Good and evil, goodness and malice, coexist in this world and do it fully mixed, in the same place, in the same family and even in the heart and actions of one person. Yet, we tend to create a certain image of each one, and to establish a very simple division of people between good and bad ones.
But, in fact, the reality is very ambiguous and is not so easy to form a right judgment about the quality of people.
We see only the external appearances and, therefore, our criteria are too superficial and partial.
Jesus invites us through the Gospels not to judge, and especially, not to condemn anyone before time. His advice is that we look at ourselves before criticizing the flaws of others
In addition, there is another constant in Jesus’ message. He does not reject those who do evil. On the contrary, He approaches them, He listens to them, He loves them, He forgives them. Quite often Jesus repeats that he has not come to condemn but to save.
We Christians who want to follow and imitate Jesus, should work with all our energies for a better society, where there is no injustice or evil.
But this objective must be achieved neither condemning nor eliminating those who do evil, but by seeking, with all our strength, the conversion of all and defeating evil with good, while remembering always that the final judgment lies in the hands of God.
It is not easy, but Jesus never said that following His footsteps was an easy thing to do.
Gromitt82

Sorry, what's the question exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

He does not reject those who do evil.

---

What do you consider "evil"?

As with most such speeches, it isn't reaching who you want it to reach. Plus it's nothing new, sorry. And I tend to bristle when I read 'we should.'

Then there's the old argument about who gets to decide what is good and evil and who decides who needs converting from evil to good and so on and so on etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

And I tend to bristle when I read 'we should.'

---

Me too. Psychologist Albert Ellis always said, "Don't 'should' on yourself."

But Jesus also tells those who he forgives to go and sin no more.

Also the "do not judge" is one of the most misquoted verses since. It is not judging to tell them what is sin, we merely need to show them the scripture and they can see that themselves. And in forgiving them, he accepts the fact that they were doing wrong and they came to know they did wrong. So it is not wrong to tell a thief that stealing is wrong and that they should repent.

In others we are told that we are to go and help correct our neighbor and he they will not, we take them before the church.

We can not assume to "judge" them, as to their heart but we are to correct our brothers who are not living properly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Sorry, what's the question exactly?

---

There is no specific question. It is just a reflection on the tendency we humans display to judge others before judging ourselves. And an allusion to what Jesus said in this regard.:):)
Gromitt82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

What do you consider "evil"?

---

By and large, Evil is the violation of some moral code. Evil is usually seen as the opposite of good. This is what I think.

The root meaning is of obscure origin though it seems to be akin to modern English "over" and modern German über with the basic idea of "transgressing".

At any rate, it seems Evil is the equivalent in English used by translators of the Hebrow word “ra” which was employed to state that which is “bad” or opposed to “good”

Quoting what other more valuable people (like D.R. Dungan) have written on the subject I can say:

“Moral Evil: By this term we refer to wrongs done to our fellowman, where the actor is responsible for the action. The immorality may be present when the action is not possible. The last six commandments of the Decalogue apply here (Ex 20:12-17). To dishonor one's parents, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness and to covet are moral evils.

The spiritual import of these commandments will be found in Mt 5:21,22,27,28. "But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness" (6:23) Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well" (Isa 1:16 f).

Evil begins in the least objectionable things. When men become evil in themselves, they necessarily become evil in thought and deed toward others.

“Physical Evil: Many times the bad (evil) is also physical; it may have been occasioned by the sins for which the people of the nation were responsible. Very many times the evil is a corrective, to cause men to forsake the wrong and accept the right.

The flood was sent upon the earth because "all flesh had corrupted their way" (Gen 6:12). This evil was to serve as a warning to those who were to live after. The ground had already been cursed for the good of Cain (Gen 4:12).

Two purposes seemed to direct the treatment: (1) to leave in the minds of Cain and his descendants the knowledge that sin brings punishment, and (2) to increase the toil that would make them a better people. God overthrew Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, cities of the plain, making them "an example unto those that should live ungodly" (2 Pet 2:6)”.

