Thread: Gnosticism - the best way.

Gnosticism - coming to God through knowledge of God obtained through knowledge of self.

"to know oneself, at the deepest level, is simultaneously to know God: this is the secret of gnosis.... Self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical"

Gnosticism does not portray man as a hopeless sinner, nor as a seperate creation of a distant God. It teaches that God is within us, and that our very nature is the nature of God hence 'we are made in gods image'.

It does not demand externalisation of god or belittling of man. Surely the search for self discovery is something we all undertake anyway, we all search for meaning and it is deep within that gnosticism says we will find a connection with God.

The Gnostic affirmation is that man, in some essential reality, is also God. This statement, of course, is one of duality: Man, though not God, is.

Much better than the 'unkowing' of faith based religions or the lack of inspiration of atheism. Is the search for the divine within, and when one finds the divine within one will see it without as well.

And it is not just christianity; the concepts behind some buddhist paths like zen, as well as sufism teach along a similar thread to gnosticism (though not by the same name).

Of course the main problem that much orthodox religion has with gnosticism is that not everyone can have the same level of god knowledge / god awareness, also being an internal search it is hard to measure or control, and one cannot simply prescribe a simple set of rules as a step by step guide on this inner journey. As such what doctrine does exist in gnosticism is often vague and changes from one to another. The problem many have with gnosis is that everyone must find it for themselves, one may not find their god within and then tell everyone else so they dont have to take the journey themselves.

If someone does come to know a god or an internal connection to divinity and would only persuade others to engage in this inner searching as well. Can anyone call that a bad thing?

Hi there female issue of Vashti,

The Gnostic affirmation is that man, in some essential reality, is also God. This statement, of course, is one of duality: Man, though not God, is.

This indicates that there is no objectively real 'god' outside of our own being. Does saying that "man is god" imply that god is just a creation of man? Or do gnostics feel that the man/god duality still embodies a real supernatural god-essence somehow?

If someone does come to know a god or an internal connection to divinity and would only persuade others to engage in this inner searching as well. Can anyone call that a bad thing?

Yes. As an adult, I don't want anyone trying to "persuade" me of anything. Show me evidence, and if it's good enough, I'll get with the program. If you take out the word "persuade", then you can follow any path you like, and that's a good thing.

Vashti's Daughter,


You are employing a particular understanding of "gnosticism".

Namely, often, "gnosticism" is referred to as the 'spirit is good, matter is bad' approach.
In Christianity, this resulted in the theology that deeply resents this life and man.

Is the search for the divine within, and when one finds the divine within one will see it without as well.

This is abstract to me. Also, it carries the danger of vanity spreading unrestrained.

How is one to know that what one has "found within", is indeed divine?
What confirmation does one have, that what one has found is indeed divine, and not some delusion of grandeur?

If someone does come to know a god or an internal connection to divinity and would only persuade others to engage in this inner searching as well. Can anyone call that a bad thing?

I think that is a good thing. In fact, many religions encourage (some even demand) that this knowledge of divinity be spread to other people -- so the idea is not new.

Many religions foresee that a person engages in "inner searching" -- the religions that suppose a personal relationship between God and an individual.

Truth be told, many times, this ends up like a person taking the position "I have now found God, and I will remain so forever, no further search or inquiry is needed, I only need to endure to the end". This is when complacency and vanity take over the search for the divine -- and thus effectively end it.

Vashti's Daughter
everything you say is beautiful.

the self and the divine are identical

If two entities are identical to one another, they must therefore act as one. It makes no sense then, to introduce an invisible entity when a single physical entity is all that is required.

We can then leap past the notion that we exist symbiotically with an invisible entity, and instead recognize that we, as individuals, devoid of invisible entities, control our own destinies, and that of all mankind.

Free yourself.

IMO, gnosticism = "I know because I was given the knowledge by god".

Why? Are you willing to question that knowledge?

When I was a kid, I just knew that math was dumb.

- Not to mention how goddamned annoying the god concept is to me and how gnostics try to self-justify themselves with it.

Our lives are gigantic rationalizations. That's not good or bad, it just is. Your opening post is a rationalization. My response is the same.

Bah. Regardless, it's my opinion that gnosticism is unethical and basically the root cause of a lot of murders/wars and such. Icky stuff.

Originally Posted by (Q)

the self and the divine are identical

If two entities are identical to one another, they must therefore act as one. It makes no sense then, to introduce an invisible entity when a single physical entity is all that is required.

We can then leap past the notion that we exist symbiotically with an invisible entity, and instead recognize that we, as individuals, devoid of invisible entities, control our own destinies, and that of all mankind.

Free yourself.

the self and the divine are identical -- they are so in their nature.
But they are not identical in their extent. One human has, in comparison with the Divine, only a small portion of divinity.

and instead recognize that we, as individuals, devoid of invisible entities, control our own destinies, and that of all mankind.

We *control* that?
Do humans control tsunamis? Do humans control how the sun rises and sets? Do humans control asteroids falling to the planet? Do human control whether a falling stone will fall to the ground or not? Do humans control how proteins are synthesized? Does a person who is about to be robbed control the act? Etc.?

No.

So don't say we humans *control* our own destinies.

One human has, in comparison with the Divine, only a small portion of divinity.

And your point to that is...?

Do humans control tsunamis?

Not yet, but we can develop an early warning system that will help us avoid their destruction, hence we control our destinies.

Do humans control how the sun rises and sets?

What does that have to do with controlling our destinies?

Do humans control asteroids falling to the planet?

Not yet, but we can develop technologies that would move or destroy the asteroids, thus allowing us to control our destinies.

Do human control whether a falling stone will fall to the ground or not?

Yes, by placing their hand underneath it, thus controlling not only our destiny, but also that of the rock.

Do humans control how proteins are synthesized?

Only if they reside in the human body.

Does a person who is about to be robbed control the act?

Yes, by leading the robber into a sense of false security, one can easily overcome the offender with with a pen knife.

Or, they get shot/stabbed in the process, thus having their destinies controlled by another indivudual. Needless to say, an invisible entity was never required to control these individuals destinies.

So don't say we humans *control* our own destinies.

I just did.

Q.

One human has, in comparison with the Divine, only a small portion of divinity.

And your point to that is...?

You have said before: "If two entities are identical to one another, they must therefore act as one."

Humans and the Divine are not identical, even though they have identical nature; thus, they do not act as one. This changes the rest of your argument -- it makes it invalid.

Do humans control tsunamis?

Not yet, but we can develop an early warning system that will help us avoid their destruction, hence we control our destinies.

We do not control that tsunamis happen. If you were in true control of your destiny, and your desire would be to lay on a beach that afternoon, then you would be able to prevent that tsunami, in order to keep on lying on that beach, as you desire.

Do humans control how the sun rises and sets?

What does that have to do with controlling our destinies?

If you were in true control of your destiny, things would have AS YOU PLEASE, this means, among other things, that you would be the one to say when the sun sets and rises.

Not yet, but we can develop technologies that would move or destroy the asteroids, thus allowing us to control our destinies.

We *can*? What makes you think so?
Humans cannot even prevent caries from happening.

Yes, by placing their hand underneath it, thus controlling not only our destiny, but also that of the rock.

If you were indeed in true control of your destiny and that of the stone, you would be able to throw that stone as far as you could, and, by will, interfere with the law of gravitation.

Point being, we, according to science, are bound by the laws of physics, and thus, we are not in control of our destinies.

Or, they get shot/stabbed in the process, thus having their destinies controlled by another indivudual.

No matter what you do, you can never prevent being overpowered.
Thus, you are not in control of your destiny.

Needless to say, an invisible entity was never required to control these individuals destinies.

"Control" them? It must be that you suppose that this "invisible entity", the Divine, is a puppet master. You are supposing theistic determinism. Not all theists agree to be determined by the Divine, ie. that it would be the Divine who would be controlling them, and that they themselves have no free will.

So don't say we humans *control* our own destinies.

I just did.

Saying it doesn't make it so.
You have no control over what I say to you; you do not decide what I say. If you were in control of your destiny, you were in control of what happens to you, and thus, among other things, in control of what I say to you. You do not have that control.

Originally Posted by water

Truth be told, many times, this ends up like a person taking the position "I have now found God, and I will remain so forever, no further search or inquiry is needed, I only need to endure to the end". This is when complacency and vanity take over the search for the divine -- and thus effectively end it.

This may be so, but then that ceases to become gnosticism. But I do agree that this vanity and self worship is a danger of this teaching. Although there are dangers in all thought systems, many systems can lead us to error or truth depending on the seeker.

True gnosticism is more than just knowing it is the process of identyfying with the divinity within, to such an extent as to outwardly manifest that divinity. This is what Jesus did and hence was the manifest son of god on earth, and not just Jesus but others have manifested divinty on earth to greater or lesser degrees.

the person who says I have now found god - has not! because it is more than just finding the divine it is about becoming the divine.

I like what you say in your earlier post that man has a portion of the divine within, I believe this is true. Man has a portion of the divine within but he does not contain the whole of the divine within, therefore a divine also exists without. And the divine within me is the same as the divine within you, which is the same as the divine without. We have the same substance of god and the same potential to outwardly realise that potential.

Jesus said "The father (outward god) is in the son (manifest god on earth) and the same son is in you (the potential to become the son of god)".

Originally Posted by (Q)

the self and the divine are identical

If two entities are identical to one another, they must therefore act as one. It makes no sense then, to introduce an invisible entity when a single physical entity is all that is required.

"the self and the divine are identical". This does not mean we are physically identical to god - we are of the same substance and same potential and in that sense identical, but it is the same god that is in all of us and as such we are all one and the same. although none nor all of our physical bodies contain the entirety of god.

We are an invisible entity as well as a visible one. We are god coming into manifestation; god evolving. After all what higher ideal is there to aspire to than the divine.

Originally Posted by superluminal

Yes. As an adult, I don't want anyone trying to "persuade" me of anything. Show me evidence, and if it's good enough, I'll get with the program. If you take out the word "persuade", then you can follow any path you like, and that's a good thing.

Well do not mis-understand my use of the word persuade. I use it in relation to the "persuade others to engage in this inner searching" that I mention in my opening post.

What I am suggesting you do is inner searching of your self. I am not trying to persuade you of the result. I suggest this is the way to find divinity - you may find different and thats fine, but dont preclude the result until you have taken the journey. Maybe at the end of our lives we can try to draw a conclusion......

Evidence :- well you have a self do you not; you exist at some level; and this self has an inner life - private thoughts and feeling, deeper levels of consciousness that are difficult to put in words. Of course you do , so does everyone. Well explore it. (you probably do anyway or you wouldn't be on this type of site)

Originally Posted by water

How is one to know that what one has "found within", is indeed divine?
.

