|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Jul 29, 2013 1:14:21 GMT -5
What I love about the neo-platonic influences on Christianity is the demand that our religion be logical. It makes it much easier to free one's self from the arbitrary rules and moral inconsistencies of orthodox Christianity.
However I wonder what kind of limits simply using logic to try to understand God has. If one was to receive a genuine revelation of some truth, there really isn't anything that demands that truth appear logical. Afterall things that appear contradictory or nonsensical can still be true.
I feel like I have to kind of a do a balancing act between the two different tools. I think it would be helpful to know specifically which parts of scriptures are which, but unfortunately that is only guesswork at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Jul 29, 2013 16:29:37 GMT -5
I think the "Gold standard" for understanding the nature of God, according to both the Nag Hammadi and the Gospel of John, is to study Jesus. (no man knows the father but the son)
Gone is the old angry god--- which is reasonable and logical; anger being a seconday emotion that piggybacks on some type of fear--- no fear, no anger. As a god has nothing to fear, it follows that a god cannot get angry.
Gone is the god that sends bears to eat children, replaced with a God that loves children, etc.
In the Christian Gnostic world view anyway, the higher God is the one that inspires us to be more than we are, while the "god of this world" hits us with hurricanes, ebola, and hard wired instincts that may cause us to act inapropriatly.
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Jul 30, 2013 1:20:58 GMT -5
That's a good point. I think when it comes to the "how should I behave" aspect of Christianity I'm sure emulating Christ, and trying to embody our highest ideals is definitely the way to go. I would still like to know more about the mysteries of God and the universe though
|
|