Where did God get the feminine nature to put into women?

[steve_bank]

First and foremost we do not know who the 'first Christians' were. Initially Romans saw them as Jewish heretics.

We know there were multiple competing versions, at times violent. Paul never knew Jesus and created his own version to suit his ambitions.

Gnostic Christianity appears to be a mix of older non Jewish traditions with a version of Jesus. Buddhism and Hinduism were fully developed by the time of Christ, and there would certainly have been exposure to them in the mid east.

Keep in mind Jewish mythology was also a blend of other existing myths adapted to Judaism. Assimilation of culture and mixing traditions is how civilization evolved.

There are synthetic traditions that are still around today, like Rosicrucian, Free Masons, s and Theosophy. They generaly claim ancient secret knowledge and wisdom. The mystical experience and rituals.

Like many in the 70s I drifted through a number of things. A more modern version is Ekankar. There is Bahai from the 19th century. The process of new traditions never end. Unitarianism is yet another Christian offshoot.

So, you can proclaim the virtues and superiority of Gnostic Christianity from the highest mountain, but I have to say I have heard it all before.

My conclusion was there is no special or secret knowledge or wisdom. I decided it was better to do something useful than waste my time on any of it, hence my career as an engineer.

One does not religion to be ethical and moral.

You are welcome to your beliefs, but you are wasting your time trying to conibce me it i unique and superior to the rest.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You are welcome to your beliefs, but you are wasting your time trying to conibce me it i unique and superior to the rest.

I agree.

If you cannot see a religion that rejects genocide as good, the way we do, as compared to Christians who embrace it, then you are too stupid and morally bankrupt for me to bother with.

Regards
DL

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Then, even though we are part of God, we can also be part of the eternally damned, even from the Hindu perspective, as we were discussing about the ideas of one sub-school Hinduism elsewhere.

Who damned you/us eternally?

Scriptures say we are all saved due to Yahweh willing it.

You mean the remastered work? Because the original scriptures mention nothing about being in need of saving.

Jesus would not report saving just a few, pops. After all. Jesus is God to Trinitarians.

I am a part of God, and God in my own right, as an adult, and am a part of the eternally saved.

If you feel damned now, then some God can damn you eternally.

If you do not feel damned at present, then God cannot damn you eternally, as you cannot perceive it.

Cool! Choose Your Own Damnation.

Gnostics see this reality as heaven, --- (confirmed by Jesus in scriptures), --- as the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given our history. Science agrees.

Science doesn't agree.

Do you see yourself in heaven or hell, damned or saved?

I see myself on Earth with a lot of other living things.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Science doesn't agree.

Care to show where science refutes that the world is the only possible way it can be, given our history, and that this world is the best of all possible worlds?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Because the original scriptures mention nothing about being in need of saving.

In the way Christianity wants to ride Jesus as a scapegoat, you have a point.

You might want to push your research up a notch though to get it all correct.



Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

You are welcome to your beliefs, but you are wasting your time trying to conibce me it i unique and superior to the rest.

I agree.

If you cannot see a religion that rejects genocide as good, the way we do, as compared to Christians who embrace it, then you are too stupid and morally bankrupt for me to bother with.

Regards
DL

And I think the general atheist response is we do not need religion to decry genocide. a term you seem obsessed with. You argument fails.

Because Gnostic Christains call out genocide and injustice does not mean there is any validity to the beliefs. The pope calls out genocide, war, and injustice but I don't put much stock in Catholicism either.

Is there a particular Gnostic Christian author who emphasizes the word genocide?

As I have alwts said, like all human social groups there are positives and negatives to religion. Some atheists on the forum have pushed back saying religions have no positive attributes at all.

So, your beliefs to me are no better or worse than other with maybe a few exceptions.

Here in Seattle Mount Zion Baptist an historically black church pre COVID opened its dorrs vbery morning for brekfast for anyone. They have scholarship and mentoring programs for kids. That church has always been a center for civil rights. When I am on the street with a ffriend from the church or on a bus we'd run into people he helped with things like addiction.

