Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

No; it's in our interests to have *no* religions at all. Religions are just cults that have become widespread enough; mixing faith (the act of believing in things without evidence) with a system of rules. The world needs LESS faith; not more: people ought to base their beliefs on facts, not makebelief. And as for rules, we already have those; they're called laws. Just because one cult is more moral than another doesn't mean it's any less dangerous in the way that it lets people believe shit they have no good reason to believe.

All should then know a bit of Gnostic Christian theology because when it comes to equality, we are a cut above what Christianity and Islam now offer. We do not discriminate against half the world just because they do not have dicks.

Not discriminating against people doesn't afford you any special rights; it just means you're not an asshole on that count. Not being an asshole doesn't make you special.

If someone is not interested in the best morals that he can follow, religious or political, then he is not a worthy person and is a waste of good air.

What a completely immoral thing to say.

I agree that religions should base their theologies on facts. Gnosis means knowledge. When coined that meant facts. Gnostic Christians deal in facts and our theology shows it.

That is why we do not really use faith as some do. We do not have faith. We have hope. Faith leads to idol worship while hope enhances seeking God.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I haven't been through all this thread yet, but stop it with the left brain/right brain dichotomy. That has no analog in current neurological models and is a piece of woo I wish would just die.

I thought we had a beating the dead horse smiley? Fuck it, I used a reality check.

Rather hard not to talk about the brain when all that I speak of happens in it.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Pardon the interruption, but that's not a solution to the problem of evil. That's simply positing a god to whom the problem of evil doesn't apply. There are thousands of such gods in mythology. Any god who lacks the ability to eliminate all evil is not amenable to the POE. Any god who lacks the knowledge of the existence of evil is also excused. Any god who lacks the absolute, unabated desire to eliminate all evil gets a pass.

But a god who is unlimited in power, unlimited in knowledge and unlimited in desire to eliminate evil cannot exist in the same universe where evil exists. There is no scenario whereby such a god would not eliminate evil.

Are you talking of Theistic Evolution?

If so, getting rid of evil is the last thing we want to do. It is tied to our evolution and to take competition out of our equation would likely lead to our extinction.

Regards
DL

No I was simply referring to Sarpedon's earlier statement that Gnostic Christianity were "the only ones that had a really good answer to the problem of evil".

A religion that has no actual god is not relevant to the problem of evil. Thousands of gods have been invented over the centuries by various cultures that are not tri-omni, and therefore they also are not relevant to the problem of evil. It is only when a religion insists upon worshiping a monotheistic god who is all powerful, all knowing and omni-benevolent that the problem of evil becomes relevant.

I think I see where you are at.

No argument.

Regards
DL

 

[dystopian]

What makes you think that religions have anything to do with truth?

What makes you think that *I'm* claiming that? What part of my post could possibly give you that obviously false impression? I'm not claiming any such thing of course; religions however, *are*.

God was a liar from the very beginning.

You're not doing a very good job on convincing me of your particular brand of insanity. They may be full of shit, but at least regular christians don't try to convince me by acknowledging that they're full of shit but 'hey, it's cool cause it lets them see how *everyone* is full of shit, yo. We can all be full of shit together on the path to enlightenment."

Yeah, no thanks. If I wanted to buy into some weak post-modernist interpretation of an ancient beliefsystem; I wouldn't be here on a *skeptics* forum.

 

[dystopian]

I haven't been through all this thread yet, but stop it with the left brain/right brain dichotomy. That has no analog in current neurological models and is a piece of woo I wish would just die.

I thought we had a beating the dead horse smiley? Fuck it, I used a reality check.

Rather hard not to talk about the brain when all that I speak of happens in it.

Regards
DL

What Braces_for_impact means is that the idea that there is no left/right side divide in the brain. The popular idea that one side of the brain deals with creativity and the other with reason is a demonstrable false idea that hasn't been taken serious by science for some time but which nonetheless persists; particularly among people with books to sell on the subject.

So... if you're going to talk about the brain because all you speak of 'happens within it'; then you better damn well make sure you actually know what the hell you're talking about instead of just linking to a TED talk (I don't think many of us think that highly of TED as a source of people with authority anymore, not with their current standards of quality) without any actual explanation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That is why many think God amoral or FMPOV, immoral.

Too complicated.
Just figure gods are really agod. Imgod. Carry on without them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So you want someone from outside Christianity to tell them

Swing and a miss. I would never presume to rewrite Christainity's scripture. Not from the outside, no.
I just think that their stances on gays and women and a number of social traits, have made themselves fairly irrelevant to actual life.

but you do not support a theology that will do just that from inside religions.

