• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

St. Paul was a devil

I'm not sure if Peter was evil; but pretty much all of the popes after him are and this includes the current one.
 
Note: They are not the same Thomas and the Infancy Gospels are not considered to be significant or trustworthy documents (by theists or scholars).
 
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not considered genuine.

The Gospel of Thomas is. (And it is one of the best, if not the best, of the gospels.)
 
Sorry yes I should have said..

Although I don't believe Marks, Matthews, Luke and Johns gospels to be trustworthy either..

They're still worth a read.
 
I don't believe in the objective truth of any religious text, but having spent an enormous amount of time reading the bible, gnostic texts, and others in my youth, I can say with certainty that I agree with the premise of this thread. Paul corrupted the pure teachings of Jesus and bent them to social norms and his own beliefs. The majority I dislike about the New Testament comes directly from Paul.
 
To clarify my original post, Jesus taught love, selflessness, justice, humility and much more.

When I read Paul's writings (I revisited Romans yesterday) the message has an extremely hateful tone to it, also full of "you're going to hell!" bullshit.

I feel the hatefullness of Paul is what led to all the atrocities commited in Christ's name, since you could not possibly read the Gospel and think killing people was OK, ever, period. Jesus broke bread with the dregs of society, straight up sinners.

The killing of the Gnostics was despicable. I'm glad the Nag Hammidi was discovered, as I get a lot out of those texts.
 
The problem with the Gnostic movements like the Cathars was that they promoted a more personal approach and mystic attitude which took the power away from the authorities. Most societies don't see any value in teaching people how to become enlightened on their own. It frees them, makes them independent, and empowers them so it's not possible to exercise so much poitical control over them.

That's why all mass religions are pretty much equally useless, because they're meant to be. It's not for religious reasons and has nothing to do with religion. The early Christian movements, or the Gnostic movements, is how Christianity should have been or could have been if it had been allowed to flourish as it began. It was based much more on the pure teachings of Christ and also incorporated many elements from Eastern faiths, like reincarnation and karma, vegeterianism, etc.

What people think of as conventional Christianity is pretty useless, but most can't see past that, or even imagine there's anything else to see.
 
Ninae said:
The problem with the Gnostic movements like the Cathars was that they promoted a more personal approach and mystic attitude which took the power away from the authorities. Most societies don't see any value in teaching people how to become enlightened on their own. It frees them, makes them independent, and empowers them so it's not possible to exercise so much poitical control over them.

That's why all mass religions are pretty much equally useless, because they're meant to be. It's not for religious reasons and has nothing to do with religion. The early Christian movements, or the Gnostic movements, is how Christianity should have been or could have been if it had been allowed to flourish as it began. It was based much more on the pure teachings of Christ and also incorporated many elements from Eastern faiths, like reincarnation and karma, vegeterianism, etc.

What people think of as conventional Christianity is pretty useless, but most can't see past that, or even imagine there's anything else to see.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely, nice post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top