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

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

- you tied an only loosely related post of mine (loose in the sense of almost totally unrelated), to texts from the bible related to what you were saying. Please don't do that, it's poor structure showing poor logic, and it results in impossible debate

That was the exact verse of the Bible you were referencing regarding men and women marrying to avoid sin. Google the entire passage and read it from beginning to end if you don't believe me.

Quote:

- Those weren't complex rationalisations - they were very, very simple. Arguing a case does not make one the case, playing devils advocate does not make one the devil, point out flaws does not make one a follower of the identified flaws. As I mentioned, if you question everything (general), becomes much easier to question everything within a narrower field (field specific).

They may seem simple within the paradigm they are situated, but that paradigm is ultimately a complex rationalization that fails.

Quote:

No, there's also the possibility that you find flaws in a flawed way because you want to reject something that you shouldn't actually reject.

Very close attention. When you attack something else with flawed logic, it seems like you must be right because you are the one doing the attacking/criticizing, but in fact your critique/attack can be based on false logic.

Quote:

What Sin is, must be based in principles. So the same sequence to identify the principles must exist.

Yes, but it doesn't mean you won't twist and pervert the process to escape valid conclusions and replace them with false ones based on false logic.

Here's a great Bible quote that speaks to this:

Quote:

20Woe to those who call evil good

and good evil,

who turn darkness to light

and light to darkness,

who replace bitter with sweet

and sweet with bitter.

21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes

and clever in their own sight.

We can both say this applies to the other and maybe we are both right or both wrong. Either way, there's no more point discussing it; not that that will stop you from continuing.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

That was the exact verse of the Bible you were referencing regarding men and women marrying to avoid sin. Google the entire passage and read it from beginning to end if you don't believe me.

I know it. Marrying to avoid sin has never been an issue discussed between us, nor have I suggested it as an issue, nor disagreed with it. If you wish to claim such, please quote where I have said otherwise.

Quote:

Very close attention. When you attack something else with flawed logic, it seems like you must be right because you are the one doing the attacking/criticizing, but in fact your critique/attack can be based on false logic.

Seems we agree.

Quote:

We can both say this applies to the other and maybe we are both right or both wrong. Either way, there's no more point discussing it; not that that will stop you from continuing.

Odd that you keep doing what you critique others for doing.

My reason for doing so is based in what I've already told you is the reason I do so. For me, that's entirely consistent.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I know it. Marrying to avoid sin has never been an issue discussed between us, nor have I suggested it as an issue, nor disagreed with it. If you wish to claim such, please quote where I have said otherwise.

You keep calling heterosexual marriage a double-standard.

Quote:

My reason for doing so is based in what I've already told you is the reason I do so. For me, that's entirely consistent.

Your fixation on consistency is false logic. You can have two criminals, one with the intent to get away with whatever they can and the other sincerely repentant; and the lawyer for the unrepentant criminal will claim unfairness in the inconsistent levying of harsher penalties on the unrepentant person, but in reality the person who is truly repentant has already achieved the correct attitude while the unrepentant person is just trying to manipulate the system to get away with more mischief.

So consistency is really just a logic used to manipulate. In reality, each individual has a unique situation that warrants different rules and disciplinary measures. That's why human governments, laws, and courts are flawed but the divine courts of karma (or whatever you want to call ultimate justice) are fair.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You keep calling heterosexual marriage a double-standard.

Never have, and impossible to do. You know what a double standard requires. Once again, please provide a quote where I said this, and please don't remove it from context.

Do you never wonder why you keep running into this problem, of you making nonsense claims about what I'm saying that you can't even back up?

Quote:

Your fixation on consistency is false logic. You can have two criminals, one with the intent to get away with whatever they can and the other sincerely repentant; and the lawyer for the unrepentant criminal will claim unfairness in the inconsistent levying of harsher penalties on the unrepentant person, but in reality the person who is truly repentant has already achieved the correct attitude while the unrepentant person is just trying to manipulate the system to get away with more mischief.

I'm not sure why you chose an example where consistency would be ideal.

As an aside, I was talking about consistency of principle. Laws aren't principles, they are black and white attempts at defining the end product of principles. Even they suffer from inconsistency and unfairness in particular situations. Courts are the attempt to mediate law. And even they fail to be consistent, though it as a system, tries.

So thank you for highlighting the importance of consistency.

Quote:

So consistency is really just a logic used to manipulate

Rofl. That is the first time I have ever seen anyone make such a claim.

