Imperefct God

[Age]

Like suffering or cause suffering.

Well NO one HAS TO live 'with' 'suffering', and, NO one HAS TO 'cause' suffering.

The ONLY reason WHY 'suffering' exists is because of what 'you', adult human beings do.

If ANY one lives with suffering because of constant pain due to the nerve endings of the physical body, then this is another matter. Which, by the way, can be reduced considerably anyway.

'Suffering' is just a mental process, which is ONLY created and caused by what 'you', adult human beings, do to "others" and "yourselves".

'Suffering' is CERTAINLY NOT a necessary part of living and being alive. Therefore, is also NOT a necessary part of Life AT ALL, either, to me.

But you only SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY, correct?

If evil did not exist people could harm each other while enjoying.

LOL You people do harm "each other", while enjoying, in this world in the days when this is being written, ANYWAY.

That is against a healthy life. Therefore, evil is necessary.

Okay. If this is what you want to define 'things' and BELIEVE is true, then continue on HAVING TO live with 'evil'. This will allow you to "justify" to "yourself" that the harm that you ACTUALLY DO onto "others" IS NECESSARY.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of just HOW the peoples of those days could, and would, 'try to' "justify" their OBVIOUSLY Truly Wrong behaviors.

Also, noted is how you completely REFUSED to acknowledge and answer the CLARIFYING QUESTION I posed to you.

You do not understand what I am trying to say. Cutting yourself into pieces is harming yourself which this is against a healthy life.

But I think I do understand this. This speaks for itself. However, it does NOT cover ALL situations.

Your example is an EXTREMELY NARROWED perspective of things.

People don't like to suffer unless they are masochists.

So, some people do like suffering, on some occasions.

Suffering is evil which in this case is useful because people avoid cutting themselves into pieces.

So, you use just ONE ONLY example, out of countless DIFFERENT variables, and you expect that that one only example of yours to suffice in covering what you are 'trying to' CLAIM in regards to ALL of 'evil', itself, correct?

[bahman]

Well NO one HAS TO live 'with' 'suffering', and, NO one HAS TO 'cause' suffering.

The ONLY reason WHY 'suffering' exists is because of what 'you', adult human beings do.

If ANY one lives with suffering because of constant pain due to the nerve endings of the physical body, then this is another matter. Which, by the way, can be reduced considerably anyway.

'Suffering' is just a mental process, which is ONLY created and caused by what 'you', adult human beings, do to "others" and "yourselves".

'Suffering' is CERTAINLY NOT a necessary part of living and being alive. Therefore, is also NOT a necessary part of Life AT ALL, either, to me.

But you only SEE 'things' DIFFERENTLY, correct?



LOL You people do harm "each other", while enjoying, in this world in the days when this is being written, ANYWAY.


Okay. If this is what you want to define 'things' and BELIEVE is true, then continue on HAVING TO live with 'evil'. This will allow you to "justify" to "yourself" that the harm that you ACTUALLY DO onto "others" IS NECESSARY.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of just HOW the peoples of those days could, and would, 'try to' "justify" their OBVIOUSLY Truly Wrong behaviors.

Also, noted is how you completely REFUSED to acknowledge and answer the CLARIFYING QUESTION I posed to you.

You do not understand what I am trying to say. Cutting yourself into pieces is harming yourself which this is against a healthy life.

But I think I do understand this. This speaks for itself. However, it does NOT cover ALL situations.

Your example is an EXTREMELY NARROWED perspective of things.

People don't like to suffer unless they are masochists.

So, some people do like suffering, on some occasions.

Suffering is evil which in this case is useful because people avoid cutting themselves into pieces.

So, you use just ONE ONLY example, out of countless DIFFERENT variables, and you expect that that one only example of yours to suffice in covering what you are 'trying to' CLAIM in regards to ALL of 'evil', itself, correct?

No. I have other examples too. Rape is bad for a healthy life. Therefore, the victim suffers after the rape, This reduces the chance of having sex from rape. Therefore, more families from healthy sex.

[Greatest I am]

Nicely put.

Many philosophers offer solutions to the problem of evil

What do they conclude?

while maintaining that God is perfect.

While none of the many gods, especially those of power, unlike the lot on human offer, here I mean alien as synonymous with god, a difficult term to define, given they are fantasy, has never shown his ugly genocidal face.

