God is Evil

Post Reply New Topic

The ancient Gnostics believed that the Archons (daemons) created matter. They were described as the reptilians we hear about today. I don't think it's that far fetched. The ancient Jews sacrificed animals routinely to these gods. Even Hitler dabbled in mystical rites which mimicked satanism. The Roman Catholic church seems totally evil to me. Any thoughts?
I mean...besides saying I'm crazy?

Seriously? I mean, no offense, but are you serious?

If you actually care about having beliefs that are true, instead of beliefs that just make you feel good, then employ rational, empirical methods to guide your beliefs about reality. Parsimony is your friend, my dear.

EDIT: Oh, and the god described in the OT is evil, no contest. The god described in the NT is rather morally ambiguous. Both of them most likely do not exist.

Legato, it's nice to see you here. I missed you. Am I serious? Yeah sort of. You believe in aliens. It's all the same thing.
If we don't think they are real then they manipulate us like slave clones.

I'm hard pressed to tell if thats facetiousness or not.

Some Thoughts:

Throughout history, there have been thousands of Gods, and a multitude of conflicting beliefs about particular gods. From an external perspective, most of these must be quite wrong.

Explanation 1: there may be something out there that qualifies as 'God' but humans are piss poor in their knowledge of it.

Explanation 2: there is no god, it is all an artifact of human thought.

Explanation 3: 99.999% of the beliefs are wrong, but mine are right.

I think that and we have interpretive and cognitive problems with block us from being able to think things all the way through; it shows in myriad ways. Half of the problem where, hypothetically, an organized religion can have such a diversity of fervor as well as completely different political beliefs - largely that individual experience creates what a person knows how to draw from it or interpret it as. If someone is deliberately cogniscient of this yes, they can do a little better at ripping through their own a priori biases but even then you can really only take that so far and bend yourself so many ways before your start butting heads with your absolute genetic boundaries for complexity of thought.

Going back through what I am familiar with of the Nag Hammadi, Tripartite Tractate, etc. God brought forth the Aeons of Aeons, I think the Valentinians speak of some thirty diads (male/female) pairings. They brought forth many more diads, one of the particular diads that was the most ambitious and forthright about solving God's riddles and had a lot of ambition driving them was the Logos. The Logos of course bit off way more than he/they could chew in one of their attempts, had a flicker of self doubt, and as aeons create - its what they do - that flicker of self doubt created something much more hybrid of a universe, our supposedly, which is in some ways almost like a bubble in God's existence where sure, everything is made of God but transparency of his existence and anything to that effect is badly obfuscated here, and its considered a place where just being here can quickly get you lost and disoriented. Pretty much there's here, and then there's the Plemora which is everywhere else. The Archons were further spawn of this period, though I get the inkling to say that they created something before us and that we're then an answer to what they created further down the line (anyone who has studied these books though - please correct me if I'm wrong on this last part).

The funny thing about Gnosticism when I read it was that, it was abstract enough to easily encase a world as we see it, as it works, without I think too many problems aside from the sense that its absurdly complicated and like it sounds as if a bunch of Greeks or Romans who wanted to have many many many sub-gods and demiurges were able to get this out of Valentinian gnosticism, much like they were able to get Catholicism into the business of specialized saints to pray to. It may well be badly mangled with anthropology and human source, though some of the ideas are rather profound and it at least gets you asking some rather interesting questions of what the bottom line of our reality really is and how this experience as we think of it is really put together.

The abstract language of the Gnostics is hard to grasp because it's all about inner experience. To them, their inner experience is just as real as their outer experience. Since humans are unable to understand non-material things (spiritual matter, empty space, energy and so on) we probably are unable to have a decent understanding of creation. I don't think the Gnostics really believed in the gods as they are described anthromorphically, but that is just my guess. How else are we to describe such natures?

From what I've read in the Nag Hamadi, all of these gods gave birth to other lesser gods who were more evil and messed up than the ones who came before them. It was like they were all mistakes. There is no doubt that these Gnostics believed that all matter is evil. Jesus also said that we have original sin and his teachings were all about transcending that which enslaves us and makes us cling to flesh and matter. This is very different from traditional biblical teachings. The God Jesus spoke of was not the Jewish God, yet today we seem to think they are the same. The Jews practiced animal sacrifice to their God. Jesus was very much opposed to their religion. That is why they killed him.

Gods are made, not born. And it's us does the making.

Anyway, isn't

just as true for anyone in a human form? With or without aspergers?

God is good. All the time.

believing in life in space

and believing that the earth is crated by reptilemonsters...

is "the same thing"?

i inform you right now: its not the same thing.

God and evil? Two abstracts in one? Is this a test? Although I cannot recall you ever clearly stating your stance, I do know you believe in God so that information combined with your other posts; I have come to view you as a Deist...although I might be mistaken. I have trouble connecting a deist viewpoint with good or evil associated to God. Would you agree there is no evil without good, as no dark without light? Where then would be the good? But like I said, I am not really certain of your stance so I may have to wait until you post more.

I rather like the introduction of the demiurge, as it at least tries to solve the problem of evil (although maybe just pushes it back a little).

The world is evil, this is satan's world.

True, because Man = Satan, so yeah, this is Satan's world.