Can you be religious and pro science and technology?

[ding]

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.

What do you mean whatever? Are you down playing the role Western Civilization has played in shaping mankind? Seriously? The very faith your are criticizing as false is the faith that built Western Civilization.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

So you lied before. This isn't just a history between you and another member, you really do hate Gnostics. Interesting that you base your entire hatred on a single book by a single Russian.

FWIW, many of Christ's teachings can be seen as "socialist", although I tend to think they are more about the "big picture", life eternal, versus the short term view of life on Earth. One thing I do know from Christ's teachings is he didn't' preach hate against others. Paul did, but not Christ.

 

[ding]

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.

So you lied before. This isn't just a history between you and another member, you really do hate Gnostics. Interesting that you base your entire hatred on a single book by a single Russian.

FWIW, many of Christ's teachings can be seen as "socialist", although I tend to think they are more about the "big picture", life eternal, versus the short term view of life on Earth. One thing I do know from Christ's teachings is he didn't' preach hate against others. Paul did, but not Christ.

Yes and no. Yes, it is between me and Breezewood. No, I don't hate the gnostics. I don't hate anyone. They lived over 800 years ago and had ties back to further than that. They were a reaction to Christianity. They were socialist in the worst sense of the word. Their leaders were above sin and could take anything and any woman they wanted. They were reprehensible, but like all good socialists it is the inner core that are the reprehensible ones. The outer core are just useful idiots. So you might want to back the fuck up before I start thinking you are one of them.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
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.

What do you mean whatever? Are you down playing the role Western Civilization has played in shaping mankind? Seriously? The very faith your are criticizing as false is the faith that built Western Civilization.

.

What do you mean whatever?

the battle against evil.

 

[ding]

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.

What do you mean whatever? Are you down playing the role Western Civilization has played in shaping mankind? Seriously? The very faith your are criticizing as false is the faith that built Western Civilization.

.

What do you mean whatever?

the battle against evil.

The battle between good and evil is being waged in the soul of each person. Native American Indian legend has that it will be determined by which wolf we feed. I believe them.

 

[Unkotare]

The Scientific Revolution was a product of the Catholic Church.

 

[Unkotare]

We could construct the afterlife in other space-time dimensions in future. After death every person could be placed into Heaven or Hell.

We'd have to make sure there were enough chairs for everyone.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yes and no. Yes, it is between me and Breezewood. No, I don't hate the gnostics. I don't hate anyone. They lived over 800 years ago and had ties back to further than that. They were a reaction to Christianity. They were socialist in the worst sense of the word. Their leaders were above sin and could take anything and any woman they wanted. They were reprehensible, but like all good socialists it is the inner core that are the reprehensible ones. The outer core are just useful idiots. So you might want to back the fuck up before I start thinking you are one of them.

You've repeatedly posted things like "The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible..." That's more than a simple vendetta between you and another member. Again, you are being dishonest. Your previous post quoting the Russian and this current claim that Gnostics were socialists "in the worst sense of the word" also belie your claim that your hatred for Gnostics is simply a disagreement with BreezeWood.

Additionally, your history is wrong. Gnosticism goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. At least that first 300 year period where all the Christian sects began condensing. Certainly far older than Protestantism which is, indeed, a mere 500 years old. There were many variations of Christianity besides Gnosticism and the current form of Trinity Christianity. Like modern Christian denominations, Gnosticism has both evolved and splintered into different beliefs. Although I do agree with the general principle of "fact-based knowledge", there are Gnostics that have as many off-the-wall beliefs as Young Earthers.

As shown previously, there are dozens, if not thousands, of Christian denominations around the planet. Most adhere to the form which survived early prosecution by Paul's church, the Catholics, and the Spanish Inquisition, which forced all to follow their beliefs or face execution as heretics. You display the same hatred for Gnostics as the Spanish 500 years ago. Do you consider them to be "good Christians"?

Gnostic Teachings: The Art, Philosophy, Religion, and Science of Consciousness
Gnosis is the practical, fact-based knowledge of consciousness that guides us to our full potential and innate happiness.

