come from J.N.D Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines".

The key question is: if Jesus' Death and Resurrection are what caused the redemption of mankind then how could he be anything but God. For only God, who is spotless, without sin and the one offended, could become the pure sacrifice and, if you like, armour to protect and redeem mankind. As one poet it put it, "To Man's wounds, only God's wounds can speak. But no God has wounds, but ours alone."

There's lots of interesting material there to discuss, but it does require one to go a bit beyond rather crass attempts at exegesis.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'm pretty sure they're not. Didn't even Jesus say that somewhere in the Bible?
I think there's lots of contradictions, but what I do remember is that Jesus defended himself from accusations of blasphemy in John 10:something by pointing to one of the Psalms which has God (or maybe Melchizedek if the Dead Sea Scrolls are to be believed) identifying some vague body as 'gods'.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think there's lots of contradictions, but what I do remember is that Jesus defended himself from accusations of blasphemy in John 10:something by pointing to one of the Psalms which has God (or maybe Melchizedek if the Dead Sea Scrolls are to be believed) identifying some vague body as 'gods'.

He described himself as the angelic Son of Man. Which is why he was accused of blasphemy, for calling himself God.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That was my point: the arguments started popping up after Christ due to the early Christians. In the beginning, the early Christians were Jews and Gentiles. How I was taught this particular portion of theology: it was not a problem before Christ because it was in slightly different language that did not interpret to mean a vice but rather a want for His children to pursue things of righteousness rather than non-existent gods and dead-end obsessions.
But it was obviously not a translation error because I showed you this debate occurring in a hebrew-only context. Correlation is not causation; yes, this debate was written after Christianity, but the arguments have nothing to do with Christianity. Surely you realize, Jewish writings in general are sparse from that time period. So I don't see how the simple fact that it is from 200 AD somehow makes it a Christianized document.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not think the story changed much from the original but I always thought it was utterly stupid that some of the wandering Jews were too prideful to just go look at something and be cured. That was supposed to be the moral of the story.

And, I do see the Yaldabaoth interpretation as making more sense, now that you put it that way. However, I see it this way:

How I think it really went down:

Jews wandered into an area that a lot of poisonous desert snakes were gathered (mating season? Happens. Saw some scary sh*t on Discovery where thousands of snakes converged in one general are for an orgy...in the desert). Snakes start biting them because it's mating season and they are walking all over their house. Moses gets a magical statue from God that can cure them (maybe it was an inhaled antidote? No idea how it worked). Due to being in a desert, they die quickly because they are already starved and dehydrated. Some people hear from others that the statue works but they refuse to believe something so silly works (I would try anything if I were about 24 hours away from death from a poisonous bite, especially if I lived among such a superstitious tribe).


How it was said to have gone down:

God sent poisonous snakes into the camp to weed out the unfaithful and prideful Jews because he was filtering out the bad ones because they were to become his eventual parents/family in a thousand or so years. The statue was imbued with God's power and those that looked upon it were supernaturally cured of all snake bite symptoms. It worked perfectly as a trial to weed out the unfaithful and overly prideful.
I would say the first scenario doesn't teach much of a lesson besides "open your eyes and don't reject effective treatment" (ironically, a lesson today's faith healers could stand to learn). The second scenario sounds like the actions of a tyrant to "weed out" people on pain of death. If the snakes just happened to be there, I think the fault would be the Jews. But the Bible would have me believe God sent the snakes, in which case, I can only put the blame for this incident squarely on Yaldabaoth's shoulders.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Luke 16:18

It means (as told in the old Testament) that if a man gets divorced explicitly to marry someone else, he's committing adultery. To put it in modern terms, a dude has a raging boner for a certain chick. His wife is not that hot...so he divorces her for no reason other than he wants to bone the other hot chick. So as to not come under condemnation from his peers, he makes sure to divorce the "hag" and marries the hottie.

I believe this, as well. A marriage is sacred. Just because you "play by the rules" doesn't mean you've committed sin in your heart. There's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. As it goes, the spirit of the Law is what Jesus brought in his ministry.


