Conquer Club

There seems to be some confusion here between gnostic and agnostic. While both words derive from the same root word (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) the two are completely different. Knowledge here implies special knowledge, not known to the general population but known to the special group. The prefix “a” turns this into without knowledge, implying that there is no knowledge that can be obtained, secret or otherwise.

For more information on gnosticism check out the wikipedia web link or do a little research on your own. You can’t take an agnostic position on gnosticism, the knowledge is out there. Nor can you take a gnostic position on gnosticism, because the truth is out there.

I called gnosticsm a “heresy,” and that might seem a little strange. From a “Christian” perspective something is a heresy when it tries to force itself or integrte into the Christian faith when it is in direct opposition to the Christian faith. There was a major period in the early church where gnostic cults saw the rise of the christian sects and decided to mimic a good thing in their own gnostic way.

One could say the same thing about Islam, but only in a limited fashion. Two major heresies can be linked to forcing Islamic ideas onto Christianity; iconoclasm (or the destruction of icons) and extreeme biblical literalism (trearting the Bible much like the Koran as the transcribed “literal” word of God).

Back to the gnostics; the biggest heresy as far as the church was concerned was their notion of radical dualism, or the notion of two equal and opposite gods, one good and spiritual and the other evil and physical. This could take on several forms, one example is the idea that the god of the old testament was not the same god as the god of the new testament. This notion creeps up often during the history of the church in various cults that were often harshly treated by the church in general.

The second is the notion of “secret knowledge” in general. The Christian Church maintained (and the Cahtolic Church maintains) that all revelation necessary ended with the death of the last apostle; private revelation merely supplements and supports that which has already been made public. This is in contrast to mysticism, where that which is public to all is not seen by all because they refuse to see. The hostory of western mysticism is interesting only because most people know eastern mysticism and not western mysticism. I would recommend starting with the “Cloud of Unknowing” from the end of the 14th century.

How does this compare to gnomism?

Let me preface my statement by a "I'm legitimately happy to have you back, tzor."

I feel like this requires the obligatory "tzor is a fucking cunt" or however that used to go.

I have to say that the OP was the boring-est post I've ever seen, and I actually like history. This is the rare occasion where it actually would have been better to just post a link.

Georgerx7di wrote:I have to say that the OP was the boring-est post I've ever seen, and I actually like history. This is the rare occasion where it actually would have been better to just post a link.

Thank you. I try my best. I've studied with the masters (at least I thought every college class lecturer was immensely boring). For the CC crowd nothing but totally boring will do. (Because anything really interesting would go over everyone's heads anyway; I'll leave that for the gather posts where I might actually get a fraction of a cent for writing.)

it'd be more heretical (if there are degress of heresy) if it didn't pre-date xianity by a good long whack (however long a whack is - in my case, it ranges from a few minutes to a half of an hour). w00t

Georgerx7di wrote:I have to say that the OP was the boring-est post I've ever seen, and I actually like history. This is the rare occasion where it actually would have been better to just post a link.

I would have to say that people who judge something as boring because they're too stoopit and/or shallow to appreciate it are in fact boring. Imagine that.
I can't grok on most poetry - i find it boring. I realize however that this is a matter of personal taste and not indicative of whether poetry is good or bad. Just because something bores me does not in fact make it "boring". To suggest such would be arrogant, narcissistic and . . . well, boring.


Honibaz

tzor wrote: Two major heresies can be linked to forcing Islamic ideas onto Christianity; iconoclasm (or the destruction of icons) and extreeme biblical literalism (trearting the Bible much like the Koran as the transcribed “literal” word of God).

I've never heard these two very basic and Scriptural beliefs relegated to the status of "heresy". I'd say you'd have to be either Catholic or Orthodox - both of which love their icons and reserve the right to tell you what the Scriptures really mean, i.e. the interpretation which best suits their continued control of their congregations.

You can either take the Bible for what it actually says (literally) or you can put your own meaning to it. Most take the second option which is why we have a plethora of different churches all disagreeing with one another and all claiming to know what the Bible really means. Lol. Originally this mindset helped to create the Roman Catholic church and then ironically caused the split between the Eastern and Western churches. I've always thought it to be a ridiculous way to approach any book and now you not only say that it's the only way to read the Bible but to actually take it literally is "heresy". The only suitable reply i can make to such an assertion is WTF??

