ForumGarden

Sorry but i do not believe in the supernatural. . God is " the one in whom we live an move and have our being." I see in your words a complete lack of understanding about Panentheism. I do not believe in or accept the idea of duality wich is another but related issue.

Ted;1486252 wrote: Sorry but i do not believe in the supernatural. . God is " the one in whom we live an move and have our being." I see in your words a complete lack of understanding about Panentheism. I do not believe in or accept the idea of duality wich is another but related issue.


Does your God think?

Regards

DL

Gee Gnostic you are asking me a question that no one can possibly answer. To try to talk about or define God is impossible with our human language. Can't be done. The only language we have even to make the attempt is metaphor..

Purely for the record, in case nobody else is watching...

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22sett ... 8&oe=utf-8

Spot. Neat site.

Ted;1489968 wrote: Spot. Neat site.


Indeed. For the small minded.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1490316 wrote: Indeed. For the small minded.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards

DL


"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

There are many published incidents of this as an anonymous proverb since at least 1948, and as a statement of Eleanor Roosevelt since at least 1992, but without any citation of an original source." ETC., continued.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eleanor_R ... t#Disputed

My favorite grandma actually knew Eleanor Roosevelt, met with her many times, & when I saw the quote I thought, "that doesn't sound like her", so that is why I checked. If you can give the citation of an original source, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

If not her, then I do not have it.

Regards

DL

Does God judge???

Ted;1491709 wrote: Does God judge???


That depends on your definition of God.

My God demands that I judge as I am the final judge of what I believe and act on.

In my world, I am God.

Do you judge?

Who controls your beliefs and actions if not you?

Regards

DL

My role in this world is and has been to serve. Judging is not my role. I can judge myself and I do.

Ted;1491716 wrote: My role in this world is and has been to serve. Judging is not my role. I can judge myself and I do.


Then you do not follow this bit of biblical wisdom.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

I believe, not to be crude or cruel, that you are lying both to me and to yourself.

If you were walking down the road and saw a rapist or other type of criminal doing some dirty deed, you would judge it so and act.

If you did not, then you yourself would be quite an evil person.

Judge and judge much as that is what we are charged to do at all times and to not do so is quite evil.

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1491727 wrote: Then you do not follow this bit of biblical wisdom.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

I believe, not to be crude or cruel, that you are lying both to me and to yourself.

If you were walking down the road and saw a rapist or other type of criminal doing some dirty deed, you would judge it so and act.

If you did not, then you yourself would be quite an evil person.

Judge and judge much as that is what we are charged to do at all times and to not do so is quite evil.

Regards

DL
The question is where you draw the line of what is good or what is evil. There are clear definitions, such as the ones you have given, but let's take the one of Rape, for example. There are cultures (namely Middle Eastern ones) where women don't have rights. They are there purely for the pleasure of men. If a woman is raped she is the one to be stoned to death for adultery. Under Shariah that is what is good & must be judged as such. Just because we, in the West, hold a different viewpoint, and find such culture abhorrent, is it not arrogant to believe that we are the ones that are right & that anything else is wrong?

FourPart;1491739 wrote: The question is where you draw the line of what is good or what is evil. There are clear definitions, such as the ones you have given, but let's take the one of Rape, for example. There are cultures (namely Middle Eastern ones) where women don't have rights. They are there purely for the pleasure of men. If a woman is raped she is the one to be stoned to death for adultery. Under Shariah that is what is good & must be judged as such. Just because we, in the West, hold a different viewpoint, and find such culture abhorrent, is it not arrogant to believe that we are the ones that are right & that anything else is wrong?


Morals and good and evil are mostly subjective. There is only one moral that I think might be objective.

If I were to visit London or just about any "Western land with no Islamic no go zones", and saw a rape, I would hopefully intervene. Duty-Honor.



If I were to visit a Muslim majority country or be in a Muslim quarter etc., and saw a rape,





There are good reasons why immigration is East to West and if the Eastern governments are too stupid to try to emulate what their citizens actually want, or if the citizens especially the men, are such heartless dicks that they will not fight for what they want, then -----



That SOB rapist is just like his father, and his father may have a 6 year old wife.

