Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Seeing that you don't beleive any of that stuff, then I doubt you would have made an oath to live by the laws of a theocratic society knowing the consequences of said action. These people did make that oath, so it is difficult to hold them to your mutable standards.

You know, for the smack both of you talk, and the ranting you both do about how bad/evil the United States and Americans are over imperialism, you guys sure do oppose the idea of setting things right caused by such imperalistic moves. Don't you think it's a good thing to correct the mistakes and the problems we've caused in the past?

Actually, I'm pretty isolationist too--or wishful isolationist. The way I see it, SOMEone is going to hate us for our policies, no matter how good they seem, no matter how much good it does or can do for other people. For example, Europeans and Canadians think we're all backwards cavemen just for being slow over issues such as gay rights, but countries like South Korea no doubt look at us with disgust for being too lenient and liberal on such issues (As I understand it, South Koreans are very opposed to homosexualism ... ).

Still, I think it is more important to better other nations, especially if actions from our past have had a hand in damaging them. Then again, if the world's just gonna hate us more and ignore the facts, maybe it's best to just leave it be and become fully isolationist.

_________________

Not if our actions in doing so actually do more damage than good. Iraq doesn't want freedom. The fact that their people are still killing our people is evidence of that. So far, we've only succeeded in creating more problems for Iraq (and for us) than we've managed to solve. True, we got Saddam out of power, but we have no idea yet what power will rise up to replace him. My suspicion is that it will be a Shiite who will try to institute the kind of government Iran had under Ayatola Khomeni. Keep in mind, the Shiites do have a 60% majority. Now I know the US has been tampering with the elections to insure an election that favors the Sunni, but I must point out that a democracy that does not follow the will of the people is not a true democracy.

_________________

UGH. Do I have to remind you of that Canadian newspaper article again, about the one Iraqi immigrant who says that the majority of Iraqis are grateful Saddam Hussein was outsed? That the rebels do not speak for the majority?

Or do I have to point out what happened shortly after the U.S. pushed Saddam's army back out of Iraqi cities? People tearing down Saddam's statue?

"They don't want freedom," indeed.

Doing more damage than good? I think not. As I pointed out before (but you seem to have selectively ignored this as well as the previous evidence that Iraqis DID want freedom), "coilation of the willing" and civilian engineers have helped to restore civilian infratructure to pre-war levels, and are continuing to improve the quality of life. It's not just about the oil fields.

Thirdly, "what power will rise up to replace him?" If you didn't notice, Iraq is trying to rebuild under democracy. It's the rebels, and the extremist dissenters, who want to topple these efforts and put the nation under another Iran-like government, or another regime like Saddam's. I don't think the majority of Shiites would support something like what Iran's got. It's like saying that, since the majority of Americans are Christian, we all agree with and would support what Christian extremists want the U.S. to be like.

I'd like to also see where you're getting this information about U.S. officials tampering with votes.

_________________

Need I remind you that the majority of Iraqi citizens are SHIITE, and the Shiites hate us. Or don't you remember a few months back the Shiite insurrection led by that one cleric Al-Sadr? One Iraqi civilian in Canada doesn't quite compare to nearly 60% of Iraq's population. Right now, we have something of a truce with Al-Sadr, but I can foresee one of two things happening: (1) the Shiites will dominate the elections, or (2) Al-Sadr will lead another uprising. Either way, that 60% majority pretty much insures that the Shiites will rule Iraq.

Yes, the Iraqi people are for the most part glad to be rid of Saddam, but what type of ruler are they going to replace him with? Either way, I'm not betting that the Shiites will sit quietly and let the forces of democracy rule the day. But this is all for another thread.

_________________

One Canadian immigrant is just that, one person. Yes, I know that it's absurd to pin one's argument all on that, but his sentiment has been said many times over, from accounts I've read over the past year. That particular article, however, was the best example of that sentiment I've yet seen. Furthermore, it comes from a non-American source, since everyone is highly skeptical of anything American (be it a U.S. soldier's blog or an American newspaper). I think that helps underscore the credibility.

al-Sadir, as I understand, is not a moderate Shiite. He's an extremist himself, a radical--not quite the Billy Graham of Iraqi Shiite belief. Heck, if I remember correctly, civilians living in the city of al-Sadir's insurrection were ready to rise up against Sadir and return peace to said city.

_________________

Why do you continue to complain about religious extremists? No one takes them seriously anyway, other than other extremists...

