0
   

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

 
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2018 09:39 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Candy is simply not as nutritious as some other food you could eat with the same amount of calories.
No one is disputing that.

Quote:
How many times do I have to reiterate what 'sin' means? It means falling short of the ideal.
That's the problem then, isn't it - what is 'ideal' is subjective.

- For example, it would be ideal to be a genius, so by your principle - every person who falls short of the ideal, in this case being a genius, is sinning.

- Many believe it would be ideal if others were as incredibly hard working as them, so every person not incredibly hard working is sinning

- Others believe it would be ideal to think smarter, rather than working harder - so every person not thinking smarter, is sinning

- It would be ideal to be selfless, so every person not dedicating all of their self to others, is sinning

...but none of them are the whole story.

Quote:
Ok, you're right about needing energy, but most candy/sugar exceeds our actual energy needs
Of itself, it does not. You can have a piece of candy that amounts to 400kj, when the average daily energy intake for a person is 8400kJ. If you are an ultrafit athlete, then your kJ intake for the day is much higher.

Quote:
and mostly we are just stressing our pancreas, kidneys, liver, etc. with the amount of sugar we eat.
With the key word being the amount that we eat, rather than an amount, such as 1, or 2.

Quote:
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.
Quite frankly, the only person here who is stating beliefs that can withstand challenges with integrity, is you.

You notice how, when you try and apply your beliefs to situations you don't wish to consider, that you start to twist yourself in knots with your beliefs?

It is much, much simpler to have beliefs that can apply consistently across situations.

But to reiterate what you said - 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.

livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2018 09:58 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
How many times do I have to reiterate what 'sin' means? It means falling short of the ideal.
That's the problem then, isn't it - what is 'ideal' is subjective.

I told you. It is between you and God to determine what your path of moral revelation will be. You should realize by now that morality isn't totally relative, so you should be able to use your subjectivity to progress in terms of what moral choices are better than others and why. Don't debate it with me; forge an inner relationship with God through prayer and contemplation.

Quote:
- For example, it would be ideal to be a genius, so by your principle - every person who falls short of the ideal, in this case being a genius, is sinning.

You can contemplate this issue deeply and receive revelations about the purpose of intelligence and what people should do with their minds and what uses of their minds are more harmful or bad.

Quote:
- Many believe it would be ideal if others were as incredibly hard working as them, so every person not incredibly hard working is sinning

Work is productive application of energy. Sometimes work causes more harm than good. Sometimes it's harder work to do less than more.

Quote:
- Others believe it would be ideal to think smarter, rather than working harder - so every person not thinking smarter, is sinning

You seem to be hung up on the issue that there's something wrong if there is so much possibility for sin. Have you ever heard the old truism that the high road is narrower than the low road? If you look at a target, the bulls eye is a much smaller area than the rest of the target, and if you want to split hairs, the bulls eye itself has a center, which you will never hit perfectly.

The issue with sin is can you humble yourself to accept that you can't escape sin, only strive to get better, or are you so consumed with pride and the will to pride that you insist on defining a sin-free space where you can live in denial of your ability to pursue further improvement?

Quote:
- It would be ideal to be selfless, so every person not dedicating all of their self to others, is sinning

Yes, but we can't escape sin. We can only go on repenting and doing our best to accept forgiveness and try harder to get better.

Quote:
Of itself, it does not. You can have a piece of candy that amounts to 400kj, when the average daily energy intake for a person is 8400kJ. If you are an ultrafit athlete, then your kJ intake for the day is much higher.

Whether you are right or wrong, the point is that you are arguing with me about how sinful or not sinful something is. You don't have to argue with anyone about it. All you have to do is consult your conscience with utmost honesty and fidelity, and you should be able to proceed along whatever path you are guided along internally.

Quote:
Quite frankly, the only person here who is stating beliefs that can withstand challenges with integrity, is you.

I'm just giving you examples of how I understand things. You can think for yourself and engage in your own internal dialogue with God through Holy Spirit if you are sincere about seeking guidance and obeying your conscience.

Quote:

But to reiterate what you said - 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.

Agreed.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2018 10:06 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
I told you. It is between you and God to determine what your path of moral revelation will be.
And yet here you doing the opposite of this, and declaring a number of things to be sin.

Quote:
You seem to be hung up on the issue that there's something wrong if there is so much possibility for sin.
Not projecting much are you...I was simply showing how your beliefs don't hold up to scrutiny. God doesn't lack integrity, and isn't inconsistent...so why should your beliefs about him contain such?

