About the angels
will of there own and no free will are different. In fact the one thing that separates an angel from a demon is the free will. Angles surrender to Gods will thus having no will of there own

So killing without cause when god can cure as well as kill, is not murder to you. This shows how your beliefs have corrupted your moral sense.

Of course it has, all our morals are corrupt by are belive for ""good" or "evil",

Secondly all I'm saying is there's a difference between murder and killing. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. The one qualifying thing that makes a killing murder is hate, a solders arn't murders because they hold nothing against the enemy. (Note there are times it is murder but it was because hate was involved).

As to his not being in the presence of sin, did he turn his head when he told Satan to do evil and sins against Job's children and friends?

You might want to read Job 3;2 where god admits to being a sinner himself when he sais that Satan moved him to do harm without a just cause.

I have no clue what your talking about, in the verse you quote literally it says "he said: " an the verse before it is

After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth

So the "He" is clear Job.

Also God has many ways to communicate, we don't know how they communicated.

If the punishment for sin is death, the god is dead. Right?

As I said "In christian theology sin is defined as to disobey God. "
He keeps his promises or as far as we know the promises are left open ended (so room for doubt but not broken).

So out side of that it is a little hard to disobey yourself.

Please enlighten us because the Bible according to you is complete crap. Do you have a website so that i can learn all about Gnostism? — James Statter

I am here for any questions.

The bible is quite a value to me, but not the way you read it.

I keep a bible in the house even though I think this quote quite 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, The God Delusion

Then again, I am a Gnostic Christian and know how to read the filth in it.

Said of Gnostic Christian versus Christian bible reading practices.

“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”
William Blake.

I would take this further and advise you to read any scriptures from as many POV as is within you. Question everything including yourself.

The bible, if read as a book of wisdom, does have much wisdom though.

You just have to read it the way Gnostics do and revers a lot of the Christian morals.

Christians call evil good while Gnostic Christians call evil, evil.

I E. Gnostic Christians think that bible God, the demiurge to us, is quite immoral for thinking that torturing King David's baby for 6 days before finally killing it is good justice. Gnostic Christians think that evil while Christians think that a good form of justice.

Which group do you think is right?

Regards
DL

i really don't care. — James Statter

I Know.

You do not live by the Golden Rule or follow the moral dictates of Christianity.

Regards
DL

“The meek shall inherit the earth.”

This was way more moral than his local contemporaries. — Noah Te Stroete

Not really as it goes against natural law, which says the fittest will inherit the earth.

Did you have your children, an assumption I make that you have some, to have them be the fittest or the meekest?

Further, the Golden Rule was around for thousands of years before Jesus was even born.

Regards
DL

I take “meek” to mean “gentle”. It takes a fit father to be gentle with his children, especially when they’re young.

If you ask me, the world could use more gentleness. It goes well with living in a community. I would rather my boys be gentle than brutal and unkind. Then they will have a better chance of finding a caring and empathetic wife. These are characteristics that society could use more of, in my view.

That said, I haven’t exactly lived up to my ideals. I’m a product of my environment, which is to say, a brutal society.

About the angels
will of there own and no free will are different. — hachit

Try your idiocy on the young and stupid with both your distortion of meaning here and in god killing or murdering.

Of course it has, — hachit

Thanks for admitting to having corrupt morals, but don't try to put that condition on all of us, especially me. Morals are my specialty.

Secondly all I'm saying is there's a difference between murder and killing — hachit

Not to the dead one.

I have no clue what your talking about, in the verse you quote literally it says "he said: " an the verse before it is — hachit

My bad. The content should have given you a hint that I chose the wrong verse.

Job 2; 3 And the LORD said unto Satan: 'Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a whole-hearted and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou didst move Me against him, to destroy him without cause.'

If god cannot abide or be around sin, he sure shows the opposite and you should really stop trying to speak for god, with lies.

Also God has many ways to communicate, we don't know how they communicated. — hachit

In other words, you are saying you are a liar and do not know how god communicates.

