Listen, and listen carefully, because I'm not going to repeat it: You do not change or truncate someones post, regardless of anything, because it may change what the person meant, which is unacceptable. This is the law from every internet forum in the ether. It doesn't matter what you thought or what you intended, don't do it. If you weren't a mod you would have got warned for that, and rightly so.
Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Listen, and listen carefully, because I'm not going to repeat it: You do not change or truncate someones post, regardless of anything, because it may change what the person meant, which is unacceptable. This is the law from every internet forum in the ether. It doesn't matter what you thought or what you intended, don't do it. If you weren't a mod you would have got warned for that, and rightly so.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
I will not say anything to this particular discussion. Anything I say would be bias.
So a non-partisan statement for both and all.
I agree here with Sorcerer.
Let me give you an example of why.
Revelation 4:11 (KJV)
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
It happens that most translation have taken out the word pleasure and by doing so, it changes the concept of creating evil dramatically to the reader.
http://biblehub.com/revelation/4-11.htm
I have also had some posters misquote me in their signatures to try to discredit me. Not quoting properly is a nasty process.
Again. This is not in any way speaking to the ongoing discussion.
Regards
DL
P.S.
Sorcerer. Our friend and I have a history of sorts. He is as much of a slave to his bias as we all are. He has been wrong before.:bawl:
You are right. I apologize. I assumed more pages based solely on his unmoderated history in the absence of an active moderator. My mistake.
There was no intention to change the meaning AND everyone who has told me their take on your original meaning has confirmed exactly what that quote was intended to convey. But perhaps someone should cite the SciForum guidelines. This is all I find:
Replying to posts
9. Provide context in your replies. If you’re responding to a particular post, quote enough of the post to put your reply in context – but don’t overquote (e.g. do not quote an entire lengthy post only to add a one-line comment at the bottom). If you’re replying to a specific person, make sure you make that clear in your reply, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings.
9. Provide context in your replies. If you’re responding to a particular post, quote enough of the post to put your reply in context – but don’t overquote (e.g. do not quote an entire lengthy post only to add a one-line comment at the bottom). If you’re replying to a specific person, make sure you make that clear in your reply, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings.
The only point I was making is that someone else did feel GIA's post "went too far". I did not comment on the severity of the response in any way, so that bit was superfluous.
My bold. Provide context. It was a short sentence and should have been quoted in full. My comments stand and the fact that you are trying to justify your actions speak volumes.
Bells
Staff member
Which you took completely out of context and misrepresented what he actually said.
That you were too heavy handed in asserting your moral authority in banning him for that OP when a polite warning would have sufficed.
It might behoove you to not use this sub-forum as your personal fiefdom and certainly not close threads to try to win an argument with another moderator or to prove a point to said moderator.
And you are still misrepresenting what people say.
You didn't want him to post it because it clearly shows how much you misrepresented what he said.
The irony is that you are happy to discuss what is being said in the backroom and misrepresent it to support your argument, but you complain when he corrects you.
If you didn't want him to post what he said in the backroom, then perhaps you should refrain from mentioning and misrepresenting it in the public forum to prove whatever point it is you are trying to prove in the first place.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
You did comment both indirectly and directly when you banned me and continue to do so by derailing here instead of taking all this personal B S to P.M.
A quick note of support to show position is welcomed by all posters and I thank those here. But the, eh, drudgery of listening to the personal opinions on character, which can have a place in this place, generally belongs in the P M.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
They help like here with misdirection instead of working to insure the pertinence of the content.
They add personal B. S. instead of taking it out.
It may be all planned by the owners to create drama. Hard to say how much manipulation is in play.
Regards
DL
roger_pearse
Registered Member
Interesting. Which Gnostic texts make these statements? (They're all online in English).
Gnosticism was no one thing. It consisted of creating an artificial mix of pop-paganism and Christianity, and the precise flavour of the mix varied quite a bit. Each major gnostic teacher tended to follow one or another of the philosophers (see Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 6 for a list). It perished, of course, as the Roman world grew too unpleasant for such a self-serving creed to mean much.
The term "heresy" in ancient times does not have the same meaning as in modern. It is, in fact, a pre-Christian term. It refers to how ancient philosophy worked. Each philosopher would find something original to say, and then charge pupils to listen to him. In this way they made a living; but of course they all had to innovate in some way. The "school" of such a philosopher - students sharing more or less the broad stream of ideas, although each with their own take on it (necessarily so) - was the "haeresis" or heresy.
The reason the early Christians adopted the term to refer to those who started mixing pagan ideas into their religion was that these were doing just the same as the philosophers did, and making up their own religion. The heresy of Valentinus naturally encompassed his followers (all of whom, as usual, introduce their own innovations). But the Christian teaching was NOT to add extra elements, but to transmit what Christ taught. This was the fundamental difference in approach; innovation versus tradition; and this is why talk of a gnostic teaching going back to the apostles must be nonsense. Gnosticism, by its very nature, could not transmit teaching unchanged.
