http://www.misericordia.edu/users/da...omas/Trans.htm

What's said in Number 39 was what first crossed my mind when I heard the song title. Hoffman first found the 'cid, Leary pushed it as the key to freeing your consciousness, and the Pharisees of the day took it away. Now its a charge equal to manslaughter for every key of knowledge you have in your possession. I blame Hoffman. Apart from that there seems to be a few other similar themes between 10,000 days and the gospel of thomas. Am I way off?

Well, what are we blaming hoffman for, exactly? For discovering keys?

I blame shrooms for giving monkeys consciousness.
The more enlightenment, the more longing for one.

And now we are you and me. Dim my eyes so I can't see.

we know the "Gospel" of Thomas isn't Scripture, yes?

It has little to do with the Bible and is complete fantasy. There are no "secret sayings" that Jesus told anyone, whatever his message was, it surely wasn't secretive. This is an AGNOSTIC writing where its writers wanted to believe that there is some great secret to the universe and if they had that knowledge, they would attain heaven. It's silly and talked about in most of the Epistles as "false teachers" and those who turn Christians away from Christ.

Just wanted to make the point that you shouldn't lump Christians in with agnostics just because Jesus might be mentioned in fallacious texts.

If you watch Hofmann's Potion, you clearly see Tim Leary was to blame for the criminalization of lsd, ***. He was the one pushing it on the public and forcing in a sense the government to react.

Then you are severely mistaken.

We don't believe that there's a secret knowledge that if someone finally understood about the universe, then they would get to heaven. Gnostics believe in intellectualism and a complete understanding (or secret understanding) of how the world works. Once they figure this out, then they believe it doesn't really matter what they do with their bodies on earth, because their spirit is secured because of their great understanding. This is completely contrary to Christian belief (though, depending on the "Christian" you met, you might not be so sure).

Also:
The Gospel of Thomas makes no mention of Hell, Satan, Eternal Damnation, and demons, which is in contrast to the earliest extant Christian documents, the Pauline epistles and Mark, which clearly show a belief in these areas. This may suggest that the Gospel of Thomas was produced by a community or author who did not believe in Hell, Satan, Eternal Damnation, and demons. So the author/community associated with the Gospel of Thomas appears to be unconnected with the early Christian community of followers of Paul and Mark.
The last major argument for Thomas being later than the New Testament argues that Gnosticism is a later development, while the earliest Christianity, as evident in Paul's letters, was more Jewish than Gentile and focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus more than his words. In this connection, it is observed that the Jesus of Thomas does not seem very Jewish, and that its current form reflects the work of 2nd-century Gnostic thought, such as the rejection of the physical world and women (see Thomas 114). Graham Stanton (The Gospels and Jesus, p. 129) finds in Thomas a Gnostic document: "removal of the Gnostic veneer will never be easy."
[wikipedia]

And your statements suggesting that the gnostic gospels are every bit as authentic is nothing more than fancy:

The Gospel of Thomas is mystical and emphasizes a direct and unmediated experience of the Divine through becoming a Christ (which is completely unfounded and unsupported within the well-established church at this time. In FACT, this kind of thinking is discussed in length as HERESY by Paul and Peter).

And I do feel free to post my understandings of facts as facts. They are not "dogma" as you claim (which gives an intensely pejorative connotation), but merely beliefs.

We all have beliefs, and simply because mine stem from a belief in something greater than myself does not lend them to being dismissed as silly or ridiculous. I don't force this down anyone's throat, I was merely trying to make sure that people who don't understand Christianity or haven't learned the basics don't take the Gospel of Thomas to be what Christians would consider "holy writ". It's fallacious and completely unsupported by any other historical sources. Just because it was found at Nag Hammadi doesn't mean that it was just as authentic as the rest of the New Testament - they are Gnostic treatises and have always been considered heresy. They were hidden not necessarily because the monks at St. Pachomius monastary believed them. I wouldn't burn them though I consider them heretical.

Yeah, I dont believe any of what you just wrote.

pharmacratic-inquisiton.com

I'm sorry for that.

It appears that "Christians" have given many people really skewed views on what they actually believe and who it is they follow. If anyone has actually studied Scripture, it's quite clear that Jesus claims he is the Son of God, and that any who would know the Father must know the Son. He is the complete revelation of God to man - God with skin on. This is the person/Lord whom Christians attempt to follow. There isn't any "secret" knowledge about the world other than that God is real and has sacrificed his son to pay for the way humans have rejected God. He desires us more than we can know. That's not secret, it's all over the Old and New Testament.

And, unless anyone objects, I'll finish the conversation on my beliefs. I don't need any flamers who don't agree or think I'm full of shit - that's not helpful at all. If you don't believe, then you don't believe and it's not like my arguing with you would change that.

Thanks for the time to be able to respond.

Give me a verse where Jesus explicitly describes himself as the Son of God. He doesnt. Anytime he takes it upon himself to describe himself, it is the Son of Man. Were others wrong for calling him the Son of God? No, and he admitted as much, because we are all Sons of God. "You are right for calling me that" he said to Peter upon being asked the question. He never, ever, said, I'm the Son of God.

Referring to himself as the Son of Man gives him much more power. To be one who is before his time, one who is to follow man, one who sets a precedent for what man is to become. Christians have it wrong, they call him the Son of God erroneously, and scripture will tell us as much if we would actually READ it instead of just going along with what others may think.

