-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Christian-GAF: Praying for Satan?
- Thread starter water_wendi
- Start date
- Status
It's funny how the argument that all of humanity being descended from Adam and Eve gets shot down because Cain found other people when he was banished and so God must have created other humans, yet after the flood it is specifically stated that everyone is descended from Noah, his wife and their 3 sons and their wives, which is of course impossible.
Not to mention the two (or seven) of every animal, no way that could restart a species.
Not to mention the two (or seven) of every animal, no way that could restart a species.
bonesmccoy
Banned
To the OP: You don't really 'pray' for spiritual beings. The basic idea is that the have already experienced the beatific vision (ie, met God) and made their choice (Christianity and Judaism have always held that it's the being itself, not God, who decides it's ultimate fate), so there's no going back if your went for the good side or the evil side.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Just wait til you get to the Bowl of Winds.Kinitari said:
jonnybryce
Member
besada said:
He kills babies a lot. He had the Egyptian's babies killed if they didn't mark their doors. If you're parent didn't mark his door with a symbol, the angel of death will come and murder the innocent baby who has no idea what's going on.
It's pretty gross.
Dever said:
You're thinking in mortal terms.
Just indulge the theory that Heaven and Hell do exist. If so, you'd have no idea how mortality comes into account at that point. And if Heaven and Hell do exist, then life on Earth is meaningless.
RedShift said:
So it's impossible for two animals to restart a species, and yet evolution is possible? I'm not arguing against evolution here, but if you believe that, you need to believe two animals can restart a species. :lol
TheExodu5 said:
No...
Evolution isn't discrete like that, something doesn't get born a different species to its parents. Something is the same species as something else when it can produce fertile offspring. (Correct me Biology-GAF if I'm wrong)
Besides your point makes no sense, animals don't evolve in pairs which then breed. I'm pretty confused what you mean really. But, at least for humans, there isn't enough genetic material to restart a species with two people, IIRC it's estimated a population of about 50 would be needed.
TheExodu5 said:
I think you're arguing somewhat the same thing that LCGeek is saying. You're right, I don't know how that stuff would work. But the fact still stands that an omnipotent god could could kill/annihilate/eliminate Satan if he so wished. If he can't, he's not omnipotent.
I wouldn't say life on earth is meaningless if heaven and hell existed. Seems this life would more of a testing period or something.
Which is quite silly considering God already knows which souls are going to end up in hell when he supposedly creates them, being omniscient and all. In the end, after the rapture and stuff, what's left? A bunch of souls, some eternally partying with Jesus and some in eternal anguish, forever and ever and ever and ever. What's the point in that?And in a general response to LCGeek and VanMardigan... What makes you think that the stuff you typed is even remotely true in any way? It all sounds so absurd and outlandish, and I'd probably get a thousand different answers to those questions if I asked a thousand different christians.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
Dever said:
Well, it's my belief as a Christian (I don't know LCGeek). But you made your question so general, I'm not sure what question you asked would provide different answers from Christians. I don't think it makes sense to get into doctrinal issues, and I don't think any of us did in this thread, but if you're genuinely interested in this stuff, you should know that there is great diversity of thought and viewpoints in the Christian community, all debated feverishly. That, in my mind, is a strength, allowing Christianity's adoption by billions of people, and even in this country, you can see the diversity just in our President (a practicing Christian) debating with the Catholic church on an issue such as abortion. And even then, he won the Catholic vote, which shows that the differences are not crippling to dialog.
None of the differences should bother anyone that strips Christianity down to it's bare core, which is the belief that Christ is the son of God sent to redeem us from our sins, in whom we believe to achieve everlasting life.
tfur
Member
ckohler said:
1) Why would I need to draw a line? Why would I need assert my beliefs on someone else? I certainly do not what them trying to assert their beliefs on me...
