Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Given evolution and evil, is the Gnostic Christian myth more intelligent than the Christian myth?
The Gnostic Christian myth explains evil quite nicely as compared to what Christianity has produced.

Doing evil must have conscious volition. In law, they call that idea, mens rea. It is the cornerstone of secular and religious law and shows guilt and the knowledge that one is doing evil to another. When present, that is the only time sin can be applied to mankind.

Gnostic Christians posit an evil God, Yahweh, because of his creation of the evolutionary system in place. This system forces us to do evil to others when we win competitions. We must compete to survive and thrive. We must do evil and that is why we see Yahweh as evil. In a more modern sense, not so much evil as a necessary evil. In the Gnostic Christian view, this allows hope that there is another God above Yahweh that might have a better system that excludes that evil. Yahweh then is just our idea of a system we do not like for it’s evils, and we actually hope to be wrong in our evaluation of reality.

Do you recognize that you must do evil to survive and that the Gnostic Christians myth is a better way to explain evil than the Christian myth does?

Regards
DL

 

[Jason the Rationalist]

It is necessary to do evil - acts which are profoundly wicked/immoral - to others in order to survive?

I would call it commiting need rather than committing evil IF its in order to survive. But if you were to intentionally (not genuinely accidentally) kill a being that wasn't threatening you or someone close to you, and you weren't killing it in order to eat it, you could I guess classify that as 'evil'. It may not be clear, however, whether something was actually a threat until too late...it could all get very subjective very quickly.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It is necessary to do evil - acts which are profoundly wicked/immoral - to others in order to survive?

I was speaking of evolutionary needs.

Acts which are profoundly wicked or immoral might be falling into more of the insanity realm.

We have no choice? If we wish to survive perhaps we have no choice. One alternative is to remove ourselves from the competition which may mean that we are going completely against our own natures. But there is "fight or flight".

There is that yes but if we are always in flight mode we will run out of energy and the resources that keep us alive and likely die.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but whether you would 'have them do' is pushing it, though it may need to happen for others to survive, you may have no choice. You may "need" to perish for another to survive. I'm not completely convinced. Haven't we come up with something in society which has dulled this distinction/need. We may face situations which are a matter of life or death from time to time but I don't see that we need to do this on a continual basis. If evil is eating a piece of meat or a vegetable (what? Its a living thing too) or even a tablet (what's it made of?) then there may be no "escape".

I would call it commiting need rather than committing evil IF its to survive. But if you were to intentionally (not genuinely accidentally) kill a being that wasn't threatening you or someone close to you, and you weren't killing it in order to eat it, you could I guess classify that as 'evil'. It may not be clear, however, whether something was actually a threat until too late...

Committing need is a good way of seeing this situation.

That is why I say we need to compete and do some evil by creating a loser when we win otherwise we would die out.

Gnostic Christians recognizing this end point while Christianity does not is why I think our ideology is superior to Christianity.


Regards
DL

 

[Treedbear]

Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Given evolution and evil, is the Gnostic Christian myth more intelligent than the Christian myth?
The Gnostic Christian myth explains evil quite nicely as compared to what Christianity has produced.
...
Do you recognize that you must do evil to survive and that the Gnostic Christians myth is a better way to explain evil than the Christian myth does?

Regards
DL

Funny, it just occurred to me the other day that Christianity has to address the "problem of evil" in order to reconcile it with an all powerful God which is defined as all good. Not so much mankind's evil acts, but the flood and plagues and shit that mankind plays no part in creating. Science and evolution actually require these to occur, and it only makes sense that they do. But atheists have no need for the myth of evil, beyond how mankind treats each other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you recognize that you must do evil to survive and that the Gnostic Christians myth is a better way to explain evil than the Christian myth does?

Recognize? As opposed to 'agree,' maybe?
So if I don't accept your explanation, I'm already admitting that I'm wrong?
So...Not THAT different from the rest of Christianity.


I'd say that 'evil' is a loaded term in this use. If I work and train to be good at a competitive skill, it's to better or profit myself, not necessarily something I do with the express intention of harming another.

I think it'd be better to describe the motivation in advancing one's self over others would be self-promotion. When I thin of 'evil' I would tend to think of things that are going to be evil no matter whose side you look at it from.

 

[abaddon]

Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Given evolution and evil, is the Gnostic Christian myth more intelligent than the Christian myth?
The Gnostic Christian myth explains evil quite nicely as compared to what Christianity has produced.
...
Do you recognize that you must do evil to survive and that the Gnostic Christians myth is a better way to explain evil than the Christian myth does?

