Can you be religious and pro science and technology?

[Divine Wind]

I've been Southern Baptist for 59 years. I graduated from a Southern Baptist University with a degree in religion. I don't know any who are anti-science or technology. I know some who question a few of the current "theories" that others accept as hard "fact".

Good. Who do you think the "Young Earth Creationists" and those who take Bible literally are stemming their beliefs?

 

[there4eyeM]

Not religious in the sense of any staid, closed, classic sense of 'religious'.

 

[Divine Wind]

The human science could invent artificial intelligence then artificial intelligence could invent God and afterlife.

Anything is possible, but given the limitations of our natural universe, I strongly doubt we could invent the entire 91 Billion light year Universe and the 100 Billion+ (could be twice as much more) galaxies within it. Pretty arrogant of you to believe we could do such a thing when we can barely reach our own Moon a mere 250,000 miles away.

 

[Divine Wind]

I believe that in future the human technologies achieves such level that we could construct and develop the God.

Keyword "believe". You can believe pie will fall from the sky and no one will have to work because we'll all eat for free, but unless you can provide evidence supporting your beliefs, I'll just take them as a belief.

 

[kwc57]

I've been Southern Baptist for 59 years. I graduated from a Southern Baptist University with a degree in religion. I don't know any who are anti-science or technology. I know some who question a few of the current "theories" that others accept as hard "fact".

Good. Who do you think the "Young Earth Creationists" and those who take Bible literally are stemming their beliefs?

As you said, they are using a very literal reading of the Bible and drawing conclusions without studying the Bible in it's original languages and applying some critical thinking. I do believe God created the Earth and mankind. Does that mean a literal 6 days or 6 eons as the original language should be interpreted? Could an eon be a million years or a billion years? Science gives us clues to the age of Earth. Only if you use the literal interpretation of 6 days do you run afoul of science. My greater concern than people who haven't been trained in critical thinking and accept a literal reading of the Bible are the smug and arrogant scientists who dismiss religion out of hand, make fun of it and want to see it dead. They are so impressed with their intellectual prowess that they fail to see how small minded they really are. Science and religion can complement each other and are not the adversaries that people on both sides try to make them.

 

[Divine Wind]

I've been Southern Baptist for 59 years. I graduated from a Southern Baptist University with a degree in religion. I don't know any who are anti-science or technology. I know some who question a few of the current "theories" that others accept as hard "fact".

Good. Who do you think the "Young Earth Creationists" and those who take Bible literally are stemming their beliefs?

As you said, they are using a very literal reading of the Bible and drawing conclusions without studying the Bible in it's original languages and applying some critical thinking. I do believe God created the Earth and mankind. Does that mean a literal 6 days or 6 eons as the original language should be interpreted? Could an eon be a million years or a billion years? Science gives us clues to the age of Earth. Only if you use the literal interpretation of 6 days do you run afoul of science. My greater concern than people who haven't been trained in critical thinking and accept a literal reading of the Bible are the smug and arrogant scientists who dismiss religion out of hand, make fun of it and want to see it dead. They are so impressed with their intellectual prowess that they fail to see how small minded they really are. Science and religion can complement each other and are not the adversaries that people on both sides try to make them.

1) Who are "they"? Please be specific.

2) While I agree there are some who take the Bible, Koran or any other religious text literally, they also often cherry pick from it. What do you propose should be done other than simply accept it as "abnormal"?

3) Where you trained in "critical thinking"? Where and by whom? What do you suggest be done to teach others?

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't see any conflict. I've always thought that science was the study of nature and nature was the way God does things; therefore, science is simply the study of the way God does things.

The Bible affirms that the Creator is known and understood by the results of His creative powers. The following versus are from the KJV (verse numbers eliminated for easier reading):

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard (Psalms 19:1-3).

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

There is no conflict between science and God, nor could there be. Things cannot operate contrary to the design of their Creator. Pure solid lead will always sink in pure liquid water and all of creation will act and interact in strict accordance with the laws of God. All advances in science and technology are merely the exploitation of newly discovered laws of nature. These principles are eternal and immutable but were not capable of being understand until man's knowledge had increased.

We have sent satellites into the far reaches of space and one day we may even colonize other planets. Using stem cells, we have regrown an entire finger complete with a perfectly formed nail and there is no doubt that we will soon be able to regenerate human organs and limbs. We have even created entire new life forms using recombinant DNA. Sadly, we have also unleashed the devastating destructive forces hidden in the tiny atom. In the future we will continue to exploit the laws of God for both noble and evil purposes.

That which does not conform to the unchanging laws of God can never be. Perhaps that is the hidden message in John 1:3 (KJV): “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

.

There is no conflict between science and God, nor could there be.

that was not the OP, you quoted the 4th century bible as though they were the same.
.

