Standard introduction - Gnostic religion.

[Technosoul]

Most schools of higher learning use this link as a resource for data about the Gonstic faith.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html

The webpage has not updated infor about the Judas documents.

Apparently the Gnostics did not employ a military to help them spread the word,

I think they made some good points about the mission and purpose of Jesus.

[phoenix_fire]

Eh. I read some of Pagels' stuff. Wasn't convinced.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Eh. I read some of Pagels' stuff. Wasn't convinced.

Convined about what?

[phoenix_fire]

I read Origin of Satan for a class. She's a neo-Gnostic. Some of her stuff is on the page you mentioned. For four chapters or so, she makes a reasoned argument about how people demonize the people who disagree with them and then by about chapter five, she launches into this rant about how this means that Christians should accept the Gnostic gospels. I disagreed.

[Boetie]

phoenix_fire posts: She's a neo-Gnostic

This is not true. She was the author of a book titled, "The Gnostic Gospels" published back in 1979. In her conclusion she wrote:

That I have devoted so much of this discussion to gnosticism does not mean, as the casual reader migh assume, that I advocate going back to gnosticism.

[Boetie]

The following is from her conclusion taken from the book mentioned in my previous posts:

It is the winners who write history - their way. No wonder, then, that the viewpoint of the successful majority has dominated all traditional accounts of the origins of Christianity. Ecclesiastical Christians first defined the terms (naming themselves "orthodox" their opponents "heretics"); then they proceeded to demonstrate - at least to their own satisfaction - that their triumph was historically inevitable, or, in religious terms, "guided" by the Holy Spirit".

Basically she is reviving the argument that has never been settled between the Gnostics and Christians and that is the argument of spiritual authority.

The gnostics insist on the primacy of the immediate experience. No one else can tell another which way to go, what to do, how to act. The gnostic could not accept on faith what others said.

[Technosoul]

Some chruchs have provided their members with intructions that other teachings are designed to decieve them so that they will be tempted to abandon their faith in the Bible or in the church and how the church images the role of Jesus as the one and only way. The instructions warn the membership that "many false teachers are out there, that can deceive even the most devout of them" and so the best thing is to "avoid the temptation" offered by other religions or belief systems.

Instruction to the faithful - "don't let them trick you with all that fancy talk or with their so called facts".

They teach members how to create security fire walls around their minds so no one else can hack in to mess up the pre-programing of their brains. (computer anology).

Protective isolation with the exception of reaching out to bring more people into the security of the flock.

This should be understood as being part of the Christian religion withn oganized groups - and expected.

If one is of the nature to dislike confusion, then they would not want two masters, or two different kinds of teachings. Because that would be like having a mother and father who do not speak as one voice but send the kid a mixed or a contradiction message about the standards of behavior. Keeping things as simple as possible eliminates the stress of having to make too many choices.

Recomended for some personality types, but not for everyone.

Example"

Hey mom, can i go out and booge tonight

Mom "go ask your father".

hey pops, mom said it is alright if I go out an boogie tonight, if it is okay with you, what do you say?

Pop "no, go do your homework".

[phoenix_fire]

Actually, my church encourages us to be well read on many different ideas about religion. I and my friends still come to the same conclusion.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Actually, my church encourages us to be well read on many different ideas about religion. I and my friends still come to the same conclusion.

Yes, I got the same answer as that one from this Mormon lady that i spoke with once, but still that was my conculsion. Now one can study another religion for the goal of finding faults with their ideas, for purpoes of combative debates. Or one can study another religion as a seeker who is really looking for new and better ideas. The motive would determine the outcome.

Now I would not personally join nor covert to the Gnostic religion my self, because I would not wish to be limited to just one belief system. I thrive on diversity and am of the opinion that confusion means we got a lot of goodies to explore and discover, like shopping at a global supermarket of ideas, lots of things on the shelf rather then just one "brand name" seclection.

