My opinion of the Gnostic Demiurge

reply to post by Frira

What is the significance of the obelisk you mention?

Whatever the symbolism is, it should be unnerving for any catholic to see a obelisk - a phallic symbol - standing in the middle of st. peters basillica.

Addtionally, this is not just any phallic symbol, but an ANCIENT one, 4000 years old! (Archeologically speaking, that is very fascinating to me) From Heliopolis Egypt.

Now, to put this into Biblical terminology.

Egypt is associated with darkness, and limitation. It has since ancient carried this connotation, not simply because of the Jews, but because the Egyptians themselves stylized their culture and religion as such.

In Hebrew, the word for Egypt, Mitzrayim, is related to the word (same letters. And in Hebraic metaphysics, each letter adds an element to a reality) Mitzarim - straits, or limitations.

The Israelite exodus from Egypt symbolizes the souls exodus from the world of limitations, from straits. The many different stops on the way to holy land symbolize the various experiences they will have to go through; the biggest one being Amalek - which has the same numerical value as the word for doubt.

Anywho, in this scheme, Egypt is identified as the arch enemy, the chief purveyor of impurity, and arrogance in this world.

So, Christianity, claiming to come from Judaism and representing the "fullfillment" of its prophecies, why on earth would the catholic church take one of the main symbols of Egypt - pagan religion, and erect it in the middle of St peters square. It Strikes me as strange.

Additionally, when you analyze the partition where the obelisk stands, it is broken up into 8 sections. According to kabbalistic writings, the non Jews represent an unstabalizing force in the world; instead of perfecting the "vessel", ie; the thoughts, speech and action, they focus entirely on the abstract and philosophical. This is symbolized by 8. 8 being a major part of all pagan philosophies. 8 isnt initself evil, but it cannot be made useful until the 7 is perfected. With this in mind, i can explain the evils of this world, and especially the evils of the catholic church (not just against the Jews, but especially against the natives of the Americas, and Africa) as an example of their unstabalizing philosophy. They are so hung up on the abstract, and the world beyond, that they ignore the real people and real situations of THIS world.

So, i see the obelisk as a perpetation of an ancient philosophy, this time localized in Rome, Italy. Likewise, i think the Obelisks elsewhere, in London, Paris, St Petersburg, and Washington, all fit into this wider puzzle.

Edit: Also, the phallic symbol of course is an expression of the masculine energy. Since it comes up out of the earth, and points up to the heavens, the heavens, usually associated with the male, is transmuted into the female

In this scheme, the man made obelisk expresses mankinds influence, whereas the heavens represent the collective unconscious.

This is an INVERSION of the biblical conception (and the more logical conception), where the heavens - God, is considered the mascline, and active force of influence, whereas the earth, and created reality ie; mankind, is the passive reciever of that influence.

The phallus-obelisk is thus a tawdry symbol, not only because it is a stylized penis, but because it is rebellious in its very nature.

The Movie Avatar shows how serious this transformation agenda of the elites is.

The name of the goddess in the movie is EYWA. Anyone remotely knowledgeable of kabbalah probably figured out that EYWA is a transmutation of the tetragrammaton, YHWH. Not only is it a transformation of the elements within the name (each letter symbolizing an aspect of reality. Changing the order of the letters changes the energies, and so creates a different reality) to Heh, Yod, Vav, Heh, but this specific order of the letters (and there are 12 unique transmutations, referring to the 12 signs of the zodiac) corresponds with the month of Shevat - and the zodiac sign Dli - the water bearer, or AQUARIUS.

Also, to further james cameons use of kabbalistic motifs, the name of the people of Pandora, are the "navi" - Hebrew for prophet.

A large pink granite obelisk can be admired in the center of the square. It was hewn from a single block and stands 25.31 m. high on a base 8.25 m. wide.

The obelisk which comes from Heliopolis, Egypt, where it was built by the Pharaoh Mencares in 1835 BC in honor of the sun, was brought to Rome in 37 BC by the Emperor Caligula (37-41) and erected in the circus he built.