That which does not conform to the unchanging laws of God can never be. Perhaps that is the hidden message in John 1:3 (KJV): “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

in the Everlasting, that is not to say in Garden Earth plenty other is allowed. including you.



“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”

in more ways than not, sinner.



* just tired of the same old awfulness of christianity, at least try and be original.




.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

... and link (from John)

no, we try and correct the 4th century as we see it trying not to continue its history of oppression.


“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”


I did not quote your 4th century book, I quoted the quote correctly as by the 1st century ... surly you do not believe ...


“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”


is correct.

 

[ding]

I don't see any conflict. I've always thought that science was the study of nature and nature was the way God does things; therefore, science is simply the study of the way God does things.

The Bible affirms that the Creator is known and understood by the results of His creative powers. The following versus are from the KJV (verse numbers eliminated for easier reading):

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard (Psalms 19:1-3).

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

There is no conflict between science and God, nor could there be. Things cannot operate contrary to the design of their Creator. Pure solid lead will always sink in pure liquid water and all of creation will act and interact in strict accordance with the laws of God. All advances in science and technology are merely the exploitation of newly discovered laws of nature. These principles are eternal and immutable but were not capable of being understand until man's knowledge had increased.

We have sent satellites into the far reaches of space and one day we may even colonize other planets. Using stem cells, we have regrown an entire finger complete with a perfectly formed nail and there is no doubt that we will soon be able to regenerate human organs and limbs. We have even created entire new life forms using recombinant DNA. Sadly, we have also unleashed the devastating destructive forces hidden in the tiny atom. In the future we will continue to exploit the laws of God for both noble and evil purposes.

That which does not conform to the unchanging laws of God can never be. Perhaps that is the hidden message in John 1:3 (KJV): “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

.

There is no conflict between science and God, nor could there be.

that was not the OP, you quoted the 4th century bible as though they were the same.
.

That which does not conform to the unchanging laws of God can never be. Perhaps that is the hidden message in John 1:3 (KJV): “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

in the Everlasting, that is not to say in Garden Earth plenty other is allowed. including you.



“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”

in more ways than not, sinner.



* just tired of the same old awfulness of christianity, at least try and be original.




.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

... and link (from John)

no, we try and correct the 4th century as we see it trying not to continue its history of oppression.


“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”


I did not quote your 4th century book, I quoted the quote correctly as by the 1st century ... surly you do not believe ...


“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”


is correct.

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

"The key doctrine of this sect was belief in the possibility of "transfiguration into God." Since the soul of each man consists of divine substance, any man in principle can achieve a state of "Godliness." To attain this end he must pass through many years of novitiate in the sect, renounce all property, family, will, and live by begging. Only then does he attain the state of Godliness and become one of the "Free Spirits." Numerous descriptions of the sect's world view have been preserved. There are accounts by Free Spirits or by Free Spirits who later repented, as well as those in the archives of the Inquisition. (See 14: p. 56; 15: p. 136; 16: pp. 110,119; 17: p. 160; etc.) All sources agree on one point--that Godliness is not a temporary state but a continuous one. Johann Hartmann from a town near Erfurt characterized this ecstasy as "a complete disappearance of the painful sting of conscience." (15: p. 136) In other words, the Free Spirit was liberated from all moral constraints. He was higher than Christ, who was a mortal man who attained Godliness only on the cross. The Free Spirit was the complete equal of God, "without distinctions." Hence his will is the will of God, and to him the notion of sin becomes meaningless.

This sinlessness and freedom from moral restrictions was characterized in a number of ways. The Free Spirit is the king and sovereign of all that is. Everything belongs to him, and he may dispose of it at will. And whoever interferes with this may be killed by him, even if it is the emperor himself. Nothing performed by the flesh of such a man can either decrease or increase his divinity. Therefore, he may give it complete freedom. "Let the whole state perish rather than he abstain from the demands of his nature," says Hartmann. (15: p. 141) Intimacy with any woman, even with a sister or his mother, cannot stain him and will only increase her holiness. Numerous sources dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries report on rituals of the sects, which included indiscriminate sexual union. In Italy, such "masses" were called barilotto. In Germany, there were reports of special sanctuaries called "paradises" for this purpose.

The contemporary scholar H. Grundmann (18) points out in this regard that in the late Middle Ages there was no need to belong to a sect in order to adhere to any sort of free views in sexual matters. The basis of the "orgiastic mass" was strictly ideological. The Free Spirit, who had attained "Godliness," broke completely with his former life. What had been blasphemy for him in the past (and remained so for "rude" folk) now became a sign of the end of one historical epoch and the beginning of another--the new Eon. In this way he was able to comprehend and to express his new birth and the break with the old Eon.

