Gnosticism is more reasonable than Modern Christianity.

Con Round 3 pg 1 [07/15/2025]

In consideration of the Resolution: Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity:

I recognize that Pro has yielded the debate, but one of his arguments was left unchallenged, and, although a bit far afield, it bears mention:

VI Rebuttal [Pro, R1]: Flaws of man's biological design

VI.a Pro's R1 BoP said that God created a flawed human biological design as if this is given scientific fact. The facts of evolution since the infamous 19th century Scopes trial decision which banned the teaching of evolution in TN public schools has since been reversed, and that reversal applies across the country today. However, does evolution's evidence of natural selection of human [H. sapiens] biological design demonstrate the typical flaws observed today as extant in the biological record of H. Sapiens from 300,000 years ago at the advent of the species? The cited [39] article lists the following "design flaws:"
Dual Function of the Pharynx - soft tissue
Inability to Biosynthesize Vitamin C - soft tissue
Awkward Wiring of the Male Urinary Track - soft tissue
Close Proximity of our Genitals to our Rectum - soft tissue
Multi-Function Genitals - soft tissue
Extremely Narrow Human Birth Canal - soft tissue
Inefficient Sinuses - soft tissue
Over-Loaded Lower Backs
Achy Knees
Overly Complicated Human Foot
Single Set of Adult Teeth

VI.b 7 of 11 [64%] physical traits are soft tissue-issues, meaning we have no evidence of the form design these tissues had in pre-history due to decomposition. The proof of Pro's claim is impossible to provide. Further, of the 4 remaining items on the list, only the last, a single row of teeth, upper and lower, can possibly be detailed as a potential design flaw, as we see no prehistoric evidence of a different design in early H. Sapiens. However, the causes of tooth decay are more attributed to poor care and consumption choices than poor design. And the remaining three [back, knee, foot] bone "design failures" are compensated by our eventual tool design and use, which is part of our God-commanded dominion of the Earth. That we see some evidence of structural abuse, even in peaceful pursuits, may be as much attributed to poor decision-making in overloading the load forces applied to skeletal/muscular capability rather than design flaw. The argument does not hold. No, these "flaws" are more due to errant ideas about proper diet and behavior than poor design, and do not support the Resolve, which therefore fails by this argument. If only design of human tissues is something either Gnosticism or modern Christianity can resolve by providing a "more reasonable" design is the Resolution met by this argument. Having researched the matter, Con sees no evidence that either have attempted, let alone given thought to correction of human tissue design. It is not in our best interest to blame God for all of our follies.

VII Rebuttal [Pro R3]

VII.a X

I conclude that we cannot apply, today, the merit of "more reasonable" to Gnostimysticism when Christocriscotech has the potential to make us more flaky, fluffy, and crispy, simultaneously with being saved, savored and favored by God.

R3 Sources:
[39] https://gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-1518242787

I have no more rebuttal and conclude the debate its finished by Pro's concession [post #10]

I have posted my R2 arguments in posts #15, #14, #13, read in that order, with sources for R2 in post #12

Con Round 2 pg 1 [07/06/2025]

In consideration of the Resolution: Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity:

III Rebuttal [Pro R1]: The Demiurge

III.a Pro R1: "Gnosticism is a type of early Christianity that taught the material world was created by an evil being, and that Christ came to earth to liberate people from this evil world." This creator being is called by Gnosticism the "Demiurge." Pro's claim suggests a division separating the "Demiurge," and Christ. Throughout the New Testament, the association by multiple references express nothing but love between the creator and Christ:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

"As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love."

"...and behold, a voice out of the cloud which said, This is my Beloved Son, in whom I m well pleased; hear ye him."

III.b It is certain by both Gnosticism and modern Christianity that the world was created, and that it is imperfect, even though, as declared by God in Genesis that the creation was "good," not evil. There certainly was evil on the Earth by the presence of Lucifer, and God acknowledged the existence of the tree of knowledge of good and evil of his creation, but to then brand the creation of Earth and its inhabitants as an evil act stretches the commentary of Genesis to no advantage of Pro's argument.

III.c The scripture samples noted in ¶III.a [there are many more] express no animus, but mutual love. Therefore, Pro's argument, and Resolve are flawed.