Consistency is the basis for:
- fairness
- fair comparison
- identification of double standards
- identifying who you are
- improvement
- analysis
- patterns being true or not
- science
- testing anything (ie. the reliability of the results, depends on how consistent the results are)

It's also the basis for:
- trust
- loyalty
- knowing a persons principles (because they are consistent with them)

.... etc.

So please, if you believe consistency is logic used to manipulate, abandon everything that is based on consistency

Why would you ever claim such a thing? So that you don't have to look at the inconsistencies in your beliefs? If so, we are two very different people.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

So consistency is really just a logic used to manipulate

My apologies, within context, you may not have meant to write that to mean what it specifically says. Did you mean 'So consistency of justice is really just a logic used to manipulate'? Or something similar?

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
So consistency is really just a logic used to manipulate
My apologies, within context, you may not have meant to write that to mean what it specifically says. Did you mean 'So consistency of justice is really just a logic used to manipulate'? Or something similar?

I explained it.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

It's not clear if you meant that specific statement to say what it said - if it did mean to say exactly that, then it was utterly nonsensical, as per this reply

1 Reply

@Greatest I am,

Quote:

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.

And wow.. How man has used the 'fall' of Adam/Eve to continue on the 'wrong' path away from God, calling Him all sorts of 'evil' things.

“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.

From darkness to greater darkness...

From 'grace to grace'.

From darkness to light.

Did you know that some persons actually enjoy being: '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'

I think they are called sociopaths..

-
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/sociopathy

Moral Outlaws

In recent years, several influential books have attempted to dispel the myth that most sociopaths are ruthless killers and criminals. On the contrary, they argue, the nearest sociopath might be a boss, a partner, or a parent. While sociopaths may not all be literal outlaws, however, a defining characteristic is a profound lack of conscience—a flaw in the moral compass that typically steers people away from breaking common rules and treating others decently. Yet this internal moral disconnect may be masked by a charming demeanor.

steers people away from breaking common rules? Does this mean that they steer people into keeping common rules?

--

In the wake of inconsistencies of judgment, necromancers and other practitioners of the magic arts were able to utilize spells featuring holy names with impunity, as any biblical references in such rituals could be construed as prayers rather than spells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancy

impunity
im·pu·ni·ty
Definition of impunity
: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss

Ecclesiastes 8:11 "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."

2 Replies

@daverod,

Ezekiel 16:49 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

Moral impunity.

Add to this violence against and towards non Sodom citizens, and you might have a fearful city to enter into.

But why would the punishment towards The LORD God's daughters of His People be greater? For what cause or reason?

Lamentations 4:6 For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her.

What is the wrong doing of the daughters of His People?

1 Peter 4:1-4 "Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; 2That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. 3For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: 4Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:"

And so what's wrong with this picture? How can daughters of His people not be protected/guarded/assisted but rather receive 'punishment'?

A relationship. Although they are the daughters of His people, what is their personal relationship to their 'fathers' and their 'fathers' fathers' like? What are they contributing to the 'relationship' between Father and daughter?

A father can only do so much if the daughter is unwilling to receive any help from her father, right?

1 Reply

@daverod,

Rather than on the 1 or the few, why not look upon the 'all', the assistances/helps for the 'all', both old and young; both rich and poor.

0 Replies

@daverod,

Quote:

In the wake of inconsistencies of judgment, necromancers and other practitioners of the magic arts were able to utilize spells featuring holy names with impunity, as any biblical references in such rituals could be construed as prayers rather than spells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancy

impunity
im·pu·ni·ty
Definition of impunity
: exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss

Ecclesiastes 8:11 "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."

In 2016, the average wage for police officers was $62,760 per year or $30.17 per hour, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Police officers work around the clock and wages vary by city and state.

https://work.chron.com/much-money-police-officer-make-weekly-7363.html

https://www.goodtherapy.org/dbimages/full-broken-beer-bottle.png

http://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.LWQjHSxgQ_Ncxn0v2pH5IQHaEK

https://images.glaciermedia.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2234769.1461106071!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/image.jpg

a little 'outing' in the 'rain' or 'family'?

I mean.. I see the photographs and I try to imagine what sort of 'photographer' is always around taking pictures?

1 Reply

@daverod,

I mean, that's pretty close, wouldn't you say?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d6/51/d5/d651d5b6dda7142e1ad666b28ad5706e.jpg

Have one of those 'rubbles' land on the head and the photographer could have gotten some very serious injuries.

If this was a planned 'attack', is it the same as any other 'hate crime' which is committed on the 'streets' but which are not being reported?

Question:

How quickly would you be able to locate 2 flights leaving an airport on a certain day at certain hours, weeks or months in advance?

