An article by Robert Temple was interesting to me and led me to information on the early Gnostic movement. I thought the movement interesting because it used more logic.

Temple wrote: Before the body of jesus was even cold, the Christian movement split into two. The first half was that of the grey suits, who advocated organised churches with clerical hierarchies and domination of the congregations, the 'sheep' by an organisation which could boss them around, make money out of them, and create institutions, such as the confessional, which could be run by people who get a kick out of power.
The second, that of the more enlightened followers, was later given the name of the Gnostic movement. The Gnostics believed that the way to salvation lay through knowledge and understanding of the truth. But this was not good enough for the organisation men; they insisted that the way to salvation lay through unreasoning faith. In other words: do what we tell you without question(what we call faith), or you will go to hell.
The Gnostic path was one of peace and reason, the clerical path was one of spiritual tyranny; its ultimate weapons were mortal sin and , later, the terrible fate of excommunication.


Temple also wrote..If we are to grow up as a species, leave infancy behind, and enter primary school, then we must learn to use that under-utilized organ, the brain. We must begin to think about the meaning of things, not just suck on a straw stuck into the Bible, the Torah, the Toran, the Vedas, or any single book for which ultimate perfection is claimed by the clergy.

I found more on Gnostics at.....
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

Your description of the organized church half seems more like a political faction than an actual religious section of society. You are taking the theocratic ways of some powermungrels and acting like its the view of the whole Church, and that is simply not the case.

We do not beileve that one is to follow the rules we set out in order to earn salvation, but that one must follow the rule of God, and ask his salvation through the blood of Jesus Chrust.

So, even in the earliest of converts we see evidence of a grab for power and wealth. The good Catholics are the richest of the organized religions, with 2 millenia of experience. Type A vs Type B personalities that long ago? No wonder we're all fighting.

My point is, and a lot of people make this mistake, is that you just cant judge the actions of some on a whole group of people.

For example, you cant blame 9/11 on the entire Islam Religion.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
My point is, and a lot of people make this mistake, is that you just cant judge the actions of some on a whole group of people.

For example, you cant blame 9/11 on the entire Islam Religion.

Exaclty! There are a lot of sincere christians who are not at all corrupt. Just because some have misrepresented christianity, doesn't mean that we are all like that.

Christianity is about accpeting Jesus as Lord and saviour, being a follower of Him, and living by His principles. Living a Godly life which includes treating people right.

I do not think the article was speaking so much about the followers, but more about the leaders that set up the religious ideals and the reasons why. The followers would never be informed of the nature of the beast(Church). Here-in would lay the cloak of mass deception.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I do not think the article was speaking so much about the followers, but more about the leaders that set up the religious ideals and the reasons why. The followers would never be informed of the nature of the beast(Church). Here-in would lay the cloak of mass deception.

But even out of the leaders in the church, there are a lot of good ones despite the corrupt ones. leaders that want controlover peple are not doing what is right in the sight of God. God gave each a freewill and will not step on our freewill. No-one else should either. God does hold each person acountable for their choices and what they do with their life, but gives us a freewill.

The gnostics were wrong about salvation being about knowledge. It is by grace we are saved. It has nothing to do with knowledge.

The early builders of religions knew that some were born to be led, that a book with a nipple on it could be shoved in their mouth and they would be pacified. Never questioning the logic and never to seek knowledge. These are the ones they gained power over.

Do we really need to continue to be spoonfed religion like babies?
What about taking some initiative for ourselves? Can we earn it or do we insist on being given it for free? Those who are feeble and lazy will not agree with this. They prefer second-hand thinking. They want a book stuck into their hands, to be called the Sacred Text, and they want it to contain all the answers. Such a person might as well be inanimate, since all power to think has been removed. Those same people, if it comes to money, will go shopping round for the best rate of interest at all the banks, and if it comes to a car, will go test drive all the models. But, when it comes to their eternal fate, they want pre-digested handed-down answers which require no effort of any kind.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Do we really need to continue to be spoonfed religion like babies?
What about taking some initiative for ourselves? Can we earn it or do we insist on being given it for free? Those who are feeble and lazy will not agree with this. They prefer second-hand thinking. They want a book stuck into their hands, to be called the Sacred Text, and they want it to contain all the answers. Such a person might as well be inanimate, since all power to think has been removed. Those same people, if it comes to money, will go shopping round for the best rate of interest at all the banks, and if it comes to a car, will go test drive all the models. But, when it comes to their eternal fate, they want pre-digested handed-down answers which require no effort of any kind. Hell dan, your post reads like a sermon to me. Who you trying to preach to?

