You assume he fears to, what if he is merely uninterested in you. Also are you referring to a universal coming out of the cupboard by showing or do you mean individually.
A lot of people claim to detect recurring patterns in history, now imagine how it looks to an all-knowing or even simply multidimensional being. Very boring huh.
You presume that humans can and will understand God, does your pet fully understand and anticipate you? Sure there is a level of implicit telepathy with a familiar cat but that cat doesn't understand half of what goes through your mind and probably doesn't care.
Now, if you can ignore ego and pride for a moment, imagine you are the cat and God is the human.

You assume he fears to, what if he is merely uninterested in you — New2K2

If so, then reciprocity should be applied and we should ignore [him] as well.

[edited by moderator]

do you mean individually. — New2K2

In any way.

Very boring huh. — New2K2

I cannot speak for an imaginary supernatural entity. Like everyone else, I have no access to some supernatural realm. [delted].

does your pet fully understand and anticipate you? — New2K2

Yes. Close enough.

telepathy with a familiar cat but that cat doesn't understand half of what goes through your mind and probably doesn't care. — New2K2

They can understand enough to know if they should be upset or not with our thoughts.

Now, if you can ignore ego and pride for a moment, imagine you are the cat and God is the human. — New2K2

Ok. I see god as [deleted] genocidal [deleted] as he murdered all of the cats and dogs, except for two of each of course.

[deleted]}.

Regards
DL

:grin: Mincing the fresh meat ?... but fails to lift the fetid word salad !

I am very much of the view that many thinkers of the past are in a different league, intellectually, to most of those around today. But their intelligence lies in their ability to channel reason - to listen and report accurately what she says. So why not just present their arguments rather than quote from texts as if the text - rather than reason - has authority in these matters?

Twaddle !
That's a bit of supercilious pomposity from someone who hasn't bothered to do much reading.

In particular, what you call 'reasoning' takes no account of the Zeigeist from which philosophical axioms emerge, or rely on for their semantic import. Nor do you seem to have the slightest idea about the limitations to classical logic emerging from say from Godels incompleteness theorem, or the QM departure from the 'law of the excluded middle'.

So not only does your remark underscore your own indolence, it feeds the troll whose idiosyncratic mythology puts 'reason' on a pedestal.

So why not just present their arguments rather than quote from texts as if the text - rather than reason - has authority in these matters? — Bartricks

As in the brighter days of religions, we tend to give authority to the people of the book.

Intelligently so when studying Judaism and Christianity, unfortunately, the book and it's ideas have been corrupted by Christian liars and the manipulation of the text, which is a myth that stupid people read literally and as history.

The bible was written as a book of wisdom, but literal reading screwed up the wisdom.

Regards
DL

mythology puts 'reason' on a pedestal. — fresco

Mythology does the opposite.

Logos, not mythos, puts logic and reason above the faith of fools.

Regards
DL

...'logos' being your particular idiosyncratic myth.

'logos' means a lot of things. It can even mean Jesus.

...but all tinged with myth !

I probably agree, but what do you mean?

I mean that the mythology employed by gnostics uses logos as a key concept in a mystical sense generally denoting 'ultimate divine order' or 'absolute reason'. There is, of course, an element of 'word magic' associated with logos, which manitests in religions in various forms...''in the beginning was the word'...'holy writ'....'words as the currency of thought'....'the gift of thinking' as creativity...etc, which contribute to the vague semantic field in which esoteric cults like gnosticism dabble for their roots.

I'm sure God would love to show up and put an end to all the speculations once and for all. Alas, he's facing one insurmountable problem - his own inexistence. Poor chap to this day hasn't invented a way out of this conundrum.

Logically, it does not follow.

OK, sounds like I agree. There are so many gnosticisms, that perhaps such things do not apply to some of them, but otherwise, same page.

'logos' being your particular idiosyncratic myth. — fresco

No wonder you try to get definitions ahead of a discussion. You misuse terms and likely think wee all do.

Regards
DL

I mean that the mythology employed by gnostics uses logos as a key concept in a mystical sense generally denoting 'ultimate divine order' or 'absolute reason'. — fresco

As perpetual seekers, we do not recognize any ultimate divine order or absolute reason.

That would be idol worshiping and make us no better than the mainstream religion idol worshipers.

We were known as the only good Christians because we did not idol worship and always put man above god, given that all the gods are man made.

Regards
DL

enqramot — enqramot

This.

Regards
DL

Logically, it does not follow. — The Owl

A little wordy, but thanks for the argument.

You win this one.

Regards
DL

OK, sounds like I agree. There are so many gnosticisms, that perhaps such things do not apply to some of them, but otherwise, same page. — Coben

There is only one basic Gnostic Christianity and our friend does not have a clue as to what that looks like.

This is not surprising given the lies the inquisitors put out to justify their many murders.

We have also evolved our thinking over time, which shows the beauty of our ideology.

Regards
DL

There is only one basic Gnostic Christianity and our friend does not have a clue as to what that looks like. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Is there a core text for this one basic (true, it would seem) Gnosticism? You mention we - are there meetings? a webpage? IOW he was basing his ideas, and I think oversimplifying them, on what are called gnostic writings. Fine, you see much of this as false, as not true gnostics - much as various subsets of major religions might make the same kinds of distinctions. What are the core texts, if any, of your true Gnosticism?

