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

Why do some Christians Seem to think The Bible is the only source of objective morals

ebola?- I think you are getting to the core of the original and more rational xtian (but still deeply flawed, imo) faith. Gnostic Xtians would agree with you that divinity cannot be contained within parables or other didactic musings which exist in the Bible. They would argue that communication/reception with/of the divine can only exist through Gnosis, which takes rigorous asceticism, meditation, and education. Gnostic Xtians were the spiritually elite within the proto-orthodox church, and viewed the proto-orthodox as foolish sheep that blindly follow the will of bishops, who hold no special wisdom since they too only follow the written word that has been passed down and amended by other bishops. Indeed, if a xtian were to truly know who actually wrote their "divine words so-called," they would most certainly have an apostasy; and if they remained faithful, then they are truly blind.

I just do not see what is divine about the Bible. It has been copied by nearly illiterate scribes/monks for centuries, it has hardly any true authorship, and most gospels/books of the Bible are forgeries, or have pseudonymous authorship, too much of it is self-contradictory, and it is incomplete, since its once "heretic" gospels/books were burned when Constantine recognized Xtianity as the Roman state religion, and gave the proto-orthodox state authority to subjugate "heretics." Further, Gnostic Xtians also understood the concept of evolution (to a degree), in the sense that they viewed their spiritual texts to be freely amendable by fellow Gnostics, since spiritual knowledge is something that grows when it is perceived by the eye of Gnosis. On the other hand, the orthodox view spirituality to be simply contained within a psuedo-static ancient text, and that ancient people of the Mediterranean desert somehow gleamed enough of the ultimate truth, that it is no longer necessary for humans to continue their search for knowledge. It is all hogwash if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Biblos

First and foremost, welcome to Bluelight, and congrats in putting your first post in the best forum bar-none. To wit the home of every enlightened Bluelighter - welcome.

To your question -
Down the ages there have been exegetical disputes, whole lives spent on Hermeneutics alone (never mind translation errors, reordering of entire books, rejection of Gospels by show of hands, copying errors, deliberate alterations from within the church, then it's many bifurcations, (heresies so-called), and further subdivisions each with their unique interpretation).

Add to that the creation of what we call the OT over approx 1,500 years, and the NT canon's 400+ year ride to cononicity and we arrive at a book more interfered with by man, usurped by the profane, and wielded as a for-runner of death.

That anyone, Christian or otherwise, knowing its true nature would use it as a text of moral instruction, as directed by the church, is beyond me.

Notwithstanding there is great moral teachings within, if you know where to find them :)

FIAT LUX
 
Apostacious:

Whether the Gnostics were an offshoot of the Catholica, or whether they pre-dated Christ as a Hermetical order who via syncretism reconciled their two schools is evidentially underdetermined. The discovery of an entire Gnostic library including many 'lost Gospels' at Nag Hammadi in the middle of the last century has been a boon for Gnostic scholars, finding legible (in Coptic) codices lost to academia for 1600 years has revitalised the entire subject of Patristics. Gnosticism was present at the very birth pangs of Christianity and though later anathematized its currents ran strong though the Bogomil Heresy, The Knights Templar and the Cathars. Even the reformation.

No one can be sure what a Gnostic Christianity would have won the day, but I am certain we would be in a much better place now.:\
 
Pythagoras said:
Apostacious:

Whether the Gnostics were an offshoot of the Catholica, or whether they pre-dated Christ as a Hermetical order who via syncretism reconciled their two schools is evidentially underdetermined. The discovery of an entire Gnostic library including many 'lost Gospels' at Nag Hammadi in the middle of the last century has been a boon for Gnostic scholars, finding legible (in Coptic) codices lost to academia for 1600 years has revitalised the entire subject of Patristics. Gnosticism was present at the very birth pangs of Christianity and though later anathematized its currents ran strong though the Bogomil Heresy, The Knights Templar and the Cathars. Even the reformation.

No one can be sure what a Gnostic Christianity would have won the day, but I am certain we would be in a much better place now.:\
Click to expand...

Dr. Birger A. Pearson would argue that Gnosticism actually predates Christianity, and has roots in Judaism (If you have EBSCO, look up "Early Christanity and Gnosticism in the History of Religions" as a journal article... for further reading, I highly suggest his Christianity and Gnosticism in Roman and Coptic Egypt book). Further, he also argues that Gnostic Christianity appears to have a starting date right around 70 CE (possibly because of the Gospel of Thomas), which predates all New Testament writing... even the synoptic gospels (though, it is remotely possible that it also predates the lost Q/Quells gospels). Therefore, from Dr. Pearson's arguments, Gnosticism would most certainly predate the Catholic [universal] Church, which truly started in the 4th century, thanks to Constantine (though, the proto-Catholic Church certainly was spread far throughout the Roman Empire by the 3rd century C.E., and was well-organized and relatively homogenous).

Also, I take it you have read Dr. Charles William King's The Gnostics and Their Remains, since you connect Gnosticism to the Knights Templar (though, lets not forget the Rosicurians, and Freemasons), which is an argument Dr. C.W. King is in favor of. Additionally, you are corret that if Gnostic Christianity had defeated proto-orthodox Christianity in the 3rd century CE, the world would be very different (and perhaps shielded from homophobia, racism, and a string of other abuses that have an arguably orthodox Christian origin).