Quote:
Whether you are right or wrong, the point is that you are arguing with me about how sinful or not sinful something is.
Projecting again. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in your beliefs. I don't see candy to be a 'sin' unless eaten in excess. That's a pretty straightforward belief, consistent against all challenges...if you wish to define sin as doing anything that is not the best for you.

Quote:
You can think for yourself and engage in your own internal dialogue with God through Holy Spirit if you are sincere about seeking guidance and obeying your conscience.
What do you think this has been an exercise in?

livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2018 03:56 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I told you. It is between you and God to determine what your path of moral revelation will be.
And yet here you doing the opposite of this, and declaring a number of things to be sin.

Me telling my POV shouldn't interfere with your personal relationship with God any more than listening to advice from others should prevent you from deciding whether or not to take that advice.

Quote:
Not projecting much are you...I was simply showing how your beliefs don't hold up to scrutiny. God doesn't lack integrity, and isn't inconsistent...so why should your beliefs about him contain such?

I've told you many times I don't agree with your views on consistency. I'm done discussing that. There's nothing I can say to make you see the fault in your logic.

Quote:
Projecting again. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in your beliefs. I don't see candy to be a 'sin' unless eaten in excess. That's a pretty straightforward belief, consistent against all challenges...if you wish to define sin as doing anything that is not the best for you.

I told you many times it's about missing the mark. If you have the choice between candy and a more nutritious snack, choosing the candy is missing the mark, even if it doesn't harm you too badly to eat it once.

The way most small sins harm you, however, is by building up into a pattern of use. It's easy to allow yourself to fall to temptation when you say, "one X won't hurt me." By that logic, you can smoke just one cigarette, eat just one candy bar, or do any number of other things 'just once' before eventually repeating and increasing frequency of use until you're in an addictive habit pattern.

Quote:
Quote:
You can think for yourself and engage in your own internal dialogue with God through Holy Spirit if you are sincere about seeking guidance and obeying your conscience.
What do you think this has been an exercise in?

Debate.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2018 08:51 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Me telling my POV shouldn't interfere with your personal relationship with God any more than listening to advice from others should prevent you from deciding whether or not to take that advice.
The problem is, you aren't presenting these things as your point of view - you are calling them sinful, with no qualifications such as 'from my POV'

Quote:
I've told you many times I don't agree with your views on consistency. I'm done discussing that. There's nothing I can say to make you see the fault in your logic.

Logic? Logic is the essence of consistency.

The reason you avoid answering whether or not God is consistent is, if God is inconsistent, then you cannot trust anything he says. If he is consistent, then your beliefs need consistency, as one of the key pillars to help determine if they are correct or not (there are other pillars). It is very obvious that God is consistent.

It's also very obvious why you don't want to find any consistency in your beliefs - because such would undermine your beliefs, which you have no desire to do. So it's not about logic, it's not about honesty, it's about you avoiding the flaws in your own beliefs.

If you are happy with that, then no can fault (in your mind) your own beliefs, but for those who seek truth, and to understand truth, you will never be able to say "This is truth, and I can explain why". Truth stands up to challenges.

Quote:
The way most small sins harm you, however, is by building up into a pattern of use. It's easy to allow yourself to fall to temptation when you say, "one X won't hurt me." By that logic, you can smoke just one cigarette,
There is no comparison between eating a single candy, which supplies the body energy, and by itself, cannot do harm to the body...and smoking a cigarette, which by itself does harm to the body (though the body repairs itself after just one)

In terms of candy, as previously pointed out, any food in excess, causes problems.
Quote:
Debate.
Is that what this is? By this point, that would be such a pointless exercise then.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2018 04:17 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
The problem is, you aren't presenting these things as your point of view - you are calling them sinful, with no qualifications such as 'from my POV'

No one can speak except from their POV. Even when you quote someone else, you are selecting and interpreting the quote from your own POV.

Quote:

The reason you avoid answering whether or not God is consistent is, if God is inconsistent, then you cannot trust anything he says. If he is consistent, then your beliefs need consistency, as one of the key pillars to help determine if they are correct or not (there are other pillars). It is very obvious that God is consistent.

Not by your logic. By your logic it is inconsistent for reproduction to be the purpose of sex because that would be inconsistent with homosexual desires.

