Christians judge god as good. Gnostic Christians judge god a

Christians judge god as good. Gnostic Christians judge god as evil. Which religion is correct?

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Richard Dawkins.

I say shame on all Christians for not judging justly and being morally corrupt.

I offer as evidence of Yahweh’s corruption one simple fact. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This is god setting a bribe price to reverse his usual justice of punishing the innocent to punishing the guilty. This shows his moral and ethical corruption. It also show Jesus as just as corrupt as he went along with it.

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

What is your judgement?

Regards
DL

vimeo.com/7038401

What difference does it make how we judge God? God is as God is and nothing we say or do can change it.

If you don’t like the morality laid out by Jesus then don’t follow it.

Gnostic Christians believe that God is bad?
Or do they consider what is described in the OT to be bad, but not a description of God.

Where are the Gnostic writings that support this idea? And why should we believe that a well known atheist can support Gnostic ideas?

There’s all kinds of Gnosticism. As there are a thousand and one variety of Protestant Christian (singular, sic).

However, to be conciliatory, there is some rough sense to the claim. Pius XI answers by saying that “the flesh of human weakness” has led to imperfect understanding of god in the interpretation of holy scriptures. More to the point, Cardinal Newman, much earlier, layed down a doctrine of the development of doctrine. So, one can say, at least among the Catholics there is no sense to your claim. Their teaching is that God is love, simpliciter. It is simply that humans are mediated by the order of nature. God is not a created being, but the sheer possibility of being. Man is not, on their teaching, man is like a house missing three walls that collapses, in privative state of being.

Also, no Catholic of education in the teaching reads the books of Moses like that, they consider that idiotic in the extreme. And some are simply Analytic Catholics, meaning they regard the selection of the texts as a rational a priori, ergo, they exclude crazy texts. More often, however, what they say is, the Bible is a library, one doesn’t “take the library literally”, that’s just stupid. One takes the parts meant to be taken literally literally, not the other sections.

In short, your post is based on ill-informed assumptions. That said, surely one can find Catholics that talk all sorts of imbecilities that would make you right. But, is one to go to those most entitled by ability and learning to speak of the faith, or the lay believer? That decision is the difference between Dawkins and serious persons. It is, of course, much easier to make sport of a caricature than to confront a teaching in its strongest form as set out by it most serious representatives.

For the Catholic, God is mystery, for the Gnostic God is unknowable. Mystery reveals itself, but never in toto, the unknowable not at all.

Well said. There is a tendency, including of course online, to struggle against the easiest version of those one disagrees with. That’s even doing oneself a disservice.