0
   

Christians judge god as good. Gnostic Christians judge god as evil. Which religion is correct?

 
 
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2018 09:05 am
Christians judge god as good. Gnostic Christians judge god as evil. Which religion is correct?

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Richard Dawkins.

I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.

I offer as evidence of Yahweh’s corruption one simple fact. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty. This shows his moral and ethical corruption. It also show Jesus as just as corrupt as he went along with it.

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

What is your judgement?

Regards
DL

https://vimeo.com/7038401
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 2,705 • Replies: 171
No top replies

 
KingReef
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2018 11:16 am
@Greatest I am,
God is good. I am a Christian.

Gnostic Christians, I learned, believe that the Old Testament God is evil and the New Testament God is good. So I think you missed that part unless I am mistaken.

I am not a legalistic Christian. I have been humbled way too many times to expect myself to live up to some kind of moral perfectionist standard. So I'm not a typical Christian, as I recognize the Gospel as being non-legalistic. It is based on faith.

Greatest I am wrote:
I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.


Then you should be ashamed yourself, because you fall short too.

As far as God being corrupt in any way, you might have to try harder than that, 1 Peter 1:20 isn't telling reasonable people that God is faulty. It isn't about a bribe, since you said it does, I'm wondering about your sanity.


fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2018 05:18 am
@Greatest I am,
'God' is merely a concept which underpins monotheiem. The question 'which version of monotheism is correct' can only be answered with respect to the relative social consequences of competing versions. In that respect all versions of monotheism have historically had pernicious social consequences because it is the divisive tribal nature of belief which comes to the fore in times of human strife, rather than differential aspects of their underlying mythology.

livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2018 07:24 pm
If God gave humans the power to crucify His only son, does that make Him evil? Yet the crucifixion led to the resurrection and salvation/redemption from sin, so that makes it good. This is a confusing paradox-like relationship between evil and good, but it is an excellent way to study the relationship between God and the relationship between good and evil. "The wages of sin are death,' by God, but through Christ's death and resurrection we are granted eternal life. You really have to meditate on this to get it. It sounds simple because it's so familiar, but to understand what it implies about the relationship between good and evil, and about God's relationship to humans is more complex.

It is like with the story of Noah's flood, as it is portrayed in the movie, (2014) Noah, where Noah is torn between obeying God's will to destroy all humans because they are sinful and having mercy on his baby granddaughters by letting them live. Are God/Noah evil for wanting to remove sin from the Earth? No, but do God/Noah also have grace/mercy/forgiveness to give? Yes. So that is a paradox that is hard to reconcile but it is the same God who judges and condemns sin as who offers grace, forgiveness, and redemption to sinners. As the saying goes, "God hates sin but He loves sinners."
KingReef
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2018 07:38 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
If God gave humans the power to crucify His only son, does that make Him evil?


No. God did exactly what he said he would do in the Old Testament. His son is the fulfillment of quite a few prophesies and rituals of the Old Testament, including the Laws of Moses.

Quote:
Yet the crucifixion led to the resurrection and salvation/redemption from sin, so that makes it good.


I think you are judging God in a Humanistic light. But you are right, salvation / redemption was a good thing and a good result. That the act served Man's was a good thing, salvation was a rescue to those of us God chose. What really made it good is that God called it before it happened. His promises are something God said he is jealous for fulfilling.

Quote:
It is like with the story of Noah's flood, as it is portrayed in the movie, (2014) Noah, where Noah is torn between obeying God's will to destroy all humans because they are sinful and having mercy on his baby granddaughters by letting them live. Are God/Noah evil for wanting to remove sin from the Earth? No, but do God/Noah also have grace/mercy/forgiveness to give? Yes. So that is a paradox that is hard to reconcile but it is the same God who judges and condemns sin as who offers grace, forgiveness, and redemption to sinners. As the saying goes, "God hates sin but He loves sinners."


I saw the movie Noah. I liked it. But I hated the end sequences. Noah's thinking that they all had to die was so far off. If Noah thought anything like that, I would totally be surprised. Rather, what Noah experienced was salvation, of only a few, from the rest of the world that he knew.

God loves those who put their trust in him, just like he said.

John 15
9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. "
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2018 06:07 am
As usual knowing nothing about something doesn't stand in the way of pontificating.

Gnostics don't believe the interpretation put in the Bible so using that logic means nothing.