What we see in the outside world is a projection of what we see inside. I do not mean physically, but how we 'perceive' what happens to us and around us.

Not that an external god is doing things to us, but when we look out at others we see the divine in them and the divine in nature and the world, and when we can only see the divine we can only act accordingly, and as such we manifest divinity.

Reality is a mirror in which we see ourselves and hopefully one day god.

"the self and the divine are identical". This does not mean we are physically identical to god - we are of the same substance and same potential and in that sense identical

Rubbish! We are flesh and blood, that is the 'substance' we are made - are you saying gods are also flesh and blood. Please clarify what exactly you mean by 'substance?' As well, what do you mean by 'potential?' Are we somehow of the same electrical potential as gods???

but it is the same god that is in all of us and as such we are all one and the same.

Again, complete rubbish! Who's god are we all one and the same? The Christian god? Islamic God? Spud god? Me?

We are an invisible entity as well as a visible one.

That is a speculation at best - you really have no idea whether or not that is true, nor can you ever know. You merely imagine there to be an invisible entity.

We are god coming into manifestation; god evolving. After all what higher ideal is there to aspire to than the divine.

It is that statement that confirms your belief of god is a fantasy. You want and feel the need to aspire to something you think is higher than being human. Your beliefs have nothing to do with reality but are merely the notions of how you want reality to be, most likely because you are dissatisfied with reality.

The highest order of aspiration, if one were to look to aspire, would be a human being, an individual, devoid of god fantasies and the protagonist of their own destiny.

By fantasizing about gods, you are not aspiring to anything other than what your god fantasy entails.

Divinity is in the minds of those who wish to imagine it.

Humans and the Divine are not identical, even though they have identical nature; thus, they do not act as one. This changes the rest of your argument -- it makes it invalid.

I can understand your disagreement - each believer has their own versions of god fantasies. Yours is different from Vashti's, hence your disagreement is with him/her.

Of course, since both of you have god fantasies, both your arguments are niether valid nor invalid.

If you were in true control of your destiny, and your desire would be to lay on a beach that afternoon, then you would be able to prevent that tsunami, in order to keep on lying on that beach, as you desire.

You are being utterly ridiculous here. We control our destinies, not tsunamis.

you would be the one to say when the sun sets and rises.

Silly, in the extreme.

We *can*? What makes you think so?

It's called critical thinking - try it sometime. But be very careful, critical thinking will disolve any god fantasy.

you could, and, by will, interfere with the law of gravitation.

Again, silly.

No matter what you do, you can never prevent being overpowered.
Thus, you are not in control of your destiny.

Fair enough, I'll give you that one. Yes, real events happen that could change ones destiny and relieve them of that control. But most people, who do not die in a tsunami, are not killed by robbers or suffer some other horrible accident, do in fact control their destinies.

Your argument is not to support those real events, but instead is an argument to support god fantasies.

My argument is to support an individuals control over their destinies as opposed to a god controlled destiny. Please pay attention.

that it would be the Divine who would be controlling them, and that they themselves have no free will.

It has been shown countless times through infinite examples that under the regime of a god, no one can possibly have free will.

If you were in control of your destiny, you were in control of what happens to you, and thus, among other things, in control of what I say to you

I didn't say I have control over you, did I? And that has nothing to do with controlling ones destiny - you're being silly again.

Clearly, you have missed the point to this entire argument and are tossing out completely ridiculous examples, none that have anything to do with the argument, nor are of any consequence to invalidating it.

Wouldn't it be more clear to say: "You control your destiny within the parameters of your environment."? It does seem smidge superfluous I suppose, as the "parameters of your environment" are always present, even if you change environments you're in one.

Q.


May God have mercy on your soul.

Originally Posted by water

Q.


May God have mercy on your soul.

Perhaps you can explain how I can see that as other than utterly condescending?

I mean, you've just judged, based on his assertions as to your fantasy, that he is a "sinner" and may be subject to the "wrath of god"?.... correct?

Help me through this please.

The plain truth just occured to me.

Gnosticism can't result in conversation. It can only result in preaching, as we see in the opening post. This supports the claim that it is unethical, as it is completely one sided. As such, it is the best way to becoming self-absorbed and condescending.

Some might consider that the worst way.

Could a certain individual just be pretending to be an idiot as it is the only thing he has control over doing?

_/
/==============
\==============
_\

Originally Posted by ellion

Could a certain individual just be pretending to be an idiot
as it is the only thing he has control over doing?

Regardless of to whom you refer, apparently YOU don't have to pretend.

OMG, and the ironic stupidity of your post above along with your signature "anything to say, say it to my face" is simply jaw-dropping. Thanks for the laugh.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Please identify, from the list of hundreds of alleged gods in existence between Allah and Zeus, which god exactly you refer that I may plead for my soul?

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Originally Posted by water

Q.


May God have mercy on your soul.

Perhaps you can explain how I can see that as other than utterly condescending?

I mean, you've just judged, based on his assertions as to your fantasy, that he is a "sinner" and may be subject to the "wrath of god"?.... correct?

Help me through this please.

Who is being condescending?

Originally Posted by (Q)

May God have mercy on your soul.

Please identify, from the list of hundreds of alleged gods in existence between Allah and Zeus, which god exactly you refer that I may plead for my soul?

Why would you plead for your soul to someone Whom you are not willing to acknowledge, not even willing to know?

You are now leaving.....
*gong*... HOUSE OF WES …*gong*
*Kowtow*
*Dorky Pose*
how long have you been making people laugh?

Why would you plead for your soul to someone Whom you are not willing to acknowledge, not even willing to know?

Isn't it obvious - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt - could you please identify the god you refer?

You may further proceed to explain why the god you refer to should have mercy and the other gods not, for example?

Why would you choose that god amongst the purported hundreds available? Do those other gods not share the concern you portray?

Do you even recognize any of those other gods as existing?

Please do share?

Originally Posted by ellion

how long have you been making people laugh?

Daily for about 36 years. (presuming I was a funny baby) It's a gift.

How about saying something on-topic? What is your analysis of the topic?

How about saying something on-topic?

Nah. I think Ellion is just here to cyber-flirt. Look around. You'll see it in practically all of his posts. Well. All of them that I've seen anyway.
Strange activity for a christian to take part in, but to each his own...


Anyway, as to the topic. I agree with you when you say that the definition of gnosticism as given by the thread starter is wrong. Gnosticism is about knowledge derived from god. Not the other way around.

Anyway. Definitions aside, 'Know Thyself" is not bad advice, but the problem, of course, is that according to her bent on the subject, she doesn't want to know herself but rather to know god. I think that there is something inherently wrong in this propisition in that the object of the search is not really the self at all. And if it's not the self, but some other, then you're not going to know thyself and thus you're not going to know this god-thing.

So. I say, drop the god-talk and just deal with the self.
Then you might get somewhere.


Water,

I thought you were dropping the god talk? Just can't quit, eh?

Originally Posted by water

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Originally Posted by water

Q.


May God have mercy on your soul.

Perhaps you can explain how I can see that as other than utterly condescending?

I mean, you've just judged, based on his assertions as to your fantasy, that he is a "sinner" and may be subject to the "wrath of god"?.... correct?

Help me through this please.

Who is being condescending?

Like I said, seems like you. God is irrelevant to rational discussion. To assert otherwise is to assert that others must believe as you do. The only rational explanation as to your aversion with god is fantasy. IMO, that's not necessarily bad. All sorts of fantasies keep us going. However, when you attest to them as something tangible, I think you've overstepped. By my understanding, your god would not want you to judge. I guess he'll forgive you though. You don't seem so confident that Q will be forgiven. Seems kind of condescending.

Originally Posted by wes

How about saying something on-topic? What is your analysis of the topic?

i have said what i need to say about this topic.

forgive me for trying to embarress you. it was very shallow of me.

Originally Posted by invert_nexus

How about saying something on-topic?

Nah. I think Ellion is just here to cyber-flirt. Look around. You'll see it in practically all of his posts. Well. All of them that I've seen anyway.
Strange activity for a christian to take part in, but to each his own...

can christians not flirt is there something unethical or impure about flirting? can a christian not say cock or pussy or fuck your self you arrogant wanker? why not? who said?

Originally Posted by invert

but to each his own...

at least you not completely ignorant

can christians not flirt is there something unethical or impure about flirting? can a christian not say cock or pussy or fuck your self you arrogant wanker? why not? who said?

It's not flirting that's the problem. It's cyber-flirting. Now. Perhaps you have different goals in mind than the average Joe, but one could say that a successful bout of cyber-flirting ends in... well... a situation that is not very christian.

And. You can say cock and pussy all you like. Where did that come from anyway? Water's thread? What does that have to do with what a christian can and can't do?

Anyway.
Topic, topic, who's got the topic?
(I always like to at least present some topic with my tangent...)
Hmm.

Ok. The proscription against onanism could be said to be derived from gnosticism in that it is knowledge that is derived from god rather than self. A commandment from the high to the low.

It relates to self in that this proscription is, in fact, a proscription against gratification of self as ungodly. Unholy. Unclean. This is not the only proscription that denies the body to make way for god. In fact, it is a common theme amongst not only christians but among the religious of all flavors (except satanists) that the body is impure and gratification of the bodily urges leads to hell and damnation.

Therefore, knowledge derived from god denies the self.
How is it possible to 'know thyself' when the laws of god deny the self?
And. If it is impossible to 'know thyself' then how is it possible to know god through knowledge of self?

Yeah. A bit of a tortuous route to get there. But on topic nonetheless.

However, the thread starter has given us a nonstandard definition of gnosticism which might attempt to sidestep the argument I've just made. However, my original objection still stands. That you can't know yourself if you're really trying to know god.

It seems to be a sort of paradox. A recursive nightmare. To know thyself to know god who will grant knowledge of self to know him. Bouncing back and forth in the delicious contradiction that such recursions bring.

And where is self in this?
In the decision to end the paradox by arbitrary decision.

Man makes himself in this way. He clears contradictions by choosing.

I choose self.


Anyway:

i have said what i need to say about this topic.

Oh? You actually said something about the topic? Somewhere in all those wonderful flirts and the displays of your masculinity?
I must have missed it.

at least you not completely ignorant

How do you know?
Are you hitting on me?

Originally Posted by invert

]t's not flirting that's the problem. It's cyber-flirting.

so you are sayimg if a person wanted to call himself a christian he would not be allowed to flirt with people on a forum, because it ends in something not christian? can you tell me how you arrive at this conclusion?

