originally posted by: Murgatroid
originally posted by: Taxiarch
What church do you belong to, I bet it's a cult. I am a Gnostic, I have Knowledge of the Truth by the Great Spirit of God Most High through the Logos
of God. You have issues.
Gnosticism IS in fact cult indoctrination.
No ifs ands or buts about it.
It also has no more credibility than any other cult out there.
Define Gnosticism, as I have no doubt you are incorrect that it is a cult (although there may be Gnostic cults, just like Christian cults).
Gnosticism is nothing like religion that it could be called a cult as it's focus isn't on a human leader (a requirement to fit the definition of cult)
but on self discovery and contemplation of the Divine OUTSIDE the confines of dogmatic religious beliefs.
It has no organization that is even capable of doing this and exists as a side of every religion. Christianity has the Nag Hammadi texts, Islam has
the Sufis and Judaism has the Kabbalah, all considered by the orthodoxy to be deviations from the usual indoctrination that comes with orthodoxy.
Religion is indoctrination, Gnosticism is freedom from indoctrination.
Some have said that Gnosticism was considered to be the Scientology of the Second Century, and I completely agree...
You agree BECAUSE you've been indoctrinated not because you know the truth.
There are LITERALLY no similarities between (I assume you mean the Nag Hammadi texts when you say Gnosticism as does every indoctrinated Christian, I
also assume you are a Christian but that's just obvious) Gnosticism and Scientology and all that you are doing is showing that you believe ridiculous
comparisons made by people hostile to Gnostics when you say you agree.
The Gnostics were Christian, before Nicea and the law of Canon, who believed that Jesus was a savior and teacher of knowledge and wisdom. They had an
elaborate Cosmogony that resembles modern Kabbalah and in no way, shape or form resembles a pseudo psychology self help cult founded by a lunatic
science fiction writer. I think you are heavily indoctrinated, maybe you should read the writings of the Gnostics before deciding to make absurd
claims about it.
Satanic practices throughout the world can be traced in an unbroken line directly back to Gnosticism...
Really? How so, in your own words that is?Anyone can find a link that says anything but why don't you display some of YOUR knowledge and tell us how
Satanism is descended from Gnosticism.
I will help you, it is not. In all known Gnostic writings that mention Satan he is the enemy so I don't see how that could possibly make it the root
of Satanic practices.
I think you are confusing enlightenment with Satanism. Gnosis means Knowledge, unless you think that knowledge is satanic or that Christ was the
devil you are just completely bashing something that you have no knowledge of.
Curse of Canaan
current Illuminati religion is based on Gnosticism...
The Illuminati, seriously? You are REALLY indoctrinated if you think that the Illuminati is real. ROFLMFAO!!!
Simon Magus -- The lluminati's Jesus?
To understand how people are being brainwashed
by The Illuminati to hate God and accept the coming Anti-Christ ... You must understand gnosticism! Even the first century church had to deal with
these heretics... They claim that the devil is the savior and our God is a devil! They invert the truth!
Illuminati Satanic Gnosticism EXPOSED
Eustace Mullins does not say Gnosticism is evil, Henry Makkow is a shill and not a single Gnostic text even MENTIONS Simon Magus.
Simon Magus was the alleged founder of the Simonians and literally no reliable historical information about him exists. Some say he was really the
first Pope and/or Peter. More think he was a pseudonym for Paul.
Either way he has nothing to do with the Egyptian/Syrian Christians who were dubbed "Gnostics" by the early persecutors of the Latin Christian
church. That was propaganda by the heresiologists.
You have much to learn, as do we all.
That's no excuse for errors made out of contempt for something you don't know or understand.
edit on 11-9-2016 by LucianusXVII because: (no