[Radar]

As you know, "gnosis" is the Greek word for "knowledge". In the NT, Paul openly warns against gnosticism:


"O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge". By professing it, some have strayed concerning the faith." - 1 Timothy 6:21-22


The word is translated for historicity's sake, but this is classically interpreted as a Scriptural rebuke of gnosticism.


You're probably aware of this, but the early writings of the Apostles and gnostics were contemporaneous. These groups were openly opposed to each other so it's only natural that their teachings are not compatible.

[Jimmy]

It's a warning against losing your faith. Gnostics awaited the Christ they knew was coming.

Has anyone ever read the Bible not seeking knowledge? Just atheists seeking to attack it in some way.

Keep in mind that all the arguments people lob about the Gnostic writings being forgeries etc have also been lobbed at the Bible itself.

Read them for yourself and choose your own beliefs. None of your beliefs about the Bible or the Gnostic writings even matter if you truly accept Christ.

[Radar]

The Overman, on 20 August 2020 - 06:05 PM, said:

I'm fairly certain I gave you scripture and you responded with not scripture.

I'm amused you shared with me the 5 or so verses that you know but I'm bored of the cherry-picking. Read the surrounding text to get the proper context and that will explain it better than I ever could.

[Radar]

Jimmy, on 20 August 2020 - 06:13 PM, said:

Gnostics awaited the Christ they knew was coming.

This is not a joke. I actually need a source for this.

Jimmy, on 20 August 2020 - 06:13 PM, said:

Has anyone ever read the Bible not seeking knowledge? Just atheists seeking to attack it in some way.

Keep in mind that all the arguments people lob about the Gnostic writings being forgeries etc have also been lobbed at the Bible itself.

Read them for yourself and choose your own beliefs. None of your beliefs about the Bible or the Gnostic writings even matter if you truly accept Christ.

I'm not opposed to anyone reading them out of curiosity either. Just like how a lot of Old Testaments buffs are into the Book of Enoch. Which gnostic writings do you recommend?

[Jimmy]

R A D A Я, on 20 August 2020 - 06:27 PM, said:

This is not a joke. I actually need a source for this.

It's easy man, the Old Testament told the Messiah was coming. There's not even a reason to find a Gnostic "source" for this, the OT prophesied the coming Christ.

R A D A Я, on 20 August 2020 - 06:27 PM, said:

I'm not opposed to anyone reading them out of curiosity either. Just like how a lot of Old Testaments buffs are into the Book of Enoch. Which gnostic writings do you recommend?

I think that the writings that came from the Church would interest you the most.

[Radar]

Jimmy, on 20 August 2020 - 06:33 PM, said:

It's easy man, the Old Testament told the Messiah was coming. There's not even a reason to find a Gnostic "source" for this, the OT prophesied the coming Christ.

ppfffttfftt dude come on.

Jimmy, on 20 August 2020 - 06:33 PM, said:

I think that the writings that came from the Church would interest you the most.

Such as?

[Balls of Steel Forever]

R A D A Я, on 20 August 2020 - 06:22 PM, said:

I'm amused you shared with me the 5 or so verses that you know but I'm bored of the cherry-picking. Read the surrounding text to get the proper context and that will explain it better than I ever could.

If the surrounding text completely disproved the verse I left for your view
I wouldn't have posted it here

Spoiler

And stop being an ass with this read me stuff
there is no fucking way in two hells I can reread the entire bible

unless you have some magic powers that can cure me of a person constantly yelling
at me to kill myself in the back of my head

Even without knowing that
I've already stated multiple times I can't read large texts without having to explain why.

would you ask a man in a wheelchair with no legs to stand?
have some human decency

[Forge]

R A D A Я, on 20 August 2020 - 06:27 PM, said:

Which writings do you recommend?

the Ethiopian bible (garima gospels)
it's 800 years older than the king james version


or the Orthodox Ethiopian Bible
narrow canon has 81 books
broader canon has 88 books

Christianity has been the official religion of Ethiopia since the 4th or 5th century and currently around 60% of the population claim to be christian

[Jimmy]

R A D A Я, on 20 August 2020 - 06:38 PM, said:

ppfffttfftt dude come on.