2)
a) Scientology has some fairly "interesting" stories. I do not have to subscribe to those beliefs to digest and try to understand them. Also, some of the concepts of the "reactive mind" may or may not have some grounds in psychology. Certainly there is nothing wrong with reading what some people believe.
b) Alien abduction, possession, angels/demons etc. What's wrong with learning about those things? Certainly the U.S. federal government has spent some time with these subjects in programs like Project Blue Book, or the Seti project. You even have former astronauts claiming they saw UFO or whatever. It interesting to read about. I also like to read about future evolution seminars, where anthropologist theorize on the future of human evolution, and there effects on what we perceive.
c) Pyramid power: Well, there are volumes of data that suggest that western medicine has it's limits. I do think that these areas are wide open for exploration, and that new things are learned every day. At the very least we know about things like circadian rhythms, colored lights, electrical fields effecting our body. Again, I am certainly willing to continue reading about these things, as I want more data on these type subjects.
4) Vampires: I do enjoy the Romanian history of Vlad the impaler.
The point is, there is no reason to confront someones beliefs, especially when most are ignorant of those beliefs in the first place. Most comments like "this group believe this", are usually exaggerated generalizations.
As far as logic goes, unless we are talking about mathematical/symbolic logic, you are still basing your logic on your reason, as filtered through your own culture. You can string an assortment of reason and logic to "prove" whatever you want to believe. The logic of passion, love, anger and belief becomes extremely nebulous. These areas live more the the root of logic, logos. One of those crazy Greek "living" words, that define nouns, verbs, adjectives, feelings and events.
In any case, I try to read about all of it. I have Greek/Hebrew/English Bible, Arabic/English Qur'an, Sanskrit/English Bhagavad Gita, Liber Null, Egyptian Book of the Dead, The New Physics, Descartes Meditations, Tesla's The Problem with Increasing Human Energy etc... etc... sponge it in... it's all fun to me...
I would suggest the Power of Myth, by Joseph Campbell. He has (or had, he is dead now) a book and a video documentary that was done in the 80's with Bill Moyers (PBS). It is an incredible journey about belief/myth. It really is something that anyone interested in cultural anthropology, myth and belief should witness.
VanMardigan said:
But why is it your belief? You don't have to answer and I'm kind of hoping that you don't since I'm really tired of discussing religion for the time being(On a damn gaming forum no less).
But it's something to think about, and I think everyone should always question their beliefs. We should be committed to determining the truth, and the truth never has anything to fear from questions and investigation.SnakeswithLasers
Member
Dever said:But why is it your belief? You don't have to answer and I'm kind of hoping that you don't since I'm really tired of discussing religion for the time being(On a damn gaming forum no less).
OH MY GOD YOUR INSIGHT IS PRICELESS AND UNIQUE.
Gaf needs to reinstate the :rolleyes smiley and only have it usable in religion topics.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
Dever said:But why is it your belief? You don't have to answer and I'm kind of hoping that you don't since I'm really tired of discussing religion for the time being(On a damn gaming forum no less).
I think most everyone (if not everyone) goes through a period where they question their beliefs, whatever those are. I know I did. Or do you think Christians are simply folks who haven't bothered (or are scared to) question and investigate their beliefs?
Getting to the bottom of why I believe in Christ will not help you in any way to "solve" anything regarding WHY people believe in Christ. The reasons are as varied as the amount of Christians on earth (Billions). Each individual story, called a "testimony" is important to the individuals, and I wouldn't mind sharing mine via PM, but it IS a form of proselitizying, so that's something to be conscious of.
The New Testament holds precedence over the Old Testament. It's always bothered me that many if not most practitioners don't have as much of a reverence or concern for the source material and, as such, don't have a working knowledge of the theology. Heck, I went to a pretty sizable Christian school from K-12 and people just lost interest.
At any rate, it bothers me just as much when anybody just magically assumes that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have never questioned their own faith. Sure, there are plenty of people that just follow what they believe because it's comfortable. Even still, there are reasons behind the decisions that we make in life and faith is no different.
Anyways, this is the core tenet of Christian faith:
Well, assuming you're not profiting off of religion...then Jesus will totally flip out.
At any rate, it bothers me just as much when anybody just magically assumes that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have never questioned their own faith. Sure, there are plenty of people that just follow what they believe because it's comfortable. Even still, there are reasons behind the decisions that we make in life and faith is no different.
Anyways, this is the core tenet of Christian faith:
There's no scriptural basis from Jesus Christ for hate against a fellow human being.
