Gnosticism speaks of the duality between spirit and flesh with flesh being evil. Christianity is ONE and three. — Nikolas
Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven. — Funk and Miller translation
↪Nikolas I thought the rationale of Christianity was that it was open to all and any who believed. That it's not a path for spiiritual adepts, like Tantric Buddhism. — Wayfarer
There are certainly many pairs of elements and agents who are seen as set over against each other in Gnosticism. Many of the separated pairs are seen as sources of evil and suffering. On the other hand, some of the Gnostic Christians were less inclined to identify the "flesh" as the source of evil than their Pauline brethren. The division itself was seen to be the problem.
The trinity was an important concept for some Gnostic Christians. Consider verse 44 from the Gospel of Thomas:
Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.
— Funk and Miller translation — Valentinus
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil predates Man on earth. What does evil refer to? — Nikolas
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil predates Man on earth. What does evil refer to?
— Nikolas
The only tree of knowledge I know is the kabbalah. Knowledge isn't evil per say but you may be commanded to remain ignorant/simple - in which case seeking knowledge then becomes a transgression. — Tom Storm
s seeking knowledge evil and remaining ignorant the good? This doesn't make sense to me. Why would a God create knowledge and call it evil? If knowledge is evil why create our potential to receive it in the first place — Nikolas
That's not the interpretation I am making. And the question you pose has nothing to do with my proposition. I never said knowledge was evil. But not following God's command is wrong. He is very specific about not eating that bloody fruit. — Tom Storm
Is there a way this all makes sense? — Nikolas
I don't really have a strong view on this. I am attracted to some Buddhism ideas - but isn't everyone? I don't see any Asian cultures that I would swap for mine. I am always most interested in how cultures manage poverty, illness, work and law and order. — Tom Storm
Generally speaking, Christian charitable and missionary organisations have been well ahead of Buddhists and Hindus when it comes to actually doing stuff. — Wayfarer
Yes. Of course it is. When you have well-rounded education you not only have well rounded individuals but more empathy and lack of violence in the streets. — javi2541997
↪Tom Storm ↪Valentinus
I see that the two you were speaking of the passage in the Bible, which I think is the hardest of all, or certainly it really worried me. That is the passage about the unpardonable sin: 'whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven.' You mentioned it in connection with the idea of the Trinity, but it is has far wider implications for the idea of an unpardonable sin seems so contrary to the whole emphasis on forgiveness in the New Testament. When I have mentioned this idea to a number of people who are Christian's they don't really seem tot have thought that much about it. However, having agonised over it, I was a bit reassured to discover later that Jung and Kierkergaard had both struggled over this. — Jack Cummins
How do you know of the charitable work being done by Buddhists and Hindus that makes you feel comfortable determining they are not as charitable as Christians? — Athena
Again, I think this is an economic matter — Athena
How do you know of the charitable work being done by Buddhists and Hindus that makes you feel comfortable determining they are not as charitable as Christians? — Athena
But I never saw the passage as being one about the essentiality of the Trinity idea, although that is an interesting interpretation. — Jack Cummins
The difference between sin and spiritual trial [[i]Anfaegtelelse[/i] (for the conditions in both can be deceptively similar) is that the temptation [[i]Fristelse[/i]] to sin is in accord with inclination. Therefore the opposite tactic must be employed. The person tempted by inclination to sin does well to shun the danger, but in relation to spiritual trial this is the very danger, for every time he thinks he is saving himself by shunning the danger, the danger becomes greater the next time. The sensate person is wise to flee from the sight or enticement, but the one for whom inclination is not the temptation at all but rather an anxiety about coming in contact with it (he is under spiritual trial) is not wise to shun the sight or the enticement; for spiritual trial wants nothing else than to strike terror into his life and hold him in anxiety. — JP IV 4367 (Pap.VII A 93) May 5, 1847
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.