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

[ding]

Gnosticism is a reaction to Christianity as socialism is a reaction to free enterprise.

Even the stupid sometimes speak the truth, but from the wrong view.

Someone had to civilize Christianity so it may as well be the only good Christians. Gnostic Christians.

Regards
DL

Wrong. Gnostics were almost as reprehensible as militant atheists.

Inquisitions, and the religion that favors using it and that you favor, takes that prize. Congratulations for showing true Christian morals.

Satanic morals.

Regards
DL

That would be just like a cultural Marxist to practice critical theory.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" One Way Looking Glass "

* Mirror Mirror On The Wall *

Whereas I think people like yourself talk the way you do because you like listening to the sound of your own voice.
...
And oh yeah... dunning effect.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

* Subjective Relativism *

We live in a logical universe governed by laws and rules where every effect had a corresponding cause such that everything happens for a specific reason.

Who disagrees with cause and effect ?

Perspectivism - Wikipedia
In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable [emphasis in original] otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—"Perspectivism."

Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formations or subjective designations. Therefore, there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes.[1] Rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) are constantly reassessed according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[2] "Truth" is thus created by integrating different vantage points together.

* Evolution Of Natural Selection For Self Benefit *

At any point in time we are the sum of our choices. And from these choices we receive feedback - good and bad - that allow us to learn and evolve.

We dwell in a realm of probabilities and it is wise to seek an improvement of ones odds for success .

Is there a consolation prize for failing to pass on ones genetic identity in perpetuity ?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Puzzled By Thread Premise "

* Not Completely Following *

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

Gnosticism - Wikipedia
Some of the core teachings include the following:

1. All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good.
2. There is an unknowable God, who gave rise to many lesser spirit beings called Aeons.
3. One evil, lower spirit being is the creator who made the universe.
4. Gnosticism does not deal with "sin", only ignorance.
5. To achieve salvation, one needs to get in touch with secret knowledge.

Dualistic cosmology - Wikipedia
Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of, or conflict between, the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and independent of how these may be represented.

For example, a ditheistic system could be one in which one god is a creator, and the other a destroyer. In theology, dualism can also refer to the relationship between God and creation or God and the universe (see theistic dualism). This form of dualism is a belief shared in certain traditions of Christianity and Hinduism.[1]

Many myths and creation motifs with dualistic cosmologies have been described in ethnographic and anthropological literature. These motifs conceive the world as being created, organized, or influenced by two demiurges, culture heroes, or other mythological beings, who either compete with each other or have a complementary function in creating, arranging or influencing the world.

 

[ding]

" One Way Looking Glass "

* Mirror Mirror On The Wall *

Whereas I think people like yourself talk the way you do because you like listening to the sound of your own voice.
...
And oh yeah... dunning effect.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

* Subjective Relativism *

We live in a logical universe governed by laws and rules where every effect had a corresponding cause such that everything happens for a specific reason.

Who disagrees with cause and effect ?

Perspectivism - Wikipedia
In so far as the word "knowledge" has any meaning, the world is knowable; but it is interpretable [emphasis in original] otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings.—"Perspectivism."

Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formations or subjective designations. Therefore, there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes.[1] Rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) are constantly reassessed according to the circumstances of individual perspectives.[2] "Truth" is thus created by integrating different vantage points together.

* Evolution Of Natural Selection For Self Benefit *

At any point in time we are the sum of our choices. And from these choices we receive feedback - good and bad - that allow us to learn and evolve.

We dwell in a realm of probabilities and it is wise to seek an improvement of ones odds for success .

Is there a consolation prize for failing to pass on ones genetic identity in perpetuity ?

Not so interpretable that black is white. That's what you would have others believe. I would rather them believe what it is... that science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so that predictions can be made about nature

.You would have people believe that nothing is discoverable which is absurd therefore your argument is absurd. Therefore you are absurd.

 

[ding]

" Puzzled By Thread Premise "

* Not Completely Following *

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

Gnosticism - Wikipedia
Some of the core teachings include the following:

1. All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good.
2. There is an unknowable God, who gave rise to many lesser spirit beings called Aeons.
3. One evil, lower spirit being is the creator who made the universe.
4. Gnosticism does not deal with "sin", only ignorance.
5. To achieve salvation, one needs to get in touch with secret knowledge.

