This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.

God kills when he could just as easily cure. This is irrefutable.

This is a clear violation of the golden rule. The golden rule as articulated by Jesus.

God then is clearly evil.

Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?

Regards
DL

[erimir]

There's no reason to believe gods exist and the Golden Rule is a decent starting point, but ultimately too simplistic.

[The Lone Ranger]

I agree that the Bible unambiguously portrays the "God" character as hypocritical, cruel, unfair, and downright evil -- not to mention just plain stupid at times. I've never understood how anyone who has actually read the Bible can say things like "God is love" or even "God is good" with a straight face. One can easily make the case that the Bible portrays Satan as a far more benevolent character.


That having been said, since we're talking about a made-up being, I don't worry about it too much -- no more than I do the evil of Sauron or Lord Voldemort.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

no more than I do the evil of Sauron or Lord Voldemort.

I HEARD THAT.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I agree that the Bible unambiguously portrays the "God" character as hypocritical, cruel, unfair, and downright evil -- not to mention just plain stupid at times. I've never understood how anyone who has actually read the Bible can say things like "God is love" or even "God is good" with a straight face. One can easily make the case that the Bible portrays Satan as a far more benevolent character.


That having been said, since we're talking about a made-up being, I don't worry about it too much -- no more than I do the evil of Sauron or Lord Voldemort.

I agree with your view of God.

I am disappointed with your last though.

I believe that fore evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing.

You not worrying about the damage that continues to be propagated by the mainstream religions indicates that you are allowing evil to grow.

The mainstream religions are homophobic and misogynous.

Are there no women or gays in your family and should you not be fighting those who would deny them full equality?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by erimir

There's no reason to believe gods exist and the Golden Rule is a decent starting point, but ultimately too simplistic.

I agree with your first.

The golden rule is fairly simple but quite good to me.

Most other systems are generally a derivative of reciprocity and are usually quite similar in intent as like that of the golden rule.

What kind of rules would you put as your first 3 best.

Regards
DL

[lisarea]

My mind is getting blown too many times today!

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Given the Golden Rule I was under the impression that God was into some heavy S & M in the early years.

[apathist]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Given the Golden Rule I was under the impression that God was into some heavy S & M in the early years.

you suppose god is doing the best he can

man, plus, girls, that was hard to type

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by apathist

you suppose god is doing the best he can

man, plus, girls, that was hard to type

I have no idea what this means, so here's Florence Henderson doing S&M burlesque.

Florence Henderson "When You're Good To Mama" -...

[apathist]

I was trying to be not man-centric plus a deeper thought.

I am proud of this board right now.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Given the Golden Rule I was under the impression that God was into some heavy S & M in the early years.

Yes. He was quite the prick back when but Christians tend to ignore his evil ways since he says that if they kiss his ass hard enough, they get to go to heaven and live under his tyranny forever.

Sounds really great. Yes?

Regards
DL

[Ari]

The golden rule in the old testament is effectively to do unto other kin as you would have them do unto you. So God shouldnt be an asshole to other gods. Humans on the other hand are fair game.

This fits with how humans see the rule, unless you think we want cows to eat us.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Ari

The golden rule in the old testament is effectively to do unto other kin as you would have them do unto you. So God shouldnt be an asshole to other gods. Humans on the other hand are fair game.

This fits with how humans see the rule, unless you think we want cows to eat us.

I do not see it as only being good to kin.

Have a look at the environment and ponder how good things could be if we treated all of the environment as we would want to be treated if we were the environment.

This doe not mean we could not eat chickens but it would have us treat them in a more humane way.

Regards
DL

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Do you agree with Jesus that anyone who breaks the golden rule is evil?

Anyone who adheres to the Golden Rule is self-centered and presumptuous.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Anyone who adheres to the Golden Rule is self-centered and presumptuous.

That is perverse.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

That is perverse.

Only on the surface.

I answered our friend in a post above. Please have a look and opine.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Anyone who adheres to the Golden Rule is self-centered and presumptuous.

Self-centered, yes, as our main gene is our selfish gene.

Presumptuous, you would have to explain as I do not see applying the golden rule as presumptuous as we cannot know if the one we were good to will pass that on. We can hope, but to presume would be thinking too broadly.

If the golden rule is not what you start you moral thinking with, please tell us what you use.

Regards
DL

[Vivisectus]

The problem is not that the God of the Bible does not abide by his own rules. The problem is that it isn't a single document, but a compilation of documents that seem to have been written between 500 BCE to 500 ce, give or take a century or so.

You can hardly expect it to be consistent. People with vastly different agendas, social and historical backgrounds, and goals wrote it. And redacted it. And re-wrote the redaction, appending bits of older narratives to the new bits, because they wanted to borrow the authority of the older text, but now they wanted the outcome of the text to match their own goals, in a completely different society / political situation / historical setting etc.

What is surprising is that this has been common knowledge among anyone but the most amazingly uninformed for well over a century, and yet people still insist on using as a sort of operating manual for life and the world, a sort of face-value document you can just read and then draw straightforward conclusions from.

I think any thoughtful religious person would agree that you can read the Bible for inspiration, but that saying stuff like "God is/thinks/wants so and so because here there is a passage in the Bible that seems to agree" is foolhardy.

And frankly, I like that about the Bible: we all think we have read it, but it remains impossible to pin down definitively. If you are really honest, you can never use it as a authority over someone else: whatever opinion you want the Bible to justify, there is a good chance you will find it saying the exact opposite in some other part.

The Bible does not really allow for the kind of simplistic statements like "God is A because here it says B". Which is funny because it seems to be what a lot of people spend a lot of time doing with it, including the OP.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The problem is not that the God of the Bible does not abide by his own rules. The problem is that it isn't a single document, but a compilation of documents that seem to have been written between 500 BCE to 500 ce, give or take a century or so.

