Which commandments do you think are superior; Yahweh’s or Gn

Post Reply New Topic

Which commandments do you think are superior; Yahweh’s or Gnostic Christianity’s?

You may use whatever set of commandments you think Yahweh gave. There are a number of renditions.

As for the Gnostic commandments, I offer the following.

1. You shall place no commandments above these unless proven to be morally superior.
2. You shall value all people as equal before the law. The inequality of outcome is punishment enough of itself.
3. You shall live by the golden rule and respond with reciprocity of harm or care to what is done to you.
4. Use Gnosis and put logic and reason and their proofs above faith, which by its nature has no proofs, logic or reason.
5. You shall leave the environment in a better condition than what is given to you as an inheritance to your next generation.
6. You shall not impoverish the next generation and live according to the means you produce as their labor and wealth is theirs and not yours to squander.

Gnostic Christianity and free thinking lost the God wars when the Orthodox Church decimated us and burned most of our scriptures. I think that Gnostic Christians had a superior set of commandments then as well as now. Those commandments were not only meant for seekers after a God but also a guide to secular law. Both secular law and Christianity seemed to ignore the second commandment of equality till our modern era. As a Gnostic Christian, I ask (rhetorically), what took the world so long to catch up to Gnostic Christian thinking and what is Islam and other backwards thinking people waiting for.

Many have a problem with the 10 commandments given by Yahweh so I thought I would see if there is a consensus of thought on the Gnostic Christian ideology as compared to the Christian ideology. The main complaints I see are that Yahweh’s commandments have created a Christian ideology that denies gays and women equality. I think all souls to be created equal and thus deserving of equal human statue and citizenship.

Others as seen in these two link have their own views and I would add that I think Yahweh’s no divorce policy, --- which Jesus confirms. --- and Yahweh’s policy of accepting bribes, ransoms or sacrifices (these are all analogue) to alter his usual and moral policy punishing the guilty and not the innocent, --- to the immoral policy of punishing the innocent instead of the guilty, as exemplified by his accepting Jesus as a sacrifice to save sinners whom God himself created to be sinners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u3z69YpLx0#t=100

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfGRN4HVrQ

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Regards
DL

1. Who gets to prove what is morally superior? Well, I guess since I'm taking issue with them, maybe I do?

3. is terrible. As a commandment, it means you can manipulate people to do things for you by doing things for them. It means no one can return a favour out of free will because they are now forced to do so. It also means someone is forced to try and strike back at you if you harm them. So this could mean someone much weaker futilely trying to even the score against someone much stronger who now toys with them like a cat with a mouse and they can't even run because they must strike back. On the other hand, if the person can strike back at you, then the logical thing is to kill them first, so they can't. I'm sure I could go on and on and on.

4. If reason goes above faith, how are people even compelled to follow the commandments?

5 and 6 are things an individual cannot perform. All the Yahweh commandments are things an individual can perform.

So, my opinion, Yahweh commandments are clearly superior.

Who gets to decide what is "morally superior", and how is this actually accomplished?



The inequality of outcome is often random, without meaning, and usually arbitrary. We all long for justice in this world, but where is it?



The so-called golden rule comes from mainstream Christianity, not gnosticism.



No, I don't believe that proofs, logic and reason are in any way superior to faith. What are mathematical proofs based upon? Axioms. What are axioms based upon? They're not based upon anything: they are just arbitrary starting points that one simply accepts for the simple reason that one has to begin somewhere.



As the other person here pointed out, this isn't actually humanly possible. What do you even mean by "better" anyway? Different people will have different ideas about that.



A not-too-subtle swipe at the baby-boomers?



In your opinion.



Perhaps us "backward thinking people" just don't agree with you. Is that so hard to accept?

You have ignored that you cannot do, depending on the set, the first 4 of his commandments.

Regards
DL

If you do not do your own deciding, who does it for you?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.


I do not agree with your description. I see justice working all the time but perhaps you can tell us what you think justice is in this case.

Should nature reward the less fit with the same benefits that the most fit gain? Is that what you meant by justice?



The Golden Rule is a lot older than all modern religions. Only the uneducated will think there is anything unique in Christianity. For instance, there are what, 6 people that were born of virgins before Jesus?



We are talking morals, not math.

But if you think that faith without proofs is better than logic and reason with proofs, then you show how poor of a thinker you are. IMO of course.

You must be thinking like Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”


It is indeed humanly possible as most of the past generations did just that.

Let's keep the scenario simple. Lets say your environment is a farm that is self sustaining. Why would you not be able to leave it in a better condition than what you found? What is preventing you?


No. A swipe at all of us who do not seem to care what we are passing up to our children in terms of debt.



Yes. And I put it out here for those who wish to agree or disagree. That is what you also do. No?

[/quote]

Accept?

That is the hope as long as the disagreement has an argument attached and not just a ---- duh, you are wrong, duh.

Regards
DL

The Golden Rule is not a particularly Christian concept indeed, Christianity demands much more of you than just treating others as you would wish to be treated. It demands you treat them even better than that, regardless of the way they treat you. Any moral code that glorifies the Golden Rule is going to be morally inferior to Christianity.

3. You shall live by the golden rule and respond with reciprocity of harm or care to what is done to you.

An eye for an eye? I suppose that puts gnosticism on par with the Hammurabi code, no wonder the Christians left you to rot in history.

You make erroneous assumptions and then chastise us based on your own made up idiocy.

Thanks for not asking and making up s**t to throw at us.

