Do you have Questions for a Gnostic Christian?

If someday you might want to have a somewhat less bizarre discussion about one's religious beliefs, I think we might have an interesting discussion.

This is not the proper place though; this is a thread for the mysteries.

LNA writes: Every right winger I have ever talked to (white,black, etc.) has agreed with me that we need 5 million legal immigrants per year. I only want to punch left wingers on the face, as they want fewer. Change the laws, and I will punch any Democrat in the face. Snitches. Gun carriers. Damn Democrats. Don't buy the left/right crap.

Unsupported assertion, innuendo and then threats of violence and posted in a thread devoted to a totally different subject.

Classic example of a playground bully tantrum.

Not fair.

Come on; Phat has never been exposed to any of the basics of the Abrahamic/Masoretic traditions.

Officer Krupke would understand.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

You have never read the Bible Phat.

Jesus took money from the commune/collective and spent it on luxuries for himself.

Jesus vandalized and destroyed others property.

Phat writes: Jesus never spent money on Himself in any way not allowed. Who gets to police the "common treasury"? Who did it belong to?

The common treasury belonged to everyone in the commune/cooperative, not to any single individual.

The property he destroyed belonged to the owners of the stalls.

Phat writes: And what's ironic is that this same scenario of what belongs to "everybody" vs what belongs to a given individual will be one of the outright outrageous attempts by a liberal government to steal from the people. It figures that you would start by attacking Jesus.

And once again you simply present another unsupported assertion without any evidence or reasoned argument.

I did not attack Jesus but simply pointed out yet again what is actually written in the Bible stories.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

I'm surprised you are not familiar with the Rite of Baptism when the infant is washed clean with water and then sealed by anointing with oil.

From the Rite of Baptism in the Book of Common Prayer.

Consecration of the Chrism performed by a Bishop;

Eternal Father, whose blessed Son was anointed by the
Holy Spirit to be the Savior and servant of all, we pray you to
consecrate this oil, that those who are sealed with it may
share in the royal priesthood of Jesus Christ; who lives and
reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

The priest after washing the individual then seals the individual with the sign of the cross on the persons forehead using the consecrated oil.

The Baptism

Each candidate is presented by name to the Celebrant, or to an assisting
priest or deacon, who then immerses, or pours water upon, the
candidate, saying

N., I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Holy Baptism 307

When this action has been completed for all candidates, the Bishop or
Priest, at a place in full sight of the congregation, prays over them, saying

Let us pray.

Heavenly Father, we thank you that by water and the Holy
Spirit you have bestowed upon these your servants the
forgiveness of sin, and have raised them to the new life of
grace. Sustain them, O Lord, in your Holy Spirit. Give them
an inquiring and discerning heart, the courage to will and to
persevere, a spirit to know and to love you, and the gift of joy
and wonder in all your works. Amen.

Then the Bishop or Priest places a hand on the person's head, marking
on the forehead the sign of the cross [using Chrism if desired] and saying to
each one

N., you are sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism and marked
as Christ's own for ever. Amen.

Or this action may be done immediately after the administration of the
water and before the preceding prayer.

When all have been baptized, the Celebrant says

Let us welcome the newly baptized.

Celebrant and People

We receive you into the household of God. Confess the faith
of Christ crucified, proclaim his resurrection, and share with
us in his eternal priesthood.

While Jesus might not have been anointed, I certainly was.

I can't and if you actually read what I wrote you would have known that.

Learn to read.

Learn how to read.

It's difficult but likely not impossible, even for you.

Anointment has absolutely nothing to do with divinity.

The whole issue of whether or not Jesus was anointed is totally irrelevant to anything related to whether or not Jesus was divine.

The "Jesus was not anointed" issue is simply irrelevant to anything other than whether or not Jesus was part of the priesthood and officially recognized as such by the Jewish hierarchy at the time.

He wasn't.

And Jesus is not and has never been seen as a Jewish Messiah.

Yup, folk are free to be as willfully stupid as they wish.

Correct.

AbE:

One of the major problems in modern Christianity is that for the most part we never teach the reality of what is included in the various Canons. If we taught the much of what was included as in the examples you mention and in the stories of Jesus arrival in Jerusalem were at best political stagecraft or simply fantasy designed to market a position, we'd have far fewer nutjob fundies.

Christianity was a creation of people hundreds of years after Jesus' death. It has continued to be repackaged and marketed ever since.

What needs to happen but is almost certainly what will seldom happen is that around the age of Confirmation, the early teens, Christian teachers pull off the doss and duff and actually teach and discuss what was actually written and why. The growth of myth found in the stories in the Great Commission or Saul's Trip on the Trip are right there, perfect teaching moments but almost never presented to the young adults at the time when they would be most receptive and still mature enough to understand.

It's a tragedy and one that has and will continue to cause problems.

Edited by jar, : see AbE.

When you have no validity or message then pound the pulpit.

That is GIA's sole purpose and tactic.

It is an excellent example of the Christian Cult of Ignorance though.

The problem is the basic flaw in the purpose of the forum that has existed from day one.

You hoped that a reasonable dialog might be possible between those people who are in touch with reality and make evidence-based decisions and those people who are out-of-touch with reality and make belief-based decisions.

Your hope was doomed from the git-go but that does not mean that the effort was pointless. The evidence is that many of the former group still participate while almost 100% of the latter group ran away. There is a possibility though that simply presenting the contrast between the two mutually exclusive approaches MAY have allowed some of the hidden audience to move from being in the latter to among the former.