I'm serious. The Gnostics were more ready for this than any other group. The Jews outright rejected the Messiah they knew was coming.

R A D A Я, on 20 August 2020 - 06:38 PM, said:

Such as?

What I meant is the Church's arguments against Gnosticism more or less. Gnosticism is the chief reason that the Church stabilized so quickly.

[Aristotle Gumball]

Jimmy, on 20 August 2020 - 06:13 PM, said:

Has anyone ever read the Bible not seeking knowledge? Just atheists seeking to attack it in some way.

I read it for entertainment and because it's got undeniable literary merits/influence on Western culture. You start getting a lot of references.

By the way, I like how the earliest known version of the Gospel of Mark completely omits the physical resurrection of Christ (kind of a big deal for Christians). The New Testament reads like a series of people trying to add shit to a pretty unconvincing story in order to attract more followers.

Oh and then Jesus did this, but nigga that wasn't even his final form, etc.

[Balls of Steel Forever]

Jimmy, on 20 August 2020 - 06:13 PM, said:

Has anyone ever read the Bible not seeking knowledge? Just atheists seeking to attack it in some way.

You don't have to be an atheist to want to attack the bible

I am not an atheist

I like attacking the bible

Even though R A D A R
dismisses my belief in god as not actual belief
because he thinks that I can't judge

R A D A Я, on 19 August 2020 - 08:07 PM, said:

You don't even believe in the Bible. You're not the judge of what is or isn't blasphemy or the wrong interpretation.

R A D A Я, on 20 August 2020 - 03:21 AM, said:

If you believe that God is a crazy person that you don't need to ask forgiveness from, then you don't believe in the Bible. And that's fine. You don't have to. But don't perform mental gymnastics to get around that.

when silly me, he isn't the judge either

I don't remember addressing god as a crazy person specifically and I definitely could have,

but I want to clarify in this, God was alone in the universe, for eons,
he somehow learned how to create things and life and other dimensions over time out of utter boredom,
the idea that that kind of isolation, and power does not take a huge toll on a mind is idiotic.

Ah yes using logic to explain god means that you don't understand he defies logic
sounds like justification of one of my delusions



all sins are forgivable
yatta yatta yatta
all that really matters is this
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
One quote clearly taken out of context
you don't need any of the rest of the book to go to heaven
end of story
*coughs*

R A D A Я, on 20 August 2020 - 06:22 PM, said:

I'm bored of the cherry-picking. Read the surrounding text to get the proper context and that will explain it better than I ever could.

R A D A Я, on 20 August 2020 - 03:21 AM, said:

you don't need to ask forgiveness from, then you don't believe in the Bible.

I don't think you read the bible silly

Also telling me to read the scripture that I already read because your opinion of the holy book is so infallible you can determine the right and wrong interpretations of the bible
makes you a bigot

Do you think I got my opinion of the bible second hand
do you not think that I was a good little messianic jew and went to the nearest christian church every sunday

do you not think that I read the bible and that someone else can read the bible and learn to hate god
instead of learning how to get on your knees for him


This idea of god allowing evil because we don't understand such a powerful being and everything works so perfectly into his unquestionable will,
explain to me word for word with scripture about how a man raping his prepubescent daughter works towards gods will
then afterwards explain to me and give me justification why I should worship a god who works such things into his will

even with all that info it's still up to me to make a decision
and with all that info
on judgement day
I will tell god to go fuck himself

[Aristotle Gumball]

[Danukem]

I'm an atheist, but... what they typically say about god allowing acts of evil is that it's necessary for god to allow man to chose evil in order for man to be free (i.e. if god is going to intervene when you choose evil, then your choice is only an illusion and you have no freedom to choose).