Ever talk to Airlines booking customer service? It isn't that easy of a 'job'. It takes time.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

It's not clear if you meant that specific statement to say what it said - if it did mean to say exactly that, then it was utterly nonsensical, as per this reply

God is nature. What you are calling 'inconsistency' is the fact that heterosexual sex can result in reproduction while homosexual sex cannot. That is just nature. It has nothing to do with consistency or inconsistency. The fact that you can desire and derive pleasure from non-heterosexual sex is like the fact you can desire and derive pleasure from chewing gum or eating candy or other non-nourishing foods. The fact that eating candy is more sinful than eating healthy food is not inconsistency. It's just nature.

1 Reply

@daverod,

Quote:

How quickly would you be able to locate 2 flights leaving an airport on a certain day at certain hours, weeks or months in advance?

I guess you are implying there is a conspiracy behind those pictures and it's too hard to schedule flights in advance. Many people book flights months in advance. You simply look at the airline schedule and pick, what's the problem?

Do you think it's unlikely someone would be taking pictures near a skyscraper that had just been hit by an airliner? I'd be suspicious if there were NO pictures of that second plane hitting the other tower.

And what's all this 9-11 stuff doing in this thread? What's the connection in daverod's head?

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

God is nature.

We agree.

Quote:

What you are calling 'inconsistency' is the fact that heterosexual sex can result in reproduction while homosexual sex cannot.

No, I am not. What you wrote is entirely consistent with nature. And also in nature, some of a species are genetically born with homosexual genes, and following those genes is also entirely consistent with what nature created.

Do you notice that there is only one person in this ongoing conversation between you and I, that has continually jumped 'misunderstood' or jumped to erroneous conclusions about the others position?

People who have thought through their beliefs, tested them from every angle, and come to a knowledge about their consistency, don't jump to so many erroneous conclusions about others positions like you do. They don't because during their own testing, they become intimately familiar with testing process, and so understand where they may go wrong with interpreting another what another person is saying. And when there is ambiguity to them, they either wait for clarification, or ask.

Quote:

The fact that you can desire and derive pleasure from non-heterosexual sex is like the fact you can desire and derive pleasure from chewing gum or eating candy or other non-nourishing foods.

A rather poor comparison. In this conversation:
- eating food is necessary to personal survival
- eating healthy food is necessary to personal good health
- eating some candy is fine

Quote:

the fact that eating candy is more sinful

Do you belong to a cult?

Quote:

The fact that eating just candy is less healthy than eating healthy food is not inconsistency. It's just nature.

I made some changes, to illustrate how I would phrase your comparison. There's problems with this, but as it allows the two versions to be directly compared, it will have to suffice.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

it will have to suffice.

It just won't do Vikkor, but I would like to thank you wholeheartedly for all the thoughtful, considerate and useful contributions throughout the years, unlike some people who usually rely upon snide remarks, oops.

What live-in-lover is really saying is:

The fact that eating candy is (insert fascist tripe) than eating healthy food is not inconsistency, it's just nature.

The fact that other kinds of sex is (insert fascist tripe) than heterosexual sex is not inconsistency, it's just nature.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
God is nature.
We agree.

Quote:
What you are calling 'inconsistency' is the fact that heterosexual sex can result in reproduction while homosexual sex cannot.
No, I am not. What you wrote is entirely consistent with nature. And also in nature, some of a species are genetically born with homosexual genes, and following those genes is also entirely consistent with what nature created.

I explained before that succumbing to every temptation you experience will not lead you in a good direction. You can't say because you are genetically programmed to enjoy sugary sweets, it is good to eat candy. The natural purpose of eating is to nourish the body and candy doesn't do that. It is the same with non-reproductive sex, which is the sexual equivalent of candy. You are biologically inclined/tempted to pursue it, but it is not good for you.

Quote:

A rather poor comparison. In this conversation:
- eating food is necessary to personal survival
- eating healthy food is necessary to personal good health
- eating some candy is fine

The fact that some sin doesn't cause much harm doesn't make it not sin. I've told you over and over that we are all sinners and sin is inevitable. Trying to deny sin when it's effects aren't too bad or because it's forgiven through Christ is just lying/whitewashing. Don't confuse what is sin and what isn't by whitewashing some sins relative to others. Choose clarity and recognize sin for what it is, even when it's not too bad.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You can't say because you are genetically programmed to enjoy sugary sweets, it is good to eat candy.

And nor did I say that. The problem you are experiencing here is caused by an 'all or nothing' basis for your writings. You want 'candy' to be good or bad, but it is neither. It is situational.

Quote:

The natural purpose of eating is to nourish the body and candy doesn't do that.

