The Gnostic “heresy” – a general discussion

[tzor]

Did you actually think no one would notice you adding your own words "guaranteed intercessory access" to the text here? Ironic that you should mention this passage though, seeing as you're defending a church whose priests bugger these "little ones" with relative impunity on a daily basis.

Oh look, a RED HERRING. Do you really want to go down this path? Anyway, it's not a part of the argument, so it's clearly a sign that you don't have anymore argument left so therefore.

I WIN!

[b.k. barunt]

We give special honor (hyper dulia) to the Mother of Christ, because Christ gave her to the entire church on the cross through John.

Jesus entrusted His mother into the care of John as you or i would do under the same circumstances. It was a simple act of familial devotion - making sure that His mother was taken care of after He was gone. To say that He "gave her to the entire church" is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination and not supported anywhere in the Bible.

Constantine did not “start” the Roman Catholic Church. That is indeed so far wrong that it is not even funny.

Most, if not all historians would disagree with you. Will Durant, probably the most popular historian of our time and a Catholic btw, is where i got most of my info on that subject. It was in fact the fraudulent "Donation of Constantine" that Pope Leo used to dupe people into accepting the Bishop of Rome as the true leader of the church.

One last point, even under a united Rome, Constantine ruled from the eastern side of the empire, not from ancient Rome, which is why there is a city named after him in the east. (Because that is where his mother came from and where he ruled from.) So he is “Orthodox” at best and as we can show not even that.

Again i refer you to the "Donation of Constantine". It was of course just another Catholic fraud, but if Constantine carried no weight as the founder of Catholicism then why bother to forge such a document to certify the pope's right to be the pope?


Honibaz

[b.k. barunt]

Did you actually think no one would notice you adding your own words "guaranteed intercessory access" to the text here? Ironic that you should mention this passage though, seeing as you're defending a church whose priests bugger these "little ones" with relative impunity on a daily basis.

Oh look, a RED HERRING. Do you really want to go down this path? Anyway, it's not a part of the argument, so it's clearly a sign that you don't have anymore argument left so therefore.

I WIN!

The post just before this i didn't even bother replying to - this one either. It's been an interesting discussion but now we're starting to cover the same ground. I'll concede and give you the "win". Enjoy.


Honibaz

[tzor]

We give special honor (hyper dulia) to the Mother of Christ, because Christ gave her to the entire church on the cross through John.

Jesus entrusted His mother into the care of John as you or i would do under the same circumstances. It was a simple act of familial devotion - making sure that His mother was taken care of after He was gone. To say that He "gave her to the entire church" is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination and not supported anywhere in the Bible.

The entire section of the crucifixion of Jesus in John's Gospel (one of the last books of the New Testament to be written) is chocked full of symbolism, meaning and scriptural references. And within this you think the writer just wanted to throw in a minor detail for no other reason than throwing in a minor detail?

Constantine did not “start” the Roman Catholic Church. That is indeed so far wrong that it is not even funny.

Most, if not all historians would disagree with you. Will Durant, probably the most popular historian of our time and a Catholic btw, is where i got most of my info on that subject. It was in fact the fraudulent "Donation of Constantine" that Pope Leo used to dupe people into accepting the Bishop of Rome as the true leader of the church.

OK, so you are saying that the use of a forged document in 1054 (during the height of the east/west conflict) which incorrectly justified "over lands in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, as well as the city of Rome, with Italy and the entire Western Roman Empire" is proof that Constatntine did indeed "start" the Roman Catholic Church, a document that was probably forged in 754 by the way.

And there I thought it was just a turf battle over which Patriarch was higher, Rome or Constantinople.

By the way, give me a quote or it didn't happen. Don't cite a historian like McCarthy citing his list of "Communists."

One last point, even under a united Rome, Constantine ruled from the eastern side of the empire, not from ancient Rome, which is why there is a city named after him in the east. (Because that is where his mother came from and where he ruled from.) So he is “Orthodox” at best and as we can show not even that.

Again i refer you to the "Donation of Constantine". It was of course just another Catholic fraud, but if Constantine carried no weight as the founder of Catholicism then why bother to forge such a document to certify the pope's right to be the pope?

Please read what I wrote. I did not write "he rulled the eastern side of the empire only," he rulled a united Rome, but he did so from the eastern side. Thus if he were to start a church (which he did not, he simple permitted the existing church to flurish) he would have started it from where he lived. As ou point out the donation is a forgery. It was written much later in the centuries whern the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople would often clash with each other.