Iconoclasts - interesting group of extremists there. These crazed individuals actually consider the plethora of Biblical exhortations against the worship of graven images to include drawn images also. How could they possibly arrive at such a conclusion? Just because God didn't want his people worshipping images that were carved doesn't mean that they can't worship images that are drawn or painted - what kind of stupid person would jump to such a conclusion? They gotta worship something they can see amirite?

If only Aaron would've had the sense to make a pic of the Golden Calf instead of the idol itself he could've saved a lot of lives that day and also saved Moses the trouble of going all the way back up on the mountain to get the 10 commandments a second time. These stoopit iconoclasts need to realize that they need to just stick with the literal commandment against graven images and not . . . . . . oops.


Honibaz

'gnostic heresy' is an anagram of 'christ gone, yes'. This is relevant.

This gnostic 2 god thing. That exists in Christianity too....god and satan.

The ONE god is a load of horse manure.

Face it, there is no god, and it's all about the individual you are.

notyou2 wrote:This gnostic 2 god thing. That exists in Christianity too....god and satan.

The ONE god is a load of horse manure.

Face it, there is no god, and it's all about the individual you are.

most ironic post ever? what do you guys think?

John, are you saying there is only 1 god in christianity?

Then what is satan?

he's considered a fallen angel i believe

Tzor
Some cynics might suggest that the charge of heresy had rather more to do with politics than spititualism , gnostic belief had no room for the organised church which was a tad awkward.
In the same vein why were the so called Gnostic Gospels not included in the biblical canon , they are contemporary and relevent after all , were they simply not on message enough for the fledgling Catholic Corporation ?

comic boy wrote:Tzor
Some cynics might suggest that the charge of heresy had rather more to do with politics than spititualism , gnostic belief had no room for the organised church which was a tad awkward.
In the same vein why were the so called Gnostic Gospels not included in the biblical canon , they are contemporary and relevent after all , were they simply not on message enough for the fledgling Catholic Corporation ?

I believe this is much closer to the truth.

Kill the hgeretics!!!!

John if he is a fallen angel, why does he have a vast kingdom to rule over? Why wouldn't god just take both the kingdoms and starve satan to death?

If you accept there is a god as they have written it, then you accept there is another king, named satan. Thus there are 2 gods in christianity and the whole premise of one god falls apart

And this Mary chick, it seems is bigger than both of them in some circles. Ohhh, I get it, she represents mother nature and fertility. Well now we have 3 beings to worship.

Ohh ohh ohh, wait, god and mother nature had a baby and he is worthy of praying to as well.

Now we have 3 beings on one side in a monotheistic religion and 1 on the other side. I count 4.

I know, lets call the 3 on one side the holy trio, no, trinity, yeah trinity, that will explain it all to these mere mortals.

I see what you did there.

But, what about the other guy, you know, the evil one? He's still there ruling his kingdom while the holy trio rules their kingdom.

Monotheistic eh?

I say I've had enough of these mere mortals making shit up to fit their different stories and feeding me bull.

If you want to believe in a higher authority, then all the power to you and I can respect that.

But if you are going to sit there and tell me that I'm doing it wrong because a bunch of mere mortals have this so called god's ear and are the only ones allowed to hear him or interpret the holy writings that he told other mere mortals, than I have a problem with that.

Who's to say these ancient texts written in old dead languages and transcribed by others over the years haven't lost something in the translation, or have been interpreted wrongly? Or w a word left out, or misspelled.

Its all fucking BULL!!!

But, let's kill those guys over there because they are saying different things than we are.

STONE THE HERETICS!!!!

lol... i'm no expert on christian doctrine ny2, so i couldn't answer those questions sufficiently. i don't personally try to feed people bull, and the only reason i say most atheists are doing it wrong is because most don't understand the difference between belief and fact.

notyou2 wrote:

comic boy wrote:Tzor
Some cynics might suggest that the charge of heresy had rather more to do with politics than spititualism , gnostic belief had no room for the organised church which was a tad awkward.
In the same vein why were the so called Gnostic Gospels not included in the biblical canon , they are contemporary and relevent after all , were they simply not on message enough for the fledgling Catholic Corporation ?

