The only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian. True or false?

[Greatest I am]

Yes, we are Elohim .. collectively, not individually ... the first is piety, the second is blasphemy.  Alan Watts was a bodhisattva (an missionary angel).

To think a thing is not to know a thing.  To know a thing is not to understand a thing.  I had to become an old man before I understood anything!  And like the Ancient Mariner ... the cost of understanding has been high.  But I won't have wisdom, until I reach the end.

I was about 39 before I knew a thing, and yes, the cost was high, but I am please I had the payment.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I don't have one.  I don't need one.  I find that reality is enough.  It is, at least, amenable to examination that can in principle be independently confirmed by others.  I have found more of a sense of awe in the eyepiece of a telescope or at the end of a mathematical derivation than I ever got sitting in a pew or chanting in a circleâ€"to borrow from Douglas Adams, I find the garden sufficiently lovely to not need to imagine it has fairies in it as well.

I need to ask, then, if you're your own authority, why label that with the syllable 'god'?  As a meditational focus?  As a shorthand for the concepts involved?  Force of habit?
I can appreciate your distaste.

In the old days, before the mainstream religions went stupid on us and started reading their myths literally, the temples and churches were mystery schools, read that as atheist schools, where people sought God, as defined as the best laws and rules to live life by.

In a sense, the brain dead religions based on the supernatural usurped the old atheist churches and temples. Think of atheists returning the favor and now getting pay back and reclaiming what was once yours from the literalist fools.

I don't read 'mystery schools' as 'atheist schools'.  In my experience, most atheists prefer to spread knowledge, not hide it under mummery and ritual.  I'd recommend you to some Richard Carrier lectures on cults of two millennia agoâ€"the sort of cult that he surmises originally grew up around the character later known as Jesus, even before the literalists took command, still preached the standard religious fare of life after death.  They were in no way atheistic.

Atheism isn't an 'atheology' to be taught in a church anyway.  It's a method to be taught in school: skeptical inquiry and the scientific method.

In other words, a mystery school which as I put above, in todays terms, is an atheist church.

You say atheists want to spread their knowledge and wisdom yet are too hung up on words and their meaning to support atheist churches.

I use the word God for the reasons I put above. To show that I am the final arbiter and judge for myself.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I even have a corroborating witness to my eventâ€"but since it is non-reproducible, I cannot in good conscience count it as evidence.  It definitely happened... but odd coincidences happen.  It would be weirder if nothing weird ever happened to me.  Instead, something inexplicable happens once in a very great while... and that's in accord with statistics.

Share your experience.

Regards
DL

[trdsf]

In other words, a mystery school which as I put above, in todays terms, is an atheist church.

You say atheists want to spread their knowledge and wisdom yet are too hung up on words and their meaning to support atheist churches.

I use the word God for the reasons I put above. To show that I am the final arbiter and judge for myself.

The fact that those mystery cults preached a life after death immediately precludes them from being an atheist anything.  They taught the existence of divine figures, the existence of a soul, miracles, the whole nine yards.  That is emphatically not an "atheist church".

I'm not hung up on words, I'm hung up on meanings.  If you want to use 'atheist church' to mean some sort of secular fellowship, why not say 'secular fellowship' rather than use a word that's guaranteed to provoke a response in a subset of that very group?  And what's next?  An atheist synagogue?  An atheist mosque?

I know there already are atheist "churches", and I think the idea is kind of silly trying to emulate the Sunday morning routine that many of us grew up with.  I appreciate that they're about fellowship and community, and many of them even host lectures in place of sermons, but I think it's time better spent volunteering, being out there in the public and demonstrating that you don't need a god to be good.

You use words that have a lot of built-in baggage ('church', 'god') in ways that not many other people are going to grasp the way you're using them without a lot of unpacking.  You talk about 'god' when you mean yourself, and 'churches' for church escapees.  I mean, if you want to spend the time explaining your meaning over the commonly held meanings, that's your decision, but if I can offer some advice, until and unless language swings around your way, using the standard terminology and standard meanings will lead to much more fruitful conversations.

[Greatest I am]

The fact that those mystery cults preached a life after death immediately precludes them from being an atheist anything.  They taught the existence of divine figures, the existence of a soul, miracles, the whole nine yards.  That is emphatically not an "atheist church".

I'm not hung up on words, I'm hung up on meanings.  If you want to use 'atheist church' to mean some sort of secular fellowship, why not say 'secular fellowship' rather than use a word that's guaranteed to provoke a response in a subset of that very group?  And what's next?  An atheist synagogue?  An atheist mosque?

I know there already are atheist "churches", and I think the idea is kind of silly trying to emulate the Sunday morning routine that many of us grew up with.  I appreciate that they're about fellowship and community, and many of them even host lectures in place of sermons, but I think it's time better spent volunteering, being out there in the public and demonstrating that you don't need a god to be good.