And. You can say cock and pussy all you like.

i am happy that i have your approval for this.

Where did that come from anyway? Water's thread?

mostly, yes. although i am trying to figure out what you judge as acceptable behaviour for a person that calls themself christian.

What does that have to do with what a christian can and can't do?

i wanted to know what you consider acceptable behaviour, your standard of measurment.

I must have missed it.

that is not my problem that is your problem.

How do you know?

i know your not completely ignorant because you say each toi his own which to some extent grants the individaul freedom from your judgement even though at some level you have still made that judgement.

Are you hitting on me?

you have a strange idea of what flirting is.

Heh.
Yeah.
Ok, dude.
Anyway. Enjoy.
Good luck with that whole cyber-situation and everything.

(Q),


You will have to turn to God for answers to those questions.
I must say that our so far discussions have filled me with some resentment against you, and so I do not feel able to relate to you responsibly, and thus, I will refrain from that.
I apologize.
We all need God's mercy.


* * *


invert_nexus,

Anyway, as to the topic. I agree with you when you say that the definition of gnosticism as given by the thread starter is wrong. Gnosticism is about knowledge derived from god. Not the other way around.

Anyway. Definitions aside, 'Know Thyself" is not bad advice, but the problem, of course, is that according to her bent on the subject, she doesn't want to know herself but rather to know god. I think that there is something inherently wrong in this propisition in that the object of the search is not really the self at all. And if it's not the self, but some other, then you're not going to know thyself and thus you're not going to know this god-thing.

So. I say, drop the god-talk and just deal with the self.
Then you might get somewhere.

You are assuming that the self is something detached from and completely different than God. As long as you think so, you will never indeed come any closer to God.

I thought you were dropping the god talk? Just can't quit, eh?

You can't tell the difference, can you?


* * *

wesmorris,

Like I said, seems like you.

You have nothing but "seem" here. Do you have something you are certain of, here?

God is irrelevant to rational discussion.

Then why are *you* mentioning Him?

To assert otherwise is to assert that others must believe as you do. The only rational explanation as to your aversion with god is fantasy.

And this only someone who thinks he is God can say.

IMO, that's not necessarily bad. All sorts of fantasies keep us going.

You have admitted that all sorts of fantasies keep you going?
"To assert otherwise is to assert that others must believe as you do."

By my understanding, your god would not want you to judge. I guess he'll forgive you though. You don't seem so confident that Q will be forgiven. Seems kind of condescending.

By YOUR understanding. YOU, wrapped in YOUR fantasies.
How eager to take offense, how eager to feel victimized you are!

Water,

You are assuming that the self is something detached from and completely different than God. As long as you think so, you will never indeed come any closer to God.

So. We go from "Know Thyself" to "Thou Art God"?

You realize that people have been burned alive for such thoughts?

Are you proposing worshiping the self? If so, then I agree. To an extent. But, I'd prefer to call a spade a spade and call the self the self.
No god-talk from this boy.

Calling the self 'god' is weighing it down with unnecessary baggage.

Anyway, I'm not so sure that's what you're proposing anyway. If not, my objection stands. You can't know yourself if you're not really interested in knowing yourself except as a path to knowing something else. To know yourself means utter dedication to the prospect.

You can't tell the difference, can you?

Not really. Is there one? I have to admit that I rarely read postings in the religious section. So it shouldn't be any great surprise if I miss something subtle about your present 'relationship' with god...self... whatever.

Originally Posted by invert_nexus

It's not flirting that's the problem. It's cyber-flirting. Now. Perhaps you have different goals in mind than the average Joe, but one could say that a successful bout of cyber-flirting ends in... well... a situation that is not very christian.

And who are you to say what is "Christian"?

Ok. The proscription against onanism could be said to be derived from gnosticism in that it is knowledge that is derived from god rather than self. A commandment from the high to the low.

Building an argument on quicksand?

It relates to self in that this proscription is, in fact, a proscription against gratification of self as ungodly. Unholy. Unclean. This is not the only proscription that denies the body to make way for god. In fact, it is a common theme amongst not only christians but among the religious of all flavors (except satanists) that the body is impure and gratification of the bodily urges leads to hell and damnation.

The body itself has very few urges, and needs very little to be maintained. It is not impure by itsef.

It is when people, who define themselves as depending on the material, follow misguided spiritual urges which they think can be satisfied materially, that they defile the body.

It is the gratification of the misguided spiritual urges that leads to hell.

Therefore, knowledge derived from god denies the self.
How is it possible to 'know thyself' when the laws of god deny the self?
And. If it is impossible to 'know thyself' then how is it possible to know god through knowledge of self?

Oh. What a house of cards.

However, my original objection still stands. That you can't know yourself if you're really trying to know god.

Again, this would only be so if the self and God were completely separate.

Man makes himself in this way. He clears contradictions by choosing.

Then you have merely chosen, but not necessarily cleared the contradiction. You have only postponed the resolution of the contradiction.

Oh? You actually said something about the topic? Somewhere in all those wonderful flirts and the displays of your masculinity?
I must have missed it.

You must be very troubled, Invert, to see "displays of masculinity" in Ellion's posts.

Originally Posted by invert_nexus

So. We go from "Know Thyself" to "Thou Art God"?

No. That is your megalomania speaking.

Go back to the first page:

Self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical"

Gnosticism does not portray man as a hopeless sinner, nor as a seperate creation of a distant God. It teaches that God is within us, and that our very nature is the nature of God hence 'we are made in gods image'.

the self and the divine are identical -- they are so in their nature.
But they are not identical in their extent. One human has, in comparison with the Divine, only a small portion of divinity.

Calling the self 'god' is weighing it down with unnecessary baggage.

If you believe so, then this is how it is for you.

Anyway, I'm not so sure that's what you're proposing anyway. If not, my objection stands. You can't know yourself if you're not really interested in knowing yourself except as a path to knowing something else. To know yourself means utter dedication to the prospect.

Go back to the opening post.

Not really. Is there one? I have to admit that I rarely read postings in the religious section. So it shouldn't be any great surprise if I miss something subtle about your present 'relationship' with god...self... whatever.

Whatever it is then.

It's too late for me to reply to your latest post, but I'll explain the last to you:

You must be very troubled, Invert, to see "displays of masculinity" in Ellion's posts.

What I meant was that he was displaying his 'masculinity' by standing up to Wes in defense of a lady's honor. And then later in defense of his own. He's not the only one to carry baggage in from your thread. He was doing the same over there. That was my first experience with him cyber-flirting.

Dunno. There's really nothing wrong with it. I've seen it before. But. I dunno. I just found his presence in this thread kinda... funny. Kinda... sad. Kinda.. whatever.

"Vashti's Daughter
everything you say is beautiful."

Oh. Yes. Vashti's Daughter. EVERYTHING you say is BEAUTIFUL!!!

I just thought it was funny. That's all. Sue me.

And then his chest-beating later with Wes...

At least he's actually participating in the conversation in your thread. But, it is about SEX...

Originally Posted by invert_nexus

"Vashti's Daughter
everything you say is beautiful."

Oh. Yes. Vashti's Daughter. EVERYTHING you say is BEAUTIFUL!!!

I just thought it was funny. That's all. Sue me.

You are just jealous because he expressed his compliments -- while you have no such thing in yourself.

Plus, your criticizing him gives you away: If *you* would give a compliment, then this would be a display of your masculinity. And you think other people are such as well?

At least he's actually participating in the conversation in your thread. But, it is about SEX...

You still owe a reply.

Water,

Can't resist.
I'm logging off as soon as I post this...

You are just jealous because he expressed his compliments -- while you have no such thing in yourself.

Yeah. Right.
Do you realize how stupid that is?
How do you compliment somebody posting a thread on a forum?
Do you compliment them by saying, "Oh. Whoever. You are so right. Your words are so beautiful. I agree wholeheartedly. Blah blah blah."
Or do you compliment by actually reading their words and thinking about them and then responding to them in a thoughtful manner?

Well. I guess you like people that just pay the quick and easy 'compliment' rather than actually thinking about what you have to say and participating in the conversation.
Or so it would seem from your thinking his 'compliment' being something lovely and worthy of emulation.

Seriously. That's sad.
(I hope you're being sarcastic, but one never knows...)

Plus, your criticizing him gives you away: If *you* would give a compliment, then this would be a display of your masculinity. And you think other people are such as well?

OH. HO. Trying to turn the tables, eh?
Well. The thing is that I'm not calling his 'compliment' a display of masculinity. I'm calling his chest-beating with Wes a display.
And. I wouldn't call it that if he was actually defending anything other than Wes being 'out of line'. What was the phrase he used in your thread?

'water am i wrong? is stretch being a disrespectful tosser?"

Translation: "Oh. Water, do you want me to beat the shit out of this ignorant and disrespectful tosser for you? Give me the word, oh magnificent one, and I shall. Oh. I shall."

Look at how he leaps to the defense of 'damsels in distress'. What's he going to do when he finds out you're a brute who eat knights like him for breakfast?
Hmm?

You still owe a reply.

Yes. And I'll get to it. Haven't been in the proper frame of mind (as evidenced by my descent into kicking the flirter.) I have been kinda keeping up with the thread and don't really like all the god-talk that has descended onto it. But, despite that, I'll make my post anyway.
Maybe tomorrow.


Oh. And Vashti's Daughter:

Humble apologies, m'lady, on going upon these dreadful tangents in thy most beautiful thread. I tried to keep it somewhat on topic earlier but have strayed in my last two. I shall make up for my heinous behavior on the morrow.

But, in the meantime let me part with words of utter admiration for your words and your womanly disposition. Thou art truly a goddess beyond compare... (Heh. Sorry. Couldn't resist. I note that you ignored his comment which speaks good of you.)

if you have a problem you can say it to me personally.
invert
was there a reason you have not engaged in a rational manner with my response to you.
what was this about?>

Originally Posted by invert

Heh.
Yeah.
Ok, dude.
Anyway. Enjoy.
Good luck with that whole cyber-situation and everything.

i figure what you are actually saying is>
my translation

what!
NO!
you B**T**D
i dont care about you. i am doing fine.
i hope you choke trying to have sex with water!

wes
i cant help but wonder why you became so hostile.

I must say that our so far discussions have filled me with some resentment against you...

That is very Christian of you. On the other hand, I have no resentment towards you whatsoever - how very atheist of me, don't ya think?

Could it be that your resentment is not of me but in fact your desire to question your own faith?

You will have to turn to God for answers to those questions.

But that is the entire crux of my question - which god do you refer?