This is not meant to be insulting. Just something I feel strongly about. There definitely secrets to be unfolded, or, there were, before canonization. And I strongly feel that certain accounts were left out on purpose to elevate the church's status at the time. Imagine the power of being able to call your book the only holy book... imagine. Then imagine if you would let everyone know the power they hold inside themselves, just waiting to be unlocked... to become sons of men ourselves. The kingdom of heaven is indeed inside us and all around us.

Jesus never directly says "I am the Son of God". He DOES, however, claim to be the great I AM, Jehovah, The LORD, God, etc.

When Judas and the armed men with him go to find Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane to arrest him, Jesus asks them who they are looking for and the reply: Jesus of Nazareth:

"I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. (John 18)

The "he" here is not in the original Greek but included in English translations. When he says "I am" he is, in fact, claiming to be equal with God - claiming to BE God. When Moses asks for a name to give the Israelites that they would know he is sent by the one true God, God says to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " (Exodus 3:14)

This is a clear example, if you have studied Hebrew history or the Old Testament, that Jesus is claiming to be God. The entire Old Testament looks forward to Jesus (which he himself claims) and Jesus very often reinterprets Scripture and shows how it is about him. He lets everyone else (from his followers to the Pharisees to demons) call him the Son of God and he never refutes them. To believe (based on what?) that there are lost documents where Jesus tells people that the way to heaven is within themselves is ludicrous and historically inaccurate. Jesus talks about God knowing men's hearts, but he never claims anything more than Himself as the Way, the Truth and the Life. "None may come to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME"

or... we could have this conversation via email if you prefer that we don't waste threadspace and bore others. I'm really interested and could do this forever, but I'm sure others would prefer we don't. Message me if you want.

As we all are, as well.

This is still not the same thing as calling himself the son of god. HE was sent, like others, to mankind with a progressive consciousness to teach others by example mostly, what was possible. This would coincide with being One with God, since there would really be no other way to provide such an example.

My point is not to say he wasnt divine, or without divine energies. My point was to say that by Christians calling him the Son of God and placing their entire foundation on that "fact", that they miss out on what he was trying to teach people in the first place. Yes, we were to remember him, but not just honor him with bread and wine, but with spirit and intent, which is certainly missing in most congregations today. HOw can you honor the spirit if you have never personally felt it working? When christians feel stirrings inside of them, they attribute it entirely to a separate entity, separating themselves from the divine. This shouldnt be. Even if he DID allude to himself being the Son of God, was it not clearly his personal choice to refer to himself as the Son of Man? Why is this never emphasized nearly as much as he did it? It's like people just ignore why he said that and instead are just like Peter who WANT to believe that he was a Son of God and special, and something unlike anyone could ever be. This gives them an out, out of the responsibility that is required to bear once you understand that the stirrings are indeed emanating from within us, and what we have is a connection to the divine. Not just a reflection.

Yeah, Ive been at this argument as well. Except through me... and what was he? An example. A representation of what was to come. A Son of Man. No, there is no way anyone can come to reach the divine unless they experienced that example themselves. That's what you have to do to be connected. To claim your birthright.

This is probably better done publicly.

Please, tell me this is the last one 'flux. wearethestories is absolutely juvenile, and has already given the "you can't change my mind/I can't change yours" disclaimer.

Isn't it funny when you can argue their point better than they can?

Peace.

9000th post.

I can do that.

Except you can't argue a point with someone who refuses reason.

I hear and understand your argument for the Son of God vs. Son of Man. I completely disagree because of the rest of the New Testament and how it points to a Risen Lord who was "the full revelation of God to man" (Hebrews). He was God and IS God. That's the foundational cornerstone of Christianity. If He is NOT God, then the Christian religion ceases to be and Jesus Christ was a liar or a lunatic (though I'm sure you've heard this argument - C.S. Lewis made it at the beginning of the last century).

Jesus claimed divinity as is proven not only by his words but by the understanding of his followers. To suggest that they were in error in their beliefs is to deny the fact of the Resurrection which is what every Christian rests his/her belief in. If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then he wasn't God. To suggest that the apostles were in error is to suggest that they did not hear the Spirit nor did they receive it fully at Pentecost (which refutes your idea of congregations not listening or personally feeling "God" working in them). They healed the sick, they served the poor, they DIED for their beliefs without blowing themselves up like contemporary "martyrs" do [in fact, "marytyr" simply means "witness" in the Greek, but took on it's morbid connotation after so many "witnesses" for the Living Christ were tortured and killed].

And benjamin:
Way to actually join the conversation. Way to not point fingers and take immediate sides without apparently even reading the arguments. My "disclaimer" wasn't to say "hey, i'm a stubborn and ignorant asshole who blindly follows as a sheep", but more a realization that paraflux is someone respected on these forums and one whose mind I don't think I can change (on this topic at least) on a forum. It was made out of respect for his stature and not out of pigheadedness or "juvenile" prejudices as you would obviously believe.

"So pull your head on out and give a listen, I shouldn't have to say this all again".

I do appologize for the intrusion. The only reason I chimmed in is because I read the arguement in its entirety. I felt I desrved some kind of satisfaction.

I will only say, in short, anyone who may "follow" the new testament, is a blind follower of sheep. Actually, I think this is a big part of TOOLs (and others) message. If your gonna beleive in something, really look into it, contemplate it with your heart and soul.

It is readily apparent to most who investigate, with relative intelligence, that the new testament is not the best thing to come from christ, his followers or christianity in general. The new testament is nothing more than a conglomeration, the likes of which you or I could create.