The Story Of The Storytellers - Gnostics And Other Heretics | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

What is gnosticism? How did it come into being?

Gnosticism is a term that's etymologically connected with the word "to know." It has the same root in English, "kno" is related to "gno" the Greek word for gnosis. And Gnostics were people who claimed to know something special. This knowledge could be a knowledge of a person, the kind of personal acquaintance that a mystic would have with the divine. Or it could be a kind of propositional knowledge of certain key truths. Gnostics claim both of those kinds of knowledge. The claim to have some sort of special knowledge was not confined to any particular group in the second century. It was widespread, and we have such claims being advanced by fairly orthodox teachers such as Clement of Alexandria, we have similar claims being advanced by all sorts of other teachers during that period.

How did it come into being? How did it develop?

It's difficult to know with precision how gnosticism emerged. Because the way we use the term today is as a cover for a variety of phenomena during the course of the second century. One main strand of gnosticism seems to have emerged as a way of reflecting on Jewish scripture and reflecting on Jewish traditions about the descent of the angels to beget children by human beings. Using that old tradition as a way of reflecting on why there's evil in the world. So in one way, gnosticism is a movement that has a philosophical or a theological dimension that's wrestling with the problem of theodicy. And many gnostics solve that problem by saying there's a sharp dichotomy between the world of matter and the world of spirit, and they're very much interested in getting into the world of spirit, removing themselves from the world of matter. They explain that dichotomy with elaborate theories about how spirit got involved with matter and then with practices, usually ascetical practices, to enable spirit to return to its own place.

Why is it seen as a heresy?

By the end of the second century there was considerable debate among Christian teachers, theologians, about how best to articulate Christian belief. Gnostics are charged by their their critics with making a fundamental mistake about the relationship between God as creator and God as redeemer. And they seem to suggest, at least some of them seem to suggest that the divine power that created this world is an inferior being, inferior to the true spiritual God who desires the salvation of all human beings, or at least all of those human beings who are capable of knowledge. That distinction between the belief in creation and belief in redemption was viewed by theologians such as Irenaeus as to be a fundamental mistake which departed radically from the testimony of scripture.

Another thing that gnostics worried about was the relationship between the divine element and the human element in Jesus, and in some cases they seem to have made a similar sort of distinction between the divine and the human that put those into sharp opposition, an opposition that was viewed as a mistake by their critics. By making that distinction they tended to denigrate the physical humanity of Jesus, and orthodox teachers such as Irenaeus by the end of the second century wanted to insist very strongly on the humanity of Jesus as an example for his followers, so it was very important to insist on Jesus as really suffering and dying on the cross because Christians were being called upon at that time to suffer and die as witnesses, as martyrs to their faith. And if with some gnostics you could denigrate the physical suffering of Jesus, you might call into question that obligation to stand and to bear witness for the faith.

What did gnostics believe happened at the time of the crucifixion?

Different gnostics believed different things about the death and resurrection of Jesus. But some were people, whom we know as docetists, [who] believed that the death and suffering of Jesus were things that only appeared to happen, or if they happened, didn't really happen to the core of Jesus' spiritual reality. And so they abandoned the insistence upon those two poles of what were coming to be the heart of orthodox belief, the death and resurrection of Jesus.

How the image of Jesus change in the Gnostic Judeo-Christian tradition?

There are different texts in the opus of material that we call gnostic that are presentations of the teachings of Jesus or the person of Jesus. Some of those texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, which is at least a semi-gnosticizing kind of production, presents Jesus simply as a teacher, a teacher of wisdom. Someone who did not suffer an ignominious death on the cross and did not experience a resurrection. So the focus on Jesus as teacher would be characteristic of a strand of Christianity that certainly comes to be gnostic.

Another text called the Gospel of Truth is not a narrative of the death and resurrection of Jesus at all. It's a symbolic reflection on certain themes that come from scripture and are associated with the life and teachings of Jesus. But that symbolic reflection is a way of getting the the readers or hearers of that text to think about their relationship to God, their essential connection with the divine and the world of spirit....

What do gnostics think when they hear a hymn like "Thunder, The Perfect Mind?"

