Paul was a gnostic

[lifegazer]

As the title says, Paul was a gnostic. This is significant because most modern christians aren't. In fact, modern christians are biblical literalists who considered gnostics to be heretics... and in the earlier centuries after the advent of Christianity, heretics usually ended up biting the dust.

There is also ample evidence to suggest that 6 of the 13 letters attributed to Paul, were forgeries. Couple of links here, but you can find many with a search:
paul's forged letters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
and http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/paul.html

The second link is particularly interesting. Scroll half-way down to the large-type. The authors of 'The Jesus Mysteries' (a very interesting read in itself), say that it was misleading to call Paul a gnostic at that time because literalists didn't really exist until long after the 1st century. Maybe so, but there can be no doubting that his 'mystical' beliefs were far-flung from the beliefs later to be held by the literalists.

I pointed-out the forgeries since I think their content has a more literalist style. Clearly, added by literalists to bolster the literalist point-of-view whilst also diluting Paul's more-spiritual message in his other letters.

There are more links here supporting the claim that Paul was a gnostic:
http://www.theosophical.ca/PaulOpponent.htm paul the gnostic
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Paul-Gnostic.html
http://gnostics.tribe.net/thread/a1d9513d-e484-422f-967a-de9830c8cb89

Of course, there are alsorts of ramifications here to such a disclosure, not least of which is that literalists have completely corrupted the fundamental message given by Jesus (not to mention Paul), so that the Roman Catholic church (and related churches) is unveiled as a total sham.

[RSLancastr]

Really? I'm agnostic too!

Oh, wait... I see.

Never mind.

[CFLarsen]

I love gnostics. Boil them lightly and serve them with thick sauces, e.g., marinara.

[lifegazer]

Perhaps I should have mentioned also that all those atheists out there who specifically detest Christianity, have vented their anger in the wrong direction.
In future, please address true Christianity.

[RandFan]

...please address true Christianity.Yeah, I hate it when people address fake scotsman.

[Tricky]

Jeremiah was a bullfrog.

[fuelair]

I love gnostics. Boil them lightly and serve them with thick sauces, e.g., marinara.

Cream, butter, garlic infused!!

[lifegazer]

Don't mock what you don't understand. Makes you look like a retard.

[Foster Zygote]

Perhaps I should have mentioned also that all those atheists out there who specifically detest Christianity, have vented their anger in the wrong direction.
In future, please address true Christianity.

Well I can't speak for those who "detest" Christianity but why should atheists address a form of religion that is virtually dead in place of a religion that has a powerful influence on the modern world? The legitimacy of modern Christianity in relation to ancient writings has little to do with its current relevance to our world.

Steven

Edited for anal retentive spelling issue.

[RandFan]

Don't mock what you don't understand. Makes you look like a retard.:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Cream, butter, garlic infused!!
Oh, yes...

[lifegazer]

Well I can't speak for those who "detest" Christianity but why should atheists address a form of religion that is virtually dead in place of a religion that has a powerful influence on the modern world? The legitimacy of modern Christianity in relation to ancient writings has little to due with its current relevance to our world.

Steven
It's resurrected... so to speak.

Since various documents came to light in the 20th century, there has been growing interest in gnosticism.

Regardless, in answer to your question, I suspect that most of the atheists on this forum came to be atheists due to frustrated attitudes developed through interaction/participation with christian literalism. Well that doesn't suffice as a reason to be an atheist... and it certainly doesn't suffice as a reason to abhor 'christianity' when this new light is shed upon that religion.

[RandFan]

I suspect that most of the atheists on this forum came to be atheists due to frustrated attitudes developed through interaction/participation with christian literalism. I don't believe that is true. Further I think such a claim is insulting to the many who didn't blindly follow some prepackaged faith or simply believe in a spirit in the sky and instead committed themselves to find the truth, whatever that truth was.

I didn't become an atheist out of frustration. On the contrary it was a very difficult thing for me to do.

Understanding the history of theology and beliefs in general I can't say that gnosticism holds any significant importance or stands out in any way from any other belief.

[Foster Zygote]

It's resurrected... so to speak.

Since various documents came to light in the 20th century, there has been growing interest in gnosticism.

Regardless, in answer to your question, I suspect that most of the atheists on this forum came to be atheists due to frustrated attitudes developed through interaction/participation with christian literalism. Well that doesn't suffice as a reason to be an atheist... and it certainly doesn't suffice as a reason to abhor 'christianity' when this new light is shed upon that religion.

How is that an answer to my question? how does Gnosticism vs. modern literalism invalidate atheism? From an atheist viewpoint the main difference is that one advocates two gods (a belief at odds with your stated beliefs) while the other claims only one God, in three parts (some assembly required).

I see you like the straw man of the atheist as frustrated and angry. Your suspicion about why most of the atheists on this forum came to be atheists may be erroneous. Do you have any data? Perhaps you could interview us? Your statement regarding the sufficiency of our atheist view does nothing but reinforce your own preconceived notions about us.

Steven

[Soapy Sam]

I find it hard to care about the politico/religious affiliations of a 1st century tent maker turned hit man turned born again evangelist. We have enough fatheads like that in the here and now.

[lifegazer]

I don't believe that is true. Further I think such a claim is insulting to the many who didn't blindly follow some prepackaged faith or simply believe in a spirit in the sky and instead committed themselves to find the truth, whatever that truth was.

Most kids are dragged to church long before they have matured to consider the merits of such matters. It's bred into them - brainwashing.
Many of these kids become disenchanted with the whole thing and rebel.
I've read so many stories on this forum about such experiences.
So they rebel against 'christianity', but - as I've been trying to explain - it's a fake form of christianity, with a fake message.

Understanding the history of theology and beliefs in general I can't say that gnosticism holds any significant importance or stands out in any way from any other belief.
You see no significant distinction between the views of a gnostic and the views of a literalist?!

[Foster Zygote]

Don't mock what you don't understand. Makes you look like a retard.

That's quite possibly the most juvenile, asinine thing I've seen you write.

And may I point out that you seem to make it your business to mock things that you clearly don't understand.

Steven

[RandFan]

Most kids are dragged to church long before they have matured to consider the merits of such matters. It's bred into them - brainwashing.

Many of these kids become disenchanted with the whole thing and rebel. I believe there is some truth to that but it is insulting to suggest that this is the only reason that these folks are atheist. Not all who rebel become atheist. My brother and sister both rebelled and they still believe in god they simply don't go to church. Both find it astonishing that I, a missionary and stalwart believer, would be atheist.

So they rebel against 'christianity', but - as I've been trying to explain - it's a fake form of ChristianityChristianity, with a fake message. This is a fallacy. I tried to point it out before to you.

No true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behavior. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

You see no significant distinction between the views of a gnostic and the views of a literalism?! You misunderstand a very basic point. No, I'm not saying that I son't see any significant distinction between Gnostic's and literalism's. You are taking my point of view out of context.

I'm saying that when you look at the history of beliefs and theology and consider all philosophies there is nothing that sticks out about gnosticism that would make it somehow special in comparison to all other beliefs. Nothing that would make me think that this set of beliefs is representative of the truth in a way that the others are not.

[Foster Zygote]

Many of these kids become disenchanted with the whole thing and rebel.

I see, so your resorting to the philosophical tactic I like to call the "argument from Touched by an Angel". This defines all atheists as somehow being really cheesed off with God for not revealing himself and announcing in a huff. "Well then I just won't believe in you anymore, so take that God!"

STRAW MAN

My own personal experience was very different from the one you're trying to force on me to comfort yourself. In fact, I'll bet my personal experience is much more like those of the other atheists here than your scenario is. There was no anger, frustration or rebellion involved in my change of view. It was a kind of private, quiet introspection and honest examination that caused me to gradually reexamine my previous beliefs. When I finally realized I was an atheist it was actually a rather peaceful experience.