It is clear that the Free Spirits had no use for the path of salvation proposed by the Catholic Church--penance, confession, absolution of sins, communion. Moreover, they saw the Church as a hostile organization, since it had usurped the right to examine and to decide, which they considered solely their own prerogative. A bitterly anti-ecclesiastical sentiment pervades the views of the Free Spirits and finds expression in their frequent worship of Lucifer.

In the center of the sect's ideology stood not God but man made divine, freed from the notion of his own sinfulness and made the center of the universe. As a result, Adam played a central role in their teaching, not Adam the sinner depicted in the Old Testament, but Adam the perfect man. Many of the Free Spirits referred to themselves as the "New Adams," and Konrad Kanler even called himself Antichrist ("but not in the bad sense"). It seems possible to argue that here, within the confines of this relatively small sect, we encounter the first prototype of the humanist ideology which would later attain worldwide significance."

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't see any conflict. I've always thought that science was the study of nature and nature was the way God does things; therefore, science is simply the study of the way God does things.

The Bible affirms that the Creator is known and understood by the results of His creative powers. The following versus are from the KJV (verse numbers eliminated for easier reading):

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard (Psalms 19:1-3).

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

There is no conflict between science and God, nor could there be. Things cannot operate contrary to the design of their Creator. Pure solid lead will always sink in pure liquid water and all of creation will act and interact in strict accordance with the laws of God. All advances in science and technology are merely the exploitation of newly discovered laws of nature. These principles are eternal and immutable but were not capable of being understand until man's knowledge had increased.

We have sent satellites into the far reaches of space and one day we may even colonize other planets. Using stem cells, we have regrown an entire finger complete with a perfectly formed nail and there is no doubt that we will soon be able to regenerate human organs and limbs. We have even created entire new life forms using recombinant DNA. Sadly, we have also unleashed the devastating destructive forces hidden in the tiny atom. In the future we will continue to exploit the laws of God for both noble and evil purposes.

That which does not conform to the unchanging laws of God can never be. Perhaps that is the hidden message in John 1:3 (KJV): “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

.

There is no conflict between science and God, nor could there be.

that was not the OP, you quoted the 4th century bible as though they were the same.
.

That which does not conform to the unchanging laws of God can never be. Perhaps that is the hidden message in John 1:3 (KJV): “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

in the Everlasting, that is not to say in Garden Earth plenty other is allowed. including you.



“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”

in more ways than not, sinner.



* just tired of the same old awfulness of christianity, at least try and be original.




.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

... and link (from John)

no, we try and correct the 4th century as we see it trying not to continue its history of oppression.


“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”


I did not quote your 4th century book, I quoted the quote correctly as by the 1st century ... surly you do not believe ...


“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”


is correct.

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

"The key doctrine of this sect was belief in the possibility of "transfiguration into God." Since the soul of each man consists of divine substance, any man in principle can achieve a state of "Godliness." To attain this end he must pass through many years of novitiate in the sect, renounce all property, family, will, and live by begging. Only then does he attain the state of Godliness and become one of the "Free Spirits." Numerous descriptions of the sect's world view have been preserved. There are accounts by Free Spirits or by Free Spirits who later repented, as well as those in the archives of the Inquisition. (See 14: p. 56; 15: p. 136; 16: pp. 110,119; 17: p. 160; etc.) All sources agree on one point--that Godliness is not a temporary state but a continuous one. Johann Hartmann from a town near Erfurt characterized this ecstasy as "a complete disappearance of the painful sting of conscience." (15: p. 136) In other words, the Free Spirit was liberated from all moral constraints. He was higher than Christ, who was a mortal man who attained Godliness only on the cross. The Free Spirit was the complete equal of God, "without distinctions." Hence his will is the will of God, and to him the notion of sin becomes meaningless.

This sinlessness and freedom from moral restrictions was characterized in a number of ways. The Free Spirit is the king and sovereign of all that is. Everything belongs to him, and he may dispose of it at will. And whoever interferes with this may be killed by him, even if it is the emperor himself. Nothing performed by the flesh of such a man can either decrease or increase his divinity. Therefore, he may give it complete freedom. "Let the whole state perish rather than he abstain from the demands of his nature," says Hartmann. (15: p. 141) Intimacy with any woman, even with a sister or his mother, cannot stain him and will only increase her holiness. Numerous sources dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries report on rituals of the sects, which included indiscriminate sexual union. In Italy, such "masses" were called barilotto. In Germany, there were reports of special sanctuaries called "paradises" for this purpose.

The contemporary scholar H. Grundmann (18) points out in this regard that in the late Middle Ages there was no need to belong to a sect in order to adhere to any sort of free views in sexual matters. The basis of the "orgiastic mass" was strictly ideological. The Free Spirit, who had attained "Godliness," broke completely with his former life. What had been blasphemy for him in the past (and remained so for "rude" folk) now became a sign of the end of one historical epoch and the beginning of another--the new Eon. In this way he was able to comprehend and to express his new birth and the break with the old Eon.

