|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Feb 19, 2014 18:57:08 GMT -5
I have an O P in the works for the more Christian places I go to.
Yours is almost a Christian view and not a Gnostic Christian one so I thought you should read it. I am not sure if I am finished with it yet.
----------------------
For evil to grow, all your good God need do is nothing.
If it is true that for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing, ----then it is also true that for evil to grow, all a good God need do is nothing.
If you see evil as stable or growing on the earth, it is because your good God is doing nothing.
Is your God fighting evil? How?
----------------------------
x
I hope it irritates the hell out of Christians.
If you and I can prevent a crime and do not, we are held culpable to some degree by our secular courts. And God FMPOV. We would be guilty.
If God is held to that same good standard then he to is guilty of a crime and sin.
God's morals are way beneath man's intelligent ones and that is why we have rejected his laws.
Regards
DL
I'm fairly familiar with The Secret Revelation of John, and emanations cosmology. Free will is the mechanism which allows evil to enter the world, although all evil is caused by ignorance which precedes the second evil of chaos. There are other Gnostic views on the subject, like the Manichean view of dualism, or I'm sure there are more monist views, like the one in the Gospel of Philip. An all powerful God could prevent or reverse any evil in existence, yet He doesn't. So I really see no other logical explanation for evil except free will. If you have one feel free to share. However I would appreciate you not saying my view is "Not Gnostic" because it is, and I have given you plenty of evidence for this. I don't want to get into a "Who is more Gnostic than who" argument because that is about as low as a message forum can get, as I've seen it happen before.
As a matter of fact, I do have a theory. I have it as an O P as well.
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.
Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.
Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.
Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.
Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.
There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.
These links speak to theistic evolution.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9
If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.
If the above is not convincing enough for you then show me where in this baby evil lives or is a part of it’s nature and instincts.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?
Regards
DL
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Feb 20, 2014 8:45:17 GMT -5
Do you know what he meant when he said to put yourself to death?
After you do, you will no longer seek death. You are to seek more life.
Death tells you that your God is I am and that that is you. A you with Gnosis, and those with Gnosis seek life more abundantly, led by the spirit of God.
Regards DL
What life am I seeking? More of what I determine it to be (physically)? Scripture says one must "first live" in order to die. We become alive through eating the flesh and drinking the blood (in spirit). What is this which will not inherit? This which is on us. But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. -Philip John 6 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. There is a difference between the cross and the resurrection. We physically die at the cross, and gain life through the resurrection. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Feb 20, 2014 14:34:34 GMT -5
YYYYYa.
Regards
DL
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Feb 20, 2014 22:28:54 GMT -5
Do you know what he meant when he said to put yourself to death?
After you do, you will no longer seek death. You are to seek more life.
Death tells you that your God is I am and that that is you. A you with Gnosis, and those with Gnosis seek life more abundantly, led by the spirit of God.
Regards DL
What life am I seeking? More of what I determine it to be (physically)? Scripture says one must "first live" in order to die. We become alive through eating the flesh and drinking the blood (in spirit). What is this which will not inherit? This which is on us. But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. -Philip John 6 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. There is a difference between the cross and the resurrection. We physically die at the cross, and gain life through the resurrection. Is this actually based on a Gnostic text, or is it just your opinion? In The Secret Revelation of John it is actually Sophia's free will that spawned the creator. So in this sense it is not man's free will that corrupted the physical world, but the free will of a separate yet slightly lower aspect of the Father that caused the corruption of the world. The Father remains blameless yet in a sense God is still responsible. This text also identifies two types of evil: #1 ignorance, and #2 Chaos. The evil of ignorance creates or gives birth to the corruption of the physical world i.e. earthquakes, tsunamis, and animals eating each other. While these things are not technically morally evil, they still represent the corruption of the physical world, so they are still evil. You're certainly free to believe what you want, and come to your own conclusions. However, I wonder why you would say my views aren't "Gnostic" while yours are? It's very peculiar. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Feb 21, 2014 12:59:08 GMT -5
Especially when they are not Gnostic Christian views at all.
Regards
DL
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Feb 21, 2014 23:21:21 GMT -5
What does that even mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Feb 22, 2014 16:35:35 GMT -5
What does that even mean? You have us hating the physical world yet the physical world houses the spark of God that is a human birth-rite.
WTF.
The temple of God is natural and perfect within it's limits. You offend nature and it's creative powers.
We live in the best of all possible worlds.
I like to use the term evolving perfection for nature. Otherwise, a perfect God or nature becomes a stagnant pool of information and our souls and consciousness as a part of that perfection would be useless to the universe.
