Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

[roger_pearse]

All teachings from 2 or 3 thousand years back should change.

In favour, of course, of whatever the establishment today would like us to think. Which, sadly, is always the alternative held in mind. Hmm, yes. I think I can see a small problem with this.

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.

Erm, this is not the history of either Christianity or Gnosticism. Gnosticism was pretty much dead by Constantine's day. There were still Valentinians in the 4th century, and Marcionites in the 6th century; but the anti-heretical edicts are in the main directed at Manichaeans and Arians and the like.

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

Glad to see you go to a source: well done. I don't think I had come across this Carpocratian text before, I have to say. Very interesting. (Thanks for the links)

That said... what is the argument here? Is it not about *property*? That everything should be held communally, because everything is the same? **Specifically ... women as common property?** This does not, to my eye, read like an egalitarian manifesto from late 20th c. America (nor should we expect it to). The views you mentioned were, after all, the rallying cries of a late 20th century movement, not a second century one.

(Is this transcription accurate, do you suppose? At points the English becomes rather contorted: e.g. "For he himself gave the desire to sustain the race orders that it is to be supposed" ... which should read "suppressed", surely?)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

Hmm, are you saying that all Christians have not co-opted pagan ideas into their ideology? You would be wrong then sir, it was one of the tactics used to convert different cultures down through history.

I'm afraid this is a bit vague for me. Could you be more specific?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Greatest I am]

In favour, of course, of whatever the establishment today would like us to think. Which, sadly, is always the alternative held in mind. Hmm, yes. I think I can see a small problem with this.



Erm, this is not the history of either Christianity or Gnosticism. Gnosticism was pretty much dead by Constantine's day. There were still Valentinians in the 4th century, and Marcionites in the 6th century; but the anti-heretical edicts are in the main directed at Manichaeans and Arians and the like.



Glad to see you go to a source: well done. I don't think I had come across this Carpocratian text before, I have to say. Very interesting. (Thanks for the links)

That said... what is the argument here? Is it not about *property*? That everything should be held communally, because everything is the same? **Specifically ... women as common property?** This does not, to my eye, read like an egalitarian manifesto from late 20th c. America (nor should we expect it to). The views you mentioned were, after all, the rallying cries of a late 20th century movement, not a second century one.

(Is this transcription accurate, do you suppose? At points the English becomes rather contorted: e.g. "For he himself gave the desire to sustain the race orders that it is to be supposed" ... which should read "suppressed", surely?)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

It is a good thing that Gnostic Christians are not literalists. I trust no document that came from the Middle East from a time where there was no English, that has names like Mary and Thomas and Judas that handily means traitor. Just too damned convenient.

What I am saying is that I do not trust translators that well.

You will also know that my theology is still under construction as a lot of material never got past the Christian gospel burners.

That is why I tend to try to discuss morals as those are what is important in religions. Although one would not think so after looking at Christian and Muslim discrimination and denigration of women and gays without just cause.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm afraid this is a bit vague for me. Could you be more specific?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

Regards
DL

 

[roger_pearse]

I trust no document that came from the Middle East from a time where there was no English... What I am saying is that I do not trust translators that well.

Is this claim entirely compatible with producing an ancient text as evidence that gnostics held the (modern) views you advanced? Sounds a lot like having your cake and eating it...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

Factually twaddle.

 

[Greatest I am]

Factually twaddle.

Then do your own leg work lazy.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Is this claim entirely compatible with producing an ancient text as evidence that gnostics held the (modern) views you advanced? Sounds a lot like having your cake and eating it...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I do not care if it is or not as long as it fits the general view that begins with recognition of the spark of God within all of us.

Sure beats the Abrahamic religions that deny women and gays equality.

Even if Gnostic Christian beliefs were all found to be bogus, the fact they pushed full equality for all makes it a cut above what is presently on offer. As k any woman or gay.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

I do not care if it is or not as long as it fits the general view that begins with recognition of the spark of God within all of us.

Sure beats the Abrahamic religions that deny women and gays equality.