On the other hand, let me tell that the problem of evil is a touchstone of any religion.

The problem of good and evil is handled by religion, philosophy, psychology and social sciences. In a very generic way, good can be defined as everything that attracts us, inducing exalted emotions, what we wish to imitate or make remembered. Evil is everything opposed to the good, receiving negative evaluation, and what in our opinion should not exist. Evil includes suffering, diseases, destruction, injustice, oppression, death.

We accept good as a natural thing, and evil as unnatural. Evil is a problem, which people have been trying to apprehend since the earliest ages. The elusiveness of this problem for a human mind can be illustrated by the fact that different judgments about evil are as numerous as world’s religions and philosophic schools.

I hope these “good vibes” will satisfy your natural curiosity re. the meaning of Evil.
Gromitt82
.

'Evil includes suffering, diseases, destruction, injustice, oppression, death.'

Diseases and death are evil? Now there's a concept. Just wait until the ravages of the world are loosed when we have too many people living far too long. We have CHILDREN to replace us. Trying to live forever, that's selfish and scary and destructive.

And be careful about all your studious references, or you might get caught up in how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and think it's philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

As with most such speeches, it isn't reaching who you want it to reach. Plus it's nothing new, sorry. And I tend to bristle when I read 'we should.'

Then there's the old argument about who gets to decide what is good and evil and who decides who needs converting from evil to good and so on and so on etc etc.

---

Normally, when we read “we should” it is because someone more learned than us is trying to lead us the right way or to “walk the line”, as some also say.

Legislators all over the world keep on telling us what “we should do” and what “we cannot do”.

Basically, most people abide by these “should” and “should not”. Those who do not, enter the group of the so called nonconformists.

Then there are those who “bristle” at the “we should” when this commandment refers to Religion.

The explanation is possibly that not abiding by the “we should” legislated by our Laws generally implies some sort of punishment, whereas not complying by the religious “we should” (in our case legislated by Jesus, Himself) only implies an “abstract punishment”, many do not see quite clear…

In our case, He who decides what is good and evil (no matter how old the argument may be) is no one but Jesus himself… Unfortunately, we are free to follow or not His wise advice and even to believe He has no authority whatsoever to impose upon us His Commandments.. .
Gromitt82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Me too. Psychologist Albert Ellis always said, "Don't 'should' on yourself."

---

I very much doubt that in his REBT Dr. Ellis had in mind either the Gospels or the Commandments.

At any rate, in my very humble opinion, and no matter the unquestionable prestige Dr. Albert Ellis enjoyed in life, I still believe that Jesus was a much better psychologist than him or anyone else, for what matters.

Gromitt82:):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

But Jesus also tells those who he forgives to go and sin no more.

Also the "do not judge" is one of the most misquoted verses since. It is not judging to tell them what is sin, we merely need to show them the scripture and they can see that their self. And in forgiving them, he accepts the fact that they were doing wrong and they came to know they did wrong. So it is not wrong to tell a thief that stealing is wrong and that they should repent.

In others we are told that we are to go and help correct our neighbor and he they will not, we take them before the church.

We can not assume to "judge" them, as to their heart but we are to correct our brothers who are not living properly

---

The “do not judge” maybe one of the most misquoted verses, as you say. But, in any case, it is not my own “crop”. The author is, as you know quite well, the very Jesus.

However, we all tend to judge others. When we say what others should do or should not we are already establishing that we are in possession of the truth and the others are not.

In my thread, where I only quote Jesus, I think is quite clear that instead of “judging” those who do wrong we have to try our best to correct them, as you say!
Gromitt82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

I very much doubt that in his REBT Dr. Ellis had in mind either the Gospels or the Commandments.

At any rate, in my very humble opinion, and no matter the unquestionable prestige Dr. Albert Ellis enjoyed in life, I still believe that Jesus was a much better psychologist than him or anyone else, for what matters.

