Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

subrosa wrote

Been developing a bit of an interest in religious schisms, histories of ethnoreligious minorities and so on. Yazidis and Shakers and shit like that. Anything outside of the narratives of the roman catholic church that is still shaping morals and conventions, and is still holding a monopoly in many Euro contexts.

That's a recent one at least. There's plenty more weird shit I'm into, often niche enough to not have a name, or at least with me confident enough in my interests to not find them weird at all.

5

asterism OP wrote

I had a deep interest in Anabaptists back in my Christian days, They are kind of fun because they are pacifists who broke off during the radical reformation from both the protestants and catholics. So their early history is about how everyone wanted to brutally murder them and they couldn't do anything to fight back.

I also found Thomas Muntzer and the peasants war interesting.

I was also interested in non-catholic churches from before the great Schism. Like the Coptics, Ethiopian, Assyrian, Indian, Syrian churches.

6

moonlune wrote

hey what are your thoughts on the gnostic gospels? Have you read them?

6

asterism OP wrote (edited )

I guess I will give one thought. usually discussions around Bible vanon pop up around the gospel of tjhomas. amd frankly I think its pretty obvious that the gospel of thomas is later than most of qwhat is considered canon. do i personally dont think its some consiprcy its not in. the more interesting stuff in regards to canon is like why is Jude and 2 peter in there. and why not shepher of hermas or the clements.lr the didache

5

moonlune wrote (edited )

thanks for the input. I'm reading the chalice and the blade and she talks about how some texts were pushed out of the bible in the early days of Christianity because they were too feminists. And that some gnostic text (coupled with regular historian findings) can hint at a non-hierarchical type of church that followed mary magdalena's vision of Christianity compared to that of orthodox christians (at the time) that were followers of simon peter (it's kind of murky for me though so I might have got things wrong).

I'll probably have to trust the book because I'm not interested enough to read the gnostic gospels myself. I'd prefer to burn my neurons on deleuze with LL lmao

5

asterism OP wrote

Also if anyone wants to know antilegomena is the official name of what I am referring to.

Another interesting thing is seeing how fluid the OT books were there is a lot of evidence they were changing being added to up until The NT Canon was established.

3

asterism OP wrote

Yi have read the gospel of thomas but none of the others and I have also read some of the psuedapigraphia as well as the apocraphya

but I aint sure I have interestimg imsights into them. I was pretty diehard Christian whem I read them but I would be open to reading them for fun now.

4

kinshavo wrote

Yazidi religion is so beatiful. This documentary is one of good sources I remember watching while avoiding the cliche of "satanic religion"

4