Yet, the two wouldn't have needed to have fought at all if Valentinus of Alexandria were elected as Bishop of Rome around 150 CE. He was perhaps the most influential Gnostic, ever, and he integrated his system of faith almost completely with the proto-orthodox Church. I recommend reading Ismo Dunderburg's essay on Valentinianism in "The School of Valentinus." Imagine Valentinus at the helm as Bishop of Rome (which is just another word for the friggin Pope ;) )... would Constantine still have his dream of a cross before a decisive battle with a rival Roman Emperor? I'm not sure. But, I have a feeling there would be much less ignorance of a Christian nature in this world... of course, knowing what I know of western civilization, something else would take its place. :\
 
Last edited:
^^^

^^

Thanks Aposciousus for the recommended reading, we clearly share some academic interests. I have read all but one of your suggestions. I have read a paper I believe by pearson but given my tutor was prof. Alisdair Logon (who had his opposing theory on theChsitian nature of the sect as can be gleaned from the historical record, philology and close exegesis of the texts. I was lucky enough to do one of my Masters modules outside of theology and so took 'An Introduction to Western Esoteric Thought', which at the time was new and part of a wider MA in Western Esotercism (one of only 3 such courses in the world as far as I'm aware.). I have a mini-library on the subject. The Esoteric tradition lives on if only in adademia and though popular fictions like Da Vinci Code (enough to make an academic squirm)

There remaims the depths of the human mind not yet plumbed, for the recasting of Gnostics truth a new lease of life (so much more so since the Nag Hammadi discoveries).

Re: Valentinus, though his great popularity he was a well known 'closet' gnostic (giving his name to one of the two main branches - Valentinian Gnosticism, its counterpart being Sethian Gnosticism.).

I had read in the literature that he deliberately turned down the possibility as it could not accord with his Gnostic beliefs, or that he might be defrocked as a heretic.

I would highly recommend Elain Pagels' popular and academic works on the subject (HERE)
Or for source material (unless you wish to learn Coptic): Marvin Meyer and James M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts Complete in One Volume by (Harper Collins, 2007) This latter work contains new exegesis from the leaders in the field. A simple translation can be had for free from gnosis.org which offers large ammounts of Gnostic and Hermetic source materials - the only caveat being that it is linked to the US Gnostic church..

Enjoy
 
Pythagoras said:
^^^

^^

Thanks Aposciousus for the recommended reading, we clearly share some academic interests. I have read all but one of your suggestions. I have read a paper I believe by pearson but given my tutor was prof. Alisdair Logon (who had his opposing theory on theChsitian nature of the sect as can be gleaned from the historical record, philology and close exegesis of the texts. I was lucky enough to do one of my Masters modules outside of theology and so took 'An Introduction to Western Esoteric Thought', which at the time was new and part of a wider MA in Western Esotercism (one of only 3 such courses in the world as far as I'm aware.). I have a mini-library on the subject. The Esoteric tradition lives on if only in adademia and though popular fictions like Da Vinci Code (enough to make an academic squirm)
Click to expand...

First off, allow me to admit my excitement and glee to be able to get into this wonderful discussion with you! I did not know that we shared such similar interests of such obscure aspects of history. Did I mention that I am enjoying this discussion? Oh, okay, good. :)

That Western Esotericism course sounds extremely interesting. I wish I had access to it. It is too bad that Western Esotericism has been so readily and inadequately pigeonholed by these fly-by-night pulp authors. :\

I came across most of my information from taking a Western Civilization course with a very liberal professor that wished to recast the course in an extremely experimental nature. I had an entire semester to write an 11 page research paper, and needed to utilize ten sources (journal articles or books). I ended up reading quite a lot on the subject of the early history of Christian Gnosticism (or Gnostic Christianity, whichever one prefers :)), and came across some extremely interesting information.

There remaims the depths of the human mind not yet plumbed, for the recasting of Gnostics truth a new lease of life (so much more so since the Nag Hammadi discoveries).
Click to expand...

Agreed. I am curious of the particular type of shamanism that was practiced by truly ascetic Gnostics. I understand that there is some connection between Gnostic Christianity and amanitas muscaria. But, I would like to know if it were true, and how the two are connected.

Re: Valentinus, though his great popularity he was a well known 'closet' gnostic (giving his name to one of the two main branches - Valentinian Gnosticism, its counterpart being Sethian Gnosticism.).

I had read in the literature that he deliberately turned down the possibility as it could not accord with his Gnostic beliefs, or that he might be defrocked as a heretic.
Click to expand...

Sethian Gnosticism is the type of gnosticism that B.A. Pearson considers the most "general" type of Gnosticism such that he could create a framework of ubiquitous Gnostic rituals, customs, theologies, mythologies, etc.