In a nutshell, Gnostics believe the World was created by the blind god, the Demiurge, Jehovah, Satan. He did this by staling souls from the one true god. Gnostics believe that we all have part of the true god within us, and together that forms God.

Jesus/Lucifer was the envoy of the true God whose soul purpose was to show the way back to the true god by achieving Gnosis.

So as far as Gnostics are concerned Jesus was not the son of Jehovah, he was not connected to Jehovah at all.
livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2018 08:38 am
@KingReef,
KingReef wrote:

No. God did exactly what he said he would do in the Old Testament. His son is the fulfillment of quite a few prophesies and rituals of the Old Testament, including the Laws of Moses.

I try to explain these things in ways that modern secular philosophy-familiar people can understand. Literal interpretation doesn't work for them as well as understanding the stories' characters as representations. In reality, that is what they are because 'God' is really just a word to represent something beyond representation, and Jesus as His perfect son to be sacrificed and reborn is really just a second version of Abraham's struggle with sacrificing his son, which he ultimately didn't do.

The story of Jesus is like the riddle, "can God make a stone so heavy He can't lift it?" In the story of Jesus, sin within God's creation grew so strong, it killed the son of God, God Himself you could say. So how could God create sin so powerful that it could destroy Him through Jesus, but of course the answer lies in rebirth through Holy Spirit, which is the eternal spirit of God that survives any and all destructive acts. So the story of Jesus teaches us how evil and good can coexist eternally as death and rebirth/redemption/salvation/sanctification.

Quote:
What really made it good is that God called it before it happened. His promises are something God said he is jealous for fulfilling.

Well, if you think about it anyone who receives adequate revelation and foresight through careful study of God's creation is capable of seeing the universality of death and resurrection in nature. But it takes a special level of enlightenment to connect this with human sin and the eternal life of the spirit, and for many people that revelation/enlightenment wasn't possible without it become a totally embodied phenomenon in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Quote:

I saw the movie Noah. I liked it. But I hated the end sequences. Noah's thinking that they all had to die was so far off. If Noah thought anything like that, I would totally be surprised. Rather, what Noah experienced was salvation, of only a few, from the rest of the world that he knew.

I liked the end because it put it in a more direct human context what it means and feels like for a father and servant of God to choose between serving God's will and doing what's right for the creation as a whole, and protecting a sustaining his own family line. Humans are God's creatures, but we are created in His image and thus we have the capacity to sin as well as to exercise conscience to resist sin. So within each of us is the capacity and spirit of self-discipline to resist and correct sin within ourselves, but that translates into the social responsibility to resist it in the world and correct/discipline others as well. Noah had to choose between completing God's project with the flood of removing all humans from the face of the Earth or allowing humanity to survive and persist. I think you can ultimately say that his choice to allow his line to persist was a sin against God's will during the flood, but that God forgave the sin because of compassion/mercy/grace/forgiveness, which is once again the message of the story of Jesus where human sin kills Jesus/God yet once again God forgives us for it and offers us salvation and redemption instead of judgment/condemnation.

Quote:
John 15
9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. "

That's a nice quote, too bad we so often fall to the temptation to transgress.
KingReef
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2018 12:32 pm
@livinglava,
It sounds like you are interested in describing the current dichotomy of good and evil. Did I get that right about you?

I don't believe the way we see things and discover the nature of good and evil is "normal". 1) we are backward in our point of view, and 2) God stated that evil will be in a place where it can no longer corrupt the good he has stated in his word, the way I see it.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2018 02:38 pm
@KingReef,
KingReef wrote:

It sounds like you are interested in describing the current dichotomy of good and evil. Did I get that right about you?

I don't believe the way we see things and discover the nature of good and evil is "normal". 1) we are backward in our point of view, and 2) God stated that evil will be in a place where it can no longer corrupt the good he has stated in his word, the way I see it.

I'm not a relativist, so I guess there's no way to have a fruitful discussion with you except as a battle of paradigm-domination.
KingReef
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2018 02:54 pm
@livinglava,
I wasn't being facetious. I was merely trying to understand what you were saying. Try again?
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2018 10:10 pm
@KingReef,
KingReef wrote:

I wasn't being facetious. I was merely trying to understand what you were saying. Try again?

Well then I misunderstood you and I don't understand exactly what you're asking about.
0 Replies
 
KingReef
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2018 12:23 am
@livinglava,
You were explaining to me your tact at getting those with a secular philosophy to understand Biblical things.

