Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

[braces_for_impact]

Having investigated Gnostic Christianity, I have to say I'm sorry, but it just seems like another denomination of Christianity that is critical of the status quo, and seeks to do better. There are many such cults branches on the tree of Christianity, and although yours seems to be very much on the liberal side, I have to tell ya, I think what we need at this time in the world is less religion, not more.

I think your "use whatever tools works for you" attitude is admirable, as is your denomination's lack of any real formal structure (from what I can see as you represent it), but it seems to me that it makes your Jesus, God, and other trappings just so much window dressing. Why bother with it at all? Tradition? Comfort? Familiarity? Why not just jettison the useless baggage, live your life of introspection and spirituality (whatever the term means to you) and be done with it?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why bother with it at all? Tradition? Comfort? Familiarity? Why not just jettison the useless baggage, live your life of introspection and spirituality (whatever the term means to you) and be done with it?

Well, that's what i noticed mostly from New Age. For the religion and the music, one person makes up the whole thing.
Build your own tradition. Borrow from Egyptian, Norse, Christain sources, craft 'what works for you,' and then stand there as everyone else says your original, personal, idiomatic interpretation of The Universe is 'Wrong.' 'Wrong' being a term for 'doesn't work for me,' near as i could tell.

So The GCB is just saying his New Age Tradition is older than New Age, but it still works, for him, mostly because it appeals to him. And gives him a place to stand and point fingers to say other religious traditions are wrong.

 

[Random Person]

I think it's evil but that's my definition. If god does something we don't like then we say it can't be god. Then god does not have dominion over us so is therefore not god.I'm not making a case for god but if you create rules that prevent him from existing according to rules that you have outlined then you haven't proved he doesn't exist. You've only proven taht a gos that isn't acceptable to you or me doesn't exist.

I didn't ask you for your definition. I asked you for a possible definition that God could be using. You can't just randomly assert that someone thinks that a child getting raped is a positive outcome and yet somehow ranks at the "moderately decent guy" level or above without backing it up. Defining omnibenevolence to include that is like saying that someone's omniscient but can't do a Rubik's Cube because what is knowledge anyways?

Why would a possible definition be of any value from a human to determine what a god should consider evil? He/she/it would necessarily be using criteria that would be incomprehensible to us.


Knowledge is easier to define than something like evil which is subjective.

 Euthyphro dilemma

The only definition of good and evil that makes any sense are definitions that are independent of external authorities like gods. If you try to use an external authority to define good and evil, then you just end up in a dilemma that can only be resolved by developing a definition of good and evil that is independent of any external authority.

Yes, the definitions are fuzzy, annoying, and potentially problematic, but not as much of a hassle as having to go through the mental gymnastics theists have to indulge in to avoid dealing with the Euthyphro dilemma and still claim an external authority as the source or definition of good and evil.

It seems to me that the external authority that gets to define good and evil is the god in this picture.

 

[Random Person]

That is not the tradition. Not even for Christianity if you use scriptures and not what the churches teach.

Adam and Eve did not find anything incomprehensible when they, as God states, became as God in knowing good and evil.

Yes the church teaches that man is too stupid to understand God but God himself calls that a lie.

Seems that the churches want sheep while God prefers goats.

Regards
DL

Don't they something like, "whatever you can imagine god to be he is greater than that?" It seems to me that being able to understand an infinite being that created the entire universe would be beyond our abilities.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Having investigated Gnostic Christianity, I have to say I'm sorry, but it just seems like another denomination of Christianity that is critical of the status quo, and seeks to do better. There are many such cults branches on the tree of Christianity, and although yours seems to be very much on the liberal side, I have to tell ya, I think what we need at this time in the world is less religion, not more.

I think your "use whatever tools works for you" attitude is admirable, as is your denomination's lack of any real formal structure (from what I can see as you represent it), but it seems to me that it makes your Jesus, God, and other trappings just so much window dressing. Why bother with it at all? Tradition? Comfort? Familiarity? Why not just jettison the useless baggage, live your life of introspection and spirituality (whatever the term means to you) and be done with it?

Introspection has always been seen as appositive. Know thyself. And you would have me not know myself.

Poor advise from a poor thinker.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Why bother with it at all? Tradition? Comfort? Familiarity? Why not just jettison the useless baggage, live your life of introspection and spirituality (whatever the term means to you) and be done with it?