Is there a core text for this one basic (true, it would seem) Gnosticism? — Coben

The core text to a Gnostic is denoted by his label. As a Gnostic Christian, my core text is the bible. A Gnosticv Muslim's core text will be the Qur'an.

The core of Gnosticism is not tied to any particular text as one can be a Gnostic to any religion of thinking system.

Being Gnostic does have a core ideology though. It denotes a free thinkers not tied to any particular ideology.

We, like the bible states, think wisdom can only be perfected and found in many places. Gnostic would also de defined as esoteric ecumenists and in my case, naturalist.

That is what scriptures urge all people to be and do so as not to be idol worshipers of any ideology.

Regards
DL

Reading your text only convinces me of your dislike of mainstream Christianity, it's interesting that you can't make a statement without insulting or castigating. That said since you know so much about the Bible how come you are under the impression that it was "written"

bible was written as a book of wisdom, but literal reading screwed up the wisdom. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Reading your text only convinces me of your dislike of mainstream Christianity, — New2K2

Dislike is mild.
I think hate would be closer to the truth. I say that proudly as such evil should be hated.

At least I hope it is as hate is born from love and that would show that I have a lot of love for the victims of G D immoral religions.

Would you like Christianity if they had decimated your founding religion and most of it's adherents?

Regards
DL

New2K2 — New2K2

I use this almost as a signature sometimes.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

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

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.

Regards
DL

I believe you are arguing the following. Let me know if I am wrong.

1. If God does not show himself, then he fears to show himself.
2. God does not show himself.
3. Therefore, God fears to show himself. (1, 2 MP)

4. If God fears to show himself, then God is a coward.
5. Therefore, God is a coward. (3, 4 MP)

6. If God is a coward, then he is not worthy of the title “God.”
7. Therefore, God is not God. (5, 6 MP)

I’d like to object to premises 1 and 2.

First – an objection to the inference in premise 1. You are claiming that the reason that God does not show himself is out of fear. You have not offered any evidence to support this claim. I think your inference is incorrect because there are other reasons that God might not show himself, if that is true. For example, if God were to show himself to us, to an extent that we would know for certain that he exists, we would have no choice but to believe in him. If we had no choice but to believe in him, then we would not have free will in our act of belief.

For clarification, here is my argument in a hypothetical syllogism.

1. If God were to clearly show himself to us (to an extent that we would know for certain that he exists) then we would have no choice but to believe in him.
2. If we had no choice but to believe in him, then we would not have free will in our act of belief.
3. If God were to clearly show himself to us, then we would not have free will in our act of belief.

If your conception of God values free will, then this justifies why one could think that your inference is incorrect.

Second – an objection to premise 2, “God does not show himself.”

We’ve established that if you believe mankind should have free will, then God cannot clearly show himself to the extent that the evidence would be insurmountable. Our only other option is to look for subtler signs of God. Many people have argued that there are signs of God in the organization of the world, and how intricately it appears designed. Others believe they can see God manifested in instances of selflessness and love between other people. Clearly, both of these arguments are complex and require further justification. But for the sake of the objection, I think these two points makes your second premise unsound.

My argument is as follows:

1. If you believe mankind should have free will, then God cannot clearly show himself.
2. Mankind should have free will.
3. Therefore, God cannot clearly show himself. (1, 2 MP)
4. If God cannot clearly show himself, then he either doesn’t show himself at all, or he shows himself subtly.
5. So, either God doesn’t show himself at all, or he shows himself subtly. (3, 4 MP)
6. God shows himself subtly.
7. Therefore, it is not true that God doesn’t show himself at all. (5, 6 DS)

Let me know your thoughts and if I have inaccurately represented your argument.

I agree. Alll his posts seem to be either rants or axes to grind.

Who knows he could be a Fundamentalist in hiding testing his own ideas and using the forum (us) as a proving ground for his rants...

I could see if his posts were different but they're all about the excact same thing... .
I recommended to have him channel his anger in some sort of activism rather than clogging up the server space here LOL

He needs to find an outlet for the pent-up anger and I'm worried he might otherwise get violent.... this is a concern....

Op is begging the question - illogical. God is a “He”?? What other definitions of god is OP using? Probably the most ridiculous, easiest to refute (strawman), while ignoring doctrine like “God is Truth and Love,” “the kingdom of God is within you” & “I AM THAT I AM” which suggests God is not something outside you but within you.

Thus, op seems to be projecting - making god into his own image. We all do that but some of us hate the shadow aspects of ourselves and project that hate outwardly.

We’ve established that if you believe mankind should have free will, then God cannot clearly show himself to the extent that the evidence would be insurmountable. — philorelkook

Reality has a way of being reality and yes, it has evidence.

Do you have something against knowing the truth?

We, --- have not established that. Our free will has nothing to do with god showing himself or not.
This question is more about his free will.

Regards
DL

First – an objection to the inference in premise 1. You are claiming that the reason that God does not show himself is out of fear. You have not offered any evidence to support this claim. — philorelkook

Evidence on any supernatural god is impossible to have, unless you have a way of accessing some supernatural realm.

Do you have such a way?

6. God shows himself subtly. — philorelkook

Show when and where.

Regards
DL