Quote:
It's also very obvious why you don't want to find any consistency in your beliefs - because such would undermine your beliefs, which you have no desire to do. So it's not about logic, it's not about honesty, it's about you avoiding the flaws in your own beliefs.

If you are happy with that, then no can fault (in your mind) your own beliefs, but for those who seek truth, and to understand truth, you will never be able to say "This is truth, and I can explain why". Truth stands up to challenges.

Quote:
There is no comparison between eating a single candy, which supplies the body energy, and by itself, cannot do harm to the body...and smoking a cigarette, which by itself does harm to the body (though the body repairs itself after just one)

In both cases, the harm of just one is negligible, but the planting (or nurturing) of a seed of addiction is the real harm.

Quote:

Quote:
Debate.
Is that what this is? By this point, that would be such a pointless exercise then.

Yes, so why do you keep debating me then?
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2018 08:38 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
No one can speak except from their POV. Even when you quote someone else, you are selecting and interpreting the quote from your own POV
Which is true, but not what you are doing. You are:
- stating something categorically as a sin, without qualification, stating it over and over, then
- backing out when challenged and saying 'but only from my perspective'

As a personal belief, you are entitled to what you want to believe...but writing something as fact / truth, when it is so, so easy to qualify as personal POV, is bad writing. If it's not bad writing, then hiding behind such a defense is dishonest.


Quote:
Not by your logic. By your logic it is inconsistent for reproduction to be the purpose of sex because that would be inconsistent with homosexual desires.
And yet again you avoid answering whether or not God is consistent.

And as I mentioned earlier, reproduction is one of the purposes of sex. It is not the only purpose.

Notice that it's a bit like your claim that nourishment was the only purpose of food?

Quote:
Yes, so why do you keep debating me then?
I've pre-emptively answered this question two or three times now.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2018 12:25 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
No one can speak except from their POV. Even when you quote someone else, you are selecting and interpreting the quote from your own POV
Which is true, but not what you are doing. You are:
- stating something categorically as a sin, without qualification, stating it over and over, then
- backing out when challenged and saying 'but only from my perspective'

POV is not a mutually exclusive category from something else. Everyone necessarily interprets facts and reasons from their own POV. That is just a fact. It doesn't make everything relative or perspectival that it is so.

Quote:
As a personal belief, you are entitled to what you want to believe...but writing something as fact / truth, when it is so, so easy to qualify as personal POV, is bad writing. If it's not bad writing, then hiding behind such a defense is dishonest.

No, your reasoning is false here.

Quote:
And yet again you avoid answering whether or not God is consistent.

I don't think your understanding/logic of what consistency is and how it relates to this discussion is relevant. Specifically, I think you apply the idea of consistency in ways that don't make sense in real terms.

As I said, it isn't inconsistency that causes heterosexual sex to result in pregnancy and homosexual sex not to. It is the way sexual reproduction in general has evolved into a XX and XY pair of sexes. LGBTQ point out things like XXY, etc. etc. to de-binarize sex and gender, but that is all just identity politics.

Ultimately, the purpose of sex is reproduction, so there is more (re)productive sex and more wasteful sex. Libidal energy, when conserved, can be used for other things. So really the issue is how to best channel life energy and, as I said, pleasure-seeking is not the most productive way to channel your energy, whether you are hetero or homo.

Quote:
And as I mentioned earlier, reproduction is one of the purposes of sex. It is not the only purpose.

Notice that it's a bit like your claim that nourishment was the only purpose of food?

Now you're preaching hedonism, but I've explained why that is a detrimental life philosophy.

Quote:
Yes, so why do you keep debating me then?
I've pre-emptively answered this question two or three times now.
[/quote]So stop.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Nov, 2018 06:10 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
POV is not a mutually exclusive category from something else.
Of course it is:
- my opinion is A,B,C
- 1 + 1 = 2
- X is a sin
The first sentence is presented as POV, the second is presented as an absolute fact, the third as an absolute.

Your 'opinion' on specific actions as sin - you have presented as an absolute for pages. No where in your writings, prior to you working out that you couldn't ethically debate something so full of holes, did you make any effort to qualify it as your opinion.

Quite frankly, given you are still defending your behaviour, you are being dishonest.


Quote:
No, your reasoning is false here.
Come up with a valid alternative.