Sikhs have a tradition of feeding people. The main temple in India feeds a lot of people. A temple here in Seattle has feed once a week. Si were historically aggressive. I asked a Sikh on views o women. He said they have a saying, women give birth to princes.

The RCC has ongoing issues with sex abuse and other issues, yet at the street level they do a lot of good things. Up the road from me is a Catholic Charities facility. Among other things they provide overnight shelter for women fleeing from spousal abuse.

It is not the faith, IMO it is the person.

Humans being what we are, I seriously doubt Gnostic Christianity represents any special 'goodness' or morality. I am suspicious and skeptical of anyone claiming exclusivity or superiority.

 

[skepticalbip]

Science doesn't agree.

Care to show where science refutes that the world is the only possible way it can be, given our history, and that this world is the best of all possible worlds?

Regards
DL

You are the one who made the claim that science agrees with your beliefs. Why the fuck do people make such baseless claims? Does your religion worship what you think is science? Obviously your claim shows no understanding of scientist. But I guess it has become a popular thing to do, say "the science says" and then blather whatever you want people to believe. That seems to be replacing the old "god says" and then blather.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Science doesn't agree.

Care to show where science refutes that the world is the only possible way it can be, given our history, and that this world is the best of all possible worlds?

Regards
DL

Science hasn't spoken on the issue, so can't be said to agree with your statement (your claim), nor has it even bothered to try to refute it. So, science is currently agnostic on the "best of all possible worlds" position, but I hear Prof. Pangloss is writing a paper on this very thing at the moment.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The pope calls out genocide,

Not of his own God, and that makes the difference.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Science doesn't agree.

Care to show where science refutes that the world is the only possible way it can be, given our history, and that this world is the best of all possible worlds?

Regards
DL

Science hasn't spoken on the issue, so can't be said to agree with your statement (your claim), nor has it even bothered to try to refute it. So, science is currently agnostic on the "best of all possible worlds" position, but I hear Prof. Pangloss is writing a paper on this very thing at the moment.

B.S.

Science is clear.

Refute my irrefutable claim, show where science disagree or or go away.

If you cannot show my error -----

Regards
DL

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Science doesn't agree.

Care to show where science refutes that the world is the only possible way it can be, given our history, and that this world is the best of all possible worlds?

Regards
DL

Science hasn't spoken on the issue, so can't be said to agree with your statement (your claim), nor has it even bothered to try to refute it. So, science is currently agnostic on the "best of all possible worlds" position, but I hear Prof. Pangloss is writing a paper on this very thing at the moment.

B.S.

Okay, there is no Prof. Pangloss.

Science is clear.

You haven't cited any science though. You are asserting, blindly asserting.

Refute my irrefutable claim, show where science disagree or or go away.

There is no law of dichotomy, ie unless science refutes something it must otherwise be true. There is no reason to believe a planet as good or better than Earth exists. There certainly is no evidence other than point to 7ish other planets and moons in our own solar system, of which life might have existed on one or more of them. There are billions or trillions of planets out there. To presume ours is the best... one that has had several extinction events... is unsubstantiated folly.

If you cannot show my error -----

You would actually needed to provided something in order to be able to show something wrong. Assertion isn't work.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Science doesn't agree.

Care to show where science refutes that the world is the only possible way it can be, given our history, and that this world is the best of all possible worlds?

Regards
DL

You are the one who made the claim that science agrees with your beliefs. Why the fuck do people make such baseless claims? Does your religion worship what you think is science? Obviously your claim shows no understanding of scientist. But I guess it has become a popular thing to do, say "the science says" and then blather whatever you want people to believe. That seems to be replacing the old "god says" and then blather.

Baseless?

Yes, you haven't created any level of a basis for your opinion.

Think entropy and the anthropic principle and shove your blather.

