Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yeah, as I was deconverting I read some of the Nag Hammadi Library, among other works from people like John Shelby Sponge. I didn’t find any reason to stop there as I headed for the exit door… And unlike Keith&co, I don’t kiss pigs

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?

I find liberal Christian theology to be superior to conservative/fundamentalist Christian theology in general, so yeah I’d lump Gnostic in with the liberal wing. I’d imagine that your morals/ethical views really isn’t that different than a typical ELCA preacher’s view.

Did you used to go under a different username? The DL and pic seem familiar….

I see a lot of differences because we are not literalists but agree that the left is more moral than the right.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

I didn’t find any reason to stop there as I headed for the exit door… And unlike Keith&co, I don’t kiss pigs

Man, you act out ONE metaphor, you're branded for life...

 

[funinspace]

Oink oink oink

Yeah, as I was deconverting I read some of the Nag Hammadi Library, among other works from people like John Shelby Sponge. I didn’t find any reason to stop there as I headed for the exit door… And unlike Keith&co, I don’t kiss pigs

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?

I find liberal Christian theology to be superior to conservative/fundamentalist Christian theology in general, so yeah I’d lump Gnostic in with the liberal wing. I’d imagine that your morals/ethical views really isn’t that different than a typical ELCA preacher’s view.

Did you used to go under a different username? The DL and pic seem familiar….

I see a lot of differences because we are not literalists but agree that the left is more moral than the right.

Regards
DL

Literalists??? You must have interacted with some very different liberal Christians than I, because I don't know any literalist liberal Christians. I know some Methodists that don't even think Jesus is/was part of the God-head. Why they want to still use the Christian label is beyond me, but it is their choice...

 

[Rhea]

@Gnostic Christian Bishop, do you have a definition of God, and is the story of Jesus myth in your opinion...?

Myth.

I, like Joseph Campbell, see Jesus as a one of the Heroes of 1,000 faces. I do not know if a Jesus ever existed as described but doubt. I do think there may have been a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus but he was just a man. Not a God. He preached to seek God. If he had claimed to be God he would not have said to seek what was right in front of the seeker.

As to how to best describe God to you atheists, I would ask that you define God as just the best set of rules and laws to live by. You atheists do not personify, which, FMPOV, inhibits your mental growth, --- but that is pure opinion and I admit I could be quite wrong in this --- psychobabble --- which I do not like to do.

I seek God via traditional religions but focus on the morality of rules and laws. Those are the deeds and works all of us must do to find whatever or whoever we want to see as the best rules for life.

Regards
DL

Then why do you bother to add the word "Christian" as a descriptor of your beliefs?
If you don't believe that Jesus was a/the "CHRIST" why would you name your version of the cult after him? That's confusing.

 

[funinspace]

@Gnostic Christian Bishop, do you have a definition of God, and is the story of Jesus myth in your opinion...?

Myth.

I, like Joseph Campbell, see Jesus as a one of the Heroes of 1,000 faces. I do not know if a Jesus ever existed as described but doubt. I do think there may have been a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus but he was just a man. Not a God. He preached to seek God. If he had claimed to be God he would not have said to seek what was right in front of the seeker.

As to how to best describe God to you atheists, I would ask that you define God as just the best set of rules and laws to live by. You atheists do not personify, which, FMPOV, inhibits your mental growth, --- but that is pure opinion and I admit I could be quite wrong in this --- psychobabble --- which I do not like to do.

I seek God via traditional religions but focus on the morality of rules and laws. Those are the deeds and works all of us must do to find whatever or whoever we want to see as the best rules for life.

Regards
DL

Then why do you bother to add the word "Christian" as a descriptor of your beliefs?
If you don't believe that Jesus was a/the "CHRIST" why would you name your version of the cult after him? That's confusing.

LOL...why do Methodist Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus call themselves Christian?

I think Frank Herbert, within the Dune saga, drew a interesting picture of human religious foibles with the Orange Catholic Bible, Zensunnis, Zensufism, et.al. Ironically, he let Judaism stay about the same.

 

[dockeen]

@Gnostic Christian Bishop, do you have a definition of God, and is the story of Jesus myth in your opinion...?

Myth.

I, like Joseph Campbell, see Jesus as a one of the Heroes of 1,000 faces. I do not know if a Jesus ever existed as described but doubt. I do think there may have been a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus but he was just a man. Not a God. He preached to seek God. If he had claimed to be God he would not have said to seek what was right in front of the seeker.

