Anonymous
7/2/2025, 4:52:59 AM No.17807808
This doesn't seem very christian and spiritual.
On the contrary, this seems extremely satanic.
On the contrary, this seems extremely satanic.
Replies:
Thread 17807808 - /his/ [Archived: 704 hours ago]
Anonymous
7/2/2025, 5:16:04 AM No.17807858
>>17807808 (OP)
Eric Voegelin wrote a short essay called "Science, Politics, and Gnosticism" describing the nature of gnostic movements, and how modern ideologies such as Communism or Positivism were shaped by this inherent "gnostic thought." Voegelin argues that the "order of being," i.e. the inherent structure of reality, is insufficient to the needs of the alienated gnostic.
>If man is to be delivered from the world, the possibility of deliverance must first be established in the order of being.
>However, the gnostic movement of the spirit does not lead to the erotic opening of the soul, but rather to the deepest reach of persistence in the deception, where revolt against God is revealed to be its motive and purpose.
While Voegelin himself was a Christian, the understanding that the gnostic wanted to "revolt" against "God," or in other words objective reality, is fundamental to understanding why older Christian churches seem Satanic.
Paul himself said that the god of this world has blinded men to Christianity.
>The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
But why? Because the truth is that everything that you know about Satan, about the darkness of the intellect that men face, about the very nature of power and how might makes right, all of that is the true reality, that *is* God. To revolt against God, my friend, is to assert that the world will change because of a new divine figure who will redeem it. That somehow the world was perfect in some earlier form, and that the world has been informed of its imminent change. While the nature of these gnostic movements is to liberate men from the bonds that institutions create–hierarchy, structure, laws, and alienation–even the Church, the organization Jesus was sent to save the world by an alien, unknown God through, would eventually become a worldly institution.
Eric Voegelin wrote a short essay called "Science, Politics, and Gnosticism" describing the nature of gnostic movements, and how modern ideologies such as Communism or Positivism were shaped by this inherent "gnostic thought." Voegelin argues that the "order of being," i.e. the inherent structure of reality, is insufficient to the needs of the alienated gnostic.
>If man is to be delivered from the world, the possibility of deliverance must first be established in the order of being.
>However, the gnostic movement of the spirit does not lead to the erotic opening of the soul, but rather to the deepest reach of persistence in the deception, where revolt against God is revealed to be its motive and purpose.
While Voegelin himself was a Christian, the understanding that the gnostic wanted to "revolt" against "God," or in other words objective reality, is fundamental to understanding why older Christian churches seem Satanic.
Paul himself said that the god of this world has blinded men to Christianity.
>The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
But why? Because the truth is that everything that you know about Satan, about the darkness of the intellect that men face, about the very nature of power and how might makes right, all of that is the true reality, that *is* God. To revolt against God, my friend, is to assert that the world will change because of a new divine figure who will redeem it. That somehow the world was perfect in some earlier form, and that the world has been informed of its imminent change. While the nature of these gnostic movements is to liberate men from the bonds that institutions create–hierarchy, structure, laws, and alienation–even the Church, the organization Jesus was sent to save the world by an alien, unknown God through, would eventually become a worldly institution.
Anonymous
7/2/2025, 5:28:44 AM No.17807876
>>17807808 (OP)
Deacons/Deaconesses and (Male only) Presbyters/Priests were positions found in the pre-Nicene church before the State integration of Christianity. Also there was wondering Priests (not associated with a local denomination) who would spread Christianity and laymen who would do communion too to a lesser extent. The church hierarchy evolved do to State integration and organizational needs of running/financing an empire wide church. And the later State integrated church created a new charter myth of "apostolic succession" to justify this development.
Deacons/Deaconesses and (Male only) Presbyters/Priests were positions found in the pre-Nicene church before the State integration of Christianity. Also there was wondering Priests (not associated with a local denomination) who would spread Christianity and laymen who would do communion too to a lesser extent. The church hierarchy evolved do to State integration and organizational needs of running/financing an empire wide church. And the later State integrated church created a new charter myth of "apostolic succession" to justify this development.
Anonymous
7/2/2025, 5:29:26 AM No.17807880
>>17807808 (OP)
According to what I have gathered, these people also teach that literally anyone can baptize anyone else. Not just deacons, but anyone. Even if it was two non-believers, they still claim this is valid baptism according to them.
The reason for that extreme stance is contrarianism. They have to do the opposite of what Baptists have always historically done. Baptists have always practiced believer's baptism only by authority of a valid church. Any other ritual such as infant baptism or sprinkling performed by someone without church authority is regarded as not fulfilling the requirements.
Because this is what the Bible tells us about baptism, the originators of paedobaptism had to formulate a very strange set of doctrines to separate and clearly distinguish themselves from biblical Christianity. First, they had to teach that literally anyone can baptize anyone else, even if both people are non-Christians. And in another strange addition to that already weird belief, they also insisted on the death penalty for anyone who baptized someone, if the baptism was what they considered to be "a second time." Even if the first baptism was invalid.
Thus, under the emperor Honorius they actually criminalized alleged "re-baptism," even though catholicism simultaneously had an infinitely lax definition of what even counts as "baptism." This is what catholicism used to persecute Christians who were actually following the Bible during much of the Middle Ages. See the below quote:
>Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)
>1.6.2
>Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, praetorian Prefect.
>If any person shall be discovered to rebaptize anyone of the catholic faith, he, together with him who has permitted this infamous crime -- provided the person persuaded to be rebaptized be of an age capable of a crime -- shall be punished by death. Given at Constantinople March 21, 413, C.T. 16.6.6. Revived April 16, 529, C.J. 1.6.2.
According to what I have gathered, these people also teach that literally anyone can baptize anyone else. Not just deacons, but anyone. Even if it was two non-believers, they still claim this is valid baptism according to them.
The reason for that extreme stance is contrarianism. They have to do the opposite of what Baptists have always historically done. Baptists have always practiced believer's baptism only by authority of a valid church. Any other ritual such as infant baptism or sprinkling performed by someone without church authority is regarded as not fulfilling the requirements.
Because this is what the Bible tells us about baptism, the originators of paedobaptism had to formulate a very strange set of doctrines to separate and clearly distinguish themselves from biblical Christianity. First, they had to teach that literally anyone can baptize anyone else, even if both people are non-Christians. And in another strange addition to that already weird belief, they also insisted on the death penalty for anyone who baptized someone, if the baptism was what they considered to be "a second time." Even if the first baptism was invalid.
Thus, under the emperor Honorius they actually criminalized alleged "re-baptism," even though catholicism simultaneously had an infinitely lax definition of what even counts as "baptism." This is what catholicism used to persecute Christians who were actually following the Bible during much of the Middle Ages. See the below quote:
>Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)
>1.6.2
>Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, praetorian Prefect.
>If any person shall be discovered to rebaptize anyone of the catholic faith, he, together with him who has permitted this infamous crime -- provided the person persuaded to be rebaptized be of an age capable of a crime -- shall be punished by death. Given at Constantinople March 21, 413, C.T. 16.6.6. Revived April 16, 529, C.J. 1.6.2.