Regards
DL

Funny, it just occurred to me the other day that Christianity has to address the "problem of evil" in order to reconcile it with an all powerful God which is defined as all good. Not so much mankind's evil acts, but the flood and plagues and shit that mankind plays no part in creating. Science and evolution actually require these to occur, and it only makes sense that they do. But atheists have no need for the myth of evil, beyond how mankind treats each other.

And how humans treat the rest of nature generally.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Given evolution and evil, is the Gnostic Christian myth more intelligent than the Christian myth?
The Gnostic Christian myth explains evil quite nicely as compared to what Christianity has produced.
...
Do you recognize that you must do evil to survive and that the Gnostic Christians myth is a better way to explain evil than the Christian myth does?

Regards
DL

Funny, it just occurred to me the other day that Christianity has to address the "problem of evil" in order to reconcile it with an all powerful God which is defined as all good. Not so much mankind's evil acts, but the flood and plagues and shit that mankind plays no part in creating. Science and evolution actually require these to occur, and it only makes sense that they do. But atheists have no need for the myth of evil, beyond how mankind treats each other.

Well put.

People, to me, treat each other poorly thanks in many instances to religion.



Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Regards
DL

 

[abaddon]

A society needs a myth. A narrative about the world. We see how people look for a story about the world to guide how they behave. Some people want to say science has got that covered, but it doesn't really. It has facts, where a story about the nature of nature can both subscribe to science's facts and also impart values.

What's tragic is when anyone references the ancient "near east" or "middle east" for their stories. These dualistic tales split the cosmos, and contrast an ultimate "good" (a fantasy made to seem "good" by stripping out essential details about life from it) against a realm where evil resides (namely earth, "evil" for being an incarnate reality).

We have stories of the world, there's no getting around it by labeling all stories other than our own as falsehoods while pretending our own story is fact.

So, a viable myth... Would it involve a dualism of good and evil? Does the world look like that? Not to me. Ecology looks very like a barter system. Life's not a struggle between winners and losers; it's plants and animals making trades (even by dying). The saying "nature red in tooth and claw" was some monarchy-apologist making excuses why order has to be imposed on humans -- whereas long-evolved "wild" nature itself looks pretty damn well organized already, flourishing by a process far more creative (and maybe "wiser" to indulge the anthropomorphism a bit) than humanity. The animal "kingdom" is not just predators making victims of prey, because we're all eaten and death is one of life's processes.

Ecology's a better basis for a story than anything the ancient world (especially the middle east) thought up. It's one whole; there is no metaphysical war in it. And that any such ancient tribal story still excuses some people (or "we humans", which is still tribalism) trying to dominate the commons shows why "we" need to discuss our myths. Because being scientific does not mean they go away.

 

[Angry Floof]

Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Given evolution and evil, is the Gnostic Christian myth more intelligent than the Christian myth?
The Gnostic Christian myth explains evil quite nicely as compared to what Christianity has produced.

Doing evil must have conscious volition. In law, they call that idea, mens rea. It is the cornerstone of secular and religious law and shows guilt and the knowledge that one is doing evil to another. When present, that is the only time sin can be applied to mankind.

Gnostic Christians posit an evil God, Yahweh, because of his creation of the evolutionary system in place. This system forces us to do evil to others when we win competitions. We must compete to survive and thrive. We must do evil and that is why we see Yahweh as evil. In a more modern sense, not so much evil as a necessary evil. In the Gnostic Christian view, this allows hope that there is another God above Yahweh that might have a better system that excludes that evil. Yahweh then is just our idea of a system we do not like for it’s evils, and we actually hope to be wrong in our evaluation of reality.

Do you recognize that you must do evil to survive and that the Gnostic Christians myth is a better way to explain evil than the Christian myth does?

Regards
DL

I don't see that it's much different. It's still a simplistic, infantile false dichotomy that is easy to digest and subdues the anxiety of uncertainty for the more stupid and fearful among us.

Human beings are more than capable of creative problem solving as well as great empathy. If your mental framework for understanding the world is just more over simplified good/evil without nuance, you are essentially dead weight on the kind of progress that can lead to good for all, without compromising some for the benefit of others due to sheer laziness, ego, and aversion to the hard task of questioning.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Do you recognize that you must do evil to survive and that the Gnostic Christians myth is a better way to explain evil than the Christian myth does?

Recognize? As opposed to 'agree,' maybe?

If memory serves, I am still using one of your posts that you allowed me to plagiarized and use.

Long time no see buddy.

Your maybe I see as agreement given your excellent use of language.

So if I don't accept your explanation, I'm already admitting that I'm wrong?

No. Just that I have yet to use language well enough to get you to agree.

So...Not THAT different from the rest of Christianity.