Well, assuming you're not profiting off of religion...then Jesus will totally flip out.
gamergirly
Member
It all comes down to Scientific Proof vs. Religion.
If you're one of those people who need to fall flat on their face to believe in gravity, then you're on the SP side of things.
If your faith is all you need, then you're on the R side of things.
Both science and religion attempt to explain the very existence of the world today and predict the future. But what holds more credibility from the very beginning?
[Christian Version vs SP]
Example #1: The Christian Bible says that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.......Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." Scientists say the Big Bang theory, the galactic explosion which created suns, stars, planets and everything that exists in the universe today. If you really read through Genesis and also The Big Bang theory, both are chronologically coordinated to explain the creation of the Earth to where Humans were created.
Both, in our imagination, take a long time for this total evolution. I mean, in Genesis after the Seventh Day, there's no accounting for how much time elapses "for the generations of the heavens and of the earth". Scientists say that took billions of years to go by. Well, there's no contradiction here, really? Just whatever version you choose to believe.
Example #2: On one hand, scientists say that we evolved from monkeys. On another hand, for example, The Christian Bible says that God created both monkeys and humans(among everything else). When God first created us, we could have easily resembled monkeys, eventually evolving into the intelligent species we are today. What did we REALLY come from? Well, we weren't here billions of years ago to actually know, now were we? Just whatever version you choose to believe.
Example #3: In regards to the miracles that are described in The Christian Bible including Jesus, I'd say that human science contradicts these miracles, such as walking on water. But the definition of a miracle is "a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can be attempted to be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle-worker." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle
Jesus walking on water isn't something that is supposed to be explainable by humans. It's not something that we should be able to reproduce, replicate, or otherwise. It's simply something we have to take at face value.
--------------------
I think Example #3 is the real difference between religion and scientific proof. One has detailed duplication by humans and the other has many events which are "humanly unexplainable". Science will always be limited when you think about it like that. Prove-able but limited. Religion will always be unlimited in our visions. Non-reproducible but unlimited.
If you believe in anything, then you are religious. Even Atheism is a religion. If you don't believe in anything, what's left? Yourself.
If you're one of those people who need to fall flat on their face to believe in gravity, then you're on the SP side of things.
If your faith is all you need, then you're on the R side of things.
Both science and religion attempt to explain the very existence of the world today and predict the future. But what holds more credibility from the very beginning?
[Christian Version vs SP]
Example #1: The Christian Bible says that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.......Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." Scientists say the Big Bang theory, the galactic explosion which created suns, stars, planets and everything that exists in the universe today. If you really read through Genesis and also The Big Bang theory, both are chronologically coordinated to explain the creation of the Earth to where Humans were created.
Both, in our imagination, take a long time for this total evolution. I mean, in Genesis after the Seventh Day, there's no accounting for how much time elapses "for the generations of the heavens and of the earth". Scientists say that took billions of years to go by. Well, there's no contradiction here, really? Just whatever version you choose to believe.
Example #2: On one hand, scientists say that we evolved from monkeys. On another hand, for example, The Christian Bible says that God created both monkeys and humans(among everything else). When God first created us, we could have easily resembled monkeys, eventually evolving into the intelligent species we are today. What did we REALLY come from? Well, we weren't here billions of years ago to actually know, now were we? Just whatever version you choose to believe.
Example #3: In regards to the miracles that are described in The Christian Bible including Jesus, I'd say that human science contradicts these miracles, such as walking on water. But the definition of a miracle is "a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature, such that can be attempted to be explained by divine intervention, and is sometimes associated with a miracle-worker." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle
Jesus walking on water isn't something that is supposed to be explainable by humans. It's not something that we should be able to reproduce, replicate, or otherwise. It's simply something we have to take at face value.
--------------------
I think Example #3 is the real difference between religion and scientific proof. One has detailed duplication by humans and the other has many events which are "humanly unexplainable". Science will always be limited when you think about it like that. Prove-able but limited. Religion will always be unlimited in our visions. Non-reproducible but unlimited.
If you believe in anything, then you are religious. Even Atheism is a religion. If you don't believe in anything, what's left? Yourself.
leroy hacker
Member
tfur said:
Quote the relevant verses, please, with evidence that they are all referring to the same entity, and being mindful of the difference between past and future.