Steven

[lifegazer]

How is that an answer to my question? how does Gnosticism vs. modern literalism invalidate atheism?

That wasn't your question. You asked:
"why should atheists address a form of religion that is virtually dead in place of a religion that has a powerful influence on the modern world? The legitimacy of modern Christianity in relation to ancient writings has little to do with its current relevance to our world."

You infer that gnosticism is not worth addressing since few are now gnostics.
My response is that gnosticism is experiencing a rebirth. Also, with ever-increasing evidence, christian-literalism will die a slow death... and it's "influence" will disappear.

Hypothetical scenario:
Lg: X is true.
Bill: Yahoo! (he believes Lg and goes to tell his friends):- Lg says Y is true.

Bills friends believe him and tell their friends. Soon, Bill builds quite a following and their influence grows and grows.
Unfortunately, new evidence eventually crops up which shows that Lg actually said that "X is true".
The consequences to this scenario are obvious - belief in 'Y' will die and the influence of those believers in Y will evaporate.
Also, believers in X will grow in numbers.

This means that the critics of Y will also evaporate. They're wasting their time. If they're interested in the truth of X, they need to refocus their attention... and since they were interested in Y, they should be interested in X.
= that's why atheists should address gnosticism.

From an atheist viewpoint the main difference is that one advocates two gods (a belief at odds with your stated beliefs) while the other claims only one God, in three parts (some assembly required).

You're incorrect. Pagan gnostics only appear to believe in more than one God - initiates into 'The Mysteries' understood that there was only one God.
Further, I'm specifically discussing Christian gnostics here... which two Gods are you refering to?

I see you like the straw man of the atheist as frustrated and angry. Your suspicion about why most of the atheists on this forum came to be atheists may be erroneous. Do you have any data? Perhaps you could interview us? Your statement regarding the sufficiency of our atheist view does nothing but reinforce your own preconceived notions about us.

Steven
Atheists are people that see no credibility in the God that they're familiar with. Also, they mistakenly believe that science provides answers about existence. It doesn't.
Also, perhaps they don't care because they enjoy their lives and are tired of feeling guilty for doing so.

It's all irrelevant.

[Pauliesonne]

Aw, c'mon guys...

Why are we arguing about a bloated sack of protoplasm like Paul?

[lifegazer]

I'm saying that when you look at the history of beliefs and theology and consider all philosophies there is nothing that sticks out about gnosticism that would make it somehow special in comparison to all other beliefs. Nothing that would make me think that this set of beliefs is representative of the truth in a way that the others are not.
I will concede that there is similarity between what a gnostic says and one or two other religions.
But you're missing the point of this thread...

Look at the influence which [literal] christianity has had upon mankind. Unbelievable at how many lives have been affected by it - even today.
Yet it was all for nothing since all of those people were brainwashed into believing a message that was never given by Jesus, Paul, or most other notable characters of that time.
The message was corrupted - albeit ignorantly - to something far far less than was given.
History would have been vastly altered if that message had not been corrupted.
The future can follow along the same wasted lines, or... it might not - not if the truth is revealed.

Further, atheists will no longer have the reasons to abhor christianity which they might presently have, since the new christianity is vastly different to the old.

[Diamond]

As the title says, Paul was a gnostic. This is significant because most modern christians aren't. In fact, modern christians are biblical literalists who considered gnostics to be heretics... and in the earlier centuries after the advent of Christianity, heretics usually ended up biting the dust.



Yes but what about John, George and Ringo?

[RandFan]

I will concede that there is similarity between what a gnostic says and one or two other religions.
But you're missing the point of this thread...

Look at the influence which [literal] christianity has had upon mankind. Unbelievable at how many lives have been affected by it - even today.
Yet it was all for nothing since all of those people were brainwashed into believing a message that was never given by Jesus, Paul, or most other notable characters of that time.
The message was corrupted - albeit ignorantly - to something far far less than was given.
History would have been vastly altered if that message had not been corrupted.
The future can follow along the same wasted lines, or... it might not - not if the truth is revealed.

Further, atheists will no longer have the reasons to abhor christianity which they might presently have, since the new christianity is vastly different to the old.You are missing MY point. Look at the influence FAITH has had upon mankind (http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Video&op=view&video_id=39).

Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Falun Gung, Scientology, Anism, Bahia, Paganism, etc.

I keep telling you that it is NOT simply focusing on Christianity. There are so many religions that there is no reason to believe that some offshoot of Christianity is somehow significantly different.

[lifegazer]

"Don't mock what you don't understand. Makes you look like a retard."

That's quite possibly the most juvenile, asinine thing I've seen you write.

To this point, there have been 17 other responses (excluding my own), including one of you moaning about me saying this.
So let's examine 9 of those other 16 responses:

a) Really? I'm agnostic too!
b) I love gnostics. Boil them lightly and serve them with thick sauces, e.g., marinara.
c) Jeremiah was a bullfrog.
d) Cream, butter, garlic infused!!
e) [a sarcastic face icon]
f) Oh, yes...
g) I find it hard to care about the politico/religious affiliations of a 1st century tent maker turned hit man turned born again evangelist. We have enough fatheads like that in the here and now.
h) Why are we arguing about a bloated sack of protoplasm like Paul?
i) Yes but what about John, George and Ringo?

And you complain because I allow myself to become frustrated by this?
Fair enough. I'll try to ignore them.

[lifegazer]

Your missing the point. Look at the influence FAITH has had upon mankind (http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Video&op=view&video_id=39).

Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Falun Gung, Scientology, Anism, Bahia, Paganism, etc.

I keep telling you that it is NOT simply focusing on Christianity. There are so many religions that there is no reason to believe that some offshoot of Christianity is somehow significantly different.
Do you know what 'gnosis' means?
Nothing to do with faith... or hope.

[RandFan]

Do you know what 'gnosis' means?
Nothing to do with faith... or hope.{sigh}

gnosis (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gnosis)
Main Entry: gno·sis
Pronunciation: 'nO-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek gnOsis, literally, knowledge, from gignOskein
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation
GNOSTICISM: ANCIENT AND MODERN (http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic1.htm)

Gnosticism consisted of many syncretistic belief systems which combined elements taken from Asian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Syrian pagan religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity. They constituted one of the three main branches of early Christianity:

[lifegazer]

Which part of those definitions lists 'faith' as the required attitude?

[slingblade]

Fine. I'll take you seriously.

Further, atheists will no longer have the reasons to abhor christianity which they might presently have, since the new christianity is vastly different to the old.

That is, quite seriously, the biggest load of sheer obtuse ignorance I've ever seen.

There is not just one reason to "abhor" (though I prefer "reject") Christianity. There are thousands. They may be taken singly or in combination, and so there are millions of permutations of these reasons. but no revamping, refurbishing, or recreating of any religion is going to remove my chief reason:

There's nothing there. God is imaginary. That is my belief. I cannot prove it, any more than you can prove the opposite. But I hold to it. New religions, or new versions of old religions, are hardly going to address my belief, because the vast majority of them are predicated on the premise that there is, in fact, a God.

Now, sir, you have been seriously addressed, and seriously dismissed.
Have a nice day.

[Pauliesonne]

Now, sir, you have been seriously addressed, and seriously dismissed.
Have a nice day.

Now THAT is how you finish a post!

[Foster Zygote]

You infer that gnosticism is not worth addressing since few are now gnostics.
Not true. I never implied that Gnostic beliefs were not worth addressing. You inferred it. In fact, I find textual scholarship fascinating. My question was: Why is criticism of modern Christian doctrine not still relevant in light of the fact that the ancient roots of Christianity were different?


My response is that gnosticism is experiencing a rebirth. Also, with ever-increasing evidence, christian-literalism will die a slow death... and it's "influence" will disappear.
Yes, Gnosticism is certainly sweeping the world. Christianity as we know it is as good as dead.