Here it was silent witness of the martyrdom of St. Peter and of many other Christians. In 1586 Sixtus V had it moved to the center of St. Peter's Square. This operation, which required hundreds of workmen, was directed by Domenico Fontana with the help of his brother, Giovanni, and took four months. It was erected on September 10, 1586 by 900 men using 140 horses and 44 winches.

saintpetersbasilica.org...

The Gnostics were also persecuted.

Gnostics were persecuted, and eliminated, not because their doctrine was ‘heresy', but rather because the political implications of the doctrine of ‘enlightenment' was that this would result in a challenge to the class structure of Roman society and would also result in the loss of influence of religious authorities, who placed the emphasis on the outside, in outside sources of revelation, such authorities as ‘scripture' and ‘canon law'. When an individual looks within themselves for Gnosis, religious hierarchy is nullified, and this nullification of the religious elite only mirrors the inevitable political challenge to the Roman elite in general, since if all individuals can seek revelation, then all individuals must be equal and all supposed differences in authority or equality between individuals must be artificial.

www.awitness.org...

Don't we all have a slew of Agent Smiths trailing behind us?

The inscriptions on the north and south sides of the base have texts written by Cardinal Silvio Antoniani as a memorial to the moving of the obelisk. The east and west sides have exorcist formulas.

Well, Caligulas was crazy!

reply to post by Onboard2

When an individual looks within themselves for Gnosis, religious hierarchy is nullified, and this nullification of the religious elite only mirrors the inevitable political challenge to the Roman elite in general, since if all individuals can seek revelation, then all individuals must be equal and all supposed differences in authority or equality between individuals must be artificial.

Thank you, Onboard2, very nicely put. It makes the Judaism described by the OP seem rather elitist doesn't it?

And it also brings us around in a circle back to the Archons; the Archons are experts of artificiality and simulation.

reply to post by dontreally



Friends:

I have made it to the end of page 2 and there is an ongoing challenge that needs to be brought up to everyone. There is no use of a set of operational definitions involved when looking across the spectrum of discussion.

I feel that when this happens in these type of threads so many people are unable to pull back and see that they are actually talking about the same things. Further this is a exactly what the "editors" of the ancient works wanted to happen.

Consider this planetary social experiment:

This experiment is going to last for 1000 years, and consist of an original 100,000 persons of a random age and sex. All live in the same geographic area, and all food, goods, and facilities are communal property. There is no knowledge of another way to live, and there are no other persons on this planet.

The first 100 years everyone comes together in their homes every evening to watch the "TELLING" on TV of how their society was set up by the "scientist" and how they work together as a community so all persons can advance. There is a rotating counsel of elders where no person can have a repeat seat on counsel ever.

At the end of a 100 years the "scientist" come in gather people in a completely random manner and relocate the people in groups of approximately 1000 (depending on birth and death rate over the prior 100 years), in ten various parts of the planet where there can be no contact with another group. Person are unable to take any thing but the clothing they are wearing.

Each group is given only rudimentary gardening tools for gardening and small number of animals to begin new herds and flocks. The TV is not there and is no electricity. Additionally, the "scientist" have brought 10 newcomers from off planet for each group, thus 100 newcomers in total.

These newcomer look just like the originals, even speaks the same language. Except they just graduated from Wharton at the University of Pennsylvania. The 10 new comers are from the various areas of study. The "scientist" leave and say;

"We will be back in 900 years. The most important thing to remember when we come back is the "TELLING!"

I wonder what would be the result of the "TELLING" from each group?

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

reply to post by ChungTsuU


Awesome post, ChungTsuU.

It is hard to nail down a lexicon for discussing this sort of thing. Maybe if the thread had anything to do with anyone other than the 'Gnostics' it might be easier. You make a really good point.

reply to post by dontreally

Edit: Also, the phallic symbol of course is an expression of the masculine energy. Since it comes up out of the earth, and points up to the heavens, the heavens, usually associated with the male, is transmuted into the female In this scheme, the man made obelisk expresses mankinds influence, whereas the heavens represent the collective unconscious.