It is clear that the Free Spirits had no use for the path of salvation proposed by the Catholic Church--penance, confession, absolution of sins, communion. Moreover, they saw the Church as a hostile organization, since it had usurped the right to examine and to decide, which they considered solely their own prerogative. A bitterly anti-ecclesiastical sentiment pervades the views of the Free Spirits and finds expression in their frequent worship of Lucifer.

In the center of the sect's ideology stood not God but man made divine, freed from the notion of his own sinfulness and made the center of the universe. As a result, Adam played a central role in their teaching, not Adam the sinner depicted in the Old Testament, but Adam the perfect man. Many of the Free Spirits referred to themselves as the "New Adams," and Konrad Kanler even called himself Antichrist ("but not in the bad sense"). It seems possible to argue that here, within the confines of this relatively small sect, we encounter the first prototype of the humanist ideology which would later attain worldwide significance."

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

.

“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

the question was is the above correct ... is it 1st century antiquity or 4th century christianity.

 

[ding]

I don't see any conflict. I've always thought that science was the study of nature and nature was the way God does things; therefore, science is simply the study of the way God does things.

The Bible affirms that the Creator is known and understood by the results of His creative powers. The following versus are from the KJV (verse numbers eliminated for easier reading):

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard (Psalms 19:1-3).

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

There is no conflict between science and God, nor could there be. Things cannot operate contrary to the design of their Creator. Pure solid lead will always sink in pure liquid water and all of creation will act and interact in strict accordance with the laws of God. All advances in science and technology are merely the exploitation of newly discovered laws of nature. These principles are eternal and immutable but were not capable of being understand until man's knowledge had increased.

We have sent satellites into the far reaches of space and one day we may even colonize other planets. Using stem cells, we have regrown an entire finger complete with a perfectly formed nail and there is no doubt that we will soon be able to regenerate human organs and limbs. We have even created entire new life forms using recombinant DNA. Sadly, we have also unleashed the devastating destructive forces hidden in the tiny atom. In the future we will continue to exploit the laws of God for both noble and evil purposes.

That which does not conform to the unchanging laws of God can never be. Perhaps that is the hidden message in John 1:3 (KJV): “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

.

There is no conflict between science and God, nor could there be.

that was not the OP, you quoted the 4th century bible as though they were the same.
.

That which does not conform to the unchanging laws of God can never be. Perhaps that is the hidden message in John 1:3 (KJV): “All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

in the Everlasting, that is not to say in Garden Earth plenty other is allowed. including you.



“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”

in more ways than not, sinner.



* just tired of the same old awfulness of christianity, at least try and be original.




.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

... and link (from John)

no, we try and correct the 4th century as we see it trying not to continue its history of oppression.


“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”


I did not quote your 4th century book, I quoted the quote correctly as by the 1st century ... surly you do not believe ...


“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”


is correct.

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

"The key doctrine of this sect was belief in the possibility of "transfiguration into God." Since the soul of each man consists of divine substance, any man in principle can achieve a state of "Godliness." To attain this end he must pass through many years of novitiate in the sect, renounce all property, family, will, and live by begging. Only then does he attain the state of Godliness and become one of the "Free Spirits." Numerous descriptions of the sect's world view have been preserved. There are accounts by Free Spirits or by Free Spirits who later repented, as well as those in the archives of the Inquisition. (See 14: p. 56; 15: p. 136; 16: pp. 110,119; 17: p. 160; etc.) All sources agree on one point--that Godliness is not a temporary state but a continuous one. Johann Hartmann from a town near Erfurt characterized this ecstasy as "a complete disappearance of the painful sting of conscience." (15: p. 136) In other words, the Free Spirit was liberated from all moral constraints. He was higher than Christ, who was a mortal man who attained Godliness only on the cross. The Free Spirit was the complete equal of God, "without distinctions." Hence his will is the will of God, and to him the notion of sin becomes meaningless.

This sinlessness and freedom from moral restrictions was characterized in a number of ways. The Free Spirit is the king and sovereign of all that is. Everything belongs to him, and he may dispose of it at will. And whoever interferes with this may be killed by him, even if it is the emperor himself. Nothing performed by the flesh of such a man can either decrease or increase his divinity. Therefore, he may give it complete freedom. "Let the whole state perish rather than he abstain from the demands of his nature," says Hartmann. (15: p. 141) Intimacy with any woman, even with a sister or his mother, cannot stain him and will only increase her holiness. Numerous sources dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries report on rituals of the sects, which included indiscriminate sexual union. In Italy, such "masses" were called barilotto. In Germany, there were reports of special sanctuaries called "paradises" for this purpose.

