|
Post by gnosticbishop on Apr 25, 2016 0:37:48 GMT
Yahweh and Allah. Are they moral and ethical Gods? Some say we cannot say or know, because it is all myth. bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2I think they are wrong as men can judge actions. I think we can at least know if Yahweh and Allah, and the religions they spawned, are good or evil. Since God is a Man interpreting God’s words, believers all following a Man. We invent our Gods and put them above us. But ultimately get all we know of God, and his morality from others around us. Priests and imams interpret and are the spokes in the religious communication network. Those priests and imams are teaching violence against their neighbor instead of love. I do not see that as ethical behavior for any moral religion. From what you know of Yahweh and Allah, and the religions they have spawned, would you say that those two War loving Gods, as we also love it in their image, good Gods, or would you say they are something else? Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 26, 2016 21:35:24 GMT
Hi DL, I would be happy to discuss this issue, but in the past (if I recall correctly) such discussions have not gone anywhere useful. If you'd genuinely like to discuss this matter, can you please tell me a little more about what you think, and what you'd hope to get from the discussion? I suppose this response will seem a little pedantic, but so be it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on May 16, 2016 13:04:28 GMT
Hi DL, I would be happy to discuss this issue, but in the past (if I recall correctly) such discussions have not gone anywhere useful. If you'd genuinely like to discuss this matter, can you please tell me a little more about what you think, and what you'd hope to get from the discussion? I suppose this response will seem a little pedantic, but so be it. Thanks. I wanted to primarily discuss the morality that the Abrahamic religions teach as well as to show people that all that is said of the Gods is speculative by their very nature and should not be believed.
I wish to create God seekers out of those who have become idol worshipers of the words of men who have created our views of Gods that they cannot possibly know to be true.
That is what Gnostic Christians have always done I think.
That was likely why Christians hated us back when the murdered us and burned our scriptures.
Then, like today, truth hurt them. Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on May 17, 2016 2:09:27 GMT
Hi DL, I'm happy to have that discussion. But I'd like to clarify a few things before I comment, if that's OK.
1. I'd be interested to know a little more about you - your name, where you live, etc, but more importantly, your beliefs. Do you identify as "gnostic" (e.g. when asked for your religion at a census or hospital admission)? Were you brought up in any religion, or none? What does it mean to you to be a gnostic (if that is how you identify)?
Just to return serve: my name is Eric, I live in Sydney Australia, I identify as a reasonably conventional, though slightly leftist, anti-denominational and counter-cultural christian, but I wasn't brought up with any particular belief.
2. My reading suggests that there hasn't been a clearly identified movement of "gnostics", but rather a bunch of differing ideas and philosophies. Is there any particular group in the past that you particularly relate to or identify with?
3. You talk about christians murdering and hating gnostics. Let me be clear that I have never murdered anyone, I don't hate anyone, and I think Jesus quite strongly taught against both of those things. But unfortunately the church, especially at times in European history, has not always behaved in ways that Jesus would have approved. I don't support that or try to justify that. But it is not the same today, and so neither do I support or justify critics painting modern day christians with that particular brush.
So before we get onto Abrahamic religions, maybe you'd like to comment on these three points please. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on May 25, 2016 21:02:48 GMT
Hi DL, I'm happy to have that discussion. But I'd like to clarify a few things before I comment, if that's OK. 1. I'd be interested to know a little more about you - your name, where you live, etc, but more importantly, your beliefs. Do you identify as "gnostic" (e.g. when asked for your religion at a census or hospital admission)? Were you brought up in any religion, or none? What does it mean to you to be a gnostic (if that is how you identify)? Just to return serve: my name is Eric, I live in Sydney Australia, I identify as a reasonably conventional, though slightly leftist, anti-denominational and counter-cultural christian, but I wasn't brought up with any particular belief. 2. My reading suggests that there hasn't been a clearly identified movement of "gnostics", but rather a bunch of differing ideas and philosophies. Is there any particular group in the past that you particularly relate to or identify with? 3. You talk about christians murdering and hating gnostics. Let me be clear that I have never murdered anyone, I don't hate anyone, and I think Jesus quite strongly taught against both of those things. But unfortunately the church, especially at times in European history, has not always behaved in ways that Jesus would have approved. I don't support that or try to justify that. But it is not the same today, and so neither do I support or justify critics painting modern day christians with that particular brush. So before we get onto Abrahamic religions, maybe you'd like to comment on these three points please. Thanks.
I go by my initials D L. I am a Canadian raised in the R C tradition and owe them quite a bit.
My initial goal was to correct poor Catholic thinking, to repay their generosity. They were not interested and decided that to go against their own Pope was the way to go. The Catholic hierarchy basically believe in evolution and do not believe much of what they say they believe.