For that move to be plausible, freedom has to be something of great value. In particular, its value would have to be incomparable to the suffering caused by evil choices. If it was simply an equation of X amount of freedom balances with Y amount of suffering, then I don't think it will work, because you will always be able to describe a case where god should have stepped in (and didn't). Reminder for anyone who has lost the plot: if god is good and perfect, then if god ought to intervene, god will intervene. So, it would seem that freedom would have to have a higher order of value such that no amount of suffering caused by a free choice would justify taking the choice away. This would make sense if the whole point of this shitshow is to test people, and the suffering (or pleasure) they experience along the way is simply irrelevant.

But there's a problem. More than one, but here's one: If freedom is so important, then why are things set up in such a way that one person's free choice can completely obliterate the freedom of another person, or people? It's not a fair test (or even a test at all) if your freedom gets taken away by another person before you even get a chance to make the very choices you are supposedly being tested on. If the point was to test people, then it would make more sense to put each person in their own habitat where they can make free choices that don't impinge on the freedom of others. You (as god) could even provide each person with their own simulation so that they each believed they were interacting with others.

There's also what theologians and philosophers refer to as "natural evil" which is bad stuff that is not the result of human choices. For example, babies being born with terminal cancer. It could be a "test" for someone, but it's surely not a test for the baby. If it is a test (e.g. for the parents) then the baby is just a helpless pawn being used as a means to an end.

[Aristotle Gumball]

Free will is impossible. You have the ability to choose from a range of possibilities, given your natural aptitudes and knowledge you've been exposed to, but only an all knowing, all powerful god actually has true autonomy. I am a limited person operating within my limited mind and perspective, so anything I choose will be flawed.

You can see this as one of two ways: we are either sinful/bad or utterly innocent. I choose the latter since I don't buy into religious dogma. Morally I do not condemn anyone, I just think certain actions by certain people lead to worse outcomes, and if anyone agrees - great; if not, then my limited mind might think "fuck you, faggot". Such is life.

The most esoteric I will get is in my belief in the Great Work.

"The Great Work is, before all things, the creation of man by himself, that is to say, the full and entire conquest of his faculties and his future; it is especially the perfect emancipation of his will"

I have tried to bring as much of my unconscious desires into the conscious mind as possible, but the process is rife with self-deception. I think it is beyond the abilities of most, if not all human beings. A person with an IQ of 80 can never achieve it for instance, and the highly intelligent seem naturally prone to self-analysis and subsequent spiritual growth.

[Radar]

Forge, on 20 August 2020 - 09:31 PM, said:

the Ethiopian bible (garima gospels)
it's 800 years older than the king james version

But they aren't older than the 4 Gospels, with their oldest complete manuscripts dated to the 2nd-3rd century. Comparing it to the King James is moot because the King James is not an Inspired document. It is a translation. Translations are not canon. Also, I had to research this myself but the Garima gospels are not gnostic either. They are Christian from what I can tell.

Jimmy, on 20 August 2020 - 09:50 PM, said:

I'm serious. The Gnostics were more ready for this than any other group. The Jews outright rejected the Messiah they knew was coming.

I already know that. I mean, the Bible says so. What I need is a source that the gnostics awaited the Christ.

Danukem, on 21 August 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

But there's a problem. More than one, but here's one: If freedom is so important, then why are things set up in such a way that one person's free choice can completely obliterate the freedom of another person, or people? It's not a fair test (or even a test at all) if your freedom gets taken away by another person before you even get a chance to make the very choices you are supposedly being tested on. If the point was to test people, then it would make more sense to put each person in their own habitat where they can make free choices that don't impinge on the freedom of others. You (as god) could even provide each person with their own simulation so that they each believed they were interacting with others.

Because limiting the freedom of others is also evil. This is why contrary to the logic of many atheists, Christians on average support freedom and independence while atheist "freethinkers" invent terrible ideologies like Communism and vote for socialist policies.

Danukem, on 21 August 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

There's also what theologians and philosophers refer to as "natural evil" which is bad stuff that is not the result of human choices. For example, babies being born with terminal cancer. It could be a "test" for someone, but it's surely not a test for the baby. If it is a test (e.g. for the parents) then the baby is just a helpless pawn being used as a means to an end.

I think this is only true among Christian families. I don't believe God intervenes in the life of unbelievers to make a point out of suffering. Those who believe life is meaningless are granted their exact wish.

