Proof of god is a moral question. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How? Or if because you say so, then what do you mean in saying it?

Do you see the morals shown for god as good or evil? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Do you mean of the actions attributed to God in the Bible do I or does anyone have personal opinions about what seems the morality of the actions so attributed? Why would that matter, any more than opinions about the temperature at which water boils?

How? Or if because you say so, then what do you mean in saying it? — tim wood

Logic and reason says it. Would you mane an entity god who did not have decent moral tenets?
Not likely.

Do you mean of the actions attributed to God in the Bible — tim wood

I mean any god form any of the so called holy books.

Regards
DL

Logic and reason says it. Would you mane an entity god who did not have decent moral tenets?
Not likely. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Historically, extremely likely, so it seems. And even the New Testament Christian God has His moments.

But what you have to decide is what you mean or understand in your own usage by the word "god." Until you settle on that, even provisionally, you're not going to get very far.

To me, a moral god would cure and never kill. That is the position Jesus took towards the non-believers. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I guess this is just your perception of God. If a God did exist it’s not necessarily so that you would know his intentions, or if your concerns mattered to him. To me it seems that your failing at exactly what you see as the weakness in believers, this idea of a personal God that you understand.

It also appears to me that you think God exists but you just don’t like him.

It also appears to me that you think God exists but you just don’t like him. — Brett

I agree that this is what @Gnostic Christian Bishop is saying.

Also God might have morally justified reasons for these actions that your limited, fallible, finite mind doesn't have access to.

Also God might have morally justified reasons for these actions that your limited, fallible, finite mind doesn't have access to. — GodlessGirl

The "God might have a reason you don't understand" fallacy. Good to use when god is self-contradictory. There is no argument against it; but it itself is a nonsequiteur. It means nothing, it has no punch, no reasoning, no logic behind it. This fallacious argument has only a goodwill toward a faith which can't be supported by other means but the same faith.

But what you have to decide is what you mean or understand in your own usage by the word "god." Until you settle on that, even provisionally, you're not going to get very far. — tim wood

How I define gods is irrelevant as I am discussing an imaginary god and not the only real god one can have, which is just a template in our own minds. That fact is why we Gnostic Christians will call our god I am.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.

Tim

As you can see, my definition is intelligent and that view does not apply to when I discuss the Christian god.

Regards
DL

It also appears to me that you think God exists but you just don’t like him. — Brett

I hold no supernatural beliefs and see god as an elevated man.

I will not waste my time discussing gods existence here. There is no end game to that pointless discussion.

It is the Christian morality that I am here to discuss and how they can idol worship Jesus and his revers in Yahweh at the same time.

Regards
DL

Also God might have morally justified reasons for these actions that your limited, fallible, finite mind doesn't have access to. — GodlessGirl

That is what the religious liars want you to believe, yet the bible says that we are not as stupid as the liars want us to think we are as they pick our pocket in church.

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.

Only moral cowards will not step up. Cowards can never be moral. You might be one if you believe the B S you have been lied about by some lying preacher.

Regards
DL

There is no argument against it; — god must be atheist

Sure their is. It can be shown to be speculative nonsense and one of a zillion options.

That is why thinkers will reject the supernatural as a waste of time.

Regards
DL

Religions tout themselves as being the final word in moral issues, even though secular law has rejected as too barbaric most of those laws. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Secular law is a concoction by the ruling elite at whose core core you can find a bunch of corrupt banksters. Of course, it suits the ruling elite absolutely fine that you seek to glorify their inventions while seeking to discredit alternatives.

Unlike you, I do not trust the ruling elite.

Therefore, I have a vested interest in countering the ruling elite with any alternative available, including religion. If sometimes religion can be the tool of the ruling elite, it can also trivially be repurposed into a tool against it.

To me, a moral god would cure and never kill. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Well, you happily accept that a policeman hits you with a gummy stick, but you would object to religion doing that. That is because you are a worshipper of the ruling elite. They are your gods, but they are certainly not mine.