This is an INVERSION of the biblical conception (and the more logical conception), where the heavens - God, is considered the mascline, and active force of influence, whereas the earth, and created reality ie; mankind, is the passive reciever of that influence.

The phallus-obelisk is thus a tawdry symbol, not only because it is a stylized penis, but because it is rebellious in its very nature.

Wow again.

If you consider that I wrote this...

Suck my Rood

...before you expressed what I quoted you writing above I guess that means I really am dyed in the wool, so to speak.

The thing that is interesting for anyone else paying attention is that you really have a wide range of exposure to the stuff you write about and you really do seem to be keeping up great. I just am amazed that you and I really are at opposite sides of this.

You have me nailed (so to speak) all right; I really do come from the tawdry, rebellious phallus worshiping side of the fence. And you don't.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Frira

 

What is the significance of the obelisk you mention?

Whatever the symbolism is, it should be unnerving for any catholic to see a obelisk - a phallic symbol - standing in the middle of st. peters basillica.

Addtionally, this is not just any phallic symbol, but an ANCIENT one, 4000 years old! (Archeologically speaking, that is very fascinating to me) From Heliopolis Egypt.

Now, to put this into Biblical terminology.

Egypt is associated with darkness, and limitation. It has since ancient carried this connotation, not simply because of the Jews, but because the Egyptians themselves stylized their culture and religion as such.

In Hebrew, the word for Egypt, Mitzrayim, is related to the word (same letters. And in Hebraic metaphysics, each letter adds an element to a reality) Mitzarim - straits, or limitations.

The Israelite exodus from Egypt symbolizes the souls exodus from the world of limitations, from straits. The many different stops on the way to holy land symbolize the various experiences they will have to go through; the biggest one being Amalek - which has the same numerical value as the word for doubt.

Anywho, in this scheme, Egypt is identified as the arch enemy, the chief purveyor of impurity, and arrogance in this world.

So, Christianity, claiming to come from Judaism and representing the "fullfillment" of its prophecies, why on earth would the catholic church take one of the main symbols of Egypt - pagan religion, and erect it in the middle of St peters square. It Strikes me as strange.

Additionally, when you analyze the partition where the obelisk stands, it is broken up into 8 sections. According to kabbalistic writings, the non Jews represent an unstabalizing force in the world; instead of perfecting the "vessel", ie; the thoughts, speech and action, they focus entirely on the abstract and philosophical. This is symbolized by 8. 8 being a major part of all pagan philosophies. 8 isnt initself evil, but it cannot be made useful until the 7 is perfected. With this in mind, i can explain the evils of this world, and especially the evils of the catholic church (not just against the Jews, but especially against the natives of the Americas, and Africa) as an example of their unstabalizing philosophy. They are so hung up on the abstract, and the world beyond, that they ignore the real people and real situations of THIS world.

So, i see the obelisk as a perpetation of an ancient philosophy, this time localized in Rome, Italy. Likewise, i think the Obelisks elsewhere, in London, Paris, St Petersburg, and Washington, all fit into this wider puzzle.

...

Thanks.

It may be useful to note that the obelisk was brought to its location, not from its original place in Egypt, but from the circus in Rome while Christ walked the earth-- a later site of Christian martyrdom. One assumes that the meaning, if any, connoted by the average catholic is one of witness.

I have read, but do not recall where, that the pavement is marked in such a way that the obelisk serves as a sundial.

As for the eight radials, it is the work of a single architect. Any symbolism, beyond the aesthetic, is due to that of the man and apparently died with him. The idea that it represents some hidden and obscene secret motive of the Church does not come easily-- or reasonably.

For that matter, steeples could be considered phallic. All those "quaint" little hillside chapel-- nothing but pagan fertility symbols?

And while I'm going to bow out of this discussion, I'll offer a constructive observation-- I hope:

Several of the posts from more than one ideological "opponent" on this thread, demonstrate a tendency to equate Christianity to Evangelical-Fundamentalism. They are certainly the loudest, but they are also both new and minor, historically. Like other religious who seek to connect faith to law and governance-- they frighten me. To the shock of some, there is a complete other form of Christianity-- ancient in practice and theology which bears little resemblance to what even I hear and see as "Christian" in this US society.

