Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?
Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?
The Gnostic wing of Christianity, if it can even be called that today, has quite a few differences to Christianity and Catholicism.
If the old Gnostic Christians were here, they would hardly recognize what has happened to the original Orthodox Catholic Church or it's various offshoots in Protestantism or Islam. The Gnostic Christian Jesus would have a fit and would be quite disappointed I think. I know that this Gnostic Christian is.
The two main differences that moved the old Christians to kill Gnostic Christians and burn their scriptures was literalism in reading scriptures and the fact that the Gnostic version of Jesus was a Universalist.
That Gnostic Christian Jesus, and the Gnostic Christians of that flavor, (there are likely as many Gnostic sects as Christian sects), sees a spark of God in all people including women and gays. That fact, to me, makes Gnostic Christianity a more desirable denomination of Christianity than all the rest.
If a religion cannot abide with equality of the sexes then to my mind it is not a just religion and is not worthy of the support of moral people. Inequality is an immoral position and most of the Abrahamic cults are of that immoral persuasion.
As the superior Catholic theology, it is my hope that Gnostic Christianity will eventually bury the non-egalitarian and immoral Christian cults as their members recognize that equality is the right moral system for all to live under.
If you have investigated Gnostic Christianity, do you agree that from a moral POV, they are the superior Christian theology thanks to equality and Universalism?
Regards
DL
The Gnostic wing of Christianity, if it can even be called that today, has quite a few differences to Christianity and Catholicism.
If the old Gnostic Christians were here, they would hardly recognize what has happened to the original Orthodox Catholic Church or it's various offshoots in Protestantism or Islam. The Gnostic Christian Jesus would have a fit and would be quite disappointed I think. I know that this Gnostic Christian is.
The two main differences that moved the old Christians to kill Gnostic Christians and burn their scriptures was literalism in reading scriptures and the fact that the Gnostic version of Jesus was a Universalist.
That Gnostic Christian Jesus, and the Gnostic Christians of that flavor, (there are likely as many Gnostic sects as Christian sects), sees a spark of God in all people including women and gays. That fact, to me, makes Gnostic Christianity a more desirable denomination of Christianity than all the rest.
If a religion cannot abide with equality of the sexes then to my mind it is not a just religion and is not worthy of the support of moral people. Inequality is an immoral position and most of the Abrahamic cults are of that immoral persuasion.
As the superior Catholic theology, it is my hope that Gnostic Christianity will eventually bury the non-egalitarian and immoral Christian cults as their members recognize that equality is the right moral system for all to live under.
If you have investigated Gnostic Christianity, do you agree that from a moral POV, they are the superior Christian theology thanks to equality and Universalism?
Regards
DL
Comments138
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I really do not like any type of Christianity at all. this religion really needs to die off. New religions need to be made now.
Most of why you dislike Christianity is not in Gnostic Christianity.
Christians decimated us and burned our scriptures because we mostly disagreed with them.
One big difference is that we are Universalists and do not discriminate against women and gays the way most mainstream religions do.
It may be easier and faster to get Gnostic Christianity going than inventing a new one but I generally agree that the religions on offer have got to go. Most have satanic morals.
Regards
DL
Christians decimated us and burned our scriptures because we mostly disagreed with them.
One big difference is that we are Universalists and do not discriminate against women and gays the way most mainstream religions do.
It may be easier and faster to get Gnostic Christianity going than inventing a new one but I generally agree that the religions on offer have got to go. Most have satanic morals.
Regards
DL
wow, great job on saying that. I agree with you 100% 
Sweet.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL
lockdown.
Gnosticism is rubbish, Gnosticism is more serious than people may initially suspect.
Serious rubbish.
That really tells us what you think.
Regards
DL
That really tells us what you think.
Regards
DL
Mixing lies in with truth is never a good idea.
Your understanding of Christianity seems scanty, but both your literacy and attitude are still a lot better than the blind faith and bigotry of the vast majority of superstitious simpletons.
If a religion considers sexes equal, it is wrong. Complementarity does not mean equality. It means incomparability. The “superiority” of the masculine principle comes from the essence of willpower within said principle.
The men and women of today or (horribile dictu!) the various other genders defined by gender theorists are a sad excuse for the ancient humans.