Of course, I don't expect you to come up with an answer since it is entirely impossible for you to do so without sounding like a hypocrite. It is the house-of-cards that is called religion which comes crumbling down whenever reason and rationale enter the arena.

And if discussing it causes you resentment towards others, you might find your faith is not as unshakable as you might care to imagine.

All that, and the resentment too, can easily be avoided by closing your eyes and placing hands firmly over your ears and shouting," La,La,La,La,..."

Nietzsche, one of my prepared authors stated that we should not be burned for our opinions, we are not certain of them. Why should we resent another for having a different opinion on the topic of religion. In fact, why should we allow ourselves to become angry when we do not recognise ourselves in another?

It is easy to feel superior to the different, because it is so much conditioned in our behaviour. We feel superior to dogs, because we are 'smarter', we feel superior to others because only we understand the way things truly are..

The beauty of christianity is faith. No christian is certian of his beliefs. If he were, if he was completely certain, it would not be faith. Likewise, no other follower of religion is completely certain. It is not this degree of uncertainty that is relevant. It are not our beliefs that are relevant, but rather the degree of arrogance, of supposed superiority.

Granted, I can not possible imagine how someone could believe in an idea as ludicrous as God. The thought is just, well, hilarious at best, depressing at worst. However, I know people who are religious and are incredibly intelligent and are worthy people, some who might I even consider superior beings to myself. For example, I know a family from belgium, who have adopted a child, who try to do the best they can in making everyone's lifes better. They are kind, considering, and christian. I feel humble in their presence, because they are not self-righteous or pretentious in their christianity. They are good people.

Is Gnosticism the best religion? No. There is no true religion. There is no one form that fits all. One size fits all fits no one.

On the topic of non-ironic flattery, directed at myself, I find it more insulting than any flame anyone could write. I prefer not to share my viewpoint with flatterers, but that's my conviction. :?

Mr U

invert_nexus,

You are just jealous because he expressed his compliments -- while you have no such thing in yourself.

Yeah. Right.
Do you realize how stupid that is?

You are just afraid that your cock would fall off if you would say a nice word to someone, and mean it.

How do you compliment somebody posting a thread on a forum?
Do you compliment them by saying, "Oh. Whoever. You are so right. Your words are so beautiful. I agree wholeheartedly. Blah blah blah."

Indeed, your social skills are very poor.

Or do you compliment by actually reading their words and thinking about them and then responding to them in a thoughtful manner?

Intellectualizer.

Well. I guess you like people that just pay the quick and easy 'compliment' rather than actually thinking about what you have to say and participating in the conversation.
Or so it would seem from your thinking his 'compliment' being something lovely and worthy of emulation.

My dear, had you allowed the good spirit to enter your heart, you would clearly and easily see that there are other ways to communicate with people than the ones you choose.

(I hope you're being sarcastic, but one never knows...)

And that troubles you, terribly.

'water am i wrong? is stretch being a disrespectful tosser?"

Translation: "Oh. Water, do you want me to beat the shit out of this ignorant and disrespectful tosser for you? Give me the word, oh magnificent one, and I shall. Oh. I shall."

Oh, your delusions of chivalry!

Look at how he leaps to the defense of 'damsels in distress'. What's he going to do when he finds out you're a brute who eat knights like him for breakfast?
Hmm?

You are being silly, invert_nexus.
There is no damsel here, and the one in distress is you.

Yes. And I'll get to it. Haven't been in the proper frame of mind (as evidenced by my descent into kicking the flirter.) I have been kinda keeping up with the thread and don't really like all the god-talk that has descended onto it. But, despite that, I'll make my post anyway.
Maybe tomorrow.

We are staying on topic all along there.

Oh. And Vashti's Daughter:
/.../
(Heh. Sorry. Couldn't resist. I note that you ignored his comment which speaks good of you.)

You really, reeeeally, need to broaden your horizons.

Originally Posted by (Q)

I must say that our so far discussions have filled me with some resentment against you...

That is very Christian of you. On the other hand, I have no resentment towards you whatsoever - how very atheist of me, don't ya think?

Could it be that your resentment is not of me but in fact your desire to question your own faith?

You will have to turn to God for answers to those questions.

But that is the entire crux of my question - which god do you refer?

Of course, I don't expect you to come up with an answer since it is entirely impossible for you to do so without sounding like a hypocrite. It is the house-of-cards that is called religion which comes crumbling down whenever reason and rationale enter the arena.

And if discussing it causes you resentment towards others, you might find your faith is not as unshakable as you might care to imagine.

All that, and the resentment too, can easily be avoided by closing your eyes and placing hands firmly over your ears and shouting," La,La,La,La,..."

Firstly, I am not a Christian.
Secondly, all your questions have been answered so far, by me or others. But you are not willing to listen, or to understand -- so you get what you get.
My resentment with you comes from me being bored going over the same things again and again with you.

all your questions have been answered so far, by me or others.

Why resort to lies?

You didn't answer my questions - you told me to go ask a god, one that you failed to identify.

But you are not willing to listen, or to understand -- so you get what you get.

I got nothing from nothing. What was I supposed to be listening to and understanding? You explained nothing at all!

My resentment with you comes from me being bored going over the same things again and again with you.

You've done no such thing - please stop lying.

I am not a Christian.

Yes, I know, but you do occasionally act like one...

Originally Posted by (Q)

all your questions have been answered so far, by me or others.

Why resort to lies?

You didn't answer my questions - you told me to go ask a god, one that you failed to identify.

But you are not willing to listen, or to understand -- so you get what you get.

I got nothing from nothing. What was I supposed to be listening to and understanding? You explained nothing at all!

My resentment with you comes from me being bored going over the same things again and again with you.

You've done no such thing - please stop lying.

Not this time, yes. I have explained times before. And many others.
Young Jedi, you do not listen to what you are being told.

I hope someone with more patience than me comes to talk to you.
I admit it, I got bored.

I am not a Christian.

Yes, I know, but you do occasionally act like one...

Whose problem is that?

I have explained times before. And many others.

No, you did not. You did the same thing you are doing now, skirting the issues when questioned and then disappearing.

Young Jedi, you do not listen to what you are being told.

Please don't patronize me, you are far from being any sort of mentor. I'm not hip to magical fantasies, whether they be your god or the force.

I hope someone with more patience than me comes to talk to you.
I admit it, I got bored.

Don't you mean by, 'patience,' someone who can actually answer a question with some clarity and relevance as opposed to someone who yawns and says,"Go ask a god?"

Why not, instead, give your userid to your god and have him sign in? That way, you can go and have a nap while he fills in the blanks.

I want to get in on this, but I'm tired of fighting endless, marginally gratifying battles at this particular moment in time. If anyone wants to beat on me a little though, I heartily welcome it. Might wake me up. (In)Sanity, we need a tired or a sleepy smiley.

P.S. Water, I'm not trying to make an enemy here, but you do tend to skirt the hard questions. That is frustrating to me.

If anyone wants to beat on me a little though, I heartily welcome it. Might wake me up

Ok, Cottontail - you're a twisted, grungy piece of flotsam in the toilet bowl of your own pathetic life.

How was that?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Ok, Cottontail - you're a twisted, grungy piece of flotsam in the toilet bowl of your own pathetic life.
How was that?

Good, but I don't sense that you really meant it.

First the silly:

Ellion,

if you have a problem you can say it to me personally.

Didn't I? Thought I did.
Anyway. It's not a problem. You're just kinda funny is all. No big deal.

was there a reason you have not engaged in a rational manner with my response to you.

Yup.

what was this about?>

It was about me finally realizing how boring you were.

i hope you choke trying to have sex with water!

Nope. I wished you good luck with that. (Vashti's Daughter, as well. And any other female that you start kissing up to.)
But, it's not sex with her you'll be having, but sex with yourself. Hence the discussion on onanism.


Water,

You are just afraid that your cock would fall off if you would say a nice word to someone, and mean it.

Yeah. Sure. As if I've never said 'nice' things to you. And there are others who I say 'nice' things to even more.
Oh. Wait. You're trying to say that I didn't mean it when I said anything nice about you?
Heh. You brute.

Intellectualizer.

Oh. God forbid that we should deal with the topics under discussion rather than slather on a mindless morass of compliments and chest-beatings.

Anyway. I'f I'm an intellectualizer, then so is god, right?

My dear, had you allowed the good spirit to enter your heart, you would clearly and easily see that there are other ways to communicate with people than the ones you choose.

The good spirit? You're talking about religion? I'll pass. Thanks... uh... anyway. So. You're now a missionary? Just like those mormons?

And that troubles you, terribly.

How so? It does bother me a bit, because I wouldn't think that you're the type to fall prey to mindless flattery. It disturbs me because if you're not being sarcastic then I guess I don't really know you.

You're probably just on your 'ex negativo' thing. You ought to get an 'ex negativo' tattoo.

Oh, your delusions of chivalry!

My delusions?

You are being silly, invert_nexus.
There is no damsel here, and the one in distress is you.

I know there's no damsel. Does he?
And I'm not in distress. I don't know what you're saying with all that talk.
You think I'm jealous or something? Why? Have I ever expressed romantic interest in you? Believe me, if I wanted to, I would. I'm not shy.

We are staying on topic all along there.

Yeah. But your topic has turned to facets that belong more in this subforum than the one you've placed it in. If you'd wanted to discuss god, then religion is the forum for you. Instead you placed it in human behavior as if you wanted to discuss... human behavior.

You really, reeeeally, need to broaden your horizons.

Why? So that I won't find mindless flattery inane and insulting to the flattered?

Ok. How about this, water? From now on, instead of 'intellectualizing', I'll just offer mindless flattery to you.


Guess I'd better start now, which sorta precludes moving from the 'silly' to the 'serious' in this thread. It makes my response in your thread much easier to get to though. Expect it immediately after this post.




Water,

Oh. Water. Your words are so beautiful that I would pull the stars from the sky to adorn them as jewels in a setting and the stars would surely pale to the gloriousness of thy lovely mind.

So. This is gnosticism, taken to the personal level ...

So. This is gnosticism, taken to the personal level ...

Lovely.

Vashti's Daughter,


I apologize for the derailing of your thread.
It is a practical example though of people's willingness or unwillingness to get to know the Divine.

and how people unwillingly expose there intentions.

Knew the Divine, Rejected the Divine, Going to Hell I Guess.....

By rejecting the divine, you reject heaven and hell as well.

That is a very good thing.

The most difficult part will be rejecting the fear of god that religion has instilled in you over the years. It is most likely that fear which curbs you from making any final decisions.

Understandably so, since it is the fear of god that keeps the masses in line.