Dualistic cosmology - Wikipedia
Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of, or conflict between, the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and independent of how these may be represented.

For example, a ditheistic system could be one in which one god is a creator, and the other a destroyer. In theology, dualism can also refer to the relationship between God and creation or God and the universe (see theistic dualism). This form of dualism is a belief shared in certain traditions of Christianity and Hinduism.[1]

Many myths and creation motifs with dualistic cosmologies have been described in ethnographic and anthropological literature. These motifs conceive the world as being created, organized, or influenced by two demiurges, culture heroes, or other mythological beings, who either compete with each other or have a complementary function in creating, arranging or influencing the world.

"...During the Middle Ages and the period of the Reformation, doctrines of chiliastic socialism often fomented broad popular movements in Western Europe. Such a situation did not obtain in antiquity, when these ideas were expressed by individual thinkers or within narrow groups. As a result of this evolution, the socialist doctrines, in turn, acquired new and extremely important traits, which they have preserved to this day.

Beginning with the Middle Ages and the Reformation, doctrines of chiliastic socialism in Western Europe appeared under religious guise. As varied as they were, all these doctrines had in common a characteristic trait--the rejection of numerous aspects of the teachings of the Catholic Church and a fierce hatred for the Church itself. As a result , they developed largely within the framework of the heretical movements. Below we shall review several characteristic Medieval heresies.

The movement of the Cathars (Greek for "the pure") spread in Western and Central Europe in the eleventh century. It seems to have originated in the East, arriving from Bulgaria, the home of Bogomil heresy in the preceding century. The ultimate origins of both, however, are more ancient.

Among the Cathars there were many different groups. Pope Innocent III counted as many as forty Cathar sects. In addition, there existed other sects that had many doctrinal points in common with the Cathars; among the best known were the Albigenses. They are all usually categorized as gnostic or Manichean heresies. In order to avoid unnecessary complexity, we shall describe the beliefs and notions common to all groups, without specifying the relative importance that a particular view might have in a given sect. (For a more detailed account, see 9 [Vol. I], 10, and 11.)

The basic contention in all branches of the movement was the belief in the irreconcilable contradiction between the physical world, seen as the source of evil, and the spiritual world, seen as the essence of good. The so-called dualistic Cathars believed this to be caused by the existence of two Gods--one good, the other evil. It was the God of evil who had created the physical world--the earth with everything that grows upon it, the sky, the sun and the stars, and human bodies as well. The good God, on the other hand, was seen as the creator of the spiritual world, in which there is another, spiritual sky, other stars and another sun. Other Cathars, called monarchian Cathars, believed in one beneficent God, the creator of the universe, but assumed that the physical world was the creation of his eldest, fallen son--Satan or Lucifer. All the Cathars held that the mutual hostility of the realms of matter and spirit allowed for no intermingling. They therefore denied the bodily incarnation of Christ (asserting that his body was a spiritual one, which had only the appearance of physicality) and the resurrection of the flesh. They saw a reflection of their dualism in the division of the Holy Scriptures into Old and New Testaments. They identified the God of the Old Testament, the creator of the physical world, with the evil God or with Lucifer. They professed the New Testament as the teaching of the good God.

The Cathars did not believe that God had created the world from nothing; they held that matter was eternal and that the world would have no end. So far as people were concerned, they considered their bodies to be the creation of the evil force. Their souls, though, did not have a single source. The souls of the majority of men, just like their bodies, were begotten by evil--such people had no hope for salvation and were doomed to perish when the entire material world returned to a state of primeval chaos. But the souls of some men had been created by the good God; these were the angels led into temptation by Lucifer and thus imprisoned in earthly bodies. As a result of changing into a series of bodies (Cathars believed in the transmigration of souls), they were destined to end up in their sect so as to receive liberation from the prison of matter. The ultimate goal and the ideal of all mankind was in principle universal suicide. This was conceived either as in the most direct sense (we shall encounter the practical realization of this .view later) or through ceasing to bear children.

