Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

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?

No, i do not.
What i see in your post is marketing. You're claiming your product is more palatable to modern morality.
But while i may agree with the bullet points of your morality, it's still based on a great big assumption i find hard to swallow. So there's no great advantage to one system over another, if i don't share that assumption. To join with or approve of a religion, i'd have to have some reason to think they're right, not just easier to swallow.

Don't take this wrong, but glossier, longer-lasting lipstick on the pig doesn't make it any more fun to kiss.

You kiss pigs!
Just kidding.

No religion is right except to those in it.

Gnostic Christian are no more right than the next guy. The trick and what I sell is to internalize whatever belief you hold and by doing so you will see the Universality of all religions. Religions all have the same dish but just served in a variety of ways. In this, they match secular systems and governments who also all serve the same dish but in different ways.

If you have read a bit of sociology then you will know that most normal people are not all that different from a moral standpoint. This clip shows this.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What happened to the Gnostic Christians of old was a travesty, however the fact that your woo is very different from the woo of mainstream Christianity doesn't really change the fact that it's woo. It's all just a pile of ad hoc fallacies and argument from ignorance fallacies. Whether the fallacies in question are more imaginative or more appealing than the fallacies of the next religion is pretty much beside the point.

You make a good point.

The thing about Gnostic Christians is that we know that all religions are based on myths and we just know that those myths can be internalized to activate the pineal gland and open the third or single eye.

If you have a spiritual itch to scratch, although it sounds like you do not, bring whatever you want to believe to it and seek your God within.

If you have no spiritual itch to scratch, no problem. We likely share the same morals as I dislike the Christian ones.

Meditation and seeking the higher man within you, you can still do even if an atheist and that is all I recommend.

You think it woo but it worked for me and there is no woo involved just meditation.

Gnostic Christians believe that there is nothing greater than man and that God is to serve us and not us him.

Regards
DL

Meditation involves nothing but internal observation. If it helps calm you down or whatever, then great, but no truth arrived at by meditation can ever be proved to anyone other than yourself, which makes discoveries derived from meditation necessarily useless knowledge-wise.

Not to you.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

To answer the OP's question, no.

Be you a believer or non-believer, it is in everyone's best interest to have the best moral religions out there and to speak out against the immoral ones.

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.

All I offer is another tool in the atheist and believer tool kit.

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.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Well, why do you confuse the situation by using the word God then? It's a loaded term which only obfuscates what you're saying when you say it in a different context than other people are hearing it. If you mean yourself, why not just say "me". Why bring the context of a deity into a discussion which has no deities involved in it?

But it does. It is just badly defined and this is a way of bringing it out as you have just done.

Note above how I have been able to speak of my definition of the word God, what, twice already.

That is also why I call what I found through apotheosis the Godhead. Just to indicate that it is different from God.

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

 

[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

 

[Keith&Co.]

No religion is right except to those in it.

So, religion is like UFOs, conspiracies, Bigfoot and White Supremacy. The evidence makes sense if you're already a member. Short of that, though, theres no compelling reason to join...

Gnostic Christian are no more right than the next guy. The trick and what I sell is to internalize whatever belief you hold and by doing so you will see the Universality of all religions.

i already see one universal quality of all religions, thus i'm an atheist.

If you have read a bit of sociology then you will know that most normal people are not all that different from a moral standpoint.

And thus, morals are a manmade product, so no deities are needed, either to guide our efforts or to approve of them.

 

[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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Be you a believer or non-believer, it is in everyone's best interest to have the best moral religions out there and to speak out against the immoral ones.

No it isn't.
Religions do not offer moral guidance, they offer a menu. They list good and bad actions, without providing the knowledge base necessary to develop our own morals. Thus the whole anti-gay-rights movement, because no one ever explained to Christains WHY gay is bad, under what circumstances, and does it apply forever or only for a given society.

What we need to do is stop pretending gods sponsor any of our morality and come up with the best moral code we can, for ourselves, based on our knowledge.
It's what people do, anyway, using their real morality to cherry pick biblical morals, but let's cut out the middle man.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, why do you confuse the situation by using the word God then? It's a loaded term which only obfuscates what you're saying when you say it in a different context than other people are hearing it. If you mean yourself, why not just say "me". Why bring the context of a deity into a discussion which has no deities involved in it?

But it does. It is just badly defined and this is a way of bringing it out as you have just done.

Note above how I have been able to speak of my definition of the word God, what, twice already.

That is also why I call what I found through apotheosis the Godhead. Just to indicate that it is different from God.

Regards
DL

Not just this conversation, but conversations in general. It's poor grammar to use the Capital-G God to refer to non-god concepts and it has no value beyond introducing unnecessary confusion. If you want to talk about something other than a god, don't cram your definition onto a pre-existing term which already means something radically different. Make up your own term or assign your definition to a different term which might be remotely related to what you're talking about. If Belgians* want to express their philosophy, they should do it in a way that avoids obfuscation and confusion.

* I'm defining "Belgians" as "Gnostic Christians" here for no reason other than to make my point more confusing.

 

[dystopian]

No religion is right except to those in it.

If a religion is only right to the people who believe in it, then it isn't right to begin with; the *actual* truth isn't a matter of opinion. 1+1=2 regardless of whether or not you personally believe that math doesn't work that way. A religion that can only peddle subjective truth isn't worth following.

Gnostic Christian are no more right than the next guy. The trick and what I sell is to internalize whatever belief you hold and by doing so you will see the Universality of all religions. Religions all have the same dish but just served in a variety of ways. In this, they match secular systems and governments who also all serve the same dish but in different ways.

Religions DON'T all have the same dish, however. That's a gross oversimplification that can only persist when one is ignorant of the wide range of religious beliefs; which often outright contradict each other. You can't say that all religions serve the same dish when one religion preaches that god created the world in six days and you need to worship him or suffer for all eternity while another claims that life is an eternal wheel of torment, there is no god, and only through achieving a state of non-existence can you transcend suffering. The idea that 'all religions are just paths that lead to the same thing' is just feel-good nonsense unsupported by reality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm defining "Belgians" as "Gnostic Christians" here for no reason other than to make my point more confusing.

You always waffle on the issues...

 

[dystopian]

Be you a believer or non-believer, it is in everyone's best interest to have the best moral religions out there and to speak out against the immoral ones.

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.

 

[braces_for_impact]

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.

 

[Atheos]

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.

 

[Atheos]

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.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

So, religion is like UFOs, conspiracies, Bigfoot and White Supremacy. The evidence makes sense if you're already a member. Short of that, though, theres no compelling reason to join...

Gnostic Christian are no more right than the next guy. The trick and what I sell is to internalize whatever belief you hold and by doing so you will see the Universality of all religions.

i already see one universal quality of all religions, thus i'm an atheist.

If you have read a bit of sociology then you will know that most normal people are not all that different from a moral standpoint.

And thus, morals are a manmade product, so no deities are needed, either to guide our efforts or to approve of them.

Correct.

How can a God who could not have developed morals ever lead a people who had to develop morals to live with each other?
That is why the first few commandments are all about his self-centered ego.

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

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.

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.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Be you a believer or non-believer, it is in everyone's best interest to have the best moral religions out there and to speak out against the immoral ones.

No it isn't.
Religions do not offer moral guidance, they offer a menu. They list good and bad actions, without providing the knowledge base necessary to develop our own morals. Thus the whole anti-gay-rights movement, because no one ever explained to Christains WHY gay is bad, under what circumstances, and does it apply forever or only for a given society.

What we need to do is stop pretending gods sponsor any of our morality and come up with the best moral code we can, for ourselves, based on our knowledge.
It's what people do, anyway, using their real morality to cherry pick biblical morals, but let's cut out the middle man.

So you want someone from outside Christianity to tell them why being gay is not bad but you do not support a theology that will do just that from inside religions. Too bad.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

If a religion is only right to the people who believe in it, then it isn't right to begin with; the *actual* truth isn't a matter of opinion. 1+1=2 regardless of whether or not you personally believe that math doesn't work that way. A religion that can only peddle subjective truth isn't worth following.

Gnostic Christian are no more right than the next guy. The trick and what I sell is to internalize whatever belief you hold and by doing so you will see the Universality of all religions. Religions all have the same dish but just served in a variety of ways. In this, they match secular systems and governments who also all serve the same dish but in different ways.

Religions DON'T all have the same dish, however. That's a gross oversimplification that can only persist when one is ignorant of the wide range of religious beliefs; which often outright contradict each other. You can't say that all religions serve the same dish when one religion preaches that god created the world in six days and you need to worship him or suffer for all eternity while another claims that life is an eternal wheel of torment, there is no god, and only through achieving a state of non-existence can you transcend suffering. The idea that 'all religions are just paths that lead to the same thing' is just feel-good nonsense unsupported by reality.

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

Does Christianity, for instance preach truth or do they preach obedience?

Do they preach of theosis or apotheosis or to follow the church?

Churches have institutionalized lying so to say they seek truth is rather odd. Governments invented religion for social manipulation and control. Not for anything resembling truth.

God was a liar from the very beginning.

Regards
DL