Religion has caused more

angelica

know1 wrote:

1. No and good for you. There have been untold things written by humans down through the ages. It doesn't mean we should accept all of them as truth.

Do you believe that you have the holy spirit in you, to direct you to discern truth from non-truth?

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

1. No and good for you. There have been untold things written by humans down through the ages. It doesn't mean we should accept all of them as truth.
2.
3.

That's right. And that includes the bible, does it not? The earliest Christians were indeed Gnostics, so it's undestandable that a large portion of the Gospels reflected this. The fact that this area of Christianity was then rejected by the early Church fathers, as they saw it as a challenge to their power/monopoly, shouldn't be a reason for us to ignore it.

know1

angelica wrote:

Do you believe that you have the holy spirit in you, to direct you to discern truth from non-truth?

Yes. I choose to turn a deaf ear to it or flat out ignore it sometimes, though.

know1

Byrnzie wrote:

That's right. And that includes the bible, does it not? The earliest Christians were indeed Gnostics, so it's undestandable that a large portion of the Gospels reflected this. The fact that this area of early Christianity was then rejected by the early Church fathers as they were seen as a challenge to their power/monopoly shouldn't be a reason to ignore it.

Yes - it could include the bible, but I have decided to choose to believe that the bible - as is - is God's ordained word. I choose to believe that those other "gospels" are not, or they would have been included.

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

Yes - it could include the bible, but I have decided to choose to believe that the bible - as is - is God's ordained word. I choose to believe that those other "gospels" are not, or they would have been included.

"Gnosticism's Christian form grew to prominence in the 2nd century A.D. Ultimately denounced as heretical by the early church, Gnosticism proposed a revealed knowledge of God ("gnosis" meaning "knowledge" in Greek), held as a secret tradition of the apostles. In The Gnostic Gospels, author Elaine Pagels suggests that Christianity could have developed quite differently if Gnostic texts had become part of the Christian canon. Without a doubt: Gnosticism celebrates God as both Mother and Father, shows a very human Jesus's relationship to Mary Magdalene, suggests the Resurrection is better understood symbolically, and speaks to self-knowledge as the route to union with God. Pagels argues that Christian orthodoxy grew out of the political considerations of the day, serving to legitimize and consolidate early church leadership. Her contrast of that developing orthodoxy with Gnostic teachings presents an intriguing trajectory on a world faith as it "might have become." The Gnostic Gospels provides engaging reading for those seeking a broader perspective on the early development of Christianity."

angelica

know1 wrote:

Yes. I choose to turn a deaf ear to it or flat out ignore it sometimes, though.

Trying to head me off at the pass?

the thing is, though, you have part of God within you to direct and guide you in each moment, and each of us can be trusted to find out for ourselves if information from any source is valid, based on that inner voice. It sounds like when you say this: "There have been untold things written by humans down through the ages. It doesn't mean we should accept all of them as truth."

...that you've prejudged something without reading it yourself and without allowing the holy spirit in you to guide you and to assess the information. My question is have you prejudged the material in question because you decided to believe an authority figure who said it was "wrong", rather than trust the spirit in you?

know1

Byrnzie wrote:

"Gnosticism's Christian form grew to prominence in the 2nd century A.D. Ultimately denounced as heretical by the early church, Gnosticism proposed a revealed knowledge of God ("gnosis" meaning "knowledge" in Greek), held as a secret tradition of the apostles. In The Gnostic Gospels, author Elaine Pagels suggests that Christianity could have developed quite differently if Gnostic texts had become part of the Christian canon. Without a doubt: Gnosticism celebrates God as both Mother and Father, shows a very human Jesus's relationship to Mary Magdalene, suggests the Resurrection is better understood symbolically, and speaks to self-knowledge as the route to union with God. Pagels argues that Christian orthodoxy grew out of the political considerations of the day, serving to legitimize and consolidate early church leadership. Her contrast of that developing orthodoxy with Gnostic teachings presents an intriguing trajectory on a world faith as it "might have become." The Gnostic Gospels provides engaging reading for those seeking a broader perspective on the early development of Christianity."

Don't you see that - if God is truly omniscient - God would very easily be able to use humans to edit existing theories and ensure that the word, as God wants it, is accurately portrayed throughout the ages?

In other words, humans may have edited the bible for whatever reason in their own minds, but God was the one guiding that editing process.

know1

angelica wrote:

Trying to head me off at the pass?

the thing is, though, you have part of God within you to direct and guide you in each moment, and each of us can be trusted to find out for ourselves if information from any source is valid, based on that inner voice. It sounds like when you say this: "There have been untold things written by humans down through the ages. It doesn't mean we should accept all of them as truth."

...that you've prejudged something without reading it yourself and without allowing the holy spirit in you to guide you and to assess the information. My question is have you prejudged the material in question because you decided to believe an authority figure who said it was "wrong", rather than trust the spirit in you?

No - I prejudged it based upon its exclusion from the accepted bible and due to my trust that God would have included it if God wanted to.

angelica

know1 wrote:

No - I prejudged it based upon its exclusion from the accepted bible and due to my trust that God would have included it if God wanted to.

Those such as Jesus or the varied others who received the message of God directly uncovered their own special ability--they found their way to God through their commitment and dedication to God. We have the spirit in us to help us find the way. Many of us do not accept our inner spirit that gives us the ability to have the truth shown to us. We expect the truth to come to us without our own effort to meet it in the middle.

Therefore many, in their human arrogance continue to distort the truth.

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

Don't you see that - if God is truly omniscient - God would very easily be able to use humans to edit existing theories and ensure that the word, as God wants it, is accurately portrayed throughout the ages?