I would never spend a tourist dime in such a country and the fact that the West trade with such country's show just how morally low the West still is and how far we still have to go to walk our talk.

Regards

DL

Gnostic there is in my mind a big difference between judging the individual and judging his or her behavior. The rapist is committing an evil act but we need to look at the person as an individual before we make comments on him/her as an individual. The background of a person may affect their behavior. The Schizophrenic commits murder but we need to know the motivation. They may be beyond responsibility for their actions. The act is evil but the perpetrator can be found not responsible. Glad I'm not on a jury. That would not be an easy task.

Ted;1491885 wrote: Gnostic there is in my mind a big difference between judging the individual and judging his or her behavior. The rapist is committing an evil act but we need to look at the person as an individual before we make comments on him/her as an individual. The background of a person may affect their behavior. The Schizophrenic commits murder but we need to know the motivation. They may be beyond responsibility for their actions. The act is evil but the perpetrator can be found not responsible. Glad I'm not on a jury. That would not be an easy task.


Unless insane. to separate a criminal from his crime would be quite unjust.

If you can look at an evil rapist and somehow see a good person doing evil, then you are not looking properly.

You cannot love the sinner and hate the sin.

It is the sinner that is sinning and he is there to be hated by those who hate sin.

You might have noted that God punishes the sinners he purportedly loves and not the sin he is supposed to hate.

God does not see "a big difference between judging the individual and judging his or her behavior.". The individual is always the one punished.

So why should you try to do so?

Regards

DL

Religion is based on the two principles of justice (not retributive but an equal sharing of the earths resources) and compassion. If we get past the attributed word of Jesus on the cross we see that he even forgave those crucifying him. We are told to love our neighbors and love our enemies. Loving our enemies implies that we respect the person but do not respect his behavior. "You have heard it said "an eye for an eye but I say to you . . . ". Once again getting away from retribution. Then of course we have those who commit crimes because of mental illness. No I cannot agree with you. Is it perfect? Of course not but it is a goal to aim for. In my view all life is sacred.

Ted;1492099 wrote: Religion is based on the two principles of justice (not retributive but an equal sharing of the earths resources) and compassion. If we get past the attributed word of Jesus on the cross we see that he even forgave those crucifying him. We are told to love our neighbors and love our enemies. Loving our enemies implies that we respect the person but do not respect his behavior. "You have heard it said "an eye for an eye but I say to you . . . ". Once again getting away from retribution. Then of course we have those who commit crimes because of mental illness. No I cannot agree with you. Is it perfect? Of course not but it is a goal to aim for. In my view all life is sacred.


Only a fool will love his enemy.

If you think it would have been correct for you to tell the Jews walking into the ovens that they should love the Germans then you are not a moral man.

Regards

DL

Like I said that is a goal to aim for. It sure isn't going to happen anytime soon. That should not stop us from working at it. I presume that you have no respect for the teachings and admonitions from one Jesus of Nazareth.

Now for the Jewish race I have the utmost of respect. They have been treated with unimaginable horrors through their existence. Secondly Jesus himself was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and Died as a Jew. The foundation of the Christian faith is based on the Jewish folks. May God bless them. Shalom.

Ted;1492112 wrote: Like I said that is a goal to aim for. It sure isn't going to happen anytime soon. That should not stop us from working at it. I presume that you have no respect for the teachings and admonitions from one Jesus of Nazareth.


I respect one of the many Jesus' shown in scriptures. The Eastern mystic and not the Roman created ass kisser.

I use the Jesus I respect as a part of Gnostic Christian teachings.

Pardon the paste.

I am a Gnostic Christian, yes, but our beliefs are not what Christianity says they are. We lost the God wars and they distorted our belief system. The lies have been known since the findings of our scriptures and myths at Nag Hammadi.

Nag Hammadi Library

Gnostic Christianity is a teaching system from Jesus but not the one the church ever dares to teach. It frees us from religion and that is of course not what religions want. They never want the student to graduate as they might lose revenue and people.

Here is a bit of history as well as a nutshell version of how that freedom is gained.

Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers after God. God here I define as the best laws and rules to live life with.