Do be sceptical.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Interesting. Which Gnostic texts make these statements? (They're all online in English).
Gnosticism was no one thing. It consisted of creating an artificial mix of pop-paganism and Christianity, and the precise flavour of the mix varied quite a bit. Each major gnostic teacher tended to follow one or another of the philosophers (see Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 6 for a list). It perished, of course, as the Roman world grew too unpleasant for such a self-serving creed to mean much.
The term "heresy" in ancient times does not have the same meaning as in modern. It is, in fact, a pre-Christian term. It refers to how ancient philosophy worked. Each philosopher would find something original to say, and then charge pupils to listen to him. In this way they made a living; but of course they all had to innovate in some way. The "school" of such a philosopher - students sharing more or less the broad stream of ideas, although each with their own take on it (necessarily so) - was the "haeresis" or heresy.
The reason the early Christians adopted the term to refer to those who started mixing pagan ideas into their religion was that these were doing just the same as the philosophers did, and making up their own religion. The heresy of Valentinus naturally encompassed his followers (all of whom, as usual, introduce their own innovations). But the Christian teaching was NOT to add extra elements, but to transmit what Christ taught. This was the fundamental difference in approach; innovation versus tradition; and this is why talk of a gnostic teaching going back to the apostles must be nonsense. Gnosticism, by its very nature, could not transmit teaching unchanged.
Do be sceptical.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Well put.
All teachings from 2 or 3 thousand years back should change. That view and change is likely why Gnostic Christians were killed off by Constantine's church. They wanted literalists to conform to Rome's idea of what a Christian should be and what he should believe.
Karen Armstrong has pointed out that in that day, Jews and Gnostics Christians used to even change wording or add to scriptures just to spice up the conversation. We believe in perpetual seeking after God lest we land on one and turn into idol worshipers the way Christians and Muslims have.
As to where we write of equality for all people. We connect it to righteousness.
http://gnosis.org/library/ephip.htm
On Righteousness
The righteousness of God is a kind of sharing along with equality. There is equality in the heaven which is stretched out in all directions and contains the entire earth in its circle. The night reveals all the stars equally.
http://www.netplaces.com/gnostic-go...c-gospels/gnostic-view-of-gender-equality.htm
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
I agree. It is obvious.
Christians will not agree though. Intellectual dissonance is in their blood.
Regards
DL
GIA, I take offense to that mate - I am a Christian (granted, modified Christian) and I can see the Pagan influence... heck, my wife (professional massage therapist) and I have even dabbled with integrating Reiki and other energy manipulation into her massages with great success. The signs of Pagan influence are scattered throughout "Christian Tradition".
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Oops. A left wing Christian. Apologies my friend. There are not enough of you guys around in these places and I sometimes forget myself.
I still say that most Christians will not admit to their pagan roots. Mind you, it is mostly because they have not bothered to look and just go with their dogma and tradition. They tend not to know much of their own theology let alone where it came from. Right wingers are idol worshipers and do not seek any information. They might find something and cause them to doubt and thus fear any information.
I hope the Gnostic Christian view of equality for all prompts you to interest in that religion. You might be a decent fit as you seem to have thoughts.
Regards
DL
Heh, fair 'nuff - "christians" unwilling to acknowledge their own faults or history is why I left my first church... you talk about a closed minded bunch of bigot whew... you could almost SMELL the disdain coming off of them every time a newcomer entered the church! My wife and I are both members of Crosspoint United Methodist Church now... it's a very welcoming and very accepting church, not to mention having done a lot to help my wife and I through some tough times a few months back.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Churches can be a Godsend, if I can use that word.
I tend to hate the way churches teach, or fail to teach of God but I do recognize that at the local level, they do a lot of socially worthy work.
At the same time I recognize that as large corporations they consume a lot of our resources and produce nothing tangible.
We should learn to do better. Their first mandate was to look to the poor but they have forgotten their raison d'être and duty to humanity.
Regards
DL
Indeed... I dare say many churches don't deserve the "tax free" status they have *cough* West-borough Baptist* cough*
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
I hear. If only a small sum, I would not care but -------------
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/
To be fair, I don't know how much of that our pedophile victims manage to claw back for us.
Regards
DL
roger_pearse
Registered Member
Perhaps. But consider the alternative: a state body which awards special status to bodies they approve of, and refuses it to those they disapprove of.
I believe the term for this policy is "established church"
Far better to leave the whole can of worms alone. It was opened, here in the UK, entirely out of political spite, and with no good consequences.