Q,

Exactly. Fear of being wrong is the hardest part of breaking it off completely. Then again, I'm of the opinion, actually, that we don't really know much in a "100% certain" kind of way. Some people could be right when they say that all of objective reality only exists in each person's own subjective reality. How can I know the answer to that for sure? IMO, I think that there are really only two options. 1.) You can keep your options open for later decision (or no decision), or 2.) you can commit to something (Atheism, Christianity, Gnosticism, etc.) for reasons that are valid and beneficial to you.

Edit: Or, a third possibility, which could also be seen as a part of one, is to make up your own belief system.

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

Knew the Divine, Rejected the Divine, Going to Hell I Guess.....

Divinity is just an idea that doesn't necessarily correlate to what water insists it does. Rejecting the idea itself is kind of pointless IMO... reject what you associated it with, as it is narrow and mind fucking.

Originally Posted by water

It is a practical example though of people's willingness or unwillingness to get to know the Divine.

What the fuck do you know about what is or isn't divine?

Divinity is in the eyes of my children, in the sounds of their laughter, in their hugely happy smiles and their hugs. It's a million other places.

It's "where you want to be".

Or is it where you say it has to be????? In some stupid word or a particular idea?

I think not.

Seems pretty narrow.

Originally Posted by Water

It is a practical example though of people's willingness or unwillingness to get to know the Divine.

Jesus Christ, you've gone off the deep end, haven't you?
Ok then. Be that way. Too bad.
I wonder if you'll now start preaching even in linguistics threads?

Anyway. What does Ellion being a flirter have to do with the 'Divine'?

Originally Posted by Ellion

and how people unwillingly expose there intentions.

Or not so unwillingly. You haven't uttered an on-topic word in here, flirt-boy.

Cottontop3000,

Exactly. Fear of being wrong is the hardest part of breaking it off completely.

All you truly fear so far is the judgment of men. And you are mistaking it to be God's judgment.


* * *

wesmorris,

Divinity is just an idea that doesn't necessarily correlate to what water insists it does. Rejecting the idea itself is kind of pointless IMO... reject what you associated it with, as it is narrow and mind fucking.

/.../

What the fuck do you know about what is or isn't divine?

Divinity is in the eyes of my children, in the sounds of their laughter, in their hugely happy smiles and their hugs. It's a million other places.

It's "where you want to be".

Or is it where you say it has to be????? In some stupid word or a particular idea?

I think not.

Seems pretty narrow.

You are so full of anger and judgment, Wes.


* * *

invert_nexus,

Jesus Christ, you've gone off the deep end, haven't you?
Ok then. Be that way. Too bad.
I wonder if you'll now start preaching even in linguistics threads?

I take this is your resentment at realizing you've just lost a friend. Lost her because she didn't measure up to your criteria of what a person is to be like in order to be elligible to be your friend.

Anyway. What does Ellion being a flirter have to do with the 'Divine'?

Random concoction of two phenomena ...

Water,

Lost a friend?
I recall you once saying something about how you were constantly amazed at how us westerners would call people friends so easily.

So. You consider that I was a friend then?
And that I'm not now?
Interesting.

I don't feel that I've changed towards you. I'm disappointed in you, but whatever.
I do feel that you're losing touch with reality from the things you're arguing, but it could be possible that you've just decided to take your ex negativo approach up to new levels.
Time will tell.

You lose faith so easily.

Random concoction of two phenomena ...

You're the one who apologized to Vashti's Daughter about the derailing of her thread and then said that the fault was because of people not wanting to know the Divine.
Are you saying the thread was derailed in some other fashion than me picking on Ellion?

Invert,

I don't feel that I've changed towards you.

No, you haven't changed towards me. But the way you think of me has.

You would not say to a person "I am your friend". You say "I consider you a friend".
This way you never lose a friend. They lose you.

Your considering me a friend depends on how I am. But your considering yourself my friend never changes. It is a safe way to save face.

I'm disappointed in you, but whatever.
I do feel that you're losing touch with reality from the things you're arguing, but it could be possible that you've just decided to take your ex negativo approach up to new levels.
Time will tell.

And *you* are the one to say what reality is ...

You lose faith so easily.

Then it wasn't true faith, and it is best it was lost.

You're the one who apologized to Vashti's Daughter about the derailing of her thread and then said that the fault was because of people not wanting to know the Divine.
Are you saying the thread was derailed in some other fashion than me picking on Ellion?

Your picking on him is an example of your aversion towards the divine. You have an aversion towards all that talk about the divine.

Water,

No, you haven't changed towards me. But the way you think of me has.

You'd prefer stasis?
Frozen in time?

You would not say to a person "I am your friend". You say "I consider you a friend".
This way you never lose a friend. They lose you.

Your considering me a friend depends on how I am. But your considering yourself my friend never changes. It is a safe way to save face.

I've never really considered you a friend. Or vice versa. Not according to your rigorous definition of the word (as per our long-ago conversation on the subject.) I do like some things about you. Dislike others.

And?

You're right. I haven't lost anything.
Have you?
Why? Because you can't accept that I don't respect aspects about you? And that these aspects seem to be becoming more and more prevalent lately?
I won't follow you in your religious meanderings. Apologies if that offends you. But that's the way it is.

As to the friendship thing. We're not friends. Not really. We're what then? I don't know. Acquaintances? Peers?
You're the one who had objection to the word friend back then. And you convinced me that you were right.
Have you since changed your mind on the subject?

And *you* are the one to say what reality is ...

Yes.
How else could it be?
I suppose what I mean to say is that I think that you are losing touch with what I consider to be reality.
Our two realities have never been close to identical, but it seems that you're moving even further away. If this continues then we will connect on fewer and fewer points and I suppose there can only be one end result of that process should it continue.

Then it wasn't true faith, and it is best it was lost.

Guess so.

Your picking on him is an example of your aversion towards the divine. You have an aversion towards all that talk about the divine.

Make up your mind. So. Now it's not a random concoction of two phenomena?

My picking on him has nothing to do with my distaste for religion. It has to do with my distaste for mindless flattery.
He's said nothing religious to be averse to in this thread.

You're really stretching.
Why?

Originally Posted by water

wesmorris,

Divinity is just an idea that doesn't necessarily correlate to what water insists it does. Rejecting the idea itself is kind of pointless IMO... reject what you associated it with, as it is narrow and mind fucking.

/.../

What the fuck do you know about what is or isn't divine?

Divinity is in the eyes of my children, in the sounds of their laughter, in their hugely happy smiles and their hugs. It's a million other places.

It's "where you want to be".

Or is it where you say it has to be????? In some stupid word or a particular idea?

I think not.

Seems pretty narrow.

You are so full of anger and judgment, Wes.

What a useless comment. Doesn't seem like you're really paying attention, or are doing something I'm missing. Perhaps you have some point I'm missing, but I don't see how you gather that from what I said...

You brought your god idea into this and have been judging anyone who doesn't agree with you by it. I think that's simply narrow, and that "divinity" as you seem to prescribe it, is exemplary of the most shallow understanding of the term.

You basically equated divinity with gnosticism. To me, that seems about as selfish and narrow as it gets.

I don't think less of you for it of course, as I always allow for the fact that I may not have a clue what you're really trying to say, and you're a friend regardless of what I think about your particular slant on gnosticism, unless it were to somehow threaten me... which it of course, does not.

Notice I say "seems" and "apparently" most of the time because I don't know for sure that I'm getting what you really intend to communicate. I know I can't see into your mind. How is that judgmental? I communicate my perception in terms that allow you to correct it if I'm mistaken. You don't have to bother of course... but that is not judgement, you fool.

Try again if you're so inclined.

invert_nexus,

You'd prefer stasis?
Frozen in time?

No.

I've never really considered you a friend. Or vice versa. Not according to your rigorous definition of the word (as per our long-ago conversation on the subject.) I do like some things about you. Dislike others.

And?

You're right. I haven't lost anything.
Have you?
Why? Because you can't accept that I don't respect aspects about you? And that these aspects seem to be becoming more and more prevalent lately?
I won't follow you in your religious meanderings. Apologies if that offends you. But that's the way it is.

This deserves only a whatever.

As to the friendship thing. We're not friends. Not really. We're what then? I don't know. Acquaintances? Peers?
You're the one who had objection to the word friend back then. And you convinced me that you were right.
Have you since changed your mind on the subject?

No.

And *you* are the one to say what reality is ...

Yes.
How else could it be?
I suppose what I mean to say is that I think that you are losing touch with what I consider to be reality.

Then say so, clearly. Instead, you do as if you knew objective reality.

Our two realities have never been close to identical, but it seems that you're moving even further away. If this continues then we will connect on fewer and fewer points and I suppose there can only be one end result of that process should it continue.

That's how it goes.

Your picking on him is an example of your aversion towards the divine. You have an aversion towards all that talk about the divine.

Make up your mind. So. Now it's not a random concoction of two phenomena?

My picking on him has nothing to do with my distaste for religion. It has to do with my distaste for mindless flattery.
He's said nothing religious to be averse to in this thread.

You're really stretching.
Why?

While Vashti's Daughter and Ellion and some others can clearly see my point, you and some others do not.


* * *

wesmorris,

You brought your god idea into this

The OP brought the "god idea" into this thread.

and have been judging anyone who doesn't agree with you by it.

Judging? Judging?

I think that's simply narrow, and that "divinity" as you seem to prescribe it, is exemplary of the most shallow understanding of the term.

You basically equated divinity with gnosticism. To me, that seems about as selfish and narrow as it gets.

I don't know where you get this from ...

Notice I say "seems" and "apparently" most of the time because I don't know for sure that I'm getting what you really intend to communicate.

What is striking is your use of harsh words ("What the fuck do you know about ...?", "You fool") on one hand, and then "outweighing" it all with "seem" and "apparently".

"You seem to be an idiot" -- it is like sliding someone an insult under the table.

I know I can't see into your mind. How is that judgmental? I communicate my perception in terms that allow you to correct it if I'm mistaken. You don't have to bother of course... but that is not judgement, you fool.

You don't allow me to correct anything. You are using a language that repulses me. You are using a language that tells me "Yes, you stupid bitch, try again, see if I will listen to you then".

To adopt your language to my field of expertise, would result in something like "This fucking subject clause makes no bloody sense of English. It is clear in that dorky German, but I don't know why the little cunt can't work in English. ... Hey you, mate, can you tell me anything more about this dipshit clause structure? It is beating the shit out of me! ... Ah, I guess you can't tell me either, you idiot."