Mark 10: 2-10

Same as above.
Well, I would disagree. I think that if both partners consent, there should be no restriction for divorce; I don't consider it a moral matter. Obviously, if for instance you have kids, the benefits of a two parent household should be taken into account; but to me this has more to do with child rearing than marriage.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, like I stated before, some Christians believe that the Jews needed those harsh laws to act as a purifier and a conditioner.
I don't see how most of them actually accomplish that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
However, we all know how the purification turned out: the Jews became quite self-righteous by the time Jesus came around. They wore these beads on their cloaks that had a bead for every good deed that they did. Those that were considered "really righteous" had lots of beads. How self-righteous is that?
Pretty self-righteous, but it doesn't strike me as any worse than most evangelicals. In fact, i'd rather they just wore it in beads instead of talking about it constantly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Another thought: what if God weeded out his people, like that, in such a way as to prepare them to become the self-righteous people that they were by the time he was born? It is said that only those contemporary Jews would have crucified their own savior (not antisemitism). Meaning, God had prepared a way for his entire plan to work since the very beginning and the Jews were actually performing the work of righteousness by persecuting and demanding the life of the Savior.

But wait? They were actually doing righteous by killing the apostles and Jesus? Yup.
First off, it wasn't the Jews who crucified him (and i'm guessing even if they hadn't complained, he would have ran afoul of the Roman empire eventually. In fact, if Jews rallied around him, they would have had much more cause for worry).

Secondly, have you ever read the Gospel of Judas? Reminds me somewhat of what you are saying.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Re. Cathars. If you're claim is that these are Christians, then I'd have to say that's a rather pure attempt at history. They certainly stem from a Christian culture and adhere to "some" Christian beliefs but then again, so does Islam. The basic 'problem' with identifying Cathars as Christians is comes down to their dualism. You wouldn't have to push very far to get a Cathar to say that the world was evil, or rather, the created order is evil. Anything material is to be rejected and despised, especially sex; as sex brings about new material life which might procreate itself. As a consequence of their uberanti-materialism Cathars adopted very stict poverty lifestyles, and this is perhaps laudable according to many concepts of Virtue. I would certainly say a simple life is a good thing. However their reasons for doing it were not just a basic detachment from material goods but a rejection of materials as evil which therefore makes their lifestyle slightly worrying. Of course, the most worrying practice of the Cathars was to starve themselves to death. Eating, as it was both the ingesting of a material and it prolonged life, was evil, therefore in order to become "Perfect" the Cathars had to fast until death and their souls were freed from their material prison. The body. The problem this has for Christians is first it rejects out and out the incarnation of the Son. Cathars could not accept the incarnation and therefore their theology of redemption was utterly flawed from orthodox Christian eyes. Cathars also believed in two Creators. One who created the spiritual world "God" and the other who created the material world "the Devil". I am sure why you can see the problem with that for Christians. For non-Christians it is slightly problematic too. For one thing it renders science as evil. Studying the created order to a Cathar is essentially entering into dialogue with the devil. "Ironically, I feel like this interpretation of christianity is much more sensible and moral than the conventional interpretation..." Do you really believe that its more sensible and moral? I mean, you actually think sexual intercourse is immoral? You think eating is immoral? You think shopping is immoral? Heh, who knows. Maybe you are right.
Well again, I am not a Cathar and I agree there are plenty of things wrong with that religion as well (like the science attitude). They are in common with the Gnostics and Manicheans in denying the incarnation but as an atheist, this is a minor issue to me. If anything, they eliminated one more confusing aspect from the Nicene interpretation.