Satan basically got pissed off because he was created as the Most Impressive and Special of the Angels but was still not granted the freedom that Man was given when created by God.
Satan got mad upended some magazine racks and God had his ass kicked out of Heaven.
In the end It all comes down to Pride and Mankind. Lucifer refused to accept mankind and the gifts bestowed on it and refused to accept that.
Satan got mad upended some magazine racks and God had his ass kicked out of Heaven.
In the end It all comes down to Pride and Mankind. Lucifer refused to accept mankind and the gifts bestowed on it and refused to accept that.
leroy hacker
Member
leroy hacker said:
I think I should probably be a bit more concrete about what I mean here. The story about Satan leading a revolt and being cast out of heaven was not created by Milton, and is definitely ancient, being contained in the pre-Christian and non-canonical Book of Enoch. The question I am interested in is whether this story is in the bible.
The closest passages to this story I know of in the bible are:
Revelations 12:7-10 said:
and
Isaiah 14:12-15 said:
However, the passage from Revelations is meant to describe a future event, not an origin story of the devil, and the passage from Isaiah is actually about the King of Babylon, not Satan, with "Day Star" simply being a metaphor, not a literal reference to a being named Lucifer.
Powerslave
Banned
Why did my post get ignored?
Powerslave
Banned
Islam makes much more sense than Christianity and everybody here is viewing things from a Christian angle.
Powerslave
Banned
What does Muslims throughout history making scientific advancements have to do with how the religion itself is based on?
leroy hacker
Member
Powerslave said:
I don't mean any offense, as I thought your original post was interesting, but see the thread title. That's why everyone is viewing things that way.
Powerslave said:
Because there's a huge difference in the knowledge of the people making up the mythology, allowing them to do a better job of accurately describing the world. A perfect example is Islam's correct identification of the world as an oblate spheroid (although I believe they use the term "egg"), as opposed to the Bible's identification of the world as flat.
One of the mythologies is 600+ years newer than the other, which is that many years closer to the way modern man thinks. It could hardly help but seem more rational.
gamergirly said:
Ugh, I can agree with some of what you said, but disagree with most.
Firstly, you're over simplifying the path of human evolution that most scientists agree on today. Religious text and that scientific path are contradictory - for example, religious text has us being created with intelligence and a certain level of knowledge/language. Science has us moving from cell -> gross thingy -> fish thingy -> Land fish thingy -> small animal thingy -> rat thingy -> ape rat thingy -> ape thingy -> human thingy -> human. Unless religious text decided all that other shit wasn't important, they're not really talking about the same thing (unless you decide not to be literal with your interpretations).
Secondly, you seem to place weight on 'miracles'. More so than anyone really needs to. They probably didn't happen. Nothing really is there except for some words in a book to solidify these miracle events. As far as I am concerned, they hold as much weight in reality as Harry Potter.
Thirdly - you might not understand really what religion is - or you are using your own personal interpretation of the word. Atheism isn't a religion, no more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
bonesmccoy
Banned
Kintari said:
You're getting there, but you're still stuck in strawman mode. To get to the point: Not many people actually believe what you think they believe. Most passages in religious texts written 4,000 years ago we never intended to be read in a strict, literal sense; heck, there are at least 4 or 5 styles of writing in the Bible. As I wrote before, the science v. religion conflict as framed in your post is an artificial one born of fundamentalist mindset that particularly afflicted a sub-section of Anglo-American discourse in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.
As for the definition of religion, it's an incredibly plastic term. I'd say that the behaviour exhibited by many athiests is quite religious, and yet I understand with atheists are uncomfortable with that association. Whatevs.
Dever said:
Truth doesn't require me or Vanmardigan faith it simply is and will always be, though I'm not saying what the absolute truth is only what I feel what mine can or could be. I'm a agnostic mystical with a lot discordian principles at work plus some other forms of spirituality. I do not like most christians btw since the faith is highly tainted and plagiarized along with being massively misinterpreted considering the original sources of language with the books have been edited by the church in to modern form. I grew up protestant so I had a good look in to the culture from a youth and young adult view. If you wish to say what is absurd or outlandish put up what you wish for different perspective or take on the matter well if you want. I astral project, channel, and do hypnosis so my senses of things compared to most is skewed because my perceptions of reality aren't all merely what I or anyone can observe physically which is highly limited to be quite honest.