Peace.

Lewis was a brilliant man. I dont think we are even disagreeing really... on most things. I said he was divine, you said he was divine, perhaps the only difference we are dealing with is the christian's propensity to believe that Christ was something unattainable. Something unique and far-out, one of a kind, when in fact he was simply before his time. On purpose.

Look, Im talking about congregations today. I wasnt there at Pentecost, but I do imagine they did receive everything in full, and since then it has been a more than steady dilution of teaching and thought. Christianity is not about spirit anymore, or feeling, or even conviction, usually. It's simply about trying to follow the teachings of a man, not actually knowing that it is possible to reach that summit and go even further.

I think you hit the nail on the head, paraflux.

We both agree Christ was Divine, yet we disagree as to His status/attainability.

You say he was a model and that if people would really follow His teachings as they are given to us (through the Gospel of Thomas and other texts), then we would begin to attain Christ-like status and then become Gods ourselves.

To me, that seems like a mixed bag of Buddhism and Mormonism.

I say that Christ was God and the only way to know the Father. Knowing the Father, for me, means that I understand His holiness and my wretchedness (because of my selfishness, pride, and other loathsome characteristics). My wretchedness = my sin = (simply) my decision to live life on my own terms instead of on the Creator's terms = my separating myself from the Creator = "eternal damnation" (if you'd rather use those words). Therefore, I recognize my need for someone to make restitution for me because "the wages of sin is death". Christ, God in the flesh, prepared to be that and do that for me because of His great love. His teachings were secondary (and in some cases, satirical, as one could read the Sermon on the Mount to be Christ saying "you think you can Do the law, I'll up the ante and show you that you can't") to His purpose of Divine Love: rescuing, through His body and blood, those who scorned and hated him - rejecting God out of their own selfishness.

The sayings written in the Gospel of Thomas have no date associated with them in the text. There is debate about when it was that this was originally written, but if one looks at the Epistles and how widely circulated they were and with direct and obvious purposes, it's quite clear that they were intended to be spread and that its writers were unashamed of their beliefs - willing to live and die for them at great self-sacrifice. Part of the reason that the books in the New Testament are canonized is because the authors are known and had spotless reputations. Because "Thomas" is written in an entirely different style with no discernible purpose leads one to call its content into question (especially when it doesn't line up with other "teachings" of Jesus as found throughout the canonized Gospels).

FYI: Simply stating "NAG HAMMADI" as proof that Christianity used to be mystical or esoteric isn't proof enough for anyone here. The entire New Testament (as we have it now) was legitimately written BEFORE the end of the first century. Those texts were written by people who saw the resurrected Christ (including Paul who made his conversion after seeing Jesus on the road to Damascus) and lived during and just after his time. The Gospels have clear intentions and purposes behind them and each of the Epistles has a very specific purpose to it. The clarity of purpose and knowledge of the author help in dating the texts and verifying them to be "God-breathed" (as is all Scripture). Canonization is ratified by numerous people and first took place in 393 at the Synod of Hippo where the entire New Testament was canonized. It's not "the church" holding people down - there's no evidence of that whatsoever (though you can certainly make the "human nature" claim if you would like, paraflux).

sorry, again, for the length.


[anyone have any peer-reviewed sites that would help in this discussion as either side here could come up with infinite numbers of websites to substantiate their arguments?]

oh... and Christ never claims that we can attain Godhood or "move beyond" His own status, paraflux. Wherever you got that idea, it surely isn't a belief that has ever been held by Christians. We never move beyond the status of "sinner" because we recognize our complete inability to "be good" and must therefore rely on God to move in and through us.

This is bullshit, an assumption at best. An outright lie at worst.

The fucking "book in question" is a lumping together of other teachings and has openly and very well knowingly been adapted and alterred to appeal to mass conversion!

Goddamn Constantine was the creator of this "original sin" bullpuckey. This was 300 years after death, ok. Jesus never used the word GOD. He never elluded to being the messiah from jewish text, the romans pinned that on him too. They used the redderick from, fuck, the jewish king that tried to kill Jesus as an infant...

Jesus' message was that of love. Forgiveness and non-violence are the methods employed. He often expressed suffrage on behalf of others. He did not, however, proclaim much more than to be of, or speaking the "truth". It's the truth, he "taught". That was the way he put it.

Just as today, someone would be called crazy for walking around going,
"...yes, my mother was impregnated by god. I am god-on-earth, and I'm gonna die for your sins."

It never happened. It wasn't like that at all. It couldn't have been. Or else it wouldn't have gone down like it has for the last 1900 years.

You have to think about it from a realistic standpoint. Science has gone huge lengths to show how like 90% of the bibles "story" can be based on real events. ie: Sodom and G.-liquifaction, walls of Jericho-exagerated sabatage, great floods-mediteranian sea floods into ...that other one ... etc.

Based on real events that have been embelished over centuries. As humans have always done.

FOCK!!

lol,


* "Notice how I remain calm. I do that, cause I'm the mayor." *

Jesus, through metaphor and interpreting the Jewish Scripture, DID claim to be the Messiah. All you have to do is read (maybe from a source that has some sort of commentary or reference section) in order to see that. Jesus obviously believed himself to be the Son of God; even his earliest followers called him that and he did not refute it. Jesus, remember, was a Jew speaking to Jews who were the People of God. You can't throw away Jewish tradition and Jewish law without throwing out Jesus - he came to fulfill the law and make it no longer necessary to uphold it. He paid the price for our failures. And the Jewish king, Herod, tried to kill Jesus because MANY PEOPLE were telling him that the Messiah was born in Bethlehem and he wanted no threat to his own limited power over the Jews.

