Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

[Gnostic Bishop]

[

I've always interpreted the Father and Son thing as the Hero's sacrifice as oposed to some horrific thing. I don't know why.

Perhaps you have read Joseph Campbell's Heroes of 1000 Faces. He had Jesus as one of those hero archetypes. I follow that thinking but not for the hero part but for the archetypal good man parts. Mind you, I have to ignore the immorality of some of what the church has fed us of Jesus' words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgV ... r_embedded

Jesus' no divorce law is really evil and anti-love.
------------------------

I mostly follow what the churches never teach. Jesus' Eastern side.

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.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

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.

Regards
DL

[Chris OConnor]

Jesus' no divorce law is really evil and anti-love.

Amen.

[Flann 5]

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Let me say first that from a biblical standpoint this was not something either expected or demanded by anyone but rather the initiative of God.
I'm going to start here with an excerpt from Christopher Hitchens on the lessons of 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go5AGck6e-w
You will notice it is a litany of moral outrage against evil behaviour. Taking the first two cases he mentions of Saddam Hussein and Slobodon Milosevic my question to you Gnostic Bishop and to Chris is this.
How might a just God, as impartial judge of all,acquit these men and remain just?
You seem to think it is an easy matter, so I'm interested to hear your Solomonic wisdom on this question.
In passing I might add, just where do mutated primates get their moral outrage from? It appears an especially developed faculty in new atheist apologists.
I watched your Jesus Madman video.I really think you should try to understand what Jesus and the bible actually teach before posting your distorted interpretations and those of others. There's an abysmal lack of understanding and disregard for context evident. So you are a gnostic humanist?
You have studiously avoided supporting your claim that the gospels are myths and that Jesus did not exist historically.
Well you need to look at your foundational beliefs before instructing Christians on how you think they should interpret their book.
Here's Dan Barker making the mythicist case and James White refuting it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WOGeGcjYo

[Movie Nerd]

[

I've always interpreted the Father and Son thing as the Hero's sacrifice as oposed to some horrific thing. I don't know why.

Perhaps you have read Joseph Campbell's Heroes of 1000 Faces. He had Jesus as one of those hero archetypes. I follow that thinking but not for the hero part but for the archetypal good man parts. Mind you, I have to ignore the immorality of some of what the church has fed us of Jesus' words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgV ... r_embedded

Jesus' no divorce law is really evil and anti-love.
------------------------

I mostly follow what the churches never teach. Jesus' Eastern side.

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.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

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.

Regards
DL

I've heard online that much of the Jesus teachings were Jewish intepretations of Eastern thought. I don't know what I believe on that, as I have not looked too far into it.

[Gnostic Bishop]

[
You will notice it is a litany of moral outrage against evil behaviour. Taking the first two cases he mentions of Saddam Hussein and Slobodon Milosevic my question to you Gnostic Bishop and to Chris is this.
How might a just God, as impartial judge of all,acquit these men and remain just?

I decided to split off a bit if you do not mind as you opened up a variety of issues.

I am a Gnostic Christian and Universalist and am happy to share what a God would see in the souls of these sinners and all sinners when looking at the big picture.

Were those people born sinners?
Not unless insane and insanity is always forgivable. Right?

So if not born sinners then they were nurtured to become sinners. Right?
Their environment and nurturing must thus share the blame. Their parents, teachers friends and enemies all conspired, (inadvertently or not), to make those children into the evil men they became.

God would see us all the same way and see us all contributing to all the evil of this world and all deserving of punishment if he is to punish anyone. He would see that we are all in this together, alone.

God then is forced to either punish us all or forgive us all.

Which do you think he would choose since he purportedly created all of our natures that we all use to contribute to evil?

Your church knew that we are all forgiven but because there was no money in that for it, it lied to us all and created a hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc

I await your thoughts on why you think God would punish or kill those evil souls instead of curing them and giving them heaven.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

[
In passing I might add, just where do mutated primates get their moral outrage from? It appears an especially developed faculty in new atheist apologists.

It appears that our morals are based on our natural will to survive and is a part of evolution and our genes. I do not think this baby know yet if it will be an atheist or a theist but somehow has the right moral sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

You will note that that bay defaults to cooperation and doing good. That is a better survival strategy for humans than competing and doing evil to the losers of those competitions.

Lend me your eyes for a longer version that I happen to have.

--------------------

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH#g/c ... F680C1DBEB

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

[

I watched your Jesus Madman video.I really think you should try to understand what Jesus and the bible actually teach before posting your distorted interpretations and those of others. There's an abysmal lack of understanding and disregard for context evident.

Chastisement without correction just shows the hate in your heart.
Do you also spank your children without telling them why or correcting their poor thinking?