Well, that's what i noticed mostly from New Age. For the religion and the music, one person makes up the whole thing.
Build your own tradition. Borrow from Egyptian, Norse, Christain sources, craft 'what works for you,' and then stand there as everyone else says your original, personal, idiomatic interpretation of The Universe is 'Wrong.' 'Wrong' being a term for 'doesn't work for me,' near as i could tell.

So The GCB is just saying his New Age Tradition is older than New Age, but it still works, for him, mostly because it appeals to him. And gives him a place to stand and point fingers to say other religious traditions are wrong.

Not so as I preach that any myth or belief can be internalized.

But when I criticize their policies, and they do need criticism, I back it up with reasons.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That is not the tradition. Not even for Christianity if you use scriptures and not what the churches teach.

Adam and Eve did not find anything incomprehensible when they, as God states, became as God in knowing good and evil.

Yes the church teaches that man is too stupid to understand God but God himself calls that a lie.

Seems that the churches want sheep while God prefers goats.

Regards
DL

Don't they something like, "whatever you can imagine god to be he is greater than that?" It seems to me that being able to understand an infinite being that created the entire universe would be beyond our abilities.

We cannot say that till we have an example of such before us and have attempted to dither him out.

Without a working model as proof of concept, it is all speculation and some would say nonsense.

I call it speculative nonsense.
That is why I prefer to argue morals and not something about God that we can never have an end game on.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not so as I preach that any myth or belief can be internalized.

How does that make it any less of a textbook New Age, idiosyncratic construction of yours, plagiarizing what you like without feeling a need to accept anything as a whole?

But when I criticize their policies, and they do need criticism, I back it up with reasons.

But the 'reason' tends to be that you don't like their policies.... You just assume that everyone's going to agree with you. Or, if they don't agree with you, tell them to turn on their brains, or say that rational people would agree.

that's compelling, that is. Not terribly rational, but there you go.

 

[Random Person]

That is not the tradition. Not even for Christianity if you use scriptures and not what the churches teach.

Adam and Eve did not find anything incomprehensible when they, as God states, became as God in knowing good and evil.

Yes the church teaches that man is too stupid to understand God but God himself calls that a lie.

Seems that the churches want sheep while God prefers goats.

Regards
DL

Don't they something like, "whatever you can imagine god to be he is greater than that?" It seems to me that being able to understand an infinite being that created the entire universe would be beyond our abilities.

We cannot say that till we have an example of such before us and have attempted to dither him out.

Without a working model as proof of concept, it is all speculation and some would say nonsense.

I call it speculative nonsense.
That is why I prefer to argue morals and not something about God that we can never have an end game on.

Regards
DL

Doesn't truth then become only what you are able to understand? God is only what you can cognize?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

How does that make it any less of a textbook New Age, idiosyncratic construction of yours, plagiarizing what you like without feeling a need to accept anything as a whole?

But when I criticize their policies, and they do need criticism, I back it up with reasons.

But the 'reason' tends to be that you don't like their policies.... You just assume that everyone's going to agree with you. Or, if they don't agree with you, tell them to turn on their brains, or say that rational people would agree.

that's compelling, that is. Not terribly rational, but there you go.

I give my best shot but if someone is too stupid to recognise logic and reason or come back with garbage, then I do not feel a need to hold anything back. If love does not work then tough love is what they get when they have compromised their logic and reason.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther “

I could use ridicule but I am not particularly good at it.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That is not the tradition. Not even for Christianity if you use scriptures and not what the churches teach.

Adam and Eve did not find anything incomprehensible when they, as God states, became as God in knowing good and evil.

Yes the church teaches that man is too stupid to understand God but God himself calls that a lie.

Seems that the churches want sheep while God prefers goats.

Regards
DL

Don't they something like, "whatever you can imagine god to be he is greater than that?" It seems to me that being able to understand an infinite being that created the entire universe would be beyond our abilities.

We cannot say that till we have an example of such before us and have attempted to dither him out.

Without a working model as proof of concept, it is all speculation and some would say nonsense.

I call it speculative nonsense.
That is why I prefer to argue morals and not something about God that we can never have an end game on.

Regards
DL

Doesn't truth then become only what you are able to understand? God is only what you can cognize?

If I cannot cognize that someone or something is true and real, then best to ignore it.

Regards
DL

 

[Keith&Co.]

I give my best shot but if someone is too stupid to recognise logic and reason or come back with garbage, then I do not feel a need to hold anything back.

Excellent. If they disagree with your logic and reason, they deserve to be called stupid. Because anyone honeslty using logic and reason would agree with you, obviously.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I give my best shot but if someone is too stupid to recognise logic and reason or come back with garbage, then I do not feel a need to hold anything back.