If having no mystical belief or practice, then everything is of the world-- and so Holy Scripture becomes nothing but "law" and that law is to be established by them for their own protection, but under the guise of "saving souls." I reject it. Souls are not saved by being subdued or intimidated by others. I was never taught it; yet I grew up in the Church-- dragging my parents there until I could drive. I was taught a very spiritual and mystical faith which many Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox know- but which I have never met a "Fundy" here, in the "Bible Belt" who even suspected to exist.

So, it is the teachings of the church before there were denominations and before there was secular power to which it attached itself (and visa versa) that I find most instructive, pertinent, human and at the same time, true. If it was written before the year 400, I probably have read it, and what I have read is almost perfectly in line with what the Sacramental denominations hold to be true.

And since it is on my mind, I'll add the humorous but poignant, observation; that, the US military makes the distinction of denominations based upon whether a denomination believes in infant Baptism. Those that do, get a chapel with an Altar, those that do not, don't. I think there is some meaning in that observation-- and it is not about how one Baptizes; rather, it is about the mystical beliefs. I am trying say that Christianity is susceptible to political use and abuse but that fact does not negate the authentic teachings.

reply to post by Frater210


That corroborates my theory that the Obelisk is a symbol of rebellion against the masculine (ie; the reason, morality, self discipline, obedience to law)

Muslims absolutely hate that idea. Rebellon against God = a reason for Jihad.

BUMP, for a reason.

OP, please go to my posting, and please do tie in any of the U2U I wrote you.

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

reply to post by dontreally


Found another one. This one from 1958, I believe. If you go to YouTube and put in Old Pictures of Hajj, you will get some interesting videos to watch. So far I have not seen any black obelisks but it looks to me like the pillars of Mina have been rebuilt, probably several times.

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Frira

 

What is the significance of the obelisk you mention?

Whatever the symbolism is, it should be unnerving for any catholic to see a obelisk - a phallic symbol - standing in the middle of st. peters basillica.

Addtionally, this is not just any phallic symbol, but an ANCIENT one, 4000 years old! (Archeologically speaking, that is very fascinating to me) From Heliopolis Egypt.

Now, to put this into Biblical terminology.

Egypt is associated with darkness, and limitation. It has since ancient carried this connotation, not simply because of the Jews, but because the Egyptians themselves stylized their culture and religion as such.

In Hebrew, the word for Egypt, Mitzrayim, is related to the word (same letters. And in Hebraic metaphysics, each letter adds an element to a reality) Mitzarim - straits, or limitations.

The Israelite exodus from Egypt symbolizes the souls exodus from the world of limitations, from straits. The many different stops on the way to holy land symbolize the various experiences they will have to go through; the biggest one being Amalek - which has the same numerical value as the word for doubt.

Anywho, in this scheme, Egypt is identified as the arch enemy, the chief purveyor of impurity, and arrogance in this world.

So, Christianity, claiming to come from Judaism and representing the "fullfillment" of its prophecies, why on earth would the catholic church take one of the main symbols of Egypt - pagan religion, and erect it in the middle of St peters square. It Strikes me as strange.

Additionally, when you analyze the partition where the obelisk stands, it is broken up into 8 sections. According to kabbalistic writings, the non Jews represent an unstabalizing force in the world; instead of perfecting the "vessel", ie; the thoughts, speech and action, they focus entirely on the abstract and philosophical. This is symbolized by 8. 8 being a major part of all pagan philosophies. 8 isnt initself evil, but it cannot be made useful until the 7 is perfected. With this in mind, i can explain the evils of this world, and especially the evils of the catholic church (not just against the Jews, but especially against the natives of the Americas, and Africa) as an example of their unstabalizing philosophy. They are so hung up on the abstract, and the world beyond, that they ignore the real people and real situations of THIS world.