[Phredreeke]

Quote

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

[Forge]

R A D A Я, on 21 August 2020 - 03:46 AM, said:

But they aren't older than the 4 Gospels, with their oldest complete manuscripts dated to the 2nd-3rd century. Comparing it to the King James is moot because the King James is not an Inspired document. It is a translation. Translations are not canon. Also, I had to research this myself but the Garima gospels are not gnostic either. They are Christian from what I can tell.

never said they were gnostic - i don't subscribe to, nor support, their theory
they are simply an older translation than the kjv, thus they may have different interpretations of the gospels that you may not have seen

don't over analyze my posts and think i'm trying to hit you with a 'gotcha'

the ethiopian orthodox bible has several of those apocryphal books in it. Abyssinia (ethiopia) is one of the first christian nations (the 1st or 2nd depending on who you believe).
even the kjv had some apocryphal books in it until the 1800's
Martin Luther felt that the Deuterocanon of the Old Testament and James, Hebrews and Revelation were apocryphal

[Radar]

I know it's not a gotcha statement, but there is some miscommunication going on here. I don't uphold the KJV as an inspired document or even a reliable "source". I uphold it because it is a reliable translation of previous source texts. The KJV New Testament is based on Textus Receptus, which in turn is based on "Majority Text", which is a collection of 5th century Greek manuscripts. Which is why I'm not sure why you're comparing Ethiopian texts to the KJV. Rather, you should compare it against the original sources of the KJV, which prove far superior. Even the KJV included an apocrypha based on the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation older than Christ.

But if you're just bringing it up because it's a cool thing to look at, that's fine too.

[Forge]

Danukem, on 21 August 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

your freedom gets taken away by another person before you even get a chance

sin is not imputed when there is no law
the innocent are not held accountable
Romans 5 addresses most of your "problems"

all people are born 'evil', they have to learn to love and stop being selfish and self-centered. that's the 'test'
even Jesus got tortured to death
Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do

if nothing bad ever happened and we all loved each other, then this would be heaven, not some weird form of purgatory

[Forge]

R A D A Я, on 21 August 2020 - 06:37 AM, said:

I know it's not a gotcha statement, but there is some miscommunication going on here. I don't uphold the KJV as an inspired document or even a reliable "source". I uphold it because it is a reliable translation of previous source texts. The KJV New Testament is based on Textus Receptus, which in turn is based on "Majority Text", which is a collection of 5th century Greek manuscripts. Which is why I'm not sure why you're comparing Ethiopian texts to the KJV. Rather, you should compare it against the original sources of the KJV, which prove far superior. Even the KJV included an apocrypha based on the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation older than Christ

the garima gospels (written around 500 ad) are the oldest & most complete translation of the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Quote

But if you're just bringing it up because it's a cool thing to look at, that's fine too.

^this

[Radar]

Age is actually not paramount when it comes to determining the superiority of Biblical texts. The earliest manuscripts of Mark don't include the Resurrection story, even though Irenaeus in the 2nd century quotes from them. Somebody deleted them, probably a gnostic. Also, when added back, the passage is validated by certain heptadic authentication codes if you're into the more fringe theories of Christian scripture. You can read more about that here:

https://www.khouse.o...icles/2000/201/

[Aristotle Gumball]

Some scripture oriented site is not going to tell you the truth and dismantle their whole raison d'etre.

R A D A Я, on 21 August 2020 - 07:20 AM, said:

heptadic authentication codes

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Apophenia

[Danukem]

Forge, on 21 August 2020 - 06:47 AM, said:

sin is not imputed when there is no law
the innocent are not held accountable

I never implied that the babies or helpless victims of any age would be sent to hell. My point was that, whatever purpose is served by the existence of evil, it's not serving that purpose for them. Stating that "limiting the freedom of others is also evil" is only the starting point of a response and just leads back to the problems I was alluding to.