I'm not assuming that there exists an objective scientific discourse, but there is something like good manners in the scientific discourse. You take things very emotionally though, and this tends to cloud a person's reasoning, distracting from the scientific discourse at hand.
It is possible to discuss matters of religion and divinity in plain and simple, scientifcally clear discourse. Yet your aversion with anything that has to do with God prevents you from taking that discourse.

Originally Posted by water

Vashti's Daughter,

I apologize for the derailing of your thread.
It is a practical example though of people's willingness or unwillingness to get to know the Divine.

No problem.

It seems it is difficult to discuss and explore religious ideas and systems, when a large element on these forums will always reduce religious discussion down to - God cant exists because......... therefore all this is invalid.

Objective discussions are possible on religion (and many on forum do), without bringing all our personal beliefs and hang ups to the table; but this for many, it seems, is difficult.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Originally Posted by water

Vashti's Daughter,

I apologize for the derailing of your thread.
It is a practical example though of people's willingness or unwillingness to get to know the Divine.

It seems it is difficult to discuss and explore religious ideas and systems, when a large element on these forums will always reduce religious discussion down to - God cant exists because......... therefore all this is invalid.

Objective discussions are possible on religion (and many on forum do), without bringing all our personal beliefs and hang ups to the table; but this for many, it seems, is difficult.

I've noticed the same thing. Me included at times. However, I started a thread called Serve and Obey in the religious section where I am trying to find out from others what it means to them to serve God. As a Gnostic, you may not feel you actually serve God, but in this thread, I am trying to keep it civil and objective. I would like to have your point of view too Vashti's Daughter. Anyone else too, who is willing to keep it civil and objective. And who is willing to continue to at least try to think beyond what you currently feel.

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

I've noticed the same thing. Me included at times. However, I started a thread called Serve and Obey in the religious section where I am trying to find out from others what it means to them to serve God. As a Gnostic, you may not feel you actually serve God, but in this thread, I am trying to keep it civil and objective. I would like to have your point of view too Vashti's Daughter. Anyone else too, who is willing to keep it civil and objective. And who is willing to continue to at least try to think beyond what you currently feel.

Although I am heavily influenced by gnostic teaching, I am not truly speaking a gnostic. I have other beliefs which do not necessarily conform with say traditional christian gnosticism.

On this thread, I sought to discuss gnosticism to maybe obtain new info, or challange my understanding of it.

All the same, I would be happy to add my view to your thread.

[quote]

Originally Posted by water

You brought your god idea into this

The OP brought the "god idea" into this thread.

I was talking about YOUR idea of god.

and have been judging anyone who doesn't agree with you by it.

Judging? Judging?

"May god have mercy on your soul", "you are so full of anger and judgement" et. al.

I think that's simply narrow, and that "divinity" as you seem to prescribe it, is exemplary of the most shallow understanding of the term.

You basically equated divinity with gnosticism. To me, that seems about as selfish and narrow as it gets.

I don't know where you get this from ...

Which is why I say you don't seem to be paying attention, nor keeping with the actual issues presented. Instead you're busy entertaining your repulsion.

"It is a practical example though of people's willingness or unwillingness to get to know the Divine."

It's quite apparent from this that you think only those who discuss their idea of "god" are willing to "get to know the divine". As if the two equate (and gnosticim and god already equate).

Notice I say "seems" and "apparently" most of the time because I don't know for sure that I'm getting what you really intend to communicate.

What is striking is your use of harsh words ("What the fuck do you know about ...?", "You fool") on one hand, and then "outweighing" it all with "seem" and "apparently".

"You seem to be an idiot" -- it is like sliding someone an insult under the table.

Ah, so sticks, stones or words are readily available to do you damage eh? Fucking panzy. I never said such a thing. I didn't say "you seem to be a fool". I said "you fool". Man your goddamned insecurity is making it difficult to communicate with you.

I know I can't see into your mind. How is that judgmental? I communicate my perception in terms that allow you to correct it if I'm mistaken. You don't have to bother of course... but that is not judgement, you fool.

You don't allow me to correct anything.

LOL. Right. You can't type and actually address what was written, but you have to side-track completely on style and avoid the matter alltogether. I'm not the one keeping you from correcting me. You are.

You are using a language that repulses me.

So that YOU are repulsed is my fault? Do you think it my intention? Do you care?

You are using a language that tells me "Yes, you stupid bitch, try again, see if I will listen to you then".

If I thought you were a stupid bitch, I'd fucking call you a stupid bitch.

To adopt your language to my field of expertise, would result in something like "This fucking subject clause makes no bloody sense of English. It is clear in that dorky German, but I don't know why the little cunt can't work in English. ... Hey you, mate, can you tell me anything more about this dipshit clause structure? It is beating the shit out of me! ... Ah, I guess you can't tell me either, you idiot."

Presumptuous of you. Perhaps you're not quite the expert you claim to be. Surely so actually, if this is how you read.

I'm not assuming that there exists an objective scientific discourse, but there is something like good manners in the scientific discourse.

We're not exactly writing the final draft of a publishable paper on the topic. This is people, being people, talking about their ideas. It's too bad you're more hung up on how I say what I'm saying than what I'm actually saying.

You take things very emotionally though, and this tends to cloud a person's reasoning, distracting from the scientific discourse at hand.

I generally find that people who can't see through the emotional style to the message being sent really are pretty much tiassa. It's a filter of sorts. IMO, you have no business in here with such thin skin. Further, you should limit what you think I've said to what I've actually said. Sorry if you though I was implying you're a stupid bitch. I wasn't. I was implying that I thought you were extremely presumptuous and condescending in a particular facet of a particular idea. Does that make it that you think I was calling you a stupid bitch? I don't judge a person by their mistakes. I try to correct them if I see them. I may do so harshly. But that you did something a stupid bitch might have done doesn't make you one... does it? Get over yourself damnit. Whatever. You don't have to, and we can just go round or you can ignore me... but I am what I am. It'd be easier if you didn't think "how the fuck do you know" equates to "you're a stupid bitch".

It is possible to discuss matters of religion and divinity in plain and simple, scientifcally clear discourse.

What like "may god have mercy on your soul"?

Yet your aversion with anything that has to do with God prevents you from taking that discourse.

You're confused on this. It is not my aversion to the utility of the term that prevents me from doing that. Look around dear. I think my style is fairly consistent across topics. Sorry if you don't like how I have to say what I say but in the past you haven't been so freakin whimpy about it. My aversion to the utility of the term god has little to do with it. Get secure and get back to me.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Ah, so sticks, stones or words are readily available to do you damage eh? Fucking panzy. I never said such a thing. I didn't say "you seem to be a fool". I said "you fool". Man your goddamned insecurity is making it difficult to communicate with you.

Well, then why don't you try to understand (though I'm sure you already know it) that sticks, stones and WORDS can hurt us. Would you act like this with your children? If not, why do you think it is okay with anyone else? Both of you, calm down and think. Much love and peace motherfuckers.....

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Ah, so sticks, stones or words are readily available to do you damage eh? Fucking panzy. I never said such a thing. I didn't say "you seem to be a fool". I said "you fool". Man your goddamned insecurity is making it difficult to communicate with you.

Well, then why don't you try to understand (though I'm sure you already know it) that sticks, stones and WORDS can hurt us. Would you act like this with your children? If not, why do you think it is okay with anyone else? Both of you, calm down and think. Much love and peace motherfuckers.....

Look here you bitchass mofo....

Nah.

I think you're acting like a pussy if your friend says to you "what the fuck do YOU know" and you take offence. Children are different, they are not mature. Once you become "an adult", how you react to words is your own responsibility.

And if WORDS are hurting you, you're a child or a fucking panzy.

You have to look for the meaning behind them.

Maybe, but depending especially on who the words come from, whether you are an adult or not, they can still hurt. Doesn't mean you are a panzy or a pussy, either. We are all different in this sense.

If you know your words are not hurting your friend Water, then please proceed. What doesn't hurt one day, may hurt on another day though. If you don't believe me, I'm gonna come over there and kick you in the head.

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

Maybe, but depending especially on who the words come from, whether you are an adult or not, they can still hurt. Doesn't mean you are a panzy or a pussy, either.

To me it does. There is no objective component per se. It's just my opinion. I'm the judge and jury of whom I think is a panzy. As if that has much weight in the world. Not. It's just how I see it.

We are all different in this sense.

And I have disdain for panzies. I don't hate them, I think they are setting themselves up to be victims. I think they are the root cause of stupid litigation. I think they are WEAK. That doesn't mean I don't like some of them anyway.

If you know your words are not hurting your friend Water, then please proceed.

I have only the words I have. That's the way I am in this sense. I say what I say when I say it. I don't intend to hurt anyone and will not spend a lot of time concerned with the matter, or I'd never say anything. I do not intend to hurt her.

I basically demand that people take responsibility for their own reactions to words, and I'll do the same.

What doesn't hurt one day, may hurt on another day though. If you don't believe me, I'm gonna come over there and kick you in the head.

You bastard.

Yausa, I am a bastard, though not literally.

wesmorris,

I was talking about YOUR idea of god.

Which, by the way, you have ridiculed ...

and have been judging anyone who doesn't agree with you by it.

Judging? Judging?

"May god have mercy on your soul", "you are so full of anger and judgement" et. al.

And? Saying those things is "judging"? Whew. Sitcks and stones? Bamboo? Pebbles?

I don't know where you get this from ...

Which is why I say you don't seem to be paying attention, nor keeping with the actual issues presented. Instead you're busy entertaining your repulsion.

No. You are entertaining an idea of gnosticism that is foreign to me, that's all.

Ah, so sticks, stones or words are readily available to do you damage eh? Fucking panzy. I never said such a thing. I didn't say "you seem to be a fool". I said "you fool". Man your goddamned insecurity is making it difficult to communicate with you.

I'm sorry that I don't drink gallons of beer and swear like a sailor. If that makes me "insecure" in your eyes ...

We're not exactly writing the final draft of a publishable paper on the topic. This is people, being people, talking about their ideas. It's too bad you're more hung up on how I say what I'm saying than what I'm actually saying.

I got bored of swearing ... I suppose that's too bad when it comes to you. Eh.

I was implying that I thought you were extremely presumptuous and condescending in a particular facet of a particular idea.

And I am trying to tell you that considering what I said to be condescending is way off the mark, and testifying of not understanding what that sentence ("May God have mercy on your soul") means. Some people, due to a lack of understanding, indeed tend to take it as condescence.

It is possible to discuss matters of religion and divinity in plain and simple, scientifcally clear discourse.

What like "may god have mercy on your soul"?

You are being cynical.

Does that make it that you think I was calling you a stupid bitch? I don't judge a person by their mistakes. I try to correct them if I see them. I may do so harshly.
/.../
Get secure and get back to me.