As for all of your Old Testament references, those were relaxed in the New Covenant of Jesus' coming. It's the Jews you should be criticizing for those harsh punishments, not us... oh, wait, Jews are a minority, and minorities are faultless.

As for isolationism... what people don't realize is that most anti-US sentiment is domestic, not foreign. I don't know how I feel about isolationism, but I know it won't solve that problem.

By the way, under national law, what non-murder crimes can incur the death penalty? I knew my state had some additional offences that could warrant it, but I didn't know there were national ones.

_________________
I am the Chupacabra. I like to suck on goats.




... their blood.

You are not going to sway anyone's opinion by insulting anyone, honey. Saying that today's Jewish people are at fault for their ancestor's actions is ludicrous...so I hope you were refering to those who were in power then and making those laws, and not the people of today. Even then, it seems that, just like today, you can't blame an entire group of people for the actions of their leader(s)....boy, would we be screwed if that were true!

Don't forget, that as Christians, we have a duty to be loving and accepting of others, no matter what. At least, in my opinion.

_________________

Besides, El_C, that doesn't address the fact that it was GOD who gave those harsh laws. And yes, I will admit they were harsh laws, and I really wish that God had not given them. You are right, however, that the law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That's actually a pretty awesome concept when you think about it. Usually, we Christians tend to think of that fulfillment strictly in terms of his being able to keep the laws, but what if the fulfillment referred to is actually his suffering the penalty himself? And yet this dying God is the same God who gave those laws...

_________________

Have you read much Dewey? I should probably consider sending you my copy of "Experience and Education." But then I wouldn't be able to say I had a copy of something of his.

I'm not impressed by Dewey, he advocated social reform using the schools, not molding the children into what the children wanted to be, or what their parents wanted them to be, but what he (or the state) wanted them to be. Us Americans have a name for that: brainwashing.

I know you think that Christian indoctrination is a form of brainwashing, and I accept that criticism. But if you make your opinions the "religion" that kids are indoctrinated with, then you're just as bad as the Christians you criticize. Actually, probably worse; because Christianity cares about the kids and their souls, whereas you're apparently driven by anger, rebellion, and the assumption that everyone who doesn't agree with your conclusions is inherently unintelligent.


Ah, you are saying that "morals" should be equivaleted with "personal taste" so that then your personal taste can be construed as moral. I probably think the music of your favorite band stinks, and you probably think the same of mine: that's personal taste. You probably think you should be allowed to have sexual relations with anyone you want, and I think that sexual relations should be held in higher honor and reserved for marriage: that's morality.

One thing to point out, I have been raised to think there is no such thing as a "bad" moral. The most powerfully influential atheist in my life taught me that. There is either a good moral, or someone's lack of that moral. So you either have good sexual morality or don't have the moral... you can't have "the opposite morality." That's not a Christian viewpoint, it's 100% atheistically compatible.


I have no opinion of Agape Press, but we need to be careful about considering someone a "free thinking individual." The fact of the matter is that the only people Dewey-followers consider "free thinking" are those that agree with them! If you were TRULY free thinking, you'd say to Agape Press, "it's OK for you to think that way, though I disagree." What you've said instead is, "Agape Press is thinking wrong." Therefore I conclude that you are not taught by your school to be "free thinking," thereby justifying the criticism your school has drawn from Agape Press.


That is to say, there's a level of lingual morality here that you don't share. I think you made my point for me! Thank you.


I didn't realize that. Perhaps I've been to harsh in my ad hominem criticism, then. I was supposing you had more information to work with! When I'm reading single-author nonfiction, I expect a complete picture summary in the opening chapter, and supporting evidence and reasoning throughout. When I'm reading (or watching) fiction, I expect a gradual revelation of plot and increasing insight. The Bible is compiled from centuries of revelation, and perhaps you can take that into account when a levitical law upsets you. You can expect a greater understanding to be revealed later (Psalms, Matthew, and Hebrews are all great for that).

To comment on stoning children for wickedness: Though I don't personally put my seal of approval on that, I'd approve of killing wicked children before they go Columbine on our rear ends A LOT SOONER than I'd approve of killing an innocent baby (who's not wicked) through abortion. Anyone who knew those kids knew they were time bombs, but people want to let those white kids be while the doctor kills black babies in the next town over for money.