IV Rebuttal [Pro, R1]: Human on human violence

IV.a In his R1, Pro made the following argument: "Civilization amplified violence on a larger scale." While the statement appears sound, it truncates the nature of human violence as if civilization was the root cause of of our mutual animus. And, let us observe that Pro avoids defining what he means by violent behavior. Is it yelling at one another? Shoving? Injuring? Causing death? We must recall that "human" is a nebulous term alleged to be coincident with the advent of the Homo [H.] sapiens species, but that is because H. sapiens is the only living human species left on Earth. We are not its originating species, nor was any species of the genus Homo unique on Earth other than the first of the series, H. habilis, originating 2.3M years ago. H. habilis was not "civilized" as defined by National Geographic, featuring six primary characteristics. H. habilis may have had one of them [art?], but all six are:
- urbanization - infrastructure/admin
- monuments/art - division of labor
-shared communication - class structure

IV.b H. neanderthalensis [400,000 years ago] is the first human to exhibit 4 of the 6 characteristics, missing only infrastructure and class structure, but, otherwise, match a decent degree of civilization's characteristics, even with small urbanization. They buried and monumentalized their dead, regardless how death occurred. Some skeletal remains show violence done to them, even to the degree of cannibalism. Artwork and division of labor was already developed long before the advent of H. neanderthalensis.

IV.c H. sapiens [300,000 years ago] were contemporaries with later Neanderthals, and became fully civilized by all 6 of the above characteristics, but that achievement required another 296,000 years to "'modern time," but, even then, from before the advent of "civilization," humans have been "violent" with one another, so civilization, contrary to Pro's assertion, did not "amplify," let alone initiate human-on-human violence. As human violence, even unto death, has always been in existence with our existence, the "reasonable" argument of amplification, and the Resolve, fail.

Con Round 2 pg 2 [07/06/2025]

V Rebuttal [Pro R1]: Cruelty: man made in the image of God

V.a Pro alleged "Man being made in the image of God... suggests that he [God] is a figure of unimaginable cruelty" But Pro's Resolution alleges this is a modern Christian-originated and amplified "cruelty," which aligns with the Pro argument rebutted in this round's ¶III. Genesis, a record of man's creation, but whose dating is nebulous, because the "modern" Christian designation of Adam at roughly 4,000 B.C.E. does not account for the gaps in the genealogical story in Genesis, and is not a modern Christian device. Moses, the recorder of that story, lived more than 3,000 years ago. Even if "modern" applies to the age of Emperor Constantine, that is still 4th century C.E.; not yet "modern Christianity" alleged by Pro's Resolve, and Description:
"roman catholicism" [30 C.E.]
"protestantism" [1517]
"non-denominational" [early 1800s]
Pro failed to define the principle word "modern" of the Resolve in Description, so the term remains an open question Con is allowed to interpret as this very date [July 2025], since all three of Pro's "modern Christian" references are current organizations, though creations of relative antiquity.

V.b Referring to my R2, ¶III rebuttal, above, the "cruelty" of man to man, let alone of God's suggested cruelty to man, by Pro, that is rebutted above, pre-dates even Pro's resolved Gnosticism. Since cruelty continues today, gnosis has clearly failed to resolve the matter by "more reason..." in roughly 2,000 years, evidenced by our cruelty to each other today.

V.b.1 The problem with gnosis is its variable approach to a simple solution compared to Christianity's [modern or ancient] basic advice to:
1. Love God,
2. Love our neighbor.
Gnosis, in 2,000 years, has developed a schism of approaches. According to Britannica:

"Consensus on a definition of gnosticism has proved difficult. The groups conventionally classified as gnostic did not constitute a single movement with relatively homogenous organization, teachings, and rituals. Even the self-designation gnostic is problematic, since it is attested for only some of the traditions conventionally treated as gnostic, and its connotations are ambiguous."

V.b.2. All Christianity agrees upon the two commandments noted in V.b.1, above, being inter-dependent, offered by Christ early in the first century C.E. in Matthew to combat cruelty.

V.c My BoP is sufficient to demonstrate that Gnosticism has not and is not "more reasonable" than modern Christianity. The Resolve's "...more reasonable" must demonstrate that man's cruelty is less reasonably addressed by modern Christianity than Gnosticism's gnostischism [coined word]. My BoP is simply that the coined word, let alone Pro's gnosis, has not succeeded to achieve an objective of less cruelty to one another than our history from pre-history demonstrates.

V.d Gnosticism's objective is a secret mysticism to achieve oneness with deity.