As I said "In christian theology sin is defined as to disobey God. " — hachit

That is another lie. It is defined as missing the mark.

If all you are going to do is lie and B.S. to me, best to ignore me.

That or keep going so that I can make people se3e the lying fool you are.

Regards
DL

Morals are my specialty. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I didn’t get that impression from the way you speak to hachit, who doesn’t seem to have a mean bone in his body.

I take “meek” to mean “gentle — Noah Te Stroete

The gentlest is not the fittest.

You want a loving child. So do I.
Love is our default setting, in terms of evolution, when we are children and babies.

Try to recognize that our love biases, when we create them, automatically form a hate biases against anything that would jeopardize that which is loved.

We, as we get older and find a need for resources, compete for them and the most gentle tend to lose at competitions. How then do you see a way for the gentle to inherit the earth when it is the rich and non-gentle who are inheriting most of the resources on earth?

Regards
DL

I didn’t get that impression from the way you speak to hachit, who doesn’t seem to have a mean bone in his body. — Noah Te Stroete

Accept my invite to debate morals and see what you think.

I know how I am, an how I think I have to be to deal with belligerent and obtuse religious posters with poor moral as shown by our homophobic ands misogynous friend.

I use tough love when I have to if I am to continue living by the Golden Rule as well as this quote.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Regards
DL

We, as we get older and find a need for resources, compete for them and the most gentle tend to lose at competitions. How then do you see a way for the gentle to inherit the earth when it is the rich and non-gentle who are inheriting most of the resources on earth? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Have you ever had a job? It’s mostly cooperation with little competition. Living in a community takes WAY more cooperation than competition.

It is the rich and non-gentle who are the most destructive. That doesn’t bode well for the future of humanity, seeing as how they also have the power.

Take “the meek shall inherit the earth” to be a normative statement instead of a descriptive statement. That’s how it should be read.

Have you ever had a job? It’s mostly cooperation with little competition. — Noah Te Stroete

Once your gain it, sure, but you competed against other in the company for advancement. Right?

Have you ever gotten a job without competing --- somehow --- for it?
Not G D likely.

You and I are animals first and foremost and subject to evolution just as all animals are.

Regards
DL

Once your gain it, sure, but you competed against other in the company for advancement. Right? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Once you’re in a role you have to cooperate, otherwise the company won’t function. You’re not so much competing for advancement as applying for a position. The applicants have to cooperate with the hirer and with the rules and regulations of the company in order to be considered. It is usually not the unkind and brutal who advance in a company. The person who brings value to the company through working well within the company (cooperation) gets to advance. Although there are some industrial psychopaths who advance, but they tend to harm the company’s well-being.

You and I are animals first and foremost and subject to evolution just as all animals are. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

We are social animals living in communities. We’re not lone tigers in the jungle.

We are social animals living in communities. We’re not lone tigers in the jungle. — Noah Te Stroete

That is irrelevant to our evolution.

You are only looking at half the situation and ignoring the other half.

Sure you cooperate with your fellow employees, but you are also competing against your peers so the boss will notice you and advance you before the others.

If you are that (not quite honest) or just looking at the one aspect going on as you work away, it is no wonder you are staying away from moral discussions.

This might help you open your narrow thinking. What I wish to show particularly is in the first few minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

Regards
DL

If all you are going to do is lie and B.S. to me, best to ignore me.

That or keep going so that I can make people se3e the lying fool you are.

I probably should ignore you, because it is so obvious to me you are treating me like a straw man. (The straw man fallacy). It clear to me because you don't pay any attention to my word choice, wich I am very careful about.

If you think this is pointless stop reading here. Because I have never told a lie, you simply rote me off by now.

Try your idiocy on the young and stupid with both your distortion of meaning here and in god killing or murdering.

You asked the following

If angels have no free will, how is it that Satan and, they say, a third of the angels rebelled against god?