Do not insult yourself my friend.

I'd say that 'evil' is a loaded term in this use.

I did try to qualify it with mens rea.

If I work and train to be good at a competitive skill, it's to better or profit myself, not necessarily something I do with the express intention of harming another.

Understood, but those you beat out will still think it evil to be shown that they are not the fittest, which is what evolution seeks, inadvertently, to show or find.

If you consider your same scenario in the job field, you could be inadvertently be causing hunger or worse for a family.

I think it'd be better to describe the motivation in advancing one's self over others would be self-promotion. When I thin of 'evil' I would tend to think of things that are going to be evil no matter whose side you look at it from.

I do not see that applying from the winners POV.

It is in everyone's best interest, if you look at us as a species, to have the fittest lead in all fields of endeavor.

If not, then extinction would likely occur. Our evolution would stall and we would be regressing.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

A society needs a myth. A narrative about the world. We see how people look for a story about the world to guide how they behave. Some people want to say science has got that covered, but it doesn't really. It has facts, where a story about the nature of nature can both subscribe to science's facts and also impart values.

What's tragic is when anyone references the ancient "near east" or "middle east" for their stories. These dualistic tales split the cosmos, and contrast an ultimate "good" (a fantasy made to seem "good" by stripping out essential details about life from it) against a realm where evil resides (namely earth, "evil" for being an incarnate reality).

We have stories of the world, there's no getting around it by labeling all stories other than our own as falsehoods while pretending our own story is fact.

So, a viable myth... Would it involve a dualism of good and evil? Does the world look like that? Not to me. Ecology looks very like a barter system. Life's not a struggle between winners and losers; it's plants and animals making trades (even by dying). The saying "nature red in tooth and claw" was some monarchy-apologist making excuses why order has to be imposed on humans -- whereas long-evolved "wild" nature itself looks pretty damn well organized already, flourishing by a process far more creative (and maybe "wiser" to indulge the anthropomorphism a bit) than humanity. The animal "kingdom" is not just predators making victims of prey, because we're all eaten and death is one of life's processes.

Ecology's a better basis for a story than anything the ancient world (especially the middle east) thought up. It's one whole; there is no metaphysical war in it. And that any such ancient tribal story still excuses some people (or "we humans", which is still tribalism) trying to dominate the commons shows why "we" need to discuss our myths. Because being scientific does not mean they go away.

This resonates with me.

Nicely put and a part of the reason I am not an atheist but chose to call myself a Gnostic Christian.

I have one leg in reality and the other in our myth that I use against the less intelligent Christian myth.

Our myths speak of the supernatural but our actual beliefs do not. That is partly why Gnostic Christianity is a little harder to understand. We are perpetually seeking God, defined as the best rules and laws to live by, instead of idol worshipers of the supernatural and fictional Gods like Yahweh and Allah.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Given evolution and evil, is the Gnostic Christian myth more intelligent than the Christian myth?
The Gnostic Christian myth explains evil quite nicely as compared to what Christianity has produced.

Doing evil must have conscious volition. In law, they call that idea, mens rea. It is the cornerstone of secular and religious law and shows guilt and the knowledge that one is doing evil to another. When present, that is the only time sin can be applied to mankind.

Gnostic Christians posit an evil God, Yahweh, because of his creation of the evolutionary system in place. This system forces us to do evil to others when we win competitions. We must compete to survive and thrive. We must do evil and that is why we see Yahweh as evil. In a more modern sense, not so much evil as a necessary evil. In the Gnostic Christian view, this allows hope that there is another God above Yahweh that might have a better system that excludes that evil. Yahweh then is just our idea of a system we do not like for it’s evils, and we actually hope to be wrong in our evaluation of reality.

Do you recognize that you must do evil to survive and that the Gnostic Christians myth is a better way to explain evil than the Christian myth does?

Regards
DL

I don't see that it's much different. It's still a simplistic, infantile false dichotomy that is easy to digest and subdues the anxiety of uncertainty for the more stupid and fearful among us.

Human beings are more than capable of creative problem solving as well as great empathy. If your mental framework for understanding the world is just more over simplified good/evil without nuance, you are essentially dead weight on the kind of progress that can lead to good for all, without compromising some for the benefit of others due to sheer laziness, ego, and aversion to the hard task of questioning.

Empathy we have for sure, problem solving, sometimes.

Have you noted that we have had to live with 5,000 years of war?

War is the ultimate of competition and it seems that not only individuals like to and need to compete but so do countries.

War is the epitome of drama and man loves drama.

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If God is evil, then why does he allow good things to happen to good people?

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

If God is evil, then why does he allow good things to happen to good people?