If you really want to discuss time lines, here is a good place to start. Remember there were Christians in Rome during the great fire in A.D. 64 (otherwise how could Nero blame them for the fire).

Also note that it was Emperor Theodosius I in 380 that made Christianity as the "state religion" of the empire. He rulled from ... you guessed it ... the east.

[Riskywin]

This is quite a debate, hopoefull orthodox, and Christian Tzor will win, against the Gnostic BkBarant who is mis-interpreting Tzor's comments

[Woodruff]

This is quite a debate, hopoefull orthodox, and Christian Tzor will win, against the Gnostic BkBarant who is mis-interpreting Tzor's comments

You do realize they stopped discussing it several months ago, right?

[PLAYER57832]

Sorry I missed this one.. not sure how. But, sadly BK seems to have largely vacated (I believe he was busy in his real life).

Riskywin-- did you even bother to read?

BK is definitely not gnostic. And Tzor is Christian, but specifically Roman Catholic. BK studied Roman Catholicism (and many other religious belief systems), but rejects it. I don't know what BK's faith is specifically, but you will find that most Protestants will have similar types of disputes with Roman Catholicism.

It is a big part of why the churches split.. y'know

[Neoteny]

Tzor is a cunt?

[AAFitz]

For me this discussion has highlighted the most resounding evidence for the lack of an actual god: The Bible and all derivatives as such.

The logic is basic and simple and based on our knowledge of humans and the Bibles definitions.

God is defined as the one true God, and no other Gods may be worshiped, well, until he gives another God to worship, which of course was debated for hundreds of years, and the miraculous return to life, witnessed essentially by one person; most probably a grieving girlfriend of a very intelligent, and enlightened man who had the courage and ability to express in real and certain terms the main problems with human nature and how we can live better lives by avoiding them, and at the time, doing so within a religion was the only realistic way to do such a thing.

The real evidence, however, is the use of the definition of God as devoid of all evil, and essentially being "pure good." That one definition allows for an exacting description of God while discounting all other descriptions and actions or even systems put in place.

We as simple human beings have realized and devised our systems to be fair. They arent quite there yet, but the objective is there, and the desire to make them so is there. The only thing stopping us is that we are not omnipotent...if we were, we would make the systems exactly how we want them, and that would be perfectly fair. Since God is omnipotent, and Good, we must accept that his systems are fair and good, to the nth level. Otherwise, they would be evil, or at the very least, not perfectly good. This means that the only possible reward system must be infinitely fair in every single aspect, or it will be unfair, and an unfair system is not good, or at the very least, not infinitely good, which means no Infinitely Good God could allow it, let alone create it. Its a simple contradiction of logic. You can argue it is not fair, or not good, but not both, its simply impossible. Now, if you allow for it to not be fair, you allow for it to be not good, and then you allow for God to not be infinitely Good, which is still fine....theres no reason God has to be Good perse, except he is described as such...well, at least in places.

The most damning evidence however is one of pure common sense and is the Bible itself. More specifically its length, and intricately woven stories, which have been hand picked, and most obviously open to translation....ie .. a good story, or more specifically a good lie.

Again, if we start with the basic premise that God is infinitely Good, we must accept he is infinitely fair...(that does not mean life needs be fair, only that by the end of the presumed eternity, that fairness is infinite in no doubt some complicated way)....and if he is infinitely fair, we can easily assume his system or his entire creation, is fair...again in some complicated way. However, we as humans have essentially been able to create systems and strive towards systems that are far more fair than Gods own. Our own legal system in the US could be considered far more fair than the described wrath of God justice which is so unfair as to be easily defined as evil. If one tried to use Gods Plan for a justice system, it would be more akin to the nazis than any God of Good. And herein lies the damning evidence, if you will. The plan is not clear, it is not accessible by all, and not fair by any definable way except that in the afterlife its all sorted out in some convoluted way, that all must accept and believe in...or well, perish.

However, the plan is to believe in the one God and the one path and the one idea of God, which is great....if all are given the handbook at the beginning of the game...but we are most certainly not. In fact, we are all given different handbooks, if any at all. Further, many are even incapable of understanding the said handbook regardless. It basically all comes down to perspective. From the perspective of an outside observer, one sees groups of people believing what they were taught from early childhood and overwhelmingly so. An outside observer who has chosen not to believe anything while looking at this would invariably have very few theories as to how this has happened. That outside observer can then only have two options to believe in. There is a real God, or there is no God. The further evidence they have to make their decision is to look at the human race history and really investigate the origins of religion, of not just the primary religions, but all...and very quickly and with many, many examples, the number of religions created especially in isolated communities is simply staggering. They can very easily conclude from this that Man is most certainly capable of creating a believable religion. The evidence is iron clad.