These views determined the attitude toward both sin and salvation. The Cathars denied the existence of freedom of will. The doomed children of evil could not avoid their fate. But those who were initiated into the highest rank of the sect could no longer sin. The stringent rules to which members had to subject themselves were justified by the danger of being defiled by sinful matter. Nonobservance of these rules merely indicated that the initiation had been invalid, since either the initiates or those who had initiated them did not possess angelic souls. Before initiation, no restrictions of any kind were placed on behavior: the only real sin was the fall of the angels in heaven; everything else was considered to be an inevitable consequence. After initiation, neither repentance for sins committed nor their expiation was considered necessary.

The Cathars' attitude toward life followed consistently from their view that evil permeated the physical world. Propagation of the species was considered Satan's work. Cathars believed that a pregnant woman was under the influence of demons and that every child born was accompanied by a demon. Hence the prohibition against eating meat and against anything that came from sexual union. The same tendency led to a complete avoidance of social involvement. Secular power was considered to be the creation of the evil God and hence not to be submitted to, nor were they to become involved in legal proceedings, the taking of oaths, or the carrying of arms. Anyone using force was considered a murderer, be he soldier or judge. It follows that participation in many areas of life was completely closed to the Cathars. Moreover, many considered that any contact whatever with people outside the sect was a sin, with the exception of attempts to proselytize. (12: p. 654)

All Cathars were united in their hatred of the Catholic Church. They regarded it not as the Church of Jesus Christ but as the church of sinners, the Whore of Babylon. The Pope was held to be the source of all error and priests considered sophists and pharisees. In the opinion of the Cathars, the fall of the Church had taken place in the time of Constantine the Great and Pope Sylvester, when the Church had violated the commandments of Christ by encroaching upon secular power. They denied the sacraments, particularly the baptism of children (since they were too young to believe), but matrimony and Communion as well. Some branches of the movement systematically plundered and defiled churches. In 1225, Cathars burned down a Catholic Chruch in Brescia; in 1235, they killed the Bishop of Mantua. A certain Eon de l'Étoile, head ofa Manichean sect (1143-1148), proclaimed himself the son of God and the Lord of everything on earth. In this capacity, he called upon his followers to plunder churches.

The Cathars hated the cross in particular, considering it to be a symbol of the evil God. As early as about 1000 A.D., a certain Leutard, preaching near Châlons, called for the smashing of crosses and religious images. In the twelfth century, Pierre de Bruys made bonfires of broken crosses, until finally he himself was burned by an angry mob. The Cathars considered churches to be heaps of stones and divine services mere pagan rites. They rejected religious images, denied the intercession of the saints and the efficacy of prayer for the departed. A book by the Dominican inquisitor Rainier Sacconi, himself a heretic for seventeen years, states that the Cathars were not forbidden to plunder churches.

Although the Cathars rejected the Catholic hierarchy and the sacraments, they had a hierarchy and sacraments of their own. The basic division of the sect was into two groups--the "perfect" (perfecti) and the "faithful" (credenti). The former were few in number (Rainier counted only four thousand in all), but they constituted the select group of the sect leaders. The clergy was drawn from the perfecti, and only they were privy to all the doctrines of the sect; many extreme views that were radically opposed to Christianity were unknown to the ordinary faithful. Only the perfecti were obliged to observe the many prohibitions. In particular, they were not allowed to deny their faith under any circumstances. In case of persecution, they were to accept a martyr's death. The faithful, on the other hand, were allowed to go to regular church for form's sake and, when persecuted, to disavow the faith.

In compensation for the rigors imposed on the perfecti, their position was far higher than that occupied by Catholic priests. In certain respects, the perfecti were as gods themselves, and the faithful worshiped them accordingly. The faithful were obliged to support the perfecti. One of the important rites of the sect was that of "submission," in which the faithful performed a threefold prostration before the perfecti. The perfecti had to renounce marriage, and they literally did not have the right to touch a woman. They could not possess any property and were obliged to devote their whole lives to service of the sect. They were forbidden to keep a permanent dwelling of any kind and were required to spend their lives in constant travel or to stay in special secret sanctuaries. The consecration of the perfecti, the "consolation" (consolamentum), was the central sacrament of the sect. This rite cannot be compared to anything in the Catholic Church. It combined baptism (or confirmation), ordination, confession, absolution and sometimes supreme unction as well. Only those who received it could count on being freed from the captivity of the body and having their souls returned to their celestial abode.

The majority of the Cathars had no hope of fulfilling the strict commandments that were obligatory for the perfecti and intended, rather, to receive "consolation" on their deathbed. This was called "the good end." The prayer to grant "the good end" under the care of "the good people" (the perfecti) was recited together with the Lord's Prayer.