The power of the ruling elite existentially depends on the idea that they can hit you, but you cannot hit them back. It is the core of your morality. At the core of my morality, you will find the opposite view: Hitting them back is useful, interesting, and very necessary. You glorify violence by the ruling elite while I glorify violence against the ruling elite.

When a war breaks out, the very first job always consists in singling out any possible defeatists, round them up, and to promptly terminate them. When a revolution breaks out, the very first job consists in singling out the shills of the ruling elite, round them up, and then extensively decimate them.

Seriously, attacking religion with a view to prop up the ruling elite and their secular-law concoctions is absolutely not free of charge. You can do what you want, but so can we.

I'm not a fan of a lot of the moral tenets of the major religions. I don't have a problem with every tenet, but I disagree with a lot of it.

The religion that's closest to my own views on this sort of stuff--though I don't 100% agree with it, either, is LaVeyan Satanism.

So it depends on the religion we're talking about.

Therefore, I have a vested interest in countering the ruling elite with any alternative available, including religion. If sometimes religion can be the tool of the ruling elite, it can also trivially be repurposed into a tool against it. — alcontali

Are you advocating barbaric religious laws be the law of the land the way Muslims do?

Would, for instance, we be better off to stone unruly children as the bible prescribes or just keep usin other secular non-lethal methods?

BTW, Americans fear their government while in other more advanced democracies, the governments fear the people.

American have lost the decent balls they used to sport.

Regards
DL

Modern Gnostic Christians name our god "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Question (because I'm ignorant): do you mean yourselves as individuals or as members of a community? That is, do you suppose yourself personally to be God? Or do you suppose yourself as individual as part of a larger entity that itself is God?

That is because you are a worshipper of the ruling elite. They are your gods, but they are certainly not mine. — alcontali

Don't class me by your fears ace.

Gnostic Christians are esoteric ecumenists and perpetual seekers. We do not idol worship anything or anyone.

The rest of your garbage was not worth my time.

Regards
DL

Question (because I'm ignorant): do you mean yourselves as individuals or as members of a community? That is, do you suppose yourself personally to be God? Or do you suppose yourself as individual as part of a larger entity that itself is God? — tim wood

It is all personal, just as all presentations of any god from anyone is a personal representation or picture of the mental image they have created for themselves of god.

Regards
DL

Are you advocating barbaric religious laws be the law of the land the way Muslims do? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Islamic law has stiff maximum penalties for serious misbehaviour. Criminal justice is governed by sentencing guidelines. A maximum penalty of electrocution on an electric chair is not more lenient than one of decapitation. Furthermore, the maximum penalty is rarely if ever pronounced, and even then, tends to get commutated in times of peace. Last but not least, after having exhausted all options in the appellate procedure, it is still possible to request a pardon from the head of the state.

Seriously, arguing over maximum penalties is quite pointless.

Law is an endless bureaucracy of formalisms and procedures. Islamic law is not different in that respect. As ever, in those circumstances, you'd better have a good lawyer.

BTW, Americans fear their government while in other more advanced democracies, the governments fear the people. American have lost the decent balls they used to sport. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The population must at all times reserve the option to overthrow the existing regime. When the state faces an individual or a small group, they can use legal means. That does not work if a group of even just 1% of the population decides to take them on. Then, it is group against group, and hence, politics. Political conflict cannot be decided by the law, because the very question of politics is exactly what the law should be. Hence, in political conflict we are absolutely not bound by the ruling elite's secular law-concoctions. Their invented laws do not matter, because the very purpose of the political conflict is to get rid of them as well as their concocted laws.

We do not idol worship anything or anyone. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

And God said: "I am the lawmaking God who freed you out of slavery in Egypt. One. First law. You will recognize no other law makers but me."

Through your glorification of the ruling elite's secular-law concoctions, you have associated the ruling elite as law making partners to God, or even above God. That puts you in violation of the first law transmitted by Moses. Therefore, you effectively are an idol worshipper.

