Can God cure as well as kill? Should God kill or cure?

Obviously, I'm not defending the people who did the things you talk about centuries ago. Why are you trying to twist the facts and attribute those actions to Christians today who had nothing to do with the views and actions you complain about, nor the Church that was responsible. It's a cheap propaganda trick. the "vile religious concepts" you refer to are not part of traditional Christian doctrine, but are a product of the corruption resulting from the alliance between the church and the Roman empire. That was then, this is now.

Why do you continue to attack modern Christians as though they had something to do with the Inquisition, and to present falsely your eccentric views as Gnosticism similar to those of the Cathars when they have little or nothing in common with them. Is there a religious community today whose views you share? The YouTube presentations you share with us from time to time--by Barbara Armstrong, Joseph Campbell, Timothy Freke, etc--are not by Gnostics. So what gives? What good works have you or your religious community (if there is one) done to help people in need or to make the world a better place--comparable to the hospitals, schools and charities operated by traditional Christian churches? What are you or your alleged religious community doing to promote peace, love and understanding in the world, as opposed to engaging in an on-going diatribe?

 

Wow. All of them eh.

Show the survey or be seen as a liar.

Regards
DL

 

It has been said often enough now. You can keep doing the same. It's your loss.

 

I was not speaking of the old Christians but of modern Christians.

Do you deny that they preach homophobia and misogyny?

Regards
DL

 

Did you read what I put on their lower level of inquisition against gays and women?

Seems you missed that.

Regards
DL

 

If I was the same as other Gnostic Christians, in beliefs instead of esoteric ecumenist attitudes, I would not be a Gnostic.

If all Christians were the same, there would not be the 3,00 odd denominations.

If Christians can be so different, why would you expect Gnostic Christians to have a homogenous set of beliefs?

Regards
DL

 

Yes. Like residential schools and orphanages that murdered so many infants.

I will let you praise the Lord for those. I will not.

Regards
DL

 

I see you as the loser here.

Get a life.

Regards
DL

 

Nobody cares what you think of people. I was pointing something out that other people feel too. You're trying to put it as if im going ad hominem at you, but the only one being an unworthy convo partner by constantly acting denigrating and trying to trigger others is you. That would all be ok (with me at least) if you would actually be sincere and adequate in answering the few people who still care to bother participating.
If you want to stop this trivial drivel just take the criticism. Okiefreak and BlackBillBlake have given it too. It's really not just me.

 

Regards
DL

 

I would expect a Gnostic to have at least some resemblance to traditional Gnostic beliefs, instead of using the label for its opposite. If somebody calls himself a Republican and says (s)he believes in revolutionary scientific socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and liquidation of capitalism, I'd say that person is engaging in false advertising. I wouldn't insist on a one-to-one correspondence to ancient gnosticism, but what is it of those you do and don't retain? Progressive Christians like me, for example, don't literally believe the formulas of the Nicene Creed, but do at least believe in the core message of Jesus--universal love and conern for all other humans, especially society's rejects. I'd at least expect you to be able to articulate a reasoned explanation of your beliefs, stating what it is about them (s)he finds appealing and why we might also. We learn from you lots about the deficiencies of traditional Christianity but very little positive about the belief system you're peddling--except that :it teaches that we are god(s), that life is good, and that there is no supernatural realm. When asked about what positive things you and your religious community (if one exists) are doing to care for the needy and make the world better all you can do is point to alleged deficiencies in the programs operated by traditional Christians My reaction on hearing that you are god is that we're in much worse shape than I thought. What does that even mean, considering you reject the supernatural? How do your other beliefs differ at all from secular humanism--except, of course, the notion that we are somehow god? How, if at all, does it differ from the human potential movement? You purport to be an idea man. Here's your chance to show your stuff. Please, not more You Tubes from people who don't share your belief-value system. Put it in your own words.

 

My focus is almost always on the moral aspects. and that is what I retain.

I preach the same but from a realistic level. Could you love your wife's rapist?

Neither could I am if Jesus would then he would be seen as an immoral fool.

I do that starting out with showing the benefits of having an open mind and not being tied to idol worshiping some objective set of poorly articulated rules.

Thanks for your first. Given that 70 odd % of Christians believe in they are to subjugate themselves to some immoral supernatural God, do you not see value in the truth I put? Do you not see value in the truth?

I gave you this before. Tell me if I am better off with being my own man and God or if I am better off to just accept some vile demiurge as a God?

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.


Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.


The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Okiefreak

You will know that not all Gnostic Christians use that term for the reasons you state. Some use the Chrestian designation of God the good and Jesus the good. There is no supernatural in that either.

If you are not your own man, God and master of your own ship, who is?

Regards
DL

 

Rond and round in circles. But once more, Gnosticism definitely posits the existence of 'the supernatural'. Your denial of the obvious facts is pointless, repetitive and tedious.

 

You are living in a fantasy. The 'average' Cathar believer wasn't required to refrain from sex. The Perfects took a vow of celibacy on recieving the consolamentum. That is the historical Cathars. Just to deny over and over the known facts as history records them is pointless. Your romantic notions of the Cathars have nothing to do with reality.

 

It's about as supernatural as it gets. Greatest I am is incorrect in saying that the Gnostics didn't believe in the supernatural or in a higher world. The facts is that if you read the Gnostic literarure such as the Nag Hammadi texts, you see a kind of religion steeped in magical and metaphysical thinking.

 

Yet it is the truth.

Regards
DL

 

No - it's one of your imaginary projections.

 

Again you give us Joseph Campbell and spiritual gadfly Alan Watts. They aren't Gnostics and they don't seem to share your worldview. The "modern Gnostics" who call themselves "I Am" are part of the I Am movement, of which you claim not to be a member. The out-of-context Bible quotes you give us don't really support your case. As the saying goes, even the Devil can quote scripture. As for being your own God, while denying supernatural content to the term, that can only mean that you think of yourself as "the supreme and ultimate reality". Given your evident intellectual limitations, that is a sobering thought. So stripped down to its essentials, you're advocating a sexed-up (or mixed-up) form of atheism or secular humanism with little in the way of specific content other than that. Why not say so?

 

If you are foolish enough to think modern Gnostic Christianity would have continued to maintain that practice, given the example of how well that works for Catholicism, you are beyond my help.

You might have noted that over time, even the Catholics have changed various poplicies even though they still prefer a bunch of pedophile priests instead of married ones.

Regards
DL

 

Correct, but only fools read myths literally. I already told you that and gave you the history of why we wrote our myths the way we did. We have our roots in Chrestianity and they were not a supernatural believing religion.

Regards
DL