Quote:
I don't think your understanding/logic of what consistency is and how it relates to this discussion is relevant. Specifically, I think you apply the idea of consistency in ways that don't make sense in real terms.
And yet again you avoid answering. I personally think that you don't avoid answering for my benefit. You avoid answering for your own benefit.

Quote:
Now you're preaching hedonism, but I've explained why that is a detrimental life philosophy.
And yet another dishonest interpretation. The other purposes I said sex existed for were:
- bringing people closer together (like a husband and wife)
- pleasure (can be between a husband and wife)
- stress relief (can be between a husband and wife)
No where in there, does hedonism have to be promoted. I've previously pointed out your all or nothing approach, and you continue to fall for your own poor mental habits.
Quote:
So stop.
If you read the reasons, then you should realise that this may still achieve something. I think it already has yield some results. I'm debating with myself on whether or not further will achieve much more, but that is something I will will decide for myself.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 06:43 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
POV is not a mutually exclusive category from something else.
Of course it is:
- my opinion is A,B,C
- 1 + 1 = 2
- X is a sin
The first sentence is presented as POV, the second is presented as an absolute fact, the third as an absolute.

POV is a given, whether you're specifically talking about your POV or just talking about facts and realities, which you necessarily interpret and understand via your POV. There is no possibility of speaking from any POV except your own POV. Even when you quote someone else, you're doing so from your POV.

That said, there are universals and perspectives that go beyond POV. Truth and perspective are simply not mutually exclusive categories.

Quote:
Your 'opinion' on specific actions as sin - you have presented as an absolute for pages. No where in your writings, prior to you working out that you couldn't ethically debate something so full of holes, did you make any effort to qualify it as your opinion.

That doesn't matter because it's true. Also never did I say I was typing my thoughts in English on a computer, but it was the case and still is.

Quote:
Quite frankly, given you are still defending your behaviour, you are being dishonest.

No, you're just making assumptions and projecting them and then expecting others to honor them, when they're not even valid to begin with.

Quote:
I don't think your understanding/logic of what consistency is and how it relates to this discussion is relevant. Specifically, I think you apply the idea of consistency in ways that don't make sense in real terms.
And yet again you avoid answering. I personally think that you don't avoid answering for my benefit. You avoid answering for your own benefit.[/quote]
At this point I'm just telling you what I really think, but I don't have much hope that you'll understand because you seem pretty bent on spinning things the way you spin them. Mainly I am waiting for you to stop replying to my posts. Maybe you just want to have the last word.

Quote:
And yet another dishonest interpretation. The other purposes I said sex existed for were:
- bringing people closer together (like a husband and wife)

Board games are a better way because there is less intense pleasure and thus addictive potential. I also recommend tea over coffee and/or shooting heroine together.

Quote:
- pleasure (can be between a husband and wife)

The pursuit of pleasure is hedonism. That's what hedonism means.

Quote:
- stress relief (can be between a husband and wife)

Drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes are also popular as stress relief, but that doesn't make them good or healthy.

Quote:
No where in there, does hedonism have to be promoted. I've previously pointed out your all or nothing approach, and you continue to fall for your own poor mental habits.

I've explained hedonism but you deny it in favor of the normative definition, which construes it as something 'extra hedonistic' beyond normal hedonism, which is denied as hedonism because it makes people uncomfortable to think of themselves as hedonists. In reality, hedonism is quite normal culturally. It is a normal sin, like so many others.

Quote:
So stop.
If you read the reasons, then you should realise that this may still achieve something. I think it already has yield some results. I'm debating with myself on whether or not further will achieve much more, but that is something I will will decide for myself.
[/quote]
mwah, I think you're just fighting to establish something in opposition to what I've said because you don't like my conclusions.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2018 10:46 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
POV is a given, whether you're specifically talking about your POV or just talking about facts and realities, which you necessarily interpret and understand via your POV. There is no possibility of speaking from any POV except your own POV. Even when you quote someone else, you're doing so from your POV
You're hiding behind philosophy.

You know exactly what I have been saying, when I say you've been presenting your beliefs as an absolute, in relation to actions are sin. And yet you persist with this dishonest 'I didn't mean it that way' clap trap.

Your God teach you to engage in dishonesty?

What about hiding from the inconsistency of your beliefs?