Okay. I'll get back to you when I am perfect and complete and flawless, oh my god Wes. I looooove you, I worship you, blah blah blah, you holy cow.

Originally Posted by water

wesmorris,

I was talking about YOUR idea of god.

Which, by the way, you have ridiculed ...

Maybe. I simply insist the idea is irrelevant to rational conversation. I've also at some point attempted to see how your idea is different somehow, and given consideration to your perspective.

And? Saying those things is "judging"? Whew. Sitcks and stones? Bamboo? Pebbles?

Did I seem hurt?

No. You are entertaining an idea of gnosticism that is foreign to me, that's all.

Ok. Gnosticism is an epstimelogical term, if that helps. It's the opposite of agnosticism?

I'm sorry that I don't drink gallons of beer and swear like a sailor. If that makes me "insecure" in your eyes ...

No, it's thinking that by my asking "how the fuck do you know" equates to "you're a stupid bitch" that makes me think you a panzy.

I don't drink gallons of beer, but I do tend to swear like sailor.

I got bored of swearing ... I suppose that's too bad when it comes to you. Eh.

*sob*

You act as if it's every other word.

And I am trying to tell you that considering what I said to be condescending is way off the mark, and testifying of not understanding what that sentence ("May God have mercy on your soul") means.

Well I have a hard time with that, since for you to say that in the context you did to me seems to imply there is a need. Seems to be that you think yourself gnostic of god's intention, and have determined that what was said prior to that indicates likely damnation. How is it not that? How is "you're full of anger and judgement" not presumptuous and judgemental? "you seeeeeeem angry and full of judgment" is a different thing and would not be so presumptuous and judgemental. In my lexicon anyhoo.

Some people, due to a lack of understanding, indeed tend to take it as condescence.

Well, when someone says something you don't like and you respond as such, given the analysis above... that's how it seems. Of course I don't understand if you meant something different, hence "how is it not that?" - an earnest question.

You are being cynical.

I'm serious. IMO, telling me you think I'm a sinner (even though you weren't referring to me in this specific case), and that god needs to give me mercy, that is a condescending act of self importance. "my conception of god is so important that I hold you to it". Isn't that judgement? Isnt' that condescension? If not, how so?

Okay. I'll get back to you when I am perfect and complete and flawless, oh my god Wes. I looooove you, I worship you, blah blah blah, you holy cow.

It's about time.

Now, should I have mercy on YOUR soul? What have you done for me lately? Hehe.

wesmorris,

Maybe. I simply insist the idea is irrelevant to rational conversation.

The topic of this thread is gnosticism and knowing God. If you want to have "raiotnal" conversation, then, by your standards, I don't know what you are doing here in this thread.

Did I seem hurt?

No, pissy.

Ok. Gnosticism is an epstimelogical term, if that helps. It's the opposite
of agnosticism?

Yes, if "gnosticism" is understood as in the OP.

No, it's thinking that by my asking "how the fuck do you know" equates to
"you're a stupid bitch" that makes me think you a panzy.

Okay, I see your point now. I am not very prolific in the language you are most homely with, so it is no wonder I miss your point here and there.
While your language is colourful and entertaining, I am not always sure I get the tone and the intended meanings right. Please keep in mind that English is my third language, and that while I may here and there be able to concoct a string of swearing, this usually takes me some effort, and it also takes me some effort to decipher another string of swearing.
Strictly scientific language may be plain and maybe boring, but to a foreigner, it is clear and very easy to understand in comparison to colloquial language. (Reading "National Geographic" is much easier for me than reading the "Rolling Stone" for example. All those colloqual and informal phrases! Who would understand them all.)

*sob*

You act as if it's every other word.

Oh.

And I am trying to tell you that considering what I said to be condescending
is way off the mark, and testifying of not understanding what that sentence
("May God have mercy on your soul") means.

Well I have a hard time with that, since for you to say that in the context
you did to me seems to imply there is a need.

I think there is *always* a need for God's mercy. This is why I later said "We all need God's mercy".

Seems to be that you think yourself gnostic of god's intention,

Only in as much as my limited understanding of some hly texts go.

and have determined that what was said prior to that indicates likely damnation. How is it not that?

No. Eh.

How is "you're full of anger and judgement" not presumptuous and judgemental?

It was an observation.

"you seeeeeeem angry and full of judgment" is a different thing and would not be
so presumptuous and judgemental. In my lexicon anyhoo.

How about you saying "you fool" to me? Calling someone a fool is okay, but calling someone full of anger is not?

I'm serious. IMO, telling me you think I'm a sinner, and that god needs to
give me mercy because if it is a condescending act of self importance.

If it so be, then all people would have to be silent all the time.

"my conception of god is so important that I hold you to it".

Everyone's conception of the world is so important that they hold others to it; regardless what this conception is.
The same goes for you. You hold everyone to your relativistic conception of the world. It is in the nature of this conception that it seemingly allows for a multitude of different conceptions, but it is tyrannic in that it doesn't allow them to be what they are (non-relativistic).

Now, should I have mercy on YOUR soul? What have you done for me lately?
Hehe.

This tells more about your understanding of God and religion than it may seem at first glance.

"What have you done for me lately?" -- this is enough to say that you believe that a deity must be pleased, its affection earned. It is a non-biblical interpretation. You understand that salvation comes by works -- totally unbiblical.
While there is a fierce debate going on among Christians about what it takes for salvation, one thing they agree on: you cannot earn it with your works.

So when you speak about a deity that must be pleased, or it will be angry and punish you, please keep in mind that you are *not* talking about the Christian God, and as far as I can tell, not about Krsna either.

You understand that salvation comes by works -- totally unbiblical.

I beg to differ. There is enough in the NT to make a good case for works.

In any case, faith without works is dead.

Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore

You understand that salvation comes by works -- totally unbiblical.

I beg to differ. There is enough in the NT to make a good case for works.

In any case, faith without works is dead.

Like I said, the debate is going on in Christian communities, but they agree that salvation cannot be earned by works.
As for "making a case" for something based on the Bible -- if one is selective enough, one can make a case for or against anything that way.

Reading through again, I missed these earlier.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

IMO, gnosticism = "I know because I was given the knowledge by god".
.

Your opinion is quite wrong then. Knowledge given by god is revelation and therefore theism.

Gnosticism is knowledge OF god not from god. This is experiential knowledge.

Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis

Is Gnosticism the best religion? No. There is no true religion. There is no one form that fits all. One size fits all fits no one.

Gnosticism is not a religion. It is a thought system that may exist within or outside religions.

True religion ;- expressing divinity through our daily lives without hypocrisy ??

The topic of this thread is gnosticism and knowing God. If you want to have "raiotnal" conversation, then, by your standards, I don't know what you are doing here in this thread.

Challenging the stupidity of gnosticism.

No, pissy.

Meh, maybe a little... but the stick and stones thing doesn't apply unless one is "hurt" right? Being pissy does not equate to being hurt.

Yes, if "gnosticism" is understood as in the OP.

And I find it to be wholly unethical as I summarized with "the plain truth" earlier.

Okay, I see your point now. I am not very prolific in the language you are most homely with, so it is no wonder I miss your point here and there.

You have the right to be pissy too.

[quote]

And I am trying to tell you that considering what I said to be condescending is way off the mark, and testifying of not understanding what that sentence ("May God have mercy on your soul") means.

It's the basis of the message that is condescending, and the time at which you chose to use it. I'll just leave it and take your word that you didn't intend it as such.

I think there is *always* a need for God's mercy. This is why I later said "We all need God's mercy".

How very yucky to me, but whatever. I don't need mercy from intangibles.

Only in as much as my limited understanding of some hly texts go.

If you're a gnostic, why would you need a text to help you out?

and have determined that what was said prior to that indicates likely damnation. How is it not that?

No. Eh.

Well, this appearance is perhaps consequential of our respective perspecitives.

How is "you're full of anger and judgement" not presumptuous and judgemental?

It was an observation.

It was a flat statement, presuming you knew what I was feeling and doing.

"you seeeeeeem angry and full of judgment" is a different thing and would not be
so presumptuous and judgemental. In my lexicon anyhoo.

How about you saying "you fool" to me? Calling someone a fool is okay, but calling someone full of anger is not?

Either is refutable.

"my conception of god is so important that I hold you to it".

Everyone's conception of the world is so important that they hold others to it; regardless what this conception is.
The same goes for you. You hold everyone to your relativistic conception of the world. It is in the nature of this conception that it seemingly allows for a multitude of different conceptions, but it is tyrannic in that it doesn't allow them to be what they are (non-relativistic).

LOL. The tyranny of truth eh? That you indulge in what you think to be an objective reality (god), is inherently relativistic. It's demonsrated clearly by people disagree. If there were such an objective truth, there would be no disagreement - as there would be no basis for objection. This demonstrates that the truths are subjective, and validates relativism - to me. Consequently, I accept this argument as the best available. I've seen squat for sense from theists on the matter. Gnostics annoy the piss out of me. "get to know god through knowing god". The retarded circularity of it makes my head spin. That's like saying "provide the answer by making up an answer! - oh and by the way here is the answer in this book (it's only $14.95)." Have you seen the southpark about mormons? Dum dum dum dum dum Dum dum! But whatever. Believe what you want to believe. Errrrgh. "Holy texts". Man that shit pisses me off. What the fuck is "holy"? Who the fuck is anyone to say? Goddamned masochistic bitches. Sheeple.

I find it much more interesting to look at christianity as one of a litany of religious fantasies, from an evolutionary psychology perspective. It's revealing.

Of course you are entitled to indulge in whatever fantasy you need to, to get through your life. And I'm entitled to counter then with my own fantasies about how stupid, shallow and sheeplish certain fantasies are. The play's the thing. Shall we dance?

I think the play is a consequence of our fantasies - and we are all obligated to fantacise. (by fantasies I mean abstracts, the intangible aspect of mind: the space of ideas)

I find it magical, inspirational, frustrating, lovely, shitty, gross, wonderful... etc. But above all, when minds of reasonable sophistication, power, beauty or whatever fits the scene join the fray.... it's interesting. Stimulating even.

[quote]

Now, should I have mercy on YOUR soul? What have you done for me lately?
Hehe.

This tells more about your understanding of God and religion than it may seem at first glance.

It's really more reflective of my sick sense of humor.

"What have you done for me lately?" -- this is enough to say that you believe that a deity must be pleased, its affection earned. It is a non-biblical interpretation. You understand that salvation comes by works -- totally unbiblical.

Making such an analysis based upon the content joke about me being self-serving is pretty pointless.

