[net.religion] Byron Howes discusses gnosticism in relation to the Damager-God

bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (01/01/70)

In article <346@pyuxn.UUCP> pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes:
>Perhaps, as Byron says, there is an ultimate God who is very different
>from the heinous evil Damager-God who wreaks havoc in all our lives. But,
>sadly, it is that Damager-God we must face every day. As Byron says, we would
>have no direct contact with the ultimate deity he describes. Anyway, if He
>was truly good, wouldn't He take steps to eradicate the pig monster God
>who maltreats this planet and its people?

First, Paul, let me make it clear that I'm not arguing against your position.
I don't necessarily believe it, but I am not arguing against it.  I merely
stepped in to elucidate a difference between your particular brand of maltheism
and the Gnostic notions of a not-necessarily-benevolent G-d.

Second, the ultimate deity is neither good nor evil, but beyond both.  The
Father "does" nothing, and is beyond comprehension by those tied to notions
of good and evil.  Traditional Christian notions do not fit well into the
gnostic framework.

I am enjoying the discussion and I'm pleased that it has made people reflect
upon their own beliefs, whatever conclusions they may ultimately come to.
Whatever one's faith, a deeper understanding of ones relationship to the
infinite cannot be considered a bad thing.  In this sense, even your maltheism
serves more traditional ends.
-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch

pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) (09/17/85)

	Jay Kinney and now Byron Howes have written about how maltheism
is (at least in some ways) related to gnostic notions about the God we
know being just an intermediary deity who may only think He is the ultimate
God, dwarfed by a truly ultimate deity who is the ultimate benevolent power.

	The problem I see with this idea is that it falls prey to the same
misconception as standard God whorship: that the ultimate power and force
MUST be good because we want it to be. Unfortunately, the evidence contradicts
that. Perhaps, as Byron says, there is an ultimate God who is very different
from the heinous evil Damager-God who wreaks havoc in all our lives. But,
sadly, it is that Damager-God we must face every day. As Byron says, we would
have no direct contact with the ultimate deity he describes. Anyway, if He
was truly good, wouldn't He take steps to eradicate the pig monster God
who maltreats this planet and its people?

Be well,
-- 
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez

scs@wucs.UUCP (Steve Swope) (09/19/85)

In article <346@pyuxn.UUCP>, pez@pyuxn.UUCP (Paul Zimmerman) writes:
> Perhaps, as Byron says, there is an ultimate God who is very different
> from the heinous evil Damager-God who wreaks havoc in all our lives. But,
> sadly, it is that Damager-God we must face every day.

If this is the case, it is simply another way of saying that Satan and God
are not the same. It seems the main problem is agreeing on what names we're
going to use for what beings.

> As Byron says, we would
> have no direct contact with the ultimate deity he describes. Anyway, if He
> was truly good, wouldn't He take steps to eradicate the pig monster God
> who maltreats this planet and its people?
 
I disagree about our ability to contact the ultimate deity (which I refer to
as God).  I believe that humans can and do communicate with God through
prayer.  I also believe that God has taken steps to eradicate Satan (or the
damager-god, if you prefer).  Christ's death on the cross insures the ultimate
defeat of Satan.  Our choice is accept or reject the salvation offered.

				Steve Swope (aka scs@wucs.UUCP)

"Brigadier, A straight line may be the shortest path between
 two points, but it is by no means the most interesting!"