I may be making that mistake. I'll have to do some self-examination here. I know there's a difference between allowing someone to die, killing a person, manslaughter, and murder; but I may have to get a little philosophical before I propose a working definition of the line between them. Thank you for pointing out my weakness there, I plan to come back stronger because of that.


The US Supreme Court agrees with you.


Actually, you can do one better: if you are using our own mode of thought, you understand us and can point out inconsistencies that a psychological outsider can't see. Some people just don't like Christians, and their statements don't mean anything to us. But if someone says, "you're supposed to be this way by your own standards, and you're not," then that's a criticism we can use.


Strictly speaking, it's about childrens' worldviews being indoctrinated by schools. The article and accompanying test complain that the parents' have no influence on childrens' values, and that instead school propaganda is being shoved down their collective throat. A good book may be "Aim for the Children" by Daniel E. Johnson. I haven't finished it yet, but it appears to be an expose on the methods and ends of the ACLU and the NEA with respect to brainwashing kids.


Though our legal system emphasizes violent crime, I am swinging over to your point of view here. But I think rape needs to actually be punished, I know a girl in Detroit who told me that she'd been raped four times and the police never did anything about it. She may or may not have been completely honest with me, but I think there's something wrong when that's "the way it is" anywhere. Back to corporate crime, I think the USA needs to get serious about it, rather than letting the Enron executives live in mansions on lakes after screwing their own employees, the entire US economy, and the California energy infrastructure. I can't believe there's not a hit hired out on all of them.


The exact same principle the Enron executives used!


You get a cool point for saying "Mutable."


If anyone else had said that, I would have let it go. But you, Didymus? You must know it's well under 1% of the people doing that kind of stuff, and that schools, hospitals, and free speech are plentiful where before those things were restricted! And finally, just for you, Romans 5: 6-10.


Do you mean that? I mean, do you really feel that way? You do realize that the eternal word of God and the law were there already, and God was just letting us know so our inherent sinfulness would be exposed, making grace valuable to us. You're a Lutheran, I would suppose you should be aligned with that statement. Martin Luther loved the law in it's proper place (just not the place the Catholic church had placed it).

Sorry for the long post, just playing catch-up

_________________

Yes, I do feel this way sometimes. On one hand, I know that the law is good (just as St. Paul reminds us), even those harsh and difficult laws. They reveal the nature of the created order (just as I pointed out to Zaius, over whose head it soared): SIN DESTROYS US. But does that mean I am always comfortable with those laws? Absolutely not. It is precisely because they are uncomfortable to us that reveals the sinful nature in us.

But I have recently entered an interesting and challenging phase of my relationship with God, one in which I can (in fact MUST) shake my fist at him and challenge him face to face concerning the injustice I see in my own life and all around me. I'll have to PM you the details, as most of them would be too shocking for most readers of this forum. But that's the truth both glorious and hideous: that in order to grow in my relationship to God, I must learn to be brutally honest with him.

Those harsh laws do make me uncomfortable. But they are no less the laws of God.

_________________

Oy, now you're making me reply to a whole lot. Well, no time like the present I suppose...



You missintreprit my intentions. I want what's best for humanity. I would gladly sacfrifice myself if I knew that it would benifit mankind. I just don't belive in souls or any of that bullcrap. To me, helping mankind is expanding knowledge, understanding, and workings of the Earth and universe. You just assume that I'm an angry religoin bashing person, I'm just that and nothing more. No, my true intentions are for the technological and social progression of the human race, and I view religoin as an obstruction in all that.



Morals are nothing more than opinion. Opinions that some self-reightous people raised to a dregree so that those who didn't agree with them seemed like bad people.



But why did the kids at Columbine do that? It's not because theyr're enheritly "wicked", no one is. It's nurture over nature, they were bullied to that point. I was too, and if it went any further, you'd have heard about me in the news.



But I don't use that logic to exploit others. Me thinks you took that entirley out of context. I simply said that my actions are not govorned by some divine entity, or do I work to please said deity. I am who I am.



By that logic, ALL forms of education are nothing more than "brainwashing". It's not like the schools are trying to make all the children into mindless soldiers, they're teaching them TRUTH. You don't need to be a Christian to be a good person you know.



I must have overlooked that. Where'd you post that anyway?

