D
Denise1957
Guest
Have you yourself ever experienced famine or natural disaster?
- Status
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
So, basically, you’re saying “I deny your reality and substitute my own.”
Because that’s really all you’re doing. Despite the fact that you aren’t even remotely capable of understanding the infinite nature of God (none of us are), because it doesn’t fit what -you- think God should do, you concluded that God is flawed rather than admitting that perhaps your perceptions are what is flawed. Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps suffering serves a purpose in our fallen state? That there is meaning to it? That after rejecting Him is became necessary for our salvation?
I’m out for the night. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position on some of these things, because it’s really not logically coherent to deny what is revealed in favor of your personal fantasy about what you think God -should- be like.
S
Sophia_Christ
Guest
I assume you are referring to the 114th Logion which relates the following incident:
“Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
I must admit that this passage initially took me aback as well! However, it is important to look at it in its context. In other passages throughout the Gospel, Peter is vocally uncomfortable with the fact that a woman (Mary Magdalene) was included in the entourage of the disciples. In fact, Jesus actually reveals more of his esoteric truths to Mary than to other male disciples! The fact is that the ideal follower of Christ at the time the Gospel of Thomas was written is the ascetic male. So, the purport of this passage is that women may be a part of the spiritual ministry but they must go through the same austerities that were required of the largely male population of followers at this time. I know the language is chauvinistic but it makes sense in context.
S
Sophia_Christ
Guest
The significance of historical events are still up to interpretation. For example, Catholics and Calvinists both believe that the events of the Gospels literally happened, yet they’ve arrived at different conclusions as to the purport of them.
S
Sophia_Christ
Guest
No but they still happened!
J
joe371
Guest
In other words, as long as that interpretation is left up to imperfect humans and an imperfect creator, the truth vis-a-vis the scriptures (actual events or otherwise) can never be known, at least that is what I have gleaned from your posts?
D
Denise1957
Guest
Yes, they have happened. Yet many of us have not experienced such things, though we may know people who have.
How does Gnosticism view how you are to respond to those who are suffering? Are you to be detached from them, or are you to try to help them, or something in-between?
S
Sophia_Christ
Guest
If you read my earlier posts, you would see that Gnostics believe that the Jehovah of the Old Testament was a flawed emanation from the actual, true God who is the source of all existence.
As for your comment on suffering serving a purpose, this may be true in some cases. However, I see no purpose in, for instance, a child in Liberia suffering a debilitating death from Ebola.
I disagree with your interpretation of the nature of reality but I never once said it was illogical. It is a difference of interpretation. You calling Gnostic ideology a fantasy is a very single-minded attempt to discredit something that does not ideologically align with your thought process.
J
joe371
Guest
Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the long-awaited Messiah, prophesied in the Old Testament i.e. he literally fulfilled the messianic prophesies - who suffered and died on the cross, literally, for the sins of mankind…to open the gates of heaven for the human race?You said:
Who is the true God i.e. is the true God made known via any particular religion?
L
Lucretius
Guest
Sophia Christ:
Hello, and welcome!
I have a question to ask you about Scriptural interpretation.
When Apostolic Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Eastern, etc.) approach Scripture, they interpret using a deep, Jewish worldview. Now, Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish: his disciples, who wrote the texts, were also Jewish. I think then that a Jewish lens would be more appropriate then a neo-platonic, esoteric, eastern lens. When I read Scripture through the Jewish lens, they make much more sense then through a Greek lens. Historically, Gnostic Christian views did not appear until the mass of Gentiles joined the Church, bring with them their Greek (neo-platonic) views. Christian Gnostic texts are also dated after the bulk of the New Testament. So, I have to ask: why would you view Scripture through the Gnostic lens when the Jewish lens would make more historical sense. You seem to be trying to read your Gnostic views into the text, rather then read it through the context of the Writers, and the Tradition that they passed on to their successors, the Bishops?
Note: I am questioning whether Gnosticism and Christianity are compatible. If I concede that Gnostic philosophy is the best way to view the world, then that would mean, in my eyes, that the Christian texts and Jesus, who inspired them, are in error.
Christi pax,
Lucretius
Hello, and welcome!
I have a question to ask you about Scriptural interpretation.
When Apostolic Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Eastern, etc.) approach Scripture, they interpret using a deep, Jewish worldview. Now, Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish: his disciples, who wrote the texts, were also Jewish. I think then that a Jewish lens would be more appropriate then a neo-platonic, esoteric, eastern lens. When I read Scripture through the Jewish lens, they make much more sense then through a Greek lens. Historically, Gnostic Christian views did not appear until the mass of Gentiles joined the Church, bring with them their Greek (neo-platonic) views. Christian Gnostic texts are also dated after the bulk of the New Testament. So, I have to ask: why would you view Scripture through the Gnostic lens when the Jewish lens would make more historical sense. You seem to be trying to read your Gnostic views into the text, rather then read it through the context of the Writers, and the Tradition that they passed on to their successors, the Bishops?
Note: I am questioning whether Gnosticism and Christianity are compatible. If I concede that Gnostic philosophy is the best way to view the world, then that would mean, in my eyes, that the Christian texts and Jesus, who inspired them, are in error.
Christi pax,
Lucretius
J
joe371
Guest
Compatibility issues…
C
curtish1947
Guest
Hi,
My many thanks for being here. My thanks are to you. As I try and feel you, from your many responses, I found I could not read the other questions and responses to you. I just read your responses. As my hands shake and my heart beats more, I find myself quite aprehensive in what I am going to possibly ask you, for primarily all I know about God, is expeienced. Origninally that was not so, but it has been since roughly the year 2000 or so. I think it happened that even in my own church, I have been accused of being your faith, but I was just misunderstood. So here goes.
