Bible as literature

[IndigoChild5559]

I mean, I like the level of faith in people that you're granting here, but show me some evidence of objective thinking individuals outside of a discussion forum. People seem heterogeneous in their opinions and views, whether they be spiritual or otherwise, but do they grant them moments of detachment

I've met them throughout my life. Not always in all places. It does seem that a certain amount of intellgence is required. I am more likely to find such people on college campuses, for example.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think a focus on the technique of parables would be sufficient

the ability to speak in short to the point ....metaphors
is a high level skill

Oh no. not by a longshot.

To be culturally savvy, a person nees to know about adam and eve, cain and abel, noah, abraham, moses, kings david and solomon, etc. as for christian texts, the sermon on the mount is a must, the love chapter 1 cor 13, and the narratives of jesus birth and death and resurrection. Again this is not because the schools would be teaching these as facts. It just cultural awareness.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is perfectly acceptable to be ignorant of pagan religions, especially when young. No-one needs to know them. They are for dilettantes: in any event, the mere existence and toleration of such pagan religions vitiates a Christian culture.

Well the pagan religions are not world religions, so I dont think they should get the same emphasis. But they do still need to be taught. A person is simply ignorant if he doesn't know who Zeus is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All heresies are gnostic (esoteric knowledge based). It's just that some are more extreme than others.

Christianity emphasizes faith, and that the kingdom of God is of another place. That is why to pretend that this heathen world is a reflection of the kingdom of God is tantamount to straight forward blasphemy. It is a defamation of Christianity to suppose that heaven bears any comparison tp this world, where the (moral) laws of Moses are universally despised.

It is not necessary for anyone to be acquainted with pagan religion. The only reason you would ever suppose that is if you had some admiration for paganism. As Paul says, idols are nothing, Mahomet is nothing, the men of this world are nothing, philosophies have a tendency to puff up, and even the gods of Hinduism are just idols.

Again, yo uare just mistaken, and I'm beginning to wonder how much eduation you have.

Let's look at a classic heresy by Christian standards: Arianism. Arius taught that Jesus was the first born of creation, the LOGOS, but that he was not God. This was never ever SECRET esoteric knowledge, and thus is not classified as gnosticism.

If you insist on calling all heresies gnosticicsm, you only display your own ignorance. I can only sincerely hope that you will reada book of church history or someting, so taht you will be better prepared to discuss these things with others here in RF.

 

[syo]

Whether a text is "the real deal" or fiction, its always still literature, since it is written text.

Isn't literature about something fake?

 

[eik]

Paul employed the No true scotsman fallacy. His thinking was not logical on that topic.

Says you without a shred of evidence. Just because you don't understand him is not a ground to libel him.

 

[eik]

Well the pagan religions are not world religions, so I dont think they should get the same emphasis. But they do still need to be taught. A person is simply ignorant if he doesn't know who Zeus is.

They don't need to be taught, unless you were interested in history. They are unimportant.

 

[exchemist]

When a world religion course is taught by Christians, it tends to devolve into a "why all these religions are wrong except Christianity" course.

What evidence do you have for this sweeping statement?

My son was taught religious studies in two schools without any apparent bias towards any one religion.

But it is true that we don't live in the US Bible Belt.

 

[eik]

Again, yo uare just mistaken, and I'm beginning to wonder how much eduation you have.

I smell a wiff of contempt. A fair amount actually, but what I have found is that the number of pagan gods is pretty much infinite. The more you learn of them, the more you see there are to be discovered. In fact you could spend your entire life unprofitably immersed in pagan religions and philosophies as so many do.

Let's look at a classic heresy by Christian standards: Arianism. Arius taught that Jesus was the first born of creation, the LOGOS, but that he was not God. This was never ever SECRET esoteric knowledge, and thus is not classified as gnosticism.

Arius taught the Word or the heaveanly Son was the first born of creation. This is definitely gnosticism, as it is based on the conception that God had a son or aeon in heaven. It was this kind of heavenly begetting that was directly espoused by the gnostics like Valentinian. It's just that Trinitarians don't like to think of themselves as gnostics, but I do, because Trinitarianism of the kind espoused after Nicea is inherently gnostic. It is only different in degree, not in kind, from those classified as gnostics today.

Once you start looking into words like homoousios that support the syncretic high Trinitarian philosophy, you also soon realize that it derives from gnosticism, and neo platonism etc.

Arius was just building (albeit heretically) on an existing gnostic theory that had already wormed its way into Christianty. The non-gnostic principle is quite plainly that God did not beget a heavenly son, even if he begat a human son. Any deviation from this is gnostic.

If you insist on calling all heresies gnosticicsm, you only display your own ignorance. I can only sincerely hope that you will reada book of church history or someting, so taht you will be better prepared to discuss these things with others here in RF.

