What good is a good god, when people want an evil god?

Gnostic Christian Bishop

What good is a good god, when people want an evil god?

The Gnostic Cathars thought themselves to be a peaceful good man religion and basically the only good non-violent Christians.

History is showing that that was true. That is due to the fact that they did not war against other religions the way the other Christians of those days did. As Christians and other religionists will attest, and usually don’t, that all the religions in those days were war like and war loving. They gorged on blood and shit.

Most except for esoteric ecumenist Gnostics, who warred with their mouths, instead of inquisitions, jihads and holy wars.

Gnostics knew how to live in peace, but as history has shown us, the good die young and the evil grows threw murder and corruption. Hurray for the mainstream religions.

Gnostic against Gnostic is nice because, as esoteric ecumenists, we respect each other as doing what Jesus taught and that was to seek god perpetually, but never find him. Jesus was from an old school single eye shaman or guru training in Egypt, knowledge seekers and not god worshipers; and told us to look to our emotions as well as our minds for the best rules and laws to live by.

We know what those best laws are but do not implement them; because they lead to piece and people want the drama of war.

You are not following a good god, you are following man’s law and Trump shows how badly all of man’s laws are working.

We have all put the god of money above all the gods except for the most evil gods that man has created.
The Yahweh and Allah twins.

We have no choice in this thanks to our oligarch masters.

The Yahweh and Allah twins cannot possibly exist. He would certainly punish such a flagrant insult. Instead, the twins hide. Being made in our image, god is quite insecure. That is what being good does, as the good know that when people want a powerful god, that basically means that they are evil as well, as they are to emulate god. A genocidal god who kills when he can cure.

We follow secular law and not god’s barbaric laws.

We look for security in dollars and war and not god’s power.

Secular law is teaching us better morals and ethics than religions.

God should capitulate because he has lost the war.

We have all put another god above all the gods.

Religions die hard. Laïcité is cushioning the blows as gently as it can but too many religionists will still die. Unless the world goes esoteric ecumenist like Jesus was.

It is too bad that we all want gods of war instead of a god of peace.

Do you have any idea as to how to mitigate that bias?

It might be written in our selfish gene and wanting an evil god might be good.

Regards
DL

deletedusercb

If we look at Christian pacificism there are advocates from many branches of Christianity going way back. Yes, gnostics are included.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

If we look at Christian pacificism there are advocates from many branches of Christianity going way back. Yes, gnostics are included. — Coben

True.

It is also true that in Christianity, it did not take well as evidenced by their many inquisitions and murders.

Regards
DL

Enki B

What good is a good god, when people want an evil god? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It's very easy to say that people want an evil god, but most of their wants are based on desire for good. Most people in todays society have nothing to do with the wars that their governments fight, who kills who. I could understand saying those who are in power seek to worship an evil form of god, but that is a very small sub set of society and it is also based on the person bias of each person in power. Most of the inquistions and crusades, although being based on traditional christian beliefs, were also due to the evil desires of those in power at the time. Those who participated were simply being told what to do by thier oligarchs and monarchs, that doesn't excuse them for there actions of course, but their ideals were being manipulated by others. So it seems like quite the broad statement to say that everyone in today's society worships some form of evil god, because it all comes down to ones own bias towards evil.

BrianW

Unless the world goes esoteric ecumenist like Jesus was. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Thanks for mentioning this. I hadn't given it a name, but I kept telling my friends that Jesus wasn't in the least bit "christian" or judaist like the religions may try to portray. He knew of the biblical teachings but he chose to express himself more as an esotericist than a "religionist". In fact, the reason the new testament bible teachings are so different from the old testament is because of his perspectives which became or were used to reform the older, grosser expressions of religion.

Anyway, thanks a lot for this.

alcontali

Secular law is teaching us better morals and ethics than religions. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Are you shilling again for the ruling elite? How much are they paying you this time?

WerMaat

Jesus was from an old school single eye shaman or guru training in Egypt, knowledge seekers and not god worshipers; — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Is this speculation, or do you have any historical clues pointing to this interpretation?
I'd be extremely curious to hear more about it since I personally follow the ancient Egyptian code of ethics and also admire Jesus of Nazaret greatly.

and told us to look to our emotions as well as our minds for the best rules and laws to live by. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

This kind of fits with Egyptian philosophy, which assumes that all humans are naturally able to comprehend Maat and can choose to do either evil or good:
"Follow your heart as long as you live" (Ptah-Hotep)
“The heart of a human, it is larger than a storehouse and deeper than a well, it is full of all potential. From the best take your choice, and the bad keep caged until the day that you die” (either Ani or Amun-em-Ope... I apologize, I'm quoting from memory right now and I'll need to look up the precise reference)
From the a hymn, the god Ra speaks: “I have created one man equal to his second, and I have not commanded them to do evil. It is their hearts that do not listen to that which I told them.”