---

God very purposefully did not use the word "should" in the Commandments.

And yes, Dr. Ellis did, in fact, have Christianity in mind when he said that. He knew Christians tend to "should" on each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

I hope these “good vibes” will satisfy your natural curiosity re. the meaning of Evil.
Gromitt82.

---

So where does mental illness fit into all of this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

In my thread, where I only quote Jesus, I think is quite clear that instead of “judging” those who do wrong we have to try our best to correct them, as you say!
Gromitt82

---

"Judge not and ye shall not be judged." I don't think it is our place to judge. We don't take the beam out of our own eye before we look for the mote in the other fellow's eye.

"Try our best to correct them" really rankles at me, but I can't put it into words why. Let me think about that for a while.

Wondergirl, perhaps it rankles because isn't one judging people by the very act of going about correcting them?
Gromitt82, I just can't imagine going around correcting evil with quotes. I see evil in the world, and it's not in a form I feel I can walk up to and spout the teachings of Jesus. It's despots and drug lords and child traffikers and blood mining and toxic waste and that's just a few. There are people out there doing their best to help the victims and to stop the injustices, and they aren't carrying Bibles in one hand, because both hands are full of ways to help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

Normally, when we read “we should” it is because someone more learned than us is trying to lead us the right way or to “walk the line”, as some also say.

Legislators all over the world keep on telling us what “we should do” and what “we cannot do”.

Basically, most people abide by these “should” and “should not”. Those who do not, enter in the group of the so called nonconformists.

Then there are those who “bristle” at the “we should” when this commandment refers to Religion.

The explanation is possibly that not abiding by the “we should” legislated by our Laws generally implies some sort of punishment, whereas not complying by the religious “we should” (in our case legislated by Jesus, Himself) only implies an “abstract punishment”, many do not see quite clear…

In our case, He who decides what is good and evil (no matter how old the argument may be) is no one but Jesus himself… Unfortunately, we are free to follow or not His wise advice and even to believe He has no authority whatsoever to impose upon us His Commandments. ..
Gromitt82

---

This may help.

What you are working towards is pretty much know as the IS-OUGHT problem. It is an age old problem.It is also related to religion, but doesn't have to be.

If something IS the case then I OUGHT to do it. For example, "If it is raining then I should take an umbrella" There are problems when we try to deduce what one ought to do from what is the case. Should or ought is the advice one gets or tells oneself what to do in order to achieve a goal.

"If you don't want to get wet then I should take an umbrella". "Why?" " So you don't get the flu". "Why?" "So you don't end up very sick". "Why?" "So you don't end up in hospital".

It becomes obvious that this casual line of conversation could go on almost forever. In order to prevent this we are forced to say," Some higher authority demands that we do this". End of discussion on the matter.

One choice available is to believe the authority and accept their advice. There is no actual solution to this problem.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

"If it is raining then I should take an umbrella"

---

You're complicating a simple concept.

If I don't take my umbrella and it rains, I feel guilty and kick myself ("should on myself").

should = guilt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

You're complicating a simple concept.

If I don't take my umbrella and it rains, I feel guilty and kick myself ("should on myself").

should = guilt

---

Hi Wondergirl,

I think you are right, it is a simple concept. But does it provide an explanation most people would be happy with?

I haven't actually looked up anything about Dr. Albert Ellis but the "should=guilt" seems to put forward an 'emotivist' position.

This theory claims that moral judgments are neither true nor false, but are just expressions of individual feelings that invoke a response from those who hear them.

It seems to follow that if moral judgments are just expressions of feelings then they can not be reduced to scientific explanations. Seems to be an unusual position for a psychologist to adopt.

In the end the emotivist would say the statement, "It is evil to steal from a child" is really saying, "Boo to stealing from children"

Yes, I know. I am complicating it, but I thought I would try and tie it in with the concept of evil.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

God very purposefully did not use the word "should" in the Commandments.