Thanks for admitting to having corrupt morals, but don't try to put that condition on all of us, especially me. Morals are my specialty.

All are morals come from somewhere is all I'm saying. Who is to say wich is right? Nether of us.

Not to the dead one.

Ok let's assume heaven exists for a moment, let's also assume that your 100% guaranteed to go there. What is the point of preserving life beond
1. Saving others
2. Improvement

Now let's say you aren't going to go to heaven. Well living is simply delaying the inevitable, but I could see why it would be a big deal then.

My bad. The content should have given you a hint that I chose the wrong verse.

Yes I knew. I was just unsure on the how.

In other words, you are saying you are a liar and do not know how god communicates.

No, I'm saying God has many ways to communicate directly or indirectly (because of the sin thing). There is no way we know how God communicated with saten.

That is another lie. It is defined as missing the mark.

Use my prifrased version, here it the actual one if you looked it up yourself.

"an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.'

The gentlest is not the fittest...How then do you see a way for the gentle to inherit the earth when it is the rich and non-gentle who are inheriting most of the resources on earth? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The Greek word translated as ‘meek’ does not have the same meaning as the word commonly in use today. What praos means is more along the lines of self-control: a balance between capacity and application. One who is meek is aware of their own strength and capability, but does not need to use it simply because they can. They choose cooperation over coercion, and see a fulfilment of their own potential in helping others to fulfill theirs, rather than in some false ideal of absolute power, independence and accolade.

‘Inheriting the earth’ is also not the same as seizing its resources. The rich and non-gentle will only succeed in destroying the earth - all they will inherit is a wasteland. The meek at least have the opportunity to inherit a rich and resourceful universe by working together - perhaps once all the rich and non-gentle have destroyed each other...

You and I are animals first and foremost and subject to evolution just as all animals are. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You and I are animals, yes - but your evaluation of this as ‘first and foremost’ is based on a limited understanding of your own potential. If you think that we are subject to evolution, that our capacity for abstract thought, for words and actions other than those ruled by instinct serves no purpose except to follow instinct, then I can only conclude that you have shackled your own intelligence to a limited physical existence. Such a waste.

You're expressing exactly what I am thinking, Gnostic Christian Bishop. I find all the praise to God hard to take when there are so many terrible things that happen in the world. I could accept it, if it was moderate suffering, just something to test our mettle, but things like a person getting third degree burns over eighty per cent of his or her body, or the Nazis seeing how many times they could break the leg of a Jewish child and reset it stick in my craw. And this kind of horror is commonplace. A person dies in agony when he or she has cancer. I've heard that somehow this suffering gives us free will, but I am at a loss to see how. If anything, it terrorizes us into prostrating ourselves before God. There is no free will in that. Also, there is the question of hell. What kind of God would sentence someone to burn for all eternity? That sounds like the ultimate sadism to me. But God had to create hell so we could have "free choice". Go figure. Even though I am terrified of God, I cannot bring myself to worship him or her.

Use my prifrased version, here it the actual one if you looked it up yourself.

"an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.' — hachit

I see no chapter or verse.

The rest of what you put ignored Job 2;3 and god admitting to be an evil sinner. Why?

Regards
DL

The Greek word translated as ‘meek’ does not have the same meaning as the word commonly in use today. What praos means is more along the lines of self-control: — Possibility

I will go with the selection of the compilers of the bible and not yours.

I can only conclude that you have shackled your own intelligence to a limited physical existence. Such a waste. — Possibility

We do not see physical existence the same way. But you ignore that all you are is created by your ind which creates your consciousness and that is all that you are, unless you have gone into intellectual dissonance by belief in the supernatural.

Regards
DL

Go figure. Even though I am terrified of God, I cannot bring myself to worship him or her. — Tom Palmer

Thanks for the kudos.

To what I quoted.

No one with a decent moral sense would worship the god described in scriptures, be he the Yahweh god or the Trinity combo Jesus. The ancient standard are garbage by todays standards.

Why do you fear an imaginary construct?