Forge, on 21 August 2020 - 06:47 AM, said:

all people are born 'evil', they have to learn to love and stop being selfish and self-centered. that's the 'test'
even Jesus got tortured to death

Only a person who is deeply invested in the theology would think that statement makes god look good. You're saying that god makes creatures that are inherently evil, and then tortures them. That's actually a worse indictment of god than anything I said.

Forge, on 21 August 2020 - 06:47 AM, said:

if nothing bad ever happened and we all loved each other, then this would be heaven, not some weird form of purgatory

That's a stawman. A world can have plenty of bad things that happen in it that challenge people, give them grief, force them to learn, etc., without having genocide, kids with cancer and stuff like that. At least it seems that way. The response I expected is more along the lines of "well it seems that way but you are wrong because you don't see the whole picture".

[Radar]

The creation verses of scripture - Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 - have Pi and Euler's e embedded in them.

This is important because these constants were embedded in the text centuries before they were calculated to that precision.


http://www.otherbibl...com/Pi_File.htm

http://www.otherbibl...e_valuation.htm


It's not a coincidence.

[Aristotle Gumball]

R A D A Я, on 21 August 2020 - 08:29 AM, said:

The creation verses of scripture - Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 - have Pi and Euler's e embedded in them.

This is important because these constants were embedded in the text centuries before they were calculated to that precision.


http://www.otherbibl...com/Pi_File.htm

http://www.otherbibl...e_valuation.htm


It's not a coincidence.

Those numbers (10ˇ17 and 10ˇ40) are actually orders of magnitude different from those constants. Stop believing (heh) random nonsense you read on websites and learn some basic probability. It's so obvious that you just pick whatever bolsters your belief, no matter how nonsensical. It's a brain insufficiency that I hope one day we'll fix with a pill.

[Balls of Steel Forever]

R A D A Я, on 21 August 2020 - 08:29 AM, said:

The creation verses of scripture - Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 - have Pi and Euler's e embedded in them.

This is important because these constants were embedded in the text centuries before they were calculated to that precision.


http://www.otherbibl...com/Pi_File.htm

http://www.otherbibl...e_valuation.htm


It's not a coincidence.

You and others already proved that your opinion and insight means nothing
when you were bigoted enough to tell a person incapable of reading the bible to read it


I would start believing that you were a reasonable person again
with an apology

But alas,
knowing when you are wrong and asking forgiveness is reserved for god
we can not hold the standards of man to such a higher being.

R A D A Я, on 21 August 2020 - 03:46 AM, said:

Because limiting the freedom of others is also evil. This is why contrary to the logic of many atheists, Christians on average support freedom and independence while atheist "freethinkers" invent terrible ideologies like Communism and vote for socialist policies.

Yes, the U.S. law protecting it's people against violent crime is evil.

Also where is this proof that Christians and atheists think the way that you think they do
Christians last I checked made monarchies
Allowed the church to be a part of the state

Atheists have nothing to do with monarchies
and nothing to do with allowing the church to be a part of government

Even so claiming Christians think A
And atheists think B

is the reason why prejudice exists in this world

R A D A Я, on 21 August 2020 - 03:46 AM, said:

I think this is only true among Christian families. I don't believe God intervenes in the life of unbelievers to make a point out of suffering. Those who believe life is meaningless are granted their exact wish.

Can you show me the scripture or is that just an opinion?

Danukem, on 21 August 2020 - 01:45 AM, said:

I'm an atheist, but... what they typically say about god allowing acts of evil is that it's necessary for god to allow man to chose evil in order for man to be free (i.e. if god is going to intervene when you choose evil, then your choice is only an illusion and you have no freedom to choose).

For that move to be plausible, freedom has to be something of great value. In particular, its value would have to be incomparable to the suffering caused by evil choices. If it was simply an equation of X amount of freedom balances with Y amount of suffering, then I don't think it will work, because you will always be able to describe a case where god should have stepped in (and didn't). Reminder for anyone who has lost the plot: if god is good and perfect, then if god ought to intervene, god will intervene. So, it would seem that freedom would have to have a higher order of value such that no amount of suffering caused by a free choice would justify taking the choice away. This would make sense if the whole point of this shitshow is to test people, and the suffering (or pleasure) they experience along the way is simply irrelevant.

