Christianity: Alternative Viewpoints

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.

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.

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.

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.

Liberation Theology

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

Liberation theology is a Christian movement in political theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions. It has been described by proponents as "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor", and by detractors as Christianized Marxism.

Although liberation theology has grown into an international and inter-denominational movement, it began as a movement within the Roman Catholic church in Latin America in the 1950s–1960s. Liberation theology arose principally as a moral reaction to the poverty caused by social injustice in that region. The term was coined in 1971 by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who wrote one of the movement's most famous books, A Theology of Liberation. Other noted exponents are Leonardo Boff of Brazil, Jon Sobrino of El Salvador, and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay.

The influence of liberation theology diminished after proponents were accused of using "Marxist concepts" leading to admonishment by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1984 and 1986. The Vatican criticized certain strains of liberation theology for focusing on institutionalized or systemic sin, apparently to the exclusion of individual offenders/offences; and for allegedly misidentifying Catholic Church hierarchy in S. America as members of same privileged class that had long been oppressing indigenous populations since the arrival of Pizarro onward.

I wrote a paper in 4th year comparing Gutiérrez with Qutb, the similarities are astounding, though the extreme violence of Qutb never emerges in Gutiérrez's views. However, Gutiérrez was never tortured by his native government for his religious views.

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.

"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.

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.

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?