If you already accept the God of natural law, why do you need Revelation?

If you already accept the God of natural law, why do you need Revelation?

Attached: 1540295577860.jpg (640x1136, 89K)

THE ONE WHO RULES NATURE IS IALDABAOTH, THE DEMIOURGOS, NOT GOD; GOD IS THE ABSOLUTE ETERNAL ONE WHO PERSISTS BEYOND EVERYTHING, AND EVERYONE.

Explain? This sentence is so obscure I can read it so many ways. Most charitably read, I take it you are asking if one needs revelation given one accepts God, but presupposing some deistic understanding of God. Accurate?

and thereby also within everyone, and everything. Including 'evil' which is really just disorder on a human scale; synthetic and still a part of order.

Accurate, yes. Why not just be a deist? What does Revelation give you that justifies the leap of faith it requires you to take?

1. EVERYONE, AND EVERYTHING, IS WITHIN GOD, NOT GOD WITHIN EVERYTHING, AND EVERYONE.

2. THERE IS DIVINE ORDER, AND DEMIOURGIC ORDER; EVIL IS, EITHER, ORDERED, OR DISORDERED; DISORDERED EVIL IS SATANISTIC; ORDERED EVIL IS DEMIOURGIC.

3. ESSENTIALLY, EVIL IS ANTITHETICAL TO DIVINE ORDER, THEREFORE, TO CLAIM THAT EVIL IS PART OF DIVINE ORDER —WHICH IS WHAT YOU MEAN— CONSTITUTES AN ABSURDITY.

4. EVIL WAS NOT CREATED BY GOD, NOR DID IT COME FROM NOTHING; EVIL HAS A SOURCE; THAT SOURCE IS THE DEMIOURGOS, IALDABAOTH.

>EVIL WAS NOT CREATED BY GOD
everything is created by God.

Well, people who think revelations are true (or some subset of the claimed revelations out there) say that important details about things like one's eternal welfare are made known through them. That seems to be the reason people value the revelations they do believe in, and why they try to spread the knowledge of them to others.

no no, user. the DEMIURGE created evil, not god. even though god created the demiurge. :^)

just like how the non-schizo christians blame satan for all evil, and god creates him too. soooooo...

I don't understand why creation is abstracted one more level to the "demiurge" and then denoted as "evil". What is the purpose of thinking this way?

APT TRIPLE CIPHER FOR ONE WHO TELLS FALSEHOOD.

THE DEMIOURGOS IS AN ABORTIVE EMANATION FROM SOFIA'S SORROW; SATAN WAS CREATED BY THE DEMIOURGOS AS ONE OF ITS ARKHONS.

I have no idea. I can't think how any of the gnostics or some of the Platonists who went this route thought it was a way around the issue.

The best argument against god (at least any theistic tradition that posits him as "good") is the existence of evil. At least the Manichaens and Zoroastrians had the courage to construct a theology that gave both Good and Evil a co-eternal, co-existent position.

Here's the formula for what you're saying:
G -> S -> Ss -> Du -> E . Where G is God, S is Sophia, Ss is Sophia's Sorrow, Du is Demiurge, and E is evil.

Guess what the source of evil still ends up being??

YOUR LOGIC IS FALLACIOUS, SPECIOUS, SPURIOUS.

You don't necessarily need revelation after accepting the "god of natural law" but if you want to get to views that have partially or entirely arisen from revelation and reap the benefits of it you will have to.

>deistic
Pls

Pretty sure since Augustine the prevailing view was a denial of evil having real existence, to the contrary of both those examples. Augustine would be right.

What is the non-fallacious logic, then?

GOD IS THE PRIME AND ULTIMATE ROOT OF WHAT IS GOOD; EVIL IS ABERRATION FROM WHAT IS GOOD; TO CLAIM THAT THIS ENTAILS THAT GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF EVIL CONSTITUTES A FALLACY —ARE YOU COGNITIVELY IMPAIRED, OR ARE YOU PRETENDING TO BE COGNITIVELY IMPAIRED IN PRO OF YOUR LIES?

