Jesus' Wife?

[Martinus]

There is one thing that Paul is generally not accused of: declaring the equality of men and women. Or was he the 'Catholic Church' in this case?

He was. And he is considered one of the most evil types among various mystic/gnostic traditions. He is generally accused of perverting the teachings of Christ.

[crazy canuck]

The trinity is also a rather silly concept, at least as perverted by Catholics.

The original Jewish and then Judeo-christian/gnostic mysticism indeed had three divine beings/aspects, but they were the male (the father), the female (the mother, or Sophia) and the synthesis of the male and female (the "son" - but the son was then expected to "mate" with another opposite principle, creating another triad and so on, in a system that was not unlike that of the Heglian thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad).

Catholics could not accept that (if anything, because it put the male and female principle on equal footing) so they came up with the sily Holy Ghost that doesn't do shit.

Why would the original Jews be using Greek words?

Indeed, so it is a mystery as to why the Gospels were originally written in Greek 

[Valmy]

There is one thing that Paul is generally not accused of: declaring the equality of men and women. Or was he the 'Catholic Church' in this case?

He was. And he is considered one of the most evil types among various mystic/gnostic traditions. He is generally accused of perverting the teachings of Christ.

Wait wait wait. Haven't you been constantly attacking me in this thread, and elsewhere, for not having an orthodox view?

[Valmy]

No idea, I don't believe he is the son of god, so it hardly matters to me.

Bullshit. It matters to you a great deal. Just like Viking you are insisting I MUST believe a certain way or fail to meet some sort of purity test. I NEVER get this shit, seriously anyway, from other Christians. Just you guys. Why? I just do not understand why you care. It is all bullshit to you, supposedly, but it seems REALLY important anyway.

But there are plenty of religious stories that involved Gods having "children" without there being a need for the idea of the trinity, just as an example.

Sure! Hence what I said.

If you think Jesus was some aspect of God, but there isn't a defined trinity per se, that seems entirely reasonable to me under the basic context of the religion.

I don't think so. At least not as the Trinity is defined. How would this be? You are either adoptionist or you believe he was begotten the Son of God. But either way the Holy Spirit is pretty key in how that is supposed to work. There is a reason why this view is so prevalent.

Explain how that is supposed to work if it is so reasonable?

[Martinus]

There is one thing that Paul is generally not accused of: declaring the equality of men and women. Or was he the 'Catholic Church' in this case?

He was. And he is considered one of the most evil types among various mystic/gnostic traditions. He is generally accused of perverting the teachings of Christ.

Wait wait wait. Haven't you been constantly attacking me in this thread, and elsewhere, for not having an orthodox view?

No, I was attacking you for saying you are a Christian. Pauline Christianity is a horrible set of ideas. No point trying to pretend you are one.

[Berkut]

No idea, I don't believe he is the son of god, so it hardly matters to me.

Bullshit. It matters to you a great deal. Just like Viking you are insisting I MUST believe a certain way or fail to meet some sort of purity test. I NEVER get this shit, seriously anyway, from other Christians. Just you guys. Why? I just do not understand why you care. It is all bullshit to you, supposedly, but it seems REALLY important anyway.

Say what?

I have not insisted in any way that you believe anything, nor do I care at all what you believe.

What in the world are you talking about?


I certianly reserve the right to categorize how *I* consider your beliefs, just as you reserve that same right for yourself.


For example, if you said you think I believe in God, even though I say I do not, I don't really care. I don't think it makes sense, but whatever.


It makes no matter to me in the least if you want to pretend to be Christian, and call yourself Christian, but that doesn't mean that I am required to expand my own definition of the word to include you.


To me, the word Christian means someone who actually believes that Christ was divine. Why you insist that I change my own thinking to accommodate your quasi-religious beliefs is rather beyond me.

But there are plenty of religious stories that involved Gods having "children" without there being a need for the idea of the trinity, just as an example.

Sure! Hence what I said.

If you think Jesus was some aspect of God, but there isn't a defined trinity per se, that seems entirely reasonable to me under the basic context of the religion.

I don't think so. At least not as the Trinity is defined. How would this be? You are either adoptionist or you believe he was begotten the Son of God. But either way the Holy Spirit is pretty key in how that is supposed to work. There is a reason why this view is so prevalent.

Explain how that is supposed to work if it is so reasonable?

There is a rather prevalent view that Christ was divine, and that God actually exists, amongst Christians, and you insist that that doesn't matter, yet you get hung up on the Trinity?

That is just...bizarre reasoning.

You are seriously telling me that actually believing in God is not necessary to be Christian, but believing in three aspects of God *is* necessary to be Christian?

This is what I find fascinating - not what you do or don't believe, but the contortions you are willing to go through!

[11B4V]

Religion 

[Berkut]

Religion 

Indeed.

What is interesting about this is not why *I* believe Valmsy is or is not a "christian". I think my definition if incredibly uncontroversial.

But rather, why would Valmy care at all whether or not some non-Christian considers him Christian or not?

My categorization makes zero impact on his life. It ought to be of supreme indifference to him what Berkut does or does not consider Christian.

Yet, the idea that someone thinks he isn't Christian is clearly upsetting to him. Why? It doesn't change what he thinks, or how those beliefs motivate his behavior in any way, so clearly what is actually important to him is not what he believes or what those beliefs mean to him, but rather how his professed beliefs gain him inclusion into some cultural group, and whether that might be challenged.

Religion really is a fascinating topic, on so many levels.

[crazy canuck]

Religion 

Indeed.