We believe that those laws and rules, as Jesus said, are found in our minds/hearts. I use the following to try to illustrate this notion. A bit of history and then a mindset and method to do what I promote.



The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.





This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.



When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

Regards

DL

Ted;1492118 wrote: Now for the Jewish race I have the utmost of respect. They have been treated with unimaginable horrors through their existence. Secondly Jesus himself was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and Died as a Jew. The foundation of the Christian faith is based on the Jewish folks. May God bless them. Shalom.


Christianity is based on a distortion and reversal of the Jewish beliefs.

Key to Christian beliefs is Original Sin.

A concept that does not exist in Jewry.

And you say I know little of the religions under discussions. Sigh.



Regards

DL

A tidy little definition:

I am speaking of the faith today not some 2000 years ago. That being said any concept we have of God is a human creation. This is not to deny the reality of God but God is beyond out capabilities of our language to define. Even the very ancient Greeks believed in God. The top God was Zeus but that too was a human creation. Agnostic is one who simply asserts that he does not know.

I guess I must be the Agnostic Atheist. I don't believe any God exists, but as a believer of Science I have to accept the possibility, no matter how remote.

However there are many things that science is not capable of handling and pontificating on.

FourPart;1492213 wrote: A tidy little definition:





Interesting but not accurate.

We do not define God the way the idol worshipers do.

They believe in imaginary Gods while Gnostics only believe in real ones. Us.

Regards

DL

Ted;1492264 wrote: I am speaking of the faith today not some 2000 years ago. That being said any concept we have of God is a human creation. This is not to deny the reality of God but God is beyond out capabilities of our language to define. Even the very ancient Greeks believed in God. The top God was Zeus but that too was a human creation. Agnostic is one who simply asserts that he does not know.


Indeed. They are honest as compared to believers who say they know a God is real.

That is a liars statement and believers are all liars.

The old faith was not too bad. It just meant a hope.

The new faith is a lie that priests and imams like to encourage.

Regards

DL

FourPart;1492273 wrote: I guess I must be the Agnostic Atheist. I don't believe any God exists, but as a believer of Science I have to accept the possibility, no matter how remote.


Not too surprising as both religions and science has a God 0f The Gaps in the sense that neither side can show what was before the big bang.

To claim a supernatural instead of a natural God of the Gaps is the least likely condition and the religious should try to recognize that fact.

Regards

DL

Ted;1492360 wrote: However there are many things that science is not capable of handling and pontificating on.


Correct. They have not resorted to lying the way religions have.

Regards

DL

Science accepts the possibility of a God - it just sees it as being a very low probability.

FourPart;1492375 wrote: Science accepts the possibility of a God - it just sees it as being a very low probability.


Science accepts what is provable and reproducible.

I have yet to hear a scientist say that there is a probability of a God.

Such a scientist would not work much.

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1492389 wrote: Science accepts what is provable and reproducible.

I have yet to hear a scientist say that there is a probability of a God.

Such a scientist would not work much.

Regards

DL


Not so fast.

God Is Real: MIT Scientist Touts Conclusive Scientific Evidence Of The Discovery Of God

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center

It is very interesting. I have no problem with it.

Dr Francis Collins has written a good book on this particular book. "The Language of God".

Creationist Idiocy: Moron of the Month: Gerald Schroeder

Science never discounts anything just because it hasn't yet been proven. A scientist always accepts that he can be proved wrong. The less evidence there is to do so, then the less the likelihood is that it will be proven, but the possibility is always there nonetheless. It's like tossing a coin. The highest probability is that it will end up either Heads or Tails - but there is also that possibility that it might end up on its edge.

LarsMac;1492390 wrote: Not so fast.

God Is Real: MIT Scientist Touts Conclusive Scientific Evidence Of The Discovery Of God

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center


Wow. Conclusive evidence. All without an E mail address for that God. Oh well.



Scientists are not immune to being fools.

Let's be thankful the vast majority are not.

Regards

DL

FourPart;1492401 wrote: Creationist Idiocy: Moron of the Month: Gerald Schroeder

Science never discounts anything just because it hasn't yet been proven. A scientist always accepts that he can be proved wrong. The less evidence there is to do so, then the less the likelihood is that it will be proven, but the possibility is always there nonetheless. It's like tossing a coin. The highest probability is that it will end up either Heads or Tails - but there is also that possibility that it might end up on its edge.