Jesus' message was love. That GOD loved, and in order for us to show that we are followers of the Way, we would love one another in the same way. That means self-sacrifice, washing one another's feet (literally or figuratively - you try it and see how easy it is), laying down your life for another, etc. We follow those commands in imitation of our Lord, knowing that we can never do that perfectly. And the great joy we have is that we don't have to. On the cross, Jesus asked his Father (God), to forgive those who tortured him because they knew not what they did. It was his great love for us that tormented him in the Garden of Gethsemane where he sweated blood (a scientifically viable occurrence) and asked God if there was a way for him NOT have to die. It was his great love that allowed him to lay down his life for torture, when at any time he could have taken it back up again and called down thousands of angels (or, if you prefer, blots of lightning) and have them carry him off to the Father. Yet he was willing and obedient to rescue us from death. THAT is love. Not some mammy-jammy horseshit theology that says "if we 'love' everyone, everything will be fine". Real love is death to the self for the sake of others. THAT's why we can't do it. We are inherently selfish and can't possibly do away with our own selfishness at all times to be love for others.

You can't single out Jesus' sayings (or "teachings" if you like) from what the rest of the Gospels say [although he said he came with a sword that would divide brother from brother. He knew his Messianic message would cause strife (especially within Jewish families), yet he called people to his side - it wasn't all feel-good love. Love is a CHOICE and one we rarely make correctly]. You can't dismiss what the Apostles said of Jesus and what they taught of Jesus simply because you do not like it, or claim that his sayings are "truth" but the interpretation of those sayings by thousands of years of followers and biblical scholars is incorrect because it doesn't make scientific or logical sense.

I'll close with this:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate:

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdeom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preched to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous sings and Greeks [read: US] look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and FOOLISHNESS TO THE GENTILES, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the wisdom of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
[1 Corinthians 1:18-25]

sure... you can have your say.

There are not numerous "historians" or scientists who claim that the Gospel of Thomas (which, by the way, I HAVE read which is why I can argue against it and make sense) is Scripture or just as valid as the other texts. Show me those people and their credentials because I've studied the other side.

And the problem/misunderstanding that we have here is in what we are calling the Gospel of Thomas. I say it's a heretical text that doesn't inform its readers on the character of Christ or his actual message of dying for the sin of the world, while you and paraflux and benjamin seem to suggest that it is "Christian" doctrine.

You are wrong - it isn't Christian doctrine. It's heresy. It's someone attempting to decipher some of Christ's claims (the "kingdom of heaven is within" and so forth) while putting words in both the Apostle Thomas' mouth and well as in Jesus' mouth. The statements made in the Gnostic Gospels are not validated anywhere else but in themselves. There's historical (as well as biblical) proof that the three synoptic Gospels and John (the four found in the traditional New Testament) are written by who they are said to be written by, for the express purposes laid out in the texts themselves. The Gospel of Thomas has no known purpose or clear author and it's for these and other reasons that it has not, nor will ever, be canonized.

My point in saying that you can't just spout the words NAG HAMMADI and claim that Christians believed these things is because they didn't necessarily believe them. First, the texts found at Nag Hammadi are overwhelmingly Gnostic. So yes, Gnosticism existed, but you can't say that they are "Christians" or that the texts are "Christian" documents supporting something that "Christians" believe. Second, just because they were saved from destruction doesn't mean that the people who saved them believed in them. We have saved Mein Kampf and other incredibly racist texts because of their historical value - there is no reason to automatically suggest that some people didn't save these texts from destruction in order to learn what heresies were common at the time; to learn from the mistakes of others.

And it's not that I'm telling you not to read them (as I have read the Gospel of Thomas), I'm saying that based on my own understanding of who God is and what Jesus' followers said and believed, that this text (though perhaps written near the time of the Gospels/Epistles found in the New Testament) doesn't match up with everything (from Jewish Scripture and on) about who Jesus was/would be. It is hereitcal and not based in anything but fancy. If you STUDY (and not just read) the Bible and its history along WITH the Gospel of Thomas or other Gnostic Gospels, it would hopefully be abundantly clear that the messages are entirely different.

Also, you can't simply dismiss the texts of the New Testament because you "don't like" them. They have been studied and ratified by hundreds of thousands of scholars throughout the centuries, and those same scholars don't hold the Gospel of Thomas or any other Gnostic text up in the same way as they do the New Testament texts. The simple fact that both the Catholic/Anglican/all Protestant churches use the same New Testament (27 books) while having differing opinions on which books are "God-breathed" in the Old Testament (books like Wisdom, Bel and the Dragon, First/Second/Third Maccabees aren't found in Protestant Bibles and are considered apocryphal and not heretical) is interesting proof that MOST scholars agree on the content of the New Testament.

I don't pretend to go on and on about science or history. I do think some people may place too much emphasis on empirical evidence and completely disregard experiential evidence (and I think many people here would agree with that), but that doesn't mean that I think science is squelching God. I don't really discuss politics on this forum, nor do I try to educate people on their basic history unless I feel that they are way off base (hence, my trying to discuss Nag Hammadi and Gnosticism). Gnosticism is denounced IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by the aposltes as heresy, so it's not like I'm making that up. Check out Hebrews or 1 John for prime examples.

