Jumala on valaistuminen

Ihme että gnoosista aina mollataan. Guuglasin tuossa hakusanalla "antignostic" ja löysin muutaman katolilaisten sivun.

Miksi meidän pohjoisessa evankelisluterilaisessa maassa pitäisi vastustaa gnostilaisuutta? Gnostilaisethan vastusti Rooman valtaa siinä missä Lutherkin.

Löysin äsken myös kirkkoisä Ambrosiuksen; kiihkeä naisvihaaja ja gnostilaisuuden vastustaja. Eikö se ole rumaa? Vai onko niin että kaunis on rumaa, ja ruma kaunista; hyvä pahaa ja paha hyvää; todellinen kristus on saatana, ja todellinen saatana on kristus?

Hmm... oho. Tulin toistaneeksi Filippuksen evankeliumin tuossa miltei sanasta sanaan! ( --> NHK II, 2, 10-11)

Uskovaiset tälläkin palstalla puhisee "valheprofeetoista" ja "eksytyksen hengistä", mutta voisiko se olla niin että valtionkirkko; - paavalilaisuus oli se eksytyksen henki, joka alkoi kirkkoisä Ambrosiuksen ajoista, jatkui inkvisitiossa, noitavainoissa, ja on vielä katolilaisuudessa, ja muussa dogmaattisessa kristillisyydessä joka kovaan ääneen vannoo omistavansa totuuden puhtaan opin muodosssa?

The Da Vinci Code: Gnosticism & Anti-Catholicism
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/davincicode.htm

The History of Anti-Catholicism
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103bt.asp

Ambrose (died 393),

“ One of Ambrose's most significant legacies to the Middle Ages and the medieval church was his fierce hatred of women. Like many other bishops, he felt several pressures urging the church to gender equality. On the one hand were communities of virgin nuns who were held up as the highest exemplars of spiritual life; on the other hand, the Gnostic religions, including Gnostic Christian religions, accorded women something approaching gender equality. Yet still there was Paul of Tarsus, who claimed that women shouldn't speak on matters of doctrine. So Ambrose concluded that church offices, ie, the priesthood, should be completely closed off to women. It wasn't enough to assert this; Ambrose had to prove why women were insufficient to occupy priestly offices.

He argued that women were fundamentally flawed, especially in the area of sexual control. He believed that women were destined, through their sexuality, to always tempt men as Eve had tempted Adam. This was not the fault of men but rather the fault of women's lack of sexual control. In many ways, Ambrose's exclusion of women from church office reflected the Roman exclusion of women from offices. Ambrose, however, introduced a radically new element to Roman misogyny—he linked female inferiority to female sexuality. It was female sexuality that was the threat and the fundamental flaw of women; this was the logic that explained such paradoxical views as holding up virgin nuns as being the highest examples of spirituality while at the same time denying women any official role in the church. One cannot overestimate the influence of Ambrose's linking of misogyny with female sexuality—it is the single most dominant aspect of gender relations from Ambrose to our time.

Perhaps more disastrous was Ambrose's religious intolerance and his legitimation of this intolerance. Throughout the early years of Christianity, the religion lived alongside a multitude of other religions. On the one hand was Roman and Greek paganism, the official religion of the empire; on the other hand were a multitude of other religions, from ethnic religions such as Judaism to mystery religions such as Gnosticism and Mithraism. Not only did Christians live side by side with these religions, but they often crossed over and sometimes incorporated elements of these other religions into their own.

When the Emperor Gratian (375-383) signalled that the state religion would not paganism by removing the statue of Victory from the Roman Senate, Ambrose formulated an argument that if were Rome were a Christian empire, no other religion, including paganism, could be tolerated. In his debate in the Roman Senate with Ambrose, the pagan Symmachus argue eloquently for religious tolerance, but Ambrose argued that there was one and only one correct religion and all others should be stamped out.

This position soon became the church's position and had two far-reaching consequences. From the fourth century onwards, one of the principal characteristics of Christianity was its intolerance—in fact, often extremely homicidal intolerance—of other religions. For Rome, however, this religious intolerance was one of the central reasons for the disintegration of the Roman Empire. In many ways, the Roman Empire held together because of its religious tolerance. Subject states did not enjoy being under the empire, but the cultural and religious freedom that they had at least made it bearable. When the Christian Empire began to suppress native religions, areas under Roman control soon rebelled. These rebellions fractured the empire in pieces at a point in time when migrating Europeans were invading the frontiers.”

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHRIST/EUROPE.HTM