You are even a dangerous idol worshipper. Your false gods also want to impose their secular-law concoctions onto those believers who do not wish to break God's first law. Hence, you also lend material support to the enemies of the believers. Seriously, there is no difference between you and the enemy.

Oops

Seriously, arguing over maximum penalties is quite pointless. — alcontali

I agree and don't know why you went there.

As to the rest of your idiocy. Garbage.

Regards
DL

I agree and don't know why you went there. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Your views on Islamic law reflect your ignorance on the matter. Furthermore, by shilling for the ruling elite, you completely lose credibility.

Furthermore, by shilling for the ruling elite, you completely lose credibility. — alcontali

I have a healthy disrespect for all social control entities, be they religious or political but your mind had already pigeon hole me thanks to your own deep biases.

Regards
DL

"Would you name an entity god who did not have decent moral tenets?
Not likely."

Just the opposite: very likely, I argue.The main attribute defining a god is power, not ethics.
Humans mainly use their concepts of the divine to explain why the world is the way it is, and how it came into being. A lot of deities are either metaphorically or intrinsically likened to natural phenomena. Sun, rain, earth, ocean, birth, sickness, death - just to name a few of the obvious ones. Those phenomena influence human live, they can help us or kill us both, and there's no rational, apparent system as to why they sometimes do the one or the other. In short: These phenomena have power, and humans can't control that power. Today, we can to some extent predict nature and protect ourselves against harmful effects, but we still can't control weather, disease or earth quakes.
And nature does not conform to human notions of good and evil, an earthquake will kill the righteous as well as the wicked. Why should the gods be different?
Or from a more religious point of view: The gods have created a world that's both beautiful and cruel. If They were perfectly gentle and good, why ever would They have created the world in this way?
Logically, the gods must be either amoral, or there must be good gods and evil ones both (but none of them all-powerful).


"Religions tout themselves as being the final word in moral issues"

I believe that ethics are a secondary development in religion. It only happens when we proceed from explaining nature in religious metaphor to also conceptualizing human society and morals in religious terms.
This is when the monotheists with their all-powerful and all-good God(tm) run into the theodicy issue.
In my religion, the moral concept of Maat is central, so yes, religion and moral authority are tied together. But since my Gods and Goddesses are neither all powerful nor perfectly good the question of their existence is quite independent from their notion of ethics.

What you put fits here a bit better but I will answer here.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6138/what-good-is-a-good-god-when-people-want-an-evil-god

I believe that ethics are a secondary development in religion. It only happens when we proceed from explaining nature in religious metaphor to also conceptualizing human society and morals in religious terms.
This is when the monotheists with their all-powerful and all-good God(tm) run into the theodicy issue.
In my religion, the moral concept of Maat is central, so yes, religion and moral authority are tied together. But since my Gods and Goddesses are neither all powerful nor perfectly good the question of their existence is quite independent from their notion of ethics. — WerMaat

I cannot agree with your first as the old religions pushed looking after the poor as their first priority and not proving that their god was the most powerful. Not directly in any case. The battle of the gods in the BCE s was more of magic and alchemy to show power. That only changed after people became literalists and theirs was the power of the sword that showed the power of their gods.

Before literalism, reared it's ugly and dumbing down head, seeking god was actually a joy to see and participate in.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

In those days the Golden Rule ruled and that is a moral tenet.

The Egyptian and Sumerian myths that the Jews copied from to create their religion, IMO, showed more wisdom than the religions that followed. Literalism though took all the good out of Christianity and Islam. Midrash gave the Jewish religion intelligence and a decent moral base but without midrash in Christianity, they end with idol worshiping a genocidal son murderer that they can somehow see as good.

And nature does not conform to human notions of good and evil, an earthquake will kill the righteous as well as the wicked. Why should the gods be different? — WerMaat

Only sentient beings can discern good and evil so what nature does is amoral.
Even secular law recognizes that by using men's rea, Latin for an evil mind or evil intent, as one of the main ingredients required before a person can be found guilty of a crime. Insanity pleas are based on mens rea and is why the insane are treated differently than the usual criminal.