As to how to best describe God to you atheists, I would ask that you define God as just the best set of rules and laws to live by. You atheists do not personify, which, FMPOV, inhibits your mental growth, --- but that is pure opinion and I admit I could be quite wrong in this --- psychobabble --- which I do not like to do.

I seek God via traditional religions but focus on the morality of rules and laws. Those are the deeds and works all of us must do to find whatever or whoever we want to see as the best rules for life.

Regards
DL

Then why do you bother to add the word "Christian" as a descriptor of your beliefs?
If you don't believe that Jesus was a/the "CHRIST" why would you name your version of the cult after him? That's confusing.

I know in the past I have had a tendency to label by spiritual beliefs as

Christianity - the things that I have rejected

or call it

Christianity*

even if what was left is a contradiction to what Christianity is axiomatically supposed to be.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yeah, as I was deconverting I read some of the Nag Hammadi Library, among other works from people like John Shelby Sponge. I didn’t find any reason to stop there as I headed for the exit door… And unlike Keith&co, I don’t kiss pigs

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?

I find liberal Christian theology to be superior to conservative/fundamentalist Christian theology in general, so yeah I’d lump Gnostic in with the liberal wing. I’d imagine that your morals/ethical views really isn’t that different than a typical ELCA preacher’s view.

Did you used to go under a different username? The DL and pic seem familiar….

I see a lot of differences because we are not literalists but agree that the left is more moral than the right.

Regards
DL

Literalists??? You must have interacted with some very different liberal Christians than I, because I don't know any literalist liberal Christians. I know some Methodists that don't even think Jesus is/was part of the God-head. Why they want to still use the Christian label is beyond me, but it is their choice...

All Christians must read scriptures literally if they believe in a Jesus.

That is the only place that posits his reality and reading the bible literally, even in a minute way, is the only way to end believing in a real Jesus.

it would seem to me that if a Christian does not believe in a literal Jesus, then he cannot be a Christian.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

@Gnostic Christian Bishop, do you have a definition of God, and is the story of Jesus myth in your opinion...?

Myth.

I, like Joseph Campbell, see Jesus as a one of the Heroes of 1,000 faces. I do not know if a Jesus ever existed as described but doubt. I do think there may have been a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus but he was just a man. Not a God. He preached to seek God. If he had claimed to be God he would not have said to seek what was right in front of the seeker.

As to how to best describe God to you atheists, I would ask that you define God as just the best set of rules and laws to live by. You atheists do not personify, which, FMPOV, inhibits your mental growth, --- but that is pure opinion and I admit I could be quite wrong in this --- psychobabble --- which I do not like to do.

I seek God via traditional religions but focus on the morality of rules and laws. Those are the deeds and works all of us must do to find whatever or whoever we want to see as the best rules for life.

Regards
DL

Then why do you bother to add the word "Christian" as a descriptor of your beliefs?
If you don't believe that Jesus was a/the "CHRIST" why would you name your version of the cult after him? That's confusing.

I did not name the cult I follow and the cult I follow uses Jesus as their hero archetype and that is what I also do.

Gnostic Christianity may have been the original form of Catholicism thanks to being a Universalist cult and I think it is the Christians that won the war who are confusing the Greek Christos with the Jewish Jesus.

Regards
DL

 

[funinspace]

Yeah, as I was deconverting I read some of the Nag Hammadi Library, among other works from people like John Shelby Sponge. I didn’t find any reason to stop there as I headed for the exit door… And unlike Keith&co, I don’t kiss pigs

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?

I find liberal Christian theology to be superior to conservative/fundamentalist Christian theology in general, so yeah I’d lump Gnostic in with the liberal wing. I’d imagine that your morals/ethical views really isn’t that different than a typical ELCA preacher’s view.

Did you used to go under a different username? The DL and pic seem familiar….

I see a lot of differences because we are not literalists but agree that the left is more moral than the right.

Regards
DL

Literalists??? You must have interacted with some very different liberal Christians than I, because I don't know any literalist liberal Christians. I know some Methodists that don't even think Jesus is/was part of the God-head. Why they want to still use the Christian label is beyond me, but it is their choice...

All Christians must read scriptures literally if they believe in a Jesus.

That is the only place that posits his reality and reading the bible literally, even in a minute way, is the only way to end believing in a real Jesus.

it would seem to me that if a Christian does not believe in a literal Jesus, then he cannot be a Christian.