Hypothetical scenario:
Lg: X is true.
Bill: Yahoo! (he believes Lg and goes to tell his friends):- Lg says Y is true.

Bills friends believe him and tell their friends. Soon, Bill builds quite a following and their influence grows and grows.
Unfortunately, new evidence eventually crops up which shows that Lg actually said that "X is true".
The consequences to this scenario are obvious - belief in 'Y' will die and the influence of those believers in Y will evaporate.
Also, believers in X will grow in numbers.

This means that the critics of Y will also evaporate. They're wasting their time. If they're interested in the truth of X, they need to refocus their attention... and since they were interested in Y, they should be interested in X.
= that's why atheists should address gnosticism.
I find it interesting that you are the "prophet" in the above argument. I find it even more interesting that you sincerely believe that people will alter an irrational belief system for rational reasons.

You're incorrect. Pagan gnostics only appear to believe in more than one God - initiates into 'The Mysteries' understood that there was only one God.
Further, I'm specifically discussing Christian gnostics here... which two Gods are you refering to?
That above mentioned fascination with textual scholarship is why I know that Christian Gnostics in pre-orthodox Christian societies believed in two gods. An evil god of the old testament and another distinct god of the new testament. The later sent Jesus to Earth to save people from the wrath of the former. These Gnostics were not unique among the various Christ cults in their polytheism.


Atheists are people that see no credibility in the God that they're familiar with.
Or any god for that matter. So you're partially correct. But not in the way you'd like to be.


Also, they mistakenly believe that science provides answers about existence. It doesn't.
No, only Lifegazer provides answers about existence.

Also, perhaps they don't care because they enjoy their lives and are tired of feeling guilty for doing so.
Well I can't speak for all atheists but I do enjoy my life, but I can assure you I feel no guilt over disagreeing with the cult of Lifegazer or being an atheist.

It's all irrelevant.
I couldn't agree more.

Steven

[SezMe]

Note to self: Don't argue with Slingblade.

[RandFan]

Which part of those definitions lists 'faith' as the required attitude?Where did you get the notion that "faith" was an attitude?

Faith (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith)

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/belief) Ok so "faith" is one or more of the following:

A trust in and loyalty to God.
Belief in traditional doctrines of a religion
Firm belief in something for which there is no proof
A system of religious beliefs
Synonymous with BELIEF.Now, scroll back to the definition of "gnosis" and please tell me how any of these definitions are not copacetic?

[RandFan]

So you don't have to scroll back.

GNOSTICISM: ANCIENT AND MODERN (http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic1.htm)

Gnosticism consisted of many syncretistic belief systems which combined elements taken from Asian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Syrian pagan religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity. They constituted one of the three main branches of early Christianity: If you want to be taken seriously you should educate yourself of the terms you use and not simply make up definitions as you go along.

...You know what, never mind. We've been here before and you refuse to educate yourself.

[Foster Zygote]

And you complain because I allow myself to become frustrated by this?

It wasn't a complaint it was an observation. The slur "retard" is more suited to a 3rd grade playground than this forum. Your use of it was obstreperous and immature and your attempts to defend this use pathetic.

Steven

[lifegazer]

Not true. I never implied that Gnostic beliefs were not worth addressing. You inferred it. In fact, I find textual scholarship fascinating. My question was: Why is criticism of modern Christian doctrine not still relevant in light of the fact that the ancient roots of Christianity were different?

Address the X & Y scenario seriously and you'll have your answer. True christianity was given as 'X' - not 'Y'.

I find it interesting that you are the "prophet" in the above argument. I find it even more interesting that you sincerely believe that people will alter an irrational belief system for rational reasons.

Evasive. The scenario served a constructive purpose.

That above mentioned fascination with textual scholarship is why I know that Christian Gnostics in pre-orthodox Christian societies believed in two gods. An evil god of the old testament and another distinct god of the new testament. The later sent Jesus to Earth to save people from the wrath of the former. These Gnostics were not unique among the various Christ cults in their polytheism.

Jehovah is akin to Zeus when comparisons are made with gnostic beliefs.
Fundamentally, gnostics believe in the existence of just one God. Other Gods serve to construct the 'outer mystery narratives'.

No, only Lifegazer provides answers about existence.

Evasive and irrelevant remark.

Well I can't speak for all atheists but I do enjoy my life, but I can assure you I feel no guilt over disagreeing with the cult of Lifegazer or being an atheist.

Immature remark.

You don't have to talk to me about this subject if you don't want to. I really can't be bothered unless you keep it serious.

[lifegazer]

I'm tempted to take the OP to a Christian forum and watch their reactions... but I really can't be bothered tonight.
Was hoping for some extensive decent discussion from this. I guess atheists really don't give a ****. Sobeit.

[KelvinG]

Immature remark.

You don't have to talk to me about this subject if you don't want to. I really can't be bothered unless you keep it serious.

Yes, perhaps he should use the word retard more.

[lifegazer]

Yes, perhaps he should use the word retard more.
The people who disrespectfully tried to turn my thread into a circus were acting like retards.
Why is it that none of you find offence in their behaviour?

Regardless, I regret my actions. I should have used a less offensive word - something like 'moron'.

[RandFan]

I'm tempted to take the OP to a Christian forum and watch their reactions... but I really can't be bothered tonight.
Was hoping for some extensive decent discussion from this. I guess atheists really don't give a ****. Sobeit.It is really hard to have a discussion with you lifegazer. You lack so many fundamentals yet you come here and act as if you are some expert. You don't even understand the definition of faith. You don't comprehend that different religions are different faiths. You don't have a rudimentary understanding of the history of theology. And that is fine if you want to come here and a have a discussion with a non-authoritative perspective. The problem is that you do have that perspective so from the start we have to deal with your ignorance. And you won't even make the attempt to educate yourself on the issues you are discussing. You simply make unfounded assumptions. Whatever gazer.

[lifegazer]

It is really hard to have a discussion with you lifegazer. You lack so many fundamentals yet you come here and act as if you are some expert. You don't even understand the definition of faith. You don't comprehend that different religions are different faiths. You don't have a rudimentary understanding of the history of theology. And that is fine if you want to come here and a have a discussion with a non-authoritative perspective. The problem is that you do have that perspective so from the start we have to deal with your ignorance. And you won't even make the attempt to educate yourself on the issues you are discussing. You simply make unfounded assumptions. Whatever gazer.
Yeah whatever.
You haven't go a clue what a gnostic is. I can assure you now that ~faith~ plays no part in a true initiate of gnosticism.
Stop lecturing me about what I know and what I don't know. You play the same tune every thread.

This thread invites discussion on whether the true message of Jesus was that given by gnostics or literalists. It also invites discussion on the ramifications for [literal] christianity given that gnostic christianity was what was meant to be preached.

If you aren't interested, then don't take part. Simple.

[Foster Zygote]

Address the X & Y scenario seriously and you'll have your answer. True christianity was given as 'X' - not 'Y'.
So because you've discovered an old form of "true" Christianity we should all ignore the very real existence of the current forms of Christianity and their very real influence on the world around us? And yes, I realize what 'X' and 'Y' represented.

Evasive. The scenario served a constructive purpose.
What would that be? It only illustrated a concept of religious morphology found in many textbooks. Have I denied at any point that Christianity has changed over the centuries since Jesus? (See thread Misquoting Jesus) Again, this argument doesn't explain why modern Christianity and its influence should not be addressed, or why Gnosticism is any more "true" than orthodox Christianity. If 'X' were a flying pink unicorn and 'Y' was a flying purple unicorn then 'X' would be a more accurate description of what Lg said. But it doesn't follow that 'X' is real and 'Y' is unreal.

Gnostics believe in just one god.
Please provide some evidence of this.

Evasive and irrelevant remark.
No, just sarcastic.

Immature remark.
I thought it was spot on.

You don't have to talk to me about this subject if you don't want to.
I want to, but it seems you will only accept complete agreement as valid discussion.