What is the purpose of thinking in this fashion? I guess you could technically be right that "God" did not "create" evil as we are just attributing foundational, anthropomorphic qualities to the Omnipotent, but there is also the case that he is the cause of everything we can concieve of, including "evil".

so you posit evil to be the pure antithesis of the thesis of good. or, put another way, the ontological condition of being in the wrong relation to the good; the departure from it. yet this makes evil a pure antithesis, meaning it exists solely on the condition that the thesis exists and has no substance outside of that. meaning the thesis brought it into being. meaning god as "good" facilitates the existence of evil.

and we're back to where we started.

PURE CHIMERIC SOPHISTRY.

Ignore trips.

Is Gnosticism, Duality on steroids? I don't understand.

>le all caps schizo triptard ruins thread
story at 11

>tripfag thinks similarly to me

Attached: ughohfuckinggodno.jpg (480x360, 11K)

Can you please fucking explain his reasoning and reply to this?

You know, Plato wrote entire books about those he called "Sophists," right? You know why? Because otherwise those arguments that they're so good at making go unopposed.
Enlighten us, faggot.

Attached: 054638c3bf5e435f097d3f01c608cb31e17a72-v5-wm.jpg (640x920, 33K)

One thing (A) instantiates another thing (a)
A is not responsible for the actions of a
Of course, that's pure sophistry, but it outlines the case without delving into the guts. The real answer is that it's a shorthand for the dialectic relationship between being and non-being, as well as circumvents the problem of becoming.

sneed

>The real answer is that it's a shorthand for the dialectic relationship between being and non-being, as well as circumvents the problem of becoming.

Okay, I can understand the usefulness of the "Demiurge" if it's to talk about the dynamics of becoming. Why call it "evil", though? What does that mean?

based gnostic btfoing all these cringey satanists with facts and logic again

Please respond to this . Can you expand a little on Gnostic morality?

I have very hard time understanding Gnosticism. Is it the opposite of a system like Hermeticism?

You are my least favourite tripfag, and we have fucking butterfly

>still having an ego

Attached: B3F12B14-771C-4C43-B98B-5A1E6C72EDE4.jpg (1078x1360, 116K)

a creation being removed from it's pure and more subtle essence does not mean that it's creator is evil. you can see this all the time in human activity, a practice starts off as necessary and part of the good, and gradually degenerates

What can I read to understand the Gnostic schizophrenia in this thread?

At some point if you're really interested you can read some primary sources (Gnostic gospels) and ancient secondary sources (Christian heresy-busters), but you're honestly about as well off reading modern secondary literature or tertiary synopses (online encyclopedias summarizing Gnosticism) to get the gist of it. Basically the Gnostics believe in emanationism, like the middle and neo-Platonists did, with an ultimate reality emanating lesser and lesser tiers of reality. In their case, the initial emanations were good. Usually the last emanation somehow fucked stuff up (often its named Sophia) and it begets an idiot demiurge god (Yaldabaoth in some systems) who then creates matter, and traps souls in matter. This demiurge is identified by Gnostics with Yahweh from the Old Testament. They believe Jesus to have been a higher being, pre-demiurge's creation, whose Father was the ultimate reality rather than Yahweh/the demiurge. Gnostics tended to be docetists (believing Jesus had no material body). Gnosis was supposed to save you from bondage to matter, otherwise you were doomed to a cycle of reincarnation and suffering.

Could you expand upon what exactly constitutes ordered evil and disordered evil?

and what differentiates the two?

Thanks

ORDERED EVIL, OR DEMIOURGIC EVIL, IS THE KIND OF EVIL TYPICAL OF, AND EXERTED BY, THE DEMIOURGOS, ITS ARKHONS, AND MISCELLANEOUS MINIONS; IT IS SYSTEMATIC, ORGANIC, CENTRALIZED, STABILE, NATURAL.

DISORDERED EVIL, OR SATANISTIC EVIL, IS THE KIND OF EVIL TYPICAL OF, AND EXERTED BY, SATAN, HIS DEMONS, AND MISCELLANEOUS MINIONS; IT IS ASYSTEMATIC, DISPERSIVE, DECENTRALIZED, MOBILE, ANTINATURAL.

THE DIFFERENCES ARE SELFEVIDENT.

ORDERED EVIL, AND DISORDERED EVIL, ARE TWO ASPECTS OF THE SAME BEAST, SINCE THE DEMIOURGOS, AND SATAN, ARE MUTUALLY ENGAGED IN ALLIANCE.