You are wrong if you think you had to starve to death to become a Perfect. There were hundreds of Perfects and the mere fact that, you know, they were alive instead of dead is enough to refute that notion. In general, I think you are better off not focusing on materialism. Now, did they go too far? Maybe. There is a tradition of fasting to death in many cultures, but while this might be meritorious, it is not a requirement. At no point did any Perfect declare that every Cathar should starve themselves to death.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Re. Gnosticism. Which form of Gnostic thinking do you find so coherent? Might I recommend to you Irenaeus of Lyon's "Against the Heresies"? You can find it online... Do you actually think that it would be better if Gnosticism had become the dominant form of Christianity? You are aware that nearly every Gnostic sects chief doctrine was the concept of "Secret Knowledge". Only certain select people would ever have access to the true Gospel and attain the fullest experience of heaven? Maybe you like that sort of thing, but the reason the Gnostics were defeated in arguments is mostly because their philosophical arguments at the time, and now, didn't make much sense or have any actual application...
I did not read any gnostic authors (beyond those debated in the polemics I posted). What I find more coherent is the message given in the gnostic gospels themselves (though I suppose this is my interpretation of those gospels). For instance, Secret Book of John, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas etc.

As far as secret knowledge, I don't see the problem. If you take your religion seriously, I think that by all means you should study it to the highest extent possible. So I can see gnostics thinking "why bother if these people aren't going to go all the way with it", and it seems like a sound point to me.

What I find more coherent is that many of the villains of the bible actually seem to be the victims to me, at least to some extent. I posted a thread a long time ago about my feelings on the Cain/Abel story. In this thread, I discussed my issues with the garden of eden concept. In the gnostic gospels, I think a more logical evaluation of these stories is given; the old testament God always seemed like a villain to me, and in these books he is actually treated honestly as such. I think the moral of these stories is way better. The Nicene interpretation seems to promote following authority for authorities sake.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Regarding the New Testament apocrypha. The earliest complete list of New Testament texts we have comes from the aforementioned Irenaeus of Lyons, c.180AD. We have many gloss' from the Gospels and letters from Church Fathers like Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch and their successors. I think then, it is impossible for you to claim that "Today's bible is a world apart from what the earliest christians experienced." I mean, I don't think there's a living historian or biblical scholar who would make such a claim. The reason therefore for rejecting the New Testament apocrypha is simple; the early Church did not appear to use it and they never told anyone about them if they did.... Also, most of them are were not written from within the Christian communities or even from within the first two centuries.
Seems like you are basically proving my own point. The complete Bible did not exist until 180AD. So what people were using before that, was obviously not exactly the same. The earliest Christians did not even have a written new testament but only oral teachings. So how this is not "a world apart", I can't see. I would call oral accounts a world apart from the huge book we have now.

As far as your "early church didn't use them" idea, that is just a tautology. You are excluding the Gnostics themselves from the early church. So obviously, no Catholic church fathers used them; that doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that the two intepretations use different books. Well, we already knew that.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You would do well to note King Kandy, that on none of the issues you have raised so far would any Eastern Orthodox believer from any period in history agree with you. On the fundamentals you have mentioned so far, they are as Catholic as the Pope.
When I said "Catholic interpretation", what I really meant was Nicene Interpretation. Which Orthodox fall under as well, and I can levy many criticisms against them too. For most issues I talk about, it is applicable to protestants as well.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But it was obviously not a translation error because I showed you this debate occurring in a hebrew-only context. Correlation is not causation; yes, this debate was written after Christianity, but the arguments have nothing to do with Christianity. Surely you realize, Jewish writings in general are sparse from that time period. So I don't see how the simple fact that it is from 200 AD somehow makes it a Christianized document.

It obviously was. I've clearly explained why, already. Even that text uses the same arguments I did to explain why "jealous" is not quite the same meaning as a superficial reading would indicate. It wasn't an argument hundreds of years prior because they not only had the proper context but it was in a different form. The "explanations" I can find from Christian apologetics is the older interpretation being more in line with "zealous" not "jealous". Sounds like a homophone, but that's just coincidence.

To the other part, you think Judaism was an island in the wake of Christianity and the arguments had there?

It's an argument that did not spring up until after Christ. I have never found a reference to that particular argument. Jew and Gentile argued about it, alike. If you can show me a pre-Christ argument, I'll concede this point. (Trust me, I have searched and searched because it was something that irritated me, as well. Surely there's no such thing as a "Jealous God"?)