I believe this is much closer to the truth.

Kill the hgeretics!!!!

John if he is a fallen angel, why does he have a vast kingdom to rule over? Why wouldn't god just take both the kingdoms and starve satan to death?

If you accept there is a god as they have written it, then you accept there is another king, named satan. Thus there are 2 gods in christianity and the whole premise of one god falls apart

And this Mary chick, it seems is bigger than both of them in some circles. Ohhh, I get it, she represents mother nature and fertility. Well now we have 3 beings to worship.

Ohh ohh ohh, wait, god and mother nature had a baby and he is worthy of praying to as well.

Now we have 3 beings on one side in a monotheistic religion and 1 on the other side. I count 4.

I know, lets call the 3 on one side the holy trio, no, trinity, yeah trinity, that will explain it all to these mere mortals.

I see what you did there.

But, what about the other guy, you know, the evil one? He's still there ruling his kingdom while the holy trio rules their kingdom.

Monotheistic eh?

I say I've had enough of these mere mortals making shit up to fit their different stories and feeding me bull.

If you want to believe in a higher authority, then all the power to you and I can respect that.

But if you are going to sit there and tell me that I'm doing it wrong because a bunch of mere mortals have this so called god's ear and are the only ones allowed to hear him or interpret the holy writings that he told other mere mortals, than I have a problem with that.

Who's to say these ancient texts written in old dead languages and transcribed by others over the years haven't lost something in the translation, or have been interpreted wrongly? Or w a word left out, or misspelled.

Its all fucking BULL!!!

But, let's kill those guys over there because they are saying different things than we are.

STONE THE HERETICS!!!!

Wow. Did your parents indulge you a lot as a child? Told you you were really smart amirite? Speaking of bullshit . . .

Your childish attempt at deductive reasoning here is actually one of the more embarrassing that i've seen on the forum. "If he is a fallen angel then why does he have a vast kingdom to rule over?" WTF? Why would his being a fallen angel keep him from having a vast kingdom to rule over? Genghis Khan had a vast kingdom to rule over and he was just a man. You go on and on with it too, as if you think such inane prattle actually makes sense and is interesting.

Seriously dude, the "bull" here is in your corner and i think he's stuck.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:

tzor wrote: Two major heresies can be linked to forcing Islamic ideas onto Christianity; iconoclasm (or the destruction of icons) and extreeme biblical literalism (trearting the Bible much like the Koran as the transcribed “literal” word of God).

I've never heard these two very basic and Scriptural beliefs relegated to the status of "heresy". I'd say you'd have to be either Catholic or Orthodox - both of which love their icons and reserve the right to tell you what the Scriptures really mean, i.e. the interpretation which best suits their continued control of their congregations.

You can either take the Bible for what it actually says (literally) or you can put your own meaning to it. Most take the second option which is why we have a plethora of different churches all disagreeing with one another and all claiming to know what the Bible really means. Lol. Originally this mindset helped to create the Roman Catholic church and then ironically caused the split between the Eastern and Western churches. I've always thought it to be a ridiculous way to approach any book and now you not only say that it's the only way to read the Bible but to actually take it literally is "heresy". The only suitable reply i can make to such an assertion is WTF??

Iconoclasts - interesting group of extremists there. These crazed individuals actually consider the plethora of Biblical exhortations against the worship of graven images to include drawn images also. How could they possibly arrive at such a conclusion? Just because God didn't want his people worshipping images that were carved doesn't mean that they can't worship images that are drawn or painted - what kind of stupid person would jump to such a conclusion? They gotta worship something they can see amirite?

If only Aaron would've had the sense to make a pic of the Golden Calf instead of the idol itself he could've saved a lot of lives that day and also saved Moses the trouble of going all the way back up on the mountain to get the 10 commandments a second time. These stoopit iconoclasts need to realize that they need to just stick with the literal commandment against graven images and not . . . . . . oops.