Can you provide some actual verses? I always thought Milton made it up so I'd like to see what the Bible says about it.tfur said:
I wasn't blatantly lying about anything. If the story is detailed in the Bible I'd like to know what it says so I can better inform myself. No need to throw a hissy fit. Moonwalk on out of this thread if you're just going to curse at me instead of providing useful information.ultim8p00 said:
bonesmccoy said:
I may have outlined a particular example (evolution) but the foundation of the Abrahamic religions are all just as easily dismissible in light of science. Adam and eve, the great flood, heaven and hell, people living for a thousand years, splitting the moon in two, hair making you invincible etc etc.
Eventually, you can say something along the lines of "It's all just metaphorical" - but then what do you have left? A being that started up creation and just bailed out? I can't claim to know what the majority of the religious believe (coincidentally, neither can you although you seem to be trying) - all I have is what I am given, and that are these books that outline the religions. If you want to give me a quick rundown of what you think most people believe when they subscribe to the Abrahamic religions, by all means, I would actually love to hear it, and I am curious as to whether or not it has any semblance to the crazy story in their crazy books.
Also, the thing about Atheism is - it's simply an easy way to label a lack of belief. Unfortunately it also comes with some... misconceptions. Like because one person is Atheist, and another one is Atheist, they share some sort of belief system. If one Atheist guy is spiritual, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with Atheism. Like I said before, Atheism is like not collecting stamps. You can't call that a hobby, and you can't place everyone who doesn't collect stamps in the same 'category' - at least not in the context of this discussion.
Out of curiosity - what do you define as a religion, or a religious act? People keep saying religion is an elastic term, but I don't really know how far people are stretching it if they want to throw Atheism in their too.
Kinitari said:
No one says it's all metaphorical but spirituality is based typically based in a higher super natural construct nor do they say it's all metaphorical it's a mixture. God never bailed out its free will that keeps him from intereferring on a global scale or personal scale especially if you reject such a power. You take from spirituality what you are meant to see and understand from your own perspective no one makes it for you those that do aren't to be trusted.
Depends on who you ask. There's that wacko Creationist contingent (Kent Hovind and flock) that believes that the dinos lived on in myth as dragons, and were thereafter wiped out by the St. Georges and scared villagers and the like. The stuff involving Parasaurolophus breathing fire is especially amusing.Mudkips said:
LCGeek said:
Not to sound like a douche, but I kind of had some problems reading that. I am going to guess what you said, and if I am wrong please correct me.
So basically the scripture that most religions follow are a combination of metaphors and reality? Who decides what is which? Why is one story metaphorical and one real? Really, how do you differentiate it without basically having it boil down to making shit up.
Free will is so bunk. I've said it quite a few times already, but the mere fact that we are "created" the way we are interferes with the free will argument. If god created us, he is already exercising his will on us. If he makes us without wings, he prevents us from being able to fly. If he made us without the desire or ability to kill each other, it would be no different.
Your last argument is basically - spirituality is whatever you want it to be. There's nothing to really say to that except it sounds like having an imaginary friend. Which is cool, you can have your imaginary friend, just remember it's imaginary.
Forkball said:
Wtf where did I curse at you lol? And what about my post makes you think I was throwing a hissy fit?
Actually I wasn't specifically talking about you, I was talking about people like this guy:
The flood didn't calm down because Noah cooked him some meat. The flood calmed down on its own and there was so much water Noah had to send a dove out to check for water levels. When the land finally dried, they came out and offered a sacrifice to God for sparring them. Or something along those lines.
I mean it's good to question how possible these stories are, but geeze don't just blatantly make shit up like that damn. If you're gonna try to be "cool" do it right.