I do not support using any religion to promulgate morality. No matter that it's one of two religions or inside of the one and only religion, it adds an unnecessary fiction to the development and support of that moral code.
Even if i agree with the moral code, those who are parts of different religions will tend to reject it because it's not sponsored by their gods.
Those without a religion will tend to reject it for an unnecessary woo component.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What makes you think that *I'm* claiming that? What part of my post could possibly give you that obviously false impression? I'm not claiming any such thing of course; religions however, *are*.

.

"A religion that can only peddle subjective truth isn't worth following."

This is what prompted my remark.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Swing and a miss. I would never presume to rewrite Christainity's scripture. Not from the outside, no.
I just think that their stances on gays and women and a number of social traits, have made themselves fairly irrelevant to actual life.

but you do not support a theology that will do just that from inside religions.

I do not support using any religion to promulgate morality. No matter that it's one of two religions or inside of the one and only religion, it adds an unnecessary fiction to the development and support of that moral code.
Even if i agree with the moral code, those who are parts of different religions will tend to reject it because it's not sponsored by their gods.

Correct and questioning them, by believers or non-believers, allows others to see whether that religion is taking a good moral position or not.

Lets keep on doing so where required.

If those here are not also elsewhere fighting poor moral beliefs that effect us all in terms of the law of the land, then they are not moral men as moral men recognize their social conscience and their duty to humanity and their own families.

A good example is the equality of women and gays. If those here do not fight for that then they do not care if their own wives and female children are considered second class citizens.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

Correct and questioning them, by believers or non-believers, allows others to see whether that religion is taking a good moral position or not.

Lets keep on doing so where required.

But it's not required.
Judging religions by their moral codes does not help us identify which religion has the right take on the gods that exist. For that, we'd need to have independent access to the gods.

If those here are not also elsewhere fighting poor moral beliefs that effect us all in terms of the law of the land, then they are not moral men as moral men recognize their social conscience and their duty to humanity and their own families.

Grand.
But I don't oppose the Ten Commandments being on courthouse steps because i dislike the morality. I oppose that because it's unconstitutional.
Others can live by the moral code, but they cannot expect me to live by their moral code, jus tbecause their god says its a good code.

A good example is the equality of women and gays. If those here do not fight for that then they do not care if their own wives and female children are considered second class citizens.

Kind of a sweeping generalization and a pompous judgment on people you've never met, Bishop.

 

[Sarpedon]

Are we talking about the same Gnosticism? I'm talking about the one who has a perfect, unacting god, who radiates energy, and all creation comes about through interaction of this energy with the surrounding gross matter, Jesus being the first and purest of the resulting creation, but with the important distinction of NOT being actionless, therefore potentially a savior.

I don't seem to grasp the significance of your distinction between 'solving' and 'avoiding' the Problem of Evil. To me, avoiding it is the same as solving it, in that a problem that you avoid is as good as a problem you solve. For me, the POE is a criticism of monotheistic theology, and for a theological system that 'avoids' isn't subject to the critique, therefore the critique doesn't work on them. Which is as good as 'solving' it. Gnosticism also solves (or avoids) the problem of god's motive, which is always a sticking point for other religions: God created the earth. Why?

The gnostics were not able to solve or avoid the Problem of Stabbing, however.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

But it's not required.
Judging religions by their moral codes does not help us identify which religion has the right take on the gods that exist. For that, we'd need to have independent access to the gods.

If those here are not also elsewhere fighting poor moral beliefs that effect us all in terms of the law of the land, then they are not moral men as moral men recognize their social conscience and their duty to humanity and their own families.

Grand.
But I don't oppose the Ten Commandments being on courthouse steps because i dislike the morality. I oppose that because it's unconstitutional.
Others can live by the moral code, but they cannot expect me to live by their moral code, jus tbecause their god says its a good code.

A good example is the equality of women and gays. If those here do not fight for that then they do not care if their own wives and female children are considered second class citizens.

Kind of a sweeping generalization and a pompous judgment on people you've never met, Bishop.

Quite right and I have no shame for doing it.

I have all the backing I need for my statement. Mind you, the worst offenders are the right wings and I should perhaps qualify my statement and reduce the size of my brush.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Are we talking about the same Gnosticism? I'm talking about the one who has a perfect, unacting god, who radiates energy, and all creation comes about through interaction of this energy with the surrounding gross matter, Jesus being the first and purest of the resulting creation, but with the important distinction of NOT being actionless, therefore potentially a savior.