Respect for political correctness and religions that do not deserve any respect at all is what has made barbaric religions of war like Christianity and Islam that garbage religions that they are.

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1492408 wrote: Wow. Conclusive evidence. All without an E mail address for that God. Oh well.



Scientists are not immune to being fools.

Let's be thankful the vast majority are not.

Regards

DL


That was simply in response to your: "I have yet to hear a scientist say that there is a probability of a God."

Obviously, you've led a very sheltered life.

LarsMac;1492420 wrote: That was simply in response to your: "I have yet to hear a scientist say that there is a probability of a God."



Obviously, you've led a very sheltered life.


Exactly. In science everything has a probability factor. A probability of 1 is a certainty. In science, however, there is no certainty, so all probabilities are less than 1. The lower the number is the less probable it is, but no matter how low that probability it, it still has probability. Therefore no scientist will deny the probability of a God. In a way it's down to misinterpreting the meaning of Probability in the Scientific terminology, in much the same way as a Creationist will refer to Evolution as only being a Theory. A Scientific Theory has a very precise meaning, which is different from what they try to make out it means. In the same way a Scientific Probability has a different meaning as well. For a Scientist to say that there is a probability that something exists is not the same as saying that something is likely to exist.

Some might find books by physicist Paul Davies interesting.

According to every religion books every man will be punished for his/her work. What he/she has done for whole life. So in this sense God is a good judge. Isn't it?

Silas Mackey;1492827 wrote: According to every religion books every man will be punished for his/her work. What he/she has done for whole life. So in this sense God is a good judge. Isn't it?


You forget that in Christianity, Jesus is the one punished and not those who are guilty.

This Bishop thinks that that immoral notion is what will kill the church.



Further.

A good judge would be judged by how he administers punishment. We believe in a system where the punishment fits the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.

The Gods seem to have one punishment for all sins, large or small, and that to me is not justice.

Do you see it as justice?

Regards

DL

I also believe that men should be punished for his work. If he does good then okey and if bad then he/she has to suffer. This is logical.

I don't buy into this whole idea of God or the Devil, or any of nonsense about men being punished for their actions by any phenomenon beside simple laws of physics and logic.

When you commit an act, of any kind, that action sets in motion a chain of events. That chain of events can, and most likely will lead to situations, and conditions which will affect the one who began that chain of events. It really is that simple.

Okey guys glad to get your response here. Thanks a lot!

Silas Mackey;1492859 wrote: I also believe that men should be punished for his work. If he does good then okey and if bad then he/she has to suffer. This is logical.


We Gnostic Christians are Universalists and try to spread the blame.

There is no doubt that most individuals are ultimately responsible for their works and deeds but to think they were born to be as is, especially if evil or criminal would be wrong.

An evil person, unless insane, is not born evil. He is made to be evil by those around him and his environment. Many contribute to making a person evil.

Regards

DL

I do not hold with the idea of punishment by God though I believe in the Divine Spirit. In many cases we are our own worst judge. As far as eternal punishment goes, I do not believe it. We do not know what happens after death. No one has ever come back to tell us.

Ted;1493050 wrote: I do not hold with the idea of punishment by God though I believe in the Divine Spirit. In many cases we are our own worst judge. As far as eternal punishment goes, I do not believe it. We do not know what happens after death. No one has ever come back to tell us.


You call yourself a Christian but do not follow much of the Christian teachings.

Why do you bother taking their label while not accepting most of their dogma and creed?

Regards

DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1493090 wrote: You call yourself a Christian but do not follow much of the Christian teachings.

Why do you bother taking their label while not accepting most of their dogma and creed?

Regards

DL


Probably because all that fire and brimstone crap was an abomination, and not part of the true Christian teaching.

LarsMac;1493112 wrote: Probably because all that fire and brimstone crap was an abomination, and not part of the true Christian teaching.


We shall see if our friend agrees with the reason you gave.

Is there such a thing as a true Christian teaching, and if so, where do I find it?

Regards

DL