"But unfortunately the church, especially at times in European history, has not always behaved in ways that Jesus would have approved"
Yet you still fly the Christian label and flag. Why do you support an immoral creed that begins with you accepting the punishment of an innocent Jesus instead of the guilty?
As to the type of Gnostic I am; there are not enough facts about those cults that Christianity destroyed and whose scriptures were burned along with the bodies.
I base what I do on the Gnostic library and yes use Gnostic Christianity as my flag/religion of choice.
It seems to deal with truth as compared to Christian lies.
Regards DL
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on May 26, 2016 22:33:10 GMT
I go by my initials D L. I am a Canadian raised in the R C tradition and owe them quite a bit. Thanks for that info. You have raised a lot of questions in my mind. Do you not believe in evolution? I'll answer your question with a couple of questions in return. 1. You say your "religion of choice" is Gnostic Christianity. So you have "Christian" in the name of your belief. So why do YOU support an "immoral creed" and "Christian lies"? 2. True story. During WW2, the prisoners in a German prison camp were lined up one day and told every tenth person was going to be executed. One of those selected to die was a Polish man with a wife at home with a child he had never seen. A Catholic priest stepped up and offered to die in his place, and his offer was accepted. I know about the story because the Polish man and his family survived the war and emigrated to Australia. Many years later, the priest was sainted or otherwise honoured and the story was in the Australian newspapers, and the Polish guy told the story. Now of course, the parallel isn't perfect because the Polish man wasn't guilty of anything, but still, why was he a hero but you criticise Jesus? 3. I asked you before, can you give me a historical reference to what you are referring to here please? 4. If Christianity destroyed Gnosticism, (a) how do you know anything about what you believe, and (b) why do you call yourself a Christian Gnostic? I have more questions, I'm sorry. 5. What exactly is the truth that you believe, and why do you believe it is the truth? 6. Which Christian lies are you referring to? Thanks.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jun 3, 2016 3:40:02 GMT
Eric, would you mind if I reply to one of your posts? Or would you prefer that only D L does? My name is Michael by the way, if you prefer to know.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 3, 2016 13:02:46 GMT
Eric, would you mind if I reply to one of your posts? Or would you prefer that only D L does? My name is Michael by the way, if you prefer to know. Hi Michael, no of course, please join in, it is a forum after all. Looking forward to whatever you have to say.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jun 3, 2016 13:11:53 GMT
Okay, great.
I'm intrigued by the story of the priest as a parallel with Jesus. You said it's not completely a parallel, because the Polish man wasn't guilty of anything, whereas Jesus is related as a sacrifice for our sins. Yet original sin it seems makes us guilty merely by existing. That is, we are born sinful rather than this being due to any more specific, conscious acts done under free will. Our capacity for sin is innate, according to this perspective. I would suggest that the game is therefore rigged in a sense. That is a strong moral objection to Yahweh, in my view. Interesting, my understanding is that Islam does not adhere to original sin. However, my knowledge of Islamic theology is highly limited so I'll stick with Christianity. I therefore find the sacrifice of the priest noble and sensible, but not that by Jesus as related.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 4, 2016 1:17:07 GMT
Okay, great. I'm intrigued by the story of the priest as a parallel with Jesus. You said it's not completely a parallel, because the Polish man wasn't guilty of anything, whereas Jesus is related as a sacrifice for our sins. Yet original sin it seems makes us guilty merely by existing. That is, we are born sinful rather than this being due to any more specific, conscious acts done under free will. Our capacity for sin is innate, according to this perspective. I would suggest that the game is therefore rigged in a sense. That is a strong moral objection to Yahweh, in my view. Interesting, my understanding is that Islam does not adhere to original sin. However, my knowledge of Islamic theology is highly limited so I'll stick with Christianity. I therefore find the sacrifice of the priest noble and sensible, but not that by Jesus as related. Hi Michael, you raise two issues - original sin and the morality of Jesus' death - which you seem to see as related, but I don't (yet). It's not higly important (I think) but I'd be interested in how you see them connected. Original sinMy first experience of christianity was in a Presbyterian church, and I am therefore familiar with Reformed theology, which includes original sin as part of the "5 points of Calvinism". Even from my first years as a christian, I only ever believed about 60% of those doctrines, and original sin was one I found problematic. One problem is actually defining it - is it a tendency to sin or an actual imputation of sin? I am OK with the former but totally not believing the latter, which I think is both immoral and not taught in scripture. As I have gone through life (50+ years as a christian now) I have been reinforced in these views, for many reasons: - I don't think Adam and Eve and Genesis 1-3 are correctly understood as literal history, but as folk tale, fable, aetiological myth, legend, whatever is the correct literary term. I came to that conclusion long before I accepted the science of evolution.