Now, armed with the proven fact that Man could most certainly have created all religion, he can look at the religions themselves and theorize about the kind of religion a Good God would have allowed for and created, and necessarily, one quick global look around would find it very easy to suspect there is no religion which seems to follow any kind of belief system even resembling a system devoid of evil or evil practices. In fact, its easier to find evidence of the exact opposite. It is true that "evil" is subjective to some degree, but on a real and basic, and on an infinite level, it really is not. It is pure Good, and cannot be evil in any small way, by definition. One then armed with these most conflicting examples can very easily conclude that all religions were made up in the first place, and that any Good God, is simply incapable of creation in any way of something so unfair as to be at times, more evil than anything some of the more evil men have ever even dreamed of themselves. The bible and all works are all similar and all have the same faults which are the same faults of humans stories and myths throughout history. One can easily use common sense to realize that any Good God would have simply set up a much simpler system, and it would never come to resemble the described systems in place by any of the supposed religions, because they simply do not follow the logic of being possible.

[PLAYER57832]

For me this discussion has highlighted the most resounding evidence for the lack of an actual god: The Bible and all derivatives as such.

The logic is basic and simple and based on our knowledge of humans and the Bibles definitions.

God is defined as the one true God, and no other Gods may be worshiped, well, until he gives another God to worship, which of course was debated for hundreds of years, and the miraculous return to life, witnessed essentially by one person; most probably a grieving girlfriend of a very intelligent, and enlightened man who had the courage and ability to express in real and certain terms the main problems with human nature and how we can live better lives by avoiding them, and at the time, doing so within a religion was the only realistic way to do such a thing.

The real evidence, however, is the use of the definition of God as devoid of all evil, and essentially being "pure good." That one definition allows for an exacting description of God while discounting all other descriptions and actions or even systems put in place.

Stop here, because while it is true that Christians, etc consider God the ultimate good, it is not necessarily a good int he sense many humans might wish or percieve. Rather, it is more a matter of self-definition. You almost seem to imply that humans impose a sense of "being good" onto God. The reverse is actually true. Believing in God, we define what happens under God as good. There are other definitions within Christianity. From the outset, we accept that humans are fundamentally incapable of simply deciding what is best for us at all times. Therefore, God gave us rules to follow. Humans distort those rules often, but that is our failing... etc.

We as simple human beings have realized and devised our systems to be fair. They arent quite there yet, but the objective is there, and the desire to make them so is there. The only thing stopping us is that we are not omnipotent...if we were, we would make the systems exactly how we want them, and that would be perfectly fair. Since God is omnipotent, and Good, we must accept that his systems are fair and good, to the nth level. Otherwise, they would be evil, or at the very least, not perfectly good. This means that the only possible reward system must be infinitely fair in every single aspect, or it will be unfair, and an unfair system is not good, or at the very least, not infinitely good, which means no Infinitely Good God could allow it, let alone create it. Its a simple contradiction of logic. You can argue it is not fair, or not good, but not both, its simply impossible. Now, if you allow for it to not be fair, you allow for it to be not good, and then you allow for God to not be infinitely Good, which is still fine....theres no reason God has to be Good perse, except he is described as such...well, at least in places.

"Fairnesss" as you define it here, is not a part of Christianity. This is a purely human, and in fact, modern concept. Good is something altogether different.

No one would begin to claim that Bible happenings are "fair". Is it "fair" that God would decree the death of babies? Is it fair that God would even allow this? Of course not. However, if you believe in an ultimate good, then you believe that even the most evil of happenings will wind up with a better result than otherwise.

A trite, but basic analogy. I doubt many young children would "choose" to have a shot. They object quite seriously and let us know as much! Yet, we give it to them anyway because we know that temporary pain is far outweighed by the benefits of vaccinations or medicines. God's reality is so much greater we cannot possibly comprehend. In God's world, we have to believe that even something as terrible as the haulocaust, or Pol Pot, the trail of tears are all better than the alternatives. We would absolutely not choose that, but we believe God has better ideas than ours, even if we don't like them.

The most damning evidence however is one of pure common sense and is the Bible itself. More specifically its length, and intricately woven stories, which have been hand picked, and most obviously open to translation....ie .. a good story, or more specifically a good lie.

