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

[Keith&Co.]

I think its becoming trendy;

Kind of late to the party in both cases, Learner.
Atheists comparing religions or religious views or concepts is nothing new. No more surprising than comparing Picard to Kirk, Star Trek to Star Wars, or SciFi to Fantasy.
I personally 'like' the idea behind Ancient Egypt's world view. That this world wasn't a test to determine afterlife disposition, but a proving ground to figure out how you wanted to spend eternity. Favorite beer, favorite game, favorite hunting dog, etc. Seems a more positive purpose to the whole life/afterlife cycle, as far as theory goes.
But liking one story over another isn't at all in conflict with not thinking either story is even slightly true.

And believers using the word 'myth' in different ways for different religious traditions is as common as fertility gods.

 

[abaddon]

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.

That's why I prefer ecology as the basis for a narrative in which we may work out a respectful relation with the rest of life. It's a more universal language as a starting place, the different cultures can elaborate in their various ways.

I'm not sure the narrative must be replete with gods and spirits. I don't know how thick the symbology must be before it resonates in the imagination. Though I wouldn't argue against religions if they were all more like Shinto. Any outlook expressing a deeply respectful relation with long-evolved nature would be a hopeful response to the dilemmas of the day.

We're abstracted from life. It's not just supernaturalist views that do that, but any tale about humans being the stars of the show. We view everything else as a backdrop to our own drama. And it's an egotism that distracts from reality, makes everything seem like "us versus the world".

Deep-green ecologists, religious naturalists, scientific pantheists, and some others recognize ecology's potential to be more than mere information. Anthropomorphizing a bit (or to whatever little or a lot that a "spirituality" might do it) is something humans do. We have imaginations, it serves a survival purpose. It engages people's hearts with nature and helps them identify with that greater reality more than self or humanity.

And, just as there's no way to avoid "storying" about the world, there's no way to not anthropomorphize. The tale about objectivity regards an impossible disembodied viewpoint. And in trying to make it happen, people will do a kind of reverse-anthropomorphizing. They strip nature of anything that makes them think "that's looks human-like to my human eyes". Which is the human mind at work contorting nature, and making it alien and weird to us. We still have a largely mechanistic outlook.

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.

I think sci-fi movies like The Martian and Interstellar (and sci-fantasy like Avatar) show us what society's dream-life is.

They seem hopeful of the future. But they also seem pessimistic about the here and now.

I know what movies I'd like to see. More movies like Avatar, but less romantically primitivist. The clash of "worldviews" between the detached (insane even) corporatists and those who knew their identity (as features of a large living system) was a battle worth having, even if not in the shoot-em-up fashion of hero-tales. A lot of viewers got depressed after seeing Avatar, feeling they'd rather be on Pandora than living lives made dreary by the rapacious consumerist/corporate world. Shopping's not that great of a pill against the pain of too much time spent in boxes.

I think the interest in colonizing space is a case of jumping the gun. No one's known a paradise like earth, and we might not ever. Earth is Pandora, there's no need to find a more magical place elsewhere. Or shouldn't be, if we didn't resign to endure a crazy civilization (and actually seek to sustain it, which is why "we need to be better stewards" isn't a sufficient answer). And in any case it's a better idea to put the fire out in one's own home before packing bags for another.

 

[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.

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

True and I was not talking of God but of our overall social condition.

In your ---
"If God is evil, then why does he allow good things to happen to good people?"
--- I just showed what is happening to people in our bigger picture, good people or not.

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

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).

I am not sure of my understanding of what you put but do not see Christians as rivals of the Jesus faith.

Are there that many debates/arguments with Jews from the Gnostics regarding Yahweh as there is with Jesus and Christians? Just thinking aloud.

No. I do not think the ancient Gnostics bothered debating Jews as they did not see Jesus and Christianity the way the Gnostics did. Jews, except those who were Chrestians were not ready to say Yahweh was a vile prick the way the Gnostic Christians were ready to name him so. The Karaite Jews might have as they are quite close in their thinking to Gnostic Christians. We both put man above God while most other religions put God above man.

It may all depend on how one defines the word God.

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.

Quite true.

Gnostic Christians see genocide, for instance, as evil. Christians say it is evil for man but not for their genocidal son murdering God. That double moral standard is quite immoral in and of itself.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

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?