I agree with your assessment of Jesus and Abraham's story, but I wondered if you were talking about an eternal dichotomy concerning good and evil.
livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2018 04:28 am
@KingReef,
KingReef wrote:

You were explaining to me your tact at getting those with a secular philosophy to understand Biblical things.

I agree with your assessment of Jesus and Abraham's story, but I wondered if you were talking about an eternal dichotomy concerning good and evil.

Yes, I have believed in relativism, cultural and moral, in the past; but I have realized subsequently that relativism is invalid and that universalism is falsely criticized and rejected. Here are some reasons:

1) relativism fails by its own logic: if you take relativism to its fullest implications, it becomes a choice to validate universalism and deny relativism, or at least to advance universalism against relativism. Why? Because asserting relativism as an absolute truth is a universal claim. If you are truly relativist, you reject the possibility that relativism is universally true and therefore you accept the possibility of a perspective in which universalism is true. If then you embrace this perspective, you become a supporter of the view that Truth is universal and relativism is an untenable stance. Now you could say that because this is a relative/subjective perspective, you shouldn't defend it as an absolute truth, but that again is a stance based on the assumption that it is absolutely true that a relative perspective cannot be universally valid.

Once you fully abandon universalism/absolutism, in other words, it becomes possible to fully embrace universalism/absolutism. In short, relativism fails because it canabalizes itself when it explores universalism/absolutism as relative truths and totally erases the possibility of asserting relativism as an absolute/universal truth.

2) Physics is valid and there is only one set of physical laws that are inherent to the entire universe:

Anything visible through any telescope or otherwise imaginable in the universe is made of the same stuff and subject to the same mechanics as anything else. Protons, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos, gravity, etc. are all the same everywhere in the universe. The universe is thus by definition universal. You can't viably argue that there are other galaxies or other regions of the universe where the laws of thermodynamics are different, or where Newton's or Einstein's laws and theories don't apply the same way.

Everything in the universe is made of the same stuff and exhibits the same mechanics.

3) Human subjectivity is imperfect because humans are imperfect, therefore our perspectives, ethics, morals, beliefs, science, etc. cannot be perfect. This is an argument against absolutism but not universalism. I believe that universal knowledge and morality cannot be perfectly and absolutely known and understood, but that they must exist by virtue of the unified nature of existence as a single realm. We as humans are stuck permanently working on improving our knowledge and understanding but it would be a step backward to presume relativism and moral/scientific variability through time and space/culture.

Universality is ultimate reality. Though we cannot know it completely, we have the capacity to eternally progress toward better knowledge and understanding.
KingReef
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2018 06:21 am
@livinglava,
I understand there are multiple definitions of words, commonly. There are places where I think relativism is true, in that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, and /or historical context, and are not absolute. As a Christian, I see that God's subjective list of morality became an objective task for morality with the Hebrews, otherwise called the Laws of Moses. Though I believe that the Laws of Moses were given to show how inept Man is to live by them; they weren't meant to accomplish them, they were meant to see how they fail, and how they needed God to forgive them of their failure.

The reason why I said that is the set before you my understanding, which I don't tend to see in terms of universalism, absolutism, or relativism. So the approach, the taxonomic you use is not what I am accustomed to. That's what I'm trying to say.

As for Relativism, I think there is some truth to it, people are basing their morality, for instance, of ideas they adopt influenced by society and other outside sources in relation to themselves, which tend to treat themselves and others well. That's all morals are to me, to me they are not typically some absolute set of rules to be demanded universally. I'm pretty sure if we looked at morality closely enough we would find paradoxes and exceptions to the Rule

As for God, he isn't our understood version of Man. And I think neither is reality; God's understood view of reality is not that close to our understood view of reality. We see the physical universe and not much else, I would include energy to that physical universe. With God I tend to see that God promises another universe instead of this one. He also promises to remove all corrupted elements before that new universe is manifested. That is why I tend to think that we are not looking at the perfect anything in our universe. It all has an expiration date. Nothing is permanent. Our universe is temporary and an exception instead of the rule of eternity.

I hold those views, and I don't expect anyone to adopt them just because I hold them.
livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2018 06:49 am
@KingReef,
KingReef wrote:
There are places where I think relativism is true, in that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, and /or historical context, and are not absolute.