Sin, along with "moral" and "wicked" are just buzz words made up to make things seems more significant. it's all just other words for PERSONAL OPINION! Yes, some "sins" may be accpeted by most. Like don't kill and dont' steal. But most of the other "sins" are nothing more than NORMAL HUMAN BEHAVIOUR! But what makes them "destory us" is doing them in excess. Doing ANYTHING in excess is bad. Over eating is bad for your health, being too proud of yourself makes you into an a**hole, being too lazy makes you useless to society, ect. But "sin" was just a petty attempt by the church to make peopel ashamed of BEING HUMAN!

Bah, screw spellchecking, I'm tired...

_________________

I have no opinion of Dewey, but I think we're at cross-purposes over what is meant by "free-thinking". What I mean by a free-thinking person is someone who thinks for themselves and makes their own decisions. In other words, schools which tell kids what religion to be do not allow "free thought".

And no, I was not taught by my school to be free-thinking. I was taught by my school to worship Jesus.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

I apologize for misinterpreting your intentions.


It was an observation, not an assumption. But I have no emotional need to hold on to that previous opinion.


Well, this is good: if we can get down to measurables, then we can talk. Are you aware that, statistically, monotheists live longer and happier lives than atheists? Monotheism, even if it isn't true, is a survival advantage! Therefore, if evolution is true, man has evolved into a monotheist! Isn't that painfully ironic? Further, historically, any country that has outlawed religion in the name of humanism has not progressed technologically or socially, but is remembered by a legacy of opression and misery. So, if your ends are social, the mechanism is theological.

Having said that, those are bad reasons to be a Christian. But they are great reasons for non-Christians to graciously tolerate Christians.


That's your opinion. As long as we argue opinions, there will never be a consensus and we can make no progress. You're planning (or the people who taught you to see things this way had the plan) to make morals a matter of personal opinion (and I stand by the statement that you mean "personal taste" when you say that) and so to knock the authority out of anything anyone else says about morality. Your claim is a "free pass" that lets you think you can ignore everyone else, and reasoning about ethics.

I disagree with it, and your stance that statements are mere personal opinion means that your opinion doesn't make me wrong. So therefore I'm right, which makes you wrong. I know it's a trick for me to say that in quite that way, and I don't expect you to buy it. But the humanistic, pluralistic worldview has no credibility logically and I will not for one post assume it's true. It's a self-defeating mode of thinking with internal contradictions, and therefore makes no progress socially or technologically. It does not serve your purpose and contradicts your values. Therefore I recommend you let it drop.


I am sorry you were bullied. I had a few years of that too, but probably not as bad as you seem to have had. I am not arguing that these or any criminals are independent of influence. But responsibility has to start somewhere, and justice is needed for the families of the victims and to prevent future repeats of the incident. If the teens were not responsible, but it was bad parents and bullies, then those bad parents and bullies blame their bad parents and bullies, and we in essence have a Salem witch-hunt where you get out of punishment by blaming someone else for your behavior. If you choose to first-degree cold-blooded murder someone, whether you were bullied or not, you need to have a consequence levied upon you. If for no other reason than as part of the chain of influence for shaping your behavior and that of others. I mean, if we have to sacrifice those two kids to save a bunch of others, that's consistent with your worldview.

But remember my preface to the statement I made first: that I do not put my seal of approval on stoning children, and I merely said it was not as bad as abortion, which people perform all the time. So you shouldn't get that upset about stoning bad children when people pay $300 to kill their innocent children.


I meant it for a slightly different point. I am saying that "the acceptance of the weight of every decision you ever make being on your own shoulders" is not inherently meritorious, since bad people do the same thing. You pointed out just now that you have a higher principle - you don't exploit others. The fact that this is a higher governing ethic for you is of vital importance! It means there is something more important than self-assertion in your value system.


I am worried that this will become my thesis. My undergraduate was in education, and I saw all these future teachers gobbling up the univerity's propaganda courses and licking their chops for more propaganda. I've had entire courses that didn't teach a single useable fact, but instead wanted future teachers to believe certain things about how to indoctinate their students. And I argued privately with some of these teachers and saw that they personally bought it all!

I really don't know where to stand, I'd love to think there was a way to teach students science without philosophical baggage, philosophy without political baggage, literature without propaganda, and history without judgemental assumptions. But neither the Christian schools nor the US public schools are doing it! If I want my kids to learn Socrates without someone indoctrinating them that Socrates was gay, I'm going to have to teach them myself. I'm not some isolationist agoraphobe who wants his kids sheltered, I just don't want them BS'd to all day by people with propaganda.