I already showed my disdain for Jesus' divorce law which you ignored. Show how preventing people from finding a loving life partner is in any way promoting love which is what Christianity says it is all about.

So you are a gnostic humanist?

I label myself a Gnostic Christian and esoteric ecumenist.

You have studiously avoided supporting your claim that the gospels are myths and that Jesus did not exist historically.

If you think that a book that begins with a talking serpent and ends with a seven headed monster is not a book of myths and fully imaginary then you have a problem in thinking and not I.

Well you need to look at your foundational beliefs before instructing Christians on how you think they should interpret their book.
Here's Dan Barker making the mythicist case and James White refuting it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WOGeGcjYo

I will ignore that till you reply indicating how talking animals and seven headed monsters can be real.

Regards
DL

[Chris OConnor]

Here's Dan Barker making the mythicist case and James White refuting it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00WOGeGcjYo

Take a guess why the comments are disabled on that video. It is because the owner of that YouTube channel is on James White's side and he doesn't want to allow people watching the video debate to be able to comment about how Dan Barker actually won the debate.

The good thing about YouTube is the same video can usually found on multiple Channels so here it is on a Channel that allows commenting. The only Channels I ever see with comments disabled are religious nuts who know they'll be ripped apart in the comments.

Here is one of many comments on the debate...

Barker vs. White is one of the most tactical I've seen. I'm glad debate formats are continuing to evolve. But here's why you should watch this exciting debate.

Barker neutralized White. White could find no way to get into the "theological" weeds where he's comfortable, because Barker gave no deference to White; for example, when White objects as Barker asks if Mary was impregnated by a "ghost" vs '"Holy Spirit", Dan seems to ignore that White wants to spend time equivocating. Barker keeps it moving to his point.

White for his part did limit the damage and knew when to abandon his lines of attack. Rarely have I seen anyone as unlucky as White on this day, because he continued to touch on issues that did not advance his position. White's abruptness at breaking off a line of questioning was uncharacteristic of him, but IMO a good move, for giving Barker more time to make his case would have been worse.

No matter what side you're on, this debate shows how to set a trap. Barker protested from the outset he may no longer hold views he has published previously. White decides, to his detriment, to frame his strategy around what he thinks Barker will back away from. Big mistake, as Barker seemed to have eaten a pile of reference books - taking away from White an edge I'm sure he took for granted before this debate.

In summary, Barker is not the play toy White usually gets to bat around. It's worth the watch.

[Gnostic Bishop]

[

I've heard online that much of the Jesus teachings were Jewish intepretations of Eastern thought. I don't know what I believe on that, as I have not looked too far into it.

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

One of the bibles Jesus' obviously believed in the third or single eye.

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.

Let me show how I think things went back when. No proof. Pure speculation.

I will assume that there was a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus. He would have studied the Jewish Kabbala as well as the O.T. that the Jews developed. He would have travelled Eastwards and studied the Eastern traditions and seen the value in them.

He would have returned and began the Gnostic Christian Universalist tradition. I think that the Constantine's church turned against the parent Gnostic Christianity because we were free thinkers and Rome did not want free thinkers making slave governance harder than it was.

Catholic, I would remind you, means universal, but we see Constantine's church as not ever being universalist, --- even though they called themselves Catholic.

Regards
DL

[Flann 5]

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

To be honest with you Bishop, I'm finding it hard to make sense of your replies.You seem to be saying there are evolutionary imperatives which dictate human behaviours.
Could Milosovic then plead evolutionary impulses for his crimes? Like the Nazi's we needed more living space for our race one. In your answer to my question about Saddam and Milosevic and how God should judge them, your conclusion was that God should either absolve or condemn everyone. What kind of basis for justice is that? By analogy the court should absolve or condemn Milosevic,the jury, press and spectators at his trial.

The gnostic gospels came later than the Christian ones. Do a bit of scholarly research instead of buying into conspiracy theories such as Joseph Atwill's and Acharya S which are only good if you want to watch some comedy.

Your posts have been repeated attempts to attack and undermine Christianity. There's Freke and Gandy on gnosticism and mythic explanations of the gospels. Well's with his warped take on the gospel and dislike of mainstream Christianity. The guy with his Jesus is a moral monster spiel and so on.
You don't attempt seriously to justify your myths claim and think that a throwaway line about talking animals and seven headed monsters is sufficient.Why do you believe Jesus was not a real historical person?
You make assertions but don't support them.The pagan myths parallels thesis has been debunked.Why should I accept it on your assertion?
You seem to have some issue with authoritarian Dads. O.K. but that's not evidence for the non historicity of Jesus or that the gospels are myths.