The hymn "Thunder, the Perfect Mind" is a series of riddles which make contradictory statements about some sort of mysterious figure. Riddles such as, "I am the mother, and I am the daughter. I am the wife and I am the whore." Well, that kind of text evokes the question, who is the I that's speaking? And so this text probably was a text used to stimulate meditation upon some spiritual principle, whatever that spiritual principle was. The revealer figure, for instance, the divine wisdom that many gnostics saw as an important figure in the history of salvation.

History of Gnosticism - Wikipedia

The history of Gnosticism is subject to a great deal of debate and interpretation. The complex nature of Gnostic teaching and the fact that much of the material relating to the schools comprising Gnosticism has traditionally come from critiques by orthodox Christians make it difficult to be precise about early sectarian gnostic systems, although Neoplatonists like Plotinus also criticized "Gnostics."

Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses described several different schools of 2nd-century gnosticism in disparaging and often sarcastic detail while contrasting them with Christianity to their detriment. Despite these problems, scholarly discussion of Gnosticism at first relied heavily on Irenaeus and other heresiologists, which arguably has led to an 'infiltration' of heresiological agendas into modern scholarship; this was not by choice, but because of a simple lack of alternative sources.

This state of affairs continued through to modern times; in 1945, however, there was a chance discovery of a cache of 4th-century Gnostic manuscripts near Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The texts, which had been sealed inside earthen jars, were discovered by a local man called Mohammed Ali, and now this collection of texts is known as the Nag Hammadi library; this allowed for the modern study of undiluted 'Gnostic scripture' for the first time. The translation of the texts from Coptic, their language of composition, into English and other modern languages took place in the years approaching 1977, when the full Nag Hammadi library was published in English translation. This has clarified recent discussions of gnosticism, though many would agree that the topic still remains fraught with difficulties.

At the same time, modern movements referencing ancient gnosticism have continued to develop, from origins in the popular new age and occult movements of the 19th century. Thus 'Gnosticism' is often ascribed to modern sects where initiates have access to certain arcana. The strict usage of the term remains a historical one however, specifically indicating a set of ancient religious movements.

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism - Wikipedia

Gnosticism is a term created by modern scholars to describe a collection of religious groups, many of which thought of themselves as Christians, and which were active in the first few centuries AD.[2] There has been considerable scholarly controversy over exactly which sects fall within this grouping. Sometimes Gnosticism is used narrowly to refer only to religious groups such as Sethians and Archontics who seem to have used the term gnostikoi as a self-designation, even though early Platonists and Ebionites also used the term and are not considered to be Gnostics. Sometimes it is used a little more broadly to include groups similar to or influenced by Sethians, such as followers of Basilides or Valentinius [3]and later the Paulicians. Sometimes it is used even more broadly to cover all groups which heavily emphasized gnosis, therefore including Hermetics and Neoplatonists as well.

 

[Mudda]

The battle between good and evil is being waged in the soul of each person. Native American Indian legend has that it will be determined by which wolf we feed. I believe them.

I have some blankets for you.

 

[Divine Wind]

The battle between good and evil is being waged in the soul of each person. Native American Indian legend has that it will be determined by which wolf we feed. I believe them.

I have some blankets for you.

Smallpox nor non-smallpox?

 

[ding]

You've repeatedly posted things like "The gnostics were a filthy people. Truly reprehensible..." That's more than a simple vendetta between you and another member. Again, you are being dishonest. Your previous post quoting the Russian and this current claim that Gnostics were socialists "in the worst sense of the word" also belie your claim that your hatred for Gnostics is simply a disagreement with BreezeWood.

Not sure what you think you have found. These people Darwinized themselves out of existence through their own fault. They were socialists in the worst sense of the word. What part of their leaders were above sin and could do whatever they wanted did you not understand?

Additionally, your history is wrong. Gnosticism goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. At least that first 300 year period where all the Christian sects began condensing. Certainly far older than Protestantism which is, indeed, a mere 500 years old. There were many variations of Christianity besides Gnosticism and the current form of Trinity Christianity. Like modern Christian denominations, Gnosticism has both evolved and splintered into different beliefs. Although I do agree with the general principle of "fact-based knowledge", there are Gnostics that have as many off-the-wall beliefs as Young Earthers.