So, i see the obelisk as a perpetation of an ancient philosophy, this time localized in Rome, Italy. Likewise, i think the Obelisks elsewhere, in London, Paris, St Petersburg, and Washington, all fit into this wider puzzle.

...

Thanks.

It may be useful to note that the obelisk was brought to its location, not from its original place in Egypt, but from the circus in Rome while Christ walked the earth-- a later site of Christian martyrdom. One assumes that the meaning, if any, connoted by the average catholic is one of witness.

I believe the obelisk was moved from Heliopolis to Rome by Caligulas in 37 A.D. I think for him it probably did represent a phallic symbol.

I also do agree that Egypt represents darkness and limitation, if we are to look at the entire history of the Jewish people.

No, of course it exists; I just don't know why anyone would want to apply it to a pile of plagiarisms and rewrites of other historical texts.

I dont see how this changes anything.

Although, to be fair, only parts of genesis - the most ancient (ie; genesis means beginning) exist in other cultures. The Torah is much bigger than that one book. Exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy, in addition to the books of the prophets, 12 minor prophets and writings (ie; psalms, proverbs, job, nehemia, ezra).

Everything BEFORE the revelation of the Torah, that is, the book of genesis, SHOULD and WOULD be found in earlier pagan cultures, since this was the common heritage of all mankind.

This is all based on the assumption that there is anything of value in Kabbalah; for me there is not and for you there is. I am afraid that you will automatically chalk this up to lack of education but of course, I can't control that.

Thats because youre ignorant.

I am sorry but at this point when you bring up Kabbalah and all that I just hear, "Blah, blah, blah" I shold have mentioned that in the beginning.

Well thats nice to know.

When you or anyone else talks about Gnosticism, i actually sit, calm my emotions, and read what they have to write.

guess it would depend on how flexible said Hindu's mind was. Aren't all these knee jerk reactions towards one another's beliefs what start holy wars and crusades?

No, there would be just one interpretation, or atlast a 'flavor' of interpretation that adheres to a generally agreed upon doctrine.

You seem to have things pretty rigidly compartmentalized and in lockstep. Maybe you do not realize it. Just to give you some perspective; I have run in to a lot of 'Kabbalah Snobs' in my time, you aren't becoming one are you?

Lol @ kabbalah snobs. Ive never heard that term before.

Well, Kabbalah is metaphysics par excellence, and no people likes to systemize and order things the way Jews do.

If youve studied Hebrew, which you havent, you would be as amazed as i am, or any objective researcher into the subject, because it is surreal.

Really. Even the most cold atheist, who has his head screwed on tight, cannot objectively study the Hebrew language at a gematria level, without atleast coming away with the perception of this language being created by a divine being.

If youre gnostic, youd probably interpret that as the sophia injecting the wisdom of creation into the demiurges 'programming', which was than handed over to the demiurges robotic soldiers, the Jews.

Loosen up a little, you are all stiff from digesting some book, I can tell because it happens to me as well.

To be fair, this isnt my first reading of the book, or my first reading of gnosticism. I have about 10-15 books that can be considered 'gnostic', from GRS Meads analysis of the Hermetic writings (the poimandres) , to blavataskys theosophy (which is gnostic in flavor, and also adopts the demiurge idea), to other books on gnosticism.

You know I am a heretical Gnostic Christian now so I don't think I really need to answer this. Enjoy the recursion.

What branch of Christianity are you formally apart of???

Or, do "orthodox" christians, with an actual interest in gnosticism, not admit to that predilection???

I would imagine they keep it a secret, the same way sabbatean Jews, pretend to be observant orthodox Jews. Its actually quite sick and demented.

Like I said, different sides of the fence. What is more interesting to me is how 2 people reading the same crap ended up like this.

William James would interpret that as being two different people needing two different things.

Unlike the abve swedenborgian, i intrpret that as a consequence of living in an evil world, in an evil epoch.

Some of us get entrapped in negative beliefs systems, philosophies, which, when looked at objectively, and intuitively, are absurdly unstable.

Are you interested in Crowley by any chance?

reply to post by Frira

The idea that it represents some hidden and obscene secret motive of the Church does not come easily-- or reasonably.