If their biology teacher teaches them how mitochondria metabolize glocose into adenosine triphosphate, then all's well and good. It's observational biology, chemistry, and there's no reason to believe it's illegitamite. But if they don't, if they teach them instead about history, philosophy, and disputed evidence in the supposed "science" class, then that's not teaching truth.

I remember a junior-high science class: the teacher wanted to prove that air had mass because it was made of atoms. So he had us weigh empty ballons, then blow them up and weigh them again. Wow! They were heavier. But I confronted him... with the physics of bouyancy, the mass change was not measurable without using a vacuum bell (which we didn't do). The science teacher privately admitted that the real mass difference we measured was the spittle that students unknowingly put into balloons as they blew them up. What? A science teacher LIED? Yes. And knowingly! He did it to teach something he believed true, but had never measured for himself... and worst of all, he taught students WRONG ideas about weight, mass, measurement, physics, bouyancy, and philosophy of science! All in the name of "truth."

That is the kind of thing I have a problem with in school science classes.


Ah, the war of words in earnest! You claim we use the word "moral" to make our opinions important, and we claim you make morals out to be opinions in order to make them less important. The most basic argument here is more fundamental than morals or even a specific instance of religion: it's a pluralistic worldview versus the belief that we all live in one universe together. If you're open to discussion on motivation for one over the other, I'll dialogue. But if you're convinced and aren't interested in the discussion, I'll save my breath... er, save my bandwidth, for other topics.


Is it always bad for everyone, or is that your personal opinion? I never know when a pluralist makes a universal statement. Discussing things of importance is difficult when you're a pluralist, and I still wonder (as I did yesterday) why you work so hard to do so.


As I responded to Dr. Zaius, I am concerned that both religious schools and U.S. public schools fail to teach free thought. I am pretty sure U.K. public schools are the worst of both worlds, since you have a state church in that nation (no insult intended, it's simply extrapolation about how bad religious education here in the US is!). Really, free thought will not be learned in high school, the question is really, "how bad does this school stifle free thought?" My (public) high school taught some crap and not much free thinking, but free thinking was not stifled. All except by two teachers I had anyway. Why was free thought encouraged? In part, because of some influential Christian teachers and a Christian principal! They always rewarded hard work and clear thinking with greater freedom, curricular flexibility, and more responsibility for research and learning... for both Christians and non-Christians. Schools which tell students that they can't bring religion into science class stifle free thinking.


Now so much becomes clear. The religious schools in my hometown turn out graduating class after graduating class of morally deficient children with their noses in the air and a closet full of skeletons. They are, in general: duplicitous, sef-righteous, immoral, egocentric, ignorant of the world around them, and have an unhealthy sense of entitlement. If you had to be around that kind of influence, it's no wonder you don't believe in God. I know I was really glad I went to the public school, because I'd rather be around gang members than those religious school kids.

No insult intended to someone who went to a good religious school, I just don't have one in my hometown. And no insult meant to any one individual from one of those three schools, a few good ones escaped those walls.

At any rate, Upsilon, you're probably right about how your education was substandard when it comes to teaching free thought. But U.S. public schools are no better for that.

_________________

I think we can both agree that schools on both side of the pond are pretty flawed.



Just so you don't get the wrong idea of my surroundings, I'll specify: although most of them come from the same very-Christian primary school I went to, the vast majority of my schoolmates are openly non-Christian. And at secondary school, since our old headteacher left at the end of last year, there have been very few attempts to make us pray and so on.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

I reject the Old Testament for the Overcondeming, crule laws and "God's" genocides. I keep to the New Testament, and even then I must be careful.

_________________

Wow, I've never seen anyone misunderstand an entire TESTAMENT before!

I think you missed the point, WB...

Why do you say you must be careful regarding the New Testament?

I'm a Gnostic Christian (not agonstic)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm

_________________

Sorry if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but isn't this basically stating that Jewish people are the evil element in Gnosticism?

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

What secret knowledge have you learned?

From what I've read in the site you referenced, Gnosticism is NOT a Christian religion at all.

Christ used the Old Testament scripture to defeat Satan in the wilderness, therefore how can it be "evil" or "wrong" in your "Christian" religion?

