To those that call themselves Christian

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I think you should review page 9 again...

there was no fallacy commited.... only you attempting to tell me i said something i did not...

You labeled my arguement a red fish... when the statement was completely valid in context of the conversation

reply to post by Akragon
I edited my last post. I do that occasionally, check back sometimes, so as not to miss it. Maybe I should just always make new posts.

The issue now is that Jesus went against many of these so called laws... and also taught against them...

Oh and try to excuse the first and second page... its mearly myself getting frustrated with an old troll friend of mine....

I noticed the discussion of the 613 Laws and thought I should get my thoughts concerning Paul in order. My conclusion is that he did Gentiles a grave dis-service.

reply to post by pthena


I would star that edited post but i already did, so i'll star the one above instead...

Im starting to think paul actually hung around gnostics... he uses various terms that were very gnostic in nature...

Now mind you i still don't agree with much of what he taught... but at least im starting to understand why he said the things he did

Im thinking Paul had some gnostic influences in his life.

reply to post by pthena

Paul should have really freed himself from Torah before ever talking to a single Gentile.

What scholars are catching onto lately is the idea that Paul wrote things in the form of a diatribe like a one man play, where he would play both characters and argue back and forth, where unless you were hearing it properly read, you would miss the intended sarcasm.
So Paul, back when he published Romans for general distribution, would have had volunteers who went with the letter who were trained to give the lines the right inflection so the audience would get where the idea to be refuted came in.

reply to post by Akragon

Im starting to think paul actually hung around gnostics... he uses various terms that were very gnostic in nature...

The book, Paul and the Stoics does a good job of making the case that he used the terminology of the Stoics to make his message universally understood among the Greek speaking people.
It would be recognizable with the people you are calling Gnostic, and could have gotten their beliefs from Paul.

reply to post by Akragon

Now mind you i still don't agree with much of what he taught... but at least im starting to understand why he said the things he did

Im thinking Paul had some gnostic influences in his life.

I'm reading the Wright book, Evolution of God. I got to the part about Philo of Alexandria, I got sick to my stomach when I realized that as much as he praises the abstract concept of Logos and/or Wisdom, his ultimate goal was to act a an apologist for Judaism, in Greek culture and the Roman World. Using high sounding philosophy to glorify Torah, because in his mind Torah(concrete) is the same as Wisdom(abstract).

Paul ends up doing the same. Philo, Jesus, and Paul were all contemporaries.

reply to post by jmdewey60

What scholars are catching onto lately is the idea that Paul wrote things in the form of a diatribe like a one man play, where he would play both characters and argue back and forth, where unless you were hearing it properly read, you would miss the intended sarcasm.

So as a play it makes sense, as a book it stinks. Back in about 2000, I read the Gospels all the way through, and caught on that most of what Jesus is said to have said made sense only as sarcasm. If you miss the sarcasm, you miss the meaning, and are stuck with the opposite of what Jesus meant.

When people wrote the Gospels, they themselves were probably unaware of most of the sarcasm.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I think you should review page 9 again...

there was no fallacy commited.... only you attempting to tell me i said something i did not...

You labeled my arguement a red fish... when the statement was completely valid in context of the conversation

Okay buddy. Is there anything else you want to ask me or am I free to leave?

reply to post by jmdewey60


reply to post by pthena


I'll ask both of you to consider these passages...

4And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

This gives the impression that he speaks of things that were not necessarily written in this book... He speaks of a hidden wisdom... This was also the "gnostic" claim... their scripture being the Gnosis or wisdom that was "hidden" from the church? Or perhaps from the average man?

Remember what HE (Jesus) said about giving "pearls to swine"?

And..

So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God." (1 Corinthians 4:1)

depending on the translation... these exact words don't appear in the KJV...

Pauls writing has many passages that sound very gnostic...

Though i do agree, he does seem to lean towards Judaism

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I think you should review page 9 again...

there was no fallacy commited.... only you attempting to tell me i said something i did not...

You labeled my arguement a red fish... when the statement was completely valid in context of the conversation

Okay buddy. Is there anything else you want to ask me or am I free to leave?

haha... do as you will my friend...

No one is keeping you here

reply to post by Akragon
Update, on page 2 of this thread.

Pauls writing has many passages that sound very gnostic...

Though i do agree, he does seem to lean towards Judaism

If we take the following passage:

I Corinthians 2:10 But to us, God revealed them through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God, except God’s Spirit. 12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. 14 Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual discerns all things, and he himself is judged by no one. 16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him?” But we have Christ’s mind.

First off, there's a bit of shaming involved here. Who would admit to being merely a natural man? I do! So lets forget about the people scrambling around trying to pretend to being spiritual. I evolved on this Earth, as part and parcel of this Earth. I resist the shaming being imposed upon me by Paul. Should I lie about myself, put on a mask of spirituality? No! I can only do hypocrisy for short periods of time. I can't sustain it for long.

I have no liking for gnostic duality, never have. Regardless of what anybody else's concept of God may be, my concept is of the One who died in the process of bringing into being that which we know as the Universe. There is no individual being who exists as creator. That being is gone, and exists now as that which is, and is infusing that which is, including us all. There is no reconciliation required. There is no special spirit available to "the spiritual" that is different from what is already common to all.

Paul's duality seems to be similar in my mind at least to the Epicurean concept of the "abode of the gods". His ethics derive from the concept of "true belonging" in that abode. Therefore "act as those who belong above rather than below". Maybe that is Gnosticism but I don't know Gnosticism well enough to recognize it.

