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
Which commandments do you think are superior; Yahweh’s or Gnostic Christianity’s?
- Greatest I am
- Senior Member
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
- Diet: Vegan
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10280
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Which commandments do you think are superior; Yahweh’s or Gnostic Christianity’s?
Based on what meta-ethics, and why not just leave it at those meta-ethics?Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am 1. You shall place no commandments above these unless proven to be morally superior.
Why do people with unequal outcomes deserve that punishment?Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am2. You shall value all people as equal before the law. The inequality of outcome is punishment enough of itself.
Is this anti-welfare?
That's not the golden rule, it's not "do unto others as they do unto you", it's doing as you would want done to you, which is, considering their interests.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am3. You shall live by the golden rule and respond with reciprocity of harm or care to what is done to you.
Even if somebody is cruel to you, the golden rule says to be kind to them because you would want kindness. Answering cruelty with cruelty only makes more cruelty.
OK except the gnosis part, which is usually a kind of faith.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am4. Use Gnosis and put logic and reason and their proofs above faith, which by its nature has no proofs, logic or reason.
It's a nice thought, but could be futile. Futile endeavors are more likely to cause people to give up. Instead of a futile command, a focus on reducing harm is more achievable and likely to motivate people.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am5. You shall leave the environment in a better condition than what is given to you as an inheritance to your next generation.
Too politicized, this seems to be based on opposition to national debt. The thing is, much of that debt is incurred to produce the next generation. Education and health care expenses for the young are pretty high. Creating new people to replace the ones dying off is quite the task.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am6. 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.
When it comes to parents and children, it's not an "us vs them" situation, children are the future us, and nobody wants to saddle them with a burden; that's a straw man employed by the far right.
- Greatest I am
- Senior Member
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Which commandments do you think are superior; Yahweh’s or Gnostic Christianity’s?
It is not too politicizing to say that we should not pass on debts instead of profits to our children.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:42 pmMine.Based on what meta-ethics, and why not just leave it at those meta-ethics?Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am 1. You shall place no commandments above these unless proven to be morally superior.No. I do not think the deserve that punishment but nature reward the fittest and punishes the less fit.Why do people with unequal outcomes deserve that punishment?Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am2. You shall value all people as equal before the law. The inequality of outcome is punishment enough of itself.
Is this anti-welfare?Yet that is what reciprocity is all about.That's not the golden rule, it's not "do unto others as they do unto you", it's doing as you would want done to you, which is, considering their interests.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am3. You shall live by the golden rule and respond with reciprocity of harm or care to what is done to you.
Even if somebody is cruel to you, the golden rule says to be kind to them because you would want kindness. Answering cruelty with cruelty only makes more cruelty.
You would return evil with good while ignoring that to reward evil with good only encourages evil.
I follow this quote more.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
No. It is more of a process that seeks facts.OK except the gnosis part, which is usually a kind of faith.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am4. Use Gnosis and put logic and reason and their proofs above faith, which by its nature has no proofs, logic or reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9QI3nlinYQUnless living in a place of increasing hardship or degradation, there is no reason for leaving garbage for our children to deal with.It's a nice thought, but could be futile. Futile endeavors are more likely to cause people to give up. Instead of a futile command, a focus on reducing harm is more achievable and likely to motivate people.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am5. You shall leave the environment in a better condition than what is given to you as an inheritance to your next generation.
Too politicized, this seems to be based on opposition to national debt. The thing is, much of that debt is incurred to produce the next generation. Education and health care expenses for the young are pretty high. Creating new people to replace the ones dying off is quite the task.Greatest I am wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:38 am6. 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.
When it comes to parents and children, it's not an "us vs them" situation, children are the future us, and nobody wants to saddle them with a burden; that's a straw man employed by the far right.
It is what loving people would do.
You are right that children are the future so why anyone would want to cripple our future selves is beyond me.
Of course children are expensive to teach etc., but having them pay their way now or later is child slavery. Call it all a straw man if you like but to ignore our own immoral adult actions is not going to improve our morality today.
If parents and adults cannot sacrifice for their kids, shame on us.
Perhaps that lack of sacrifice our children see in us is why 50% of all households are now manned by single women. Is that another straw man?
Regards
DL