What is interesting about this is not why *I* believe Valmsy is or is not a "christian". I think my definition if incredibly uncontroversial.

But rather, why would Valmy care at all whether or not some non-Christian considers him Christian or not?

My categorization makes zero impact on his life. It ought to be of supreme indifference to him what Berkut does or does not consider Christian.

Yet, the idea that someone thinks he isn't Christian is clearly upsetting to him. Why? It doesn't change what he thinks, or how those beliefs motivate his behavior in any way, so clearly what is actually important to him is not what he believes or what those beliefs mean to him, but rather how his professed beliefs gain him inclusion into some cultural group, and whether that might be challenged.

Religion really is a fascinating topic, on so many levels.

If you go back to your original post, you did not limit your comments to what you personally believe but what "we" think is an acceptable definition of a christian.

[11B4V]

Religion 

Indeed.

What is interesting about this is not why *I* believe Valmsy is or is not a "christian". I think my definition if incredibly uncontroversial.

But rather, why would Valmy care at all whether or not some non-Christian considers him Christian or not?

My categorization makes zero impact on his life. It ought to be of supreme indifference to him what Berkut does or does not consider Christian.

Yet, the idea that someone thinks he isn't Christian is clearly upsetting to him. Why? It doesn't change what he thinks, or how those beliefs motivate his behavior in any way, so clearly what is actually important to him is not what he believes or what those beliefs mean to him, but rather how his professed beliefs gain him inclusion into some cultural group, and whether that might be challenged.

Religion really is a fascinating topic, on so many levels.

The bolded is a great point. Why should he care if he is secure in his faith.

[garbon]

Why should he care if he is mocked? And yes mocked is the right word by calling his beliefs 'quasi-religious' and that he 'pretend(s) to be Christian'.#

(s) as [ s ] is strikethrough.

[Berkut]

From my perspective, I think he is pretending to be a Christian, since I don't think his beliefs qualify as Christian. There is nothing I can do about that - I can't make myself believe that someone who claims ~A is actually claiming A, even if the definition of A is completely internal to myself.

And I don't think it is reasonable to call his beliefs "religion" since I don't think a belief that does not include any actual belief in a supernatural being is religious. Again, I can't make him fit into my internal definition just because he insists on it. There is nothing inherently mocking about the term "quasi".

I am not mocking him, I am stating what I think about his beliefs.

If he feels that my stating *his* beliefs is "mocking", then that is, again, just kind of interesting that he finds it so troubling that my categorization of his own stated belief system constitutes some kind of reason to feel insulted or ashamed. What *I* think about his beliefs cannot possibly have any effect on him, so why does he care? I am not insulting him, or demanding that he change what he thinks. I have every right and reason to decide what *I* think about his belief systems as he states it.

If he feels insulted or mocked by this, then I think the problem is with him, not with me. Either he has stated his beliefs clearly and cannot reconcile my categorization and hence feels troubled by that, or I am not understanding his beliefs, in which case I welcome his making them more clear to me.

[PDH]

And I don't think it is reasonable to call his beliefs "religion" since I don't think a belief that does not include any actual belief in a supernatural being is religious. Again, I can't make him fit into my internal definition just because he insists on it. There is nothing inherently mocking about the term "quasi".

I would have to take umbrage at this.  Given the (very) broad range of human societies and beliefs, there are many who have been documented to not really have supernaturals beings or a being.  Some of the small scale societies did not even have spirits, just vague things like fate or luck that were dealt with ritually.

If I had to really argue it (as I have done before and so I won't again), ritual is the key to religion, not supernatural beings.

[Berkut]

And I don't think it is reasonable to call his beliefs "religion" since I don't think a belief that does not include any actual belief in a supernatural being is religious. Again, I can't make him fit into my internal definition just because he insists on it. There is nothing inherently mocking about the term "quasi".

I would have to take umbrage at this.  Given the (very) broad range of human societies and beliefs, there are many who have been documented to not really have supernaturals beings or a being.  Some of the small scale societies did not even have spirits, just vague things like fate or luck that were dealt with ritually.

If I had to really argue it (as I have done before and so I won't again), ritual is the key to religion, not supernatural beings.

Bah, that is sophistry.

So someone always tapping his left foot, then his right foot before he steps into the batters box is "religion"?

There are a lot of different "rituals" that have nothing to do with religion. There are rituals around all kinds of completely mundane activiities, but we don't call them "religion".

[size=inherit][/size][size=0.95em]NOUN[/size][/font][/size][size=inherit]

[/size]1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

That is the first result we get from google, and it sure seems pretty spot on in the context of our discussion. If you want to argue something else, take it up with Oxford.

[grumbler]

Bullshit. It matters to you a great deal. Just like Viking you are insisting I MUST believe a certain way or fail to meet some sort of purity test. I NEVER get this shit, seriously anyway, from other Christians. Just you guys. Why? I just do not understand why you care. It is all bullshit to you, supposedly, but it seems REALLY important anyway.

It actually seems to matter to you a huge amount, and to virtually no one else.  I have no idea why you, or, say, a Muslim, would call yourself Christians when you deny pretty much the defining characteristic of Christians.  Why cling to a word that only fits you using a definition you have made but cannot articulate?  I have no problem, for instance, in noting that i am not Christian, because I understand the generally-accepted definition of the word and note that I don't fit.

You seem to use Hindu concepts (like "a spiritual being having a human experience") more than Christian concepts.  Why not call yourself Hindu, if you want to attach yourself to a major religion?