I really can't be bothered unless you keep it serious.
Hence "retard".

Steven

[RandFan]

I can assure you now that ~faith~ plays no part in a true initiate of gnosticism. Wow, now there is killer argument. You sure shut me up. Never mind the dictionary definitions. Your assertion that gnosticism is not a religious belief is silly (faith is belief see definition)

Stop lecturing me about what I know and what I don't know. You play the same tune every thread. No, I only play the same tune with YOU! Ever wonder why that is?

This thread invites discussion on whether the true message of Jesus was that given by gnostics or literalists. It also invites discussion on the ramifications for [literal] christianity given that gnostic christianity was what was meant to be preached. There are a number of assumptions in that paragraph that most of us quite rightly feel are unwarranted. There is a large body of work on the early Christian church that suggest there is no "true message". On the contrary, there are a number of messages that are given by those who wrote the New Testament.

See Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/sr=8-1/qid=1154046154/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9389192-4477440?redirect=true&ie=UTF8) and also Who Wrote The Bible (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/sr=8-1/qid=1154046154/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9389192-4477440?redirect=true&ie=UTF8). The last link is a video that deal with both the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.

If you aren't interested, then don't take part. Simple.I have every right to involve myself. I have every right to critique you. Put me on Ignore if you don't like it. If you can grow up and and get over yourself we can have a good discussion.

[SezMe]

This thread invites discussion on whether the true message of Jesus was that given by gnostics or literalists. It also invites discussion on the ramifications for [literal] christianity given that gnostic christianity was what was meant to be preached.

There are a number of assumptions in that paragraph that most of us quite rightly feel are unwarranted. There is a large body of work on the early Christian church that suggest there is no "true message". On the contrary, there are a number of messages that are given by those who wrote the New Testament.
RandFan is spot on here. In addition to questioning "true" I would also like to question "Jesus". There is precious little evidence for the existence of the traditional notion of the Jesus of the Christian religion.

So, lifegazer, there is a lot of fundamental groundwork to be done in this thread before we can get on the the topic you want to pursue. Get to it.

[lifegazer]

So because you've discovered an old form of "true" Christianity we should all ignore the very real existence of the current forms of Christianity and their very real influence on the world around us? And yes, I realize what 'X' and 'Y' represented.

On the contrary. I think you should all help to destroy this influence by spreading the news that their religion is flawed... and explain why.

Again, this argument doesn't explain why modern Christianity and its influence should not be addressed, or why Gnosticism is any more "true" than orthodox Christianity.

Gnosticism was the message trying to be conveyed. Orthodoxy is misrepresentation of that message.
If orthodoxy doesn't even report the actual message reported by christ and his followers, then it's claim to be the mediator of Christ's "good news" is rubbish. Simple as that.

If 'X' were a flying pink unicorn and 'Y' was a flying purple unicorn then 'X' would be a more accurate description of what Lg said. But it doesn't follow that 'X' is real and 'Y' is unreal.

The X & Y scenario has nothing to do with 'Lg'. It's an allegory to a more meaningful truth related to the actual content of this thread.

Regretfully, I don't see the point in discussing this further with you. You're just being repeatedly difficult (least offensive word I could think of) - a reflection of inherent anger. Though I have tried my best with you.
Adios.

[RandFan]

...there are a number of messages that are given by those who wrote the New Testament. I should note that there are a lot of things written about Christ that didn't even make it into the bible. Looking at the body of all of the writings it is obvious that there is a lot of contradiction and diversity of belief. Even that which ended up in the Bible is contradictory and has been the source for much controversy. The notion that there exists some text that would be above the controversy and that could somehow show us the "true" meaning of Christs message is silly.

And I have to agree with SezMe. Assuming the man even lived there is no way we can know that he did and said what was attributed to him. And let's keep in mind that much of what is attributed to him was said by others, IIRC.

[lifegazer]

RandFan is spot on here. In addition to questioning "true" I would also like to question "Jesus". There is precious little evidence for the existence of the traditional notion of the Jesus of the Christian religion.

So, lifegazer, there is a lot of fundamental groundwork to be done in this thread before we can get on the the topic you want to pursue. Get to it.
A gnostic doesn't even have to believe in the actual existence of Jesus. That's the beauty of gnosticism. In fact, pagan gnosticism (gnostics existed all around the Med. Sea long before Jesus supposedly was alive) was all myth-based stories used as allegories which pointed towards spiritual truth.
Indeed, the book I mentioned in the OP argues that the story of Jesus was just that - a myth.
I actually happen to think that he did live, but that's a different argument for another thread... and isn't relevant here.

At the end of the day, I'm not asking any of you atheists to join a religion; I'm merely informing you of facts that should have an impact upon the way you think and act in the future.

I don't mind if you don't take christian-literalists seriously... but since you know very little about gnosticism or biblical allegory, you should watch your step if you ever encounter a gnostic.

Do you know that most of the Greek philosophers were gnostics? No bull.

[Foster Zygote]

And let's keep in mind that much of what is attributed to him was said by others, IIRC.
And let's keep in mind that Paul never actually met Jesus so it's difficult to assert that his version was the "true" Christianity.

Steven

[lifegazer]

I should note that there are a lot of things written about Christ that didn't even make it into the bible. Looking at the body of all of the writings it is obvious that there is a lot of contradiction and diversity of belief. Even that which ended up in the Bible is contradictory and has been the source for much controversy. The notion that there exists some text that would be above the controversy and that could somehow show us the "true" meaning of Christs message is silly.

What a fool.
Now shut up and listen and learn...
What's included in the NT is a consequence of biblical literalists being the authority on such things.
What's not included in the bible are mostly GNOSTIC texts which allude to a truth which literalists claim is heretical.
The reason why there is some contradiction amongst the included text, is that the text is allegorical and NOT historical.

WTF do you think I've been trying to say all evening?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Meffy]

since you know very little about gnosticism or biblical allegory
Verily, it is written that since you know very little (next to nothing, actually) about what any of us knows or does not know, maybe it's you who should watch your step, lest thy shoes become soiled with thine own spoutings.
WTF do you think I've been trying to say all evening?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Something along the lines of "I'm right! You're a buncha reee-tards." Why not throw in a racial epithet along with the infantile insults next time?

[Foster Zygote]

I'm tempted to take the OP to a Christian forum and watch their reactions... but I really can't be bothered tonight.
Was hoping for some extensive decent discussion from this. I guess atheists really don't give a ****. Sobeit.

Man, I would pay to see that! I'm sure you would get lots of extensive, decent discussion from them. You'll no doubt soon convince them of their error and then they'll convert in large numbers. Please let us know if you do this so we can watch.

Steven

[lifegazer]

And let's keep in mind that Paul never actually met Jesus so it's difficult to assert that his version was the "true" Christianity.

Steven
Paul met Christ in his mind... where Christ actually exists.

Anyone who claims to know about such things would surely know that meeting Christ isn't a case of meeting a bloke down at the pub for a pint of lager and a packet of crisps.

[Meffy]

I met Godot. It's true!

[RandFan]

What a fool.
Now shut up and listen and learn... Riiight, your telling ME to learn?

What's included in the NT is a consequence of biblical literalists being the authority on such things. The authors and editors were not monolithic and most certainly not in agreement.

What's not included in the bible are mostly GNOSTIC texts which allude to a truth which literalists claim is heretical. There was no monolithic Gnostic movement. There is no Gnostic text that unifies or clarifies Christian beliefs. The underlying themes might seem unified in their difference to the text that is included in the Bible but that is the extent of it.

The reason why there is some contradiction amongst the included text, is that the text is allegorical and NOT historical. It's not that simple. Much of it wasn't written allegorically. Unlike the OT much of the NT about Christ's life was supposed to be historical. The Gnostic writing simply contradict much of the other writings. There is nothing to demonstrate that they are significantly more important or more in-line with what Christ believed.

