Gnostics versus Christians

[Jumi]

Because there are a wide variety of things people define as "evil" I thought I'd include all possible definitions including your own.

I didn't see my definition there, so I replied with it. It seemed to me to be more of a list of deadly sins of the Christians. Humans are however more creative in making things evil that aren't even harmful. Of those envy, pride and wrath would fit the demiurge well, if it's seen as a conscious and real entity. Delusion, as pointed out, is more to the point.

 

[Sanzbir]

I didn't see my definition there, so I replied with it.

Look one under slothful.

It seemed to me to be more of a list of deadly sins of the Christians.

It was basically that plus the generic cultural media idea of "evil" as psychopathy. I figured that covered all bases.

Humans are however more creative in making things evil that aren't even harmful. Of those envy, pride and wrath would fit the demiurge well, if it's seen as a conscious and real entity. Delusion, as pointed out, is more to the point.

Well, as stated, I don't believe evil is even a thing, so sure.

 

[Jumi]

It was basically that plus the generic cultural media idea of "evil" as psychopathy. I figured that covered all bases.

Wrong sexual orientation, belief in x, disbelief in x, wrong belief in x, apostasy, blood transfusions... there are many types of things people think is evil. I remember back when playing games on a computer or listening to (non-Christian) rock music was evil too.

Well, as stated, I don't believe evil is even a thing, so sure.

Neither do I, outside of human society.

 

[Sanzbir]

Wrong sexual orientation, belief in x, disbelief in x, wrong belief in x, apostasy, blood transfusions... there are many types of things people think is evil. I remember back when playing games on a computer or listening to (non-Christian) rock music was evil too.

Well, ya see the people who believe those things are sins think their extensions of the ones I mention.

Wrong sexual orientation: Lust.
Belief in x: That's usually seen as greed or pride or the like. With the implication that those people only believe that thing because they are getting something out of it or are too proud to admit their "fault".
Disbelief in x, Wrong belief in x, Apostasy: The people who believe these things to be sin pretty much equate such things as pride.
Blood transfusions: Again it's pride, interestingly enough. It's where the whole "you're playing god" argument comes in.
Playing games on a computer or listening to (non-Christian) rock music: Yeah because those things were said to communicate bad morals like greed, wrath, envy, pride, and lust especially for music. Video games were demonized either in terms of wrath (for the violence) or sloth (for the belief that gaming is lazy).

So yeah, I thought all bases had pretty much been covered with the classics + psychopathy.

 

[Jumi]

So yeah, I thought all bases had pretty much been covered with the classics + psychopathy.

Well the theory of those sins aren't exactly self-apparent or useful classifications. Using that, shouldn't psychopathy then also be pride.

 

[Sanzbir]

Well the theory of those sins aren't exactly self-apparent or useful classifications.

To the people who don't view those things as sins anyways, sure, it's not clear.

To the people who do view those things as sins, the categorization is obvious. Ask anyone who believes that homosexuality is evil if homosexuality is connected to lust. I bet you'll get an affirmative.

Using that, shouldn't psychopathy then also be pride.

Maybe. Or perhaps wrath, or envy, but it would only appear that way to someone considering "evil" from a traditional, Christian framework. Since people outside of that framework define it as "evil", I included it from a non-Christian modern-culture perspective on "evil". I covered your type of evil from your perspective and covered all the stereotypical conservative Christian evils from their perspective.

I didn't use my own perspective 'cause, again, my own perspective is that all this notion of "evil" is pretty much just mythology and superstition. I wanted to present every possible definition of evil from the perspectives of the people that hold that definition.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

You could consider looking it up.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What makes you assume that the universe, specifically earth and its surrounding area, was not created by God? Or I suppose what evidence points to the idea that we was not created by God?

Your question fails because you ask me about "God," but don't tell me which "God" you mean.

I grew up in the Judaeo-Christian world, and my understanding of God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent (all knowing, all powerful, and all good). The world I can see with my own eyes was definitively not created by such an entity.

If you believe otherwise, and wish to convince me (or anyone), please explain leprosy in a world created by an Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent God. Or the destruction of almost all of humanity by a flood. Or the killing of innocent children who just happened to be first-born in Egypt.

Please be sure that your apologetics address the wisdom and goodness of God while busily tormenting and killing people. I promise I'll read what you write.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sophia is demiurge mother, your post doesn't seem to take that into account. The way the myth goes, the demiurge is not really god, it's a false god.