Again, if we start with the basic premise that God is infinitely Good, we must accept he is infinitely fair...(that does not mean life needs be fair, only that by the end of the presumed eternity, that fairness is infinite in no doubt some complicated way)....and if he is infinitely fair, we can easily assume his system or his entire creation, is fair...again in some complicated way. However, we as humans have essentially been able to create systems and strive towards systems that are far more fair than Gods own. Our own legal system in the US could be considered far more fair than the described wrath of God justice which is so unfair as to be easily defined as evil. If one tried to use Gods Plan for a justice system, it would be more akin to the nazis than any God of Good. And herein lies the damning evidence, if you will. The plan is not clear, it is not accessible by all, and not fair by any definable way except that in the afterlife its all sorted out in some convoluted way, that all must accept and believe in...or well, perish.

Again, claiming that God must be "fair", in human terms, is just wrong.

However, the plan is to believe in the one God and the one path and the one idea of God, which is great....if all are given the handbook at the beginning of the game...but we are most certainly not. In fact, we are all given different handbooks, if any at all. Further, many are even incapable of understanding the said handbook regardless. It basically all comes down to perspective. From the perspective of an outside observer, one sees groups of people believing what they were taught from early childhood and overwhelmingly so. An outside observer who has chosen not to believe anything while looking at this would invariably have very few theories as to how this has happened. That outside observer can then only have two options to believe in. There is a real God, or there is no God. The further evidence they have to make their decision is to look at the human race history and really investigate the origins of religion, of not just the primary religions, but all...and very quickly and with many, many examples, the number of religions created especially in isolated communities is simply staggering. They can very easily conclude from this that Man is most certainly capable of creating a believable religion. The evidence is iron clad.

That human beings have imaginations and are capable of creating fiction is irrelevant to whether God exists are not.

You touch on one question often debated. That is just what does it mean to be a Christian, to believe in God, etc. Specifically, is it possible to have those things without our Christian Bible? I am not going to try to answer, but I will provide a framework of several answers others have found. One possibility is that these people actually have been given some kind of path to "the truth". This means they might not have a concept of Christ having died on the Cross, but they have an understanding of God, his love, etc and, basically, worship "Christ", but "give him another name". If you talk to missionaries to "unreached" peoples, they often speak of coming to the point where they can actually discuss God and hear them say things like "oh, that is what you call him". Again, I don't argue for or against here, just throw it out.

A second answer is that without the bible, it is impossible. This is, of course the ultimate "unfairness". It could be that God has tried, did try to reach other people and they rejected his voice. It could be that these people are not held to as strict a judgement as we, who have been given the truth. Or, it could be that this is just "how things are" for no reason we humans can possibly fathom.

Judiasm makes no attempt to truly understand, not really. What is, just is. God gave rules, humans follow.. period. Christians try more to "justify" or "explain", but there are many questions. My answer, though I won't say it is "the" answer, is that human beings can only exist with free will. If we were given a too absolute set of rules, then we would not be free to choose. We would likely rebell, but also, would not be truly human.

Now, armed with the proven fact that Man could most certainly have created all religion, he can look at the religions themselves and theorize about the kind of religion a Good God would have allowed for and created, and necessarily, one quick global look around would find it very easy to suspect there is no religion which seems to follow any kind of belief system even resembling a system devoid of evil or evil practices. In fact, its easier to find evidence of the exact opposite. It is true that "evil" is subjective to some degree, but on a real and basic, and on an infinite level, it really is not. It is pure Good, and cannot be evil in any small way, by definition. One then armed with these most conflicting examples can very easily conclude that all religions were made up in the first place, and that any Good God, is simply incapable of creation in any way of something so unfair as to be at times, more evil than anything some of the more evil men have ever even dreamed of themselves. The bible and all works are all similar and all have the same faults which are the same faults of humans stories and myths throughout history. One can easily use common sense to realize that any Good God would have simply set up a much simpler system, and it would never come to resemble the described systems in place by any of the supposed religions, because they simply do not follow the logic of being possible.

Again, you start with false assumptions and definitions (at least in terms of Christianity and humanity in general).

The one thing you say that is true is that the Bible contains the faults of humanity. Of course that is true. Humans cannot look beyond who we are truly, at least most people, historically have not been able to do so. We in this century are beginning to do so, for many reasons. If that is good or bad is yet to be seen. (though, in truth, you could say that many primitive people saw things in very different ways that approach ideas we now consider true, even if they were not considered so by Jews and Christians traditionally)

PS This really has little to do with Gnosticism.