And yes, Dr. Ellis did, in fact, have Christianity in mind when he said that. He knew Christians tend to "should" on each other.

---

As you probably know English is not my mother language, which is Spanish.
However, to the best of my knowledge I still think that “should”, in English, is used, among other usages, for giving advice. This is, at least, one of the possibilities in many other languages, like German, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, etc.

“You should speak to him”, for instance, is less mandatory than “you shall speak to him”

I say so, because I still think Dr. Ellis did not actually had Christians in mind when he spoke about “should”. For it is true that God did not use that tense in the Commandments, because, as I said, “should” is rather used as an advice.

And in the Ten Commandments, God is not advising us to follow them. God is ORDERING us to abide by them. And consequently, God uses “shall” instead of “should”.You shall have no other Gods; you shall not make…; you shall not make wrongful…; you shall labor…; you shall not do any work…; etc. etc.

Gromitt82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

Wondergirl, perhaps it rankles because isn't one judging people by the very act of going about correcting them?
Gromitt82, I just can't imagine going around correcting evil with quotes. I see evil in the world, and it's not in a form I feel I can walk up to and spout the teachings of Jesus. It's despots and drug lords and child traffikers and blood mining and toxic waste and that's just a few. There are people out there doing their best to help the victims and to stop the injustices, and they aren't carrying Bibles in one hand, because both hands are full of ways to help.

---

And yet, this what our Master Jesus did all the time, trying to correct people by using parables… And this is what, at present, many others that DO carry Bibles (of all kinds, Protestants, Orthodox and/or Catholic) use to spread Jesus’ message and bring to the straight and narrow path millions of people. They are called Missionaries and their silent work quite often is rewarded with the loss of their lives...
:mad:
Gromitt82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

This may help.

What you are working towards is pretty much know as the IS-OUGHT problem. It is an age old problem.It is also related to religion, but doesn't have to be.

If something IS the case then I OUGHT to do it. For example, "If it is raining then I should take an umbrella" There are problems when we try to deduce what one ought to do from what is the case. Should or ought is the advice one gets or tells oneself what to do in order to achieve a goal.

"If you don't want to get wet then I should take an umbrella". "Why?" " So you don't get the flu". "Why?" "So you don't end up very sick". "Why?" "So you don't end up in hospital".

It becomes obvious that this casual line of conversation could go on almost forever. In order to prevent this we are forced to say," Some higher authority demands that we do this". End of discussion on the matter.

One choice available is to believe the authority and accept their advice. There is no actual solution to this problem.

Tut

---

Right you are! And the authority I am referring to is God's Authority. Nothing less, nothing more!

Gromitt82:):)

I don't see Jesus as a messenger of the straight and narrow path. He was living under the Romans and saw oppression everywhere, and his parables were about freeing the self wihtout having to have a militant leader to have his head chopped off. He was about the meek and the poor. New caves being found just recently show that it was the lowly Roman soldier who liked the teachings and brought them back to Rome. They indentified with the common man, the downtrodden; they weren't treated that well either. Previous Jewish uprisings against the Romans had been met with slaughter. This was more of a combination of Buddhism and civil disobedience (yes, I believe that Buddhism had made it to the middle east by then). The earliest gospels, the ones found in 1945, are nothing like what the hundreds of years of Christianity turned Jesus into.

So anyway, I admire Jesus as a radical thinker, a brilliant Rabbi. (I was raised Christian.)