Evolving, the perfection of whatever God and nature was, to whatever God and nature will be, means we have to think this way, unless you see God as somehow losing his initial perfection. This is not allowed in a perfect God’s or natures repertoire.
When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic principle and pure logic.
What do you think?
Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA
This is done by nature and not a God but would be a requirement of a God if he were real.
Regards
DL
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Feb 23, 2014 1:33:59 GMT -5
Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it good, and just b/c something is natural doesn't mean it is the way we have to choose to be. The natural world is corrupt and it is, as I see it, "evil." Although it might not be a moral evil exactly, it is still a form of evil, or the result of a moral evil.
Everything truly good in this world is, as I see it, the divine realm poking through.
This is, as I understand it, the Sethian view of the world, as described in The Secret Revelation of John. I don't think it's necessarily 100% accurate, but until I find something closer to the truth, it seems to be the best representation of our world.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Feb 23, 2014 15:24:44 GMT -5
This is not about good or bad. It is about being the best it can be because entropy says it is the only way it can be.
You did not even touch on nature creating everything for it's best end be it good or evil.
I take it though that since you think nature doing evil, like she could think, then you will not understand the perfection of our systems.
You, like Christians, must think that Eden was our fall and that God cursed the earth.
How strange for a Gnostic.
Regards
DL
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Feb 23, 2014 20:22:13 GMT -5
The fact that nature is an unthinking and destructive system is representative of it's corruption.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Feb 24, 2014 14:00:49 GMT -5
What does that even mean? You have us hating the physical world yet the physical world houses the spark of God that is a human birth-rite.
WTF.
The temple of God is natural and perfect within it's limits. You offend nature and it's creative powers.
We live in the best of all possible worlds.
I like to use the term evolving perfection for nature. Otherwise, a perfect God or nature becomes a stagnant pool of information and our souls and consciousness as a part of that perfection would be useless to the universe.
Evolving, the perfection of whatever God and nature was, to whatever God and nature will be, means we have to think this way, unless you see God as somehow losing his initial perfection. This is not allowed in a perfect God’s or natures repertoire.
When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic principle and pure logic.
What do you think?
Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA
This is done by nature and not a God but would be a requirement of a God if he were real.
Regards
DL
God and nature? If we live in the best of all possible worlds, why be "saved" from something? Why do we seek to be "free", as Christ claimed? Nature doesn't do any of this. And if you are "Gnostic", show me where it does in scripture. Too many youtube video's and not enough seeking in prayer, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Mar 2, 2014 23:22:37 GMT -5
Exactly. You do not have a need to be saved but do have a need to seek your Jesus and God within for guidance and apotheosis. So as not to be slaved to what is not internal to you. True that nature does not free you. Who is enslaving you and making you think you need to be freed?As God said to A & E, who told you you were naked? Prayers are self-serving and God frowns upon such garbage prayers. That is also why Jesus tells us never to pray in public. It is quite ugly and mostkly done by weak spirits.RegardsDL |
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Mar 3, 2014 11:38:45 GMT -5
When Christ said we cannot serve two masters, what do you think he meant? To hate the one and love the other. It appears you want to love both.
The world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the world. For things are not imperishable, but sons are. Nothing will be able to receive imperishability if it does not first become a son. But he who has not the ability to receive, how much more will he be unable to give? -Philip
The physical things perish. Why would I place any value on them?
To become sons of the Father is to experience the difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gnostic Bishop on Mar 4, 2014 20:32:01 GMT -5
When Christ said we cannot serve two masters, what do you think he meant? To hate the one and love the other. It appears you want to love both. The world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the world. For things are not imperishable, but sons are. Nothing will be able to receive imperishability if it does not first become a son. But he who has not the ability to receive, how much more will he be unable to give? -Philip The physical things perish. Why would I place any value on them? To become sons of the Father is to experience the difference. Where is the kingdom of God according to Jesus?
Should you give that location value?
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Mar 6, 2014 10:12:57 GMT -5
When Christ said we cannot serve two masters, what do you think he meant? To hate the one and love the other. It appears you want to love both. The world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the world. For things are not imperishable, but sons are. Nothing will be able to receive imperishability if it does not first become a son. But he who has not the ability to receive, how much more will he be unable to give? -Philip The physical things perish. Why would I place any value on them? To become sons of the Father is to experience the difference. Where is the kingdom of God according to Jesus?
Should you give that location value?
Regards DL
Within us. It is spiritual, not physical. |
|
