Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

[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?

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.

OK, at least you have a bit more of a reason than most people who randomly shoehorn the word God into their philosophy. I still see it as an unnecessary obfuscation, though.

 

[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?

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

Once you have found god in yourself what are you now seeking?

 

[Random Person]

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.

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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Where does dominion come into it?
If God does something evil, then he's not omnibenevolent. Anyone claiming a tri-omni god, THAT god can't exist.
Loki, Set and Aphrodite can still exist, though. They can be complete jackasses and the PoE doesn't apply.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I like the Jungian nutshell explanation of god.

There is an archetype of perfection, which is exclusionary. IOW, to understand something, we separate it from the universe. Perfection is a male archetype.

Then there is wholeness, which is inclusive but imperfect. Wholeness is a female archetype.

God is the attempt to reconcile the two. While we separate things in order to understand them, we experience the world as a whole.

Jung also said that alchemy was Gnosticism in a guise acceptable to the Inquisition. When the Inquisition ended, alchemy died out. Newton was an alchemist, btw.

The future of the Christian church will be Gnostic or something like it. The sci fi extravaganza ain't gonna last.

 

[Horatio Parker]

They are the only ones to have a convincing explanation of how there could be an all good god and an evil world. By positing that creation was an involuntary act, hijacked by an imperfect lesser being, Gnosticism avoids the inevitable conclusion that God is Evil that all other monotheistic sects fall into (yet vigorously deny)

The fact that gnosticism was destroyed by violence shows that even plausible seeming religions aren't necessarily true. Of course, religious people have all kinds of excuses for the Problem of Losing (tm), but having your religion wiped out remains a fairly convincing argument that your god isn't real.

Or that it could be true (or truer than others) but still not be useful to the peace and well being of humanity.

As far as I can tell, Socrates' simple questioning method is the only useful ideology. Anything that claims to be the answer is just another story distracting us from looking further.

Socrates was no atheist.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Where does dominion come into it?
If God does something evil, then he's not omnibenevolent. Anyone claiming a tri-omni god, THAT god can't exist.
Loki, Set and Aphrodite can still exist, though. They can be complete jackasses and the PoE doesn't apply.

If there is a god he wouldn't have dominion and he would be judged by humans? That's cool with me but that would disqualify him as a god.

 

[Underseer]

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Where does dominion come into it?
If God does something evil, then he's not omnibenevolent. Anyone claiming a tri-omni god, THAT god can't exist.
Loki, Set and Aphrodite can still exist, though. They can be complete jackasses and the PoE doesn't apply.

If there is a god he wouldn't have dominion

Still wondering what 'dominion' has to do with anything....

and he would be judged by humans?

Well, yeah. If we're going to apply human words to anything, then we have to determine if human definitions of those words apply. If a god does things humans would label as evil, then we can't also apply terms like 'perfectly and completely good' to the same being.

That's cool with me but that would disqualify him as a god.

Are you saying Set cannot be evil because, as a god, he would outrank us, or because, as a god, he defines what 'evil' would be?
Maybe you could offer your definition of 'god,' then?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Well then, what exactly does omnibenevolent mean to you? If it translates as "someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about humans in any way, shape or form because he has bigger concerns", what's the difference between that and a god who simply doesn't give a rat's ass about humans in any way, shape or form?

 

[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.

OK, at least you have a bit more of a reason than most people who randomly shoehorn the word God into their philosophy. I still see it as an unnecessary obfuscation, though.

If my goal was conversion, perhaps. It is not. It is for all of us to use a tool that makes us think deeper. It seems to be there waiting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMxX-QOV9tI

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.

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

Once you have found god in yourself what are you now seeking?

I found the best rules and laws for life at that point in time.

Think of finding God as climbing Jacobs ladder. I found myself on rung 1. I raised my goal to a new level and now try to get to the next rung on that ladder.

Going from god to God is a long haul. I am hindered by my condition lack of respect for people. Jesus would not be pleased but I do what I feel I must. He may be able to fight evil with love in his heart but it seems that I have some respect issues to work on.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I like the Jungian nutshell explanation of god.

There is an archetype of perfection, which is exclusionary. IOW, to understand something, we separate it from the universe. Perfection is a male archetype.

Then there is wholeness, which is inclusive but imperfect. Wholeness is a female archetype.

God is the attempt to reconcile the two. While we separate things in order to understand them, we experience the world as a whole.

Jung also said that alchemy was Gnosticism in a guise acceptable to the Inquisition. When the Inquisition ended, alchemy died out. Newton was an alchemist, btw.

The future of the Christian church will be Gnostic or something like it. The sci fi extravaganza ain't gonna last.

I agree. The woo has got to go and Gnostic Christianity seems like the only worthy candidate to make that happen.

Once it is properly presented and people stop reading myths literally.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

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.

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

 

[Keith&Co.]

Seems like God prefers beetles, actually.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Seems like God prefers beetles, actually.

Can you blame him? Beetles are pretty fucking cool.

 

[Sarpedon]

Are you putting your own answers in quotes?

And are you just hijacking the name of the historic gnostics?

 

[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.

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?

Only because of who is making the claim. Someone claims there is a god who is tri-omni. The issues of omnipotence and omniscience are granted. Then the issue of "omni-benevolence" comes to the foreground. What does it mean? If one asks such an individual if their god wants there to be suffering most will deny it. If one asks if that god would prefer that there be no suffering most will agree to that.

The problem is that there is suffering. There is no scenario whereby a god with unlimited power and unlimited knowledge would not be able to engender a world where there was no suffering if that was said god's intention. Whatever that god created would by definition be exactly what that god wanted to exist. That god would not have to compromise, ever. Which means that this world, with all it's incredible suffering, is exactly the world that god wanted to create. That god cannot be as benevolent as a god who (for example) created a world where ALS was not a component. That is but one example, of course. Babies born with Harlequin Type Ichthyosis would be another. A god who created a world like that could be more benevolent if instead he had created a world with neither of these two dread diseases. A god who could be more benevolent cannot be said to be omni-benevolent.

So the Problem of Evil only applies in the context of the language of the people making the claim. A god could claim that it was tri-omni using language elements that mean different things than what humans understand those things to mean and be perfectly valid in doing so. What cannot be said is that as humans understand the concepts of omnipotence, omniscience and omni-benevolence there is a god who exists having all three of these traits.