People want to be their own gods. Is that good or evil?

[Gnostic Bishop]

I don't disagree with you at all. I just wasn't thinking in those terms

I think it's morally wrong to adhere to dogma and worship heroes. To sum it up

- Lance

Yes and no. It depends on how you define dogma.

The Gnostic Christian dogma that I adhere to, I don't think immoral at all, while I think the Christian dogma is absolutely immoral. I show why with the link below.

Worship, as I stated above, is something Gnostic Christians never do. We do give credit where credit is due though.



Regards
DL

 

[Gloomp]

I can't really answer this question because I don't really believe in "good and evil" in their traditional sense — perhaps even not at all. I believe in healthy and unhealthy. To me, "good" is the antonym to egalitarianism, and I just cannot accept this. To me, "bad" is the denial of owns one class and celebration of power for the sake of psychological remediation of a neurosis you've come to accept.

 

[Wilson Wilson]

Have to agree with the above in that "good and evil" do not exist in any objective manner.

Strangely there are still many people who are not religious, yet they still believe deeply in some type of objective morality and with it the concept of good and evil. They apparently do not see the logical inconsistency in these views.

If you do not believe in religion, where is the objective morality coming from? Who creates it and enforces it? Who deems it objective?

If you are non-religious it is only logical to accept morality as subjective. If you do that, it only follows that there is no concept of good and evil beyond subjective moral judgements.

To put it more succinctly: Good is what you like. Evil is what you don't like.

 

[relex_author]

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.

I can

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I can't really answer this question because I don't really believe in "good and evil" in their traditional sense — perhaps even not at all. I believe in healthy and unhealthy. To me, "good" is the antonym to egalitarianism, and I just cannot accept this. To me, "bad" is the denial of owns one class and celebration of power for the sake of psychological remediation of a neurosis you've come to accept.

You are not really following the grammatical/dictionary use of words the common way.

That indicates that you are being your own master and god.

Carry on.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Have to agree with the above in that "good and evil" do not exist in any objective manner.

True that most moral tenets are subjective. I only ever offer two that are possibly objective.

Do you think that, --- the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, --- is an objective moral tenet? If not, can you show when it would not be?

Strangely there are still many people who are not religious, yet they still believe deeply in some type of objective morality

Do you recall on which moral tenets?

If you do not believe in religion, where is the objective morality coming from? Who creates it and enforces it? Who deems it objective?

From their god of course. IE. Islam thinks that the killing of apostates is an objective moral statement. Killing gays can be gleaned as a an objective moral statement in both Christianity and Islam as well as the notion that women are beneath and not equal to men.

I like the rest of your thinking.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I can

Good that you understand esoteric teachings and thinking.

You surprise given your other posts.

Regards
DL

 

[Wilson Wilson]

Do you think that, --- the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, --- is an objective moral tenet? If not, can you show when it would not be?

I do not believe it is objective. Because aside from anything else, how do you deem any moral view to be objective? As I already explained: unless you believe in an omnipotent god, you simply cannot logically believe in an objective morality. It does not logically follow.

Even if we happened to agree on this particular moral view (it's too broad and ambiguous for me to agree with, but for the sake of discussion) it still would not be objective, in the same way as if we both agreed Ford made the best cars, it still would not be an objective view - merely a subjective one we happen to share.

Do you recall on which moral tenets?

Among Western people, Christian ones. So you will get people who believe in traditional Christian morality, for example greed is a sin (they don't use the word "sin", but they might as well do) and this is just assumed true because "everyone thinks so." They believe it because everyone else believes it so they assume it must be objective. They are sheep without even following the shepherd.

From their god of course.

Exactly. So if one does not believe in a god, one has no reason to believe in objective morality.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

it's too broad

An objective moral tenet is supposed to be broad. So broad that there is never a way around it. That is what it is supposed to be.

You could not agree, yet unless you can find a case where the rule does not apply, it then must be an objective moral tenet, It would remain so until some new situation arises to change it to subjective.

You abject to a necessary condition to be objective. ?????

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Exactly. So if one does not believe in a god, one has no reason to believe in objective morality.

Morals are moral regardless of the source. Just because some person attributed it to a god does not negate whatever it is.

Regards
DL

 

[Wilson Wilson]

An objective moral tenet is supposed to be broad. So broad that there is never a way around it. That is what it is supposed to be.