Originally posted by King Kandy
I would say the first scenario doesn't teach much of a lesson besides "open your eyes and don't reject effective treatment" (ironically, a lesson today's faith healers could stand to learn). The second scenario sounds like the actions of a tyrant to "weed out" people on pain of death. If the snakes just happened to be there, I think the fault would be the Jews. But the Bible would have me believe God sent the snakes, in which case, I can only put the blame for this incident squarely on Yaldabaoth's shoulders.

That was kind of my point with the first scenario.

To your comment on the second, I would agree. However, my interpretation has me believing that the Jews just wandered into a crappy location and God provided a way to save them if they would just try.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, I would disagree. I think that if both partners consent, there should be no restriction for divorce; I don't consider it a moral matter. Obviously, if for instance you have kids, the benefits of a two parent household should be taken into account; but to me this has more to do with child rearing than marriage.

I agree here. However, that was not the case in the Patriarchal society in Judea. The husband could divorce his wife but it was really difficult for a woman to get a divorce.

You're applying a modern perspective to how marriage should work. That perspective would actually have you agreeing with Jesus because he did not think it was right that a dude sack his wife on a whim for another.


Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see how most of them actually accomplish that.

Short answer: it didn't.

It only proved to instill absurd amounts of pride into the Jews as the "Chosen Ones". That was actually to their detriment in the long run. But, as I stated, that could have been all part of the plan.


So confusing, actually. And irritating.


Originally posted by King Kandy
Pretty self-righteous, but it doesn't strike me as any worse than most evangelicals. In fact, i'd rather they just wore it in beads instead of talking about it constantly.

lol!

Win.

True charity, no one knows about. Anonymous charity, imo, is where it is. If you do charity in the open, there's your reward: the praise of man. If you do it privately and anonymously with no hope of ever getting praise, that's truly virtuous.


Originally posted by King Kandy
First off, it wasn't the Jews who crucified him (and i'm guessing even if they hadn't complained, he would have ran afoul of the Roman empire eventually. In fact, if Jews rallied around him, they would have had much more cause for worry).

Secondly, have you ever read the Gospel of Judas? Reminds me somewhat of what you are saying.

First off, it was the Jews who did. You can mince words but that would be rather dishonest. The Romans did not want to get involved with religion. The Jewish leaders (Sadducees) lodged their complaints, pressed it thoroughly, and demanded for the death penalty for "blaspheme" and they strongly supported their position to the Romans by using the "King of Israel" and "rebel" thought process.

Actually, I think what really pissed off the Sadducees was when he went crazy on the people in the temple.

To top it off, it was a Jewish High Priest that interrogated Jesus in front of a Sanhedrin. Yet, you want to push this on the Romans?


The Pharisees also conspired and "formulated" a way to "trap" Jesus into admitting something that would get him killed by the Romans for treason.

They tried to trap him with the "tax" question too. That's where we get the "render unto Caesar" line form.

The last nail in Jesus' coffin (pun intended) was when they, Sanhedrin, asked him again if he was the Messia (the great I am). Jesus answered that he was and someone said, "What more do you need? He has blasphemed God and we need to put him to death, now."


That's quite clear.

They sold it to the Romans by passing him off as an insurgent (the king of the jews) and blasphemer. Pilate was not interested in the Blaspheming as that was not a concern of the Romans.

However, I'm sure the Jews screaming in the streets, "Crucify him, Crucify him!" had a little to do with Pilate's decision to appease an angry mob of Jews offended by Jesus' claims.




But, yes, if you want to mince words, we can say that the jews did not kill Jesus at all and it was the Romans. However, that's like saying a mob boss didn't have someone killed by his assassin. It was in Pilate's best interest to quickly quite down the rage.




Funnily enough, Jesus' disciples WERE ALL JEWS when he was crucified. So when I hear the hate of Jews for crucifying the Savior, I think of it as the way I put it:


1. Jesus WAS a Jew.
2. All of his disciples (before death) WERE Jews.
3. Jesus was SUPPOSED to die, anyway, making their demands for his life a righteous cause.