The contemporary scholar H. Grundmann (18) points out in this regard that in the late Middle Ages there was no need to belong to a sect in order to adhere to any sort of free views in sexual matters. The basis of the "orgiastic mass" was strictly ideological. The Free Spirit, who had attained "Godliness," broke completely with his former life. What had been blasphemy for him in the past (and remained so for "rude" folk) now became a sign of the end of one historical epoch and the beginning of another--the new Eon. In this way he was able to comprehend and to express his new birth and the break with the old Eon.

It is clear that the Free Spirits had no use for the path of salvation proposed by the Catholic Church--penance, confession, absolution of sins, communion. Moreover, they saw the Church as a hostile organization, since it had usurped the right to examine and to decide, which they considered solely their own prerogative. A bitterly anti-ecclesiastical sentiment pervades the views of the Free Spirits and finds expression in their frequent worship of Lucifer.

In the center of the sect's ideology stood not God but man made divine, freed from the notion of his own sinfulness and made the center of the universe. As a result, Adam played a central role in their teaching, not Adam the sinner depicted in the Old Testament, but Adam the perfect man. Many of the Free Spirits referred to themselves as the "New Adams," and Konrad Kanler even called himself Antichrist ("but not in the bad sense"). It seems possible to argue that here, within the confines of this relatively small sect, we encounter the first prototype of the humanist ideology which would later attain worldwide significance."

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

.

“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

the question was is the above correct ... is it 1st century antiquity or 4th century christianity.

Both. There is no difference. The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

 

[Divine Wind]

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible....

Both. There is no difference. The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

Ahhh, the true face of your Christianity. Interesting.

Nothing like good old-fashioned hate. Almost as warm as burning heretics at the stake.

In case you missed it... Your 60-second guide to heresy

 

[ding]

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible....

Ahhh, the true face of your Christianity. Interesting.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is a history here.

 

[Divine Wind]

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible....

Ahhh, the true face of your Christianity. Interesting.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is a history here.

I don't have to know anything except your expression of hatred for Gnostics. Any other denominations of Christians you hate? Any you want to see burned at the stake as heretics? What denomination of Christian are you?

Christian Movements and Denominations
Why are there so many denominations? | Bibleinfo.com

MAKING OF A HERETIC: The Superfluous Trinity | Madame Pickwick Art Blog

 

[BreezeWood]

.
that was not the OP, you quoted the 4th century bible as though they were the same.
.

in the Everlasting, that is not to say in Garden Earth plenty other is allowed. including you.



“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”

in more ways than not, sinner.



* just tired of the same old awfulness of christianity, at least try and be original.




.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

... and link (from John)

no, we try and correct the 4th century as we see it trying not to continue its history of oppression.


“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”


I did not quote your 4th century book, I quoted the quote correctly as by the 1st century ... surly you do not believe ...


“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”


is correct.

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

"The key doctrine of this sect was belief in the possibility of "transfiguration into God." Since the soul of each man consists of divine substance, any man in principle can achieve a state of "Godliness." To attain this end he must pass through many years of novitiate in the sect, renounce all property, family, will, and live by begging. Only then does he attain the state of Godliness and become one of the "Free Spirits." Numerous descriptions of the sect's world view have been preserved. There are accounts by Free Spirits or by Free Spirits who later repented, as well as those in the archives of the Inquisition. (See 14: p. 56; 15: p. 136; 16: pp. 110,119; 17: p. 160; etc.) All sources agree on one point--that Godliness is not a temporary state but a continuous one. Johann Hartmann from a town near Erfurt characterized this ecstasy as "a complete disappearance of the painful sting of conscience." (15: p. 136) In other words, the Free Spirit was liberated from all moral constraints. He was higher than Christ, who was a mortal man who attained Godliness only on the cross. The Free Spirit was the complete equal of God, "without distinctions." Hence his will is the will of God, and to him the notion of sin becomes meaningless.

This sinlessness and freedom from moral restrictions was characterized in a number of ways. The Free Spirit is the king and sovereign of all that is. Everything belongs to him, and he may dispose of it at will. And whoever interferes with this may be killed by him, even if it is the emperor himself. Nothing performed by the flesh of such a man can either decrease or increase his divinity. Therefore, he may give it complete freedom. "Let the whole state perish rather than he abstain from the demands of his nature," says Hartmann. (15: p. 141) Intimacy with any woman, even with a sister or his mother, cannot stain him and will only increase her holiness. Numerous sources dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries report on rituals of the sects, which included indiscriminate sexual union. In Italy, such "masses" were called barilotto. In Germany, there were reports of special sanctuaries called "paradises" for this purpose.