The thing I do like about the Gnostic phlosophy is that they advocate the utility of revelations, vision quests, and internal insights, as a source for gathering knowledge or truisms. And they claim that was the main teaching that Jesus was also relating to his students. The Christians however teach that Paul said "trust not your own understanding". And they interpret that as meaning we should trust only what was acturally written in the standard Bible, or confirmed by biblical sayings.

"they" might not be you personally, as i am speaking here in generalities.

I would tend to favor the Gnostics on that matter.

[samsara15]

The problem I have with the 'classic' (ancient) gnostics is that they have a solution which is more complicated than the problem. Thirty Gods, at different levels, Jesus being 28, Sopia 29, and Jehovah 30. It all seems too complicated. Jehovah is clearly a nut-case, but does the solution have to be so complicated?

[rcne]

I've read a bit on Gnosticism when I was investigation the duality of good and evil within us. One thing that I learned is that gnostic is a general term for many different sects that were active in the early days of Christendom.

In fact during the early days they were considered Christian until the church grew strong enough and wanted to break the gnostic away from their faith by declaring them heretics.

Despite the purge some of the gnostic sects survive today, and are once again expanding their following.

Seeking the truth should never be denied by religion - and if it does - is it really a religion or is it a cult.

[Technosoul]

what is the meaning of the word cult in your mind, and how would that differ from religion?

[rcne]

Quote by: Technosoul what is the meaning of the word cult in your mind, and how would that differ from religion?

Thats a good question, I really don't see much if any difference between the two. Whenever the words of a person's interpretation of an interpretation are accepted rather than reading and deciding for yourself, then I would classify that as a cult.

Look at the bush of religion today, hundreds of interpretations, each picking and choosing from the paired down selections of texts in which each group's select few decide what is the truth and must be followed literally and what isn't and doesn't need to be applied or followed.

When you allow yourself to follow the person or persons and not the message then you are in a cult.

One thing I've wondered about among the faithful - do you consider Phelps of Kansas and his branch of the bush of religious interpretation as an expression of religious diversity or as a cult? Thats one of the problems, you can't as a believer critique or disavow him without opening your own interpretation to the same.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rcne Quote by: Technosoul what is the meaning of the word cult in your mind, and how would that differ from religion? Thats a good question, I really don't see much if any difference between the two. Whenever the words of a person's interpretation of an interpretation are accepted rather than reading and deciding for yourself, then I would classify that as a cult. Look at the bush of religion today, hundreds of interpretations, each picking and choosing from the paired down selections of texts in which each group's select few decide what is the truth and must be followed literally and what isn't and doesn't need to be applied or followed. When you allow yourself to follow the person or persons and not the message then you are in a cult. One thing I've wondered about among the faithful - do you consider Phelps of Kansas and his branch of the bush of religious interpretation as an expression of religious diversity or as a cult? Thats one of the problems, you can't as a believer critique or disavow him without opening your own interpretation to the same.

Sometimes I think that a cult would mean a group that has few members, much smaller then the religions that have large memberships. Sort of a majority verses a minority form of classification.

Cults are often discribed for being islolated from mainstream culture. The membership views everyone outside of their isolated community as being the enemy or as part of the "evil" world.

The majority religions feel that some of the smaller groups have "radical" ideas compared to their more popular interpretations and so they tag them as an cult or occult. That bowls down more or less to "name calling" because they use the term "cult" to mean the people in the "cult" are crazy or "very different and strange". (relative to how they view their beliefs).

Timothy Leary attempted to establish a religion of his own so they could use LSD as a "sacred sacrament" for their religion - thus making LSD legal relative to the "freedom of religion" rights afforded by our consitution. He explaned that others use wine for that purpose and it is also a mind altering substance. That case ended up in court. The judges ruled that "to be a religion the organization must have long term historical roots - and a long term history of having used a substance for religious riturals. LSD and the religion established by Leary did not have any historical roots, and so was a cult and not a religion, and so being not protected under the consitution.

So legally "time" is a factor used to determine a established religion from a cult.