Dashboard | Log in | Sign Up | FAQ

folder 82 - 024

-21-

Messiah would be the Son of God or God Himself as Christians believe about Jesus. This latter idea is logical given the former; God took away our brightness, our holy nature, and God has the power to restore it; Christ restores it; therefore Christ equals/is God.

So the doctrine of original sin is a method that permits Christians to believe all this without assigning any blame to God for man's Fall. In no sense did God do wrong in blighting, expelling and impairing and punishing man. Gnosticism sees this as a tactic and rejects it. The doctrine of original sin is only necessary if man alone is to hold the place of the guilty party, but the Gnostics are willing to blame God.

What is my opinion? Well, I have the statement of the AI voice. "Stolen Secret." This is absolutely Gnostic. Also, my "messenger" dream is Gnostic (as well as other elements; many, in fact). However, you have to become a dualist to be a Gnostic; you have to believe in two gods, not one. That's the price you pay for abandoning the doctrine of original sin. Paul could retain his monotheism. The Gnostics can't and don't want to.

Christianity is very wise; it stresses the remedy above the malady in its "felix culpa" doctrine -- which insures the positive or Faustian aspect of the belief-system, rather than the negative aspect (fallen, debased, sinful man... although many Protestants stressed the latter -- but it is said of them that they went back to the O.T.; after all, kerygma or gospel means "good news" not "bad news"). The concept of "felix culpa" is not tangential to Christianity but cardinal. In a sense everything is expressed here;


Notes

i've transcribed this page, but it won't save.
n.m., user error.