As stated, it is only evil from the losers POV.

To all the rest of us who recognize that without competitions we would likely go extinct, that bit of evil is quite acceptable and is a part of a greater good.

We see it as good and not undesirable even though the losers see it as evil.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

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"

Anyone with half a brain will agree with that notion. At least the heavens as described by Christianity and Islam.

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)

If you disagree, you could at least tell us why you disagree.

That is what someone with half a brain would do.

Regards
DL

 

[Treedbear]

... Gnostic Christians see genocide, for instance, as evil. Christians say it is evil for man but not for their genocidal son murdering God. That double moral standard is quite immoral in and of itself.
...

...
As stated, it is only evil from the losers POV.

To all the rest of us who recognize that without competitions we would likely go extinct, that bit of evil is quite acceptable and is a part of a greater good.

We see it as good and not undesirable even though the losers see it as evil.
...

And so if you want to believe in a God having a higher moral standard why don't you simply leave open the possibility that God sees this suffering and inequity as for the greater good and a small price to pay for salvation and resurrection? Inventing a second tier God seems to be unnecessarily complicating things.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

... Gnostic Christians see genocide, for instance, as evil. Christians say it is evil for man but not for their genocidal son murdering God. That double moral standard is quite immoral in and of itself.
...

...
As stated, it is only evil from the losers POV.

To all the rest of us who recognize that without competitions we would likely go extinct, that bit of evil is quite acceptable and is a part of a greater good.

We see it as good and not undesirable even though the losers see it as evil.
...

And so if you want to believe in a God having a higher moral standard why don't you simply leave open the possibility that God sees this suffering and inequity as for the greater good and a small price to pay for salvation and resurrection? Inventing a second tier God seems to be unnecessarily complicating things.

But, but, man has created all of his Gods and to call my better one second tier, when he is the best I have ever found/created would be like me calling your ideology second rate.

Take this you puny -----

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30lGrarz3MQ[/YOUTUBE]

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

[

And so if you want to believe in a God having a higher moral standard why don't you simply leave open the possibility that God sees this suffering and inequity as for the greater good and a small price to pay for salvation and resurrection?

Let me be clear. If God wants to condemn me, he had better be ready for the fight of his life.

No genocidal son murdering prick is fit to judge you or I, let alone condemn us.

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

[

And so if you want to believe in a God having a higher moral standard why don't you simply leave open the possibility that God sees this suffering and inequity as for the greater good and a small price to pay for salvation and resurrection?

Let me be clear. If God wants to condemn me, he had better be ready for the fight of his life.

No genocidal son murdering prick is fit to judge you or I, let alone condemn us.

Regards
DL

How would that be "the fight of his life"?

That's like an ant saying "That asshole with the giant boot better not be thinking of stepping on me as I'm crossing this sidewalk or he's in for the fight of his life!".

Sure, it helps the ant's ego to engage in some meaningless tough talk, but he has no ability to back that tough talk up and the ant would do infinitely better against the guy with the boot than you or any of the rest of us would do against a god who randomly decides that he's in the mood to judge or condemn us.

 

[Treedbear]

And so if you want to believe in a God having a higher moral standard why don't you simply leave open the possibility that God sees this suffering and inequity as for the greater good and a small price to pay for salvation and resurrection? Inventing a second tier God seems to be unnecessarily complicating things.

But, but, man has created all of his Gods and to call my better one second tier, when he is the best I have ever found/created would be like me calling your ideology second rate.
...

Sorry. Bad word choice. I actually meant inventing a second tier for the top-tier.

...
Let me be clear. If God wants to condemn me, he had better be ready for the fight of his life.

No genocidal son murdering prick is fit to judge you or I, let alone condemn us.

Regards
DL

How would that be "the fight of his life"?

That's like an ant saying "That asshole with the giant boot better not be thinking of stepping on me as I'm crossing this sidewalk or he's in for the fight of his life!".

Sure, it helps the ant's ego to engage in some meaningless tough talk, but he has no ability to back that tough talk up and the ant would do infinitely better against the guy with the boot than you or any of the rest of us would do against a god who randomly decides that he's in the mood to judge or condemn us.

I think it come under the category of "Last Acts of Defiance".

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

[

And so if you want to believe in a God having a higher moral standard why don't you simply leave open the possibility that God sees this suffering and inequity as for the greater good and a small price to pay for salvation and resurrection?

