Can God cure as well as kill? Should God kill or cure?

Can God cure as well as kill? Should God kill or cure?

Scriptures show quite often where God either kills directly or orders killings. I should not have to quote particular instances but will put a link below showing some examples.

I appreciate that believers will see God killing as just killing evil people who deserve it. I do not care about that and will concede that point here and now.

My question is based on what Jesus said, which was that he had come to heal the morally sick and not cater to the morally well. Jesus was
into curing and not killing.

In comparing good and evil in this issue, I conclude that a good God would cure instead of kill, and that only an evil satanic God would
kill instead of cure.

What do you conclude?



Regards
DL

 

Killing IS the cure.

 

presumably, a god by definician, ought to be able to do pretty much anything it sets its mind to.
now if the christian bible, or for that matter the islamic koran, were truly the will and word of god, or a god,
that would be a pretty messed up god,
fortunately, such writings are only the well intended but speculative words of humans, after all.

 

Can't wait for tomorrow's seminar.

 

I do not see the good intention of the present religious leaders nor the good intention of those who turned myths into reality.

Any such intent to deceive people cannot be seen as good or well intentioned.

Regards
DL

 

Weren't the founders of your cult convicted of mail fraud? Do you think they were telling the truth when they claimed to be channeling the thoughts of a 700 year old Ascended Master?

 

I cannot speak to information I have not read or interpreted.

I have no idea where you are getting such garbage, as there were hundreds of different mystery schools.

Regards
DL

 

I was talking about the I Am Activity founded by the Ballards and now operated by the Saint Germain Foundation. What "mystery school" are you talking about?

 

Hogwarts.

 

The ones the inquisitions ended.

I am not interested in discussing cults I know nothing to little about and who sure do not sound like or call themselves Gnostic, if described as you described that I am whatever cult.

Regards
DL

 

Your cult doesn't sound Gnostic either, and you sure don't belong to any of the ones the Inquisition ended. Yours must be the cult that dare not speak its name.

 

Just for the sake of clarity - the inquisition was founded during the 13th century as part of the crack down on the Cathars. They are the main 'gnostic' cult liquidated by the inquisition, and by warfare. Whilst it's certainly true that the Cathars shared some beliefs with the Gnostics of antiquity, they were really a slightly different thing. For example, the Cathars didn't have their own scriptures as did the old Gnostics. It is actually debatable how 'Gnostic' they really were.

The Gnostics of antiquity disappeared during the last phases of the Roman Empire. Probably, they were relatively few in number, as Gnosticism wasn't really a mass movement in itself. It is probable that many were absorbed into the Catholic fold.
Some scholars, noteably Karen King, think there never were any Gnostics separate from the general mass of early Christians. She thinks that early Christainity was a very broad thing comprising many different views, and what we think of as Gnosticism was just a part of that general movement which was discarded by the orthodox. Clearly there were Gnostic teachers who were also members of the Catholic Church. Valentinus is proably the most famous, and was nearly elected Pope, despite his Gnostic leanings. There were other semi-Gnostic figures too who played a large role, such as Marcion of Sinope, who at one time is thought to have had more followers than Catholicism. Marcion's ideas were too radical for the Empire - he believed in vegatarianism, and that Christians should not serve in the Army. Like the Gnostics proper, he also rejected the Old Testament.

So when Greatest says 'we' the question might be which 'we'? I doubt he'll tell us.

 

We are an evolving religion and have evolved away from the older ideologies.

You want to associate me with some old cult thinking that the label is important. It is not. It is the beliefs in issues that is important. Not where the original idea came from.

What else should you expect from esoteric ecumenists. We, by design, cherry pick and discard what is irrelevant or unimportant.

Can or do you say that your ideology, whatever it is, only came from one source and that it is exactly explained by one man? Can one label show us exactly how you think?

Not likely.

Regards
DL

 

Oh no. You want to associate yourself with 'old cult thinking' when you use 'we' to refer to those old cults. And you've made a point of doing that repeatedly.

To me your whole position seems somewhat confused.

 

Only because you wish to put me in an old box that no longer exists. You want to label me so bad that it is palpable.
You cannot put free thinkers in a box or some old label.

Regards
DL

 

You put yourself in a box by the use of 'we' all the time. You also claim to be a gnostic of some kind, and to be God. I didn't attach either of those labels to you - you did it yourself.

 

BlackBillBlake is asking you if you can narrow down and specify this 'we' because it is simply uncertain to everyone here what you mean with it.
You yourself associate your beliefs with those of an older religious group. We're simply asking is this mainly the cathars (seems to conflict with certain details between them and your convictions, but you were hinting at it), every gnostic christian streaming after AD or if not which ones predominantly, or are you maybe also identifying with a modern group that sees the use of a church. Or all of it. People only keep asking because you use the word we like it is significant, but you're unwilling to specify. You only refute what a person like Okiefreak proposes. Maybe answer more in depth if you can, and these questions begin to feel like people are cornering you

Uhm lol.. Nothing in the way you discuss stuff is what people expect of an ecumenist. Esoteric or not

Sounds very subjective. I see the use of 'cherry picking', don't get me wrong (i actually swear by it ), but it doesn't seem typical for gnostic christians (anymore) or ecumenists. Any individual christian can do this, and a lot do this, 'even' christians that affiliate with an organized mainstream form.

 

I think you've put it very well in that post overall.

I quoted the section above because it's really stupefying that anyone who has all these anti Christian threads going can talk about 'ecumenism'.

 

I don't think everything can be cured or should be cured. I don't like this high and mighty position people take that a truly good God would do that, just magically make everything perfect and rosy. It would defeat humanity's purpose completely. The whole idea reminds me of something out of the Twilight Zone.

 

How are you defining the word God? The way I did or the way you do?

Regards
DL