Gnostics versus Christians

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Being a little bit tongue-in-cheek here, so please don't take me too seriously.

Christians today generally believe that our universe was created by a perfectly good and perfectly strong God. Is this not so?

Now, the Gnostics (presumably heretically) believed that our material universe was actually the work of an evil "demiurge" -- not quite God, but still very powerful and perfectly evil.

To my way of thinking, the universe that it has been my privilege to observe for the past 69 years (and especially our little corner of it here on Earth), simply does not look as if either of those assumptions are true. The arguments that can be made by simply gathering evidence from everything we know says otherwise.

So I suggest a compromise -- if, of course, we have to accept "creation" at all: maybe our universe was created by a totally evil being that was a dozen or so percentage points short of omnipotent, and thus not entirely effective. That would fit the "facts on the ground" better, in my opinion.

 

[DavidFirth]

To my way of thinking, you're wrong.

 

[Mister Silver]

To my way of thinking, you're wrong.

Just once, I would like you to expand on your point of view instead of providing a one-liner that reveals nothing except your close-mindedness. Especially in a debate area.

 

[DavidFirth]

Just once, I would like you to expand on your point of view instead of providing a one-liner that reveals nothing except your close-mindedness. Especially in a debate area.

You should know by now that I believe exactly what is written in Genesis and the rest of the Bible. I do not acknowledge or believe in secular views.

 

[Mister Silver]

You should know by now that I believe exactly what is written in Genesis and the rest of the Bible. I do not acknowledge or believe in secular views.

It doesn't mean you can't provide a detailed paragraph, at the least, of an argument that reflects your views.

But we are derailing this thread, and I will leave it at that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You should know by now that I believe exactly what is written in Genesis and the rest of the Bible. I do not acknowledge or believe in secular views.

I don't think I've ever read a more clear statement that says "my mind is closed" -- with the possible exception of "my mind is closed," but I can't remember anybody ever writing that.

 

[DavidFirth]

I don't think I've ever read a more clear statement that says "my mind is closed" -- with the possible exception of "my mind is closed," but I can't remember anybody ever writing that.

Well, I tried it your way. I saw a bunch of guys making a lot of guesses built on a lot more assumptions. Genesis has neither, is reliable and has never changed from the day it was written thousands of years ago.

 

[Rick B]

Just once, I would like you to expand on your point of view instead of providing a one-liner that reveals nothing except your close-mindedness. Especially in a debate area.

You mean like when you dropped into "The Bible Declares that Jesus is God" and interjected this in-depth, scholarly supported, fully-detailed rejoinder: "Religions are just cults that have gained popularity" and just as quickly disappeared. Seems a bit hypocritical.

 

[Mister Silver]

You mean like when you dropped into "The Bible Declares that Jesus is God" and interjected this in-depth, scholarly supported, fully-detailed rejoinder: "Religions are just cults that have gained popularity" and just as quickly disappeared. Seems a bit hypocritical.

If you'd like, I could expand on that premise.

 

[Darkstorn]

You mean like when you dropped into "The Bible Declares that Jesus is God" and interjected this in-depth, scholarly supported, fully-detailed rejoinder: "Religions are just cults that have gained popularity" and just as quickly disappeared. Seems a bit hypocritical.

"a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."

I just grabbed that off google. But it would seem that the claim "religions are just cults that have gained popularity" explains itself, by definition.

Otherwise, take it up to the guys who decide on matters of language.

 

[Rick B]

"a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."

I just grabbed that off google. But it would seem that the claim "religions are just cults that have gained popularity" explains itself, by definition.

Otherwise, take it up to the guys who decide on matters of language.

My reply was, of course, not about a dictionary definition. If you were more familiar with debate argumentation you couldn't have missed the fallacious response that I was pointing out that @Mister Silver was guilty of. You can learn how recognize logical fallacies and critical thinking from those apologetic and philosopher guys.