WTF do you think I've been trying to say all evening?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!If you would get over yourself perhaps you could learn something.

[lifegazer]

Wow, now there is killer argument. You sure shut me up. Never mind the dictionary definitions. Your assertion that gnosticism is not a religious belief is silly (faith is belief see definition)

A true initiate of gnosticism does not 'believe' that he knows the truth... nor does he have 'faith' that what he knows is true. He just KNOWS that it is true.
You're trying to argue that absolute faith & absolute knowledge mean the same thing. It doesn't wash.
And I don't give a monkies what dictionaries say. Since when were the publishers of dictionaries the absolute authority upon everything?
What's important is that a literal christian has faith that Christ lived and can save him... whereas a gnostic christian knows christ lives [within his own being] and that he has been saved.

If you cannot fathom the distinction, then that's your problem. I'm not wasting precious time arguin the toss with you.

There is a large body of work on the early Christian church that suggest there is no "true message".

Cite that work - and the relevant text - and I will address it.

I have every right to involve myself. I have every right to critique you. Put me on Ignore if you don't like it. If you can grow up and and get over yourself we can have a good discussion.
We can't have a good discussion if you parrot the same negative conclusions in every thread.

Regardless, it's apparent you need to do some homework if you want to be serious about this thread. It's obvious to me that you know nothing of gnosticism, save dictionary definitions.

[RandFan]

A true initiate of gnosticism does not 'believe' that he knows the truth... nor does he have 'faith' that what he knows is true. He just KNOWS that it is true. Based on what theory? Is this knowledge objective? If it isn't then it doesn't mater what the hell he thinks or believes that he knows it is still belief.

You're trying to argue that absolute faith & absolute knowledge mean the same thing. It doesn't wash.No, I'm arguing no such thing. However, to clarify, there is objective truth and belief. I don't deal in absolutes.

And I don't give a monkies what dictionaries say. Since when were the publishers of dictionaries the absolute authority upon everything? So you are making it up as you go along? How can we communicate if words only mean what you want them to mean?

What's important is that a literal christian has faith that Christ lived and can save him... whereas a gnostic christian knows christ lives [within his own being] and that he has been saved.Sure, you bet. Can you prove that a Gnostic Christian knows that Christ lives?

If you cannot fathom the distinction, then that's your problem. I'm not wasting precious time arguin the toss with you.What distinction? A belief is a belief. Believing that you know the truth is still a belief.

Regardless, it's apparent you need to do some homework if you want to be serious about this thread. It's obvious to me that you know nothing of gnosticism, save dictionary definitions.You haven't demonstrated ANY knowledge of gnosticism. Just some claim that Gnostics "knew" the truth. Can you prove that they "knew" the truth? Aside from that you haven't told us little if anything about Gnostics.

[Foster Zygote]

Paul met Christ in his mind... where Christ actually exists.

Wow! That's where I met the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Steven

[CapelDodger]

I find it hard to care about the politico/religious affiliations of a 1st century tent maker turned hit man turned born again evangelist. We have enough fatheads like that in the here and now.I feel much the same about Bronze Age goatherds, Neolithic farmers and New Age crystal-huggers. It's all bollocks.

[SezMe]

A true initiate of gnosticism does not 'believe' that he knows the truth... nor does he have 'faith' that what he knows is true. He just KNOWS that it is true.
I have to join RandFan - slain by a killer argument. Just.Blown.Away.

And I don't give a monkies what dictionaries say. Since when were the publishers of dictionaries the absolute authority upon everything?
Here I agree with you - linguists are not absolute authorities on everything. But that is irrelevant to this thread.

Words (oh and smilies, I guess) are the only means we have to communicate here, lifegazer. In order for that communication to be a precise and accurate, it is important to use words in a way that has consistent usage between all of us. In turn, that is why dictionary definitions are so important for forum conversations like this. They give us a common ground upon which to build our arguments.

You ought to care about good word usage - says a lot that you don't.

[Foster Zygote]

A true initiate of gnosticism does not 'believe' that he knows the truth... nor does he have 'faith' that what he knows is true. He just KNOWS that it is true.

This seems to be a new theological direction for you. Have you converted to Gnosticism? Is this conversion related to the experiments you ran a while back? I've only heard this mentioned by others so I wonder if you could describe those experiments and reveal their results?

Steven

[CapelDodger]

Wow! That's where I met the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

StevenThe FSM is a statist perversion of the original faith - the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

[Pauliesonne]

Lives a lie and was born with no penis.
Is the bastard son of a woman and a golden labradour.
Farts when he see's a vagina.
Eats none of the above.
Goats in french maid's are a fantasie for him.
After sex, he likes to stick a pineapple up his rectum.
Z is not the last word in the english alphabet. ( according to him )
Ever since he was born, he's wanted to return to the womb.
Ronald Reagan fired him for making shrewd remarks about his goldfish and a certain alcoholic drink.

[RandFan]

And I don't give a monkies what dictionaries say. Since when were the publishers of dictionaries the absolute authority upon everything?
Here I agree with you - linguists are not absolute authorities on everything. But that is irrelevant to this thread. I agree. If a Gnostic isn't what the dictionary says it is (I did provide another source FWIW) then we ought to come to a consensus or try to come to a consensus as to what that word means. But the consensus ought to be based on some logic. It shouldn't arbitrarily be what lifegazer or anyone else says that it is.

[CapelDodger]

A true initiate of gnosticism does not 'believe' that he knows the truth... nor does he have 'faith' that what he knows is true. He just KNOWS that it is true.
That's nonsense, and I know that just from parsing it.

And I don't give a monkies what dictionaries say.
Humpty Dumpty had the same attitude, and look where it got him.

[lifegazer]

No, I'm arguing no such thing. However, to clarify, there is objective truth and belief. I don't deal in absolutes.

Name one objective truth. In other words, define what is objective.

It has been explained many times that the world is an experience given by sensations and the ability to fathom the order thereof.
Therefore, do not tell me that an objective truth is that the world exists and revolves around the existing sun.

Can you prove that a Gnostic Christian knows that Christ lives?

Not to you, no, since your idea of 'proof' would involve what you consider to be a miracle or a meeting with Christ at the pub.

What distinction? A belief is a belief. Believing that you know the truth is still a belief.

I never said that they "believed" that they knew the truth. I said that they knew the truth. A distinction.

Further, you cannot claim that you absolutely KNOW that all knowledge is by faith. Your claim is reduced to a faith in itself by your own proclamation.

[Foster Zygote]

The FSM is a statist perversion of the original faith - the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

The heretics who follow the false horn will meet divine justice drowning in the sacred red sauce of truth! The noodley appendage will smite the unbelievers with the garlic bread of retribution.

So sayeth Steven

[Meffy]

Garlic bread?! Yum -- smite away. I have teeth, and I'm not afraid to use them! *ganache ganache*

[lifegazer]

Wow! That's where I met the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Steven
Gnostics don't believe in the reality of anything, except God.
To meet Christ in your mind is to meet the totality of existence and know both yourself... and God.

As I said... get serious please. You're intelligent... use it.

[Foster Zygote]

Garlic bread?! Yum -- smite away. I have teeth, and I'm not afraid to use them! *ganache ganache*

Honestly Meffy, if you won't be serious then I can't be bothered to argue with you. So I'm just going to take my ball and go home.

Steven

P.S. It's *gnash gnash* Jeez, everybody knows that!

[RandFan]

Name one objective truth. In other words, define what is objective. In terms that I believe we can but agree on, objective is that which you and I can both come to agreement on because we can both demonstrate that it is true. If you drop a ball and it falls to the ground and I drop a ball and it falls to the ground then we can both agree that there is an underlying order that consistently demonstrates to both of us the same thing.

It has been explained many times that the world is an experience given by sensations and the ability to fathom the order thereof. Fine, let's be consistent. Objective is that which we can both test and can both come to the same conclusions about. "Objective reality" is that which causes you to go to work to earn money to feed yourself and keep a roof over your head. You claim that it is just an illusion but you go anyway.