There is no miracle working God in my ideology, but look around my friend, and tell us if you see more good in the world or more evil.

I see a hell of a lot more good than evil and the statistics are getting better all the time.

Here is a sample.



Regards
DL

 

[Treedbear]

A society needs a myth. A narrative about the world. We see how people look for a story about the world to guide how they behave. Some people want to say science has got that covered, but it doesn't really. It has facts, where a story about the nature of nature can both subscribe to science's facts and also impart values.

What's tragic is when anyone references the ancient "near east" or "middle east" for their stories. ...

Ecology's a better basis for a story than anything the ancient world (especially the middle east) thought up. It's one whole; there is no metaphysical war in it. And that any such ancient tribal story still excuses some people (or "we humans", which is still tribalism) trying to dominate the commons shows why "we" need to discuss our myths. Because being scientific does not mean they go away.

I'd agree that the ancient middle eastern religious myths have outlived their usefulness. Perhaps because they were initially intended as a vision of the future, i.e.; the coming of a messiah. That has largely faded away and all there is left is the myth. But I think societies need to have a story about where they hope the future takes them. That should be the source of purpose and the moral imperatives which promote survival. I see survival as the metaphysical basis for morality, especially given that it summons the need to intelligently and wisely manage our ecological environment. I have to admit I'm somewhat attracted to the idea of adopting an assortment of nature-based Gods as do the Japanese. It seems to work quite well and imparts a particular grace to their society. But realistically, in the west we are much too diverse culturally to embrace that effectively. What we seem to be doing instead is creating a vision of the future based on the fantasy of colonizing outer space. I just saw "The Martian". A very inspiring and hopeful movie about what humans could aspire to in terms of adapting to the new environment as well as cooperating as a global community. I don't know. Does fantasy qualify as myth? The standard scifi space travel seems far beyond what is realisticly possible.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If God is evil, then why does he allow good things to happen to good people?

There is no miracle working God in my ideology, but look around my friend, and tell us if you see more good in the world or more evil.

I see a hell of a lot more good than evil and the statistics are getting better all the time.

I agree with you about that. I don't see how that fact intersects with a discussion about any kind of God whatsoever, though.

 

[blastula]

Evil god allows some good so you can appreciate the bad.

 

[Learner]

Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Given evolution and evil, is the Gnostic Christian myth more intelligent than the Christian myth?
The Gnostic Christian myth explains evil quite nicely as compared to what Christianity has produced.

Doing evil must have conscious volition. In law, they call that idea, mens rea. It is the cornerstone of secular and religious law and shows guilt and the knowledge that one is doing evil to another. When present, that is the only time sin can be applied to mankind.

Gnostic Christians posit an evil God, Yahweh, because of his creation of the evolutionary system in place. This system forces us to do evil to others when we win competitions. We must compete to survive and thrive. We must do evil and that is why we see Yahweh as evil. In a more modern sense, not so much evil as a necessary evil. In the Gnostic Christian view, this allows hope that there is another God above Yahweh that might have a better system that excludes that evil. Yahweh then is just our idea of a system we do not like for it’s evils, and we actually hope to be wrong in our evaluation of reality.

Do you recognize that you must do evil to survive and that the Gnostic Christians myth is a better way to explain evil than the Christian myth does?
Regards
DL

You could have just the argument with Jews here than just the usual main rivals of the Jesus faith .. the Christians (perhaps by some opinions at least). Are there that many debates/arguments with Jews from the Gnostics regarding Yahweh as there is with Jesus and Christians? Just thinking aloud.

Anyway .. Both Gnostics (Chrestians if you will) and Christians can explain what they think of evil equally well with the same passion but obviously not agreeing in the same way.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I do not see that applying from the winners POV.

And that's probably the biggest problem.
In most of science, the observations are objective. Everyone offering a theory to explain the observations can at least agree that, say, infections occur. Whether it's caused by germs or miasma or demons is the discussion.
But you're using a subjective myth to explain further subjective myths. You get to write the observations that your theory explains, then it's no surprise that your theory explains your observations.

If there's no objective way to show that competition is 'evil,' then there's no real way to see who has the best explanation for that evil.

It is in everyone's best interest, if you look at us as a species, to have the fittest lead in all fields of endeavor.

So how can it be 'evil,' if it's something we all benefit from?

 

[Learner]

I think its becoming trendy; that we had an atheist on other threads who dosn't believe in Gods,gods or the woo but says reincarnation is better an idea than "heaven" and here we have the suggestion that the MYTH of the Gnostics is better than the "myth" of the Christians.

(For a very brief moment I could see myself an agnostic again)