Actually Christians (for the most part-every group has it's crazies) have not turned Jesus into anything. The scriptures we have today are extremely accurate with what was written 2000 years ago. They are in fact the most numerous in volume and in accuracy of any ancient text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

I don't see Jesus as a messenger of the straight and narrow path. He was living under the Romans and saw oppression everywhere, and his parables were about freeing the self wihtout having to have a militant leader to have his head chopped off. He was about the meek and the poor. New caves being found just recently show that it was the lowly Roman soldier who liked the teachings and brought them back to Rome. They indentified with the common man, the downtrodden; they weren't treated that well either. Previous Jewish uprisings against the Romans had been met with slaughter. This was more of a combination of Buddhism and civil disobedience (yes, I believe that Buddhism had made it to the middle east by then). The earliest gospels, the ones found in 1945, are nothing like what the hundreds of years of Christianity turned Jesus into.

So anyway, I admire Jesus as a radical thinker, a brilliant Rabbi. (I was raised Christian.)

---

You are of course right when you say that Jesus’ parables were about the meek and the poor and deprived.

But, quite often, they also were about hypocrisy and ambition and about reinterpreting the Jewish Law. He had to struggle dialectically with the Scribes, Pharisees, the High Priest or the “Nasi” and the “Av bet din” of the Sanhedrin.

In fact, as you know, they were His main enemies and those who led Him to His martyrdom on the Cross.

No wonder, therefore, that you admire Jesus as a radical (from the Jewish point of view) thinker and a brilliant Rabbi (as a Master of the Law). You might wish to admire Him also as God Incarnate.

But, obviously, this is a different story…!
Gromitt82.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hauntinghelper

Actually Christians (for the most part-every group has it's crazies) have not turned Jesus into anything. The scriptures we have today are extremely accurate with what was written 2000 years ago. They are in fact the most numerous in volume and in accuracy of any ancient text.

---

I am sorry, but I am not quite sure I grasp the actual meaning of what you say about Christians “not having turned Jesus into anything”.

Perhaps you would not mind elucidating it a little bit further bearing in mind my mother language is not English but Spanish.

On the other hand it is true that the Scriptures we have today are the most numerous in volume of any ancient text.

A different thing altogether is whether they also are the most accurate and faithful with what was written 2000 years ago. I like to believe they are. But they have undergone so many translations from so many people that I would not be surprised there may have been alterations made on purpose or accidentally.

The evidence can be seen in the amount of different versions of these Scriptures we have from the original written in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Hundreds of them…

Besides, we only have to look at what is going on at present with the written media. Depending on the political tendency of the owners, news is described differently and, at times, with entirely opposite versions. At least, this is so here in Europe…

The first English version of the Bible (The King James version) started in 1604, and ever since, other versions have appeared…

I do hope, however, that the true essence of the N.T. has been anyhow kept everywhere.

Gromitt82

Yes, the high priests were often complicit with the Romans, in order to keep their status. What else is new when one people conquers another? That's another reason why I think of Jesus as more of a Buddhist, and I do think his teachings were changed over the few hundred years after his death before they were written down, and then changed more through Aramaic and Greek and so on.
Anyway, I still don't see that good and evil were the crux of his teachings. He wasn't about those old divisions between concepts. The meek and poor could inherit the earth, they didn't have to be dead to get their reward (the kingdom of heaven is here on earth), and that peacemakers were blessed, were what mattered. He was starting a revolution without arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromitt82

As you probably know English is not my mother language, which is Spanish.

---

Yes, I know you from Answerway. I was CeeBee2 there.

Quote:

---

However, to the best of my knowledge I still think that “should”, in English, is used, among other usages, for giving advice.

---

Yes, using "should" is giving advice with an implied "threat" or "warning" -- "You should speak to him (and if you don't...)," rather than the preferred and less threatening, "Please speak to him."

Quote:

---

I say so, because I still think Dr. Ellis did not actually had Christians in mind when he spoke about “should”.

---

Yes, he did. Ellis was an atheist, and a very anti-Christian one at that. He had no love for Christians. One of his students was my professor in grad school; she told us many stories about him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

The earliest gospels, the ones found in 1945, are nothing like what the hundreds of years of Christianity turned Jesus into.

---

To what do you refer, exactly?