Nice one way conversation you are having with yourself so keep your insults aimed at yourself.

Regards
DL

You've crossed the line into obnoxiousness with regards to Christians and Christianity several times in the last few days alone, I don't feel any duty to handle you with kid gloves. But for the sake of debate and learning however, please feel free to explain how "reciprocity of harm or care" would play out in the real world.

Should people be rewarded for doing evil?

Regards
DL

No, but in this imperfect world they often are, at least in the temporal world. If I may guess where you are going with this: choosing to exercise mercy or attempting to feel compassion for the wrongdoer is not rewarding evil and when it comes to human concerns should only exercised when the wrongdoer repents, begs for forgiveness and you believe him. It is I think fair to say that harming someone who has harmed you is not always the best solution, for you or the wrongdoer.
If you're going for the divine forgiveness angle, I can see why people might think deathbed confessions getting them off the hook is a reward for evil. But we assume this only works if you actually mean it. A person who says he is sorry on his final day after a lifetime of debauchery... well only a higher court can judge if his heart was really in it.

It is to man to forgive. Not some God who cannot be hurt. God is not the victim. A person is, and forgiveness belongs to the victim alone.

There is no higher court as far as we can tell, so speaking of it is irrelevant.

If you think that Yahweh is that judge, then forget it as he has shown, with his first imaginary judgement, that he is a corrupt bribe/sacrifice taking immoral judge.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Would you trust a judge who thinks punishing the innocent instead of the guilty is a good form of justice?

Regards
DL

Well, any set of rules from an imaginary entity would be equally worthless, so... none of the above?

I was just saying crime pays, if you can get away with it. Many die before their crimes are discovered and the most unscrupulous often act within the law (or even write them). There can never be perfect justice here, so any hope for it must lie beyond death.



That's pretty reasonable.



Assuming those stories are literally true, as the atheist is wont to do, can a lesser creature properly judge a higher one? Does the ant possess the capability and understanding to judge a human? I don't think so. On a related note, may I ask the Gnostics' opinion of abortion? I mean since we're on the topic of genocide and child sacrifice, which you condemn God for.



I don't know if there is or not, but I've decided it is a good thing to assume it is so and act accordingly. It should be obvious why.

I cannot agree.

Do you not read your children fairy tales?

Are those worthless in terms of the moral values they teach?

Your reply indicates that you either have no imagination, or lack the discernment or ability to make value judgements from a list of values. A pity that.

Regards
DL

I like a mind like yours that can take correction and make the necessary amendment to a thought. Nice to se such.

Perfect justice would be a subjective and individual call and because of that I do not think perfect justice can ever be defined.



Thanks.


Atheists tend not to believe in God so they will not believe in any literal view of any so called holy book.



Believers judge their Gods to be good so I would think that they are judging that good against what they perceive as evil. So yes, since the majority of us, who are believers, say that a lesser creature can judge a higher one.



I don't know but you are comparing apples/man, to an orange/ant.



Wow. You know how an ant thinks. Just kidding here buddy.



Abortion is not defined the same way as genocide so it is apples and oranges again, but I will opine.

I hate to see any potential human die, but also believe that all of our bodies are our own to do with as we will. I do not have the right to force a woman to have a child that she does not want.

I hope you would not force a single woman living in poverty to have a child, which statistically will do worse than children in a situation with two parents and a better lifestyle.



Yes, as long as you are recognizing that it's decisions likely match your subjective criteria.

IOW, you are the final arbiter of that court. Only you can know exactly why you do what you do and are the only one fit to judge yourself as far as you are concerned.

That does not mean that all your decisions will be correct but I think it means that you can always justify what you do to your own mind.

Regards
DL

I didn't mean they believe it, I mean they accept it as literal and reject it on such terms. As you reject the genocidal Yahweh-führer.



I don't think we have that capability. Where this comes up most is the problem of evil: if God is good, why does evil exist? Why doesn't he punish them? Why does he allow them to commit evil acts in the first place. From the human point of view such a problem is so simple. But can you even imagine a God's point of view? Can you excise evil from humanity? In doing so would you change humans so much that it would more or less amount to killing them all and replacing them with something else? If humanity is prevented from evil by some force, can they really be said to be good? Do they become no more than cattle with no free will? The problem is much more complex for a God-like being, I can't even pretend to understand such a problem fully. I like to see the Noah's Ark story (pretty sure it didn't happen as told) as God confronting the problem of evil and deeming that particular solution as the wrong one.



I would, whatever the child's statistical chances in life, that does not justify taking away his or her life.



Hehe no doubt, I've never had any Pauline visions or visits from arch-angels. But the idea of a possible higher court really focuses the mind on moral problems.
To take it to a civilisational level, imagine if you will two identical moral codes of your choosing. One code, however, says that death is not the end and you will be judged after you die on your behaviour in this life. Given man's nature which version of the code is more likely to survive and be properly defended? Which one is more likely to be followed properly? I think the answer is obvious and needs no reply.



This is a human problem, not a religious one. One I actually believe is more common in those who don't have the focusing effect of belief in a higher power. We find all kinds of ways to justify wrongdoing, believer or non-believer. Again abortion springs to mind. It's not murder says the rationalist, it's not a human, it's just a blob. Ok it might be murder, but it's fine in this instance because the feelings of the woman matter more, or probably the child will become a criminal loser anyway. Actually it's a moral good because the discomfort I might endure supersedes that right of the other to live, my body my rules.

I don't know about you but I detect a hint of self-justification here, a tint of rationalisation perhaps...