I would be very interested to know how, when "God" is perceived to be one, alone, etc. -- that there could possibly be a "false god."

 

[Rick B]

Your question fails because you ask me about "God," but don't tell me which "God" you mean.

I grew up in the Judaeo-Christian world, and my understanding of God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent (all knowing, all powerful, and all good). The world I can see with my own eyes was definitively not created by such an entity.

If you believe otherwise, and wish to convince me (or anyone), please explain leprosy in a world created by an Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent God. Or the destruction of almost all of humanity by a flood. Or the killing of innocent children who just happened to be first-born in Egypt.

Please be sure that your apologetics address the wisdom and goodness of God while busily tormenting and killing people. I promise I'll read what you write.

If I may, the problem of evil and suffering has been addressed by Christians for over 400 years. It can be looked up under the title: Theodicy. For an introductory response I recommend The Five Responses to Problem of Evil @ credohouse.org. For a more in depth answer Why the Problem of Evil is a Problem @ pleaseconvinceme.com

 

[Enoch07]

Your question fails because you ask me about "God," but don't tell me which "God" you mean.

I grew up in the Judaeo-Christian world, and my understanding of God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent (all knowing, all powerful, and all good). The world I can see with my own eyes was definitively not created by such an entity.

I did not specify a god for a reason. That reason was that which you explained. So thank you.

Also, I am not attempting to persuade you or anyone. Its just a discussion. But I do believe otherwise so here we go.

So first of all you gave me no evidence. Just an emotional response. I will work with it regardless.

So your reasoning that God did not create everything is because if God would have created everything, then he would have created only good things and no bad things. No diseases, pain, misery, or death? Is that a close enough deduction?

Who said the pain and misery was needless? Do you decree all pain and misery as needless? Without pain there is no child birth. Without misery how are we to know what happiness is? These things are not needless, they are necessary! Whether you believe in God or not surely you would agree?

The biblical flood did not kill almost all of humanity. Nor was the biblical flood intended to. You should study the subject before you attack it. I won't elaborate because your not knowledgeable enough to even understand the basics of the flood.

God created us. He can kill us at anytime, in anyway He sees fit. Is that too apologetic?

 

[idav]

I would be very interested to know how, when "God" is perceived to be one, alone, etc. -- that there could possibly be a "false god."

It's from some of the Gnostic texts. Gnostic readings of John would associate the logos with wisdom.

"The creation of the Demiurge (also known as Yaldabaoth, "Son of Chaos") is also a mistake made during this exile. The Demiurge proceeds to create the physical world in which we live, ignorant of Sophia, who nevertheless manages to infuse some spiritual spark or pneuma into his creation."
Sophia (Gnosticism) - Wikipedia

 

[ADigitalArtist]

God created us. He can kill us at anytime, in anyway He sees fit. Is that too apologetic?

I don't understand this POV. To me it implies ownership and I don't believe in ownership of sentient, sapient beings by anyone or anything.
If someone created sentient, sapient robots, i would view their rights as indistinguishable from their creators as soon as those qualities manifested. And I certainly wouldn't think age, intelligence, or power imbalance would change that (might does not make right.)
People aren't property. Not of each other and not of gods, imo.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Who said the pain and misery was needless? Do you decree all pain and misery as needless? Without pain there is no child birth. Without misery how are we to know what happiness is? These things are not needless, they are necessary! Whether you believe in God or not surely you would agree?

Imo this is unwarranted reductionism. Saying that needless pain is needless is not the same as all pain is needless. Horrible agony followed by death is not something necessary for the betterment of individuals or communities.
(Incidentally the bible describes childbirth as being painless until Eve sinned, making it a rather poor example to try and illustrate how not spiteful that is.)

 

[Profound Realization]

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.

What conditions, in your perception, establish what is termed "good" and what is "evil?"

What exactly is a "Christian?" and what exactly is a "Gnostic?" In my perception, a Christian is a human being that is Christ-like, or follows the way of Christ according to characteristics listed in a book. A Gnostic is as it's derived from, "a knower."

There is just as much evidence gathering, with easy observation that a human being has both good and evil within them, varying amounts of each. An internal struggle between the 2.

It is evident as well that there are some forces in the universe much stronger than us.
What those forces are precisely and their characteristics/properties are another subject.

 

[Jumi]

To the people who don't view those things as sins anyways, sure, it's not clear.

To the people who do view those things as sins, the categorization is obvious. Ask anyone who believes that homosexuality is evil if homosexuality is connected to lust. I bet you'll get an affirmative.