If a person experiences God, and that person is me, to such an extent that one day he/she, as I am very transgendered, is asked a question and is startled by it responding with "How did you know. How? How did you know?
I would like to know how this fits in with your religion, if at all.
“Do you find that you are thinking more like Him?” (She meant God The Father, as that is what the discussion had in it at the time.) I had seen all of the signs in my actions and in my life, but had not actually said it yet even to myself. So here before me was an accusation and I was stunned as to how she could ask me such a question. She told me, which settled me down immensely then I answered her this way: "I am going to answer your question. The answer will be in my words and in this story. In a daytime vision for a woman I am working with, (the one I am here for to ask you for the chuch’s permission to use the church in the off hours, for what I have to do next for God with this girl/woman), at one point I can feel The Father’s Love for her and I can see it. I was curious though, because I also had strong feelings for her, and could not figure out what they were. (I assured her again that her answer woud be here.). This particular vision was there on more than one day, and as I tried various things, the damage to the doorway was mostly repaired, meaning there was still more work for me to do. One day as I am looking at her, seeing God The Father’s Love for her, I pushed His Love for her aside a little, revealing mine which was identical in color, in feeling and in all ways except position and intensity. His feelings were on top of mine. His feelings were a little more intense. So, yes I told her, my feelings and my thoughts are very much merged with His now.
What does that mean to you in your religion, if anything? Do you need more to answer this?
My many thanks for being here. My thanks are to you. As I try and feel you, from your many responses, I found I could not read the other questions and responses to you. I just read your responses. As my hands shake and my heart beats more, I find myself quite aprehensive in what I am going to possibly ask you, for primarily all I know about God, is expeienced. Origninally that was not so, but it has been since roughly the year 2000 or so. I think it happened that even in my own church, I have been accused of being your faith, but I was just misunderstood. So here goes.
If a person experiences God, and that person is me, to such an extent that one day he/she, as I am very transgendered, is asked a question and is startled by it responding with "How did you know. How? How did you know?
I would like to know how this fits in with your religion, if at all.
“Do you find that you are thinking more like Him?” (She meant God The Father, as that is what the discussion had in it at the time.) I had seen all of the signs in my actions and in my life, but had not actually said it yet even to myself. So here before me was an accusation and I was stunned as to how she could ask me such a question. She told me, which settled me down immensely then I answered her this way: "I am going to answer your question. The answer will be in my words and in this story. In a daytime vision for a woman I am working with, (the one I am here for to ask you for the chuch’s permission to use the church in the off hours, for what I have to do next for God with this girl/woman), at one point I can feel The Father’s Love for her and I can see it. I was curious though, because I also had strong feelings for her, and could not figure out what they were. (I assured her again that her answer woud be here.). This particular vision was there on more than one day, and as I tried various things, the damage to the doorway was mostly repaired, meaning there was still more work for me to do. One day as I am looking at her, seeing God The Father’s Love for her, I pushed His Love for her aside a little, revealing mine which was identical in color, in feeling and in all ways except position and intensity. His feelings were on top of mine. His feelings were a little more intense. So, yes I told her, my feelings and my thoughts are very much merged with His now.
What does that mean to you in your religion, if anything? Do you need more to answer this?
S
Sophia_Christ
Guest
We cannot use our human faculties such as cognition, reason, logic, etc. to obtain the truth. Rather, they can only be known through direct experience by tapping into that divine spark that exists within us. If this is the case, the question of whether the events of the scriptures literally took place or not is rendered irrelevant.
S
Sophia_Christ
Guest
It would be a moral act to help those afflicted with sufferings and would make for a better society. But Gnostics view morality as a secular issue that does not have any spiritual merit. It is more important to concern yourself with your own spiritual cultivation than to devote all of your energy to good works.
S
Sophia_Christ
Guest
Personally, I do not believe that Jesus fulfills the messianic requirements of the moshiach prophesied in the Old Testament. However, I also don’t concern myself too much with the prophecies of the God Jehovah who I believe is a flawed creature mistaking himself for the true God.
You said:Who is the true God i.e. is the true God made known via any particular religion?
The true God is beyond any description, adjective, or religious creed. He is the mystical substratum that underlies everything seen and unseen. He can only be experienced, not explained.
S
Sophia_Christ
Guest
Excellent point. However, it must be noted that just because Christianity arose from Jewish thinkers, it does not follow that the teachings cannot be viewed through a different cultural lens. For example, Buddhism was founded in India but they are an extreme minority there these days. But Asian countries have adopted Buddhism and examined it in light of their own cultural tendencies. If Alexandrian thought helps us to create an arguably more cohesive interpretation of Christianity I do not see the harm. Christ’s message is universal and no one culture has a monopoly on his message. We must not also forget the Platonic influence on church fathers such as St. Augustine.
J
joe371
Guest
If this is your belief then you are not a Christian, and I am not being judgmental or critical, just factual. If the true God, is the mystical substratum that underlies everything, as opposed to the Holy Trinity being the true God, and Jesus as the Savior of the world, then you are not a Christian believer - correct?
S
Sophia_Christ
Guest
Hmmm yes I’m afraid I don’t follow
J
joe371
Guest
And that divine spark, coming from the true God who is the mystical substratum that underlies everything, has important implications, namely that the Holy trinity is not the true God - right?
S
Sophia_Christ
Guest
Hmm I suppose this depends on your definition of what a Christian is but that just seems like semantics to me. I believe God is most present in the picture of Jesus painted in Gnostic Gospels so that is why I use this term to describe myself. But it is just a meaningless label in the end just like all linguistic identification with concepts that only have value in the material world. On the ultimate level, there are no Christians, Jews, Muslims, Gnostics, etc. There is only God.
- Status