Point #3 is a very huge point. So huge, in fact, that all anti-antisemitism (for the reasons I'm discussing) are completely unfounded. We can't blame current Jews for their father's sins. Even if they were still alive, we should be thanking them for fulfilling the Plan of Happiness as it was absolutely necessary that this happen. It's like the Star Wars line, "Strike me down..." except he really did become more powerful than they could possibly imagine, but literally on the Earth and in the afterlife.


But, one of the most irritating things I hear from Christians is, "Nuh uhhhh! Teh Romans killed Jesus!"

Okay. You're right.

It's strange that an atheist is using that line, though. Granted, you didn't say that you have some ragy Christian evangelical friends?

Jesus as Obi-Wan Kenobi is probably the most compelling argument I've heard in years for religion.

That's both a huge compliment, and not a compliment at all. Thank you for both.

ermm

Originally posted by Digi
Jesus as Obi-Wan Kenobi is probably the most compelling argument I've heard in years for religion.

That's both a huge compliment, and not a compliment at all. Thank you for both.

ermm



It was intended as humor because these convos make me bored after a while. I try to get KK to laugh in our long discussions but I don't think I ever have success. He' serious business.

Indeed:

Couple of things. First off, it seems to me that while the Jewish leadership at the time apparently contributed to Jesus' death (I like to think that Jesus was doing what many of us do today: basically, rally against the ossification of organized religion), it was the Romans who physically took him and nailed him to the cross.

But more importantly: as I understand it, Jesus knew he was going to be betrayed and killed, yet he made no attempt to avoid this fate. He knew he had to sacrifice himself to make a point. IMHO, this means, then, that the final responsibility for Jesus' death rests with Jesus himself. Otherwise, if he had been taken away and killed against his will, there was no "sacrifice," which undermines the Christian faith.

Basically: Jesus made a choice, and that's where the final responsibility lies.

I'm at work, typing this quickly, so hopefully I made a clear point.

I find laying blame solely on the jews preposterous. They were not the boss. The Romans were the boss. They could petition all day and all night, but if the empire wasn't willing to do it, they would have absolutely no means to compel them. The Jews had been seeking freedom for the empire for decades and that petitioning went absolutely nowhere, because the Romans said no. Every time a "savior" came along, and got support from Jews, he was killed; I can't imagine a supported Jesus wouldn't have met a similar fate.

Saying the Romans were not at fault is ridiculous. If you are the conquering power, that means you remain supreme decision maker in these kinds of situations. If Pilate (or his superiors) had stood up and said "nope, absolutely not going to do it; you jews need to gtfo", what would they have done? Well the answer is absolutely nothing. You say the Jews were an angry mob, but they had plenty of options; they could have sent in the legions (as they did many, many times). They could have taken Jesus and shipped him off elsewhere. They took the easy way out by crucifying him; if they honestly didn't want to, then that is a huge leadership failure.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree here. However, that was not the case in the Patriarchal society in Judea. The husband could divorce his wife but it was really difficult for a woman to get a divorce.

You're applying a modern perspective to how marriage should work. That perspective would actually have you agreeing with Jesus because he did not think it was right that a dude sack his wife on a whim for another.
Well, I would agree with you if this were a man. This was a God, and his wisdom should be timeless. God sent his son to completely redefine the social contract with humanity, and you're telling me he altered what he really thought to make it more palatable? In that case, reading the bible is an exercise in futility; who knows how much of the stuff Jesus said, he actually meant? Why didn't Jesus speak out against gender double standards, not make them even more rigid?

This is one of the biggest reasons why I don't believe in the bible. I think if something really came from God, it should have a timeless message. I don't get that impression at all when I read the Bible; it sounds all too much like a product of its time, written by humans. The first time I actually read the New Testament, my end statement was "it came from the 1st century, and it definitely shows". In contrast, a lot of the gnostic scriptures I read seem way closer to what I consider an enlightened way of thinking.

OK, so I read "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus (or at least, about half of it before it was too much to stand). Am I supposed to be impressed? I actually found the Augustine work I posted much more persuasive (and that wasn't exactly killer either).