V.e Modern Christianity's objective is love of deity and of one another to achieve oneness with deity.

V.e takes longer to describe than V.d, but has a much more personal one-on-one-on-One experience. That is, man-to-man-to-God due to lack of secrets and mystics, because love [see [35]] mentions neither secrets nor mysticism as essential. Gnosis, depending on which of the factions of it are cited, accepts the Gospels of the New Testament, including Matthew.

Con Round 2 pg 3 [07/06/2025]

VI Rebuttal [Pro R2, pg 3]: Humans predicated on suffering

VI.a Pro R1 claim: "Therefore if I can establish that the foundation of human life and the world is predicted on suffering, as well as the inconsistencies and flaws in biological design. This strengthens my ultimate argument of a creator god neither being benevolent, nor perfect or all-powerful."

VI.b Predicted on suffering? No: In the Bible, "likeness," particularly in the context of being created in God's image and likeness, refers to a resemblance or similarity to God's nature and attributes. It signifies that humans share some of God's nature and attributes, even now, particularly in terms of having a spiritual nature, rationality, and the capacity for moral reasoning and relationship with God. This is, therefore, not a distant, nor even adversarial relationship with God's imposition of suffering as either a created status, nor a result of our existence, but of eventual redemption and glorification. There is no "Demiurge" [see my R2, ¶III rebuttal, above]. Rather, though we can suffer, it it brief, and then, "But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you." We are predicated on ultimately being perfected and glorified. This is a much preferred predication and consequence than the Gnostic predication of ongoing suffering; therefore, a Gnostic failure of the Resolution.

VI.c Since Pro's predicate of human suffering is debunked, the follow-on Pro argument: "This strengthens my ultimate argument of a creator god neither being benevolent, nor perfect or all-powerful" is, likewise disheveled, not to mention [but I am] that these alleged attribute failures Pro insists are God's true nature, are neither in his failed Resolution ["ultimate argument"] nor the Description, nor are true by his own attempted logic. 

VII Rebuttal [pro R2]: none
VII.a Pro forfeited R2, therefore, no further rebuttal now. Extend all arguments. Rebuttal of Pro's R1 claim of flawed human design will be addressed in Con R3.

Thank you, Sir.Lancelot for this debate. As you have conceded as of today [4/6], I conclude.

R2 Sources separate in comments [not to count as argument characters]:

R2 Sources:
[20] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Demiurge
[21] Holy Bible [KJV] John 3: 16
[22] Holy Bible [KJV] John 15: 9
[23] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 17: 5
[24] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 1: 31
[25] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 2: 17
[26] https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0247-8
[27] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/key-components-civilization/
[28] https://europe.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-823.html
[29] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/key-components-civilization/
[30] https://creation.com/genesis-genealogies#:~:text=Historical records with deep theological significance&text=Many people alive today do,generations from Adam to Abraham.
[31] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Constantine-I-Roman-emperor
[32] https://www.britannica.com/topic/papacy. See "Overview of the Papacy"
[33] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/protestant-reformation/
[34] https://generationschurch.co/identity/non-denomination-history/
[35] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 22: 37, 39
[36] https://www.britannica.com/topic/gnosticism
[37] https://ogdoas.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/gnostic-insights-in-the-new-testament-gospels/
[38] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 1: 26, 27
[39] https://www.icbyte.org/index.php/perspectives/bishops2/139-bishop-alberto-rojas/2557-created-in-the-image-and-likeness-of-god-let-s-unpack-it 
[40] Holy Bible [KJV] 1 Peter 5: 10

I am. sorry, my friend, to see your concession. If you don 't mind, I am still going to present my R2 rebuttal. Thanks for a very good debate subject.

I am conceding this.
As the end of this debate concludes. Please pass all 7 points to Fauxlaw, voters.

Correction [not critical] I realize that I made a minor error in the introductory paragraph of my R1, saying, "As this site is headquartered in the U.S...." The fact is, the cite makes no indication of residence, so I'll offer a correction; I made a survey of the membership of four random pages of members who engage in debate, but not a page on which I am [a total of 200 members' sample size, a statistical qualification sample, considering just the membership who engage debate, 50 members per page] and find that 52%, a majority, indicate the U.S. as country of residence, and the claim of jurisdiction still holds. This is immaterial to the debate subject; but since the erroneous claim needed correction, I have done so. This also demonstrates the site draws internationally to a high degree, though less than a majority. That can only be good for variety of opinion.

