Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Joan of Bark · 06-12-2007, 06:53 AM

I have received the Holy Spirit, and let me tell 'ya, he can't hold his whiskey.

Are you being serious, Knupfer, or are those smileys a sign of sarcasm?

xunzian · 06-12-2007, 06:58 AM

I think it is a subtler distinction, after all, in order for a canon to have been agreed upon, it strongly suggests that there were canons created by local Bishops, and something close(ish) to a real Christian canon prior to Nicea. Otherwise, how could they have agreed? It isn't like they sat down and randomly threw stuff together -- there was a method to their madness and, I would argue, a good deal of that method had to do with making a parsimonious form of Hellenised Christianity.

But I think that hairsplitting over what the Bible is, is a task best left for theologians. Is the Bible still the Bible in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which contains a few extra books? What about the Protestant Churches, that took a bunch of books out of the Catholic Bible?

Hey Knupfer,
Atheists do spend time discrediting Buddhist and Muslim texts. Check out the 'Is the Quran a Scientific Miracle' and the 'Buddhism -- a logical religion?' threads. Christianity just gets more criticism because this is an English website, so most of the people here will be from English speaking countries which are majority Christian. It's all demographics.

Roger Pearse · 06-12-2007, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knupfer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I was just thinking about this issue of "the gnostics were right".

If we want to suggest that they were, does it mean that we agree with them? If so, do we know what they said? They did, after all, say lots of different things, and indeed made up stuff as they went along.

1. Which gnostics were right? Given that they disagreed on many things.

Of those that most agreed on:

2. Were the gnostics right to say that there are two gods?
3. Were the gnostics right to say that Jesus appeared on earth in a phantasmal body?

If yes, then what evidence can be offered for these propositions?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Again the evidence is the Holy Spirit. Those who have received it will agree with the bible because it was also written with the Holy Spirit. The beliefs of the Gnostics didn't come from the Holy Spirit because they disagree with the bible. It's that simple.

Perhaps so, but this is a forum full of atheists who definitely don't have the Spirit. I thought merely to query the content of the proposition that the gnostics were right in secular terms, as a means to explore it further.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chili · 06-12-2007, 07:51 AM

It goes without saying that the Gnostics were wrong because it is a contradiction for a Freeman to belong to a religion. A gnostic is a solitary individual who has no equal because he is God. If only by definition a gnostic is either omniscient or a fraud.

Of course this same is true for a Christian who, if by definition only, has the mind of Christ and is therefore God as well. This was confirmed by the exclamation of Thomas "my Lord and my God" after Jesus showed him his wounds as the crucified and raised . . . which, as logic would have it, defrocked Peter who was the twin of doubt in that pair of opposites. Naturally Peter remained but moved on the 'higher grounds' on his next fishing trip.

So, it doesn't seem to make much sense that a Christian calls a Gnostic wrong if both are wrong.

mountainman · 06-13-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BALDUCCI

In the history of Christianity, one sect is wrong when it can no longer make its arguments or defend its position because it has been banned and burned.

Assuming the above statement is close to the mark, the
question is when did the history of christianity commence?

Most people conjecture it commenced in the first century but
there is absolutely no external scientifically estimable and/or
archeological evidence for it --- until the fourth century.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2007, 06:53 AM	#21
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	I have received the Holy Spirit, and let me tell 'ya, he can't hold his whiskey. Are you being serious, Knupfer, or are those smileys a sign of sarcasm?

06-12-2007, 06:58 AM	#22
xunzian Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,691	I think it is a subtler distinction, after all, in order for a canon to have been agreed upon, it strongly suggests that there were canons created by local Bishops, and something close(ish) to a real Christian canon prior to Nicea. Otherwise, how could they have agreed? It isn't like they sat down and randomly threw stuff together -- there was a method to their madness and, I would argue, a good deal of that method had to do with making a parsimonious form of Hellenised Christianity. But I think that hairsplitting over what the Bible is, is a task best left for theologians. Is the Bible still the Bible in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which contains a few extra books? What about the Protestant Churches, that took a bunch of books out of the Catholic Bible? Hey Knupfer, Atheists do spend time discrediting Buddhist and Muslim texts. Check out the 'Is the Quran a Scientific Miracle' and the 'Buddhism -- a logical religion?' threads. Christianity just gets more criticism because this is an English website, so most of the people here will be from English speaking countries which are majority Christian. It's all demographics.

06-12-2007, 07:51 AM	#24
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	It goes without saying that the Gnostics were wrong because it is a contradiction for a Freeman to belong to a religion. A gnostic is a solitary individual who has no equal because he is God. If only by definition a gnostic is either omniscient or a fraud. Of course this same is true for a Christian who, if by definition only, has the mind of Christ and is therefore God as well. This was confirmed by the exclamation of Thomas "my Lord and my God" after Jesus showed him his wounds as the crucified and raised . . . which, as logic would have it, defrocked Peter who was the twin of doubt in that pair of opposites. Naturally Peter remained but moved on the 'higher grounds' on his next fishing trip. So, it doesn't seem to make much sense that a Christian calls a Gnostic wrong if both are wrong.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.