While I agree that most contemporary forms of Abrahamic religions abuse this, inequality is the core of any and all structure under God's perfection.
On the other hand, as I have heard from like-minded friends studying Christian Theology on a University level, the majority of Gnostics were deviant and eclectic cultists who were similar to contemporary neo-pagans, and it was a form of emergency pest control to remove the whole idea of gnosticism from Catholicism. It would have been too dangerous to just cherry-pick the few right branches at the time.
The closest existing branch that survived is Hesychasm in Christian Orthodoxy, it is very similar to Sufism and Vedanta Hinduism.
Also, I think the more severe consequences of calling heresy on Gnosticism is was a sure step toward the bigotry that now makes the Church compromise and make an ass out of their own mouth (yes, I'm especially talking about Pope Francis).
If a religion considers sexes equal, it is wrong. Complementarity does not mean equality. It means incomparability. The “superiority” of the masculine principle comes from the essence of willpower within said principle.
The men and women of today or (horribile dictu!) the various other genders defined by gender theorists are a sad excuse for the ancient humans.
While I agree that most contemporary forms of Abrahamic religions abuse this, inequality is the core of any and all structure under God's perfection.
On the other hand, as I have heard from like-minded friends studying Christian Theology on a University level, the majority of Gnostics were deviant and eclectic cultists who were similar to contemporary neo-pagans, and it was a form of emergency pest control to remove the whole idea of gnosticism from Catholicism. It would have been too dangerous to just cherry-pick the few right branches at the time.
The closest existing branch that survived is Hesychasm in Christian Orthodoxy, it is very similar to Sufism and Vedanta Hinduism.
Also, I think the more severe consequences of calling heresy on Gnosticism is was a sure step toward the bigotry that now makes the Church compromise and make an ass out of their own mouth (yes, I'm especially talking about Pope Francis).
Christians had to bad mouth those they murdered in the past for not wanting to believe as they did. Literalism is evil.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL
I don't think Christians in the first millenium were all that literal... Christianity has always been a very special, martyric and ascetic path. This form of strict resistance against temptations could not properly digest more open forms of tantric practice where you “ride the tiger”.
Riding the tiger is basically practicing the sin in order to gain control over it. This is something that exoteric Catholicism cannot properly overcome. I've read a book on Christianity written by Frithjof Schuon, and he wrote that Luther taught that it is more appropriate to sin and reflect on it than to not sin at all, as sinning is an inevitable consequence of being human (which is ontologically backed up by the fact that particularity is inferior thus weaker thus more feeble and tempted than completeness, perfection, God). Weakness is essentially passivity, passion, being subject to something, the sufferer of the environment
In martial arts, these are called hard and soft ways: Hard ways (ascetism) solidly block and endure damage (e. g. Karate) and hit hard in return, while soft ways (tantrism) “hijack” the attacking force and redirect it (e. g. Ju-Jitsu, Aikido).
I hope I'm not too confusing with this jumping around and fetching seemingly random examples.
Riding the tiger is basically practicing the sin in order to gain control over it. This is something that exoteric Catholicism cannot properly overcome. I've read a book on Christianity written by Frithjof Schuon, and he wrote that Luther taught that it is more appropriate to sin and reflect on it than to not sin at all, as sinning is an inevitable consequence of being human (which is ontologically backed up by the fact that particularity is inferior thus weaker thus more feeble and tempted than completeness, perfection, God). Weakness is essentially passivity, passion, being subject to something, the sufferer of the environment
In martial arts, these are called hard and soft ways: Hard ways (ascetism) solidly block and endure damage (e. g. Karate) and hit hard in return, while soft ways (tantrism) “hijack” the attacking force and redirect it (e. g. Ju-Jitsu, Aikido).
I hope I'm not too confusing with this jumping around and fetching seemingly random examples.
Your first is correct.
Literalism really took off after Constantine bought the Church and set it's policies.
That is when the new Christians started killing off all those who did not believe in the church prescribed way. The Dark Ages continue thanks to literalist and the way they read scriptures. They forget that they are myths.
Regards
DL
Literalism really took off after Constantine bought the Church and set it's policies.
That is when the new Christians started killing off all those who did not believe in the church prescribed way. The Dark Ages continue thanks to literalist and the way they read scriptures. They forget that they are myths.