Therefore, do not tell me that an objective truth is that the world exists and revolves around the existing sun. Objective truth is that which is consistent. The day you stop going to work, using a computer, eating food and drinking water is the day that I will believe that you are completely convinced that there is no objective reality.

Not to you, no, since your idea of 'proof' would involve what you consider to be a miracle or a meeting with Christ at the pub. No, I'm just talking about a consistency in our objective/percieved reality. When I come home from work I'm met by the same woman. She never magically becomes Heidi Klume or a swan that lays golden eggs. So, I'm only asking for proof of the order that your banker would ask of you to demonstrate that you have a job. I'm assuming that you live by the same underlying order that the rest of us live by. When you want to buy a car or get a credit card you have to demonstrate some truth about yourself. I'm guessing that arguing with the banker that reality isn't real doesn't get you a loan, right?

Yeah, all of a suddent percieved/objective reality hits you in the ass and you demonstrate those truths.

I never said that they "believed" that they knew the truth. I said that they knew the truth. A distinction. And we would know this how?

Further, you cannot claim that you absolutely KNOW that all knowledge is by faith. Your claim is reduced to a faith in itself by your own proclamation.By your logic we can't know nothing.

The truth is that I don't absolutely KNOW anything. However I go to work because it works and when I don't I get hungry and my landlord kicks me out in the street. I'm assuming that you live by the same set of underlying rules of our perceived reality.

[Foster Zygote]

Gnostics don't believe in the reality of anything, except God.
To meet Christ in your mind is to meet the totality of existence and know both yourself... and God.

As I said... get serious please. You're intelligent... use it.

I am serious, about learning the result of your experiment.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

or a swan that lays golden eggs.
I have a niece who s**ts nickles. Of course she has to eat them first so it doesn't really pay off.

Steven

[RandFan]

I have a niece who s**ts nickles. Of course she has to eat them first so it doesn't really pay off.

Steven:D

I love my wife but just once I'd like to come home to Heidi Klume. Sadly, I would have to turn into Brad Pitt or she wouldn't want to be with me.

Reality, it is what it is.

[lifegazer]

In terms that I believe we can but agree on, objective is that which you and I can both come to agreement on because we can both demonstrate that it is true.

This asserts that only actions (demonstrations) are true/real. What about the underlying being behind them?

If you drop a ball and it falls to the ground and I drop a ball and it falls to the ground then we can both agree that there is an underlying order that consistently demonstrates to both of us the same thing.

Maybe - it proves that there is underlying order inherent within the EXPERIENCE of the world. But it tells us nothing about REALITY since experience isn't reality. Neither does it tell us from whence this order comes.
In short, it says nothing objective about any real thing... which means, essentially, that it isn't an objective truth.
It's a bit like saying that Tom always chases Jerry. That's how far your statement goes to providing an objective truth about existence.

Fine, let's be consistent. Objective is that which we can both test and can both come to the same conclusions about.

How do we "test" this?
Via demonstration, via experience?!

"Objective reality" is that which causes you to go to work to earn money to feed yourself and keep a roof over your head. You claim that it is just an illusion but you go anyway.

Silly... and far from objective.
Many men have lived without working for money or without the need for money.
Regardless, you don't even address the nature of man or why most men work or whether there is a possibility that mankind doesn't have to work - you just blurt out the incomplete evidence of your sense and claim it to be absolutely universal.
That is not objectivity.

Objective truth is that which is consistent.

Two hundred years ago, it was "consistent" to force black people to be slaves. Would it have been an objective truth to declare black people as lower forms of humanity? Why not? After all, objective truths are - according to you - just persistent events that one experiences!!!!!!!!!!

The day you stop going to work, using a computer, eating food and drinking water is the day that I will believe that you are completely convinced that there is no objective reality.

I am not saying that there is no experienced world and that my being is not involved within this experience. I'm saying that the quality of one's involvement depends upon whether one knows that one is a slave or a master to the experience that one creates for itself.

By your logic we can know nothing. I don't absolutely KNOW anything. However I go to work because it works and when I don't I get hungry and my landlord kicks me out in the street. I'm assuming that you live by the same set of underlying rules of our perceived reality.
Gnostics know two things - that they are God... and that the world of experience is theirs to mould as they would ordain.
That's why so-called miracles are part of gnostic truth: a gnostic is no longer slave to the world, but it's master.

[Meffy]

Honestly Meffy, if you won't be serious then I can't be bothered to argue with you. So I'm just going to take my ball and go home.
Awwww...

P.S. It's *gnash gnash* Jeez, everybody knows that!
No it's not, it's a delicious garlic ganache, goes great with garlic bread to give it that extra garlic flavor that real garlic aficionados crave.

[Meffy]

How much ganache could a gnostic gnash if a gnostic could gnash ganache?

[RandFan]

This asserts that only actions (demonstrations) are true/real. What about the underlying being behind them? Not relevant to this discussion. Do you address "the underlying being" when you are trying to get a loan?

Maybe - it proves that there is underlying order inherent within the EXPERIENCE of the world. But it tells us nothing about REALITY since experience isn't reality. Neither does it tell us from whence this order comes. So what? We live as though it is reality. That is the only truth that matters to you. It is that truth that you are forced to live by and it is that reality that makes it possible for you to use your computer. You can deny the reality but your actions belie you. That is the only reality that we have. If I claim I have a TV I can show you that TV. You can choose to believe that it isn't real but we can both still watch movies on it.

In short, it says nothing objective about any real thing... which means, essentially, that it isn't an objective truth. But it is a truth that you rely on. You rely on the underlying order to make your car work, to grow your food, to keep you dry. So all this bluster about no objective reality is meaningless in the long scheme of things because in the end you still have to demonstrate truth to get a loan.

It's a bit like saying that Tom always chases Jerry. That's how far your statement goes to providing an objective truth about existence.Saying that "Tom always chases Jerry" won't put food on the table. You getting of your rear end in the morning will. So you do.

How do we "test" this?We both do it. We both have the same results. I go to work and I can feed my family. I don't, I can't. You go to work, you can feed your family (or just yourself). You don't, you can't. Again, you can deny reality all day but at the end of that day you can't escape it.

Via demonstration, via experience?!Yep, otherwise, you aren't even there. You are but a figment of my imagination. I either accept that this reality is real or you don't exist.

Silly... and far from objective.Perhaps, but you still live as though it is.

Many men have lived without working for money or without the need for money.They haven't lived without food. You need food. And most of us don't have a choice about working for money. Most of us need money so we go to work. If it wasn't the truth we wouldn't do it.

Regardless, you don't even address the nature of man or why most men work or whether there is a possibility that mankind doesn't have to work - you just blurt out the incomplete evidence of your sense and claim it to be absolutely universal.Because there is no escaping cause and effect. If I don't work I starve. If I don't work I will become homeless. If I don't eat I will die. If I don't drink water I will die. If I don't protect myself from the elements I will die. And you, lifegazer, will eat food.

That is not objectivity. Perhaps not but you will be forced to live as though it is. You will still use your keyboard and mouse to control your computer. You will still walk using both legs. You will still use your mouth to consume food and water. You can claim to not believe in reality but reality is far more powerful than you and you will urinate and defecate and pass gas like all of the rest of us non-existing life forms because reality is stronger than you are.

Two hundred years ago, it was "consistent" to force black people to be slaves. Would it have been an objective truth to declare black people as lower forms of humanity? Why not? After all, objective truths are - according to you - just persistent events that one experiences!!!!!!!!!! Non sequitur. The objective truth was that people enslaved others. Since recorded history no one has been able to live without food and water. Gravity has always worked and you will still sit down on the toilet to eliminate your wastes. Slavery has come and gone but the physical world has not. It might not be real but you live as though it is.