I am not a Christian who pretends to know everything - I don't do as the priest does in "Opiate" nor am I one of those "hypocrites" from "Wings". I don't tell people what God wants of them. I know I have faults and I accept them, knowing that the body and blood of Jesus has justified me to God. Yes, I attempt to be better for the sake of my Lord rather than the sake of man. I love people and serve them out of love for God, not out of some selfish reason. I want the world to know Christ, but I also don't wish to shove him down everyone's throats and tell them: Believe or I'll kill you (Inquisition, anyone?). I also know the faults that the Church has had (from misogyny to racism to medieval indulgences to the infallibility clause for the pope to linking itself in America with right-wing politics). I know these things and carefully attempt to not alienate anyone. We each have our own opinions, and the beauty of this forum is that it is a place where we can share ideas and beliefs intelligently with other people who think more deeply than most.

Feel free to read the Gospel of Thomas and make whatever conclusions you choose. I stand firm in the belief that it hasn't ever been mainstream theology that the Church across the world has believed, but heretical theology that suggests a certain law (do THIS ACTION and be better/saved) to be adhered to rather than the freedom that Christians have in Christ (namely, that Christ came to fulfill the law [read: 10 Commandments/Mosaic Law] for us so that we, believing in him and in his resurrection, need not attempt to uphold a law we cannot keep).

And I see aspects of all religions/philosophies in each other. It isnt anything new. Man, look around us. What congregation can say they have the power like the first church at Antioch had? No one. Not even all the christians assembled in the world can amass that much power. Dilution has trickled down and the way, whatever that way was, has been lost. The only thing to do to regain it is to discover what we're missing. And if we want what's ours, what is our birthright, we have to discover. It just seems you keep disregarding the fact that he wasnted to be known as a Son of Man and not anything else. I just dont understand how people can claim he was a separate, unattainable entity. Why would we try to conform to the likeness of christ if such a likeness isnt possible? A pointless endeavor and one that no wise sage would utter unless such a path were available.
That's really all I feel like writing right now.

The idea is that we can only attain his status if we are born again, through Spirit and water, and don't do it through ourselves. Since He is holy (e.g. without sin, which is why his sacrifice was possible for the whole world), and no earthly man is holy, his status is unattainable. Yet we can enter into the presence of God through Christ's body and blood. His is not precisely a model to emulate because we cannot possibly emulate it in the same fashion. What we do seek to emualte, is His dependence on the Father. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus seeks to be alone (going up to mountains, out onto lakes, etc.) so that he can pray. In communicating with the Father, he acts out what our obedience should look like - namely, humility in kneeling before the Creator. When we are bowed low in reverence and love, it is only then that we truly conform to the likeness of Christ. Yet because this is so rare an occurrence for the Christian, we understand the constant need for Christ to be our intercessor before the Father.

And what I meant by a "mixed bag" was that it sounded very little like Christianity and much more like these other faiths. I do agree that the concept of taking different aspects is nothing novel - it's one of the oldest intellectual opinions about religion.

Wow, I started this thread a long time ago. I wasn't initially trying to compare lsd to whatever jesus was referring to as the "keys of knowledge" persay. I've speculated on what he could have been referring to and I can't make a better assumption that that these keys may be in effect analagous somehow. I've just noticed a lot of similarities between the sayings in the gospel of thomas and the content from 10,000 days. I wasn't really trying to tie it to modern christianity, as the gospel of thomas is officially heretical, so any modern christian could not claim it as any basis for their beliefs.

However-

Since modern christianity is where this talk has seemed to go, I think the story of how I came upon the gospel of thomas would express my opinion on the matter very well. My parents were christian so I was shaped to be one too. I took the matter of understanding it very seriously. Moreso, I'd say, than many devout christians today. It would seem many of the divergent sects of christianity are missing the point of what jesus said. I can't quote scripture, I'm not that versed in the literature, but I think I do know the point behind the classic stories, and most frequently broadcast themes. Most obviously are the "God Hates X" crew and the Television Evangelists asking for money. They obviously miss the point. But to a more subtle degree are the average christians. Like the ones who gather outside of prison's chanting "Serial killer X burns in hell" The ones who pray for wealth. The figureheads who pick and choose christian themes to suit themselves. ("rationalize our way to the arms of the savior" sorry had to quote him) When you look at the 7 deadly sins and later the commandments you see they are excellent guidelines to harmonious society(7 deadly especially, 10 commandments would seem more suited to a harmonious troop being led through the desert) But looking about the world it becomes obvious that trying to explain the rational reasons for them is about as worthwhile as teaching a dog geometry. Dogs do not understand mathematics, they do however understand rolled up newspapers. It seemed logical, to me, that in order to get these fine ways of living to be held as truth in the hearts of the masses reason would be ineffective, and that the dominant members of society, who are quick to shout their views of the world, would need to use a rolled up newspaper. With this thought I began to believe that the wise words of Jesus were skewed to affect the reasoning of the foolish. I'd never especially believed in the miracles, but the preceding sentence gives support as to why they may have been created. So I began to believe that the bible and modern Christianity is not exactly aligned with what the philosopher jesus may have himself believed. Then I was watching TV one day and I heard about the gospel of thomas, so I looked it up and it blew me away. It reflected my exact beliefs in the ways the belief system changed to the religion today, and many of the sayings reflected my own personal philosophy. I still don't get some, but the other similarities between it and myself were just fucking kooky. I didn't read most of your posts so I don't know if I'm exactly on topic, sorry. This post was pretty self indulgent

LOL!

Ditto.