Anti-entropy isn't an alter to worship from. Most of the universe is relatively empty space... yet there are stars, planets, massive clouds of organic chemicals. Entropy gave us evolution.

 

[skepticalbip]

Science doesn't agree.

Care to show where science refutes that the world is the only possible way it can be, given our history, and that this world is the best of all possible worlds?

Regards
DL

You are the one who made the claim that science agrees with your beliefs. Why the fuck do people make such baseless claims? Does your religion worship what you think is science? Obviously your claim shows no understanding of scientist. But I guess it has become a popular thing to do, say "the science says" and then blather whatever you want people to believe. That seems to be replacing the old "god says" and then blather.

Baseless?

Yup, baseless unless you count that it is what you believe as a basis.

Go away stupid.

Now is that supposed to be an example of deep reasoning?

Think entropy and the anthropic principle and shove your blather.

Regards
DL

I don't think you understand what entropy is if you think it makes the Earth the best it can possibly be. And the anthropic principle is a philosophical idea, not a scientific finding... A benevolent god is also a philosophical (not scientific) idea that you seem to be arguing.

You are pretty much confirming my observation that people make baseless claims that "the science says" and then follow it with blather.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

There is no reason to believe a planet as good or better than Earth exists. T

???

Who said there was?

Fact is, I said the opposite.

I t see you are not understanding.

Fact. This is the only Earth.
Fact. It is the best possible Earth as there are no challengers.
Fact. It is the only possible Earth given our history, entropy and the anthropic principle.

The wise call that description heaven.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

Gnostic Bishop must be astral traveling around the universe and has seen other planets?

Fact: My apartment building is the best of all possible buildings that could be built on this spot.The building is in Seattle the best of all possible places to live in the universe.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You seem to be mistaking the word ‘fact’ with a number of other things.

Billions of planets, if not trillions out there. You know of less than a dozen.

 

[steve_bank]

There is no reason to believe a planet as good or better than Earth exists. T

???

Who said there was?

Fact is, I said the opposite.

I t see you are not understanding.

Fact. This is the only Earth.
Fact. It is the best possible Earth as there are no challengers.
Fact. It is the only possible Earth given our history, entropy and the anthropic principle.

The wise call that description heaven.

Regards
DL

My grandmother who was a devout Catholic once said to me people want heaven on Earth and they are not gong to get it.

Fact. This is the only Earth.

In an infinite universe with no beginning or end there could be identical solar systems. In any case it can not be ruled out. Low probabil;ity but not impossible. It is not possible to know or prove. The assertion is not supportable.

Fact. It is the best possible Earth as there are no challengers.

The Erath is the result of natural cosmic processes. As there is no agnet be it a god or spirit or intellgence there is no intent. As such saying Earth is the best possible 'Earth' has no meaning.

Fact. It is the only possible Earth given our history, entropy and the anthropic principle.

Entropy as in Laws Of Thermodynamics does not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole.

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The anthropic principle is the principle that there is a restrictive lower bound on how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, given that we could only exist in the particular type of universe capable of developing and sustaining sentient life.

Statistics properly applied require an enumeration of possibilities. The above is in the form of a tautology and similar in form used by theists. The universe can not exist without a god therefore a god must exist.

The only universe we can observe is one in which we can exist, well duh Captain Obvious.

The antropic principle is philosophical unprovable pseudo science. Philosophical gibberish.

 

[atrib]

That doe not negate what is obvious and irrefutable; that nature creates all life for their best possible end.

No, it doesn't. Best in what way, and for who?

Again, you display a fundamental misunderstanding of how nature works.

 

[steve_bank]

Gnostic Bishop must be astral traveling around the universe and has seen other planets?

Fact: My apartment building is the best of all possible buildings that could be built on this spot.The building is in Seattle the best of all possible places to live in the universe.

Given entropy, how could it possibly be better, [removed]

Regards
DL

If you like we can discuss Lwes Of Thermodynamics on science. Start a thread on entropy and we will explain it to you.

Instead of using an insult I will say ignorance of science.