Edit to add:

Now I remember. It is not possible to construct a pure Pauline theology in such a way as to have it be free standing.. It always will fall over toward the Torah, if for no other reason than to explain why reconciliation is somehow required in the first place. So yes, Paul remains a Jew just as much as Philo does.

reply to post by pthena


No my friend you're not rambling, you're expressing your thoughts... But i have questions....

( i always have questions)

my concept is of the One who died in the process of bringing into being that which we know as the Universe.

I don't understand how God died in this process... My thoughts on the matter are as follows...

In the beginning of everything there was God and nothing else... all reality, all physical, spiritual essences were made Not by him... (matter can not be created or destroyed) but OF him... So everything is the essence of God...

[quotee]There is no individual being who exists as creator.

Perhaps IF he is everything... he could exist in a form that can be known to lesser beings...

There is no reconciliation required. There is no special spirit available to "the spiritual" that is different from what is already common to all.

This i believe is true... Though i also believe in Karmic debt...

That spirit you mention is within all of us as you said... and only needs to be realized.

Therefore "act as those who belong above rather than below"

I also get this impression... I feel as if he wanted followers, he even asked his people to follow him "because he follows Christ"... an issue that is debateable...

reply to post by Akragon

Please don't miss the addition to the previous post. I'll quote it:

It is not possible to construct a pure Pauline theology in such a way as to have it be free standing.. It always will fall over toward the Torah, if for no other reason than to explain why reconciliation is somehow required in the first place. So yes, Paul remains a Jew just as much as Philo does.

I'm not much interested in theories of creation. I start from where I am, and look back and forward.

Perhaps IF he is everything... he could exist in a form that can be known to lesser beings...

I don't call myself a shaman for no reason. When I summoned the gods, and they came, there was yet a void, an empty place that would have been where the Creator would be, if there were a form to fill it. Even the gods were speechless about that void. There is no form. There is no description, even in the language of gods.

The feeling I got was that the closest I would ever get was to think of it as "sky like", therefore, for me, Sky is God enough. Common to all who breathe.

reply to post by pthena


I seem to agree with the definition at the bottom of this artical...

God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal all knowing source of all reality and being.

reluctant-messenger.com...

reply to post by Akragon

That seems to be the conclusion that the web page owner comes to after reviewing various options. That seems to be a definition that many people find acceptable. Okay.

My daughter is an actual natural atheist. About a week ago I was whining to her about how the forum sucks me in and I start internalizing expectations that others may have about what type of religion I should have, what I should agree with or disagree with.

Finally, I concluded my monologue by saying, "That's it. I'm going to stick with my God is Sky, so as to avoid weird religions." She laughed and rolled her eyes, "And that qualifies as 'not weird'?"

"Well to me it does."

If any changes are to occur in my personal religion, it's going to be rather private and not before a live forum audience.

reply to post by pthena

That seems to be the conclusion that the web page owner comes to after reviewing various

Unfortunatly you can't take everything that is said on a "web page" as truth either... Said owner has also come to the conclusion that Jesus is God... not something i agree with... Lots of great info on that site, but as with everything one must take the opinions with a "grain of salt"...

My daughter is an actual natural atheist. About a week ago I was whining to her about how the forum sucks me in and I start internalizing expectations that others may have about what type of religion I should have, what I should agree with or disagree with.

More quesitons...

Why do you care what others expect of you?

These are the expectations of "entities" on a forum... we here are but "words on a page"

In reality few people here actually know one another...

Believe it or not... Im not the cheshire cat

(no really I AM)

Finally, I concluded my monologue by saying, "That's it. I'm going to stick with my God is Sky, so as to avoid weird religions." She laughed and rolled her eyes, "And that qualifies as 'not weird'?"

"Well to me it does."

If any changes are to occur in my personal religion, it's going to be rather private and not before a live forum audience.

Well said...

Theres a gnostic scripture that says... All men hold to their own truth, until a greater truth comes to light... then that greater truth takes hold...

Don't quote me on that, i can't seem to find the actual scripture... but its along that line, and i believe that to be truth... If i find it i will be sure to post it...

reply to post by Akragon

Why do you care what others expect of you?

That's an important element in human ethics, actually the first as far as development goes. Some expectations do get internalized, sometimes meshing with personal expectations, sometimes clashing. The internal struggle, and final triumph of my own personal expectation, sometimes subtly modified in the interchange, often takes some alone time. In the final analysis, I must approve of myself and my expectations.

Still, the primary social element must receive its due. It's part of the social contract of communal people.

These are the expectations of "entities" on a forum... we here are but "words on a page"

I always assume that there is an actual person communicating by means of the words I see. I've had many many in person conversations with people. I'm familiar with the dynamics. I try to use the same words and tones as if I could see the person on the other end of the connection. Tones are sometime difficult to convey.

I think the word empathy applies here throughout.

The bottom line is fear. I fear hurting people. "How so?" You may ask.

It's like this: Religion provides very important psychological, social, and spiritual needs for people. My religion is very destructive (iconoclastic) toward well established Western traditional religion. Is it proper for me to bust up some one else's religion, without offering something better to replace it?

As religions go, ranked in order of what they offer and promise, mine is at the bottom of the pile, because it doesn't offer anything really; not eternal life, not secret wisdom, not passing some judgment; none of the standard enticements. How lame is that