Can God love or have a moral sense?
- Thread starter French Patriot
- Start date
Before creation, the gods and other divinities (angels etc.) were exceedingly bored. It was hard to do anything in the dark.
Remedy
"And G*d said, Let there be light: and there was light"
Remedy
"And G*d said, Let there be light: and there was light"
True, and I'm sure most thoughtful people would agree that god transcends such petty distinctions as gender, but Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scripture all identify him as male, no reason why we shouldn't use the same convention in discussions. The irrationality lies in believing he exists at all, but once you've taken that big step, using gender-specific pronouns seems pretty trivial. Most languages I know anything about don't offer many options there, it's him, her, or it. The first is the usual convention, the second is likely to be taken as a feminist political statement, the third seems to offend more people than either of the first two. Though I'd like to state for the record that not only is god female, she's black, and not real.
Dead wrong. It's a hermaphrodite and transparent. Prove god ain't real!
Cat = God
Schrödinger's Cat - YouTube
Yeah, that makes a sort of screwball sense too, god would be either both genders or neither.Dead wrong. It's a hermaphrodite and transparent. Prove god ain't real!
And on your second point, I'd concede that god's about as real as money, which is to say, it's really just an idea. We've all agreed to the fiction that money has value and use it to mediate certain kinds of exchanges, but if humanity disappears from the planet, so does money. And god.
God's have no power without humans.
From what we know at present, they only exist in human minds.
Regards
DL
Yes. Rome wanted to get rid of the militant God of war and replace him with a pacifist wimp. So they invented the N T.
The genocidal hater became the sacrificing lover.
Unfortunately the morals and laws of both are mostly either unworkable or immoral.
Regards
DL
Exactly.
You are learning.
Regards
DL
Well put
In speech, I do not let them have it both ways. That is why they do not like me much.
I do the same when they show their double standard of morality by praising their God for things that they condemn men for.
Hypocrisy is rampant and unavoidable in the Abrahamic cults or religions.
Regards
DL
I call myself a Gnostic Christian and esoteric ecumenist already my friend.
You have to be careful when saying Gnostics believed in the Demiurge. We do not.
I believe that they wrote their scriptures to enhance the seeking of God and promote moral arguments. They, like me, keep all scriptures as myths until apotheosis is gained. Only then do we let ourselves fall into belief. It has to be a personal experience and relationship to God or what is believed is wrong.
Even when we find God, or the Godhead as I call it, we set him aside, raise our bar of excellence and seek anew.
Let me give you my anecdotal story.
The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenistand Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote fromWilliam Blake.
“Both read the Bible day andnight, But thou read'st black where I read white.”
This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, whatChristians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T Godwhere literal Christians will see God’s killing as good.Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral,while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.
During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, theonly things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed andI was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call acosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.
I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way withapotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no onehas yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than theyfor the cosmic consciousness.
The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does notinterfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what Ican see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.
I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see asmy delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to likeme much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think thatmost Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.
I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.
I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not Godexists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and Iprefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. Thesearch for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. Myapotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as aset of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seekfurther.
My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration orobedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and isthe supreme being.
Regards
DL
P.S. I swear this is true as I hold my stones. LOL.
Not to argue but just to give you food for thought.
Most of the older religions had androgynous Gods encompassing both male and female traits.
The Jewish God as well if you read the bible in a certain way even as that way is not t5he common one.
Look at this language and you might agree.
- Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
- Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Am I making the right leap of logic?
This link is long unfortunately but speaks to how the Gods were androgynous and they break down the Jewish name of God to male and female. It also has other concepts that may interest you. The name and it's meaning is at about the 10 minute mark. Note that they are plural. We are all Gods WIPs.
Gnosis - Secret Gate to Garden of Eden. - YouTube
Regards
DL
Yeah, but it helps to keep in mind that when the notion of a Holy Spirit was first introduced, it was thought to be female.
What else was going to be nice and kind, unlike the Father with His fire and brimstone, and would even tell your heart how to pray to the Father, like a mother telling you how to talk to your dad when he's in a grouchy mood.
Okay, that makes sense. One doesn't run into many Gnostics these days, and you were talking like one.
Have you read the Gnostic scriptures, like the Gospel of Philip, or the Gospel of Simon, or the Nativity Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the Gospel of Thomas, which I think should have been included in the Canon). Have you read any of the Gnostic Apocrypha?
The dominant Gnostic sects did. Gnosticism had/has many sects with incredibly varying views, but in all cases it boiled down to two principals: 1) This physical world is a corrupt abomination and we don't belong here, and 2) Only those with wits enough to understand the true essence of the secret teachings of Christ will be able to liberate their spirits from this material coil (the realization of which you call an apotheosis).