Without ourselves being ourselves, the conduit, there would be no divinity to reach us at all, no way to be born again in spirit. The spirit works within.

No earthly man you know may be holy. I am aware of individuals like MOther Theresa who probably come closest to this holiness than most humans, this is not to say that they do not exist. Also, this is not to say that Christ never "sinned' either, obviously the portrayal of mary as his lover would blow all that out of the water, wouldnt it. If he was unique, he could have done the world a favor and let them all know that he was the Son of God and that it wasnt even possible to be like him. But he didnt, he left examples and shit of what was possible, if we would only accept the gifts we have inside us.
This is just so weak. Emulation through dependance? Naturally we are dependant on a source for power. THis does not mean that the source is not a part of us, each of us, and that activation of said part of us would not give us everything beyond all that we ask or imagine. Yes, humility is key, yes, paying homage to the creator is necessary and reverent. We no longer need an intercessor once we realize, and take responsibility for (instead of staying like infants, free of responsibility), ourselves and our destinies, and heaven itself.

I think at the core, christianity is very similar to the other philosophies, and I think that has been lost with the help of the church's canonization, to keep the church powerful. Now christianity is unique, the only way to enter any sort of afterlife other than damnation. Fairly absurd, just like thinking humanity is the only life in the universe.

And we still disagree over semantics. I don't think you can separate "Christianity" from the Church. The Church has made mistakes, yes, but it is still the "Bride of Christ". It is she who he has come to win from the clutches of evil. To claim things for Christianity that have no foundation historically or biblically is just silly - Mary (Magdalene I suppose you mean) as his wife: totally unfounded except for in Dan Brown's unprofessional/unmediated research for The DaVinci Code. Mother Theresa would never claim that she didn't sin, but what do you consider "holy" about her? The fact that she cared for the sick and the poor and devoted her whole life to that? Where is the foundation of holiness then, and how does that strike your sense of the "absurd"? You make so many statements of fact (e.g. "without ourselves being ourselves, the conduit, there would be no divinity to reach us") that have no basis in anything other than your own thoughts or feelings, which is fine except that you are arguing that my understanding of Christianity is faulty without giving any inter-textual evidence to support your claims. You make blanket-statements of "fact"without backing them up whatsoever.

No, I don't believe holiness is something attainable, but that is because my understanding of holiness comes from without because the "self" is too unstable to support a consistent definition of "I". Post-modernism.

You, like many people I've talked to on these forums, seem to subscribe to (if you believe it matters) completely out-dated philosophies. Both modernism and post-modernism claim that there is no truth (think what you will of that). Modernism, however, posits that we must create our own truths. The real truth comes from within (which I suspect you might agree with). Enter post-modernism. This line of thought rejects the idea that truth comes from within because "within" is in constant flux (which you might like, para-). There is nothing certain within because our identities are socially constructed within society. I use this philosophy as a good refutation of the absurdity of modernism and a direct link to Christianity. In my understanding, God gives man identity - he tells us who we are and who we are supposed to be. I don't agree with the initial claim of the lack of absolute truth because I don't think mankind can get anywhere with moral relativism, but I do agree with the understanding that identity is socially constructed and is too unstable (due to the different people we become in different social situations) to define truth for us. While the post-modernists follow this with a wanton-ness and carefree attitude, I believe that this points to the need for structure that comes from "without".

My structure is taken from the Bible and from God (whom I believe speaks to Christians through the Holy Spirit). You may disagree with my choice, but you cannot claim (legitimately or with any authority) that I what I think and believe isn't "actually" what Christians think and believe. Christians have never believed that Jesus was married or had a lover, nor that any person on earth (save for God in the flesh) could ever be perfect/holy, nor that Christ ever sinned. Someone saying that they believe something about Christ or about some thing he said does not equate to Christian theology. It's like saying I believe Mohamed never heard from the Angel Gabriel on the mountain because I've read Salman Rushdie's (who was raised Muslim) The Satanic Verses, and he claims the same thing in that work of FICTION.

And as far as dependence goes, I think it's much more likely that, in the admittance of incapability and ineptitude, we can find peace in a loving God who knows we can do no better on our own. For me, the idea of authority brings up varying opinions. I do believe that we should think for ourselves, but I also think that "ourselves" are too unstable to sustain opinions on their own for long periods of time. I believe we are reinforced constantly about what we should think and believe by those around us. I chose to have my beliefs reinforced through conversations that I have with others about Christ and who he was, and I don't shy away from asking difficult questions. I think many people come to these boards to reinforce their beliefs in psychedelic drugs or in their hatred for organized religion (both of which you can legitimately pull from TOOL's music). So, in "thinking for ourselves", we are really just asking questions and feeling out others' answers to see if they ring true with our unstable selves.

I depend on God because I believe he exists and I believe that the only way to God (which is heaven, really, being in the presence of the Creator for eternity) is through belief in the substitutionary power of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. I DO take responsibility for myself, but "taking responsibility for my destiny" is plain oxymoronic (destiny = fate = determined, inability to change). And I still firmly believe that we DO need a mediator because of our humble status as human (which, in my belief) doesn't equate to DIVINE.

It'd be interesting if you and leef brought questions rather than prejudices to the table when posting. You CAN "argue" with people about religion, but, as you have noted, it is fruitless. What you can do better is to ask questions and discuss things without name-calling or swearing - it's just unnecessary. If you have something of interest to post (other than calling my posts "bullshit" because you don't agree with them but have yet to research and actually "think for yourself"), then great. But if not, your flaming is still welcome.