Well the church where I was raised in was protestant. They never used such frameworks in their teaching of kids, they only ever talked about specific sins. So even if I believed in sin, these "seven sins" would probably thought to be more specific.

I didn't use my own perspective 'cause, again, my own perspective is that all this notion of "evil" is pretty much just mythology and superstition. I wanted to present every possible definition of evil from the perspectives of the people that hold that definition.

I pretty much agree with your view here.

 

[Profound Realization]

I did not specify a god for a reason. That reason was that which you explained. So thank you.

Also, I am not attempting to persuade you or anyone. Its just a discussion. But I do believe otherwise so here we go.

So first of all you gave me no evidence. Just an emotional response. I will work with it regardless.

So your reasoning that God did not create everything is because if God would have created everything, then he would have created only good things and no bad things. No diseases, pain, misery, or death? Is that a close enough deduction?

Who said the pain and misery was needless? Do you decree all pain and misery as needless? Without pain there is no child birth. Without misery how are we to know what happiness is? These things are not needless, they are necessary! Whether you believe in God or not surely you would agree?

The biblical flood did not kill almost all of humanity. Nor was the biblical flood intended to. You should study the subject before you attack it. I won't elaborate because your not knowledgeable enough to even understand the basics of the flood.

God created us. He can kill us at anytime, in anyway He sees fit. Is that too apologetic?

Christ advised to not be as the hypocrites.

It is believed to be by many, written in the book as a commandment by particular "God," not to kill. Yet that particular "God" did so kill. If taken in a literal sense. . hypocrisy at its finest. Christ even advised to not be as that "God." If that "God" can do whatever that "God" wants, including breaking his own commandments/laws... it's a hypocrite.

 

[Enoch07]

I don't understand this POV. To me it implies ownership and I don't believe in ownership of sentient, sapient beings by anyone or anything.
If someone created sentient, sapient robots, i would view their rights as indistinguishable from their creators as soon as those qualities manifested. And I certainly wouldn't think age, intelligence, or power imbalance would change that (might does not make right.)
People aren't property. Not of each other and not of gods, imo.

I agree with you partially. While I don't believe in people owning other people I do believe God owns people. Saying God shouldn't own people because a sentient being should not own another sentient being is a false equivalency. Because comparing God to a sentient being is like comparing humans to dogs. Dogs are great companions, each is an individual, each has its own temperament, dogs can even be fairly intelligent in their own rights. But there is a vast difference between dogs and humans. And that void is dwarfed by the distance between God and humans. Or at least that is my opinion.

 

[Enoch07]

Imo this is unwarranted reductionism. Saying that needless pain is needless is not the same as all pain is needless. Horrible agony followed by death is not something necessary for the betterment of individuals or communities.
(Incidentally the bible describes childbirth as being painless until Eve sinned, making it a rather poor example to try and illustrate how not spiteful that is.)

Be more specific. What pain is needless?

Thank you for bringing up Genesis. The irony is lost on most folks I am sure.

Child birth was not painless, and then only made to be painful because she sinned. In Eden before Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge. Child birth was not even possible until after they ate of that fruit. How many children did they have before that? The answer is zero. Before Adam and Eve disobeyed God they had 100% perfect bodies and were immortal in the flesh, no need to procreate. They only had to not eat of the tree of knowledge, to keep their immortal bodies. This is also why Adam and Eve were not the first humans and did not birth the entire human race, but that is another topic. But anyways!

Because Adam and Eve disobeyed God, He took away their physical immortality and gave them the weak fragile bodies just like all other humans (in the land of Nod for example), in exchange for the knowledge that we gained from the tree of knowledge. Hence we caused our own pain and misery by disobeying God, and craving knowledge. But I digress, as an athiest will never accept this, but you did bring it up.

 

[Enoch07]

Christ advised to not be as the hypocrites.

It is believed to be by many, written in the book as a commandment by particular "God," not to kill. Yet that particular "God" did so kill. If taken in a literal sense. . hypocrisy at its finest. Christ even advised to not be as that "God." If that "God" can do whatever that "God" wants, including breaking his own commandments/laws... it's a hypocrite.

The commandments are rules for us humans.

They do not apply to God.

Do you apply all the rules of your children to yourself? I personally guarantee 100% you do not.

Just as I dont allow my child to drink whiskey but I am allowed. Does that make me a hypocrite or is that me being a responsible parent?