I think the view you express here is slightly off-base because of the following: culture is a product of intersubjective interactions that generate and reify perpectival opinion. However, that doesn't make culture true/valid relative to the people who create, reify, and apply it. It merely means that culture is always in a necessarily incomplete state of progress toward perfection, which can never ultimately be achieved.

So it's better to regard culture as an attempt to achieve whatever its human creators/practitioners are seeking or doing with it, and avoid regarding it as true/valid relative to the people/identity associated with it.

Quote:
As a Christian, I see that God's subjective list of morality became an objective task for morality with the Hebrews, otherwise called the Laws of Moses. Though I believe that the Laws of Moses were given to show how inept Man is to live by them; they weren't meant to accomplish them, they were meant to see how they fail, and how they needed God to forgive them of their failure.

True, there is value in observing imperfection and confessing/repenting for it and thus receiving forgiveness/salvation/redemption/sanctification; and that is arguably the main purpose/function of Christ.

But there is also value in deciphering deeper truths expressed within the imperfect cultural/moral tenets that have been generated throughout the ages. E.g. various dietary restrictions may have been inadequately partial and based on agricultural factors and limits in play at the time they were adopted, but the general idea that it is morally/ethically good to restrict diet for various reasons is universally valid.

Dietary restriction, generally, is a subset of the general morality/ethic that humans have the capacity to think/reason and exercise willpower in listening to their consciences and thus put effort into sacrificing certain pleasures/choices in favor of effectuating a greater good that (sensual) gratification, indulgence, etc.

Quote:
The reason why I said that is the set before you my understanding, which I don't tend to see in terms of universalism, absolutism, or relativism. So the approach, the taxonomic you use is not what I am accustomed to. That's what I'm trying to say.

I find the distinction between relativism and universalism extremely useful and relevant to understanding the struggle between political liberalism and moral liberty. In the case of relativism/liberalism, no natural convergence is expected to be achievable among the diversity of perspectives protected by religious freedom/liberty. In the case of moral liberty, on the other hand, it is expected that in the absence of state religion and abuse of authoritarian power, religious freedom results in people taking the liberty to arrive at common standards of decency in governance.

Quote:
As for Relativism, I think there is some truth to it, people are basing their morality, for instance, of ideas they adopt influenced by society and other outside sources in relation to themselves, which tend to treat themselves and others well. That's all morals are to me, to me they are not typically some absolute set of rules to be demanded universally. I'm pretty sure if we looked at morality closely enough we would find paradoxes and exceptions to the Rule

Relativism cannot negatively evaluate rationalizations and whitewashing as morally wrong/bad. They are seen as one perspective/prerogative among others deserving of equal validation. Relativism ultimately cannot distinguish between lies and honesty, for example, because the prerogative to lie and cheat can be validated by relativism as a religious prerogative equal to any other, e.g. Satanism.

Quote:
As for God, he isn't our understood version of Man. And I think neither is reality; God's understood view of reality is not that close to our understood view of reality. We see the physical universe and not much else, I would include energy to that physical universe. With God I tend to see that God promises another universe instead of this one. He also promises to remove all corrupted elements before that new universe is manifested. That is why I tend to think that we are not looking at the perfect anything in our universe. It all has an expiration date. Nothing is permanent. Our universe is temporary and an exception instead of the rule of eternity.

The universe consists of energy and all its manifestations and transformations. It is simultaneously perfect and imperfect as it contains all potentialities and forms. In the Lord's Prayer it says, "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven." The implication is that we aspire to facilitate God's will in our world to the best of our ability despite the fundamental imperfection built into nature.

Nothing material is permanent, because of the fundamental nature of energy as motion and transformation of form. However, there is a spiritual level that transcends materiality in which eternal life is axiomatic. E.g. if you understand energy in terms of the law of conservation where it can neither be created nor destroyed, then you automatically understand that one form transforms into another without ever stopping due to 'death.' In other words, death is an illusion caused by focusing on material form as an isolated state of existence. Once you see material form as a temporary configuration of something that is permanent, death is no longer a finality.

Quote:
I hold those views, and I don't expect anyone to adopt them just because I hold them.