The contemporary scholar H. Grundmann (18) points out in this regard that in the late Middle Ages there was no need to belong to a sect in order to adhere to any sort of free views in sexual matters. The basis of the "orgiastic mass" was strictly ideological. The Free Spirit, who had attained "Godliness," broke completely with his former life. What had been blasphemy for him in the past (and remained so for "rude" folk) now became a sign of the end of one historical epoch and the beginning of another--the new Eon. In this way he was able to comprehend and to express his new birth and the break with the old Eon.

It is clear that the Free Spirits had no use for the path of salvation proposed by the Catholic Church--penance, confession, absolution of sins, communion. Moreover, they saw the Church as a hostile organization, since it had usurped the right to examine and to decide, which they considered solely their own prerogative. A bitterly anti-ecclesiastical sentiment pervades the views of the Free Spirits and finds expression in their frequent worship of Lucifer.

In the center of the sect's ideology stood not God but man made divine, freed from the notion of his own sinfulness and made the center of the universe. As a result, Adam played a central role in their teaching, not Adam the sinner depicted in the Old Testament, but Adam the perfect man. Many of the Free Spirits referred to themselves as the "New Adams," and Konrad Kanler even called himself Antichrist ("but not in the bad sense"). It seems possible to argue that here, within the confines of this relatively small sect, we encounter the first prototype of the humanist ideology which would later attain worldwide significance."

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

.

“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

the question was is the above correct ... is it 1st century antiquity or 4th century christianity.

Both. There is no difference. The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

.

Both. There is no difference.

I strongly disagree, you and the professor belong to a different religion the religion of oppression.

 

[ding]

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

.

You should give your citation and link (from John) when you quote it.

... and link (from John)

no, we try and correct the 4th century as we see it trying not to continue its history of oppression.


“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”


I did not quote your 4th century book, I quoted the quote correctly as by the 1st century ... surly you do not believe ...


“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”


is correct.

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

"The key doctrine of this sect was belief in the possibility of "transfiguration into God." Since the soul of each man consists of divine substance, any man in principle can achieve a state of "Godliness." To attain this end he must pass through many years of novitiate in the sect, renounce all property, family, will, and live by begging. Only then does he attain the state of Godliness and become one of the "Free Spirits." Numerous descriptions of the sect's world view have been preserved. There are accounts by Free Spirits or by Free Spirits who later repented, as well as those in the archives of the Inquisition. (See 14: p. 56; 15: p. 136; 16: pp. 110,119; 17: p. 160; etc.) All sources agree on one point--that Godliness is not a temporary state but a continuous one. Johann Hartmann from a town near Erfurt characterized this ecstasy as "a complete disappearance of the painful sting of conscience." (15: p. 136) In other words, the Free Spirit was liberated from all moral constraints. He was higher than Christ, who was a mortal man who attained Godliness only on the cross. The Free Spirit was the complete equal of God, "without distinctions." Hence his will is the will of God, and to him the notion of sin becomes meaningless.

This sinlessness and freedom from moral restrictions was characterized in a number of ways. The Free Spirit is the king and sovereign of all that is. Everything belongs to him, and he may dispose of it at will. And whoever interferes with this may be killed by him, even if it is the emperor himself. Nothing performed by the flesh of such a man can either decrease or increase his divinity. Therefore, he may give it complete freedom. "Let the whole state perish rather than he abstain from the demands of his nature," says Hartmann. (15: p. 141) Intimacy with any woman, even with a sister or his mother, cannot stain him and will only increase her holiness. Numerous sources dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries report on rituals of the sects, which included indiscriminate sexual union. In Italy, such "masses" were called barilotto. In Germany, there were reports of special sanctuaries called "paradises" for this purpose.

The contemporary scholar H. Grundmann (18) points out in this regard that in the late Middle Ages there was no need to belong to a sect in order to adhere to any sort of free views in sexual matters. The basis of the "orgiastic mass" was strictly ideological. The Free Spirit, who had attained "Godliness," broke completely with his former life. What had been blasphemy for him in the past (and remained so for "rude" folk) now became a sign of the end of one historical epoch and the beginning of another--the new Eon. In this way he was able to comprehend and to express his new birth and the break with the old Eon.

It is clear that the Free Spirits had no use for the path of salvation proposed by the Catholic Church--penance, confession, absolution of sins, communion. Moreover, they saw the Church as a hostile organization, since it had usurped the right to examine and to decide, which they considered solely their own prerogative. A bitterly anti-ecclesiastical sentiment pervades the views of the Free Spirits and finds expression in their frequent worship of Lucifer.

In the center of the sect's ideology stood not God but man made divine, freed from the notion of his own sinfulness and made the center of the universe. As a result, Adam played a central role in their teaching, not Adam the sinner depicted in the Old Testament, but Adam the perfect man. Many of the Free Spirits referred to themselves as the "New Adams," and Konrad Kanler even called himself Antichrist ("but not in the bad sense"). It seems possible to argue that here, within the confines of this relatively small sect, we encounter the first prototype of the humanist ideology which would later attain worldwide significance."