[natty dread]

Is it an impossible notion that religions and the concept of god could have been made up by humans? If so, why?

[PLAYER57832]

Is it an impossible notion that religions and the concept of god could have been made up by humans? If so, why?

Are you asking me?

I did not say it was. I said that AAFitz assumptions about evil and such are not the only possible views.

[notyou2]

I take offence to Tzor calling the gnostic beliefs heresy. IMO that is the same as saying kill them all, which is what happened. A belief is subjective. If you believe in something and I don't, I don't say rid the planet of you and all believers in this. The term heresy is simply someone else's point of view.

[PLAYER57832]

I take offence to Tzor calling the gnostic beliefs heresy. IMO that is the same as saying kill them all, which is what happened. A belief is subjective. If you believe in something and I don't, I don't say rid the planet of you and all believers in this. The term heresy is simply someone else's point of view.

Gnosticism was rejected, is still rejected, by what became the Protestant, Byzantine and Roman Catholic churches as well as many of their spin-offs. Therefore it is heresy.

If you wish to believe it, that is your right. However, most Christian churches will consider you to not be following their beliefs, or to believe in heresy.

[notyou2]

OK..

[Juan_Bottom]

Don't worry NY2, Catholics are heretics too. They invented purgatory. Plus, we never resolved the issue with praying to saints (The practice of creating and praying to demigods) instead of God, and there's also the issue of wealth accumulation.

PURGATORY

The place or condition in which the souls of the just are purified after death and before they can enter heaven. They may be purified of the guilt of their venial sins, as in this life, by an act of contrition deriving from charity and performed with the help of grace. This sorrow does not, however, affect the punishment for sins, because in the next world there is no longer any possibility of merit. The souls are certainly purified by atoning for the temporal punishments due to sin by their willing acceptance of suffering imposed by God. The sufferings in purgatory are not the same for all, but proportioned to each person's degree of sinfulness. Moreover, these sufferings can be lessened in duration and intensity through the prayers and good works of the faithful on earth. Nor are the pains incompatible with great peace and joy, since the poor souls deeply love God and are sure they will reach heaven. As members of the Church Suffering, the souls in purgatory can intercede for the persons on earth, who are therefore encouraged to invoke their aid. Purgatory will not continue after the general judgment, but its duration for any particular souls continues until it is free from all guilt and punishment. Immediately on purification the soul is assumed into heaven. (Etym. Latin purgatio, cleansing, purifying.)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
Proofs

The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is it times not wholly paid in this life. The proofs for the Catholic position, both in Scripture and in Tradition, are bound up also with the practice of praying for the dead. For why pray for the dead, if there be no belief in the power of prayer to afford solace to those who as yet are excluded from the sight of God? So true is this position that prayers for the dead and the existence of a place of purgation are mentioned in conjunction in the oldest passages of the Fathers, who allege reasons for succouring departed souls. Those who have opposed the doctrine of purgatory have confessed that prayers for the dead would be an unanswerable argument if the modern doctrine of a "particular judgment" had been received in the early ages. But one has only to read the testimonies hereinafter alleged to feel sure that the Fathers speak, in the same breath, of oblations for the dead and a place of purgation; and one has only to consult the evidence found in the catacombs to feel equally sure that the Christian faith there expressed embraced clearly a belief in judgment immediately after death. Wilpert ("Roma Sotteranea," I, 441) thus concludes chapter 21, "Che tale esaudimento", etc.:

Intercession has been made for the soul of the dear one departed and God has heard the prayer, and the soul has passed into a place of light and refreshment." "Surely," Wilpert adds, "such intercession would have no place were there question not of the particular, but of the final judgment.

Some stress too has been laid upon the objection that the ancient Christians had no clear conception of purgatory, and that they thought that the souls departed remained in uncertainty of salvation to the last day; and consequently they prayed that those who had gone before might in the final judgment escape even the everlasting torments of hell. The earliest Christian traditions are clear as to the particular judgment, and clearer still concerning a sharp distinction between purgatory and hell. The passages alleged as referring to relief from hell cannot offset the evidence given below (Bellarmine, "De Purgatorio," lib. II, cap. v). Concerning the famous case of Trajan, which vexed the Doctors of the Middle Ages, see Bellarmine, loc. cit., cap. Viii.



Q: So why do Catholics believe in Purgatory?
A: Because otherwise if Purgatory didn't exist then why would you they pray for the dead?
There's some serious logic for ya.

[notyou2]

Thanks Juan. I feel much better now.