(oh that's right, you don't want to admit that God is consistent)



livinglava wrote:
The pursuit of pleasure is hedonism. That's what hedonism means.
Are you trying to redefine peoples understanding of the word hedonism now? Either you don't understand the full story, or you are once against being dishonest.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hedonism
Quote:
hedonism noun [ U ] uk ​ /ˈhed. ən.ɪ.z əm/ us ​ /ˈhed. ən.ɪ.z əm/ living and behaving in ways that mean you get as much pleasure out of life as possible, according to the belief that the most important thing in life is to enjoy yourself.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hedonistic
Quote:
a person whose life is devoted to the pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
Quote:
Hedonism is a school of thought that argues that the pursuit of pleasure and intrinsic goods are the primary or most important goals of human life.[1] A hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure (pleasure minus pain). However upon finally gaining said pleasure, happiness may remain stationary.

Ethical hedonism is the idea that all people have the right to do everything in their power to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure possible to them. It is also the idea that every person's pleasure should far surpass their amount of pain. Ethical hedonism is said to have been started by Aristippus of Cyrene, a student of Socrates. He held the idea that pleasure is the highest good.[2]


Certainly you can justify anything to yourself if you want to turn a blind eye to logic, to double standards, to flaws, to inconsistencies. You can take it even further, and manipulate words, seek only black or white, continually read things into others posts that aren't there, then ignore that you keep getting it wrong, and ignore why you get it wrong...yes, by doing these things, you can justify anything to yourself.

But don't ask others to believe you. And don't preach the rightness of your beliefs when you engage in such blatantly blind behaviour to maintain your beliefs.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 1 Dec, 2018 07:10 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

livinglava wrote:
POV is a given, whether you're specifically talking about your POV or just talking about facts and realities, which you necessarily interpret and understand via your POV. There is no possibility of speaking from any POV except your own POV. Even when you quote someone else, you're doing so from your POV
You're hiding behind philosophy.

It's actually the other way around. What I am explaining is that reality that there is no categorical mutual-exclusivity between personal POV and facts or cited authority. When you construe them as mutually-exclusive categories, you're twisting reality with subtle philosophical filters.

Quote:
You know exactly what I have been saying, when I say you've been presenting your beliefs as an absolute, in relation to actions are sin. And yet you persist with this dishonest 'I didn't mean it that way' clap trap.

I explained my POV as to why various sins are sin. I explained why each sin is a deviation from the straightest and narrowest path possible. Hedonism puts the pursuit of pleasure higher than other pursuits that render more good. Examples are candy and non-reproductive sex, both of which render pleasure without the more productive ends those pleasures have naturally evolved to stimulate.

Quote:
Your God teach you to engage in dishonesty?

What about hiding from the inconsistency of your beliefs?

(oh that's right, you don't want to admit that God is consistent)

None of this is worth responding to. It's just provocation because you seem to enjoy conflict and drama.

Quote:
Are you trying to redefine peoples understanding of the word hedonism now? Either you don't understand the full story, or you are once against being dishonest.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hedonism

Many things besides hedonism are misunderstood because people falsely attribute the label to only an extreme subset of what actually falls within the category. So, for example. pursuing any pleasure for its own sake is hedonistic but because hedonism is so common, and because it is deemed an undesirable trait that people don't want to be associated with, they tweak their understanding of it to only include those pleasurable pursuits that seem excessive, such as when a beer drinker sees a whiskey drinker as an alcoholic but not himself.

Quote:
Ethical hedonism is said to have been started by Aristippus of Cyrene, a student of Socrates. He held the idea that pleasure is the highest good.[2]

It's an easy view to embrace superficially, because basically we are designed to experience pleasure in things that benefit us and pain from things that cause detriment; but it doesn't take that much contemplation to realize that there are pleasurable pursuits that cause detriment and beneficial pursuits that require endurance of sacrifice and suffering.

So by that simple awareness, you can recognize that hedonism is a lower pursuit with many potential pitfalls and paths to pleasurable degeneration.

Quote:
But don't ask others to believe you. And don't preach the rightness of your beliefs when you engage in such blatantly blind behaviour to maintain your beliefs.
I explain the reasons why things are right and it's up to the reader to assess whether there is better reasoning to contradict what I say. Nothing you read or hear in this world will ever be perfect, so you can't expect others to preach perfect information. I can assure you that it is not my intent to mislead, despite my lack of perfection as a human being; and I can tell you that you fighting against what I am saying in every way possible is more a reflection of your will to defend certain sexual and material practices that I am not validating.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/16/2018 at 05:17:27