Actually, that is only one of the two purposes that eating serves. The other is to provide energy.

Candy provides energy. The issue arises when you eat too much energy for no purpose. Too much energy for no purpose can also happen when your foods are too high in fat, but fatty foods by themselves are not a sin. And if you only eat bananas, you are likely to likely to become malnourished from lack of non-banana vitamins & minerals, but bananas by themselves aren't bad for you. There's a reason the concept of a balanced diet came about.

Quote:

It is the same with non-reproductive sex

All or nothing, or situational?

Quote:

The fact that some sin doesn't cause much harm doesn't make it not sin

Never said it did, but your writing just here is talking about something quite different to what my writing (that you replied to) was talking about.

Quote:

I've told you over and over that we are all sinners and sin is inevitable

Yes, you have, and I have never taken issue with your stance on such. That said - such is possibly a complex field by itself.

Quote:

Don't confuse what is sin and what isn't by whitewashing some sins relative to others

If you are referring to candy, then once again, are you in a cult?

1 Reply

Out of curiosity, do you also believe vitamin & mineral supplements to be a sin? Because while they provide nourishing vitamins & minerals, they provide no energy, which is one of the natural functions of food.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

And nor did I say that. The problem you are experiencing here is caused by an 'all or nothing' basis for your writings. You want 'candy' to be good or bad, but it is neither. It is situational.

Candy is simply not as nutritious as some other food you could eat with the same amount of calories. So you can say that candy 'misses the mark' when it comes to nourishment. How many times do I have to reiterate what 'sin' means? It means falling short of the ideal. Humans are always falling short of ideals or 'missing the mark,' which is why Christianity acknowledges that we are all sinners. That is why we accept forgiveness, humble ourselves, and seek to do better. We are never going to reach the finish line of perfect, because we can't in this fundamentally imperfect state, but we can keep striving to do better and repent for falling short.

Quote:

Actually, that is only one of the two purposes that eating serves. The other is to provide energy.

Candy provides energy. The issue arises when you eat too much energy for no purpose. Too much energy for no purpose can also happen when your foods are too high in fat, but fatty foods by themselves are not a sin. And if you only eat bananas, you are likely to likely to become malnourished from lack of non-banana vitamins & minerals, but bananas by themselves aren't bad for you. There's a reason the concept of a balanced diet came about.

Ok, you're right about needing energy, but most candy/sugar exceeds our actual energy needs, and mostly we are just stressing our pancreas, kidneys, liver, etc. with the amount of sugar we eat.

Quote:

If you are referring to candy, then once again, are you in a cult?

I have no idea what you mean about a cult, here. I used candy as an example of something pleasurable that falls short of some other food that would be beneficial. Sexuality wastes energy and causes various forms of harm. You can be happy without it, so why would you resist doing so unless you were in some way attached/addicted to sexual pleasure, which I think most people are in some way or other.

The bottom line is this, and then stop debating me because we're not going to agree. Just understand what I'm telling you and then think the way you want to. The bottom line is that everyone, whether hetero- homo- or whatever, should attempt to live a celibate life, i.e. live like a child who has never discovered sexuality at all. If you can do that, you will be as happy and carefree as a child who doesn't have to worry about things like pregnancy, STDs, heartaches, divorce, resentment, etc. etc.

If you find that you cannot resist sexual temptation, then attempt to contain it within a heterosexual marriage, because that way at least there is the possibility that you and your wife will get pregnant and be able to co-parent a child in the same household for your entire lives. If you can't do that, then try to at least remain monogamous with the same homosexual partner, but don't think that you're not sinning. The sin is similar to a heterosexual who commits adultery or fornication within a monogamous (side) relationship. It's still sin, but maybe less sinful than running around with multiple illicit partners.

Above all, keep confessing and repenting to God and asking for guidance and deliverance from Him directly in the form of revelation through Holy Spirit. Keep yourself open to realizations of how you can change your life to become less sinful. There are no double-standards in seeking liberation from sin because EVERYONE is dealing with sins that are not easy to transcend, whether it is sexual sin or dietary sin or shoplifting or whatever. You have to engage in your own personal relationship with God. Ask questions and receive revelations. Be honest with yourself and Him and put your best effort into choosing the right path forward and avoiding the sins you recognize, repent for, and hope to be delivered from. Accept God's help when it comes and be grateful so that you will stay open for more. Continue to confess and repent for the things you discover when you are soul-searching and listening to your conscience.

Now that is my advice and it might be wrong or right, but I have no interest in engaging in further debate with you on this topic. We are both beating dead horses here so accept what I've said and dismiss it as advice if that's all you can do.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know