Regards
DL
I waited some time and followed this thread but now I cannot refrain from an answer.
1) Investigated? That sounds like not a positive word.
2) It can still be called the Gnostic wing or Gnostic Christians today as there are traditional and modern branches.
3) Who might be that Gnostic Christian Jesus? Jesus is Jesus. In trinity: Jesus, Him and the Holy Spirit. I think that He has never changed, always stayed the one stated and reported in New Testament and passed on by direct word of his Disciples. So, I really would be curious who that Jesus might be?
4) Another thing: Is there such a difference between the old and the new Christians. Here are nice apologetics. But have you ever get into a word turning upside down hunt of Christian Apologetics in a pure Christian forum?
Yes? Then you will understand what I mean. No? Then you have no idea. They have not changed so much and still like throwing their "h"-words offendingly around.
Literalism. I do not know, depends on. Your so-called old Christians only provided the Bible in Latin. Gnostic Christians translated them into language for the folk that everybody could read it. If that is meant by literalism.
5) So, I agree with you here. A spark of Him is just but meant filled with the Holy Spirit as there was no baptism by water but light baptism when the Holy Spirit spark entered into baptized person. Also souls of Gnostic Christians are living sparks in the stars waiting for another circle of life. And the living spark was filling everyone worth of it, did not matter if women of gays, absolutely right as He propagates the path of light and provides love for everyone.
6) What to say about this? Some say Gnostic Christians are a denomination. Some call them a sect and others even do not call them Christians at all. That is a bit mixed up for me to understand
7) Immorality is negative. No points against. But who are you to judge who is immoral and who is not? Inequality is as immoral as judgement and prerogatives. Tolerance would be a good moral. Abrahamic cults are not all that bad as you make them. Just study them and inform yourself before judging.
8) How shall a minority bury a majority? The only way (and this is also my own conviction) is to talk together in a friendly and open way, tolerant and not judgemental, leaving things of quarrel out like Bible quotes etc. Just talking about point of views, something what is really understood by a discussion. You explain me your way. I explain you my way. We mix and filter what is common. We talk again. I accept your good points. You accept my good points. We make a compromise out of all good points from either side. That is what real discussion means to me - neither bashing, nor banging, or blaming.
Sometimes I am myself far from any forgiveness. In so many attemps I have made mostly apologetics closed all doors to it or threads like those I have met here yesterday.
9) If you call for equality, you cannot come up with "superior" now in your last sentence. That is a contradiction in itself. Probably I would investigate criminal matters but not Gnostic Christianity
And forgive me, as I am non-English native, for asking what POV means?
And there is no Christian denomination, sect, theology superior when we should be equal
Sorry, I feel that had to be
(I fear my grammar was bad)...
1) Investigated? That sounds like not a positive word.
2) It can still be called the Gnostic wing or Gnostic Christians today as there are traditional and modern branches.
3) Who might be that Gnostic Christian Jesus? Jesus is Jesus. In trinity: Jesus, Him and the Holy Spirit. I think that He has never changed, always stayed the one stated and reported in New Testament and passed on by direct word of his Disciples. So, I really would be curious who that Jesus might be?
4) Another thing: Is there such a difference between the old and the new Christians. Here are nice apologetics. But have you ever get into a word turning upside down hunt of Christian Apologetics in a pure Christian forum?
Yes? Then you will understand what I mean. No? Then you have no idea. They have not changed so much and still like throwing their "h"-words offendingly around.
Literalism. I do not know, depends on. Your so-called old Christians only provided the Bible in Latin. Gnostic Christians translated them into language for the folk that everybody could read it. If that is meant by literalism.
5) So, I agree with you here. A spark of Him is just but meant filled with the Holy Spirit as there was no baptism by water but light baptism when the Holy Spirit spark entered into baptized person. Also souls of Gnostic Christians are living sparks in the stars waiting for another circle of life. And the living spark was filling everyone worth of it, did not matter if women of gays, absolutely right as He propagates the path of light and provides love for everyone.
6) What to say about this? Some say Gnostic Christians are a denomination. Some call them a sect and others even do not call them Christians at all. That is a bit mixed up for me to understand
7) Immorality is negative. No points against. But who are you to judge who is immoral and who is not? Inequality is as immoral as judgement and prerogatives. Tolerance would be a good moral. Abrahamic cults are not all that bad as you make them. Just study them and inform yourself before judging.