The texts found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt.
The paper and bindings are dated at 350 - 400 AD, and the dates of the texts are still argued, and range from 50 to 140.
Christians were already denouncing other Christians by then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

Yes, the high priests were often complicit with the Romans, in order to keep their status. What else is new when one people conquers another? That's another reason why I think of Jesus as more of a Buddhist, and I do think his teachings were changed over the few hundred years after his death before they were written down, and then changed more through Aramaic and Greek and so on.
Anyway, I still don't see that good and evil were the crux of his teachings. He wasn't about those old divisions between concepts. The meek and poor could inherit the earth, they didn't have to be dead to get their reward (the kingdom of heaven is here on earth), and that peacemakers were blessed, were what mattered. He was starting a revolution without arms.

---

While I respect your comments on this thread, I may as well add that I do not intend to debate on your points of view.

Let me just give you, for the sake of clarifying some concepts the dates when the synoptic Gospels were written:

Mark’s Gospel. The first synoptic Gospel; he wrote it in Greek about the 50-60 AD. He probably did it basing himself on the testimony of some disciples (basically Peter), as he was not an eyewitness to the events narrated.

Matthew’s Gospel. He surely wrote it in Aramaic about the 60-70 AD, and its final drafting was done towards the 80 AD, probably by a disciple of his. It is thought to have been probably written in Syria; where there was largest number of Christian Jews lived.

It is supposed that Matthew took 50% of his material from Mark’s Gospel and the rest from the Q source and oral traditions. The story of the of Jesus’ childhood does not appear in the Q source nor in Mark’s, so Matthew had here and in other parts of his Gospel, an unknown source.

Luke’s Gospel: He wrote his Gospel in Greek around the 70-80 AD along with the Acts, and he surely did it in Greece. He is not an eyewitness of his narration in the Gospel, though he is with regard to the Acts. He is the only one of the 4 evangelists who is not Jew.

Most of his sources (70%) belong to Mark too. The rest comes from different oral traditions, the Q Source and even possible the very Virgin Mary.

John’s Gospel: He uses his own sources and he writes it after the 95 AD also in Greek, probably in the Greek island of Patmos. He spent most of his time with Jesus, so he is a personal testimony of what he writes.

However, I must also say that the II Vatican Council declared that, although the above information seems to be the most probable and certain, neither the dates or the authors can be 100% confirmed, although in every case they were written less than 100 years after Jesus’ death.

Gromitt82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

The texts found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt.
The paper and bindings are dated at 350 - 400 AD, and the dates of the texts are still argued, and range from 50 to 140.
Christians were already denouncing other Christians by then.

---

It's not paper. Some are parchment (animal skin) and some are papyrus. Paper didn't come along until around the eleventh century or later.
- Sir Nitpick

Shut up, Nitpick, I was going to say that. Anyway, the texts don't date from before the end of the second century. We know this from patristic writings of the era that describe the rise of the systems described in these documents.

And they're not Christian texts, they're Gnostic. There's a world of difference. If you read some of the actual texts, there's virtually nothing left of historic Christianity in them. Gnosticism was a weird slumgullian stew of Christian ideas plus Greek mysticism and some other stuff that nobody can really identify. Some just have long sections going HMMMMMMMMMMMMM and other random onomatopoeitic noises, most talk about contacting the demiurges in order to try and figure out which god you need to talk to - if any of that sounds like Christianity to you, then you need some better sources for what Christianity is :D

Thanks for the humor while correcting me, dwashbur. I see that you are a Biblical scholar.
Yes, gnostic, and yes not paper.
But no Christianity in them? All I have read is Elaine Pagals. Her excerpts strike me as Christian? Maybe a topic for a new thread. I don't mean to usurp gromitt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

Thanks for the humor while correcting me, dwashbur. I see that you are a Biblical scholar.
Yes, gnostic, and yes not paper.
But no Christianity in them? All I have read is Elaine Pagals. Her excerpts strike me as Christian? Maybe a topic for a new thread. I don't mean to usurp gromitt.