Just the opposite: very likely, I argue.The main attribute defining a god is power, not ethics. — WerMaat

I wonder. I get sick of backing a theist into a corner just to have him pull his G D god is love B.S.
I mention the feeding of the poor already. To show you wrong now let me show why you might be right.

Let me add that being the weakest and most insecure animal on the planet does say that the security of strength is really important to us, but we default to cooperation and doing good/moral and only resort to competition when cooperation is not possible.

Regards
DL

I cannot agree with your first as the old religions pushed looking after the poor as their first priority and not proving that their god was the most powerful. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Which era and religion do you have in mind here?
If you're talking Bronze Age Sumeria and Egypt, then yes, we already have organized religion as well as a literary and philosophic tradition in both countries, and morals were discussed in it a lot. I would put that fully within the secondary development already.
Also, this does not replace the former. I simply meant to postulate that humans tend to recognize the divine in nature first, and conceptualize divine order and command in human social context second. But the second stage is merely an addition to the first, not a replacement.

The battle of the gods in the BCE s was more of magic and alchemy to show power. That only changed after people became literalists and theirs was the power of the sword that showed the power of their gods.

Before literalism, reared it's ugly and dumbing down head, seeking god was actually a joy to see and participate in. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Interesting thought. I've been partial to Jan Assmanns concept of "mosaische Unterscheidung".
As in: the older polytheistic religions were full of diverging and contradictory mythology, and different tribes had different gods. However, that was not really a problem since no one insisted that only one single god or story was true. All of them were accepted. Only the monotheistic faith changed this and demanded a single, absolute truth to fit their single absolute god.
If this is more or less what you mean by literalism rearing its head, then we're in agreement.

I wonder. I get sick of backing a theist into a corner just to have him pull his G D god is love B.S.
I mention the feeding of the poor already. To show you wrong now let me show why you might be right. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

OK, you lost me here. Do you see me as a theist and are you waiting for me to hit the corner?
And where exactly does the feeding of the poor come in at this point?
I'm confused...

If this is more or less what you mean by literalism rearing its head, then we're in agreement. — WerMaat

Absolutely correct.

Nice to chat with one who know his religious history. It sure beats chatting with a literalist air head.

As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the thinking and practices of "mosaische Unterscheidung", if he craved a return to the older and better way of thinking of god.

OK, you lost me here. Do you see me as a theist and are you waiting for me to hit the corner?
And where exactly does the feeding of the poor come in at this point?
I'm confused... — WerMaat

Apologies for my little rant against the way theists debate.
It was a complaint against them and not against you.
My respect grows for your thinking.

Regards
DL

Nice to chat with one who know his religious history. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Same here. Not many people are even aware that there are literary traditions which are older than the bible.
For me, Christianity was the starting point, it's what I was raised with. But the more I questioned and explored it the more dissatisfied I became with the biblical texts and concepts.
I mean no general disrespect - for some people, Christianity is apparently the right path. But not for me, personally - I found more clarity and wisdom in the teachings of Ptah-Hotep and Amenemope.
I

For me, Christianity was the starting point, it's what I was raised with. But the more I questioned and explored it the more dissatisfied I became with the biblical texts and concepts. — WerMaat

Any open mind that reads the bible should end up wondering why Christians can idol worship a god that, by any moral standard, is a fail.

If that is not enough, just listening to literalists apologists who have been dumbed down by the literal reading of their myths should do the job.

I see the older religionists as esoteric ecumenists who preferred to see and define god by his best rules and laws as being the way to go. After all, one is supposed to live his religion and that can only be done by showing those good laws, rules and moral tenets.

If Christians were that way, and had a decent ideology, inquisitions and jihads would not have been required.

This may be a part of why Christians try to deflect to the existence of god instead of his attributes.

I should not complain too much as that is what is helping kill Christianity and Islam.

Regards
DL