In more detail, the works I read fall under the Ophite/Sethian heading, to which he devotes a single chapter as well as noting some "common elements" he considers already refuted. As far as his arguments go, they are just OK. His anti-numerology stuff is a good point, and I found that quite amusing; on the other hand, it is a pretty easy target. His attacks on the substance of their ideas are rather lacking; I find his "proof" that no demiurge could take credit for the Earth to be mainly his own assumptions. He devotes much of his efforts to picking apart the "thirty aeons" idea which is only really relevant to a couple of sects.

As far as his promotion of catholicism goes, it is nothing I haven't heard before and is not very persuasive. I am accustomed to picking apart the Bible in every inconsistency, so his deconstruction of the Gnostics just renders both systems fictitious. So I compare them purely on the basis of the message they send and on trying to show that the Gnostics teach bad ethics, I feel Irenaeus fails in every regard; nothing seems particularly alarming to me. His accusations of witchcraft are obviously not even slightly worrying.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, I would agree with you if this were a man. This was a God, and his wisdom should be timeless. God sent his son to completely redefine the social contract with humanity, and you're telling me he altered what he really thought to make it more palatable? In that case, reading the bible is an exercise in futility; who knows how much of the stuff Jesus said, he actually meant? Why didn't Jesus speak out against gender double standards, not make them even more rigid?

This is one of the biggest reasons why I don't believe in the bible. I think if something really came from God, it should have a timeless message. I don't get that impression at all when I read the Bible; it sounds all too much like a product of its time, written by humans. The first time I actually read the New Testament, my end statement was "it came from the 1st century, and it definitely shows". In contrast, a lot of the gnostic scriptures I read seem way closer to what I consider an enlightened way of thinking.


Keep in mind that I'm a Mormon and we do not believe every decree from God is timeless. We believe His rules are fitting, mostly, for the contemporary people.

For instance, Mormons preach against the viewing of pornography. That did not exist (in the way we mean it) in Jesus' day. Some Christian apologists say that the "lust in your heart" counts as adultery.

So what does that mean? It means that any unmarried man can view unmarried women...or men, in pornographic ways.


So, no, I do not believe his words are timeless in that particular regard specifically because it was explicit for the Pharisees who were asking the question in very culturally specific terms for their people.



If you inject the ideas of Mormonism into his words, yes, the become timeless because we take his words to mean "eternal marriage". In that regard, it is wrong to throw away your eternal marriage for another without a very very strong reason (adultery was the reason commonly used).

So, yes, I fully agree that the bible is so full of interpretation that it is very hard to discern exactly what the messages are to mean.* I hate to say it, but only an idiot would take a direct reading of the bible (and that happens). If you throw out the context, language, and cultural references, you end up with a nonsensical and sometimes inappropriate interpretation half of the time. Not cool.


*This is why Mormons advocate the use of apostles and prophets. Individuals that are supposed to be very holy and dedicated individuals that have been given the divine authority to interpret those scriptures properly and in context. This is also the very reason that many Christians hate us.



And, the New Testament is mostly timeless information about morality. "Turn the other cheek", "stop being hypocrites and live the spirit as well as the letter of the law" and so forth.


In fact, I would say the majority of the doctrines in the new testament are timeless. Very few are contemporary only doctrines.



Originally posted by King Kandy
OK, so I read "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus (or at least, about half of it before it was too much to stand). Am I supposed to be impressed? I actually found the Augustine work I posted much more persuasive (and that wasn't exactly killer either).

I agree.

I think Augustine brings up some good work but does fail. I can't remember what I was reading from him about his takes on the gnostics, but I remember thinking, "Well, that principle could be equally applied to your position." Meaning, "let he who is sinless cast the first stone". I can't remember what he was talking about. It will bug me until I find it.


The older I get, the more I think that there's an active/petty God that interferes at every last chance. I believe less and less in what I have deemed an "immature" God and more in a God of Creation. You could say I am closer to a Deist than I am Christian Evangelical. However, I still believe in an interfering God...I think He interferes once in a blue moon.


