Well, here's the interesting thing to me. I wrote,
So you think you're "ecumenical," even though you're "esoteric." In other words, you think everybody would agree with you if they understood their own ideology or religion correctly, but they don't, and only you do...because you have the gnostic (esoteric) reading, and they don't.
Kind of imperious, don't you think? You say you know more about what everyone else is actually believing than they do? I dare say they might be quite offended, and justly so, I would say. However, I recognize this as normal Gnostic explanation, so I'm not terribly surprised. They might be, though.
And in response, you wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:I think you have your definition or esoteric ecumenist wrong. That or you are trying to be insulting. Either way, let me give you the proper definition....
And yet, just a few lines earlier, you told me the following: that neither Yaweh nor Allah are the Supreme Being, but are rather both demiurges, and they "connect at the hip," you said.
Sure. Because Yahweh and Allah, some connect at the hip. So to speak.
So to summarize, you're saying I don't really know who my God is. But you do, because you're an "Esoteric Ecumenist." My God is what you think he is, not whatever I think...so you say...
In light of your response, what part of my definition was anything but accurate? You just did exactly what I attributed to you.
Yes, morality is a human construct and we all have our own mental view of what that is.
If so, there is no "real" morality. So nothing is wrong. Nothing is right either. Even Gnosticism isn't right, unless somebody imagines it is, and then only for them, and only as long as they keep imagining it is. But objectively, it's not "good" to be a Gnostic, nor "bad" not to be a Gnostic.
Have I got you...er..."right"?
Our selfish gene and instincts prompts us to value life.
So? That's just a fact (if it's true: but there are serious problems with "selfish gene" theory anyway). Even granting it, it's a
fact, not a
value. That takes us only as far as saying some of us MAY value life, but if I choose not to, I'm not wrong. In fact, if I want to kill people for fun, and feel I can get away with it, there is no objective moral holding me back from so doing.
...maintain the best possible life.
You haven't even given us any meaning for "best". What is this "best" life you're talking about? How do we know it's the "best"?
You do say this:
Best is set through debate and discussion of options as well as our own feelings of rightness based on logic and reason. Best is something that has to be gotten by consensus in our tribal groups.
Is it the tribe or the individual that knows what's "best"? For it must be abundantly clear to you that some individuals do not agree with the "tribe." I speak not just of outliers like Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer, but also of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King. They all defied their "tribes" in one way or another. Each had a "best" quite opposite to the "best" of the tribe. And "consensus" was clearly against the ones we now recognize as seeking what we would call "best."
You have no concept of "best" you can defend so far.
Why is it wrong to seek my self-interest, instead of the common weal?
We are tribal animals and I do not see those terms as mutually exclusive. I see them working together.
If true, it's also a fact and not a value. If one animal breaks ranks and starts killing the others, what makes that "bad" or "wrong"? Did you not say there are no such terms beyond the judgment of the individual? But the individual is the one doing the killing...so...?
Yes indeed. Very, very sketchy. Tacitus couldn't spell...so somebody corrected him, and therefore...what? Nothing. Forgive me, but it's all a bit of a conspiracy theory.
Now, in fact, the term "Christian" was not invented by Christians. It was a name slapped on them by outsiders in Antioch (Acts 11:26). The early Christians just called themselves "The Way." But you know, that should surprise nobody -- at least, nobody who knows his Bible. And what does it matter? Why care what they preferred to be called, if their beliefs were what they were? And we know what they were, so that fixes that.
Moreover, we know that the early "Christians" were rejectors of Gnosticism, as are modern Christians. We see that in Ephesians, for example, where the Gnostic idea of the
pleroma is flatly contradicted and dismissed as incompatible with understanding Christ. And this is why...
Gnostic Christians.
... is a term like "married bachelors" or "square circles." It's an oxymoron. One is a Gnostic, or one is a Christian. Nobody's both, because they are
mutually exclusive beliefs. For example, you can't say both that the world-creator is the Supreme Being, and that He's a demiurge among other demiurges. Law of Non-Contradiction. But also, Gnostic "wisdom" is flatly rejected by the Bible.
In any case, if individuals are the source of "best" or "truth," your Gnosticism and my Christianity don't agree. That should be pretty clear by now, don't you think? And clearly, if Gnostic communities and Christian communities do not agree, then their "best" isn't the same either.
You need an objective "best." But I'm not seeing one.