I am not saying that there is no experienced world and that my being is not involved within this experience. I'm saying that the quality of one's involvement depends upon whether one knows that one is a slave or a master to the experience that one creates for itself. You still eat food.
You still drink water.
You still urinate and defecate.
You still bleed when cut.
You still sleep at night.

Gnostics know two things - that they are God... and that the world of experience is theirs to mould as they would ordain. But this can't be proven anymore than the literalists beliefs can be proven.

That's why so-called miracles are part of gnostic truth: a gnostic is no longer slave to the world, but it's master.Sure thing mister gnostic, don't eat, don't drink water, don't sleep. You do that for 14 days straight in a controlled experiment and I will believe you. Otherwise it's all just words.

[SezMe]

Gnostics don't believe in the reality of anything, except God.
That does it. I have now officially converted to Gnosticism.



Now I don't believe lifegazer exists. Gnosticism is sweet.

[Foster Zygote]

Lifegazer, please tell me about your experiment.

Steven

[wollery]

I noted a while ago that Lifegazer was abandoning his own threads faster than he did before his sabbatical

7th July; Individual experience for The One (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59553), Lifegazer's last post #61

13th July; Why science must eventually reform (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58345), Lifegazer's last post #207. Actually made it to page 6.

15th July; One ~Thing~ observing two stars simultaneously (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60013), Lifegazer's last post #29.

18th July; my philosophy - pyramid-down (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60141), Lifegazer's last post #21.

19th July; The brain & human experience (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60188), Lifegazer's last post #48

25th July; The Annihilation of the p-zombie (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60550), Lifegazer's last post #72.

He used to argue the toss for page after page. Now, apart from one thread, he's giving up before the end of the second page. It's also interesting to note how he's suddenly changed topics, the last thread was about the p-zombie, this one's about Paul being a Gnostic. I get the feeling that he's searching for some topic on which he can get someone to agree with him, or at least admit that he's raised a good point.


Oh, by the way Lifegazer, you claim that the difference between Gnostics and people of other faiths is that Gnostics know that they are right. The problem with this argument is that most people of most religions would say that they know that they're right, that they know that their god exists.

[Foster Zygote]

Might someone point me to Lifegazer's "experiment" post? Did he have some sort of a meltdown? He seems reluctant to discuss it.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

Never mind. I think I've found it.

Steven

[RandFan]

Might someone point me to Lifegazer's "experiment" post? Did he have some sort of a meltdown? He seems reluctant to discuss it. I knew that regardless of the outcome his experiment that he would be back. No, I wasn't the only one to make that prediction but he's back.

Lifegazer?

[Foster Zygote]

I knew that regardless of the outcome his experiment that he would be back. No, I wasn't the only one to make that prediction but he's back.

Lifegazer?
Now I kind of feel sorry for him. I had thought he was simply seeking conflict, but now I suspect he may need professional help. He seems very angry and depressed to me.

Steven

[ynot]

This thread is sooooo funny! Just wanted to thank everyone involved. Especially Lifegazer. You should have your own show.

[RandFan]

...much of the NT about Christ's life was supposed to be historical.Having watched the video Who Wrote the Bible (http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Video&op=view&video_id=43) again, I want to correct something. The gospels were supposedly historical but were actually written for propaganda purposes. It's a great video BTW.

[Ryokan]

Never mind. I think I've found it.

Steven

Did you read his farewell thread? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=44370)

[Meffy]

Did you read his farewell thread? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=44370)
Golly.
Indeed, I'm going on "a retreat" next week which will herald the dawn of this new era. From now on, I will seek existential salvation from the inside, as Jesus suggested ("the kingdom of God is within you").
And if I ever find it, woe betide this ******* awful world that I have had to endure. I will not obliterate it, but I will change it... whether it likes it or not.

Those that prefer the status-quo of selfishness and greed and separation and injustice and inequality and war and death, had better hope that nobody like me is ever successful.
Unfortunately though, you're all **********. Because success is guaranteed. So enjoy the rest of your mingy experiences and don't come complaining when those four horses come riding over the horizon.
Just... golly. I missed the second coming, the beginning of the new era, and didn't even get a souvenir tee-shirt. :-( Did anyone else notice the new era?

Lg, hope you find at least enough existential salvation to lose the pottymouth. It's considered poor form for godlike superbeings to be as petulant as that. Except when they're in world-destroying snits.

And remember, retreat is the opposite of attack.

[edited for clarity]

[nescafe]

Yeah whatever.
You haven't go a clue what a gnostic is. I can assure you now that ~faith~ plays no part in a true initiate of gnosticism.
Oh, so you are a member of the direct experience of the Divine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis) school of Gnostic thought, then? If so, what proof do you have that your direct experience was real, and not just a result of a temporal lobe seizure (http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/The_Paranormal/trascendent_experiences.htm), powerful psychedelics, or just a mind-blowing orgasm?

Since you are a "true initiate", perhaps you can tell us what (if any) organization you are an initiate to, when your initiation was, etc.

This thread invites discussion on whether the true message of Jesus was that given by gnostics or literalists. It also invites discussion on the ramifications for [literal] christianity given that gnostic christianity was what was meant to be preached.
The "true message of Jesus" died with him. All of his "message" that we currently have now is based Other People's Interpretations of that message.

[davefoc]

I have noticed that several people seemed to have been mildly annoyed by some of lifegazer's responses.

Why?

Lifegazer is a believer. He doesn't hide that fact. For most of us RandFan did a pretty good job of expressing how we see religion. But a believer either isn't likely to understand that or if he understands it he isn't likely to believe it.

So lifegazer expressed his true views about what RandFan had to say. The views weren't unexpected. Perhaps they weren't expressed with the maximum of tact, but do we really want everybody that posts here that disagrees with our particular view of the world to only post if they can figure out a way to express their views in such a way that they won't annoy us. Count me in the group that appreciates candor over tact.

[davefoc]

The reason that I clicked on this thread in the first place was because I was hoping for a little more insight into the idea of what gnoticism was.

I was surprised that lifegazer had a thought that there was anything consistent enough in the gnosticism to get the idea that they had happened on the one true religion.

My view of gnoticism before this thread was that it was just a word for grouping miscellaneous proto Christian sects together that had beliefs that weren't quite consistent with the Christianity that evolved over the centuries. I didn't realize there were sects completely unrelated to Christ also known as Gnostics. Is this correct?

[nescafe]

My view of gnoticism before this thread was that it was just a word for grouping miscellaneous proto Christian sects together that had beliefs that weren't quite consistent with the Christianity that evolved over the centuries. I didn't realize there were sects completely unrelated to Christ also known as Gnostics. Is this correct?
The root word here is Gnosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis), which is usually used to denote a couple of things:
Direct experience of the {oneness of all things|Divine|mind of God|reality behind the veil of Maya}
The experience and process of acquiring the above.Anyone who thinks that the above is possible and desireable can be called a Gnostic.
(ed. markup)

[wollery]

I have noticed that several people seemed to have been mildly annoyed by some of lifegazer's responses.

Why?

Lifegazer is a believer. He doesn't hide that fact. For most of us RandFan did a pretty good job of expressing how we see religion. But a believer either isn't likely to understand that or if he understands it he isn't likely to believe it.

So lifegazer expressed his true views about what RandFan had to say. The views weren't unexpected. Perhaps they weren't expressed with the maximum of tact, but do we really want everybody that posts here that disagrees with our particular view of the world to only post if they can figure out a way to express their views in such a way that they won't annoy us. Count me in the group that appreciates candor over tact.I have no problem with believers, provided that they understand the definition of belief, i.e. faith without proof. Lifegazer (and others) come to a skeptic board and try to argue that their beliefs are founded in factual proof, and then get all huffy when people challenge them on it. Lifegazer is the worst offender in this respect, he offers philosophical arguments that are unoriginal, barely philosophical, illogical and, to be blunt, assertions rather than arguments. Anyone who disagrees with him, offers any counterargument, or points out flaws in his argument is either ignored or insulted (usually the latter). He's very careful to keep his insults within the forum rules, but insults they are. Then he has the gall to tell people to grow up if they say anything insulting or disparaging about him.