You use words that have a lot of built-in baggage ('church', 'god') in ways that not many other people are going to grasp the way you're using them without a lot of unpacking.  You talk about 'god' when you mean yourself, and 'churches' for church escapees.  I mean, if you want to spend the time explaining your meaning over the commonly held meanings, that's your decision, but if I can offer some advice, until and unless language swings around your way, using the standard terminology and standard meanings will lead to much more fruitful conversations.

The mystery schools had all kinds of beliefs that they played with. To say they all had any given view on the afterlife is foolish.

Gnostic Christians, for one, had a number of ideas that they played with non the afterlife.

We have no supernatural beliefs and you have packet our myths in with our beliefs.

Gnosis means, basically, to know. Only the most foolish will say they know something of the supernatural.

As to atheist churches. Who am I to tell atheists what to call their churches?

Regards
DL

[Mike Cl]

The fact that those mystery cults preached a life after death immediately precludes them from being an atheist anything.  They taught the existence of divine figures, the existence of a soul, miracles, the whole nine yards.  That is emphatically not an "atheist church".

I'm not hung up on words, I'm hung up on meanings.  If you want to use 'atheist church' to mean some sort of secular fellowship, why not say 'secular fellowship' rather than use a word that's guaranteed to provoke a response in a subset of that very group?  And what's next?  An atheist synagogue?  An atheist mosque?

I know there already are atheist "churches", and I think the idea is kind of silly trying to emulate the Sunday morning routine that many of us grew up with.  I appreciate that they're about fellowship and community, and many of them even host lectures in place of sermons, but I think it's time better spent volunteering, being out there in the public and demonstrating that you don't need a god to be good.

You use words that have a lot of built-in baggage ('church', 'god') in ways that not many other people are going to grasp the way you're using them without a lot of unpacking.  You talk about 'god' when you mean yourself, and 'churches' for church escapees.  I mean, if you want to spend the time explaining your meaning over the commonly held meanings, that's your decision, but if I can offer some advice, until and unless language swings around your way, using the standard terminology and standard meanings will lead to much more fruitful conversations.

^This^  Why use charged words that will be misunderstood by almost all audiences?   

[Mike Cl]

The mystery schools had all kinds of beliefs that they played with. To say they all had any given view on the afterlife is foolish.

Gnostic Christians, for one, had a number of ideas that they played with non the afterlife.

We have no supernatural beliefs and you have packet our myths in with our beliefs.

Gnosis means, basically, to know. Only the most foolish will say they know something of the supernatural.

As to atheist churches. Who am I to tell atheists what to call their churches?

Regards
DL

Why use the label 'Gnostic Christian'--why not just gnostic?

[Unbeliever]

I even have a corroborating witness to my eventâ€"but since it is non-reproducible, I cannot in good conscience count it as evidence.  It definitely happened... but odd coincidences happen.  It would be weirder if nothing weird ever happened to me.  Instead, something inexplicable happens once in a very great while... and that's in accord with statistics.

Indeed, if a thing has a 1 in a billion chance of happening in any given year/month/day - whatever - then it should be happening about 7 times in a year/month/day. So yeah, it would be much more weird if weird things didn't happen.

[trdsf]

Share your experience.

Sure.  This was about 20 years ago, my then-BF had been with me less than a year at that point, and I was still a practicing Neo-Pagan.  The topic of conversation had turned to the subject of spirit guides, with both of us professing belief in having one.  At which point he just blurted out the name I used for mine.  We had not discussed the subject before, and I certainly hadn't mentioned the name, least of all in connection with an alleged spirit guide I believed I had.

I don't deny that it well and truly blew my mind.  He had no idea where the name came from, he said it'd just popped into his head.

This is, of course, exactly the kind of anecdote that triggers most of our bullshit meters; the only reason it doesn't get mine going is because it happened to me.  The only evidentiary value it has depends not on your judgment of the probability of the event, but on your judgment of my word.

So really, what you're actually judging is here is what's more improbable: the events that I related, or that I would make this up.  I can't fault anyone here for choosing the latter, despite my word that it did happen, because I know I can't prove it.

[Greatest I am]

Why use the label 'Gnostic Christian'--why not just gnostic?

As I understand the tradition, we have always considered ourselves to be an ideology based on the Christian myths, from the times before Christianity became idol worshipers and literal readers of those myths. That is why our myths posit a God above Yahweh and call him a demiurge.

Further, there are Gnostic Muslims, etc. who, like us, analyse and criticise not only their own religion but all religions and ideologies.

We are quite close to agnostic but in the past, there was no agnostic or atheist churches and we recognize the good that local churches can do. We do not like the larger religious hierarchies because they are just there to lord it over people and not really word towards their enlightenment.

Further, a Gnostic Christian, as history shows, are charged not only with growing our religion but also to try to help the poor religions like Christianity to shrink. We live by the for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing motto.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Sure.  This was about 20 years ago, my then-BF had been with me less than a year at that point, and I was still a practicing Neo-Pagan.  The topic of conversation had turned to the subject of spirit guides, with both of us professing belief in having one.  At which point he just blurted out the name I used for mine.  We had not discussed the subject before, and I certainly hadn't mentioned the name, least of all in connection with an alleged spirit guide I believed I had.