While there is a fierce debate going on among Christians about what it takes for salvation, one thing they agree on: you cannot earn it with your works.

I couldn't care less and made no statements to this end. Christianity is simply uninteresting to me. Pointless even. How people react to it is somewhat interesting I guess, but I wasn't thinking of anyone else but ME being a god, and how all you bitches better start serving me. More of a greek god kind of thing, put forth merely to incite a chuckle.

So when you speak about a deity that must be pleased, or it will be angry and punish you, please keep in mind that you are *not* talking about the Christian God, and as far as I can tell, not about Krsna either.

Of course not. I'm not the christian god... at least I'm pretty sure. Maybe I am. Hmm.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Reading through again, I missed these earlier.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

IMO, gnosticism = "I know because I was given the knowledge by god".
.

Your opinion is quite wrong then. Knowledge given by god is revelation and therefore theism.

Gnosticism is knowledge OF god not from god. This is experiential knowledge.

I challenge you to clearly demonstrate a meaningful difference. One must derive god through their experience, which they must then surmise was granted by god... which is then... knowledge from god. Blah, blah blah. How boring.

Do you have anything interesting to add? The semantics of gnosticism are pretty dry. It's the same stupid shit over and over. God this, god that. Yap yap. Woof.

Apparently, god is a place in your brain that makes you care about the pointless difference between revelation and gnosticism. I'm sure you disagree, as apparently you find it important to distinquish between the two. Why?

Originally Posted by wesmorris

... which is then... knowledge from god. Blah, blah blah. How boring.

Do you have anything interesting to add? The semantics of gnosticism are pretty dry. It's the same stupid shit over and over. God this, god that. Yap yap. Woof.

A question. If you find the subject of god so boring and gnosticism stupid shit, yap yap blah blah woof. Why are you on the religious sub section of this forum and in particular a thread about gnosticism?

Before you get on your high horse, I am not saying you shouldn't be here or the non religious shouln't be here. quite contrary we need differing veiws to have discussion. But surely you should at least me somewhat interested to be here? I mean I dont crash into the math section and post 'how boring blah blah blah' do I. Nor does anyone else, so why you?

First, if you'd like me to continue faithfully replying to your posts... I'd appreciate it if you'd also answer MY questions to you.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Originally Posted by wesmorris

... which is then... knowledge from god. Blah, blah blah. How boring.

Do you have anything interesting to add? The semantics of gnosticism are pretty dry. It's the same stupid shit over and over. God this, god that. Yap yap. Woof.

A question. If you find the subject of god so boring and gnosticism stupid shit, yap yap blah blah woof. Why are you on the religious sub section of this forum and in particular a thread about gnosticism?

I feel like I have some clarity to offer on the issues, and hope to learn something. I could go on for some time about the merits of such conversations, but I ultimately I enjoy the interaction on topics that aren't shallow. Sure, there are a thousand shallow takes on any deep subject, but that doesn't sway my interest from it. It challenges me to jump into the fray and put down my version of order. "my memes are better than your memes" are how memes compete for propagation.

Do you remember the deal in the other thread (or was it this one) where I explained my version of "the play's the thing"? That should explain a lot to you.

Before you get on your high horse, I am not saying you shouldn't be here or the non religious shouln't be here. quite contrary we need differing veiws to have discussion. But surely you should at least me somewhat interested to be here? I mean I dont crash into the math section and post 'how boring blah blah blah' do I. Nor does anyone else, so why you?

How did you know my horse is a stoner?

I didn't say the topic is boring. I was referring to silly things (IMO) like differntiating between revelation and gnosticim, which are really the same thing. Gnosticism is "knowledge from god", whether it's from the front end or the back, you're still presuming you know something based on a crock. I think there are a thousand good reasons to think you know something, but I think it's simply WRONG to consider knowledge absolute, or that it was somehow procured from a mystical entity born solely of inference and culture. I think it's wrong to hold the world hostage to one's presumption of that basis (as is subjectively the case). It's mostly the "mystical entity" part that gets under my skin.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

I didn't say the topic is boring. I was referring to silly things (IMO) like differntiating between revelation and gnosticim, which are really the same thing. Gnosticism is "knowledge from god", whether it's from the front end or the back, you're still presuming you know something based on a crock. I think there are a thousand good reasons to think you know something, but I think it's simply WRONG to consider knowledge absolute, or that it was somehow procured from a mystical entity born solely of inference and culture. I think it's wrong to hold the world hostage to one's presumption of that basis (as is subjectively the case). It's mostly the "mystical entity" part that gets under my skin.

There now, why didnt you say that in the first place.

To answer your question - The difference between revealed knowledge or experienced knowledge is the difference between being told the world is round and traveling around the world!

It is WRONG to consider knowledge absolute, I dont, I consider it an ongoing process.

Yes it subjective, no I dont hold the world or anyone hostage, if it gets under your skin i'm sorry, but thats not going to change my beliefs. I am making no attempt to convert you to anything, although I am happy to discuss my beliefs with you. If you find them of interest.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

There now, why didnt you say that in the first place.

I thought it inferred from context. *shrug*

To answer your question - The difference between revealed knowledge or experienced knowledge is the difference between being told the world is round and traveling around the world!

But either way you're saying the knowledge comes from the mystical entity outside of yourself.

It is WRONG to consider knowledge absolute, I dont, I consider it an ongoing process.

The presumption of god... faith, gnosticism is absolute knowledge. I have a hard time seeing it otherwise. Perhaps you can enlighten me. The moment you doubt your faith it isn't faith until you're faithful again, so you toggled from absolute knowledge to critical thinking, then back to absolute knowledge. Something like that.

Yes it subjective, no I dont hold the world or anyone hostage

The world is always subjectively hostage to the gnostic. It's consequential to the position. To be fair though, the world is alway hostage in some sense at least, to anyone... as they are limited to their perspective at the time.

, if it gets under your skin i'm sorry, but thats not going to change my beliefs.

It's the solid assertion of a mystical entity external to yourself that annoys me to no end. I'm not asking you to change your belief, I'm simply stating how I relate to it.

I am making no attempt to convert you to anything,

You'll forgive me if I point to the thread title and opening post as a refutation of this assertion?

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

I am making no attempt to convert you to anything,

You'll forgive me if I point to the thread title and opening post as a refutation of this assertion?

Please point out where exactly does she say she wants to convert you, or what you understand to be an attempt at trying to convert you.

Cite those passages.

Originally Posted by water

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

I am making no attempt to convert you to anything,

You'll forgive me if I point to the thread title and opening post as a refutation of this assertion?

Please point out where exactly does she say she wants to convert you, or what you understand to be an attempt at trying to convert you.

Cite those passages.

Gnosticism - the best way.

- this is marketing.

Originally Posted by superluminal

LOL

Oh man that's righteous!

Preach on, my brotha.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

Gnosticism - the best way.

- this is marketing.

Pfffft.

"Marketing" and "attempting to convert" are two completley different things.

Albeit, it is in the interest of marketing to convert you, it is UP TO YOU if you feel this to be an attempt at converting you.

Marketing has succeeded if you buy what they are selling *just because* it was marketed.

But everything you buy does not happen due to your being converted. After all, there are things that you need to buy, and you will buy them regardless of marketing.

That marketing for a thing and your buying said thing coincide does not mean marketing has converted you.


Instead, you seem to be arguing from the assumption that the mere presence of a certain content is a try to make you accept this content. I think this is an unbased assumption.

It is, however, very frequent. Esp. when it comes to religon, atheists feel under constant pressure from the theists, for some reason. Even though the theists are doing nothing but merely being present.

water:

It is, however, very frequent. Esp. when it comes to religon, atheists feel under constant pressure from the theists, for some reason. Even though the theists are doing nothing but merely being present.

Are you serious? Really? Honest?

Bible thumping, tract spreading, evangelistic, school-board corrupting, science squashing, morality-dictating, free-thought oppressing theists?

Sorry. Theists are clearly a quiet, private group who we wouldn't even know exists except for lots full of cars parked at churches, synagouges and mosques on Sunday (or whatever day(s) is special to your particular denomination/sect). My bad.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

But either way you're saying the knowledge comes from the mystical entity outside of yourself.?

No I'm saying knowledge comes from inside ourselves - this is the whole point of gnosticism.

Are we an entity - yes. Is this entity mysitcal - only in so much as we do not fully understand it.

"know thyself" is the key phrase of gnositics.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

The presumption of god... faith, gnosticism is absolute knowledge. I have a hard time seeing it otherwise. Perhaps you can enlighten me. The moment you doubt your faith it isn't faith until you're faithful again, so you toggled from absolute knowledge to critical thinking, then back to absolute knowledge. Something like that.?

The full knowledge that you talk of is the goal of the gnostic. I think where you maybe misundersatnd, is that you seem to be assuming that to be called a gnostic one requires full knowledge. This is not the case one simple seeks full knowledege. It is more than just having knowledge it is becoming that knowledge, living that knowledge. By exploring deeper / higher levels of consciousness in search of the truth of self and the divine.

It is true that a measure of belief is needed to undertake such searching, but I would not call it faith. Faith based religions say I have faith that what I am told is correct - I therefore do not need to know.

Originally Posted by wesmorris

You'll forgive me if I point to the thread title and opening post as a refutation of this assertion?

Yes I'll admit the title was a badly chosen, but the content of the post and my subsequent posts makes clear that the only persuading I seek, is to persuade people to look inwards for knowledge - I do not want to tell people what they might find, although I do sometimes tell people where my journey has taken me.

We all share our opinions here, what we believe and disbelieve. What we think is right or wrong. In this section we could limit ourselves to dry factual discussion on religions and their doctrine, talking only in the third person and refraining from giving personal views, but I dont see many other people doing that so I dont either. This is not however preaching or attempted conversion.

Well then, I appreciate your explanation and agree with you regarding content. We have a symantical difference in that I think the term "gnostic" is being utlized terribly improperly in your context. Your context is good IMO, it's the word "gnostic" that doesn't fit.

This is how I think of it, mainly because of the word's meaning:

"The doctrines of certain pre-Christian pagan, Jewish, and early Christian sects that valued the revealed knowledge of God and of the origin and end of the human race as a means to attain redemption for the spiritual element in humans and that distinguished the Demiurge from the unknowable Divine Being" (from dictionary.com)

"Gnosis" is "to know", which is the antithesis of skepticism. You're basically speaking to skeptical gnosis, which seems a contradiction of terms. To me, all knowledge is tentative. So 'to know' has to have a 'when'. Gnosticism must presume access to, and confirmation of absolute knowledge.