I may shit my pants if the second coming occurs, however. If that happens in our lifetime (keyword is "if".



Originally posted by King Kandy
Saying the Romans were not at fault is ridiculous.

Saying the Romans had much of a choice in the matter is equally ridiculous. It was literally an appeasement to an angry, Theocratically ruling, mob.


The cost of not appeasing them was great. The choice was not really there for Pilate.

Originally posted by Mindship
Couple of things. First off, it seems to me that while the Jewish leadership at the time apparently contributed to Jesus' death (I like to think that Jesus was doing what many of us do today: basically, rally against the ossification of organized religion), it was the Romans who physically took him and nailed him to the cross.

But more importantly: as I understand it, Jesus knew he was going to be betrayed and killed, yet he made no attempt to avoid this fate. He knew he had to sacrifice himself to make a point. IMHO, this means, then, that the final responsibility for Jesus' death rests with Jesus himself. Otherwise, if he had been taken away and killed against his will, there was no "sacrifice," which undermines the Christian faith.

Basically: Jesus made a choice, and that's where the final responsibility lies.

I'm at work, typing this quickly, so hopefully I made a clear point.


Yes, that was ultimately my point. It was all part of God's plan.

Somehow, my original point AGAINST anti-semitism was lost and we started talking about "who's on first." My original point was: We shouldn't hate on the Jews for their actions concerning Jesus. In fact, they should be praised for both their history AND their actions. It was all "part of the plan".

Jesus himself could have easily cleared himself if he had just lied and said, "NOPE! I'm not the Christ. WEEEE!"

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, that was ultimately my point. It was all part of God's plan.
I prefer God's Game (or the Big Punchline), but yes, this I can generally agree with.

The Orthodox have never hurt anybody, and tried not to attack first. Blessed are the peacemakers!

The Old Testament belonged to the Jews, they were chosen by God. They were the wisest rulers, a lot of land, a lot of wealth. Then when they had crucified Jesus, God - they have all been taken away, can be seen throughout the history of God's wrath on this people, they lost everything. It was necessary to analyze just why? And to Christianity. Of Christianity - the most pure faith, which has not changed from the Christ-Orthodox Faith is the closest to the apostles, (and it is often called Apostolic). Remaining unchanged under him and lost a first purity. This is a virgin forest, while a man does not interfere with the forest is beautiful and there is a chist.Tak Orthodox faith remained, first from God.







l

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed:

Do not see the beauty of the Faith and Temples - who is God?

Originally posted by 3lv
Do not see the beauty of the Faith and Temples - who is God?

Originally posted by 3lv

Originally posted by 3lv

Originally posted by 3lv

Originally posted by King Kandy
The gnostics who used these gospels went through various transformations in the early church and were gone mostly before the middle ages. However, the Cathars of the middle ages believed a similar thing, that the world was not created by the good God, but by "Rex Mundi" (the king of the world), and that this is why Satan is called the prince of the world: he was the one who created it. The Cathars were exterminated by the church and governments of the middle ages in the most cruel fashions; thousands and thousands were slaughtered for no real reason other than disagreeing with the church. People use the crusades as the example of the medieval church's brutality, but I think this is a much worse case; this was no war with another government, but the wholesale butchery of people with no power to defend themselves.

The earliest Christians were Jews, and they had no problem accepting the old testament; they had accepted it already before Jesus came around. But when Gentiles were converted, they had no background in the old testament and often dismissed it as a completely different pagan religion unrelated to Christianity. You can see Faustus in that book I posted arguing extensively that the old testament prophets are no more related to Christ than the oracle of Delphi is. This was the "kind" view. The not so kind view was that the old testament God was a brutal demon trying to bend mankind to his rule, and that the purpose of Christ was actually to free us from him and his laws. For as it says in "On the Origin of the World":



For the followers of this brand, Christ's goal is no less than the complete destruction of the world and the old testament God, and the liberation of humanity from him (if they have the knowledge to be delivered).