I don't deny that it well and truly blew my mind.  He had no idea where the name came from, he said it'd just popped into his head.

This is, of course, exactly the kind of anecdote that triggers most of our bullshit meters; the only reason it doesn't get mine going is because it happened to me.  The only evidentiary value it has depends not on your judgment of the probability of the event, but on your judgment of my word.

So really, what you're actually judging is here is what's more improbable: the events that I related, or that I would make this up.  I can't fault anyone here for choosing the latter, despite my word that it did happen, because I know I can't prove it.

Knowing telepathy is real, I have no problem believing you.

Yours was a light touch as compared to what I did to my wife. That is why she calls my mental touch an assault.

This might be showing the cosmic consciousness I found the second and last time I activated my telepathy. I don't know for sure because in that situation which is purely mental, I could not identify where I was.

The part I want you to see is at about the 20 min. mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM6yLngNnDY

I was quite skeptical of ESP in those days while still having an itch about telepathy. I think/hope the cosmic consciousness, whatever it's nature, either knew or wanted my contact but knew that if I only had the one experience with it, I would not have believed and would have called it a mental fart or something. I think that that might be why I had my first experience with my wife. Without her to witness and confirm it, I would not have believed the reality of the second.

I call my wife my souls mate since. Not that I believe in the usual soul.

I hope you are still BFF with your partner.

Regards
DL

[SGOS]

Sure.  This was about 20 years ago, my then-BF had been with me less than a year at that point, and I was still a practicing Neo-Pagan.  The topic of conversation had turned to the subject of spirit guides, with both of us professing belief in having one.  At which point he just blurted out the name I used for mine.  We had not discussed the subject before, and I certainly hadn't mentioned the name, least of all in connection with an alleged spirit guide I believed I had.

I don't deny that it well and truly blew my mind.  He had no idea where the name came from, he said it'd just popped into his head.

This is, of course, exactly the kind of anecdote that triggers most of our bullshit meters; the only reason it doesn't get mine going is because it happened to me.  The only evidentiary value it has depends not on your judgment of the probability of the event, but on your judgment of my word.

So really, what you're actually judging is here is what's more improbable: the events that I related, or that I would make this up.  I can't fault anyone here for choosing the latter, despite my word that it did happen, because I know I can't prove it.

I believe it happened, and quite easily at that, but remain unimpressed.  If you explain how, that's when the bullshit meter goes off, because it's an unexplainable event.  The how part is pure conjecture.  The correct answer is, "I don't know."  Telepathy is a possible explanation, but there are more beyond that, so it doesn't represent actual knowledge.  It's an opinion.

[Mike Cl]

As I understand the tradition, we have always considered ourselves to be an ideology based on the Christian myths, from the times before Christianity became idol worshipers and literal readers of those myths. That is why our myths posit a God above Yahweh and call him a demiurge.

Further, there are Gnostic Muslims, etc. who, like us, analyse and criticise not only their own religion but all religions and ideologies.

We are quite close to agnostic but in the past, there was no agnostic or atheist churches and we recognize the good that local churches can do. We do not like the larger religious hierarchies because they are just there to lord it over people and not really word towards their enlightenment.

Further, a Gnostic Christian, as history shows, are charged not only with growing our religion but also to try to help the poor religions like Christianity to shrink. We live by the for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing motto.

Regards
DL

Who is the 'we'?  As far as I know, there is not one agreed upon version of Gnostic --much less Gnostic Christian.

[Unbeliever]

I think gnostics are much like mystics, in that they have an independent means of acquiring "knowledge." But I have little confidence that their acquisitions are reliable.

[SGOS]

I think gnostics are much like mystics, in that they have an independent means of acquiring "knowledge." But I have little confidence that their acquisitions are reliable.

Ideally in a discussion, all parties need to agree on criteria necessary to determine validity.  Once unsupported claims are introduced and accepted as the standard for verification, it resets the bar to a lower standard.  This is where things get really fun, since the door has now been opened to an infinite number of explanations, all of equal validity, and we can think up explanations for the rest of the night, as long as we don't need to support them.

1.  Trdsf's spirit guide told the boyfriend's spirit guide the name he had been given,
     and boyfriend's spirit guide simply told the boyfriend.

2.  etc, ect,

We can also think up more logical explanations, like rare coincidence, that do not rely on logical fallacies for their support, but we must always be careful to recognize that these explanations are also unsupported and don't constitute actual knowledge either.  This is perfectly OK, there will always be unexplained observations.  We don't have to "know" everything.  We don't even need to know everything.  Reality will go on, with or without our knowledge.  It's a wiser man that recognizes what he does not know than the man who is compelled to accept mystical answers to avoid the shame of not knowing.