It makes sense that Valentinus turned down his position for Bishop of Rome, given that he considers the proto-orthodox to be mostly uneducated, stubborn and unenlightened fools. Why would he want to take control over such a group of hooligans? I find it funny that in Ireneaus' Adversus Haereses book, he claims that Valentinus was bitter in his "defeat." Ireneaus should know that he is talking about an ascetic man that holds no desire to obtain power, but only wishes to help others achieve Gnosis.

I would highly recommend Elain Pagels' popular and academic works on the subject (HERE)
Or for source material (unless you wish to learn Coptic): Marvin Meyer and James M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts Complete in One Volume by (Harper Collins, 2007) This latter work contains new exegesis from the leaders in the field. A simple translation can be had for free from gnosis.org which offers large ammounts of Gnostic and Hermetic source materials - the only caveat being that it is linked to the US Gnostic church..

Enjoy
Click to expand...

Thank you for the links. I have the 1999 edition of James R. Robinson's The Nag Hammadi Library for primary source material ("The Thunder, Perfect Mind" is quite possibly my favorite poem of the ancient world). Further, I have the 1989 Vintage Books edition of Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels, which I have read extensively and is a major source of much of my understanding of Gnostic Christianity. I have been meaning to read more recent works of hers, and may take the initiative to follow some of the links you provided to finally do so. :)
 
^^
Well I have to admit I don't come accross many that share a passion for mystery and the arcane brought tp one through studay of Western Esotericism.

The Syllabus I followed was similar to the one found here, it is officially a distance learning course with participants trying to meet at least once a term for back-to-back lectures late into the night..

The syllabus reflects those running seminars but have attempted to retain an order to best reflect The Western Esoteric Tradition. I wish I'd kept ,my old reading lists. Feel free at any time to ask any questions (does not mean you'll get a correct answer).

I'm certainly glad to see a new generation of esotericists plough their furrough.

Speaking of Bruno:

MENS AGITAT MOLEM
 
PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS IF YOUR EASILLY OFENDED JUST A PERSONS 2 CENTS.


because they have such a distorted view of the bible now adays that they think if they go have sex with a woman they love bu\ut dont want to marry do to good reasons. god will strike them down im christian but i dont take it to a ludacris level and start preaching to people telling them hey your wrong your going to hell, no if god is real and what the bible says is true then in the end if you ask for forgiveness you will be forgiven because he is god and the bible makes him and his son out to be the most forgiving thing ever i mean look at the 3 men on the cross jesus supposidly said something like hey you stole and murdered but since you asked your forgiven ill see you at the pearly gates. i mean people who pray at every meal!? come on god knows your happy you have food because your like omg this big mac is the shit in your head. and he can supposedly read minds to just think about it for a second.if hes out there he seems pretty g and probably smokes bud. just my 2 cents plus im bucked up but its true and i know when i die no matter how many woman i sleep with or how mqny drugs i do if i say god im sorry i was just being human like your OWN CREATIONS ADAM AND EVE AND WAS DECIVED BY SATAN! I'm goin to heaven :P :) and i dont go to church either i just beleive and pray every now n then. gawd i love cocaine. makes me think
 
Last edited:
^^

You may feel that cocaine makes you think, but if you were partaking whilst you wrote this then I fear your communicative skills have taken a turn for the worse (though I have no base-line to compare with).

I point you to part 3 of the P&S user guideline which I am sure you read in its entirety before you posted??. I'll save you a reproduce it here

3. No incoherent posts. We understand that the subject matter discussed in P&S can sometimes be highly abstract and hard to put into words. We also accept that many people's thoughts here come to them during states of altered consciousness. English is not everyone's first language here, and even native English speakers vary in their ability to eloquently express a heady idea. However, if a sober moderator can make no sense of a post at all, he reserves the right to close or unapprove it.​

Take this as a soft warning,:)

Pythagoras
 
Chairman_Xi said:
So I guess what I'm really saying is, could someone explain this to me? Personally, I think there is something ingrained in the human psyche which just tells you some things are wrong; if that weren't the case, then I struggle to see how so many world religions have essentially the same message.
Click to expand...

No one quite understands how the human mind completely works, so it's impossible to give a clear cut answer.

This would be an excellent question to ask an anthropologist or sociology major.
 
Chairman_Xi said:
So I guess what I'm really saying is, could someone explain this to me? Personally, I think there is something ingrained in the human psyche which just tells you some things are wrong; if that weren't the case, then I struggle to see how so many world religions have essentially the same message.
Click to expand...


To heal- thats what is right/good/moral; you can apply this option to any situation.
To harm- thats what is wrong/evil/immoral; you can apply this option to any situation.

The basis of all religion is to cause healing in all forms to oneself n others.
 
Max Power said:
because they've never read Kant.
Click to expand...

Mmmm...I think that Kant failed at this project (and he might admit this himself, given that the categorical imperative is solely a subtractive procedure).

ebola
 
MaxPowers said:
Looks like I'm the one who ended up failing here.
Click to expand...

My copy of the Critique of Pure Reason is about as thick as a phone book and a whole lot rougher of a read. A lot of Kant's other writings aren't much better.

Also, the merits of his ethical framework occupy a zone of ongoing debate.

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top