First, i never said 8 was obscene. There is nothing obscene about the number 8.

Second, i find it HIGHLY, incredibly highly, unlikely, that anything in the Vatican complex - any major monument, or architectural design, is without any metaphysical basis.

ALL religions have always been based on this.

The Jewish temple, of course was based on this conception.

To think the Catholic church is exempt from this principle is to play fairy tale games with someone too educated to believe differently.

Im telling you, there is a metaphysical reasoning for why the vatican is built as it is, why a certain number of saints surround its roof, why the cobblestone in st peters square is designed the way it is, with 8 partitions, 4 larger, 4 smaller, and 8 spokes between each partition.

The science of metaphysics, simply put, is NEVER separated with the building of a sacred structure, and above all, not the Vatican.

Now, probing the significance of the sacred design, of why they chose 8, an obelisk, etc, we can only speculate.

But consider this. All ancient religious traditions subscribe to the same general idea of the number 8. It represents eternity; even the design of the number alludes to that. It also refers to the world beyond the 7 - which represents the spheres of the world. This is why most ancient cultures, and religions, divided time into periods of 7. 7 periods of 4 being a full lunar month (or just short of it, at 29 days). And the 7 planets, visible to the naked eye, referred to the physical manifestation of this metaphysical concept. The 7 worlds are 7 spheres, and these spheres are active principles governing reality (this is also a basic gnostic assumption). They are thus active, moving, as the planets (lit . wandering star) move across the sidereal.

8, refers to the intellect, which "transcends", the physicality (or formation) of the 7.

Wouldnt Jesus' 8 beatitudes, philosophical precepts with no explicit calling towards actions, be a perfect manifestation of this principle, that 8 symbolizes the philosophical, and abstract???

Anyways, this is an assumption i will not part from, because it is so incredibly logical and reasonable. I do not for a second believe that they just haphazardly pick a spot without any deeper philosophical - metaphysical - consideration, when since ancient times this has been the raison d'etre, when building ANY structure. Why else is the church, almost always located in the center of a city? Or facing the east?? Isnt that METAPHYSICS? Of course it is. The east, where the sun rises, is associated with the 'source' of the universe. Thus, east is associated with the concept of spiritual proximity, and this 'likeness' is imitated on earth when we build physical structures. We actually draw the spiritual energies (which only exist in the abstract. So, an abstract principle imbedded in a physical structure will attract the spiritual energies associated with it).

And yes, since this is a esoteric subject, deliberately kept hidden (since the knowledge itself is hidden beneath the veil of physical reality.

For that matter, steeples could be considered phallic. All those "quaint" little hillside chapel-- nothing but pagan fertility symbols?

Now youre just reaching.

This is something i encounter often with Catholics.

Im a former catholic, my sister is a catholic, and same with my mom and dad.

A phallic symbol is a phallic symbol. You cant change a symbol when the idea already associated with it is so primordial; archetypal by its very nature.

Besides, this is ACTUALLY an obelisk, taken from a culture which had a fixed understanding of what the Obelisk symbolized.

It was so universal, that the Obelisk is also found in Mesopotamia, Iran, India, and China. The ancient world knew, and understand the basic metaphysical doctrine behind the obelisk.

Since this is a gnosticism thread. Tell me this. How do you think the gnostics were so sure that this world was a 'machine' or system. How did they know that these abstract concepts they speak of were real things?

Practice. They knew this because they had an already highly evolved system for CONTROLLING, and MANIPULATING, these higher realities.

I know this, because im a curious person, and i myself have seen with my own eyes the reality of this world being nothing more then the projection of a spiritual reality. If you utter certain Hebrew names (or in other lesser systems, Enochian for instance - which seems to be fitted towards the demonic), properly, with the proper instructions, knowing theoretically how it all works, you can uncover some pretty insane things. About other people, about yourself, etc.

My point with all this, metaphysics is REAL, and thus, putting a great deal of thought into how you want to design a church, or a st. peters basillica, is an imperative.

reply to post by ChungTsuU


Im sorry.