But there's a problem. More than one, but here's one: If freedom is so important, then why are things set up in such a way that one person's free choice can completely obliterate the freedom of another person, or people? It's not a fair test (or even a test at all) if your freedom gets taken away by another person before you even get a chance to make the very choices you are supposedly being tested on. If the point was to test people, then it would make more sense to put each person in their own habitat where they can make free choices that don't impinge on the freedom of others. You (as god) could even provide each person with their own simulation so that they each believed they were interacting with others.

There's also what theologians and philosophers refer to as "natural evil" which is bad stuff that is not the result of human choices. For example, babies being born with terminal cancer. It could be a "test" for someone, but it's surely not a test for the baby. If it is a test (e.g. for the parents) then the baby is just a helpless pawn being used as a means to an end.

I do like this interpretation
And I well understand the process of getting to that point of perception

but this theory completely dis-acknowledges the cherry picking of the bible I did to prove my point.

And John 3:16 means that you don't need forgiveness to get into heaven

You just have to be willing to believe in jesus christ

So let's say with that story I gave of the father raping his daughter
The father believed in jesus christ as his savior during those acts,
(and saying that he didn't believe in jesus because he knowingly participated in sinful acts, is again bigoted, we all knowingly participate in sinful acts)
The daughter because of this abuse by her religious father chooses to not believe in a god that allows such and never allows him into her life,
and she is just a normal average person eventually despite her abuse.

Should we venerate a god that allows the father to go to heaven, and the daughter to go to hell?

And also suffering and sin are not mutually exclusive,
the book of job proves that,
the only sin job was teased with was blasphemy,
and he had a whole lot of suffering,

Suffering is necessary to attain a will to live and for advancement
evil is not.

[Aristotle Gumball]

I'll say this: I like Jesus Christ. Seemed like a fine bloke.

[Danukem]

The Overman, on 21 August 2020 - 12:16 PM, said:

Yes, the U.S. law protecting it's people against violent crime is evil.

There's a lot in that post, and by upvoting it I'm not agreeing with everything in it. But I think you raise a good point here.

As mortal humans, we think it is praiseworthy if another human intervenes to prevent the consequences of an evil choice. This is often the case even when using lethal force. For example, if an armed would-be school shooter is killed by security before getting an opportunity to fire a shot, that would be considered praiseworthy. But this involves active intervention. The perpetrator has made an evil choice, and security intervenes before further evil choices can be made to prevent harmful consequences. Why is it okay for humans to do it but evil if god does it? If anything, it seems to me that this gets it backwards. The reason we are very reluctant to give other humans that power is that we are suspicious of them, and often rightly so. We suspect their motives and judgment. But if god is a benevolent and omniscient being, then god is in a perfect position to make those decisions. Again, no one is saying that god should arbitrarily limit human freedom, we are only suggesting that a benevolent god would be justified to intervene for the same reason that humans are, and by definition would be much more trustworthy to do so.

[Forge]

Danukem, on 21 August 2020 - 08:27 AM, said:

You're saying that god makes creatures that are inherently evil, and then tortures them. That's actually a worse indictment of god than anything I said.

perhaps.
the only correct answer (using human logic, not love) would have been to kill eve, adam, and the serpent as soon as eve bit the apple

Danukem, on 21 August 2020 - 08:27 AM, said:

That's a stawman. A world can have plenty of bad things that happen in it that challenge people, give them grief, force them to learn, etc., without having....... The response I expected is more along the lines of "well it seems that way but you are wrong because you don't see the whole picture".

that's a strawman. your scale of "bad" is subjective
once you remove what you think is the worst thing possible, then the next worst "bad" thing is now worst.
the scale of what is "tolerable" will constantly shift downwards

and I didn't sign up to give you canned answers

[Danukem]

Forge, on 21 August 2020 - 02:53 PM, said:

perhaps.
the only correct answer (using human logic, not love) would have been to kill eve, adam, and the serpent as soon as eve bit the apple

Maybe he did. Many times. And then one time, he was like, "fuck it, let's see where this goes."