I think the origins of Gnosticism go back to the way Jesus would talk one way to the crowds, and another way to His disciples. He'd speak in parables to the masses, but if you were a member of His inner circle, He'd tell you things about the Kingdom that the masses couldn't handle. (Somewhere in the Gospel of Mark one of the disciples asks Jesus why he spoke to the masses in parables, and Jesus replied it was so those who can hear would hear, while those who couldn't would be left unaccountable... in other words, He was letting off the hook those who were too dim to comprehend the higher ways.)
In any case, there is something fundamentally transcendent about the concept of "morality", because you'll notice nobody is questioning the fact that morality exists. People debate over *what* behaviors are moral, and *where* the rules of morality come from, but nobody argues about whether or not moral-behavior exists.
As for the arguments about whether or not God exists... well... even if He doesn't, it's still saying something about how humans wish things were. It's telling you something about how *we'd* run the show if we were to evolve to a state of immortal omnipotent omnipresence.
Last edited:
Thanks for this.
I have read most of the Gnostic Gospels but not that nativity on e you speak of. I will chase it down though.
If you view that link above you will note that the Holy Ghost is mostly thought of as the purifier, in the alchemical sense, and flame in the religious sense.
You will note that in Christian paintings, some show a flame over the heads of the saints and in the story of Moses, the burning bush is between Moses and God.
Esoterically speaking, the path is earth, water, air, fire and only then the mind of God.
You are correct in that there were many different wisdom schools in the ancient days. Most were either disbanded, killed and their gospels burned when Constantine bought out the then Catholic Church.
One of the scholars who was selected to examine the dead sea scrolls put this together. It is long but I thought it interesting.
Here is a short piece of it.
The Pharmacratic Inquisition DVD Part 1 of 12 - YouTube
Regards
DL
Omicron
"1) This physical world is a corrupt abomination and we don't belong here, and 2) Only those with wits enough to understand the true essence of the secret teachings of Christ will be able to liberate their spirits from this material coil (the realization of which you call an apotheosis)."
I cannot agree with your first but do with your last.
Gnostics cannot think that this physical world is a corrupt abomination and we don't belong here because as Jesus often stated, our bodies are the temples of God. What could be more perfect in a physical existence. Gnostics in fact argued against this notion with the Catholics as they changed the elevation that Jews saw in their Eden myth to the fall and God cursing the earth. To Gnostics and Jews, God never cursed the earth and it remains in it's perfect condition. Or the best of all possible world if you cannot get your language around a term like evolving perfection.
Let me give you this thought exercise.
-----------------------------------------
I like to use the term evolving perfection for nature. Otherwise, aperfect God or nature becomes a stagnant pool of information and our souls andconsciousness as a part of that perfection would be useless to the universe.
Evolving, the perfection of whatever God and nature was, to whatever Godand nature will be, means we have to think this way, unless you see God assomehow losing his initial perfection. This is not allowed in a perfect God’s or natures repertoire.
When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of lifebut I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic principleand pure logic.
What do you think?
Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as theyare; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily becreated for the best end.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA
This is done by nature and not a God but would be a requirement of a Godif he were real.
Regards
DL*
Since we humans are (apparently) in and of the universe how is it that you are convinced the universe has no human traits? Is it the same with bunnies and puppies?
What do you think about the notion that Jesus and the Disciples were stoners on mushrooms?
The idea is, they'd go into the garden in the evening, eat some flesh-of-the-gods ('shrooms), chase it with some blood-of-the-gods (wine), and would get visions into the spiritual realm.
The temples competed in a variety of ways for the adherents and their purses. It has always been about money. Most religions would have been led by shaman and the modern shaman do use various drugs and drink to have visions. That lends credence to the notion that the ancients did as well.
Seems to me though that if one seeks God, one should try to be in a coherent state to understand what is given if one happens to knock loud enough to be heard. Even today, many shaman come out of intoxication saying they had visions but these visions are not worth much in terms of enlightenment.
I do believe in meditation though and some intoxicant may help in that.
I am thinking of opium where the user more or less goers into a dream state.
Did some of the old cults use drugs?
I am sure some did.
How extensive that use was; I don't think is knowable today.
The mushrooms most spoken of were eaten by the shaman and after he urinated it out is when the rest of the congregation lined up to drink the less potent blend.
I like a good intoxicant but I don't know if I could be talked into that one.
If Jesus went into the spiritual realm, one would think that his policies would be the most moral yet many of them are garbage. Bad trips perhaps.
Regards
DL
Perhaps... in fact, that's why I asked.
The sayings of Jesus fall into two categories... the stuff He'd say to the masses, like the sermon on the mount, and the stuff He'd say in private to the Disciples.