An additional coincidence noted, by the same data collection noted above, a majority of members who are currently under a ban, regardless of duration, also do not identify a country of origin, choosing to remain "unknown." Correlation? I offer no opinion, just the casual observation.

To Sir.Lancelot, voters, and readers/interested parties:
I'm sorry for Sir.Lancelot forfeiting R2. I am prepared to publish my R2 now, but I am going into knee surgery next Tuesday, 7/8, and need to alllow a few days' recovery afterward, so, to extend the debate to allow those days without forfeiting Round 3, I am not going to publish my R2 rebuttal until about July 5 to allow Pro's R3 allowance of time, plus my R3 deadline to be at a point when I can issue my R3 on a timely basis. Thanks for your interest in this debate. I appreciate your thoughts and prayers in my behalf. I'll be back.

I'm curious to see whether Pro will use Gnostic primary sources as opposed to just a webpage.

I have posted my R1 argument/rebuttal, posts 5,4,3 [read in that order for continuity

Con Round 1 [06/16/2025]

Considering the religious nature of this debate, in my debate rounds, though I am neither Protestant, non-denominational, nor Catholic [I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], I will use the King James Version of the Holy Bible [KJV] as it is recognized by 49% of Christians in America [a singular majority] and 55% of Protestants, which, collectively, are the highest percentage of Christians in the U.S. As this site is headquartered in the U.S., it becomes the jurisdiction of preference, using the KJV for reference for my debate rounds 1-4 on this Resolution.

In consideration of the Resolution: Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity:

I Argument: What is "reasonable?"

I.a Being a Resolution keyword, I suggest "reasonable" deserved to be defined. I will do so, away from the biased realm of religion to an unbiased alternative; the law: In Black's Law Dictionary, "reasonable" is defined as "fair, proper, or moderate under the circumstances." A secular definition: according to the OED, "fair, sensible, just and moderate." These definitions emphasize an objective standard that will suit our purposes, concentrating on the information in both citations. 

I.b Therefore, what is "fair, proper, moderate, sensible, just" [fpmsj] for Gnosticism to be/not be our separate Burden of Proof [BoP]]? "...under the circumstances;" meaning, in this debate's exclusive case, to either support or defeat the Resolution. That is, strictly speaking, the limit of either participant's BoP.

I.c Gnostic Christianity [G.C] views Jesus as a divine being sent from heaven to assist humanity in spiritual improvement. They believe "redemption" occurs through the revelation of secret knowledge.

I.c.1 "Secret knowledge" is not attainable, by definition [secret = restricted access], to the ordinary person. That is, it is not accessible to all, or it would not be secret, or sacred, would it?

I.d Whereas Modern Christianity [M.C] views Jesus as a divine being sent from heaven, as the Son of God, to redeem from death by resurrection., They believe Jesus is the direct cause of their redemption from death by virtue of his multi-purposed act of atonement.* "And he [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

1.d.1 *The atonement is recognized separately by separate denominations of M.C as being accomplished for different purposes, some shared, some not. I shall not use these separate purposes but one; redemption from death, which all M.C accept relating to "redemption," but is generally rejected by M.C as a specific function of "redemption," as explained below [R1, I.e, I.e.1, I.e.2].

Sources:

[1] https://research.lifeway.com/2014/03/17/majority-of-americans-still-prefer-king-james/
[2] Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1910
[3] Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989
[4] https://sermons.logos.com/sermons/1380908-gnosticism-explained#
[5] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 16: 16
[6] Holy Bible [KJV] 1 Corinthians 15: 22
[7] https://sermons.logos.com/sermons/1380908-gnosticism-explained#
[8] Holy Bible [KJV] I John 2: 2
[9] https://yogainternational.com/article/view/gnostic-texts-reveal-jesus-in-a-new-light/?srsltid=AfmBOorgY5157EQj7jlWE9RDGUGAtbH0-J3qbIIAeKnMZTMF6H8nW4VS

Round 1

I.e "Redemption," then, since both G.C and M.C use the term, cannot be viewed fairly by a third, unbiased party, as meaning the same thing. This fact places further weight on the keyword, "reasonable," and its conditional "under the circumstances."

I.e.1 Redemption [G.C]: attainment of secret knowledge to improve spirituality.