In other words, humans may have edited the bible for whatever reason in their own minds, but God was the one guiding that editing process.

So you believe in the literal word of the bible? And if so, then can you explain, in light of your above comment, why God didn't 'guide' Darwin away from publishing 'The Origin of species', for example?

angelica

know1 wrote:

Yes. I choose to turn a deaf ear to it or flat out ignore it sometimes, though.

If you are choosing to turn a deaf ear to it, or flat out ignore it, do you expect the truth to be handed to you, anyway when you are not willing to show effort? God gives us free will. If we turn our backs on his voice within us, are we still connected to him and his truth?

Byrnzie

From The Gospel Of Thomas

Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

I believe that the Gonstic Gospels have a great relevance today for many reasons. One of which is simply that they place the onus of 'salvation' onto the individual, and thereby dismiss the need or urge to rely upon a third party, such as the Church. Religious experience should always be a personal experience. Once it it becomes connected with dogma, creed, or authority then it not only becomes dangerous, but it loses some of it's original purpose.

chopitdown

Byrnzie wrote:

From The Gospel Of Thomas

Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

I believe that the Gonstic Gospels have a great relevance today for amny reasons. One of which is simply that they place the onus of 'salvation' onto the individual, and thereby dismiss the need or urge to rely upon a third party, such as the Church. Religious experience should always be a personal experience. Once it it becomes connected with dogma, creed, or authority then it not only becomes dangerous, but it loses some of it's original purpose.

Have you studied ABOUT the gospel of thomas and understood what it is and what people want it to say. I would suggest you study it (that means studying and analysing both sides) and not just study what it says but rather the info behind it.

know1

Byrnzie wrote:

So you believe in the literal word of the bible? And if so, then can you explain, in light of your above comment, why God didn't 'guide' Darwin away from publishing 'The Origin of species', for example?

You truly do ask some great questions. I'm not sure my answers are as great.

I don't believe that God didn't "guide" Darwin, because Darwin's work isn't represented as the word of God.

I'm not sure that I do believe in the literal word of the bible in that I still think some things in it are open to interpretation (and that leaves me open to being hypocritical).

For example, I'm one of those who do believe in evolution (just that God is the driving force behind it).

angelica

chopitdown wrote:

Have you studied ABOUT the gospel of thomas and understood what it is and what people want it to say. I would suggest you study it (that means studying and analysing both sides) and not just study what it says but rather the info behind it.

What do you mean by "the info behind it"?

Do you believe you have the holy spirit in you to discern truth from non-truth?

know1

angelica wrote:

If you are choosing to turn a deaf ear to it, or flat out ignore it, do you expect the truth to be handed to you, anyway when you are not willing to show effort? God gives us free will. If we turn our backs on his voice within us, are we still connected to him and his truth?

No. I'm saying that there are times when I KNOW what the Holy Spirit is telling me to do or believe, yet I, of my own free will, go against that direction.

angelica

know1 wrote:

You truly do ask some great questions. I'm not sure my answers are as great.

I don't believe that God didn't "guide" Darwin, because Darwin's work isn't represented as the word of God.

I'm not sure that I do believe in the literal word of the bible in that I still think some things in it are open to interpretation (and that leaves me open to being hypocritical).

For example, I'm one of those who do believe in evolution (just that God is the driving force behind it).

I think the point is that if God wanted us to all be instantly enlightned he COULD do that. It doesn't look like God wanted to give us anything straight out--it looks like we were given the tools and the choice to use them or not. If we choose not to use his very tools, but we want to blindly trust that what is out there is truth, without using our own discernment from God to judge for ourelves we're operating from our humanness. We're not operating from our clear, Truthful spiritual nature that is one with God. Hence human error being the problem, not religion or God.

angelica

know1 wrote:

No. I'm saying that there are times when I KNOW what the Holy Spirit is telling me to do or believe, yet I, of my own free will, go against that direction.

Of course we all do that.

The thing is, when we hand our spiritual power over to others to do so as they like, that's our choice. It is a choice best made in understanding. If we give up our spiritual gifts of discernment and trust in another because of their position or label, we are handing our God-given tool to that person. In the end, if that person leads us to ugliness, killing, war, etc, we are responsible for being ugly, for killing, for our part in war, etc.

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

You truly do ask some great questions. I'm not sure my answers are as great.

I don't believe that God didn't "guide" Darwin, because Darwin's work isn't represented as the word of God.

I'm not sure that I do believe in the literal word of the bible in that I still think some things in it are open to interpretation (and that leaves me open to being hypocritical).

For example, I'm one of those who do believe in evolution (just that God is the driving force behind it).

O.k, thanks. That's a surprisingly reasoned answer. Not surprising because it's from yourself, of course, but just surprisingly sound.

chopitdown

angelica wrote:

What do you mean by "the info behind it"?

Do you believe you have the holy spirit in you to discern truth from non-truth?

I mean, read the philosophy behind it, read the controversy that people who are more educated discuss. Read why some people accept it and others don't. There's often very justifiable reasons why some things are declared heretical or aren't included in the canon; it's not just a power trip.

I guess i get bugged when people find something they agree with on the surface and don't dig deeper to understand why they agree with it and the decide if they should agree with it. Also, it seems that with religion people are more apt to take other texts (gnostic gospels etc...) as truth and ignore the other books of the bible.

Yes I believe i have the holy spririt but i also have reasoning, understanding and mental capabilities to judge the quality of works. I may be wrong in some of those. I would never say that i have the corner on truth, I will say that if something disagrees with the collected appropriate texts that i will hold it much more suspect than something that agrees with it, and that is prudent. Just b/c things are from a similar time does not equate to similar authenticity or accuracy. Preponderance of evidence comes into play to help make decisions.