I know rather more about this subject than you suppose.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Arius taught the Word or the heaveanly Son was the first born of creation. This is definitely gnosticism, as it is based on the conception that God had a son or aeon in heaven.

Perhaps I'm picking nits here, but Arius, while he taught some of the beliefs of Gnosticism, simply didn't teach that people were saved by SECRET knowledge only for the elite, and THAT is the defining characteristic of gnosticism.

It's been a long time since I visited the conflict over Arianism in the church (When Jesus Became God, by Rabbi Richard Rubenstein -- fantastic book) I don't remember it comparing Arianism to gnosticism. I had to look up the topic on the net. From what I could find, Arius was a successor to the Gnostics, but was not actually a Gnostic.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They don't need to be taught, unless you were interested in history. They are unimportant.

they are not just important to history, but to literature as well. Not to mention really great blockbuster movies. LOL

 

[eik]

Perhaps I'm picking nits here, but Arius, while he taught some of the beliefs of Gnosticism, simply didn't teach that people were saved by SECRET knowledge only for the elite, and THAT is the defining characteristic of gnosticism.

It's been a long time since I visited the conflict over Arianism in the church (When Jesus Became God, by Rabbi Richard Rubenstein -- fantastic book) I don't remember it comparing Arianism to gnosticism. I had to look up the topic on the net. From what I could find, Arius was a successor to the Gnostics, but was not actually a Gnostic.

I agree that Arius didn't specifically teach salvation by knowledge but he was a part of the Trinitarian enterprise. He was an elder in a Trinitarian church.

Arianism was not so much a Christian heresy, as a heresy within High Trinitarianism itself, which does teach that knowledge of "God the Son" is paramount on pain of anathema.

I agree that Arianism doesn't brand Jesus an illusion, as with docetism. By focusing on Jesus' humanity, it even downplays Trinitarian gnosticism. In fact Arianism seeks to make High Trinitarianism less gnostic than it actually is, by allowing for subordination of Jesus to his Father. But it was misconceived because it made the terrible error of making Jesus out as less than fully divine. The truth was that Jesus was not "God," because God infers having the attributes of God as well as the identity of God, but Jesus was divine in that he came from nothing less than God.

High Trinitarianism has put many to death, including conversos, for not "knowing" that God begat a son "in heaven." Thus Michael Servetus was put to death for not owning "God the Son" although he owned the "son of God."

God the Son is gnostic (knowledge based)
Son of God is biblical (faith based)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There was the enlightenment where they go back to the ancient greeks, and there were the norse who last 500 more years than that. Those two things might be taken to represent science and individualism

The medieval Norse had anothing to do with the Enlightenment, so I'm not sure why you mentioned them.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The medieval Norse had anothing to do with the Enlightenment, so I'm not sure why you mentioned them.

Oh, that was for the individualism. Individuals seemed to make decisions that seemed quite autonomous in that culture, I had thought

 

[RabbiO]

It's been a long time since I visited the conflict over Arianism in the church (When Jesus Became God, by Rabbi Richard Rubenstein -- fantastic book) I don't remember it comparing Arianism to gnosticism.

You've mixed up your Richard Rubensteins. Richard L. Rubenstein is the rabbi and author you are thinking of, but he is not Richard E. Rumenstein, lawyer, author, teacher and conflict resolution specialist and the one who wrote the book you cite.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So biased against christians. Most christians are not funamentalists.

Why would you assume I was talking about fundamentalists specifically?

Most front of mind for me when I made that post was friends' experiences in Catholic schools.

 

[firedragon]

Isn't literature about something fake?

Shakespeare wrote fiction. So when it comes to literature, this fake matter doesn’t come into play. Think of it just as literature.

 

[exchemist]

Isn't literature about something fake?

No. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is literature, as is any biography.

 

[Thief]

Oh no. not by a longshot.

To be culturally savvy, a person nees to know about adam and eve, cain and abel, noah, abraham, moses, kings david and solomon, etc. as for christian texts, the sermon on the mount is a must, the love chapter 1 cor 13, and the narratives of jesus birth and death and resurrection. Again this is not because the schools would be teaching these as facts. It just cultural awareness.

hmmmm ....no

religion shouldn't be taught just be be culturally savvy

the stories inherently display workings of Spirit
of God.....of Man

and the dogma is not intended to be culture
it is aimed as belief

parables ....on the other hand
are generic in noun and pronoun
and make display of mind and heart

all men could benefit.....without the religious labels of belief

 

[Thief]

Isn't literature about something fake?

spent some hours this weekend past
watching youtube
under the search word......stoic

it's all quotation
clever things of mind