Honibaz

I just accidentally erased my original response. This means you are going to get a really horrid boring one that drones on and on. I have to get my sleep tonight. You can blame the ease of hitting Shift Tab on IE. It fucking sucks.

Now where was I? Oh yes, I hate having to retype things …

Now where was I? There are two points here, so I will answer them in reverse order.

I did not question people who take the Bible “literally,” but instead who insist that the Bible is the “literal” dictation of God. The Koran is only “inspired” in the original language. Translations are permitted for those who are too ignorant to know the original language, but such translations are not considered proper. Only the original language contains the “words of God.” You don’t see this around much these days, but now and then you do see people on occasion doing the same with one of the famous translations, the King James Bible. There is an old joke about “if King James English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.”

The use of images in ancient Hebrew tradition is an interesting subject. The description of the ten words (known as the Ten Commandments) clearly prohibits the creation of an idol and worshiping that same idol. Thus brings us to two points of definition, the notion of the idol and the notion of worship.

It was Moses who created the bronze serpent that “cured” those who looked upon it of snake bites. Images decorated the tent temple and the Ark of the Covenant; not just paintings but real three dimensional images.

This brings us back to worship, a term twice removed in meaning in the minds of many protestants. While there are such things as “wave offerings” worship requires a sacrifice. (Jesus gave us the ultimate sacrifice; which is recalled in his memory (as per his words) in every “sacrifice” of the Mass.) That is worship, anything else is lip service.

Now it is important to remember that any argument of this type simply cannot be done in the English language; the language is horribly sloppy in the overlap of terms. There is no easy way to map Latria, Dulia, and Hyper Dulia into English terms. “Worship” really is no different from “Honor,” which is why in the UK judges are called “your worship” and in the US they are called “your honor.” (This brings us back to the King James Bible joke above.)

There was never a prohibition on the drawing of the human figure in Jewish tradition. Excavations of ancient synagogues are filled with human images. This prohibition is clearly Islamic in nature.

Thus the tradition of drawing angles, humans (especially that of Jesus, the “word” who became flesh and the saints) was clearly never prohibited by the Ten Commandments. Nor was the paying of proper respect to these items, much like you would pay a lot of respect to your family Bible. Of course, technically speaking, icons are not “drawn” they are “written.” They are graphical representations of mysteries of faith represented in angels (as in the famous icon of the trinity portrayed as the three angels who visited Abraham), the “word made flesh” or in His saints. They are written in an off-worldly manner using a distinct graphical writing style.

Much in the same way you can use your Bible (and the verses therein) to direct your prayer to God, you can use icons to direct your prayer (not to the icon, because that would make the icon an idol) to God through the medication of the icon. (You can also direct your prayer to God while meditating on a beautiful sunset; no one would call that the worship of sunset.)

P.S. I hate IE. I fucking hate it. If this post sucks, blame IE.

Several people have quoted religious texts in here. I have read some of them myself, and this is what I have found. Most of the time these are very thick, the christian bible in most translations for instance is about 1,500 if I remember correctly, (don't have one handy). A book of this thickness can stop a 9 mm bullet. In this way religious texts are useful.

comic boy wrote:Tzor
Some cynics might suggest that the charge of heresy had rather more to do with politics than spititualism , gnostic belief had no room for the organised church which was a tad awkward.
In the same vein why were the so called Gnostic Gospels not included in the biblical canon , they are contemporary and relevent after all , were they simply not on message enough for the fledgling Catholic Corporation ?

To understand the problems of Christianity and the Gnostic cults in Rome and Greece at the time of the early church, the best concept is to envision fan fiction … from non fans.

Gnostic cults, trying to attract Christian converts, incorporated Christian elements and Christian scriptures into their cult beliefs … but wait, there’s more! That’s one of the elements of Gnosticism “we know something you don’t, join us and find out.” Some of this stuff they claimed to know was written into their own gospels. There is a Gospel of a gay Jesus. (This is why I bring up “fan fiction” because there were also fan fiction rumors of a homosexual relationship between Kirk and Spock. It even had to be officially debunked by Kirk himself in the novelization of the first movie.) Since there is no written record of what happened in the childhood of Jesus, one Gnostic sect wrote one up. Here the young Jesus is a real “devil” making clay birds on the Sabbath and giving them life just to annoy the rabbis. (The only “work” Jesus did on the Sabbath was healing the sick and forgiving sins. His disciples did pick and munch on a few grains of wheat, a concept only a strict rabbi would consider “work.”)

