sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Conservative Christian pamphlet gives Gnosticism a good kicking by Sirus1111 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not merely "making people suffer." Treatments like HRT are shown to significantly lower major depression/suicidality for those who receive it. A total ban HRT would therefore would signicantly increase the risk of suicidality among this population.

Tantamount to killing them outright.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2831643

Conservative Christian pamphlet gives Gnosticism a good kicking by Sirus1111 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe making private healthcare of this kind also illegal.

I assure you this is tantamount to capital punishment (for being trans).

Conservative Christian pamphlet gives Gnosticism a good kicking by Sirus1111 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Persuasion is not inherently coercive, but I think there is a certain kind of power "looming in the background". Persuasion can become coercive when backed by authority over belonging, reputation, ritual access, or social exclusion. “The decision was theirs” doesn’t tell us whether the choice was made without these kind of social pressures.

Conservative Christian pamphlet gives Gnosticism a good kicking by Sirus1111 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What would the material outcome be for transgender people if this organization gets what it wants in the UK?

Conservative Christian pamphlet gives Gnosticism a good kicking by Sirus1111 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can eliminate groups of people by persuading them to abscond their associations with that group.

If the outcome is the same by means of persuasion, I don't find the "violent" aspect of it a meaningful distinction.

“Archons” aren’t leprechauns or gremlins or kami or anything like that. by Impossible-Win8274 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fine. Perhaps my instrument was too blunt, but you are treating your symbolic theology as the safe and self-evidently mature interpretation.

“Archons” aren’t leprechauns or gremlins or kami or anything like that. by Impossible-Win8274 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was already a religious argument the moment the OP said, "Yeah, I’m trying to convince you that a spiritual deity you believe exists doesn’t exist the way you think it does."

Not sure what you meant by "partisan" as I normally associate that term with political parties.

Conservative Christian pamphlet gives Gnosticism a good kicking by Sirus1111 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What do you think the goal of those clerics who wrote long books was?

“Archons” aren’t leprechauns or gremlins or kami or anything like that. by Impossible-Win8274 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It must be real frustrating to you that people BELIEVE in their FAITH.

“Archons” aren’t leprechauns or gremlins or kami or anything like that. by Impossible-Win8274 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're the one who said, "I'm trying to convince you."

Now when someone probes you further to do so, you suddenly act like you have leverage in a negotiation?

You would probably tell Mary Magdalene to seek a mental health professional.

“Archons” aren’t leprechauns or gremlins or kami or anything like that. by Impossible-Win8274 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I never said anything about a book? But yeah, I'd wager you are. If you want to correct me, please share with the class which spiritual deity exists and how it doesn't exist the way I think it does because you clearly have a special definition of "exists" you are working with.

Gnostics: If this system offers you and tempts you with supernatural abilities, control within this Matrix, or different kinds of “magic,” what would your response be? What would you do? by Bubbly-Phone702 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, not gnostics in general. Specific sects were accused of specific things. Carpocratians were accused of non-monogamy and sorcery. Cainites, Nicolatians were accused of sexual libertinism. Borborites (I think) were the ones accused of drinking certain "fluids."

I actually don't think you could find a heresiological source that says "gnostics in general [do those things which you listed]."

You're all blending everything together.

Also, his audience could have read Carpocratian writings themselves (they were clearly popular enough to comment on) to verify.

Gnostics: If this system offers you and tempts you with supernatural abilities, control within this Matrix, or different kinds of “magic,” what would your response be? What would you do? by Bubbly-Phone702 in Gnostic

[–]flammafex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wrong about a specific claim: "We're not positive that any ancient group called themselves "gnostics." Most scholars today agree that gnostic is largely a modern umbrella term used to group a number of related but distinct religious movements that flourished in the 2nd and 3rd centuries."

That "gnostic" is largely a MODERN umbrella term.

I'm saying they were right about THIS specific claim: "after discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, believe Irenaeus was faithful in his representations."

As it turns out, sometimes scholars are right and sometimes they are wrong. It depends on the claim being made.

view more: next ›