You must have missed where I wrote, "They lived over 800 years ago and had ties back to further than that. " So again, I'm not sure what you think you have found.

As shown previously, there are dozens, if not thousands, of Christian denominations around the planet. Most adhere to the form which survived early prosecution by Paul's church, the Catholics, and the Spanish Inquisition, which forced all to follow their beliefs or face execution as heretics. You display the same hatred for Gnostics as the Spanish 500 years ago. Do you consider them to be "good Christians"?

I couldn't tell you, I haven't studied them. I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

 

[ding]

The battle between good and evil is being waged in the soul of each person. Native American Indian legend has that it will be determined by which wolf we feed. I believe them.

I have some blankets for you.

I bet you do.

 

[Votto]

I know a southern Baptist who served as a military officer who loves movies like The Martian, Star Wars, etc and TV shows like Babylon 5, Star Trek, and Battlestar Galactica.

I love science but hate bigots like Dawkins

 

[Divine Wind]

... I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

1) The Cathars were a Gnostic revival movement. That's like saying Westboro Baptists are exactly the same as Catholics. It's a broad-brush comparison and, therefore, wrong.

2) It's not "natural selection" to be massacred by Catholics.
Ch?teau de Beziers - Site of Demolished Medieval Castle in France
In the Middle Ages Béziers belonged to the Viscounts of Carcassonne. When the first Cathar Crusade arrived in the Languedoc this was their first target.

On 22 July 1209 the Crusader army arrived at Béziers on the periphery of the area in the Languedoc where Cathars flourished. There were believed to be around 200 Cathar Parfaits in the town among a much greater population of sympathetic Catholics. The townspeople, believing their city walls impregnable, were careless, and the town was overrun while the leading Crusader churchmen and nobles were still planning their siege.

Today nothing remains of the Viscounts' Castle in Béziers, but the town still bears scars inflicted by the Crusaders. It was here that the abbott-commander gave the famous command "Kill them all - the Lord will recognise His own".

(guess what that phrase has evolved into!)

12 Battles That Defined the Crusades - Page 2 of 2
Sack of Béziers, 22 July 1209
In time, the Crusades turned against other targets, including eastern European pagans and the Spanish Moors. Even dissident Christians came under attack with the launch of the Albigensian Cruade against the Cathars of southern France. In 1209 Crusaders arrived to besiege Cathar Béziers. Before they could even begin the siege proper, a failed raid from inside the town let Crusaders get through a gate over the Orb River. The city fell, thousands were massacred and Béziers burned. Christian Europe was turning its crusading violence upon itself.

 

[Unkotare]

The Scientific Revolution was a product of the Catholic Church.

True

 

[Divine Wind]

The Scientific Revolution was a product of the Catholic Church.

True

Agreed, albeit if that "science" didn't meet up with Catholic policy, then the scientists were forced to recant or face the wrath of the Church.

Most famous example: Galileo.

 

[ding]

... I have studied the Cathars and I am glad they Darwinized themselves out of existence.

1) The Cathars were a Gnostic revival movement. That's like saying Westboro Baptists are exactly the same as Catholics. It's a broad-brush comparison and, therefore, wrong.

2) It's not "natural selection" to be massacred by Catholics.
Ch?teau de Beziers - Site of Demolished Medieval Castle in France
In the Middle Ages Béziers belonged to the Viscounts of Carcassonne. When the first Cathar Crusade arrived in the Languedoc this was their first target.

On 22 July 1209 the Crusader army arrived at Béziers on the periphery of the area in the Languedoc where Cathars flourished. There were believed to be around 200 Cathar Parfaits in the town among a much greater population of sympathetic Catholics. The townspeople, believing their city walls impregnable, were careless, and the town was overrun while the leading Crusader churchmen and nobles were still planning their siege.

Today nothing remains of the Viscounts' Castle in Béziers, but the town still bears scars inflicted by the Crusaders. It was here that the abbott-commander gave the famous command "Kill them all - the Lord will recognise His own".