1. No, thefreakyblueman, just what most people think of god is, and that is Jahova

2. AgentSeethroo, "satan", in my world view, is the one who made the the earth. The "secret knowage" Is haveing a holy relatetionship with Christ

_________________

I hate to put this crudely, Witches Brewer, but what you describe is not Christian at all, but Marcionite philosophy. It is not an accurate reflection at all what either the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures teach about the nature of God. The New Testament makes very clear that the God it proclaims is indeed the same YHWH of the Old Testament. It is in fact the Lamb of God who will make war and pass judgment on YHWH's enemies.

Satan is not able to create. He does not have that power. Only the Word of John 1:1 has that power. Satan can only corrupt. And this Word is the same one who became flesh and died on the cross to redeem this world.

_________________

Gnostisism, an ancient "mystery religion" as is the relatively modern Freemasonry, now has a representative on the H*R forum! We're a regular meeting of the minds here... of course in gnosticism, isn't that all there is to meet with? At any rate, let me know if anyone starts a gnosticism thread.

_________________

I belive that any word by "YHWH" is the word of The Demilurge. I will stop now, seeing that I am inflameing you people I am very sorry

_________________

I just hope you realize that the same YHWH who judges the sheep and goats in Ezekiel is the same Kurios (i.e., Jesus) who judges the sheep and goats in Matthew. It is at least certain that St. John saw it that way, when he clearly attributed the act of Creation to Jesus. St. Paul as well in Colossians. The belief that some other power (Satan) could have created is not consistent at all with the teachings of the New Testament.

I would challenge you to study the Scriptures more fully. The New Testament is CHOCK FULL of allusions, references, and quotes from the Old Testament. The New Testament writers LOVED the Old Testament. To try to separate them the way the heretic Marcion did simply does not do justice to the cohesive nature of the sacred writings.

_________________

I think Dr. Zaius has a thread on that concept (outside of gnosticism, simply a lone concept)... that I was planning on posting to when I woke up today. I haven't yet 'cause I'm not sure how to phrase it.

WB, you don't have to walk on eggshells here, we're all pretty cool unless you're just trolling. When we come back quick with a contradictory statement, it's as often in surprise as it is in disagreement. Actually, Didymus and I are pretty well aligned but to watch us talk the other day you'd think we were angry unless you could see the larger context of the discussion. If that environment is uncomfortable to you, then you don't have to say anything you don't want to. Simply realize that most people here have never met a true gnostic (just some people who inherited some gnostic beliefs from Freemasonry or "Christian Science").

Finally, though you didn't bring up the subject of YHWH yourself, many cults (I use the word broadly, please don't take it personally) phrase their philosophy in terms of how it contradicts orthodox (little "o") Christianity. When Christians read that kind of statement, it takes more than declaration: we require substatiation. Without that you'll find the average educated Christian quoting a few scriptures that uphold his viewpoint followed by a little bit of reasoning and a question pointed at you for your consideration. It's not enough to tell us what you believe, we want to hear why you believe. And we're going to challenge your beliefs because most of us here on the forum think that everyone's beliefs should be challenged: we allow our own to be challenged daily!

So you're not "on the outs" with anyone just for telling us what you think. We just want more! If you're up for it, hop in. If not, we won't demand anything from you. I am glad you joined, at any rate.

_________________

I belive in Gnosticism becase I had an Paradox on my hands:

I could feal the love of christ, but God was never there for me, even when I needed him


It took me a LONG time it find a belive system to work around that, and gnosticism works fine

_________________

In a sense it might work, but it's not true. Christ is God. Kurios is YHWH. While Gnosticism might explain that paradox of your own experience, it does not address the reality that it was still the Word who was responsible for creating the world, and that it was Christ's mission to BRING US to God. His very name means "YHWH Saves."

As for the sense of alienation and separation, I can tell you there have been times in my life when "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani" has been my prayer, too. But that sense of alienation from God is not because God is evil, but because we live in a fallen world, a world He created to be good.

But I will give you this. You are not alone in your journey. In his early life, St. Augustine believed as you do. But he observed a paradox in the nature of evil. The world could not have been created by any evil force; there is too much that is good in it. If Satan had indeed created this world, there would be no beautiful sunsets, no forests in which to delight, no beauty to ease the heart's sufferings. If Satan had created this world, all would be torment and pain, with no hope or joy at all. While our world may be fallen and broken (because it is separated from its Creator), there is still life and goodness in it. Evil has only the power to corrupt and destroy. In fact, I doubt seriously that a world created by any evil force would be able to sustain itself for long. It was this line of thinking that led Augustine to renounce Gnosticism.

_________________