Regards
DL

And you say this, while also clinging to the label "Christian", albeit with an extra word in front.... You seem to have a very poor grasp on just how liberal Christian think about the Christian Bible. Do you ever talk to liberal Christians, like from the UMC or ELCA? Like I just said, some liberal Christians don't even consider Jesus divine, so those types don't "believe in a Jesus" in the way you suggest they have too.

How well do you take to people telling you how you have to think?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yeah, as I was deconverting I read some of the Nag Hammadi Library, among other works from people like John Shelby Sponge. I didn’t find any reason to stop there as I headed for the exit door… And unlike Keith&co, I don’t kiss pigs

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?

I find liberal Christian theology to be superior to conservative/fundamentalist Christian theology in general, so yeah I’d lump Gnostic in with the liberal wing. I’d imagine that your morals/ethical views really isn’t that different than a typical ELCA preacher’s view.

Did you used to go under a different username? The DL and pic seem familiar….

I see a lot of differences because we are not literalists but agree that the left is more moral than the right.

Regards
DL

Literalists??? You must have interacted with some very different liberal Christians than I, because I don't know any literalist liberal Christians. I know some Methodists that don't even think Jesus is/was part of the God-head. Why they want to still use the Christian label is beyond me, but it is their choice...

All Christians must read scriptures literally if they believe in a Jesus.

That is the only place that posits his reality and reading the bible literally, even in a minute way, is the only way to end believing in a real Jesus.

it would seem to me that if a Christian does not believe in a literal Jesus, then he cannot be a Christian.

Regards
DL

And you say this, while also clinging to the label "Christian", albeit with an extra word in front.... You seem to have a very poor grasp on just how liberal Christian think about the Christian Bible. Do you ever talk to liberal Christians, like from the UMC or ELCA? Like I just said, some liberal Christians don't even consider Jesus divine, so those types don't "believe in a Jesus" in the way you suggest they have too.

How well do you take to people telling you how you have to think?

If the suggestion is worthy then I have no problem accepting advice.

-------------------

Note that they do not consider Jesus divine.

To do so they must read scriptures literally.

You make my point. Thanks.

Regards
DL

 

[funinspace]

Yeah, as I was deconverting I read some of the Nag Hammadi Library, among other works from people like John Shelby Sponge. I didn’t find any reason to stop there as I headed for the exit door… And unlike Keith&co, I don’t kiss pigs

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?

I find liberal Christian theology to be superior to conservative/fundamentalist Christian theology in general, so yeah I’d lump Gnostic in with the liberal wing. I’d imagine that your morals/ethical views really isn’t that different than a typical ELCA preacher’s view.

Did you used to go under a different username? The DL and pic seem familiar….

I see a lot of differences because we are not literalists but agree that the left is more moral than the right.

Regards
DL

Literalists??? You must have interacted with some very different liberal Christians than I, because I don't know any literalist liberal Christians. I know some Methodists that don't even think Jesus is/was part of the God-head. Why they want to still use the Christian label is beyond me, but it is their choice...

All Christians must read scriptures literally if they believe in a Jesus.

That is the only place that posits his reality and reading the bible literally, even in a minute way, is the only way to end believing in a real Jesus.

it would seem to me that if a Christian does not believe in a literal Jesus, then he cannot be a Christian.

Regards
DL

And you say this, while also clinging to the label "Christian", albeit with an extra word in front.... You seem to have a very poor grasp on just how liberal Christian think about the Christian Bible. Do you ever talk to liberal Christians, like from the UMC or ELCA? Like I just said, some liberal Christians don't even consider Jesus divine, so those types don't "believe in a Jesus" in the way you suggest they have too.

How well do you take to people telling you how you have to think?

If the suggestion is worthy then I have no problem accepting advice.

-------------------

Note that they do not consider Jesus divine.

To do so they must read scriptures literally.

You make my point. Thanks.

Regards
DL

Recapping a bit for clarity…
#101
Me: I’d lump Gnostic in with the liberal wing (of Christianity)
You: I see a lot of differences because we are not literalists

#107
Me: I don't know any literalist liberal Christians. I know some Methodists that don't even think Jesus is/was part of the God-head
You: All Christians must read scriptures literally if they believe in a Jesus. That is the only place that posits his reality and reading the bible literally, even in a minute way, is the only way to end believing in a real Jesus.

This is getting strange…but after reading back thru the exchange I’m guessing that the part of our exchange that I have now bolded is what you are referring to when you call a liberal Christian a literalist. So, I assume that it is your argument that if someone reads any part of the Christian bible as literally true or historical, then they are a literalist Christian, or maybe you restrict this label to people who take the parts of the Bible about Jesus’ divinity as true. I don’t know, maybe you could clarify this???