Gnostics knew how to live in peace, but as history has shown us, the good die young and the evil grows threw murder and corruption. Hurray for the mainstream religions. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I would advise caution, similar to what Enki wrote.
Look at the historical evidence: There is at most a weak correlation between the religion and ethical system of a society and the actual conduct of people in this society.
Even in a country with a strict and cruel set of religious laws, you'll find generous and gentle human beings. And even under a nominally pacifist ideology, you'll still find murderers and warmongers.
Human behavior shows a great deal of uniformity, regardless of time, place and religion.

I believe that faith can be a strong guide for an individual person, but organized religion needs to carefully guard itself lest it be corrupted and used as a tool for manipulation and political power.

Pattern-chaser

What good is a good god, when people want an evil god? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Same observation as ever from me: "good" and "evil" are relative terms. To indulge in such descriptions without being so misleading as to be plain wrong, we must ask questions like "Is God good to/for me?" Or, if not me, then anyone else: "Is God good to/for the people of Paris?" And so on.

God cannot be good or evil to/for everyone, because what's good for me might be evil for you.

WerMaat

"good" and "evil" are relative terms. To indulge in such descriptions without being so misleading as to be plain wrong, we must ask questions like "Is God good to/for me?" Or, if not me, then anyone else: "Is God good to/for the people of Paris?" And so on. — Pattern-chaser

Fair point.
You seem to define "good" as "profitable or pleasurable"?
I see it differently, since I define "good" as "in accordance with Maat", and then it's no longer a relative term. That definition, of course, is of no use to you if I don't explain what I mean by "Maat", but I guess that this would throw the thread wildly off topic...

deletedusercb

God cannot be good or evil to/for everyone, because what's good for me might be evil for you. — Pattern-chaser

Perhaps in a multiverse, God could be. Though it seems to me, not enough has been sorted. Like people best put in several universes are here mixed.

Pattern-chaser

You seem to define "good" as "profitable or pleasurable"? — WerMaat

No, not really. I find "good" to be a term of limited use. When I do use it, I choose to use it in the everyday sense, with an intentionally broad and vague definition. :wink:

I define "good" as "in accordance with Maat" — WerMaat

If Maat is who I understand Her to be, I find your definition at least as good as any other! :up:

Pattern-chaser

Like people best put in several universes are here mixed. — Coben

Sorry, my meaning extraction process failed utterly with this. :chin:

deletedusercb

Sorry, my meaning extraction process failed utterly with this. :chin: — Pattern-chaser

In a multiverse you could have the people who like war, say, and keep out the people who would like other kinds of challenges. Store them in the 'hey let's make art universe'. Our universe, in fact just our planet, needs to be sorted. So, perhaps there is a solution where a God could seem good to everyone, but God needs to do some sorting. Separating. Puttin' in the right box. It's like a club that plays all genres of music at the same time.

WerMaat

If Maat is who I understand Her to be — Pattern-chaser

Yes. :smile:
I might argue some of the finer points, but the Wikipedia entry offers a good summary

Pattern-chaser

↪WerMaat

<like>

Pattern-chaser

↪Coben

A sort of philosophical apartheid, is that what you're getting at?

deletedusercb

↪Pattern-chaser

Well, I suppose, in the sense of apart. But it would be like, oh, you like this way of life, here's a universe for you. Apartheid in the south african system of oppression sense was: you stay over there even though this means you're life is not like you like it.

WerMaat

I find "good" to be a term of limited use. When I do use it, I choose to use it in the everyday sense, with an intentionally broad and vague definition. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Again, fair point. I would ask if you have a suggestions for a more useful term or definition, but again, that's off topic. Is there any existing post or thread, perhaps?

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Anyway, thanks a lot for this. — BrianW

My pleasure buddy.

Yahweh became a prick in Christian hands but the older androgynous Yahweh was not bad at all nor believed in in a literal way by the Jews. It took the stupid literal; reading of myths by Christians to give life to their genocidal and infanticidal god.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Secular law is teaching us better morals and ethics than religions. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Are you shilling again for the ruling elite? How much are they paying you this time? — alcontali

I am shilling for the good sense and morals of secular law makers. Even though much needs improving, what they have beats the hell out of theistic laws. That is why you follow those.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Is this speculation, or do you have any historical clues pointing to this interpretation? — WerMaat

More inference than speculation, but we cannot say that a miracle working Jesus ever existed in the first place and so all I am doing is trying to analyse a myth for whatever little truths might be in it.

Jesus either learned his esoteric ecumenist was from Judaism or Summer and Egypt or from his own Jewish esoteric denomination which, as I understand it, was in Egypt.

The third eye being called the single eye as Jesus called it, I think, is Egyptian. I could be wrong on that.