Excellent. If they disagree with your logic and reason, they deserve to be called stupid. Because anyone honeslty using logic and reason would agree with you, obviously.

Exactly.

That, or if they use logic and reason superior to mine, then I actually gain from the dialog by losing the argument.

All posters should know that losing an argument is what they should be looking for.

That is how people learn in a discussion forum. If you win, you gain nothing. The loser gains if he is bright enough to see it.

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But if one side of the argument is just posting nonsense, then there's nothing to gain from either winning or losing because there's nothing to learn.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

But if one side of the argument is just posting nonsense, then there's nothing to gain from either winning or losing because there's nothing to learn.

Correct.

Regards
DL

 

[braces_for_impact]

Having investigated Gnostic Christianity, I have to say I'm sorry, but it just seems like another denomination of Christianity that is critical of the status quo, and seeks to do better. There are many such cults branches on the tree of Christianity, and although yours seems to be very much on the liberal side, I have to tell ya, I think what we need at this time in the world is less religion, not more.

I think your "use whatever tools works for you" attitude is admirable, as is your denomination's lack of any real formal structure (from what I can see as you represent it), but it seems to me that it makes your Jesus, God, and other trappings just so much window dressing. Why bother with it at all? Tradition? Comfort? Familiarity? Why not just jettison the useless baggage, live your life of introspection and spirituality (whatever the term means to you) and be done with it?

Introspection has always been seen as appositive. Know thyself. And you would have me not know myself.

Poor advise from a poor thinker.

Regards
DL

Hardly. Your Gnosticism is neither original, elegant, or historically accurate. You've merely taken your current ethics and used them to reshape your religious tradition, so you can smugly declare other religious traditions in error, for which you obviously have an axe to grind. You say you fall back on facts and evidence, but in reality you jettison them as soon as it's convenient to do so when you feel like following a bit of woo down the rabbit hole, and you're purposely vague so as to avoid criticism of your poor ideas.

All I did was ask you some questions, in an attempt to clarify some of your ideas and you respond with insult, proudly displaying the fact that you have no reading comprehension (if you re-read my post). In addition, you have managed to demonstrate quite clearly that your vaulted introspection is no more effective at giving you peace, harmony and love (with which to treat others with respect) than a "traditional" Christian can achieve with prayer. In short, you show up here with a sanctimonious smugness indicating that your religion is superior to other forms of Christianity while displaying the same bad behavior that many Christians display. Apparently your Jesus is no better at teaching basic people skills to you than the Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, JW's, etc. So if your religion provides you purpose and comfort, good for you. I think your claims that your particular denomination is more logically consistent falls flat however, and should give you no reason to point fingers at other traditions. Personally, I find your Gnosticism superfluous and tainted by left over and unnecessarily confusing baggage from other religious traditions.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Thanks for this.

Regards
DL

 

[Random Person]

If I cannot cognize that someone or something is true and real, then best to ignore it.

Regards
DL

That works sometimes but other times t doesn't. You could walk into a situation where you are in great danger and not be aware of it. It would be detrimental to ignore it. I'm sure you have heard the saying that truth doesn't wait for us to discover it.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

If I cannot cognize that someone or something is true and real, then best to ignore it.

Regards
DL

That works sometimes but other times t doesn't. You could walk into a situation where you are in great danger and not be aware of it. It would be detrimental to ignore it. I'm sure you have heard the saying that truth doesn't wait for us to discover it.

Quite the dilemma. I agree that it could be detrimental in some scenarios to ignore what is not cognized but that is all one can do when something is not cognized as real or true. One cannot bat a fly when one does not see there the fly is because it does not exist in ones mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSMshdQ0Pk&feature=kp

Regards
DL

 

[funinspace]

Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

Yeah, as I was deconverting I read some of the Nag Hammadi Library, among other works from people like John Shelby Sponge. I didn’t find any reason to stop there as I headed for the exit door… And unlike Keith&co, I don’t kiss pigs

If you have investigated Gnostic Christianity, do you agree that from a moral POV, they are the superior Christian theology thanks to equality and Universalism?

I find liberal Christian theology to be superior to conservative/fundamentalist Christian theology in general, so yeah I’d lump Gnostic in with the liberal wing. I’d imagine that your morals/ethical views really isn’t that different than a typical ELCA preacher’s view.

Did you used to go under a different username? The DL and pic seem familiar….