Men have tried over and over again in vain to describe spirituality into man-made languages. Failing every time. Therefore there are no real texts to point to. All of the most successful and oldest philosophies attribute the inner being as being vital. So does Paul... Ephesians 3:16

16I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being,

His spirit in our inner being. Not His spirit out there, somewhere, but inside us. You're obviously taking offense here and I dont think it's warranted. Yes, largely I base my ideas on my own thoughts and feelings, and dont subscribe to any sort of religious practice, probably mainly because christianity is what's dominant here and I dont care for it. It was crammed down my throat as a child coming from generation after generation of preachers. And yes, I think Mother Theresa comes very close to being an unblemished soul. Can you refute that somehow? With, you know, text?

I dont really know what this means or what it's supposed to imply even if I were to agree with it.

No, I dont think the date on any philosophy matters unless you're looking at success over time. People will always do what works for them no matter what it is. If christianity works for someone, that's fine, they believe in it, the mind is powerful, and it will work out as long as they keep the level of faith necessary to generate manifestation. I would reject the concept of truth entirely. Truth implies a static nature, while nothing in this universe escapes change, even truth. You can argue that what is actual TRUTH is static and it's simply our perceptions that change, but whatever. Perception is what counts. Perception IS truth. Two people meeting in Atlanta, Georgia in the wintertime, one from Maine, the other from Brazil, would argue with each other till theyre blue in the face about whether the current temperature in Atlanta is mild or cold. And neither will be absolutely right, neither will be absolutely wrong. Theyre equally as right and wrong. I really dont know anything about modernism or post-modernism.

You're calling it a work of fiction simply because that's what you want to believe, and no, I cannot claim that what you think and believe isnt actually what christians think and believe. I dont think I said that. If you believe all that, that's fine. But you cant condemn me, and you cant judge me, based on your own faith.

Again, where is the Spirit? Inside us.

"in the admittance of incapability and ineptitude..."
Man, come on. I refuse to admit that I am incapable of anything. I am not inept. I may be inexperienced, or at least not as experienced as I would like to be, in SOME areas, but thats a far cry from me telling anyone Im not capable of something. That's your call and your call alone. It seems rather pitiful for a creation of something who is supposed to be all powerful..... even calling his creations his children, his [/i]offspring[/i], to think they are incapable of growing up to be men of God instead of sons of him. Just like throwing your hands up and saying "Oh I am but a lowly man who can never ever fathom the Will of God." Which is a complete dodge of responsibility. What happens to a teenager who refuses to grow up? Dodging responsibility, never making anything of himself, a child forever in most senses of the term. But for those who would embrace the spirit, with it comes the responsibility of knowing what you are and what you can do. And furthermore, which is what scares most people, what you HAVE to do, or face the consequences. Responsibility is not all fun. It's scary sometimes.

Tool hasnt said anything that hasnt been said before. They simply say it in ways that havent been expressed nearly as clearly, with vivid sonic images and multiple meanings. They meet people wherever they are, spiritually, which is something that is a hell of a thing to pull off. I admit that everyone, even scientists, form a hypothesis and then set out to prove it because of the implications. Yes, that's a problem, because objectivity is thrown out and we become blind to the opposition, no matter how much it makes sense. I do think that all the "think for yourselves" is meant to be for is just to not let others dictate and form our thoughts, that we have our own hand primarily in creating our mindframes.

46 & 2 are just ahead of me. I agree that a mediator was nice while the need was there. It's just not anymore.

Uh, uhuhuh... Uh, is that James Dean?

I'm sorry, but I am in quick-post mode really. Being a stay-at-home-dad, home schooling, w/ an infant (4 months) I've really no time for rich, full discussions, the likes of which this, and yourself deserves.

Again, I'm sorry if you're offended that I even butted in, but...

my babe's fussin' 'gain.

Later.

paraflux:
Done my research on Mother Theresa, and I'm still perplexed about what "holy" means to you. I don't think she was without sin, she struggled in her faith consistently for the last 50 years of her life and even claimed she was two-faced (though not using those words --- "Because (I) was forever smiling, people thought my faith, my hope and my love are overflowing and that my intimacy with God and union with his fill my heart. If they only knew” ). You can take that how you want.

The modernism/post-modernism thing was explained in the following paragraph that you included below your question.

And to say that PERCEPTION IS TRUTH, is, in my opinion, a large stretch. To use the analogy of two people from different climates arguing over whether or not the temperature somewhere is mild or hot doesn't seem to hold weight for me. There are truths (you could start with mathematical ones) and easy ones like "Murder is wrong". I think it's safe to say that most people agree on that, and the ones who don't are largely psychotic or sociopathic.

Yes, I call Rushdie's NOVEL a work of fiction because that's what he labels it. He has had (and still does in some Muslim countries) have a fatwah on his head for "disgracing" the Prophet. He never intended it to be literal truth (and there's that, apparently, relative term again).

According to Paul in Ephesians, the Spirit is within Christians, not everyone:

17so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, 19and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.

The idea was not that you or anyone else is incapable of anything. I firmly believe we are all wonderfully capable of helping our fellow man, challenging the current administration for its mismanagement of the War in Iraq, or working hard to support a family. What I do think that we are incapable of (and, remember, I know you don't necessarily agree) is being selfless all the time. I, as a Christian, am called to "be holy as [my] heavenly Father is holy". IMPOSSIBLE. I can't do it, and I don't believe anyone on Earth ever can or will. The whole concept of original sin just eats at that. And I don't think that dependence equates to throwing up your hands and not taking responsibility for your actions - responsibility is accepting the consequences of your actions, and I believe the consequence for my pride and selfishness is death. Yet I also believe that I have been given a merciful way out from under that punishment, and I will gladly accept that. Continued pride would mean that I would be too vain to accept someone's assistance.