Right, because they're created by religions to impart control on their followers. Why should non-religious people submit to such things?

You could not agree, yet unless you can find a case where the rule does not apply, it then must be an objective moral tenet

Nonsense. Objectivity implies proof beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no "proof" regarding morals because they're not quantifiable or tangible.

You could come out and say "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few" and I could simply counter "I only care about myself."

Who is objectively correct? Nobody.

Morals are moral regardless of the source. Just because some person attributed it to a god does not negate whatever it is.

Morals are merely beliefs subscribed to by human beings. If you accept that they are simply beliefs created by humans, you accept they are subjective, as humans can choose which beliefs to follow and unless an omnipotent god exists, no one belief is the objectively correct one.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Why should non-religious people submit to such things?

If it is a truth, be it from a religion or not, then why would you reject it?

A moral truth is just that regardless of the source.

Nonsense. Objectivity implies proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

True, and what I put is because you have not been able to create doubt by showing when it could be subjective. If you cannot, then it is likely an objective moral tenet.

"I only care about myself."

This shows your subjective view. It does not refute that this is possibly an objective moral tenet.

Regards
DL

 

[Gormur]

To me, morality has to do with how people think which is basically an instinctual trait. I'm sure it could be argued to death since it's a complex issue, but that's what it seems like to me

Religion is learned so it's more an intellectual trait that can be developed. You can certainly develop your mind to think a certain way and that's good too

How this may affect your behavior has to do with learning all these things

I think yes, we have a free will. That means we can choose to use it or not. If you don't use it however that doesn't mean you don't have it. You're just doing something else

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Religion is learned so it's more an intellectual trait that can be developed.

Intellectual?????

Sheeple are not know for that trait. Many are called but few hear it.

Have you ever read Martin Luther? Check the imbedded quote in my view of faith.

------

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the believers mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL

 

[Gormur]

I'm talking about human intelligence though, not whatever spiritual phenomena you're talking about. Faith would be a spiritual trait. It's not an acquired trait like learning how to reason

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'm talking about human intelligence though, not whatever spiritual phenomena you're talking about. Faith would be a spiritual trait. It's not an acquired trait like learning how to reason

If not acquired, it would be natural, as in born with it.

We are not born with faith in imaginary creatures.

Regards
DL

 

[Gormur]

Gnostic what do you think about talking to the dead? Apparently not the dead as in former humans, but actual dead people that have always been that way and I see them often. I think of them as the dead

I normally don't talk about this but it's been haunting me

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Gnostic what do you think about talking to the dead? Apparently not the dead as in former humans, but actual dead people that have always been that way and I see them often. I think of them as the dead

I normally don't talk about this but it's been haunting me

They may well exist in your mind. Read up on what Froud and Jung named their Father Complex. I see little value in their Oedipus Complex as they took their ideas to a stupid conclusion but the Father Complex was basically known from the time we began to call the gods Father.

FMPOV, if you are not just delusional, , is you accessing your brain's right hemisphere.

I have claimed pushing my apotheosis and some think that to being insane, even though the literature is full of it. I received good advice, be it from outside of myself or inside via my Father Complex. If not good advice I would reject the source regardless of who or what it was.

What advice are you getting?

If nothing new or worthy, I would tell those dead to ----- you know.

Regards
DL

 

[Gormur]

No it's not like that. It's real

I don't need to look anywhere I just wondered if this is something mentioned in anything you knew about

I certainly don't know about it and I've been studying demonology. With demons though, you figure out who they are pretty fast. This is just out of nowhere

Maybe a portal, I thought because the sound is there when they call to me but I can hear it fade out sometimes just before it goes away

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

No it's not like that. It's real

I don't need to look anywhere I just wondered if this is something mentioned in anything you knew about

I certainly don't know about it and I've been studying demonology. With demons though, you figure out who they are pretty fast. This is just out of nowhere

Maybe a portal, I thought because the sound is there when they call to me but I can hear it fade out sometimes just before it goes away

Whatever one hears is interpreted by our minds just as all we see.

Better to think what you are experiencing is natural and not supernatural. Supernatural beliefs are for children. Not for adults.

Yours is a subjective experience and should be viewed as natural without a confirmation of the reality of the thing somehow.

Regards
DL