(guess what that phrase has evolved into!)

12 Battles That Defined the Crusades - Page 2 of 2
Sack of Béziers, 22 July 1209
In time, the Crusades turned against other targets, including eastern European pagans and the Spanish Moors. Even dissident Christians came under attack with the launch of the Albigensian Cruade against the Cathars of southern France. In 1209 Crusaders arrived to besiege Cathar Béziers. Before they could even begin the siege proper, a failed raid from inside the town let Crusaders get through a gate over the Orb River. The city fell, thousands were massacred and Béziers burned. Christian Europe was turning its crusading violence upon itself.

"In compensation for the rigors imposed on the perfecti, their position was far higher than that occupied by Catholic priests. In certain respects, the perfecti were as gods themselves, and the faithful worshiped them accordingly. The faithful were obliged to support the perfecti. One of the important rites of the sect was that of "submission," in which the faithful performed a threefold prostration before the perfecti. The perfecti had to renounce marriage, and they literally did not have the right to touch a woman. They could not possess any property and were obliged to devote their whole lives to service of the sect. They were forbidden to keep a permanent dwelling of any kind and were required to spend their lives in constant travel or to stay in special secret sanctuaries. The consecration of the perfecti, the "consolation" (consolamentum), was the central sacrament of the sect. This rite cannot be compared to anything in the Catholic Church. It combined baptism (or confirmation), ordination, confession, absolution and sometimes supreme unction as well. Only those who received it could count on being freed from the captivity of the body and having their souls returned to their celestial abode.

The majority of the Cathars had no hope of fulfilling the strict commandments that were obligatory for the perfecti and intended, rather, to receive "consolation" on their deathbed. This was called "the good end." The prayer to grant "the good end" under the care of "the good people" (the perfecti) was recited together with the Lord's Prayer.

Sometimes, having received "consolation," a sick person recovered. He was then usually advised to commit suicide (called "endura"). In many cases, "endura" was in fact a condition for receiving "consolation." Not infrequently, the aged or the very young who had received "consolation" were subjected to "endura"--i.e., in effect, murdered. There were various forms of "endura." Most frequently it was by starvation (especially for children, whom the mothers simply stopped suckling); bleeding, hot baths followed by sudden chilling, drinking of liquid mixed with ground glass and strangulation were also used. I. Dollinger, who studied the extant archives of the Inquisition in Toulouse and Carcassonne, writes: "Whoever examines the records of the above-mentioned courts attentively will have no doubt that far more people perished from the 'endura' (some voluntarily, some forcibly) than as a result of the Inquisition's verdicts." (10: p. 226)

These basic notions were the source of the socialist doctrines disseminated among the Cathars. They rejected property as belonging to the material world. The perfecti were forbidden to have any personal belongings, but as a group they controlled the holdings of the sect, which often were considerable."

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[Votto]

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Here is a scientist who smugly says he can't believe in something like the Bible, when the author of Revelations obviously knows nothing about cosmology because he does not understand how stars work.

What he is ignorant of is that the same author in the same book later said that "stars" are symbolic of angels.

Dolt.

 

[ding]

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Here is a scientist who smugly says he can't believe in something like the Bible, when the author of Revelations obviously knows nothing about cosmology because he does not understand how stars work.

What he is ignorant of is that the same author in the same book later said that "stars" are symbolic of angels.

Dolt.

I enjoyed his talk. He makes an excellent point at the end. The God of the gaps is a logical fallacy position. Knowledge and truth are discovered. Just because we think it is one way doesn't change what it is.

 

[Votto]

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Here is a scientist who smugly says he can't believe in something like the Bible, when the author of Revelations obviously knows nothing about cosmology because he does not understand how stars work.

What he is ignorant of is that the same author in the same book later said that "stars" are symbolic of angels.

Dolt.

I enjoyed his talk. He makes an excellent point at the end. The God of the gaps is a logical fallacy position. Knowledge and truth are discovered. Just because we think it is one way doesn't change what it is.

He does have a point but then threw in something stupid like I pointed out.

It kinda makes him look like a dolt.