I.e.2 Redemption [M.C.]: restored from death by resurrection, directly due to Jesus Christ. "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept."

I.f Therefore, it is not "reasonable" to accept that a "[fpmsj]", i.e. "reasonable" person under the circumstance of secrecy, to have access to secret knowledge as being the "more reasonable" condition. Whereas, the knowledge of, and effect of Christ's redemption from death is freely accessible to all without exception as well as without any knowledge whatsoever, secret or otherwise. This must include even persons born on Earth who have never heard of Jesus Christ, such as persons living deep in forests of the Amazon, or Africa, or elsewhere void of broadcast communication, even in print media in an appropriate language. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." No secret knowledge necessary, and available to all unconditionally without asking. Is there any religious doctrine more reasonable, or civilized even in a secular and legal sense, let alone religious? Even confirmed atheists, and even Satan-worshippers, murderers, rapists, and thieves, and the utterly ignorant through no fault of their own, either now or in all times past, have access to redemption, m.C-style. Therefore, the Resolution, "Gnosticism is more reasonable than modern Christianity," is defeated.

Sources:

[10] Holy Bible [KJV] 1 Corinthians 15: 20
[11] Holy Bible [KJV] 1 Corinthians 15: 22

Round 1:
II Rebuttal:

II.a Pro's R1 claim, "the foundation of human life and the world is predicted on suffering..." is not correct. Witness: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent..." and "...I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."

II.a.1 These near-opening and closing statements of John's Chapter 17 express not suffering as a foundation, but love, and is a promise to all who have and will express in word and deed their obedience to the two commandments offered by Christ when asked to expound on the "great commandment in the law." "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ...And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Who is our neighbor? Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5 - 7, inclusive] that our neighbor ultimately includes our enemy, so, it is everyone.

II.b Pro's R1 further claimed, "This strengthens my ultimate argument of a creator god neither being benevolent, nor perfect or all-powerful." However, Christ declared, not in secret, but openly; "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Being perfect for as long as God has been perfect, it can be presumed that his perfection includes benevolence and omnipotence on demand, if not needed on all occasions.

11.b.1 I learned as a novice Six Sigma Black Belt, an industrial manufacturing management certification, that "Perfection is not a destination, it is a never-ending process." We may not achieve perfection in all things in this mortal lifetime, but that we can become perfect in performance of some simple processes, such as brushing teeth, is foregone conclusion. The more; the better.

II.c Pro closes R1 with an argument that "Civilization amplified violence on a larger scale," claiming that prior to civilization men acted like savages [and still do, but on a larger scale than prior to civilization]. But Pro ignores that civilized people [including early biblical generations] could also be righteous people: "And Jared begat Enoch... And Enoch begat Methuselah... And Enoch walked with God... [implying that he was righteous]... And Enoch walked with God, and was not, for God took him."

II.c.1 Paul admonished us "...as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also." Though the natural man seeks evil, and is an enemy to God, the man filled with grace is righteous by word and deed. This is the man Pro ignores in his argument of the skeptical Gnostic.

II.d Pro's R1 cited https://gnosticismexplained.org/ which states "Gnosis was salvation through mystical union with the divine..." Mysticism is not exactly how Christ defines his Gospel message. Mysticism is defined as, "A purportedly nonsensory awareness or a nonstructured sensory experience granting acquaintance of realities or states of affairs that are of a kind not accessible by way of ordinary sense-perception structured by mental conceptions, somatosensory modalities, or standard introspection." A definition of "nons-" and "nots," which begs the question, How does one prove a negative?" I think Christ's direct, open, mystic-free suggestion to "love you neighbor" is far more productive, and accessible.

Thank you, Sir.Lancelot. To you I pass Round 2.

Sources:

[12] Holy Bible [KJV] John 17; 3, 26
[13] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 22: 37, 39
[14] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 5: 44
[15] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 5: 48
[16] CSSBB Primer, Quality Council of Indiana, 5th Edition, 2022
[17] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 5; 18-24
[18] Holy Bible [KJV] 2 Corinthians 8: 7
[19] https://gnosticismexplained.org/

Are you going to be entering an argument? There's only 3 hours and change.

As you know, I continue [I think] to have issues entering arguments in the argument section of debates and must use comments for posting rounds and have no intent to forfeit rounds. If you're agreeable to that. pls. let me know. I think this would be a good debate for us. I'm okay with limiting the modern Christian perspective as you have defined it.