Even if Gnostic Christian beliefs were all found to be bogus, the fact they pushed full equality for all makes it a cut above what is presently on offer. As k any woman or gay.

Regards
DL

I have no such spark. Who's this "God" fellow?

 

[roger_pearse]

I do not care if it is or not ...

Sorry mate, but I have no real interest in exchanging words with people too bloody lazy to bother whether what they say makes sense even in the most basic terms.

 

[roger_pearse]

Then do your own leg work lazy.

Right back at you. Some of us, little man, do know what we are talking about, so don't bother with the bluster.

 

[Greatest I am]

I have no such spark. Who's this "God" fellow?

Only you can say.

Just as I can only say who mine is. It just happens that I can say that my God's name is I am, and mean me.

Jesus asked --- Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

If you have nothing to internalize in terms of a God myth, it is harder to activate your pineal gland and your third eye.

If you do not have a spiritual itch or religious belief then your God would be whoever or whatever the ideal you know in laws or rules for life is. S philosophy or political leaning.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

I would prefer not the use the word god for that, since it's not the right term.

 

[Greatest I am]

I would prefer not the use the word god for that, since it's not the right term.

I do not like it either and see that title as a miss-use of English.

That is why I used "the ideal you know in laws or rules for life.", in your case, instead of the word God.

Call those rules whatever you like but recognize that they are written in your heart and will trump most anything out here.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

I do not like it either and see that title as a miss-use of English.

That is why I used "the ideal you know in laws or rules for life.", in your case, instead of the word God.

Call those rules whatever you like but recognize that they are written in your heart and will trump most anything out here.

Regards
DL

It's the mark of the skeptic to be able to question one's values. I think "writing them in your heart" is misguided. There is no way to come up with a pre-determined answer to every problem, morally or otherwise. That's the whole problem with religion.

 

[Greatest I am]

It's the mark of the skeptic to be able to question one's values. I think "writing them in your heart" is misguided. There is no way to come up with a pre-determined answer to every problem, morally or otherwise. That's the whole problem with religion.

I was not talking about religions and their 3,000 year old garbage laws.

I am talking today and the laws you write on your heart regardless of the source of that wisdom.

As to morals overall. They are close to identical in most people. This is a proven social science fact.

I cannot imagine a scenario that you could not think your way out of as to the best moral path.

Gnostic Christians like me used to have a saying. We have no faith is Sofia/Wisdom, but she has faith in us.

Like God, she is here to serve us. Use her wisely.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

I was not talking about religions and their 3,000 year old garbage laws.

I am talking today and the laws you write on your heart regardless of the source of that wisdom.

As to morals overall. They are close to identical in most people. This is a proven social science fact.

I cannot imagine a scenario that you could not think your way out of as to the best moral path.

Gnostic Christians like me used to have a saying. We have no faith is Sofia/Wisdom, but she has faith in us.

Like God, she is here to serve us. Use her wisely.

Regards
DL

Things that sound deep but really aren't.

 

[Greatest I am]

Indicating that you are not fit to judge them.

Regards
DL

 

[roger_pearse]

Things that sound deep but really aren't.

Don't bother with this guy. I have encountered such people before. They use words to mean whatever is convenient at any given moment; at one point attacking people with a set of words, and the next denying that they meant anything of the kind or that words don't really mean anything. Such slipperiness makes talking to them a waste of time, as they are always beneath reason.

They do not, of course, carry this habit into their tax returns

No honest person behaves in this manner. And why would one wish to talk to someone who can't even talk honestly?

 

[Kittamaru]

Don't bother with this guy. I have encountered such people before. They use words to mean whatever is convenient at any given moment; at one point attacking people with a set of words, and the next denying that they meant anything of the kind or that words don't really mean anything. Such slipperiness makes talking to them a waste of time, as they are always beneath reason.

They do not, of course, carry this habit into their tax returns

No honest person behaves in this manner. And why would one wish to talk to someone who can't even talk honestly?

Such insinuations would, of course, be an ad hominem attack (arguing the person instead of the subject)