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

None of my statements are dishonest, they aren't trying to be mean, they aren't attacking anyone here. So I hope you learned, because I don't want to go through that with you again.

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.

'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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

I thought I explained what unified them - “various versions of god and Satan reversing roles”. That is the basis on which I addressed them collectively.

I have met Gnostics who mixed in every sort of belief. We are ancient beings from other galaxies, we are angels who wanted to try out being human, reincarnation, our saviors will arrive in spacecraft measuring miles across, etc...

So you've met a load of weird people who call themselves all sorts. So what? The same can be said of mainstream Christians, snake handlers and all sorts of weird ****.

I saw the little Torquemada in you jump right to the surface. I get the impression you're less interested in the idea of eternal bliss and more concerned with the sheep and goats, chucking those of us who don't conform into your lake of eternal fire.

Your version of Christianity doesn't seem to have much to do with peace and love at all.

Yeah, I find that Man uses the term "perfect" in a way that cheapens perfection, often. I think we mean "better than expected" or "better than the others".

You like them have been spewing lies.

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

It would have been more moral to punish the guilty instead of the innocent or just forgive all outright without a blood sacrifice.

You show your moral corruption by thinking that substitution punishment is somehow good, especially given that Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi would have taught what follows.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

It seems you care little of your moral corruption. Satan like that.

Quote:

You like them have been spewing lies.

In order for me to spew lies about Gnosticism, there would have to be a central truth about it. There are as many different Gnostic beliefs as there are Gnostics.

Greatest I am wrote:

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

It would have been more moral to punish the guilty instead of the innocent or just forgive all outright without a blood sacrifice.

It's a subtle spiritual idea. Have you ever heard someone say, or had the thought, that you or someone else was so bad that they are beyond salvation/redemption? What does that thought do to you besides motivate you to surrender to further evil? The idea of forgiveness is that it gives us strength to resist further evil.

Let's take a specific example from the bible: the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery. Jesus famously said let the one without sin cast the first stone, but if some pimp had come along instead, he could have said to her that she was an unforgivable sinner and that she might as well come work for him as a prostitute because there was no way for her to be saved and redeemed after falling so low. So forgiveness is about offering sinners the good news that they can turn their lives around and rise instead of falling ever lower.

Quote:

You show your moral corruption by thinking that substitution punishment is somehow good, especially given that Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi would have taught what follows.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

The wages of sin are death, so the soul does die. But it has eternal life and is reborn. People still suffer for sin under Christ. It's just they have forgiveness/salvation/redemption/sanctification and thus hope for the future and the hereafter.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

It seems you care little of your moral corruption. Satan like that.

I think you are playing games with blaming and provocation. Is your motive to pursue moral goodness or sow inflammatory seeds. Do you feel there's not enough execution for sin and more judgment would equal less moral corruption? If that's not your point, then why are you citing these passages and accusing me of satanism?

livinglava wrote:

KingReef wrote:

Yeah, I find that Man uses the term "perfect" in a way that cheapens perfection, often. I think we mean "better than expected" or "better than the others".

Perfect means what it means. It doesn't exist in reality, but it is possible to always progress beyond the current state of imperfection. Still, sometimes 'good enough' is better than the alternative that would result from changing the status quo. It all just depends on the situation and every situation is different; not that people don't and won't lie and claim the status is good enough just for the sake of protecting interests that would be better off changing.

Perfect genocide and the perfect murder of many innocent children and babies is what you see.

Thanks for showing us your corrupted moral sense.

Regards
DL
What I don't want to do is argue semantics. Maybe I'm looking at it like what I complained about; that Man tends to misuse the term "perfect". But I mean almost always, because the one thing I can say is perfect is the way God performed with Christ and the work of Christ, it is the only perfect thing I can think of that Man could see. If not by actually being there at the time, then on the pages of most Bibles. Jesus did perfect things perfectly. He was so right on, yet kept those who aren't supposed to catch on, he kept them from catching on.

The bottom line is that we're all sinners, so without forgiveness we all deserve nothing better than death.

KingReef wrote:

Quote:

'Expect it' implies it is not already happening in the present.

I meant it present tense.

You seem to be debating, but you're not being clear? What are you saying, that persecution of Christians is good, past and present? Are you a satanist? Do you hate goodness and love and reconciliation with God?

No ta. I'll stick with William Blake. I'm not much into preachy types, and you seem just as preachy as all evangelicals.