You know the typical manger scene; the one with the “ox” and “ass?” This is another, although less offensive Gnostic scriptural reference.

But in the end, the Gnostic cults were not Christians. When they insisted that they were, and they were better than the Christian communities, they became heresies.

tzor wrote:*ie rage*

why the hell are you not using firefox

even chrome is better than ie

tzor wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:

tzor wrote: Two major heresies can be linked to forcing Islamic ideas onto Christianity; iconoclasm (or the destruction of icons) and extreeme biblical literalism (trearting the Bible much like the Koran as the transcribed “literal” word of God).

I've never heard these two very basic and Scriptural beliefs relegated to the status of "heresy". I'd say you'd have to be either Catholic or Orthodox - both of which love their icons and reserve the right to tell you what the Scriptures really mean, i.e. the interpretation which best suits their continued control of their congregations.

You can either take the Bible for what it actually says (literally) or you can put your own meaning to it. Most take the second option which is why we have a plethora of different churches all disagreeing with one another and all claiming to know what the Bible really means. Lol. Originally this mindset helped to create the Roman Catholic church and then ironically caused the split between the Eastern and Western churches. I've always thought it to be a ridiculous way to approach any book and now you not only say that it's the only way to read the Bible but to actually take it literally is "heresy". The only suitable reply i can make to such an assertion is WTF??

Iconoclasts - interesting group of extremists there. These crazed individuals actually consider the plethora of Biblical exhortations against the worship of graven images to include drawn images also. How could they possibly arrive at such a conclusion? Just because God didn't want his people worshipping images that were carved doesn't mean that they can't worship images that are drawn or painted - what kind of stupid person would jump to such a conclusion? They gotta worship something they can see amirite?

If only Aaron would've had the sense to make a pic of the Golden Calf instead of the idol itself he could've saved a lot of lives that day and also saved Moses the trouble of going all the way back up on the mountain to get the 10 commandments a second time. These stoopit iconoclasts need to realize that they need to just stick with the literal commandment against graven images and not . . . . . . oops.


Honibaz

I just accidentally erased my original response. This means you are going to get a really horrid boring one that drones on and on. I have to get my sleep tonight. You can blame the ease of hitting Shift Tab on IE. It fucking sucks.

Now where was I? Oh yes, I hate having to retype things …

Now where was I? There are two points here, so I will answer them in reverse order.

I did not question people who take the Bible “literally,” but instead who insist that the Bible is the “literal” dictation of God. The Koran is only “inspired” in the original language. Translations are permitted for those who are too ignorant to know the original language, but such translations are not considered proper. Only the original language contains the “words of God.” You don’t see this around much these days, but now and then you do see people on occasion doing the same with one of the famous translations, the King James Bible. There is an old joke about “if King James English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.”

The use of images in ancient Hebrew tradition is an interesting subject. The description of the ten words (known as the Ten Commandments) clearly prohibits the creation of an idol and worshiping that same idol. Thus brings us to two points of definition, the notion of the idol and the notion of worship.

It was Moses who created the bronze serpent that “cured” those who looked upon it of snake bites. Images decorated the tent temple and the Ark of the Covenant; not just paintings but real three dimensional images.

This brings us back to worship, a term twice removed in meaning in the minds of many protestants. While there are such things as “wave offerings” worship requires a sacrifice. (Jesus gave us the ultimate sacrifice; which is recalled in his memory (as per his words) in every “sacrifice” of the Mass.) That is worship, anything else is lip service.

Now it is important to remember that any argument of this type simply cannot be done in the English language; the language is horribly sloppy in the overlap of terms. There is no easy way to map Latria, Dulia, and Hyper Dulia into English terms. “Worship” really is no different from “Honor,” which is why in the UK judges are called “your worship” and in the US they are called “your honor.” (This brings us back to the King James Bible joke above.)