8) How shall a minority bury a majority? The only way (and this is also my own conviction) is to talk together in a friendly and open way, tolerant and not judgemental, leaving things of quarrel out like Bible quotes etc. Just talking about point of views, something what is really understood by a discussion. You explain me your way. I explain you my way. We mix and filter what is common. We talk again. I accept your good points. You accept my good points. We make a compromise out of all good points from either side. That is what real discussion means to me - neither bashing, nor banging, or blaming.
Sometimes I am myself far from any forgiveness. In so many attemps I have made mostly apologetics closed all doors to it or threads like those I have met here yesterday.
9) If you call for equality, you cannot come up with "superior" now in your last sentence. That is a contradiction in itself. Probably I would investigate criminal matters but not Gnostic Christianity
And forgive me, as I am non-English native, for asking what POV means?
And there is no Christian denomination, sect, theology superior when we should be equal
Sorry, I feel that had to be
(I fear my grammar was bad)...
I am French so do not worry about grammar.
A spark of God is not the holy spirit.
Listen to what Jesus taught. You will not hear this in church.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbe…
This following is a method for you to grow your Christ mind in you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_…
You said above that you do not like the idea of us judging yet I am just following scripture.
1 Thesalonian 5;21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
If you have a God, then you have judged him to be good and worthy of your love.
I have a Godhead and have judged the Abrahamic God to be unworthy of that title.
The main reason that bible God is evil is because of the inequality he has denied women of forever.
Think of your life and the life of the other women you know who have been denied equality and come back and tell me you are ok with that.
Listen to what women have said.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EY…
Regards
DL
A spark of God is not the holy spirit.
Listen to what Jesus taught. You will not hear this in church.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbe…
This following is a method for you to grow your Christ mind in you.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_…
You said above that you do not like the idea of us judging yet I am just following scripture.
1 Thesalonian 5;21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
If you have a God, then you have judged him to be good and worthy of your love.
I have a Godhead and have judged the Abrahamic God to be unworthy of that title.
The main reason that bible God is evil is because of the inequality he has denied women of forever.
Think of your life and the life of the other women you know who have been denied equality and come back and tell me you are ok with that.
Listen to what women have said.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EY…
Regards
DL
Depends on what god you refer to - the evil creator god or Him, Father of Jesus.
Quite interesting thoughts, not the same than mine but quite similar. There are slight differences, could be because of diversity as well as of traditional and modern branches.
Quite interesting thoughts, not the same than mine but quite similar. There are slight differences, could be because of diversity as well as of traditional and modern branches.
I do not think any of the Gods are identical.
We all have our own quirks.
That is what helps make life interesting.
Imagine the boredom if we were all the same.
Regards
DL
We all have our own quirks.
That is what helps make life interesting.
Imagine the boredom if we were all the same.
Regards
DL
No they are not. That is for sure.
I tried to imagine but at last I failed. I have never had a uniform thinking.
I tried to imagine but at last I failed. I have never had a uniform thinking.
Nice.
We pay a price for that but it is worth the paying.
Regards
DL
We pay a price for that but it is worth the paying.
Regards
DL
Yes, I think so. Life is continual improvement, worth to strive for.
Sometimes the deepest depth lead to the brightest light. Nothing is for granted, you have to work for it. The more you know the depths, the more you appreciate the light. And the darker the depths, the more capable you are in shaking away shutters and walk to see with open eyes. The true self is your innermost. Only with the eyes of your true self, you can really see
Sometimes the deepest depth lead to the brightest light. Nothing is for granted, you have to work for it. The more you know the depths, the more you appreciate the light. And the darker the depths, the more capable you are in shaking away shutters and walk to see with open eyes. The true self is your innermost. Only with the eyes of your true self, you can really see
View all replies
much fun reading the posts of people who cant understand the difference between religion and sect
Holy shit... That's all I could say.
I knows. Ive followed him and every time you search any of his topics, he has it posted in 10 different websites.
What do you have against free speech and association?
How do you live your life in such a shallow way?
Regards
DL
How do you live your life in such a shallow way?
Regards
DL