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

.

“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

the question was is the above correct ... is it 1st century antiquity or 4th century christianity.

Both. There is no difference. The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

.

Both. There is no difference.

I strongly disagree, you and the professor belong to a different religion the religion of oppression.

I think you mean the religion which the foundation that Western Civilization was built upon. What has your religion done?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

... and link (from John)

no, we try and correct the 4th century as we see it trying not to continue its history of oppression.


“All things were made by them, and without them was not any thing made.”


I did not quote your 4th century book, I quoted the quote correctly as by the 1st century ... surly you do not believe ...


“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”


is correct.

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

"The key doctrine of this sect was belief in the possibility of "transfiguration into God." Since the soul of each man consists of divine substance, any man in principle can achieve a state of "Godliness." To attain this end he must pass through many years of novitiate in the sect, renounce all property, family, will, and live by begging. Only then does he attain the state of Godliness and become one of the "Free Spirits." Numerous descriptions of the sect's world view have been preserved. There are accounts by Free Spirits or by Free Spirits who later repented, as well as those in the archives of the Inquisition. (See 14: p. 56; 15: p. 136; 16: pp. 110,119; 17: p. 160; etc.) All sources agree on one point--that Godliness is not a temporary state but a continuous one. Johann Hartmann from a town near Erfurt characterized this ecstasy as "a complete disappearance of the painful sting of conscience." (15: p. 136) In other words, the Free Spirit was liberated from all moral constraints. He was higher than Christ, who was a mortal man who attained Godliness only on the cross. The Free Spirit was the complete equal of God, "without distinctions." Hence his will is the will of God, and to him the notion of sin becomes meaningless.

This sinlessness and freedom from moral restrictions was characterized in a number of ways. The Free Spirit is the king and sovereign of all that is. Everything belongs to him, and he may dispose of it at will. And whoever interferes with this may be killed by him, even if it is the emperor himself. Nothing performed by the flesh of such a man can either decrease or increase his divinity. Therefore, he may give it complete freedom. "Let the whole state perish rather than he abstain from the demands of his nature," says Hartmann. (15: p. 141) Intimacy with any woman, even with a sister or his mother, cannot stain him and will only increase her holiness. Numerous sources dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries report on rituals of the sects, which included indiscriminate sexual union. In Italy, such "masses" were called barilotto. In Germany, there were reports of special sanctuaries called "paradises" for this purpose.

The contemporary scholar H. Grundmann (18) points out in this regard that in the late Middle Ages there was no need to belong to a sect in order to adhere to any sort of free views in sexual matters. The basis of the "orgiastic mass" was strictly ideological. The Free Spirit, who had attained "Godliness," broke completely with his former life. What had been blasphemy for him in the past (and remained so for "rude" folk) now became a sign of the end of one historical epoch and the beginning of another--the new Eon. In this way he was able to comprehend and to express his new birth and the break with the old Eon.

It is clear that the Free Spirits had no use for the path of salvation proposed by the Catholic Church--penance, confession, absolution of sins, communion. Moreover, they saw the Church as a hostile organization, since it had usurped the right to examine and to decide, which they considered solely their own prerogative. A bitterly anti-ecclesiastical sentiment pervades the views of the Free Spirits and finds expression in their frequent worship of Lucifer.

In the center of the sect's ideology stood not God but man made divine, freed from the notion of his own sinfulness and made the center of the universe. As a result, Adam played a central role in their teaching, not Adam the sinner depicted in the Old Testament, but Adam the perfect man. Many of the Free Spirits referred to themselves as the "New Adams," and Konrad Kanler even called himself Antichrist ("but not in the bad sense"). It seems possible to argue that here, within the confines of this relatively small sect, we encounter the first prototype of the humanist ideology which would later attain worldwide significance."

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

.

“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

the question was is the above correct ... is it 1st century antiquity or 4th century christianity.

Both. There is no difference. The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

.

Both. There is no difference.

I strongly disagree, you and the professor belong to a different religion the religion of oppression.

I think you mean the religion which the foundation that Western Civilization was built upon. What has your religion done?

.

What has your religion done?

endured Western Civilization as much as possible ...

 

[ding]

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible....

Ahhh, the true face of your Christianity. Interesting.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is a history here.

I don't have to know anything except your expression of hatred for Gnostics. Any other denominations of Christians you hate? Any you want to see burned at the stake as heretics? What denomination of Christian are you?

Christian Movements and Denominations
Why are there so many denominations? | Bibleinfo.com

MAKING OF A HERETIC: The Superfluous Trinity | Madame Pickwick Art Blog

You don't know shit about them and if you do, what you have been taught is bullshit.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Don't make me start using these facts against you.