While it may be unrealistic to expect any person with a free mind to adopt anything in submission to reason, however reasonable it might be to do so; you should also have no reason to validate the rejection of reasonable beliefs by people as an assertion of absolute sovereignty/autonomy of arbitrary prerogative over reason.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2018 07:19 am
@Greatest I am,
What a load of crap. Your position depends on your assertion below which is facetious. God, in every case, was defending the plan he set in motion. In terms of the universe as we know it, it is the only plan in town. Nothing here that he didn’t make from scratch. Part of the plan depended on 'free will', that allowed for the possibility that some might snuff out the ones who were the object of his plan. A gardener weeds and prunes his garden.

Assuming you accept the reality that a God exists and not just some bloviating troll, this is his garden, his creation down to the last grain of sand and single celled organism.

So who the **** are you to tell your maker how the **** to tend his garden.

There's my reasoning for why your logic is bullshit.
Can you defend that load of crap you wrote with reason or not?

Quote:
This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2018 10:26 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

So who the **** are you to tell your maker how the **** to tend his garden.


Gnostics don't believe that. They view Jehovah as more of a kidnapper than a creator of living things.

Sounds like GIA hit a nerve.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2018 12:06 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Gnostics don't believe that. They view Jehovah as more of a kidnapper than a creator of living things.

Sounds like GIA hit a nerve.
My comment was addressed to his lame criticisms of the Abrahamic religion's God. Presumably that is the reason he embraced the gnostic god instead.

Not that I care to defend the particulars of those religions. Their interpretation of the story told in the Bible is often just as screwed up as GIA's.

The 'gnostic' crowd is not at all unified in their dogma. My guess is that they heard the silly stereotype of the malevolent god from religion critics but could not let go of the instinctive knowing that there is more here than the material universe. So they cook up various versions of role reversals of god and Satan in an attempt to make life add up.

Nerve? Naw, I’m just fed up with anti theists who don’t have the courage to declare themselves atheists. They are half assed idiots who don’t deserve any respect.

As God says in the book, “Be ye hot or cold. If ye be lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth.”
KingReef
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2018 12:55 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
KingReef wrote:
There are places where I think relativism is true, in that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, and /or historical context, and are not absolute.


livinglava wrote:
I think the view you express here is slightly off-base because of the following: culture is a product of intersubjective interactions that generate and reify perpectival opinion. However, that doesn't make culture true/valid relative to the people who create, reify, and apply it. It merely means that culture is always in a necessarily incomplete state of progress toward perfection, which can never ultimately be achieved.

So it's better to regard culture as an attempt to achieve whatever its human creators/practitioners are seeking or doing with it, and avoid regarding it as true/valid relative to the people/identity associated with it.

I'm not so sure about that last part. I suppose in a perfect world society would be guided by those who only intended to do something good with it. I know you weren't talking about that specifically, but my point is that society is just what it is, some try to achieve things, some are immune to it. Some are able to phase society unintentionally. I don't see society acting as a combined populated resource for the good for the collective.

So I don't see culture "as an attempt to achieve whatever its human creators/practitioners are seeking or doing with it." Perhaps you aren't in California, or anywhere I live or have lived. Or maybe our perspectives are true, but not coming from the same angle concerning our idiosyncratic perspective. I tend to resist Utopian points of views, I tend to be resistant to that philosophy. I also typically think of Relativism under another definition, it's what I'm used to. Relativism in this case being the tendency to discount the experience and education of an individual, making it equal to the opinion of those who have had less. By the way, what complicates that anti-Relativist perspective is that the educated sometimes are simply plain wrong, like scientists or philosophers with a political agenda.

Now I have to admit, I am not used to conversing with someone of your intellect. I wonder if I am drawing a tangent to your point or not half the time. So excuse me if I seem obtuse. I don't mean to. I value honesty and truth.

edit: I am sorry I didn't respond to the rest of your post. If there is something important that I missed, please let me know. I forgot how long these posts can get on Message Boards.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2018 01:18 pm
@Leadfoot,
You say they're not unified then you go on to describe them using a collective pronoun. You can't have it both ways, your use of terms like dogma and general dismissiveness makes you sound very tetchy indeed.

Btw, I think the OP is a bit of a tit as well but so are most mainstream Christians for that matter.

If it wasn't for Gnosticism William Blake wouldn't have done such great Art and Poetry.

http://scottgendel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/william-blake-the-marriage-of-heaven-and-hell.jpg
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Christians judge god as good. Gnostic Christians judge god as evil. Which religion is correct?
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/16/2018 at 03:57:10