Flann 5 wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Yet no priests I have ever listened to has ever said to follow my own conscience instead of whatever the bible said.

Obedience is the Christian mantra. Not your own consciousness as opposed to whatever scriptures say.

The interpretation has some consistency, no argument, but the application and elevation of the individual without the church hierarchy is never spoken of in Christian traditions.

The third or single eye Christianity never discusses. Jesus say the kingdom of God both within himself and outside of himself. Without access to the single eye I do not think one can see the way Jesus did. Having a Christ mind, I can.

Can you or can you tell us what Jesus meant by that?

Regards
DL

Hi Bishop. I don't think there is a necessary antithesis between the word in scripture and the individual conscience. You yourself quote from Jesus teaching in the gospels. Jesus preached the word of God and gave it a place of importance as can easily be seen in the gospels.
Your Gnostic beliefs derive from what? Some Gnostic writings you have read maybe and interpretations of Jesus' words in the gospels along Gnostic lines.
I don't think you or your consciousness came to this out of a vacuum with consciousness alone guiding you.

It seems to me Gnosticism misses the forest for some perceived trees that may be compatible with it.
So Romans is a relatively lengthy,reasoned and developed thesis on the human condition in relation to God and the divine remedy in terms of atonement and peace with God on this basis.
But some will point to some verses in first Corinthians for example speaking of the hidden wisdom of God and say "look! it's a hidden wisdom."and so on.
Of course when examined this can be shown to be the gospel which is described as the wisdom of God which is now revealed and no longer hidden.
This is just an example. The parables are another but again the interpretation is mostly provided in the gospel account itself.
I don't claim to be an interpretive oracle who can perfectly interpret all scripture and undoubtedly some things are more difficult than others.
If you want to look at what say "the kingdom of God is within you" means this involves a study of what the kingdom of God actually is, looking at the many references to this throughout scripture.
Other commentators can be helpful when it comes to the language and culture of the time etc. As far as the eye being single goes I think some of the commentators I linked on this, gave good credible interpretations.
So we have a coherent message permeating the new testament. Unfortunately the Gnostic response is that it's not actually it's message but an alternative and contrary salvation through self knowledge is it's real message.

Correct. Yet you ignore the words of your own bible. We can save ourselves and do not have to embrace the barbaric notion that we need to profit from God having his son needlessly murdered.

The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.

================

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.

Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

As above so below.

If you had God's power, would you not be able to find a way that does not go against the wisdom of Jesus and the bible?

Perhaps like being man enough to step up to your own demands for a worthy sacrifice?

That is what a good God would do. Right?


"I don't think there is a necessary antithesis between the word in scripture and the individual conscience."

Completely wrong. Re-thing as your main creed as it tells you to embrace human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty.

Get off your scapegoat and pick up your own cross as Jesus and scriptures urge you to do.

Regards
DL

Starhwe wrote:Interbane, you might consider taking a course in logic or argument, or at least read a book on the subject.

This really is laughable Starhwe. Your first point is a fallacy. The very first point!

Stahrwe wrote:Your response fails on two points.
1) millions of people for thousands of years have accepted what Chesterton wrote.

This appeal commits a classic ad populum fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

In order to show that my points fail, you need to actually address my points. This is logic 101. Making appeals to circumstances surrounding the point in question are fallacious appeals.

Stahrwe wrote:2) Your comment is wrong and flawed from the Christian perspective. The reverse of your statement shows the issue, "How can Interbane's statement be true for atheists but false for [Christians]?"

That is your position Stahrwe. I never claimed that it is true for one group yet false for another. My quote: "How could they be correct within Christianity, yet nowhere else, unless Christianity abandons logic?" You're right that there's an issue here. How could Chesterton's writing be logically flawed, yet correct for one group, unless that group abandons logic? Where the issue involves assumptions, I will point that out(while noting that faulty assumptions are logical errors as well). But the errors GKC made in the little I read were errors of logic regardless of the starting assumptions. Classic, clear, direct errors.

Interbane, you have once again reacted inappropriately to my statement. My comment was not a proof of doctrine it was a proof of belief ergo it was not fallacious.

This indicates that Gnostic Christians literally believed their own myths and I do not believe that they did. The y were known for changing language and words within scriptures just to aid them in the seeking of God and insight into spiritual matters.

fantastic point GB, and i find myself in agreement.

this to me is one of the truly great things about the essence of a working approach to mythology and the only way to truly benefit from it. To understand it as metaphor and not get hung up on the metaphor but rather do whatever works to get you closer to that within which is what the metaphors are trying to reference. ie. to realise that the map is not the territory.

Stahrwe wrote: Interbane, you might consider taking a course in logic or argument, or at least read a book on the subject.

This really is laughable Starhwe. Your first point is a fallacy. The very first point!

yes this really was laughable.

didn't Stahwre recently suggest "logic is wrong" if it disagrees with "the only way"

Stahwre, haven't you read Inter's posts, to me over the years he has been the epitome of someone who knows the value of critical thinking.

and that line of yours... "at least read a book on the subject." the punch line if you will.. what are you talking about, He IS a book on the subject.

Stahrwe wrote:Interbane, you have once again reacted inappropriately to my statement. My comment was not a proof of doctrine it was a proof of belief ergo it was not fallacious.

Well, by definition your belief is based on a fallacy, even if you think to dodge it by declaring it to be merely belief. To clarify what I mean, ask yourself whether or not your belief is justified. What this means is you haven't shown my criticism of GKC to fail. It is a logically sound argument, showing him to err. But you simply don't believe me.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want, Stahrwe. But if you say my criticism fails, that is not a comment suggestive of your belief only. It's suggestive of logical failure. Next time, explain that the only thing you're talking about is your own conviction, regardless of logic. I won't react inappropriately if you make the disclaimer.

youkrst wrote:

This indicates that Gnostic Christians literally believed their own myths and I do not believe that they did. The y were known for changing language and words within scriptures just to aid them in the seeking of God and insight into spiritual matters.

fantastic point GB, and i find myself in agreement.

this to me is one of the truly great things about the essence of a working approach to mythology and the only way to truly benefit from it. To understand it as metaphor and not get hung up on the metaphor but rather do whatever works to get you closer to that within which is what the metaphors are trying to reference. ie. to realise that the map is not the territory.

Thanks.

Yes, I think it a major benefit of thinking the way the old Jews and Gnostic did.

That free thinking spirit is what Christianity tried to end. They succeeded for quite a while. Jihadists are as we speak trying to do the same in the Middle East and Africa.

Thank all the Gods that secular governments are powerful enough today to prevent a new Dark Age without free thought.

Regards
DL

ahhhh good 'ole ISIS giving the US a great reason to invade some more middle east, how dreadfully convenient. boots on face, err i mean on ground.

Interbane, I don't have time to go looking for the quote we're discussing. Please repost it.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Yes, I think it a major benefit of thinking the way the old Jews and Gnostic did.

That free thinking spirit is what Christianity tried to end. They succeeded for quite a while. Jihadists are as we speak trying to do the same in the Middle East and Africa.

Thank all the Gods that secular governments are powerful enough today to prevent a new Dark Age without free thought.

Regards
DL

1) What 'free thinking' did the 'old Jews' engage in?

2) how did Christianity restrict free thought?

3) how has civilization benefited from Christianity? Here's a start; music, literature, movable type printing, science, universities, ....