quote:Do you think Gnostics really ignored that men want a wife to call his own?
But the fragment says that it is wrong to do so. And not for the reason that a wife should not be treated as a possession. Even worse it ignorantly cites nature as an example when in reality animals have a variety of mating habits, varying by species.
quote:But on a moral note, sharing a woman is more moral than being misogynous and lowering the worth of a human being.
No. Holding that a woman is to be treated as property is misogynistic and lowers the worth of a human being.
It’s also ripe for abuse in a religious context.
It’s a fine example of what’s wrong with religion.
quote:Read my last to another Paol, and I think you will see that it is all a communal ownership of all men and women that is implied, and to Christians, that full sharing is called Heaven.
That seems to be a rather questionable interpretation when the text explicitly states that “He brought the female to be with the male in common and in the same way united all the animals”, “…all can share her…”, “…he has implanted in males a strong and ardent desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy…” and “…by the words Your neighbors wife he says something even more ludicrous, since he forces what should be common property to be treated as private posession”.
quote:The fact that no Gnostic Christian sect ever did what you say I have to defend, ---because you cannot understand the defence I gave of the text, --- shows that you do not see it saying that men's instincts and desires demanded specific wives and did not give credence to sexual universality on Earth. Only in heaven, just as the other Christianity had.
I very much doubt that “no Gnostic Christian sect” ever followed that scripture. In fact it looks like the usual excuse to give the leaders sexual access to the wives of their followers.
However, that is a secondary concern. The text says what it says, independent of whether any Gnostic Christian sect actually followed it. Even if it were only to be implemented in “heaven” you could defend it on that basis. But you do not defend what it says.
Indeed, since the text is about “wives” it cannot possibly refer to a situation where there is no marriage. If there is no marriage in “heaven” then the text obviously is not talking about “heaven”.
That’s an answer worthy of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.
Anglican baptism practices are not the question. The practices of John the Baptist is the question. Feel free to provide evidence that John the Baptist included anointment as part of his baptism. Or better that he did so specifically - and only - for Jesus.
quote:Anointment has absolutely nothing to do with divinity.
Nobody said that it did. Anointment does have a lot to do with being anointed, which is the point.
quote:The whole issue of whether or not Jesus was anointed is totally irrelevant to anything related to whether or not Jesus was divine.
And again, nobody said that it did.
quote: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.
The Messiah is supposed to be of the Davidic line and restore the monarchy, so the anointment of kings would be more relevant.
Jesus was almost certainly not of the Davidic line and was never crowned as King of Judah or Israel.