Here is a Gnostic Christian speaking of the Jesus myth. This does not negate the usefulness of the few places the Gnostic Jesus speaks to us in the scriptures that the church never quotes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

I believe that faith can be a strong guide for an individual person, but organized religion needs to carefully guard itself lest it be corrupted and used as a tool for manipulation and political power. — WerMaat

LOL.

Buddy. That happened a long time ago. Think Constantine.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

I would advise caution, similar to what Enki wrote. — WerMaat

Cooperation is indeed preferable to conflict but unity is not the goal of competition.

We evolve to seek the fittest in all ways and should not care to unite with immoral or otherwise unseemly traits.

There is duality in all concepts. Pur goals determine which direction we will take.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

God cannot be good or evil to/for everyone, because what's good for me might be evil for you. — Pattern-chaser

You are statistically and factually incorrect.
I doubt that we would disagree on the definition you and I use.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.

I will bet that you moral sense, like mine, begins with some kind or reciprocity rule. There is the Golden Rule versions and the more modern Harm/Care, but you will know what I mean.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

That definition, of course, is of no use to you if I don't explain what I mean by "Maat", but I guess that this would throw the thread wildly off topic... — WerMaat

Then use more generic analogies buddy.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Dividing people into groups and ghettoes has been tried and shown to fail.

Diversity is strength, to a certain level, is quite true, but losing any original strain is losing a lot of potential useful information, and that could effect the benefit or lose to the whole of our species.

Regards
DL

Pattern-chaser

I would ask if you have a suggestions for a more useful term or definition — WerMaat

No, I think "good" and "evil" are fine. We just need to avoid the pit-trap of assuming they're absolute, not relative.

WerMaat

Here is a Gnostic Christian speaking of the Jesus myth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Thank you for this link! I like this idea presented in the video: That it's in the end rather irrelevant if Jesus even existed as a historical figure. It's much more rewarding to understand his life and teachings in the context of mythology.

The third eye being called the single eye as Jesus called it, I think, is Egyptian. I could be wrong on that. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I'm not aware of any single Egyptian text that mentions a 3rd Eye.
But we know the eye as a motive from the "Eye of Horus", a story about injury and healing and tied to the cycle of the moon. And in the context of the "Eye of Ra", the goddess who is the most powerful warrior of the Sun god. Here, however, we need to consider the double meaning of the Egyptian word "ir.t", eye, for it can also be taken as a female participle form of "irj", to do, and then it means "the one who acts". Oh, and even older there's the gods khenty-irty and heru wer, sky gods whose two eyes are the sun and the moon. Interesting stuff, but Horus and his healing eye is surely the most closely related with the Jesus myth. (consider: The goddess Isis, after the birth of her divine son, has to flee from her enemies and hide the child in the reed marshes on the bank of the Nile. When the child grows up, he returns to take his rightful place as divine king... sound familiar?)

Buddy. That happened a long time ago. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Of course it did. Multiple times, and not just to Christianity.
I merely intended to state a general principle, not quote examples...

WerMaat

That definition, of course, is of no use to you if I don't explain what I mean by "Maat", but I guess that this would throw the thread wildly off topic... — WerMaat

Then use more generic analogies buddy. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Maat isn't an analogy, she's the heart of my religion.

But okay, let me put it in more generic terms. "in accordance with Maat" means to me:
- practice moderation and seek balance. You should enjoy the good things but don't be greedy.
- help the poor and protect the weak. (with power comes responsibility :wink: )
- do your duty and uphold the law, as long as that law is fair
- your conduct should be calm, patient and friendly. Don't let yourself be provoked into slander or violence.
- perfection cannot be reached, but always strive to learn and do as much good as you can.

Is this goodness according to Maat still a relative term?
Yes, I think so. Human beings can only relate to the world in terms of their individual mind and perception. Any "truth" or ethical system we come up with is necessarily relative.
Still, I believe that Maat is not an arbitrary concept. She holds, if not an absolute truth, then at least some very widespread consent about what is good and correct action for a human being.

BC

↪Gnostic Christian Bishop

Our very own Esoteric Ecumenist Humanist.

Pattern-chaser

I find "good" to be a term of limited use. When I do use it, I choose to use it in the everyday sense, with an intentionally broad and vague definition. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Again, fair point. I would ask if you have a suggestions for a more useful term or definition — WerMaat

No, I don't. I take the view that "good" is vague because the concept it labels is a vague one. "Good" is relative to who or what the thing is good for/to. I see no problems with that. It allows for the co-existence of (good-for-humans) and NOT(good-for-mosquitoes), which reflects the RL situation of fighting malaria with insecticides. It's only when someone mistakes "good" for an absolute thing that problems arise. Problems such as the famous misunderstanding that is the 'Problem of Evil', which this topic addresses (at least partly). Good is demonstrably not absolute; why do we continue to use it as if it was? :chin:

What good is a good god, when people want an evil god?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions