[ - ] Reunto 1 point 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 19:44:30 ago (+2/-1)
Imagine the same quote "tell me you love me and make it sincere."
But instead of a depiction of God holding you over a fire, you are currently in the fire and God has his hand reached out reciprocally so that you can take hold and be pulled out.
Additionally, while you stand in the fire and God waits for you to take His hand, He is preserving you and giving you the choice right up until the moment of your death to take His offer. You sit in the fire currently uninjured, more or less completely unaware of the miracle of how He is keeping you from the pain of the fire.
God knows your heart and will know exactly what you need to accept Him. But just like Paul's time as a persecutor of Christians, it may be the case that you have a winding path before you reach the point of accepting God's gift.
That's the basically the Catholic perspective.
In your post, the quote is fine, it's the picture that is wrong.
What dumb, cultish twisted logic. Yahweh is that one that created Hell! He didn't save you from it, he created it for you if you don't blindly believe in him without evidence! Even if he showed he existed I wouldn't worship such an evil and petty god! Muslims believe Christians are going to Hell, billions of them do! Are you not going to accept Allah's offer and his prophet Muhammad or will you reject him and burn in Hell forever?
[ - ] Reunto 1 point 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 21:00:09 ago (+1/-0)
Moslems also believe that all Moslems go to hell first, and then go to heaven after (with the exception of Jesus who directly ascended to the throne of heaven). Moslems believe that Christians and Jews continue to burn in hell in their place.
Islam is also an internally self-inconsistent belief system (see the Islam Dilemma). Meaning anyone led by logic is going to reject Islam the moment they see the problem.
What dumb, cultish twisted logic. Yahweh is that one that created Hell!
Hell is a separation from God. Free will enables us to choose to be separated from God. God gave us free will. Misused free will can lead to hell. God didn't predestine us for hell-fire. It is in our spiritual nature to call to God to seek Him.
In Catholic doctrine, all humans (save for the key exceptions) have inherited original sin from Adam. From Catholic doctrine we begin life in a fallen state and require God to restore us, continually regenerate us, and make us whole.
I don't know which narrative you are playing this week, but even from the Marcion perspective, God aims to help restore us and Demiurge (Satan, basically) is the force aiming to cause chaos and pain.
Marcion ... Islam... Etc
I get the sense that your metanarrative is to push the question "Why this form of God over others that are depicted?"
That question voices a pathos argument. And the effort to depict the Christian God as cruel and incongruent with moral sensibility is also a pathos argument.
Nothing wrong with a balanced pathos argument.
But in order to evaluate your pathos arguments, we need to understand why you feel that way.
I believe your arguments boil down to this:
1) "Out of many contemplated versions of God presented in religions, The Christian God is not the most compelling depiction of God, therefore can't be settled as truth"
2) "The Christian God exhibits evil behaviour despite being called good, therefore is internally inconsistent and therein is compellingly not true"
Do these two argument spearheads represent your position?
Moslems also believe that all Moslems go to hell first, and then go to heaven after
No wonder muslims are the way they are. With a view like that you would be deranged.
Catholic doctrine, all humans (save for the key exceptions) have inherited original sin from Adam.
Eve tempted Adam after she ate it. What?
I don't know which narrative you are playing this week
I play narratives?
I get the sense that your metanarrative is to push the question "Why this form of God over others that are depicted?"
Because I was always told that god is all loving and merciful. But thats not the case at all reading the Old Testament and the idea of Hell.
1) "Out of many contemplated versions of God presented in religions, The Christian God is not the most compelling depiction of God, therefore can't be settled as truth"
2) "The Christian God exhibits evil behaviour despite being called good, therefore is internally inconsistent and therein is compellingly not true"
I am a Gnostic Christian. We believe that the god of the old testament is the Demiurge and that Christ came to save us from him. The Council of Nicaea changed the story around because they worship the false god.
I am a Gnostic Christian. We believe that the god of the old testament is the Demiurge and that Christ came to save us from him. The Council of Nicaea changed the story around because they worship the false god.
I think the entire Marcion-style Gnostic Christianity is interesting. I remember learning about it either here or on old voat, but I'm not really zeroed into the doctrinal differences yet. My impression was that it basically just ejects the Old Testament and select portions of the New. But I don't have a deep enough sense of what the belief structure is like.
Is Christ sent to free mortal men from the "god of this world"? (2 Cor 4:4)
If so, if Christ is still considered the redeemer in your form of Gnostic Christianity, it would stand that anyone not yet in the process of salvation starts in that fire and through intervention is pulled from it. That still fits with the picture I proposed in one of my previous comments.
So then it comes back to the question about why would you be reluctant to accept the premise that the OP picture doesn't accurately reflect the God depicted in Catholic tradition?
The Council of Nicaea changed the story
You are basically just proposing that these two religions are running off of two separate cannons.
It would then especially be the case that "catholics and protties" don't believe in what the OP picture is presenting. From a "catholic and protty" lens, the picture isn't true.
So then we are back to comparing apples and oranges. Two canons that say different things. And between them, the need to weigh each to see which is more compelling.
But from a Catholic perspective reflecting on Catholic canon and doctrine, you're likely going to see and understand how moral objections to Catholicism are usually based on misunderstandings rather than genuine criticism of the doctrines.
If someone rejects Catholicism because they want to marry their first cousin, and feel the denial is an affront to their moral sensibilities, hey, that's a reason I guess, but it likely won't be a compelling reason for many people. Many people would take the stance that Catholicism got that part right.
The real question is whether you can identify something morally objectionable that would cast a net on a wide range of people.
Do you actually feel the God of Christianity is "evil and petty"? Make your case.
Is Christ sent to free mortal men from the "god of this world"? (2 Cor 4:4)
There is many other verses you can find sprinkled throughout the Bible with gnostic teachings.
It would then especially be the case that "catholics and protties" don't believe in what the OP picture is presenting. From a "catholic and protty" lens, the picture isn't true.
They both believe that if you don't believe in the Christian god and don't accept him "into your heart" that you will burn in Hell forever after you die. They also believe that anyone that didn't know of Jesus automatically goes to Heaven, making Jesus a horrible thing to learn about!
Do you actually feel the God of Christianity is "evil and petty"? Make your case.
Yahweh is evil and jealous, I know this from reading about him from the Bible. The Monad and Jesus are good. Isaiah 45:7
"arguing over whether we should have jewish run central banks or jewish run central planning committees is just a tactic to divide whites further!"
"arguing over whether we should vote for jewish owned progressive democrats or jewish jewish owned neocon republicans is just a tactic to divide whites further!"
Yes, a tactic created by jews. The solution is not to all unite around one jewish side or the other, but to STOP GETTING YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM FROM jEWS.
Throw out every book in your bible that was written by jews and you'll have nothing left.
Your holy book literally says that jews should take over the world through trickery and debt slavery.
The jews control media, politics, finance, history, and science but you think your holy book that says your messiah came from judea to fulfill the words of the prophets from the jewish torah is somehow free from jewish control.
Literally just stop to think objectively about your religion and you will realize it's just as jewish as islam, satanism, communist atheism, libertarian atheism, new age, communism, zionism, and a bunch of other jewish belief systems. The only difference is it's ten times as obvious that it's jewish because your holy book begins with the same torah and tanakh that jews still worship from.
Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against. ‘Father will be divided against son and son against father; mother against daughter and daughter against mother; and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. - Luke 12:51-53
If I'm being divisive then you should thank me for doing your jew lord's work.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 1 point 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 19:44:30 ago (+2/-1)
But instead of a depiction of God holding you over a fire, you are currently in the fire and God has his hand reached out reciprocally so that you can take hold and be pulled out.
Additionally, while you stand in the fire and God waits for you to take His hand, He is preserving you and giving you the choice right up until the moment of your death to take His offer. You sit in the fire currently uninjured, more or less completely unaware of the miracle of how He is keeping you from the pain of the fire.
God knows your heart and will know exactly what you need to accept Him. But just like Paul's time as a persecutor of Christians, it may be the case that you have a winding path before you reach the point of accepting God's gift.
That's the basically the Catholic perspective.
In your post, the quote is fine, it's the picture that is wrong.
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan [op] -1 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 20:12:59 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 1 point 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 21:00:09 ago (+1/-0)
Islam is also an internally self-inconsistent belief system (see the Islam Dilemma). Meaning anyone led by logic is going to reject Islam the moment they see the problem.
Hell is a separation from God. Free will enables us to choose to be separated from God. God gave us free will. Misused free will can lead to hell. God didn't predestine us for hell-fire. It is in our spiritual nature to call to God to seek Him.
In Catholic doctrine, all humans (save for the key exceptions) have inherited original sin from Adam. From Catholic doctrine we begin life in a fallen state and require God to restore us, continually regenerate us, and make us whole.
I don't know which narrative you are playing this week, but even from the Marcion perspective, God aims to help restore us and Demiurge (Satan, basically) is the force aiming to cause chaos and pain.
I get the sense that your metanarrative is to push the question "Why this form of God over others that are depicted?"
That question voices a pathos argument. And the effort to depict the Christian God as cruel and incongruent with moral sensibility is also a pathos argument.
Nothing wrong with a balanced pathos argument.
But in order to evaluate your pathos arguments, we need to understand why you feel that way.
I believe your arguments boil down to this:
1) "Out of many contemplated versions of God presented in religions, The Christian God is not the most compelling depiction of God, therefore can't be settled as truth"
2) "The Christian God exhibits evil behaviour despite being called good, therefore is internally inconsistent and therein is compellingly not true"
Do these two argument spearheads represent your position?
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan [op] 0 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 22:32:14 ago (+0/-0)
No wonder muslims are the way they are. With a view like that you would be deranged.
Eve tempted Adam after she ate it. What?
I play narratives?
Because I was always told that god is all loving and merciful. But thats not the case at all reading the Old Testament and the idea of Hell.
I am a Gnostic Christian. We believe that the god of the old testament is the Demiurge and that Christ came to save us from him. The Council of Nicaea changed the story around because they worship the false god.
[ + ] Reunto
[ - ] Reunto 0 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 23:15:30 ago (+0/-0)
I think the entire Marcion-style Gnostic Christianity is interesting. I remember learning about it either here or on old voat, but I'm not really zeroed into the doctrinal differences yet. My impression was that it basically just ejects the Old Testament and select portions of the New. But I don't have a deep enough sense of what the belief structure is like.
Is Christ sent to free mortal men from the "god of this world"? (2 Cor 4:4)
If so, if Christ is still considered the redeemer in your form of Gnostic Christianity, it would stand that anyone not yet in the process of salvation starts in that fire and through intervention is pulled from it. That still fits with the picture I proposed in one of my previous comments.
So then it comes back to the question about why would you be reluctant to accept the premise that the OP picture doesn't accurately reflect the God depicted in Catholic tradition?
You are basically just proposing that these two religions are running off of two separate cannons.
It would then especially be the case that "catholics and protties" don't believe in what the OP picture is presenting. From a "catholic and protty" lens, the picture isn't true.
So then we are back to comparing apples and oranges. Two canons that say different things. And between them, the need to weigh each to see which is more compelling.
But from a Catholic perspective reflecting on Catholic canon and doctrine, you're likely going to see and understand how moral objections to Catholicism are usually based on misunderstandings rather than genuine criticism of the doctrines.
If someone rejects Catholicism because they want to marry their first cousin, and feel the denial is an affront to their moral sensibilities, hey, that's a reason I guess, but it likely won't be a compelling reason for many people. Many people would take the stance that Catholicism got that part right.
The real question is whether you can identify something morally objectionable that would cast a net on a wide range of people.
Do you actually feel the God of Christianity is "evil and petty"? Make your case.
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan [op] 0 points 3 monthsJan 28, 2025 01:18:50 ago (+0/-0)
There is many other verses you can find sprinkled throughout the Bible with gnostic teachings.
They both believe that if you don't believe in the Christian god and don't accept him "into your heart" that you will burn in Hell forever after you die. They also believe that anyone that didn't know of Jesus automatically goes to Heaven, making Jesus a horrible thing to learn about!
Yahweh is evil and jealous, I know this from reading about him from the Bible. The Monad and Jesus are good. Isaiah 45:7
[ + ] dirtywhiteboy
[ - ] dirtywhiteboy -1 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 17:52:58 ago (+2/-3)
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 3 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 18:16:47 ago (+4/-1)
"arguing over whether we should vote for jewish owned progressive democrats or jewish jewish owned neocon republicans is just a tactic to divide whites further!"
Yes, a tactic created by jews. The solution is not to all unite around one jewish side or the other, but to STOP GETTING YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM FROM jEWS.
Throw out every book in your bible that was written by jews and you'll have nothing left.
[ + ] dirtywhiteboy
[ - ] dirtywhiteboy -1 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 18:19:12 ago (+1/-2)
Good job. You really showed me, retard.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 2 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 18:34:29 ago (+3/-1)
The jews control media, politics, finance, history, and science but you think your holy book that says your messiah came from judea to fulfill the words of the prophets from the jewish torah is somehow free from jewish control.
Literally just stop to think objectively about your religion and you will realize it's just as jewish as islam, satanism, communist atheism, libertarian atheism, new age, communism, zionism, and a bunch of other jewish belief systems. The only difference is it's ten times as obvious that it's jewish because your holy book begins with the same torah and tanakh that jews still worship from.
[ + ] dirtywhiteboy
[ - ] dirtywhiteboy -1 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 18:36:48 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 18:41:06 ago (+0/-0)
If I'm being divisive then you should thank me for doing your jew lord's work.
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan [op] 0 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 18:29:05 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] dirtywhiteboy
[ - ] dirtywhiteboy 0 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 18:37:23 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan [op] -2 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 18:41:31 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -3 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 17:40:16 ago (+0/-3)
[ + ] GreatSatan
[ - ] GreatSatan [op] -1 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 18:27:48 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 3 monthsJan 27, 2025 18:39:53 ago (+0/-1)