Regards
DL

Please help me to understand your terminology--specifically how you differentiate between "Christian" and "Gnostic Christian" and how one of these would believe in an "evil God" while the other doesn't, yet they're both called "Christian".

Please help me to understand your terminology--specifically how you differentiate between "Christian" and "Gnostic Christian" and how one of these would believe in an "evil God" while the other doesn't, yet they're both called "Christian". — whollyrolling

I will be happy to oblige after you opine on the O.P.

I need to see how you think before deciding on the best answer for you.

Regards
DL

Alright, well now I looked up "Gnostic", and it defies at least the English-translated writings of "Christianity", so I'm led to conclude that "Gnostic Christianity" is a contradiction of terms. I suppose my opinion would now be that your original post contains a contradiction of terms and still needs clarification. You can't expect me to have an opinion about something that is completely unclear.

If Gnosticism suggests that matter is bad and spirit is good, but Christianity states that there are bad spirits and that all God's creation is good, there's a contradiction. If Gnosticism suggests that God is unknowable, but Christianity suggests that each individual can have knowledge of and a relationship with God, there's a contradiction. If Gnosticism suggests the "Creator" is a lesser being and Christianity suggests the "Creator" was the "supreme being", there's a contradiction. If Gnosticism suggests there's no "sin" only "ignorance", but Christianity suggests there's "sin", there's a contradiction. If Gnosticism suggests "knowledge" leads to salvation, but Christianity suggests only "Jesus" leads to salvation, there's a contradiction.

One of the more interesting things about the Gnostic hermeneutic is what it meant when Adam and Eve discovered they were naked. Having eaten from the tree of Good and Evil, they subsequently understood they were slaves and that slavery was evil; of course before this they thought they were in paradise. Slaves usually weren't allowed any raiment.

As to Stockholm syndrome. Yes, I believe its true Abrhamic religion is significantly seminal to this mental disease. In particular, the type of Christians that have no philosophical or theological backing to their "beliefs," tend to be the type that thinks politics (and otherwise worldly, secularism) and economics can in any way inform religion without turning it evil.

Wouldn't "Gnostic Christianity" be better labeled as "Gnostic Anti-Gnosticism", or perhaps "Anti-Christian Christianity"?

Admittedly I am new to the site, so perhaps I don't correctly understand what topics come under the purview of the philosophy forum, but I fail to see how your question is a philosophical one. It seems like the type of question that would be asked on yahoo answers. I don't say this because I am personally offended-because I'm not-I say this because I have noticed that some of the topics in the forums are really just people wanting a soap box for their political views.

Your comment seems to be intended more as offensive than offended, in a passive aggressive sort of way. I'd like to know what you think "philosophers" have been doing for the past few millennia--if one strips away their terminology. Traditionally, philosophy has been a Yahoo chat room for the children of the wealthy.

Indeed it would make more sense if it were a site to submit monographs to, and get feedback. People on here will complain if your post is too long. There's a lot of one liners...not very philosophical. A philosopher should suffer from logorrhea as a matter of course. Also, some want a handle or not to have to interpret what you're saying. When was the last time you read the work of a philosopher and easily understood all that was expressed? A philosopher definitely has a strong idiosyncratic side to him. Most here are scholars by comparison; topics center on cognitive science and materialism, which leaves little room for original thought, (cognitive) being so based on AI and neuroscience. Reading classical philosophy is, at times, more like reading poetry or mythology than anything in modern media, to be sure. The times are exceedingly material monistic, literal and prosaic; all you can do is look up facts, or rearrange what is already known, not arrive at truth through reason, that is from thought alone.

The original post seems to just be a psychoanalysis of Christians, and not really intended for actual philosophical discussion but rather to insult them. But even if it was not intended to offend, I still don't see how it's a philosophical question.

unfortunatley this seems to be the case for some posts here. But yeah it is how it is. Afterall you don't have to reply.

I'm still waiting for the OP to define "Gnostic Christianity" for me.