- DNA and other evidence shows that people, or species that look indistinguishable to people, existed at least 200,000 years ago, and of course animals well before that. There was death all through that, and pain. So it is hard to see how sin and death entered the world with Adam and Eve.
- We understand genetic inheritance pretty well now and it is hard to see how inheritance of actual sin could make sense, except if it is entirely spiritual inheritance, but inheritance of a tendency in our character to behave in certain ways makes perfect sense.
- DNA studies suggest that there was a single female genetic ancestor and a single male genetic ancestor, but they probably didn't live at the same time and no evidence of them being in the same place.
- The first century Jews, including both Jesus and Paul, used the Old Testament in less literal ways that we do now. Passages on original sin and Adam & Eve need to be interpreted in that light. Interpreting them figuratively (more accurately, as some type of midrash) is quite reasonable.
My current view is that the evolutionary process is inherently selfish to a degree, and a human propensity to be selfish is the root of sin. So God's new creation of us humans isn't only to "rescue" us from the consequences of our own wrong actions, but also to raise us up from the status of animals to human and then to the new humanity, by making us able and willing to rise above that selfishness. I read once that the Orthodox church concept of original sin is more along those lines, and it is the Roman concept we have inherited, but I haven't ever followed that through. The morality of Jesus' deathIf one concludes that Jesus was divine and the New Testament is both a reasonable historical record and a means of God revealing himself (I hold those beliefs, but I don't know what beliefs you hold) then there are going to be things we cannot understand, that are beyond our understanding, and can only be partially known via incomplete analogy. We don't even understand quantum physics very well, nor what caused the Big Bang, nor do we understand consciousness and qualia, so how would we expect to understand God? Scholars, even non-christian historians like Maurice Casey and Michael Grant, tell us that it is reasonable history to conclude that Jesus thought his death would be redemptive, though they think he probably saw this as for Israel, not for the whole world. And the most likely model for such a belief would have been the Jewish sacrificial system. There are many, many theories about why Jesus had to die, so the sacrifice for sins is only part of the possible picture. I think it reasonable that all theories contain some truth by way of analogy. I think that moral objections to Jesus dying are based on just one theory (penal substitutionary atonement - admittedly currently the most popular, though not so through christian history), but they have much less force if we consider all the theories. So perhaps that is enough from me. What do you think?
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jun 4, 2016 1:29:39 GMT
Hi Michael, you raise two issues - original sin and the morality of Jesus' death - which you seem to see as related, but I don't (yet). It's not higly important (I think) but I'd be interested in how you see them connected. Original sinMy first experience of christianity was in a Presbyterian church, and I am therefore familiar with Reformed theology, which includes original sin as part of the "5 points of Calvinism". Even from my first years as a christian, I only ever believed about 60% of those doctrines, and original sin was one I found problematic. One problem is actually defining it - is it a tendency to sin or an actual imputation of sin? I am OK with the former but totally not believing the latter, which I think is both immoral and not taught in scripture. As I have gone through life (50+ years as a christian now) I have been reinforced in these views, for many reasons: - I don't think Adam and Eve and Genesis 1-3 are correctly understood as literal history, but as folk tale, fable, aetiological myth, legend, whatever is the correct literary term. I came to that conclusion long before I accepted the science of evolution.
- DNA and other evidence shows that people, or species that look indistinguishable to people, existed at least 200,000 years ago, and of course animals well before that. There was death all through that, and pain. So it is hard to see how sin and death entered the world with Adam and Eve.
- We understand genetic inheritance pretty well now and it is hard to see how inheritance of actual sin could make sense, except if it is entirely spiritual inheritance, but inheritance of a tendency in our character to behave in certain ways makes perfect sense.
- DNA studies suggest that there was a single female genetic ancestor and a single male genetic ancestor, but they probably didn't live at the same time and no evidence of them being in the same place.
- The first century Jews, including both Jesus and Paul, used the Old Testament in less literal ways that we do now. Passages on original sin and Adam & Eve need to be interpreted in that light. Interpreting them figuratively (more accurately, as some type of midrash) is quite reasonable.