Wrong Jesus. Gnostic Christians or anyone else has ever been condemned so we do not see a need for a savior. As to Jesus being special, No. He and we teach that we all have a spark of God in us.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

I don't seem to grasp the significance of your distinction between 'solving' and 'avoiding' the Problem of Evil. To me, avoiding it is the same as solving it, in that a problem that you avoid is as good as a problem you solve. For me, the POE is a criticism of monotheistic theology, and for a theological system that 'avoids' isn't subject to the critique, therefore the critique doesn't work on them. Which is as good as 'solving' it.

I did not offer a solution to evil because, as a part of evolution, competitions that produce losers, it is a needed component of evolution. End it in any creature and it will eventually go extinct.

We may be able to reduce the harm and evil of these competitions but I don't think it a good idea. Evolution demands it.

Gnosticism also solves (or avoids) the problem of god's motive, which is always a sticking point for other religions: God created the earth. Why?

Our myths say that an evil God created the earth and in that day, that is how they explained evil. Today modern Gnostics know that nature created the earth and not some God.

The gnostics were not able to solve or avoid the Problem of Stabbing, however.

Huh. You will have to explain what you mean.

Regards
DL

 

[Random Person]

Pardon the interruption, but that's not a solution to the problem of evil. That's simply positing a god to whom the problem of evil doesn't apply. There are thousands of such gods in mythology. Any god who lacks the ability to eliminate all evil is not amenable to the POE. Any god who lacks the knowledge of the existence of evil is also excused. Any god who lacks the absolute, unabated desire to eliminate all evil gets a pass.

But a god who is unlimited in power, unlimited in knowledge and unlimited in desire to eliminate evil cannot exist in the same universe where evil exists. There is no scenario whereby such a god would not eliminate evil.

If a god existed that had unlimited power, knowledge and desire then he would also define what evil is and not humans.

True and the absentee Gods we have on the menu just aren't showing up.

Other than the God I am that is and he does not have the ear of the masses. Without that, no God will ever be acknowledged.

Regards
DL

I don't understand the sentences I bolded. Are claiming to be a god? Gods are acknowledged whether they actually exist or exist only in the minds of the acknowledgers don't they?

Could you elaborate more? I think I'm missing your point.

John 10; 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

---------------------------------
Psalm 82 King James Version (KJV)

82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.


The way I understand all these passages plus what is in this link, ----

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Is that the Jews and Jesus lived in a world, sort of, where all are lower case gods. Somewhat like Gnostic Christians and our belief that we all have a spark of God within us.

From this assembly of gods, a God would have been elected. Jews always had men speaking in God's name and their power came from all the other gods.

At present new have many gods but not God.

If you read revelation, only at times of great stress or trouble do the masses elect themselves a God. So to speak.

A poor analogy would be how people thought of the U.S on D day. the God of gods or in political jargon, the King of kings had arrived.

I can mix political philosophy and religious theology metaphors, as above so below, because to me, it is all the same unless one wants to get stuck in semantics. I think it keeps thoughts fluid.

I am not that familiar with your U. S. politics. Can your Senators acclaim a president?

That is somewhat the way I see the old Jewish customs and their thinking about their God.

Thanks, I wasn't sure if it was a typo or sentence structure. Are you a god unto yourself or do you feel as though you have been elected, appointed ordained or whatever the appropriate word would be?

 

[Random Person]

Pardon the interruption, but that's not a solution to the problem of evil. That's simply positing a god to whom the problem of evil doesn't apply. There are thousands of such gods in mythology. Any god who lacks the ability to eliminate all evil is not amenable to the POE. Any god who lacks the knowledge of the existence of evil is also excused. Any god who lacks the absolute, unabated desire to eliminate all evil gets a pass.

But a god who is unlimited in power, unlimited in knowledge and unlimited in desire to eliminate evil cannot exist in the same universe where evil exists. There is no scenario whereby such a god would not eliminate evil.

If a god existed that had unlimited power, knowledge and desire then he would also define what evil is and not humans.

That's not a solution to the problem of evil, that's simply redefining evil. Nonetheless, if any god existed who had unlimited power, unlimited knowledge and unlimited desire to eliminate x, then there would be no x, whatever x is. The existence of x in any amount anywhere would demonstrate that either that god lacked the power to get rid of it, lacked the knowledge that it existed or was not totally committed to the desire to eliminate x.

I understand the argument. The flaw seems to be this sentence, "That's not a solution to the problem of evil, that's simply redefining evil." If I am redefining the definition of evil then whose definition am I redefining?