---

Sir Nitpick is my alter ego, and he's an obnoxious British snob. You can get a look at him in various episodes of my Internet review show, which I'll put a link to below ;)

Elaine Pagels has a definite ax to grind. That said, if one picks and chooses very carefully, it is possible to find Christian-sounding quotes in some of the documents. But folks like her tend to overblow that part of it and try to make Gnosticism into something it wasn't. Notice that I said "some" of the documents; the vast majority of them bear no resemblance at all to historic Christianity, as I said.

The definitive edition - really the only edition - is The Nag Hammadi Library editied by James M. Robinson. You can probably find it at a library near you; pick it up and see some of the stuff for yourself. It can be quite entertaining.

My show: No Life With Irving

You know of an Ames post Bin Laden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Sir Nitpick is my alter ego, and he's an obnoxious British snob. You can get a look at him in various episodes of my Internet review show, which I'll put a link to below ;)

Elaine Pagels has a definite ax to grind. That said, if one picks and chooses very carefully, it is possible to find Christian-sounding quotes in some of the documents. But folks like her tend to overblow that part of it and try to make Gnosticism into something it wasn't. Notice that I said "some" of the documents; the vast majority of them bear no resemblance at all to historic Christianity, as I said.

The definitive edition - really the only edition - is The Nag Hammadi Library editied by James M. Robinson. You can probably find it at a library near you; pick it up and see some of the stuff for yourself. It can be quite entertaining.

My show: No Life With Irving

---

Quote:

---

You know of an Ames post Bin Laden?

---

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about.

My attempt at nitpick humor when I am out of painkillers (for a tooth). You reviewed a game you found for .99 at Ames, and in it said that we Americans got Bin Laden? Ames closed all their stores years ago.

I do appreciate your comments about the Nag Hammadi Library.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

Thanks for the humor while correcting me, dwashbur. I see that you are a Biblical scholar.
Yes, gnostic, and yes not paper.
But no Christianity in them? All I have read is Elaine Pagals. Her excerpts strike me as Christian? Maybe a topic for a new thread. I don't mean to usurp gromitt.

---

I’s sure you know it is Eaine Pagels, not Pagals. She claims to be an expert in Gonosticism which is not the same as in Christianity… I

F I were you I would follow Dwashbur’s advise and read The Nag Hammadi Library by James M. Robinson. In fact, I have not read it either and I am going to buy it from Amazon, if hey have it.

As for usurping me, don’t worry and be happy!
Gromitt82
:):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Yes, I know you from Answerway. I was CeeBee2 there.

Yes, using "should" is giving advice with an implied "threat" or "warning" -- "You should speak to him (and if you don't...)," rather than the preferred and less threatening, "Please speak to him."

Yes, he did. Ellis was an atheist, and a very anti-Christian one at that. He had no love for Christians. One of his students was my professor in grad school; she told us many stories about him.

---

Nice to meet you again CeBee2, but I like Wondergirl better!

Let's get into some semantics re. "should". We call it in Spanish "a conditional tense" and it does not necessarily imply an advice followed by a threat or warning. "You should go to the Los Angeles Opera if you want to see Placido Domingo serving as the General Director" or "you should listen the 5 o'clock boadcast in Radio so and so. They have a wonderful program going on"

No threats or warnings there don't you agree?

I am getting older from the Answerway days but, unfortunately, not any wiser!
Regards
Gromitt82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

My attempt at nitpick humor when I am out of painkillers (for a tooth). You reviewed a game you found for .99 at Ames, and in it said that we Americans got Bin Laden? Ames closed all their stores years ago.

I do appreciate your comments about the Nag Hammadi Library.

---

Um, I don't know what Ames is. I said I was in my favorite game store. That would be Game Stop, I just don't mention the name in the reviews. And I didn't say the game said anything about bin Laden, I said that. Maybe you need to watch it again ;)