It's really not at all surprising that people have little patience with him.

[RandFan]

The reason that I clicked on this thread in the first place was because I was hoping for a little more insight into the idea of what gnoticism was.Yeah, it's one of those words you hear about and get information about and it doesn't all completly stick in your brain until something brings it to the forefront.

My view of gnoticism before this thread was that it was just a word for grouping miscellaneous proto Christian sects together that had beliefs that weren't quite consistent with the Christianity that evolved over the centuries. This was similar to my understanding.

Boy were we wrong. The Gnostics, ~know~ the truth. Damn, all of this time and it was right under our noses. This is sure going to piss off the Mormons. They think they have direct knowledge and ~know~ the truth.

[davefoc]

Thanks for the response Wollery,
As an infrequent participant in threads with lifegazer it was presumptious of me to make a post which was judgmental about something that I wasn't all that familiar with.

I suspect no religious people are going to be able to have conversations with skeptics on their religion that will be completely satisfactory to either party. So, I wouldn't expect a person like lifegazer to express his ideas on religion in a way that I find logical or self consistent. Similarly, I don't expect lifegazer or any believer to understand where I am coming from all that well either. I think that's just the way it is and the apparent expectations of skeptics that somehow discussions with believers will follow what the skeptics view as conversational norms are rarely going to be met IMHO.

For what it is worth I am not saying that I would not enjoy discussing lifegazer's ideas with him, I am saying that I wouldn't have high expectations for any kind of meeting of the minds as a result though.

[davefoc]

Yeah, it's one of those words you hear about and get information about and it doesn't all completly stick in your brain until something brings it to the forefront.


Well, I just spent an hour or so reading through various stuff on gnostics. I was hoping to get to the point that I understood enough to ask a question that would elicit some deep understanding of what was going on here from RandFan.

Alas, I remain too confused to ask a rational question. On one level, I suppose nescafe said it all. But, it seems somewhat difficult to tie that definition into the way that the word is used. The Nag Hammadi texts are generally labeled as gnostic writings, but in reading through some of them I didn't find much reference to a gnostic philosophy. Most of what I read just sounded like routine new testament story telling but with some different details.

Some of what I read suggested that the word is used to cover so much that it is hard to say that the word has much value. I think what lifegazer seems to be talking about is some modern movement that has focused on some particular subset of gnoticism as a great truth. But perhaps I'm off base there.

[Wudang]

Golly.

Just... golly. I missed the second coming, the beginning of the new era, and didn't even get a souvenir tee-shirt. :-( Did anyone else notice the new era?


It was awsome! First lifegazer emerged with his god-like powers but before he could re-arrange the world he had to battle Godzilla and King Kong. This a) tired him out and b) caused everyone great confusion as he kept yelling "no suffering anywhere" whilest being pummeled on by the big KK. Eventually he won and re-arranged the world completely. However while he was having a bit of breather, the Starship Enterprise arrived in a flood of chronometric particles and Kirk put things back the way they were. Unfortunately he made 1 mistake - he put lg back unchanged as well and still not knowing the difference between imply and infer. I actually kept some screenshots of the battle but I promised the government not to show them to anyone, for the general good you understand.

[Meffy]

Thanks. I probably subconsciously noticed something was going on but Microsoft Solitaire is just SOOOO engrossing... well, you can see how these things happen.

P.S.: It would've been more fun if KK had been Kurious Kathy instead of King Kong. But we can't have everything, can we?

[nescafe]

Well, I just spent an hour or so reading through various stuff on gnostics. I was hoping to get to the point that I understood enough to ask a question that would elicit some deep understanding of what was going on here from RandFan.



Well, from what I can tell, LG found that some of the Gnostic texts agreed with his conception of the universe as $DEITY, and came back to educate us. He also implied that he was a "true initiate", which usually means either:
He has gone past just hanging out with those crazy O.T.O/Wicca/Pagan/Golden Dawn/(insert favourite occult organization here) people and actually forked over some cash and gone though whatever initiation ceremony they have.
He read a book that purports to "reveal the secrets of $occult" and then went through whatever self-initiation process that book has.
As above, except he just thought about the self initiation process alot.
Alas, I remain too confused to ask a rational question. On one level, I suppose nescafe said it all. But, it seems somewhat difficult to tie that definition into the way that the word is used.
:)
You could spend a lifetime studying the various mostly-dead forms of gnostic christianity, and not get a good answer. Gnostic traditions tend to have alot of occult knowledge.

The Nag Hammadi texts are generally labeled as gnostic writings, but in reading through some of them I didn't find much reference to a gnostic philosophy. Most of what I read just sounded like routine new testament story telling but with some different details.
I have only read a few excerpts online, but the Hypostasis of the Archons (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html) is chock-full of gnostic symbolism.

I think what lifegazer seems to be talking about is some modern movement that has focused on some particular subset of gnoticism as a great truth. But perhaps I'm off base there. I think he has discovered that old religions have views that coincide with his philosophies, and that he wants us to see that it gives his philosophy some Authority.

[davefoc]

I read through your link Nescafe and I am not sure what to make of it.

One thing that I didn't find last night was a link to some commentary on the Nag Hammadi stuff.

The piece seems to be a spin on the biblical creation stories with a little bit of Noah thrown in. What specifically makes this gnostic?

Did this particular set of musings really represent a segment of the religious beliefs of the time or was this just the random musings of a semi-lunatic that happened to be saved for posterity?

[nescafe]

I read through your link Nescafe and I am not sure what to make of it.

One thing that I didn't find last night was a link to some commentary on the Nag Hammadi stuff.

The piece seems to be a spin on the biblical creation stories with a little bit of Noah thrown in. What specifically makes this gnostic?

Did this particular set of musings really represent a segment of the religious beliefs of the time or was this just the random musings of a semi-lunatic that happened to be saved for posterity?
Well, this is some of the stuff that makes it Gnostic:
The reference to Sophia as an aspect of godhead.
Samael, a creation of Sophia, as the creator of the material world.
The references to "the rulers", which are creations of Samael.
The way the story of the snake in the garder was twisted -- the snake's actions in deciving Eve was guided by the "female spiritual principle", which appears to be another way of referring to Sophia. It looks like Man's fall from grace was from the grace of the creators of the material world, and that fall was orchestrated by an aspect of Godhead.
The recapitulation of the nature of the rulers of the material world by Eleleth, and how those rulers are not the same as the rulers of the "limitless realms", who are incorruptible, and (one assumes) aspects of Godhead.As for whether or not it is the ravings of a madman, or one touched by God -- I cannot tell the difference. :)

[RandFan]

I was hoping to get to the point that I understood enough to ask a question that would elicit some deep understanding of what was going on here from RandFan. :D You suppose much my friend. I have a deep understanding of pimentos and olives. The combination of the two, now that floors me.

[RandFan]

Well, this is some of the stuff that makes it Gnostic:

The reference to Sophia as an aspect of godhead.
Samael, a creation of Sophia, as the creator of the material world.
The references to "the rulers", which are creations of Samael.
The way the story of the snake in the garder was twisted -- the snake's actions in deciving Eve was guided by the "female spiritual principle", which appears to be another way of referring to Sophia. It looks like Man's fall from grace was from the grace of the creators of the material world, and that fall was orchestrated by an aspect of Godhead.
The recapitulation of the nature of the rulers of the material world by Eleleth, and how those rulers are not the same as the rulers of the "limitless realms", who are incorruptible, and (one assumes) aspects of Godhead.As for whether or not it is the ravings of a madman, or one touched by God -- I cannot tell the difference. :)See, that's the thing, there is usually someone that can answer questions here at JREF.