Let me be clear. If God wants to condemn me, he had better be ready for the fight of his life.

No genocidal son murdering prick is fit to judge you or I, let alone condemn us.

Regards
DL

How would that be "the fight of his life"?

That's like an ant saying "That asshole with the giant boot better not be thinking of stepping on me as I'm crossing this sidewalk or he's in for the fight of his life!".

Sure, it helps the ant's ego to engage in some meaningless tough talk, but he has no ability to back that tough talk up and the ant would do infinitely better against the guy with the boot than you or any of the rest of us would do against a god who randomly decides that he's in the mood to judge or condemn us.

You give God more credit than I do.

If he is not a guy that can discern or express a decent moral sense, which is clear from scriptures, then I will go to hell knowing I was correct and he was not.

As a Gnostic Christian, I would do as my Parfait brethren did and walk into the fire instead of waiting to be thrown into it.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ptNcSYo7k4[/YOUTUBE]

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How would that be "the fight of his life"?

That's like an ant saying "That asshole with the giant boot better not be thinking of stepping on me as I'm crossing this sidewalk or he's in for the fight of his life!".

Sure, it helps the ant's ego to engage in some meaningless tough talk, but he has no ability to back that tough talk up and the ant would do infinitely better against the guy with the boot than you or any of the rest of us would do against a god who randomly decides that he's in the mood to judge or condemn us.

You give God more credit than I do.

If he is not a guy that can discern or express a decent moral sense, which is clear from scriptures, then I will go to hell knowing I was correct and he was not.

Ya, and I don't have an issue with that. What's not clear to me is how it is that God would consider that "the fight of his life". It seems to me that sending you to Hell for spurious reasons would be a trivially easy task for him and you would not be able to offer any resistance to his actions at all. From his point of view, there's no fight at all, let alone one serious enough that he'd consider it the fight of his life.

I mean, sure, it's nice to sound all tough about how you'd totally stand up to various fictional characters like gods, Sith Lords and evil wizards (for instance, I can't see myself taking any shit at all from Voldemort), but your characterization of his considering it the fight of his life means that your resistance would entail some level of extra effort on his part in order to win.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

How would that be "the fight of his life"?

That's like an ant saying "That asshole with the giant boot better not be thinking of stepping on me as I'm crossing this sidewalk or he's in for the fight of his life!".

Sure, it helps the ant's ego to engage in some meaningless tough talk, but he has no ability to back that tough talk up and the ant would do infinitely better against the guy with the boot than you or any of the rest of us would do against a god who randomly decides that he's in the mood to judge or condemn us.

You give God more credit than I do.

If he is not a guy that can discern or express a decent moral sense, which is clear from scriptures, then I will go to hell knowing I was correct and he was not.

Ya, and I don't have an issue with that. What's not clear to me is how it is that God would consider that "the fight of his life". It seems to me that sending you to Hell for spurious reasons would be a trivially easy task for him and you would not be able to offer any resistance to his actions at all. From his point of view, there's no fight at all, let alone one serious enough that he'd consider it the fight of his life.

I mean, sure, it's nice to sound all tough about how you'd totally stand up to various fictional characters like gods, Sith Lords and evil wizards (for instance, I can't see myself taking any shit at all from Voldemort), but your characterization of his considering it the fight of his life means that your resistance would entail some level of extra effort on his part in order to win.

This all assumes that, like a human judge, he would allow arguments od innocence.

I am just saying that from what I read of the Gods, my moral sense is better than theirs.

But if like the Christian creed and their reliance on Inquisitions and force instead of good moral arguments to win their so called arguments, then indeed, I would be toast in short order.

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why would an omniscient guy need to hear arguments?

That implies that there's some information he doesn't have or a point of view which he isn't fully aware of.

And of course your moral sense is better than theirs. They're two dimensional characters designed to further the plot of a story.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Why would an omniscient guy need to hear arguments?

That implies that there's some information he doesn't have or a point of view which he isn't fully aware of.

And of course your moral sense is better than theirs. They're two dimensional characters designed to further the plot of a story.

Such a God might know everything but would need lessons on how to apply what he knows in a moral way.

Knowledge misapplied is quite dangerous. It is a two edged sword.

Regards
DL