You aren't referring to gods definition of evil so I assume you are referring to mans. We are back to the original problem. If there is a god why would we hold our definition of evil over his? On what basis would be able to force a god to behave the way that we preferred?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I understand the argument. The flaw seems to be this sentence, "That's not a solution to the problem of evil, that's simply redefining evil." If I am redefining the definition of evil then whose definition am I redefining?

You aren't referring to gods definition of evil so I assume you are referring to mans. We are back to the original problem. If there is a god why would we hold our definition of evil over his? On what basis would be able to force a god to behave the way that we preferred?

Well, take child rape. Define omnibenevolence in such a way as it includes sitting there watching someone rape a child and not do anything about it.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Pardon the interruption, but that's not a solution to the problem of evil. That's simply positing a god to whom the problem of evil doesn't apply. There are thousands of such gods in mythology. Any god who lacks the ability to eliminate all evil is not amenable to the POE. Any god who lacks the knowledge of the existence of evil is also excused. Any god who lacks the absolute, unabated desire to eliminate all evil gets a pass.

But a god who is unlimited in power, unlimited in knowledge and unlimited in desire to eliminate evil cannot exist in the same universe where evil exists. There is no scenario whereby such a god would not eliminate evil.

If a god existed that had unlimited power, knowledge and desire then he would also define what evil is and not humans.

True and the absentee Gods we have on the menu just aren't showing up.

Other than the God I am that is and he does not have the ear of the masses. Without that, no God will ever be acknowledged.

Regards
DL

I don't understand the sentences I bolded. Are claiming to be a god? Gods are acknowledged whether they actually exist or exist only in the minds of the acknowledgers don't they?

Could you elaborate more? I think I'm missing your point.

John 10; 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

---------------------------------
Psalm 82 King James Version (KJV)

82 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.


The way I understand all these passages plus what is in this link, ----

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Is that the Jews and Jesus lived in a world, sort of, where all are lower case gods. Somewhat like Gnostic Christians and our belief that we all have a spark of God within us.

From this assembly of gods, a God would have been elected. Jews always had men speaking in God's name and their power came from all the other gods.

At present new have many gods but not God.

If you read revelation, only at times of great stress or trouble do the masses elect themselves a God. So to speak.

A poor analogy would be how people thought of the U.S on D day. the God of gods or in political jargon, the King of kings had arrived.

I can mix political philosophy and religious theology metaphors, as above so below, because to me, it is all the same unless one wants to get stuck in semantics. I think it keeps thoughts fluid.

I am not that familiar with your U. S. politics. Can your Senators acclaim a president?

That is somewhat the way I see the old Jewish customs and their thinking about their God.

Thanks, I wasn't sure if it was a typo or sentence structure. Are you a god unto yourself or do you feel as though you have been elected, appointed ordained or whatever the appropriate word would be?

Yes. I do not give a name to God as I am a perpetual seeker but when I name God, I am, I mean me.

I sort of did the following on my own and later saw that I fit well with Gnostic Christian thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I understand the argument. The flaw seems to be this sentence, "That's not a solution to the problem of evil, that's simply redefining evil." If I am redefining the definition of evil then whose definition am I redefining?

You aren't referring to gods definition of evil so I assume you are referring to mans. We are back to the original problem. If there is a god why would we hold our definition of evil over his? On what basis would be able to force a god to behave the way that we preferred?

Well, take child rape. Define omnibenevolence in such a way as it includes sitting there watching someone rape a child and not do anything about it.

A believer would blame man's free will for that as his explanation. They forget all the other times that God has killed many of us, so scriptures say, and that definitely play havoc with our free will that defaults to not wanting to get murdered by God.

Typical half baked Christian theology.

Yet they will support human laws that say that if we can help prevent a crime and do not, we too are held as culpable for that crime. Hypocrisy that.

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes. I do not give a name to God as I am a perpetual seeker but when I name God, I am, I mean me.

Well then, why don't you just say "me". If you have a perfectly good word which exactly sums up what you're talking about, why ignore it in favour of a different word that already means something completely different and serves no purpose but to confuse whatever point you're trying to make?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yes. I do not give a name to God as I am a perpetual seeker but when I name God, I am, I mean me.

Well then, why don't you just say "me". If you have a perfectly good word which exactly sums up what you're talking about, why ignore it in favour of a different word that already means something completely different and serves no purpose but to confuse whatever point you're trying to make?

Because I am tying it to Jesus as his is the way I show the most as I live and communicate mostly with Christians.

As I said, any belief will do and even no belief which is what I had when I had my apotheosis.

That also gives me ready access to work that was done ahead of me.

Like this bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

The less newness I bring to a discussion, the better I think it is and most know of Christianity while not knowing what Jesus really taught.

Regards
DL