If you do not choose to have faith in God, so be it. Live well and prosper. But dont belittle those that do just because you have no faith.

I dont think we are, or atleast should be spoonfed our religion, however, listening and learning from people who have studied and thoroughly understand the word such as pastors and religious teaches helps us with our own personal quests for stronger faith and knowledge.

No where in the bible does it say that we have to be tought our religion, or that we even have to attend fellowship....but we are commanded to grow as Christians.

What good is the tree if it bears no fruits?

Originally posted by HaVoK
Hell dan, your post reads like a sermon to me. Who you trying to preach to?

If you do not choose to have faith in God, so be it. Live well and prosper. But dont belittle those that do just because you have no faith.

I have faith in a Supreme Being.
I have no faith in the handed down religions of man.

I feel that those that do not seek on their own and only follow the handed-down rederick of misinformed clergy will miss the boat.

Robert Temple is so historically and theologically inaccurate about the origins of Christianity, that he must have an agenda other than teaching history...I wonder what it is?
It's like "The DaVinci Code" the author Dan Brown has a clear agenda and will go to any lengths to preach it, even if it means throwing actual history out the window.

Youre very right, Stark.

I cant help when reading Da Vinci Code, to think that Brown actually believes in that sacred feminin trash. It has absolutely no biblical or even historical evidence to back anything in the story up. It is totally and completely fiction.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
It has absolutely no biblical or even historical evidence to back anything in the story up. It is totally and completely fiction.

Exactly - it's fiction. Why get so bent out of shape about it?

Gnosticism is a valid branch of Christianity in today's world, as indeed it acknowledges that there are some people who can speak directly to the word of God and there are others who cannot, and the others make up the vast majority of mankind. To ignore the truths of Gnosticism by labeling it elitist is quite naive.

Welcome JC, interesting name you have there.

I am the first Gnostic.

Originally posted by JesusChrist
I am the first Gnostic. No, you're just Raskolnikov back with a new member name and a new email account. Rask/JC = TROLL

raskolnikov is a fictional character.

A Raskolnikov by any other name is still a TROLL

huh?

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I have faith in a Supreme Being.
I have no faith in the handed down religions of man.

I feel that those that do not seek on their own and only follow the handed-down rederick of misinformed clergy will miss the boat.

Christianity and religion are totally different. Christianity is a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. It is following His teachings and principles, praying, praise and worship, reading the Word and asking the Holy Spirit for revelation of His Word(so that you can understand what the scriptures mean), and walking in the calling(ministry) that God has called you to.

If yuo don't read the Word of God, study the Word and know God for yourself, then you will easily be decieved. If leadership isn't teaching sound doctrine, then I don't buy it regardless of their position. Each christian has that responsibility for themselves.

Anyone that would want to control others is "not" walking with God the way they should. God wants His people to walk with Him according to His will, not man's agenda. If someone tries to control me, I would never allow them.

JC (Rask0lnik0v), registering more than one user account, especially when your other one was banned, is against forum policy.

Originally posted by HaVoK
A Raskolnikov by any other name is still a TROLL


LMAO:D

How long will it be before hes back.....hmmm.

Jesus Christ banned from the Religion forums. Now we're all going to hell.

I cant help when reading Da Vinci Code, to think that Brown actually believes in that sacred feminin trash. It has absolutely no biblical or even historical evidence to back anything in the story up. It is totally and completely fiction.
Actually much of it is grounded in historical, symbolic and religious grounds. He portrays much of it wrong, the Priory of Sion never really existed, neither do many of the gnostic books he cites, and the idea that Jesus had a child is unprovable, but most of the rest fits. Ancient Celtic religions base much in the idea of a supreme goddess, that the female was superior to the male in many ways, mostly intellectually. The highest goddess in most ancient philosophical orders and cultures was one that can be renamed to Sophia, where philosophy gets it's root word. Ancient Greek and Roman religion put Demeter, Gaia, Hestia(Especially her, every house had a shrine to her) and Athena before almost any other god. Wisdom, life and family were were some of the most important ideals. The same carried into ancient Celtic religions, women were the carriers of history and culture, the healers, the "witches"(good back then). Most ancient religions gave a place for the female as quite reverant, even though most also blame her on the problems of the world, they also revere her for the gifts of knowledge. Judiasm was one of the first to completely blame the woman and place her on a level lower than the man.

I was referring more along the lines of his assertion that, Mary Magdalene was the holy grail and what not.

There is no biblical evidence that supports this.

You could have specified. *Italian fist*
Though there is also no biblical evidence to suppot that she was a whore, which was what I'd always been told.

The bible says that she was a reformed sinner, I think its just hearsay overtime, that has made her a whore.