 

[sun rise]

Being a little bit tongue-in-cheek here, so please don't take me too seriously.

Christians today generally believe that our universe was created by a perfectly good and perfectly strong God. Is this not so?

Now, the Gnostics (presumably heretically) believed that our material universe was actually the work of an evil "demiurge" -- not quite God, but still very powerful and perfectly evil.

To my way of thinking, the universe that it has been my privilege to observe for the past 69 years (and especially our little corner of it here on Earth), simply does not look as if either of those assumptions are true. The arguments that can be made by simply gathering evidence from everything we know says otherwise.

So I suggest a compromise -- if, of course, we have to accept "creation" at all: maybe our universe was created by a totally evil being that was a dozen or so percentage points short of omnipotent, and thus not entirely effective. That would fit the "facts on the ground" better, in my opinion.

Gnosticism - Wikipedia has a much better and more accurate view of Gnosticism than you presented here.

 

[Rick B]

If you'd like, I could expand on that premise.

You presented that tart opinion (not premise) on the thread "The Bible Declares that Jesus is God". Your remark was irrelevant to my premise. It was in no way a material interaction. Nor did you offer any attempt to directly engage any texts, scholarly support or syllogisms in that debate. You just vented your feelings. To expand on that sentence would only continue a non-sequitur response.

 

[Desert Snake]

This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

 

[Desert Snake]

Gnostics define "christianity"?

 

[George-ananda]

Now, the Gnostics (presumably heretically) believed that our material universe was actually the work of an evil "demiurge" -- not quite God, but still very powerful and perfectly evil.

I'm not a Gnostic but I'm extremely doubting they believe the above.

 

[Shiranui117]

I'm not a Gnostic but I'm extremely doubting they believe the above.

A great many did. I think the Valentinians might have been an exception to this, but I'd have to brush up more on my history.

 

[idav]

Being a little bit tongue-in-cheek here, so please don't take me too seriously.

Christians today generally believe that our universe was created by a perfectly good and perfectly strong God. Is this not so?

Now, the Gnostics (presumably heretically) believed that our material universe was actually the work of an evil "demiurge" -- not quite God, but still very powerful and perfectly evil.

To my way of thinking, the universe that it has been my privilege to observe for the past 69 years (and especially our little corner of it here on Earth), simply does not look as if either of those assumptions are true. The arguments that can be made by simply gathering evidence from everything we know says otherwise.

So I suggest a compromise -- if, of course, we have to accept "creation" at all: maybe our universe was created by a totally evil being that was a dozen or so percentage points short of omnipotent, and thus not entirely effective. That would fit the "facts on the ground" better, in my opinion.

The Gnostic Christian take on the Bible is that the demiurge did indeed create the material universe but his mother Sophia (wisdom) allowed us wisdom in the garden. They swap God and the Serpent as far as good guy bad guy. It makes more sense than trying to reconcile Gods white lie about death and a boobie trapped tree.

 

[idav]

Gnostics define "christianity"?

They had their skirmish hundreds of years ago, theology divided the east and west orthodoxies.

 

[Darkstorn]

My reply was, of course, not about a dictionary definition. If you were more familiar with debate argumentation you couldn't have missed the fallacious response that I was pointing out that @Mister Silver was guilty of. You can learn how recognize logical fallacies and critical thinking from those apologetic and philosopher guys.

This sounds suspiciously like backpedaling taking into account your previous post, and my previous reply. Not to mention it's accusing me of not being experienced enough in debates to understand your argument's logic. I say you're just using flashy words in a deflection attempt.

And your logic is poor.

I mean seriously. The definition for "cult" agrees with his claim, just like that. Christianity was a cult. There is no argument here except the one you are inventing out your backside.

But realistically, Mister Silver could have entirely verified his statement by giving you this:

Definition of CULT

And nothing else. You called him a hypocrite. I say it's now up to you to truly show that he is one, instead of you being one.