Sometimes, having received "consolation," a sick person recovered. He was then usually advised to commit suicide (called "endura"). In many cases, "endura" was in fact a condition for receiving "consolation." Not infrequently, the aged or the very young who had received "consolation" were subjected to "endura"--i.e., in effect, murdered. There were various forms of "endura." Most frequently it was by starvation (especially for children, whom the mothers simply stopped suckling); bleeding, hot baths followed by sudden chilling, drinking of liquid mixed with ground glass and strangulation were also used. I. Dollinger, who studied the extant archives of the Inquisition in Toulouse and Carcassonne, writes: "Whoever examines the records of the above-mentioned courts attentively will have no doubt that far more people perished from the 'endura' (some voluntarily, some forcibly) than as a result of the Inquisition's verdicts." (10: p. 226)

These basic notions were the source of the socialist doctrines disseminated among the Cathars. They rejected property as belonging to the material world. The perfecti were forbidden to have any personal belongings, but as a group they controlled the holdings of the sect, which often were considerable.

Cathars enjoyed influence in various segments of society, including the highest strata. Thus it is said that Count Raymond VI of Toulouse always kept in his retinue Cathars disguised in ordinary attire, so they could bless him in case of impending death. For the most part, however, the preaching of the Cathars apparently was directed to the urban lower classes, as indicated in particular by the names of various sects: populicani (i.e., populists, although certain historians see this name as a corruption of "Paulicians"), piphlers (derived from "plebs"), texerants (weavers), etc. In their sermons, the Cathars preached that a true Christian life was possible only on the condition that property was held in common. (12: p. 656) In 1023, a group of Cathars were put on trial in Monteforte, charged with promulgating celibacy and communality of property and with attacking the accepted religious traditions.

It seems that the appeal for communality of property was rather widespread among the Cathars, since it is mentioned in certain Catholic works directed against them. In one of these, for instance, Cathars are accused of demagogically proclaiming this principle while not adhering to it themselves: "You do not have everything in common. Some have more, others less." (13: p. 176)

Celibacy among the perfecti and the general condemnation of marriage are common to all Cathars. But in a number of cases, only marriage is considered sinful--not promiscuity outside marriage. It should be recalled that "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was considered to be a commandment of the God of evil. By the same token, these prohibitions had as their aim not so much mortification of the flesh as destruction of the family. In the writings of contemporaries, the Cathars are constantly accused of "free" or "holy" love, and of having wives in common.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, between 1130 and 1150, accused the Cathars of preaching against marriage while cohabiting with women who had abandoned their families. (10: p. 16) Rainier supports this contention. (9: pp. 72-73) The same accusation against a Manichean sect that was making inroads into Brittany around 1145 can be found in the Chronicle of Hugo d'Amiens, Archbishop of Rouen. A book against heresies by Alain de Lille, which was published in the twelfth century, ascribed the following view to the Cathars: "Marital bonds are contrary to the laws of nature, since these laws demand that everything be held in common." (13: p. 176)

The Cathar heresy swept over Europe with extraordinary swiftness. In 1012, a sect of Cathars is recorded in Mainz, in 1018 and again in 1028 in Aquitaine, in 1022 in Orleans, in 1025 in Arras, in 1028 in Monteforte (near Turin), in 1030 in Burgundy, in 1051 in Goslar, etc. Around 1190, Bonacursus, who had previously been a bishop with the Cathars, wrote of the situation in Italy: "Are not all townships, cities and castles overrun with these pseudo-prophets?" (12: p. 651) And in 1166, the Bishop of Milan asserted that there were more heretics than faithful in his diocese. One work from the thirteenth century enumerates seventy-two Cathar bishops. Rainier Sacconi speaks of sixteen Churches of Cathars. They were all closely associated and apparently headed up by a Cathar Pope, who was located in Bulgaria. Councils were called, which were attended by representatives from numerous countries. For example, in 1167, a council was openly held in St. Felix near Toulouse; it was summoned by the heretical Pope Nicetas and was attended by a host of heretics, including some from Bulgaria and Constantinople.

The heresy was particularly successful in the south of France, in Languedoc and Provence. Missions for conversion of the heretics were repeatedly sent there, one of which included St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who reported that churches were deserted and that no one took communion or was baptized. The missionaries and the local Catholic clergy were assaulted and subjected to threats and insults.

The nobles of southern France supported the sect actively, seeing an opportunity to acquire church lands. For more than fifty years Languedoc was under the control of the Cathars and seemed lost to Rome forever. A papal legate, Pierre de Castelnau, was killed by heretics. The Pope announced several crusades against the Cathars. The first of these failed because of support given to the heretics by the local nobility. It was only in the thirteenth century, after more than thirty years of the guerres albigeoises, that the heresy was suppressed. However, the influence of these sects continued to be felt for several centuries..."

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[ding]

^ that's what Gnostics believe.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Final Refuge Of Absurdity "

* Poorly Informed *

Not so interpretable that black is white. That's what you would have others believe. I would rather them believe what it is... that science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so that predictions can be made about nature .
You would have people believe that nothing is discoverable which is absurd therefore your argument is absurd. Therefore you are absurd.

You should really investigate beyond your own knows , as a closed mind does not always represent arrogance , rather it is often applied as protectionism of ones insecurities .

Perspectivism - Wikipedia
This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

 

[ding]

" Final Refuge Of Absurdity "

* Poorly Informed *

Not so interpretable that black is white. That's what you would have others believe. I would rather them believe what it is... that science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so that predictions can be made about nature .
You would have people believe that nothing is discoverable which is absurd therefore your argument is absurd. Therefore you are absurd.

You should really investigate beyond your own knows , as a closed mind does not always represent arrogance , rather it is often applied as protectionism of ones insecurities .

Perspectivism - Wikipedia
This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

Do you know how to see objective truth?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Expecting An Address Of The Ridiculous "

* Theocratic Conjecture Feigning Moral Validity *

Do you know how to see objective truth?

Objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

Objectivity (science) - Wikipedia
Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.[1] It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility.

 

[ding]

" Expecting An Address Of The Ridiculous "

* Theocratic Conjecture Feigning Moral Validity *

Do you know how to see objective truth?

Objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia
Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

Objectivity (science) - Wikipedia
Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.[1] It is often linked to observation as part of the scientific method. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility.

But that doesn't tell me the how?

Do you not know the how?

 

[zaangalewa]

ding

The belief of the Cathars was a summary of absurde nonsense. Nevertheless Catholics and Cathars lived door by door and had no problems. When in France soldiers came to kill the Cathars on reasons of state (the Cathars did not like to go to war for the king) they were not able to see a difference between Cathars and Catholics and so they killed the Catholics too.

 

[zaangalewa]

" Final Refuge Of Absurdity "

* Poorly Informed *

Not so interpretable that black is white. That's what you would have others believe. I would rather them believe what it is... that science is the study of nature to discover order within nature so that predictions can be made about nature .
You would have people believe that nothing is discoverable which is absurd therefore your argument is absurd. Therefore you are absurd.

You should really investigate beyond your own knows , as a closed mind does not always represent arrogance , rather it is often applied as protectionism of ones insecurities .

Perspectivism - Wikipedia
This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

Do you know how to see objective truth?

With a blindfold.

 

[Votto]

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

“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.

I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.

I offer as evidence of Yahweh’s corruption one simple fact. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty. This shows his moral and ethical corruption. It also show Jesus as just as corrupt as he went along with it.

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.

What is your judgement?

Regards
DL

Logically, God cannot be all evil.

1. To be God, he must be all powerful
2. If he is all powerful and evil, then there would be no good.
3. Therefore, your only choices are, God is good or God is a mixture of good and evil.

So which is it?

First you would have to define what is good and evil, I would think.

 

[GreatestIam]

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

“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.

I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.

I offer as evidence of Yahweh’s corruption one simple fact. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty. This shows his moral and ethical corruption. It also show Jesus as just as corrupt as he went along with it.

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.

What is your judgement?

Regards
DL

Logically, God cannot be all evil.

1. To be God, he must be all powerful
2. If he is all powerful and evil, then there would be no good.
3. Therefore, your only choices are, God is good or God is a mixture of good and evil.

So which is it?

First you would have to define what is good and evil, I would think.

Those are well defined in the dictionary and I will go with whichever definition you like.

You seem to think dualistically, yet do not do so with the all powerful characteristic.

3. I think of the imaginary God, like evolution, to be mostly what we would call good, with just a small piece of evil which must happen in evolution if man is to survive and thrive.

Evolution explains evil a lot better than a God belief can.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

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

“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.

I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.

I offer as evidence of Yahweh’s corruption one simple fact. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty. This shows his moral and ethical corruption. It also show Jesus as just as corrupt as he went along with it.

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.

What is your judgement?

Regards
DL

Logically, God cannot be all evil.

1. To be God, he must be all powerful
2. If he is all powerful and evil, then there would be no good.
3. Therefore, your only choices are, God is good or God is a mixture of good and evil.

So which is it?

First you would have to define what is good and evil, I would think.

Evil is the absence of good. Ergo everything God made is good.

 

[Taz]

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

“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.

I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.

I offer as evidence of Yahweh’s corruption one simple fact. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty. This shows his moral and ethical corruption. It also show Jesus as just as corrupt as he went along with it.

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.

What is your judgement?

Regards
DL

Logically, God cannot be all evil.

1. To be God, he must be all powerful
2. If he is all powerful and evil, then there would be no good.
3. Therefore, your only choices are, God is good or God is a mixture of good and evil.

So which is it?

First you would have to define what is good and evil, I would think.

Evil is the absence of good. Ergo everything God made is good.

Someone had to make evil the absence of good. Who did that?

 

[Votto]

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

“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.

I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.

I offer as evidence of Yahweh’s corruption one simple fact. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty. This shows his moral and ethical corruption. It also show Jesus as just as corrupt as he went along with it.

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.

What is your judgement?

Regards
DL

Logically, God cannot be all evil.

1. To be God, he must be all powerful
2. If he is all powerful and evil, then there would be no good.
3. Therefore, your only choices are, God is good or God is a mixture of good and evil.

So which is it?

First you would have to define what is good and evil, I would think.

Evil is the absence of good. Ergo everything God made is good.

Someone had to make evil the absence of good. Who did that?

Orange man done it.

 

[ding]

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

“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.

I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.

I offer as evidence of Yahweh’s corruption one simple fact. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty. This shows his moral and ethical corruption. It also show Jesus as just as corrupt as he went along with it.

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.

What is your judgement?

Regards
DL

Logically, God cannot be all evil.

1. To be God, he must be all powerful
2. If he is all powerful and evil, then there would be no good.
3. Therefore, your only choices are, God is good or God is a mixture of good and evil.

So which is it?

First you would have to define what is good and evil, I would think.

Evil is the absence of good. Ergo everything God made is good.

Someone had to make evil the absence of good. Who did that?

Humans did. Animals have no concept of good and evil.

 

[Votto]

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

“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.

I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.

I offer as evidence of Yahweh’s corruption one simple fact. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty. This shows his moral and ethical corruption. It also show Jesus as just as corrupt as he went along with it.

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.

What is your judgement?

Regards
DL

Logically, God cannot be all evil.

1. To be God, he must be all powerful
2. If he is all powerful and evil, then there would be no good.
3. Therefore, your only choices are, God is good or God is a mixture of good and evil.

So which is it?

First you would have to define what is good and evil, I would think.

Evil is the absence of good. Ergo everything God made is good.

Someone had to make evil the absence of good. Who did that?

Humans did. Animals have no concept of good and evil.

I would disagree with that.

Animals treat each other much better than humans treat each other.

 

[Taz]

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

“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.

I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.

I offer as evidence of Yahweh’s corruption one simple fact. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty. This shows his moral and ethical corruption. It also show Jesus as just as corrupt as he went along with it.

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.

What is your judgement?

Regards
DL

Logically, God cannot be all evil.

1. To be God, he must be all powerful
2. If he is all powerful and evil, then there would be no good.
3. Therefore, your only choices are, God is good or God is a mixture of good and evil.

So which is it?

First you would have to define what is good and evil, I would think.

Evil is the absence of good. Ergo everything God made is good.

Someone had to make evil the absence of good. Who did that?

Humans did. Animals have no concept of good and evil.

So man invented evil, god didn't make everything in the universe?

So was evil predestined by god to exist in this universe, like you argue that intelligence was? Or did god not know what was coming?