[PLAYER57832]

Don't worry NY2, Catholics are heretics too.

Clarification. Technically the term "catholic" applies to all Christians (at least those that follow the canons). The church lead by the Pope is the Roman Catholic church. People here do commonly just say "catholic", but the distinction is important because many documents, creeds, etc refer to the "catholic church".. and many Roman Catholics like to use this misunderstanding to promote their specific beliefs.

[Juan_Bottom]

Clarification.
The terms "Christian" and "Catholic" have no meaning anymore because all followers of the Bible have been fighting each other for so long. The terms have been bastardized so much who knows what they mean anymore, NY2.

[PLAYER57832]

Clarification.
The terms "Christian" and "Catholic" have no meaning anymore because all followers of the Bible have been fighting each other for so long. The terms have been bastardized so much who knows what they mean anymore, NY2.

I think we might need to "agree to disagree" on that one!
There have ALWAYS been disagreements over exactly what being a "Christian" meant, even before that was a term used. The Apostles, though in direct contact with Christ, disagreed. Each of the early churches had very different characteristics, problems, even beliefs.

We are united by some very basic things, but there has always been disagreement. And, there have always been those who stretched the definition, thus the importance of cannonization and delcarations of what is heretical versus "accepted".

[Juan_Bottom]

I'll show you how we Atheists agree to disagree on this topic.



Ok.

[PLAYER57832]

I'll show you how we Atheists agree to disagree on this topic.



Ok.

No need. I believe we have "been there done that"

[2dimes]

I take offence to Tzor calling the gnostic beliefs heresy. IMO that is the same as saying kill them all, which is what happened. A belief is subjective. If you believe in something and I don't, I don't say rid the planet of you and all believers in this. The term heresy is simply someone else's point of view.

I believe the choice of the church to follow the Roman model of elliminating their opposition instead of "Love even your enemy." lead to "the dark ages."

A belief is subjective

Perhaps, however...
Last week I went to Disneyland and piloted an airplane. I had only flown one other time in the last 4 years or so but my landing wasn't too bad.
Your subjective choice to believe or reject that written statement does not change the fact that it is true. Nor would passing it on to a few generations until it gets recorded in writting.

2dimes, had not flown for a long time, his skills were diminished yet he chose to fly while on vacation to "The happiest place on earth." He even landed the plane safely.

And somewhere else.

2dimes was a dude! Once he landed a plane. The same day he had his picture taken with Minnie Mouse who was dressed as a pilot in front of a plane at DCA!!

Later when it's translated to a language that doesn't exist yet based on the social networking of the future when Disneyland goes the way of Pacific Ocean Park and they have to imagine what "The happiest place on earth" or "Minnie Mouse" was. People could put forth a rational argument about me not being able to fly the plane.

Pffft! My cousin's a pilot and you don't just go do it after taking a few years off. The guy must have been a fake if there ever even was an actual "2dimes".

Conversly a person that chooses to believe in me could put forth a poor argument in favor.

Dimes was a really good pilot, he loved it.

How would any of that affect the statement and make it true or not?

Oh wait there is the only one guy from 2000 years ago actually important enough people world wide claim is a liar yet feel the emotional need to argue about. You probably can't understand what I'm suggesting. Carry on, I'm sure this conversation can be resolved now that PlayaDelNumero is here to straighten you out.

Go playa, oh yeah, it's your birthday, scientific!

[PLAYER57832]

I take offence to Tzor calling the gnostic beliefs heresy. IMO that is the same as saying kill them all, which is what happened. A belief is subjective. If you believe in something and I don't, I don't say rid the planet of you and all believers in this. The term heresy is simply someone else's point of view.

I believe the choice of the church to follow the Roman model of elliminating their opposition instead of "Love even your enemy." lead to "the dark ages."

This tends to happen when you are very, very sure you are correct. And, when you let the human failings of both legalism and corruption taint.

Fear of the word "heresy" is somewhat justified, but thankfully we now live in a day when tolerance is the norm, not theocracy.

Except... Rome was, for the time, a very liberal society. The power went to the top, it collapsed and people turned to religion. Strangely, and scarily similar to today. Worse, a lot of those pushing for theocracy here should, but don't have the breadth of education necessary to understand why, no matter your personal values, a theocracy that forces everyone to adhere to those values, is just wrong.

[2dimes]

If "you are very, very sure you are correct." I am convinced there would still be a huge difference between,
"Love even your enemy."
and
"Kill them everyone, God will recognise his own."