The idea that the Old testament God is virtuous was dismissed by virtue of his self given title "jealous God". For as it says in the Secret Book of John:



A legitimate enough complaint, imo. I always thought that the Old Testament God seemed petty and jealous, and its comforting to know that almost half of the early church agreed with me. What defines a Christian? If it is believing in the modern Bible, then you would have a hard time finding any Christians in the early church; it is a world apart.

Originally posted by 3lv

Originally posted by 3lv

Originally posted by 3lv

Originally posted by 3lv

Originally posted by King Kandy
The Cathars

religion was made by man that's why there are so many rule. The whole Bible was put together by a group(s) of men for a purpose. with so many writings at the time and only a few were chosen, it was for a purpose.

Some words on Manicheanism:

Wikipedia opened a bottle of worms by referring to the Manichean God as limited, giving the mistaken impression that means "finite". However reading Manichean texts, this is not really quite what they meant. God is "limited" only in the sense that his domain is light, rather than darkness. But this light is without limits.

An analogy can easily be drawn using mathematical sets. Consider the set of all real numbers, minus the set of all natural numbers. The resulting set, of course, is still infinite (there are an infinite number of real yet not natural numbers), however, there are numbers not included in its domain (those we removed). Likewise, the Manichean God is infinite and omnipotent, but still operates within a certain principle, which does not apply to every thing in the universe.

Likewise, the wikipedia article creates the impression that realms of light and darkness are equal. Actually, Mani said that the light is unimaginably greater than the darkness. The sets I mentioned again serve as a good example; though both of the two sets are infinite, the set of reals is a much more all-encompassing domain.

I don't think this is really all that different from Nicene Christianity. People often speak of hell as separation from God. In Manicheanism, matter is separation from God. It is not really counter to the idea of an omnipotent God.

^ Would you agree that the view of many post-Medieval Christians regarding good and evil are more in line with Manichaeism than with classical Christianity?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^ Would you agree that the view of many post-Medieval Christians regarding good and evil are more in line with Manichaeism than with classical Christianity?
TBH, I don't know what you're talking about. What teachings are you talking about? I know of no doctrine that matter is evil, if anything, that was actually more prevalent during the middle ages.

Originally posted by King Kandy
TBH, I don't know what you're talking about. What teachings are you talking about? I know of no doctrine that matter is evil, if anything, that was actually more prevalent during the middle ages.
Well I'm more speaking of the belief of evil being a real force acting in the material Universe whereas "classical" Christianity as espoused by Augustine argued that evil was something of a non-reality. Under my understanding anyhow.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well I'm more speaking of the belief of evil being a real force acting in the material Universe whereas "classical" Christianity as espoused by Augustine argued that evil was something of a non-reality. Under my understanding anyhow.
Well, the sort of sunday school "god=good satan=bad" line of thinking might fit in with that, but I don't know how many adults hold such a simplistic view. If you believe in demons, I would imagine you would think evil was real in that sense. Augustine was one of the first to argue pagan Gods were actually demons, so I wouldn't say he excluded that view either.

The big sin in manicheanism would be to get too absorbed in the material world. I would say prosperity theology is the diametric opposite of this.

Now, for your viewing pleasure, some lines of the new testament commonly cited by gnostics in support of their views:

Luke 5:36-39


This line was interpreted to mean that one should reject the old testament, as that would be like putting old cloth on new garments (Jesus' teachings)

Matthew 19:29:


This was interpreted by Cathars to mean you should neither marry nor have children.

Matthew 11:27


This was taken to mean that before Jesus, the Father was not revealed to man, AKA, the old testament God was not the same guy.

John 8 39-44


This was taken to mean that the God of the Jews was not God, but rather the Demiurge.

John 3:6


This was taken to mean that flesh is evil, and only spirit is of God.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
religion was made by man that's why there are so many rule. The whole Bible was put together by a group(s) of men for a purpose. with so many writings at the time and only a few were chosen, it was for a purpose.


Purpose for that moment maybe..

Matthew 19:29 refers to abandoning people, including family, that oppose your devotion or belief in the Gospel/Christ. I see how it could be interpreted as a life of "monk-hood", however.