Christianity: Alternative Viewpoints

Started by 3lv5 pages

Re: Re: Re: Re: Orthodoxy

Originally posted by 3lv

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

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Orthodoxy

Originally posted by 3lv

Orthodoxy

Originally posted by 3lv

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

Originally posted by 3lv

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

Originally posted by 3lv

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

[QUOTE=13522175]Originally posted by King Kandy
[B]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

And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

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:

And every one that has left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.

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

Matthew 11:27

“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

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

Jesus saith unto them: If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them: If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

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

John 3:6

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

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.