He knows the good people of the world would condemn his sorry ass to hell along with his sheeple.

They reconcile evil with an all-powerful and all-good God by such concepts as free will,

Free will in Christianity is non-existent. Idol worship kills it. The myth of Pharaoh's heart being hardened is the proof of concept on that. I have a lot more as well on that mythical free will.

We do have it here in reality though. Limited as it is.

uniformity of nature, and that this is the best possible evolutionary world.

Yes. We live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given our history. I hope we can improve on the harm we are doing to it.

However we can also explain evil with an imperfect God.

We can do what the U.S. has done with perfect. Use more perfect. You then can have more perfect and less perfect.

This is a dualistic world so that seems to make sense, and I do not usually see a lot of sense in the U.S. Not lately that is. Come on next generation. Your extreme right and left are out to lunch.

Evil exists because God is not all-powerful, not all-good, or both.

Or neither.

I find no conflict in the description of Yahweh as nature.

Nature, like the bible, if you read it Gnostic style, have no conflicts.

The conflict arises when the myths we live by are read by obtuse people, --- who let their tribal affiliations, political and religious, override their moral sense.

But philosophers cannot accept an imperfect God. God must be perfect. Why? Can you accept an imperfect God, like those in Greek mytholgy?

The love of a genocidal and evil god is what our DNA, if we are still in competition mode, forces the most insecure to seek and find and idolize. Religions are tribes and tribes crave security and fellowship just as our selfish gene tells it to. Believer or not, all people are tribal and wish to fly a flag or religious emblem for security of the person.

Your intelligent and mora Greek view went out when the stupid created supernatural realm and put a genocidal p**** on it that they called good.

The Christian and Muslim "Good God", is sure a low moral bar.

No one is allowed to put their name above his for all attribute, the first Commandment, so the Greatest Genocidal p**** can only be Yahweh, to Christians.

I do not like St. Hitler either.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Pick your poison…for you are stuck with both, since there’s no way to avoid them, since knowledge aka in knowing …is all you can experience.

As well as not knowing or having a clue as to where to look for any enlightened mind.

The nice thing is that religions are more and more and faster and faster being recognized for the garbage they are in the streets of the only possible Eden.

Right Here, to any thinking brain not polluted by supernatural thinking.

John 6 ; 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Try that literally.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I like the idea that if God is imperfect, then evil is permanent. If God is perfect, then evil can be overcome.

You do know that if you remove the evil out of human evolution, the competition side that creates the human to human evil as it creates a loser, you would have us stagnate and likely go extinct.

That is like the meek inheriting the Earth while the higher echelons of success interbreed and inbreed to extinction in their gated communities.

he just have to be capable enough to create and rule the universe.. Is that possible?

Given the limits of light speed. Absolutely and it has likely happened, depending on how many intelligent people can be stupid enough to be talked into honoring a god tyhat uses genocide on them whenever his sons of god want to use a world as a brothel.

Nice G D sons those sons of Yahweh. No wonder he genocided his grandchildren.

They were as vile as Yahweh. To close for his comfort.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

But what if the universe was created and "ruled" by a being, not God,. who is imperfect. I mean he doesn't have to be perfect; he just have to be capable enough to create and rule the universe.. Is that possible?

Of course that is possible.

Furthermore, what is it about the universe that implies that its Creator might be "imperfect" in some way?

In other words, what would its Creator have to do to the universe in order to make himself seem more "perfect"?
_______

Show his genocidal ass at the Haigh in handcuff and leg irons. Hopefully with a signed confession and scion ide pill already working.

He is not worth my bullet with his vile name on it.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

...what if the universe was created and "ruled" by a being, not God,. who is imperfect. I mean he doesn't have to be perfect; he just have to be capable enough to create and rule the universe.. Is that possible?

The Gnostics thought that's how it worked. They thought the earth, and human bodies, flesh, were created by an inferior being called the "Demiurge." Above him was a hierarchy of other sort of "divine beings," with something at the top called "the Abyss."

But nowhere in that story was there a Creator who loves His creation, so it's quite different from, say, the Jewish or Christian understanding of the word "God." And certainly there was no issue of "perfection" in their thinking, except as it applied to human realizing that the Demiurge has them trapped, and then "enlightenment" and "transcendence" through following the world-despising teachings of a group of priests called "the Illuminati."