Saying God cannot possibly know something which hasn't happened yet is limiting the power of God. Our lives are not pre-determined. As you know, religion teaches us that we have free will and the choice to follow whatever path we choose. God already knows the paths that we are going to choose, meaning we do have control whether we're a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, etc. and that is why we are rewarded and punished.vandalvideo said:
Now the question is why do we live out our lives if God already knows our choices? Well, if we didn't live out our lives but are punished on the choices we didn't really make, it would be unfair. So to avoid this, we live out our lives and are rewarded and punished on what we know we did.
I hope that answers your question.
well, someone isn't very up to date with their literary theory or Catholic theology.Kinitari said:
i say literary theory because your argument of metaphorical and real and what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't is very much like analyzing and decoding works of literature. for example, was Shakespeare trying to explain the dangers of the simplest conclusion in a Midsummer Night's Dream, or was the confusion by Pan as to who to make fall in love with whom simply a plot device to create laughs? i got an A on my paper that argued the former. do i know for certain? did i make a time machine and ask Shakespeare myself? of course not, that's preposterous. in the same way, there are many popular, agreeable, and logical interpretations of the famous playwright's work, but even those have changed over time.
in the meantime, you have this jumble of myth, fable, and actual truth. myth in the sense of the genesis story (though parts do have correlations to hard science), fable in the story of Joana and the whale, and truth in the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. and in addition to that, you have laws and codes that are designed for the health and prosperity of a rather small religious community (no eating stuff that could kill you, no inbreeding, no man-sexing, no cheating, etc.). so in the same way, you have alot of stuff that can't be said definitively in one way or the other, but because now we have SCIENCE! we can mediate what makes sense and what doesn't.
the key is to take many things into account: the context of the time, the context of the location, and the context of the conditions. they effect what's initially told, how it's changed when retold, and how it's written down. Revelations According to John are an excellent example of this. there are more references to the Emperor Nero than there are old testament end-times references.
and free will is SOOOOO not bunk. if we were not meant to fly, we could not comprehend the aircraft we have now. if we were not meant to swim in the deepest seas, we wouldn't have SCUBA and mini-subs, or even sailing ships. if we were not meant to have fangs, we would not create our spears and arrows. free will is what you make it. it's not having every possibility worked out and handed to you on a silver platter, it's working for that platter. i would go so far as to say that the will to kill is not a natural thing, but an option we have given ourselves though actually working for it.
i think you might be a bit close-minded to completely understand what i've been arguing. there's so much in the universe that's well beyond our ability to perceive, so explanations to many of existence's mysteries can't be claimed by science. you can call someone's "imaginary friend" false, but more often than not, that imaginary friend does exist (at least in literature), and those who cannot perceive it are often crippled by this lack of sight.
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
Aaand scene.John Dunbar said:
It's all relative in stupidity.Powerslave said:
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
John Dunbar said:
Some old Gnostic Christian beliefs sort of did that; God of the OT is not God but a lesser being who cannot realize he isn't God due to his imperfect construct (since he cannot perceive what is higher than him, he believes everything below him is of his doing, and hence that he is God). Jesus to them is the real savior. God of the OT to them is basically the god of the material world, and his angels his servants. I remember even reading something about how the angels tried to rape Noah's wife or something
Found it:
"The Gnostic Hypostasis of the Archons, for example, states that the cause of the flood was not the turning of humans to wickedness, causing God to repent of his creation, as the "official" version of Genesis declared. Quite the contrary, people were becoming wiser and better, so an envious and spiteful creator decided to wipe them out in the flood. Noah was told by the creator to build an ark and place it atop Mount Seir-a name that does not occur in Genesis, but in one of the psalms referring to the flood. Noah's wife, unnamed in Genesis but called Norea by the Gnostics, is a special person, possessing more wisdom than her husband. Norea is the daughter of Eve and a knower of hidden things. She tries to dissuade her husband from collaborating with the schemes of the creator, and ends up burning down the ark which Noah had built. The creator and his dark angels then surround Norea and intend to punish Norea by raping her.
Norea defends herself by refuting various false claims they make. Ultimately she cries out for help to the true God, who sends the golden Angel Eleleth (Sagacity), who not only saves her from the attack of the creator's dark servants, but also teaches her regarding her origins and promises her that her descendants will continue to possess the true gnosis. "
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html
It's crazy how such a different branch of Christianity once existed.
- Status