When I described how some liberal Christians don’t even believe in a divine Christ/Jesus, I was describing the extreme end of such liberal beliefs. Some also think Jesus was divine, but might not believe all of the miracle stories (say like the virgin birth); or they may find Noah’s Deluge to be myth among other things; they may think Paul’s writings as inspired, but not necessarily wholly correct or accurate; they may find Revelations to be a crock. The point is that it is a wide spectrum of thought and belief (or lack of belief) in what is sometimes ascribed as a literal interpretation of some theme within the Bible. Most people, when describing Christians as literalists, are talking about those Christians that belong to fundamentalist and/or conservative evangelical churches, which consider the whole Bible to be God-breathed.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yeah, as I was deconverting I read some of the Nag Hammadi Library, among other works from people like John Shelby Sponge. I didn’t find any reason to stop there as I headed for the exit door… And unlike Keith&co, I don’t kiss pigs

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?

I find liberal Christian theology to be superior to conservative/fundamentalist Christian theology in general, so yeah I’d lump Gnostic in with the liberal wing. I’d imagine that your morals/ethical views really isn’t that different than a typical ELCA preacher’s view.

Did you used to go under a different username? The DL and pic seem familiar….

I see a lot of differences because we are not literalists but agree that the left is more moral than the right.

Regards
DL

Literalists??? You must have interacted with some very different liberal Christians than I, because I don't know any literalist liberal Christians. I know some Methodists that don't even think Jesus is/was part of the God-head. Why they want to still use the Christian label is beyond me, but it is their choice...

All Christians must read scriptures literally if they believe in a Jesus.

That is the only place that posits his reality and reading the bible literally, even in a minute way, is the only way to end believing in a real Jesus.

it would seem to me that if a Christian does not believe in a literal Jesus, then he cannot be a Christian.

Regards
DL

And you say this, while also clinging to the label "Christian", albeit with an extra word in front.... You seem to have a very poor grasp on just how liberal Christian think about the Christian Bible. Do you ever talk to liberal Christians, like from the UMC or ELCA? Like I just said, some liberal Christians don't even consider Jesus divine, so those types don't "believe in a Jesus" in the way you suggest they have too.

How well do you take to people telling you how you have to think?

If the suggestion is worthy then I have no problem accepting advice.

-------------------

Note that they do not consider Jesus divine.

To do so they must read scriptures literally.

You make my point. Thanks.

Regards
DL

Recapping a bit for clarity…
#101
Me: I’d lump Gnostic in with the liberal wing (of Christianity)
You: I see a lot of differences because we are not literalists

#107
Me: I don't know any literalist liberal Christians. I know some Methodists that don't even think Jesus is/was part of the God-head
You: All Christians must read scriptures literally if they believe in a Jesus. That is the only place that posits his reality and reading the bible literally, even in a minute way, is the only way to end believing in a real Jesus.

This is getting strange…but after reading back thru the exchange I’m guessing that the part of our exchange that I have now bolded is what you are referring to when you call a liberal Christian a literalist. So, I assume that it is your argument that if someone reads any part of the Christian bible as literally true or historical, then they are a literalist Christian, or maybe you restrict this label to people who take the parts of the Bible about Jesus’ divinity as true. I don’t know, maybe you could clarify this???

When I described how some liberal Christians don’t even believe in a divine Christ/Jesus, I was describing the extreme end of such liberal beliefs. Some also think Jesus was divine, but might not believe all of the miracle stories (say like the virgin birth); or they may find Noah’s Deluge to be myth among other things; they may think Paul’s writings as inspired, but not necessarily wholly correct or accurate; they may find Revelations to be a crock. The point is that it is a wide spectrum of thought and belief (or lack of belief) in what is sometimes ascribed as a literal interpretation of some theme within the Bible. Most people, when describing Christians as literalists, are talking about those Christians that belong to fundamentalist and/or conservative evangelical churches, which consider the whole Bible to be God-breathed.

I agree that Christian beliefs are all over the place.
Those who take it everywhere must still be literal readers if they are to believe in a literally real person that existed in ancient days.

"reading the bible literally, even in a minute way, is the only way to end believing in a real Jesus.".

The divinity of Jesus or any other attribute that he is given is not directly relevant to my statement.

Whatever the belief, if one has one, must come from literal reading. No other source of Jesus' reality is available.

All believers then must read scriptures literally to some extent.

Regards
DL