It's complicated, but that was it, in a nutshell.

Apologies buddy but you know the Gnostic Christian myth but not the reality we see and live.

If I may.

First. We hold absolutely no supernatural beliefs.

Religious naturalist and esoteric ecumenist is what we are. Not silly supernatural god in the sky and hell believers.

Let me speak to the lie of Gnostic Christians hating matter.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religion’s originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[ - i.e. evil serves a greater good - one tha tman is not able to understand (assuming the jews view is that thier god is one of justice and so evil serves a purpose we just don't understand).

2-cents.

I am self taught to stupidity and beyond and if I can understand the simple moral concepts in scriptures, anyone can.

Even Christian can and do, if they stop ready their myths literally, as well as Gnostic ones.

Do so and you will see why Gnostic Christians were and are the only good Christians.

We do not need to lie about our god.

Christians just immorally allow their affiliations to guide them instead of their moral sense.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

But what if the universe was created and "ruled" by a being, not God,. who is imperfect. I mean he doesn't have to be perfect; he just have to be capable enough to create and rule the universe.. Is that possible?

Of course that is possible.

Furthermore, what is it about the universe that implies that its Creator might be "imperfect" in some way?

In other words, what would its Creator have to do to the universe in order to make himself seem more "perfect"?
_______

per the Gnotic's theology - make a universe (and men - like jesus who did not have a body) without matter

similar mindset to Plato's (mattar is a lesser form of the immaterial "thing in heaven")- there is cultural/historical linkage.

How can an archetypal good man legend have matter?

Oh. I just heard of a new Jesus in Australia.

Jesus is just a hero of 1000 faces.

I like that you are into Gnosticism.

I like to split the logos from the mythos as todays posters seem to get arguing on myths and legends insted of important issues like morality and the great harm the mainstream religions are doing.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

...what if the universe was created and "ruled" by a being, not God,. who is imperfect. I mean he doesn't have to be perfect; he just have to be capable enough to create and rule the universe.. Is that possible?

The Gnostics thought that's how it worked. They thought the earth, and human bodies, flesh, were created by an inferior being called the "Demiurge." Above him was a hierarchy of other sort of "divine beings," with something at the top called "the Abyss."

But nowhere in that story was there a Creator who loves His creation, so it's quite different from, say, the Jewish or Christian understanding of the word "God." And certainly there was no issue of "perfection" in their thinking, except as it applied to human realizing that the Demiurge has them trapped, and then "enlightenment" and "transcendence" through following the world-despising teachings of a group of priests called "the Illuminati."

It's complicated, but that was it, in a nutshell.

i posted my reply prior to seeing yours - i se you too know some of the Gnostics.

they had many sects - lik early chrsitains - some were jewish, others christian and others greek with 360 gods one for each day and jesus was on of 360. so they were not a monolith per dogma, but per a genral understanding - that the "god of this world " is not the True god would be apt to all of them.

IOW. People who did not want their thoughts controlled by a demonstrably evil religion.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

... without an opposite to relate to, no conceptual word has any meaning whatsoever.

So exactly what is an anti-duck?

Elmer Fud.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

It's complicated, but that was it, in a nutshell.

Apologies buddy but you know the Gnostic Christian myth but not the reality...

I have no idea what you are. But I know what the Gnostic texts say Gnostics think. I have many of them here, on my shelf.

And I promise you, there is no such thing at all as "Christian Gnosticism," any more than there's "Christian Zoroastrianism," "Christian Islamism" or "Christian Satanism." What there is, is a cultic group who call themselves "Christian Gnostics," and who employ (for their own purposes) motifs and characters borrowed from Christian traditions, but whose beliefs are contrary to everything Christians actually believe. And they have absolutely no justification for using that adjective at all.

[RCSaunders]

... without an opposite to relate to, no conceptual word has any meaning whatsoever.

So exactly what is an anti-duck?

Elmer Fud.

Regards
DL

I thought Fud was an anti-wabbit.

[Belinda]

Greatest I Am quoted:

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

This is a claim for idealism(immaterialism) and also for that variety of panpsychism
that claims the existence of absolute mind.

[seeds]

_______

Not meaning to make light of mental issues, but I can't help but wonder if the vast majority of atheists were indoctrinated into Catholicism in their youth and perhaps traumatized by some evil nuns...






_______