You can hardly expect it to be consistent. People with vastly different agendas, social and historical backgrounds, and goals wrote it. And redacted it. And re-wrote the redaction, appending bits of older narratives to the new bits, because they wanted to borrow the authority of the older text, but now they wanted the outcome of the text to match their own goals, in a completely different society / political situation / historical setting etc.

What is surprising is that this has been common knowledge among anyone but the most amazingly uninformed for well over a century, and yet people still insist on using as a sort of operating manual for life and the world, a sort of face-value document you can just read and then draw straightforward conclusions from.

I think any thoughtful religious person would agree that you can read the Bible for inspiration, but that saying stuff like "God is/thinks/wants so and so because here there is a passage in the Bible that seems to agree" is foolhardy.

And frankly, I like that about the Bible: we all think we have read it, but it remains impossible to pin down definitively. If you are really honest, you can never use it as a authority over someone else: whatever opinion you want the Bible to justify, there is a good chance you will find it saying the exact opposite in some other part.

The Bible does not really allow for the kind of simplistic statements like "God is A because here it says B". Which is funny because it seems to be what a lot of people spend a lot of time doing with it, including the OP.

Well put and I agree with all but your last sentence.

I write to engage with believers so I have to got on their page if I expect responses.

Most know I am a Gnostic Christian and that we Gnostic Christians and Christians are like water and oil.

There is no supernatural content to anything I believe while Christianity is based on it completely.

Regards
DL

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Well put and I agree with all but your last sentence.

I write to engage with believers so I have to got on their page if I expect responses.

Most know I am a Gnostic Christian and that we Gnostic Christians and Christians are like water and oil.

There is no supernatural content to anything I believe while Christianity is based on it completely.

Regards
DL

And yet you are doing exactly what you seem to agree the Bible just cannot be used for. That works both ways: you also cannot use it to condemn the religion it is a holy text for. All you can do is condemn specific interpretations. You most certainly cannot make statements like the title of your post. Well, you can obviously, and you did, but it is rather silly. Especially calling it "incontrovertible proof". It is no such thing.

Nor is your belief without supernatural content: Gnostics actually add supernatural beings: they just make up fancier names for them and keep the ones they like a bit more abstract.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet you are doing exactly what you seem to agree the Bible just cannot be used for. That works both ways: you also cannot use it to condemn the religion it is a holy text for. All you can do is condemn specific interpretations. You most certainly cannot make statements like the title of your post. Well, you can obviously, and you did, but it is rather silly. Especially calling it "incontrovertible proof". It is no such thing.

Nor is your belief without supernatural content: Gnostics actually add supernatural beings: they just make up fancier names for them and keep the ones they like a bit more abstract.

Nothing is holy that has not been labelled so by humans. There is nothing holy. Only a God can name something holy.

You mistake Gnostic Christian beliefs with the myths we wrote to put against the Christian one before Christianity became idol worshipers.

I told you what I as a Gnostic Christian believe but if you want to ignore that and tell me what I believe, I do not think we will discuss much.

Regards
DL

[The Man]

No, not really. It’s an intrinsically self-centred view of morality for a rather simple reason: not everyone likes or wants to be treated in the same way. Some people are into extreme S&M. Does that mean they should do that to others who aren’t? Of course not. It’s a ridiculous, stupid, overly simplistic way to look at the world. It might be suitable for kindergarteners but it’s certainly not suitable for adults. Any decent conception of morality and empathy requires recognising that not everyone wants the same things. A far better guiding ethical principle would be “Do unto others as they would like to be done unto.”

[mickthinks]

Dude, you misunderstand the ethics of the golden rule if you think it's about how to manage your sexual encounters. Of course tastes differ, but tastes are not morals, and unless you also think there are people who want to be lied to, beaten, imprisoned, stolen from, insulted, degraded, and otherwise abused without their consent, this quibbling about sexual proclivities is trivializing the issue.

The golden rule doesn't demand that we impose our tastes; sexual, aesthetic or culinary; on each other. On the contrary, it requires me to respect your right to your tastes just as you respect my right to mine.

There is nothing self-centered or presumptuous about it.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

The golden rule doesn't demand that we impose our tastes; sexual, aesthetic or culinary; on each other. On the contrary, it requires me to respect your right to your tastes just as you respect my right to mine.

There is nothing self-centered or presumptuous about it.

That is the best interpretation, but there really are people who seem to apply it to much more specific situations and just project their own preferences onto other people. People being really insistent about trying to get you to listen to music they like or do the things they like doing. There really are a lot of people who project their own preferences onto others, and many of them literally don't seem to understand that not everyone is like them.

Oh, here is one that I've noticed pretty recently. There's this thing that must have originated in customer service or something where people think everyone wants emotional validation or something. So if you're asking a question about some customer service thing, they'll start out by saying something like, "That sounds really frustrating" or "I'm sorry you're having a hard time" or something. I mean, it's not making my life miserable or anything, but I personally find it kind of annoying (here I predict and ideally deflect a joke someone is getting ready to tell). It comes across to me like the way you'd talk to a fussy toddler, and it seems a little presumptuous to me to assume I'm looking for emotional validation from whoever gets assigned my ticket.

But it is apparently the current gold standard for 'empathetic communication' or something, and I've seen people doing that in regular human interactions a lot too. And it certainly seems to be based on a too-broad (too narrow maybe?) variation on the Golden Rule.

So I think you'reright that the Golden Rule should be sufficient, but there really are a lot of people who seem to need some extra clarification that their own preferences and perspectives aren't universal.