There was never a prohibition on the drawing of the human figure in Jewish tradition. Excavations of ancient synagogues are filled with human images. This prohibition is clearly Islamic in nature.

Thus the tradition of drawing angles, humans (especially that of Jesus, the “word” who became flesh and the saints) was clearly never prohibited by the Ten Commandments. Nor was the paying of proper respect to these items, much like you would pay a lot of respect to your family Bible. Of course, technically speaking, icons are not “drawn” they are “written.” They are graphical representations of mysteries of faith represented in angels (as in the famous icon of the trinity portrayed as the three angels who visited Abraham), the “word made flesh” or in His saints. They are written in an off-worldly manner using a distinct graphical writing style.

Much in the same way you can use your Bible (and the verses therein) to direct your prayer to God, you can use icons to direct your prayer (not to the icon, because that would make the icon an idol) to God through the medication of the icon. (You can also direct your prayer to God while meditating on a beautiful sunset; no one would call that the worship of sunset.)

P.S. I hate IE. I fucking hate it. If this post sucks, blame IE.

I feel your pain man. I spent over an hour a couple nights ago writing a tediously researched post, then when i hit "submit" the little message popped up which said "you must log in to read this post". AAAAaaaauuugh! How do i avoid such bullshit in the future? I've also made the same mistake you did. Sux big time.

I won't even get into the literal Word of God thing based on original language with you - way too subjective with too many side roads. As to the iconoclast thing, you seem to be muddying the water with semantics. You could easily apply your arguments to the Golden Calf. Quite simply, if any image or item becomes an object of worship it is an idol, and yes - some people worship the sun. Ever hear of the Egyptian Ra?

Your reference to the Brazen Serpent (Nehushtan) is a good example, but you omit the crucial reference where King Hezekiah broke it in pieces because people worshipped it as an idol (II Kings 18:4). That was obviously not God's intention for it when He had Moses create it. Regardless of your semantic based argument, most people would agree that icons are worshipped by many people. Maybe not by all but then the Brazen Serpent wasn't worshipped by all. Hezekiah destroyed it because some of the people were worshipping it and so it had become an abomination. Hezekiah was a prime example of an iconoclast and the Scripture clearly states that his actions pleased God.


Honibaz

tzor wrote:

comic boy wrote:Tzor
Some cynics might suggest that the charge of heresy had rather more to do with politics than spititualism , gnostic belief had no room for the organised church which was a tad awkward.
In the same vein why were the so called Gnostic Gospels not included in the biblical canon , they are contemporary and relevent after all , were they simply not on message enough for the fledgling Catholic Corporation ?

To understand the problems of Christianity and the Gnostic cults in Rome and Greece at the time of the early church, the best concept is to envision fan fiction … from non fans.

Gnostic cults, trying to attract Christian converts, incorporated Christian elements and Christian scriptures into their cult beliefs … but wait, there’s more! That’s one of the elements of Gnosticism “we know something you don’t, join us and find out.” Some of this stuff they claimed to know was written into their own gospels. There is a Gospel of a gay Jesus. (This is why I bring up “fan fiction” because there were also fan fiction rumors of a homosexual relationship between Kirk and Spock. It even had to be officially debunked by Kirk himself in the novelization of the first movie.) Since there is no written record of what happened in the childhood of Jesus, one Gnostic sect wrote one up. Here the young Jesus is a real “devil” making clay birds on the Sabbath and giving them life just to annoy the rabbis. (The only “work” Jesus did on the Sabbath was healing the sick and forgiving sins. His disciples did pick and munch on a few grains of wheat, a concept only a strict rabbi would consider “work.”)

You know the typical manger scene; the one with the “ox” and “ass?” This is another, although less offensive Gnostic scriptural reference.

But in the end, the Gnostic cults were not Christians. When they insisted that they were, and they were better than the Christian communities, they became heresies.

Thanks for that , let me read up a bit and I will get back to you.

heavycola wrote:'gnostic heresy' is an anagram of 'christ gone, yes'. This is relevant.

if this is an original anagram, it deserved a bit more kudos!