I understand we're coming from different angles at this, and I actually appreciate it a lot. It's really interesting to hear a little of your background (coming from generations of preachers) and it helps me to try and understand you a little more. I apologize if you thought that I was mad - I was merely trying to show something with more force than other posts. I don't judge you, nor do I condemn you based on my own faith. I think that you are wrong (just as you think I am), but that doesn't cause me to want to fight with you or tell you that you'll burn in hell - rather, it makes the conversations here more and more interesting.

Finally, the idea that we "have our own hand primarily in creating our mindframes" doesn't work for me. Again, that's a very modernist belief - that the "self" (ego, whatever you choose to call it) is stable enough to assert itself and give someone identity. Modernists believe that there is no absolute truth (no God, no "savior", etc.), and in order to come to terms with that absurd reality (that we are living while there is no point to living) we must create our own truth (insert: mindframe). I think post-modernism trumps that because it claims that the "self" is NOT a stable enough entity to give a person identity. We are completely different people when we are put in different situations (at home, at work, with different kinds of friends, with people we really dislike, etc.). Because of the fluxuation of who the "self" really is, it isn't stable enough to create a mindset that one can really work with or believe in. Rather, identity and mindset are created SOCIALLY and it is through our interactions with others that we really define ourselves. Again, if this is confusing, I'll drop it since you already expressed a lack of knowledge in this area - I just happen to really like the evolution of Western philosophical thought and think it fits well with our discussion.

No, I responded to your agreement with benjamin that seemed to totally discredit my posts because he was a "lunatic" to argue about religion. I apologize for the second sentence there, because I, too, have brought my own biases to the table. I don't think that I was being an asshole, but that statement was not clarified well. The biases I meant were those that benjamin expressed which seemed to discredit me for simply being a Christian (at least that's how I understood them). I don't come with "prejudices" against atheists or gnostics (though, I suppose we could argue that one given my recent posts on gnosticism). I don't subscribe to either, and the Bible calls both lines of thought "false", so that's where I come from. However, I don't judge those who profess either "faith" (don't know if atheists say they have a faith) nor do I condemn them for those beliefs. THAT was what frustrated me about benjamin's post and your agreement with it.

I haven't seen any evidence (but that might be hypocritical of me) of your facts or your side of the story (as you have said that "many" scientists/historians believe the Gospel of Thomas to be just as valid as the rest of Scripture). I apologize if you took offense to my suggesting that you should do some, because you clearly say you have - I just haven't seen it in the forum yet. But, before you respond to that, I'll go ahead and remind myself that I haven't posted any quote/fact from a peer-reviewed site that would back up my own beliefs as well. So, let's take THAT argument off the table, if it's ok with you.

The only "facts" I THINK I have claimed to have is the "fact" of what Christians believe. I was surprised in the earlier posts before my initial one where it seemed as thought people believed the Gospel of Thomas to be what Christians believe, and I really don't think that's the case. That's why my first post "asked a question", though I admit it sounds rather stern upon review (but, hey, it got people talking).

I haven't admitted that anything isn't worth arguing EXCEPT that the Gospel of Thomas is what Christians believe about what Jesus has said. I don't think there is any evidence that Christians have ever believed that, but maybe that's because "Christian" means something very specific to me, and those professing to be "Followers of the Way" (which is how early Christians originally named themselves) need to agree with certain theological precepts that I think are quite evident in both the New and Old Testaments. And, if you read my initial post, my concluding remark was that I don't want people to lump all Christians (however odd or fantastical you might think we are) in with gnostics. I still don't.

And I post on a TOOL, 10K Days forum because I love the band. I may not agree with everything they claim or sing about, but they are unlike anything I've ever heard/experienced before. I'm looking forward to seeing them for the second time (this year and ever) in a month or so. Just because I have certain beliefs doesn't mean that I have this "problem" with gnosticism - I just didn't want myself lumped into that category.

Yes... it is James Dean. Thanks for noticing.

I apologize if I have sounded upset, I get riled-up when I think people have completely dismissed views/posts simply because they are espoused/made by someone who professes a belief in Christ. That doesn't strike me as "thinking for yourself", but adhering to preconceived biases about Christianity or religion which does nothing to further the conversation.

I hope you get the baby settled down...



...and CONGRATULATIONS on his (her?) birth!

Who decides who is christian and who isnt?

we each do... for ourselves... but there are clear descriptions of what Christians believe and what sort of actions should follow from that.

Romans Road?

Ch1: 16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[c] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."[d]

The precursor to "Christian" is faith in God through Jesus Christ as the salvation for "everyone who believes". It's not just random, or thinking we are Christians because we agree with some basic premise of Christ's teachings. The purpose of Christ is to return us to our Creator (he's that mediator we still need). God is only revealed in fullness when we see Christ and who he is and what he as done for us. His teachings are as important as his sacrifice of atonement - you can't have one without the other, or else you call him a liar and therefore shouldn't follow anything he claims.

I wasnt going to say I was a christian. But I honestly do think I understand more what he meant than your average churchgoer. Call me elitist if you will, but Im simply doing what works for me, just lilke they are.