The stuff he'd say to the masses is pretty-much common sense, but sometimes, while reading the stuff He'd say to the Disciples, I've got the feeling He must have been stoned. In particular, I got that feeling while reading the Gospel of Thomas.
Hmm... that implies a kind of experiment. It might be interesting to get volunteers high on different stoning-agents, and have them read stuff like the Gospel of Thomas, in order to determin under the infuence of which drug the writings seem to make the most sense.
You could then write up a paper saying something like, "Under the influence of canibus 37% reported understanding the esoteric parts of the Gospel of Thomas, whereas 83% of subjects under the influence of magic mushrooms reported being able to make sense of those same passages, therefore it is 2.7 times more likely that Jesus was stoned on mushrooms than on pot while stating His secret-sayings to the Disciples".
Can you imagine the fit Catholics and Baptists would have over a publication like that :smile:
Hmm... sounds like by "Gnostic" you mean the modern variety that rose in the 18th centry, whereas I've been using it in the sense of how it was practiced in the second and third century.
This has been a problem since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, which forced a re-evaluation of what people thought early Gnostics were about. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
--
In 1966 in Messina, Italy, a conference was held concerning systems of gnosis. Among its several aims were the need to establish a program to translate the recently acquired Nag Hammadi library and the need to arrive at an agreement concerning an accurate definition of "Gnosticism". This was in answer to the tendency, prevalent since the 18th century, to use the term "gnostic" less as its origins implied, but rather as an interpretive category for contemporary philosophical and religious movements. For example, in 1835, New Testament scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur constructed a developmental model of Gnosticism that culminated in the religious philosophy of Hegel; one might compare literary critic Harold Bloom's recent attempts to identify Gnostic elements in contemporary American religion, or Eric Voegelin's analysis of totalitarian impulses through the interpretive lens of Gnosticism. The "cautious proposal" reached by the conference concerning Gnosticism is described by Markschies:
"In the concluding document of Messina the proposal was "by the simultaneous application of historical and typological methods" to designate "a particular group of systems of the second century after Christ" as "gnosticism", and to use "gnosis" to define a conception of knowledge transcending the times which was described as "knowledge of divine mysteries for an élite"."
—Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, p. 13
In essence, it had been decided that "Gnosticism" would become a historically specific term, restricted to mean the Gnostic movements prevalent in the 3rd century, while "gnosis" would be a universal term, denoting a system of knowledge retained "for a privileged élite."—Markschies, Gnosis: An Introduction, p. 13
--
In other words, you've been talking about "Gnosis", whereas I've been talking about "Gnostic".
In any case, I still think you're talking more like a Gnostic than a Gnosis.
You said this:
New here's the introcution to Gnosticism from Wikipedia:
--
"Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge; Arabic: الغنوصية al-ġnūṣīh) is the belief that the material world created by the Demiurge should be shunned[citation needed] and the spiritual world should be embraced (God's world). Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions[1] which teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, total for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.[2] However, practices varied among those who were gnostic. In gnosticism, the world of the Demiurge is represented by the lower world which associated to the matter, to flesh, to time, to molecules and more particularly to an imperfect world and an ephemeral world. The world of God is represented by the upper world, and is associated with the soul and perfection. The world of God is eternal and not part of the physical. It is impalpable, and time there doesn't exist. To rise to God, the Gnostic must reach the "knowledge" which mixes philosophy, metaphysics, curiosity, culture, knowledge, and secrets of history and universe. [3][4]"
--
Reads to me like you see the Judeo-Christian God as the Demiurge.
Bingo! The anti-christ walked into the office on day one and knowledge of The Christ ceased to be taught except to the elect.
Last edited:
Omicron
The further away we get from the ancients and the more we study them, the less we can know of them and the more we confuse ourselves.
I am a generalist and not as specific as some and I like it that way as it allows for more flexibility of thought.
I think the O T God quite the prick for sure but calling him the Demiurge would just confuse most Christians. They know little enough of their own gospels and know even less of the Gnostic gospels. As literalists, they do not care about seeking God and they have decided to idol worship their Godinabook.
Regards
DL
The further away we get from the ancients and the more we study them, the less we can know of them and the more we confuse ourselves.
I am a generalist and not as specific as some and I like it that way as it allows for more flexibility of thought.
I think the O T God quite the prick for sure but calling him the Demiurge would just confuse most Christians. They know little enough of their own gospels and know even less of the Gnostic gospels. As literalists, they do not care about seeking God and they have decided to idol worship their Godinabook.
Regards
DL
The oldest books of the Old Testament.. those of the Pentateuch of Moses were composed about 1200 BC. The subsequent books chronicle a period from then.. through patriarchs and prophets.. leading up to the time of the Annunciation and Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. It forms an integrated temporal and moral mosaic preparing and presaging the advent of Christ as the Messiah.