My current view is that the evolutionary process is inherently selfish to a degree, and a human propensity to be selfish is the root of sin. So God's new creation of us humans isn't only to "rescue" us from the consequences of our own wrong actions, but also to raise us up from the status of animals to human and then to the new humanity, by making us able and willing to rise above that selfishness. I read once that the Orthodox church concept of original sin is more along those limes,and it is the Roman concept we have inherited, but I haven't ever followed that through. The morality of Jesus' deathIf one concludes that Jesus was divine and the New Testament is both a reasonable historical record and a means of God revealing himself (I hold those beliefs, but I don't know what beliefs you hold) then there are going to be things we cannot understand, that are beyond our understanding, and can only be partially known via incomplete analogy. We don't even understand quantum physics very well, nor what caused the Big Bang, nor do we understand consciousness and qualia, so how would we expect to understand God? Scholars, even non-christian historians like Maurice Casey and Michael Grant, tell us that it is reasonable history to conclude that Jesus thought his death would be redemptive, though they think he probably saw this as for Israel, not for the whole world. And the most likely model for such a belief would have been the Jewish sacrificial system. There are many, many theories about why Jesus had to die, so the sacrifice for sins is only part of the possible picture. I think it reasonable that all theories contain some truth by way of analogy. I think that moral objections to Jesus dying are based on just one theory (penal substitutionary atonement - admittedly currently the most popular, though not so through christian history), but they have much less force if we consider all the theories. So perhaps that is enough from me. What do you think? I was also raised in a Presbyterian church, though they were quite liberal. Calvinism was entirely unknown to me until much later. I always found the Garden of Eden story contradictory and problematic, especially in the original sin aspect. Viewing it as allegory does remove difficulties of reconciling it with history, genetics, and so on, but other issues remain I think. My point on the link between original sin and Jesus' death is that he's usually viewed as dying for us, yet we only need it due to our original sin which we had no control over. Now, perhaps this does only apply to penal substitution. I must admit that I'm not very familiar with soteriology. However, I believe that the Orthodox hold what's called the Christus Victor theory. That may be what you were thinking. I don't know what your concept of God is exactly, and it might indeed be difficult to know much. On classical theism however God is generally seen as all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful. Thus the need for sacrifices and so on frankly baffles me. I have wrestled with these issues since my youth, and so far find no convincing answers. I'm still looking though. For now I'm an atheist. [/span]
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 4, 2016 6:55:33 GMT
I think quite a lot of christians are moving away from penal substitution. The two alternatives people seem to be gravitating to are (1) the Moral Influence theory (Jesus loves us so much he was willing to say and do what needed to be said, even if it cost him his life), and (2) Christus Victor (Jesus needed to defeat evil and this was how he did it).
I'm sure there is truth in Moral Influence, but it can't possibly explain all the Biblical statements about sacrifice, nor the historians' conclusion that Jesus saw his death as redemptive. And it means Jesus' death in some ways was an accident, because if things had worked out differently he could have said and done everything and still not been executed. I think it can only be true in conjunction with something else, and is the sort of thing that postmoderns would welcome, hence its popularity.
Christus Victor is much more substantial in my view, being based on many passages, such as Colossians 2:15: "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.". If we ask why was that, I think we have to say we don't understand. My guess is that death is part of the natural order, especially natural selection, and evil has become part of the natural order through human choices. I believe that the devil as an evil force probably exists, and if he/it does, then to break the natural order may require some way of defeating death, perhaps a little analogous to an inoculation. That is a pretty vague and naive kind of explanation, and I only mention it because we are discussing - my basic position is simply that we don't know, but I ma happy to accept some mystery.
Was it questions like these that led to you leaving Presbyterianism for atheism, or something else?
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jun 4, 2016 17:38:26 GMT
Interesting. Well, perhaps it's a combination of these as you suggest that would be the best explanation.
These questions and more. I think it was partly how what was said about God seemed in such contrast with not only the universe, but the Bible's description. Honestly, to actually read it was shocking. The advance of science (such as evolution) also seemed to make a creator somewhat redundant as well. There are many reasons, really. I think the problem of evil and such is the most poignant however. No one would gets very worked up over the idea of a distant creator deity that takes no real interest in humanity and can't really be called good or evil. That's not what most people want anyway.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 4, 2016 22:48:47 GMT
These questions and more. I think it was partly how what was said about God seemed in such contrast with not only the universe, but the Bible's description. Honestly, to actually read it was shocking. The advance of science (such as evolution) also seemed to make a creator somewhat redundant as well. There are many reasons, really. I think the problem of evil and such is the most poignant however. No one would gets very worked up over the idea of a distant creator deity that takes no real interest in humanity and can't really be called good or evil. That's not what most people want anyway. OK, thanks. It is interesting how different people's assessments can be. I agree with you about the problem of evil, but the universe and the Bible (the NT at any rate) seem to me to point to God. I often wonder what makes us all so different in our assessments.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jun 4, 2016 22:59:25 GMT
Yes, it is. I don't know, but it seems clear that two people can read the same thing with entirely different reactions. To me they point in the opposite direction.
|
|