 

[ding]

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

"The key doctrine of this sect was belief in the possibility of "transfiguration into God." Since the soul of each man consists of divine substance, any man in principle can achieve a state of "Godliness." To attain this end he must pass through many years of novitiate in the sect, renounce all property, family, will, and live by begging. Only then does he attain the state of Godliness and become one of the "Free Spirits." Numerous descriptions of the sect's world view have been preserved. There are accounts by Free Spirits or by Free Spirits who later repented, as well as those in the archives of the Inquisition. (See 14: p. 56; 15: p. 136; 16: pp. 110,119; 17: p. 160; etc.) All sources agree on one point--that Godliness is not a temporary state but a continuous one. Johann Hartmann from a town near Erfurt characterized this ecstasy as "a complete disappearance of the painful sting of conscience." (15: p. 136) In other words, the Free Spirit was liberated from all moral constraints. He was higher than Christ, who was a mortal man who attained Godliness only on the cross. The Free Spirit was the complete equal of God, "without distinctions." Hence his will is the will of God, and to him the notion of sin becomes meaningless.

This sinlessness and freedom from moral restrictions was characterized in a number of ways. The Free Spirit is the king and sovereign of all that is. Everything belongs to him, and he may dispose of it at will. And whoever interferes with this may be killed by him, even if it is the emperor himself. Nothing performed by the flesh of such a man can either decrease or increase his divinity. Therefore, he may give it complete freedom. "Let the whole state perish rather than he abstain from the demands of his nature," says Hartmann. (15: p. 141) Intimacy with any woman, even with a sister or his mother, cannot stain him and will only increase her holiness. Numerous sources dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries report on rituals of the sects, which included indiscriminate sexual union. In Italy, such "masses" were called barilotto. In Germany, there were reports of special sanctuaries called "paradises" for this purpose.

The contemporary scholar H. Grundmann (18) points out in this regard that in the late Middle Ages there was no need to belong to a sect in order to adhere to any sort of free views in sexual matters. The basis of the "orgiastic mass" was strictly ideological. The Free Spirit, who had attained "Godliness," broke completely with his former life. What had been blasphemy for him in the past (and remained so for "rude" folk) now became a sign of the end of one historical epoch and the beginning of another--the new Eon. In this way he was able to comprehend and to express his new birth and the break with the old Eon.

It is clear that the Free Spirits had no use for the path of salvation proposed by the Catholic Church--penance, confession, absolution of sins, communion. Moreover, they saw the Church as a hostile organization, since it had usurped the right to examine and to decide, which they considered solely their own prerogative. A bitterly anti-ecclesiastical sentiment pervades the views of the Free Spirits and finds expression in their frequent worship of Lucifer.

In the center of the sect's ideology stood not God but man made divine, freed from the notion of his own sinfulness and made the center of the universe. As a result, Adam played a central role in their teaching, not Adam the sinner depicted in the Old Testament, but Adam the perfect man. Many of the Free Spirits referred to themselves as the "New Adams," and Konrad Kanler even called himself Antichrist ("but not in the bad sense"). It seems possible to argue that here, within the confines of this relatively small sect, we encounter the first prototype of the humanist ideology which would later attain worldwide significance."

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

.

“All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made.”

the question was is the above correct ... is it 1st century antiquity or 4th century christianity.

Both. There is no difference. The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

.

Both. There is no difference.

I strongly disagree, you and the professor belong to a different religion the religion of oppression.

I think you mean the religion which the foundation that Western Civilization was built upon. What has your religion done?

.

What has your religion done?

endured Western Civilization as much as possible ...

You mean the Civilization which has done more for mankind's advancement than any other?

 

[ding]

The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible....

Ahhh, the true face of your Christianity. Interesting.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is a history here.

I don't have to know anything except your expression of hatred for Gnostics. Any other denominations of Christians you hate? Any you want to see burned at the stake as heretics? What denomination of Christian are you?

Christian Movements and Denominations
Why are there so many denominations? | Bibleinfo.com

MAKING OF A HERETIC: The Superfluous Trinity | Madame Pickwick Art Blog

You might want to look at who you are agreeing with here. Your call. I'm cool either way. When one has truth on his side he tends to make those that disagree with the truth look like fools.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
the question was is the above correct ... is it 1st century antiquity or 4th century christianity.

Both. There is no difference. The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible.

.

Both. There is no difference.

I strongly disagree, you and the professor belong to a different religion the religion of oppression.

I think you mean the religion which the foundation that Western Civilization was built upon. What has your religion done?

.

What has your religion done?

endured Western Civilization as much as possible ...

You mean the Civilization which has done more for mankind's advancement than any other?

.

You mean the Civilization which has done more for mankind's advancement than any other?

as has been pointed out to you already whatever advancements have been made were done so by costs exacted by your 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion.