Faith

[Immanuel Can]

Not so except to those who know little about Gnostic Christians.

Oh, don't worry...I know plenty -- both about Christians and about Gnostics. I've read all the foundational documents, all the way from Nag Hammadi to Pagels and Davis. Believe me, I know the difference.

There is a lot of quasi-Christian language employed in some forms of Gnosticism. But then, the film "The Matrix" employs both Christian and Gnostic terminology pretty freely, and that doesn't make "The Matrix" Christian.

Gnosticism is definitionally and theologically incompatible with Christianity. You can only have the one by co-opting the other illegitimately.

[thedoc]

Not so except to those who know little about Gnostic Christians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D
Regards
DL

Long ago I rejected literalism of the Bible. Long ago I came to the conclusion that Christianity was a continuation of other ancient traditions, rather than wiping them out and replacing them. That is why the claim that many Christian holidays are based on Pagan rituals doesn't trouble me. That being said, I'm comfortable attending a Lutheran church, but I don't say these things out loud to my fellow Lutherans, some of them just wouldn't understand.

[thedoc]

One question comes to mind, do Gnostic's believe that Jesus was the son of God?

[Immanuel Can]

I would say that the answer to that isn't straightforward, because there isn't just one "Gnosticism," and the lingo among sects isn't identical. But I shouldn't talk for someone else.

I suppose DL could tell us what he believes about that, if he's so inclined.

[Immanuel Can]

This is what DL says of his own beliefs, in another strand....

the only God you can ever know is the good you find within yourself. It's your ideal of God and of the Jesus or Christ mind. That is quite different from me or someone thinking they are the traditional creator God, or thinking that they are more than anyone else. Both Jesus and the Christ in these myths are for equality.

Nothing remotely Christian in all that, as you can see. His Gnosticism completely submerges the allegedly "Christian" element, which consists of co-opted terms without doctrine, reasons or understanding from the Scriptures he (allegedly) quotes.

If this is truly expressive of his view, then I don't think we need take his claim to be anything "Christian" any more seriously than we'd take his claim to being a tin of spam.

[ReliStuPhD]

This is what DL says of his own beliefs, in another strand....

the only God you can ever know is the good you find within yourself. It's your ideal of God and of the Jesus or Christ mind. That is quite different from me or someone thinking they are the traditional creator God, or thinking that they are more than anyone else. Both Jesus and the Christ in these myths are for equality.

Nothing remotely Christian in all that, as you can see. His Gnosticism completely submerges the allegedly "Christian" element, which consists of co-opted terms without doctrine, reasons or understanding from the Scriptures he (allegedly) quotes.

If this is truly expressive of his view, then I don't think we need take his claim to be anything "Christian" any more seriously than we'd take his claim to being a tin of spam.

It ultimately depends on his usage of "Christ," no? There were certainly Christian Gnostics in antiquity, but even they would not have gotten on board with that particular formulation. Personally, I think the real question is whether DL can even claim the title of "Gnostic." So far, there's not enough coherence in his various explanations to determine whether he's using the term correctly. My gut says he's not, since even Gnostics were coherent in their own way. That DL believes something is clear. That it could be called "Gnostic" or "Christian" is anything but.

[thedoc]

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

Regards
DL

This is really starting to sound like Joseph Campbell's interpretation of Mythology as restated by religion.

[Immanuel Can]

It ultimately depends on his usage of "Christ," no? There were certainly Christian Gnostics in antiquity, but even they would not have gotten on board with that particular formulation.

Definitely. That's what I mean about there being no single "Gnosticism." It's a cluster of sects, some of which use quasi-Christian imagery, others that use it differently, and some that don't use it at all. One can easily be a Gnostic with absolutely no reference to "Christianity" at all.

Personally, I think the real question is whether DL can even claim the title of "Gnostic." So far, there's not enough coherence in his various explanations to determine whether he's using the term correctly. My gut says he's not, since even Gnostics were coherent in their own way. That DL believes something is clear. That it could be called "Gnostic" or "Christian" is anything but

.
I agree. His beliefs seem more like New Age self-worship than anything that has reference to an objective God or an actual historical person, Jesus Christ.

And you're right: Gnostics, while they are divergent on the details, do have a core set of commitments that are highly similar...such as the denial of the value of physical reality and the emphasis on spiritualizing, the belief in the existence of multiple "gods" arranged in a hierarchical way, a deep suspicion or resentment of the creator god (identified by them as a "Demiurge,") and the emphasis on esoteric knowledge as a way of escaping temporal reality.

Oddly enough, if you had to peg Gnosticism to one or another religious tradition, it has far more compatibility with Hinduism or Buddhism than to any of the Western monotheisms. And it really has no fit at all with Christianity or Judaism -- except for that superficial reference to a quasi-Christian vocabulary of terms.

[raw_thought]

Okay, I'll try once more to explain to you why the semantics here are very, very important.

People use words like "faith," "belief," "proof" and "evidence" in different ways. Some of these ways are actually quite contradictory to each other. For example, we talk about "mathematical proof," which is always absolute, like 2+2=4. But sometimes we use it as well in, say, murder investigations, and say, "What proof do you have that Professor Plum killed Miss Scarlet?" In that case, we are not asking for 100% proof, as in maths, but only what we call "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is always less than 100%. But we also say "proof" sometimes when we only mean "evidence," and when the "evidence" required is even lower in reliability, as in "prove you have a chance of winning at chess." So the word "proof" is really tricky unless we define it down to something exact, and agree to stick to it.

I've noted you use it a bunch of different ways, and aren't even conscious that you're fudging your terms. So when you ask, "Do Christians need proof?" we're all sitting here wondering, "What kind of "proof" does he mean this time?"

So let's do this:
Say "proof" only if you mean 100% certainty.
Say "evidence" when you mean "things that count in favour or against a conclusion."
Say "faith" when you mean, "religious belief based on evidence."
Say "believe" when you mean "thinking something is true."
Say "superstition" when you mean "belief based on nothing at all."

So now, what is the question you want to ask?

??? Once again you are attacking a straw man. I said that conventional Christians believe that you do not need a proof that God exists to believe that God exists. I do not know if you are purposely attacking a strawman, or are simply confused.
If one does not have faith in Jesus (according to conventional Christianity ) one is condemned to hell. Similarily ( see the OP) Dad will torture you because you did not believe that he still exists.
You accused me of misrepresenting Conventional Christianity. How was that a misrepresentation?

[Immanuel Can]

Attacking? I wasn't attacking. I was trying to help you express yourself in a way we could all understand.

I said that conventional Christians believe that you do not need a proof that God exists to believe that God exists. I do not know if you are purposely attacking a strawman, or are simply confused.

I was only trying to help you see your own confusion, and the confusion you were in danger of creating in others by not defining your own terms. But let me now take you at face value, and answer your question.

If, by "do not need a proof" you mean to define that term as listed in my last message above, i.e. a mathematical-type 100% proof? If so, your question itself is nonsense. For then no one has "proof" for anything at all. Even science then has none, for science is empirical, ultimately pertaining to the real world, not mathematical and merely formal in its conclusions. So that question cannot be answered at all. "Proof" is for maths.

If one does not have faith in Jesus

By "faith," are you sticking to the definition? Then your question translates to, "If you refuse to consider the evidence for Jesus Christ and prefer to go to God on your own terms, will you end up alone, separated from God forever?"

If that's your question, I can answer it for you.

The Biblical answer is clearly "Yes." "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other Name under Heaven that has been given to men whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

That's pretty plain, isn't it?

[raw_thought]

I am simply saying that conventional Christians believe that you can believe in God without a proof. It does not matter if a proof is possible or impossible.
As I said before, if I say that Joe believes that the earth is flat, I am not saying that the earth is flat. As a matter of fact it does not matter if the earth is or is not flat. The statement is still true. Joe believes that the earth is flat.
Similarly, (see the OP) Dad says that my brother will be rewarded for believing that he is in the attic. Obviously, my brother has no proof that Dad is in the attic.

[Immanuel Can]

without a proof.

*sigh*

Do you mean "proof" or "evidence"?

If you mean "proof," then that is the most unsurprising statement in the history of the universe: NOTHING has "proof" except maths. Get it?

[raw_thought]

So you are saying that I ( in the analogy ) should be tortured by Dad because I overlooked evidence that Dad was in the attic? So I should be condemmed because I have a tramatic brain injury? * So being saved rests on IQ? I worked with TBI clients years ago. To me what is in their heart is more important than their intellectual abilities. Especially, when it comes to character.
So God is correct to torture someone for all eternity because that person is incapable of seeing the slim evidence?
* I do not have a TBI. I am talking metaphorically.

[Immanuel Can]

So being saved rests on IQ?

If it did, then Jesus would never have said this... (Matthew 19:14) Go see for yourself.

incapable of seeing the slim evidence?

As you can see above, no one's incapable...and as for whether or not the evidence is "slim," do you personally even know what evidence exists? I would suggest "slim" is not a word that describes it.

But your real problem is not with other people. It's with yourself. For you will not answer for TBI children, nor will they answer for you.

For you, the evidence is available and clear, and you yourself identify yourself as able to weigh it. So you should focus less on what accommodations God may make for others, and be much more concerned about yourself. And this conversation is part of the reason that when you are asked (as you will be) what you did with the evidence, you will not have an answer.

But you could change that...It will be up to what you are personally prepared to do.

[raw_thought]

Of course IQ should not determine salvation. I am glad you agee! That was called a rhetorical question. In other words if you say that my inability to see the slim evidence will condemn me, then in the analogy Dad is sick to condemn me. Similarly, God is sick to condemn someone that cannot see the slim evidence that he exists.
It is slim evidence that God exists. However, lets say that there is plenty of evidence that God exists. I must be truly stupid to not see it. Therefore, once again I am condemned for my TBI.
Which makes God unjust and even sick.