Originally posted by markie
I think you said one time that jesus was a gnostic. Now paul was a gnostic?? They must have been from different sects.
Jesus was not a gnostic, but Paul was, I think. Sometimes Deb gets a little keyboard happy and likes to get the Christians up in arms. 😆
But thanks for pointing out her mistake, lets see what she says. 😄
Re: New age religion
Originally posted by Mr_FamousNew Age is a derogative term for the revival of ancient pagan religions. Some of the new age religions I think bear little resemblence to their ancesters but somebody on another forum said that's what they are. I really don't think they are new religions but a mixture of old religions.
anyone follow this? what the heck is it anyway? can anyone define what they pray to and all that?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI ddon't think either one of them weree and I don't think paul contradicts jesus but itt hhas beenn interpreted wrong and it makes it appear like he did.
Jesus was not a gnostic, but Paul was, I think. Sometimes Deb gets a little keyboard happy and likes to get the Christians up in arms. 😆But thanks for pointing out her mistake, lets see what she says. 😄
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So I don't know what I am talking about... This is not meant to be an insult? You have a strange way of being nice to people. You should not be on this forum if the subject matter is to close to heart. I use humor to keep things light. If I cannot joke about something, then I need to understand why, I need to chant (pray) about it. We are all growing and this forum can be a place were ideas meet, not fight.
The label "New Age" is a vague, catch-all term applied all manner of modern spiritual, paranormal and religious beliefs. Just about the only thing they all have in common is that they do not derive from biblical traditions, which of course leads those who belong to the orthodox or fundamentalist wings of those biblical traditions to treat anything New Age as satanic and evil.
The name itself is derived from the fact that many movements which can be categorized as New Age regard themselves as being on the forefront of a general societal trend which is moving towards a "new" age of spiritual development. In this new age, old religious dogmas will be abandoned and entirely new superstitions adopted.
A great many New Age ideas are derived from Eastern religious traditions, like Hinduism and Buddhism. An important principle of New Age philosophies is that it simply does not matter if those philosophies or if any of the underlying principles are "true" or not. All that matters is if a person' s behavior improves and if the person grows spiritually. It is because of this that people who count themselves as part of the "New Age" are able to tolerate any belief or doctrine except skepticism. For them, to be skeptical is to be without hope - hope of personal improvement or hope of spiritual development.
The New Age is about a new type of society for the future. In this society, all of the current problems will have been resolved and all people will live in brotherhood and harmony. There will be no more religious, political, or class differentiations.
There is some question as to just how long the "New Age", at least as it is currently understood, will be able to survive. One problem is its lack of central organization - without institutional backing, it can be difficult to survive as society changes. Another problem is the fact that the New Age has borrowed heavily from science - not methodology or principles, but rather words and superficial understandings of a few ideas. Science, however, has progressed while the New Age has been stuck in the past. The further science develops, the more quickly the New Age interpretations will fall apart.
Originally posted by Legend Of Chibi
It's all about everyone being happy and that's why people like it, so it isn't JUST a judgement, It's more than just that.
Insomuch as "happiness" can be rooted in worldly things, being happy is most certainly not what "good" is about for Christians. Happiness in and through god, without any basis in material goods: that might be accurate.
Originally posted by ZarathustraOH, and don't forget all the Bishops and Popes, fornication's and over indulging was truly a blasphemy against the word of god.
Trying to fit this sentiment into Christian thought, particularly Catholic, is a fool's errand.
Paul, the Gospels and Saints Augustine and Benedict, to name only a few, declare fairly clearly that plenty of things that would make people happy are sinful. It makes people happy to fornicate and overindulge themselves eating and drinking, but those are precisely the sins Augustine works so hard to overcome as recorded in his Confessions. It makes people happy to accumulate great wealth and seek pleasure with it, but the gospels say that a camel passes through the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man through the gates of heaven, and that you can only serve one master: god or money..
Originally posted by sonnet
If you expexted me to have a laugh with you at the expence of something that is dear to me, well think again.
Originally posted by debbiejo
OH, and don't forget all the Bishops and Popes, fornication's and over indulging was truly a blasphemy against the word of god.
Originally posted by ZarathustraMany were hypocrites...They had the money, they had lovers, children, they were bought people....AND yes many tried to point it out, just like today with many church leaders....That's why I think organized religions are not the best idea....It doesn't serve when you have a head of an organization...It's much better to serve the purpose of being spiritual and meet with like minded people.....
I would assume you're trying to imply that many Bishops and Popes have been hypocrites? It's difficult to tell, but if that's so you're going to have to work harder to offend: Erasmus was pointing these things out 500 years ago, and even St. Jerome, a contemporary of Augustine's, mentioned many hypocrites within the clergy.
Originally posted by debbiejo
It doesn't serve when you have a head of an organization...It's much better to serve the purpose of being spiritual and meet with like minded people.....
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure the laugh at your expense, not at your religion's. The whole dispute stems from you apparently being under the impression that Pauline doctrine is contained in the Gospels. Paul did not write any of the Gospels. Your bible contains Paul's point of view in his letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians etc. An account of some of the things he did is in The Acts of the Apostles. None of these things are the Gospel.
So, before you take offense on the account of the Bible, try to get a better grasp of what's in it.