What are you trying to say?

reply to post by dontreally



Friend:

Then I must say...Quoting Bart and Lisa: "Meh".

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

Awesome thread and discussion.

For some reason it makes me wonder what the flow of history might have looked like if 1) Moses, when in need of water, had simply touched the rock as instructed, instead of striking it with his magic staff, and 2) if Elija and Elisha had not exchanged a promise/vow at the Jordan River re: a double dose of spirit.
Which then raises the question of - who was John the Baptist, and by what authority did he perform baptism for the remission of sin?

reply to post by dontreally


I think it's important to understand that the Greeks who actually initiated the origins of thought that eventually developed into the Gnostic narrative were consciously crafting myth narratives with the full knowledge that these were myth narratives, and not true events. Most human beings on this planet were not literate back then, and a dramatic, compelling story was the most effective means of keeping a concept from fragmenting completely over time. The basis of the Mystery Religions was the observation that human societies - in general - were always aggressively looking for a corporeal deity to embrace, with the aim of getting what they wanted in advantage, and/or keeping their enemies from getting what they wanted. If you really examine the allegorical nature of the Sophia myth, it becomes pretty clear that the main character - Sophia (which is the Greek word for wisdom) - represents human enlightenment/proper intellectual perception, and that her plight is the plight of the human intellect within the confines of an ignorant and belligerent corporeal world.

It's not easy to perceive logical and rational truth when you're being so affected by so much that works so hard to force you into an animal survival response state. It's much more difficult to achieve and maintain that elevated state of mind when confronted with cultural imperatives that demand that you submit to a deity that - while claiming to be above such animalistic drives - sets a powerful example that predation and direct competition as survival is the highest expression of the human psyche. The Greeks presented the character that eventually morphed into the Gnostic Demiurge as the epitome of this predator god that the elite of the more violent cultures worshiped and imposed upon their people.

The Christian religion borrowed heavily from the Greek myths (as translated by Hebrew trading merchants of the era - prior to the Roman destruction of Israel, of course) because their god-man character (a critical portion of the classic Sophia myth that these specific Hebrews crafted to help them achieve a level of cultural acceptance by the Greek-dominated Mediterranean commerce class) was readily available for use once Jerusalem was eliminated. Of course, the Romans reconfigured it a bit (borrowing from the Egyptians a little - a cryptic nod to that with that big Egyptian phallus in Vatican Square) to fit the meme of sacrificing one's success in corporeal life for eternal rewards in a promised afterlife (a perfect concept for the rich and powerful to market to the sweaty and dangerous 98% of those who weren't rich, and who would remain powerless as a result) and presented the Messiah god-man character (the re-installed Joshua - of the Hebrew's Moses/promised land fame - as the anticipated king of the revised Israel empire, since Joshua (Greek translation - Jesus) was the one who led the Hebrews into their original promised land, and this new Joshua was to lead them into their ultimate promised land) as the ultimate divine rejection of the Hebrew culture and established theological trajectory, so as to not honor the Hebrew traditions, even as they robbed those traditions and applied them to present this new theology with a well established historical provenance.

It was actually the Gnostics who crafted most of the New Testament, with Paul leading the entire parade with a handful of relatively authentic letters that had a great impact during the time. Serious theologians generally admit that Paul was clearly Gnostic, and that the efforts to reconfigure his letters (and the forgeries themselves) were later efforts to strip the heavy Gnostic references and leanings from his written legacy. The gospel writer, Mark, is most likely (according to most traditional church history) the primary source of the Jesus narrative, and 90% of Matthew and Luke (acknowledging "Q" as the legendary one-source document, which has yet to be confirmed as having actually existed) with John stepping in with a heavy-handed Gnostic influence at the end of the 1st century with the 4th gospel and (some suggest) the controversial Book of Revelations - which some have suggested rails againts what Rome did to the entire Christian theological concept.

In fact, that whole "In the beginning was the Word..." vignette, that John launches his gospel with, reeks of the Sophia myth, since The Word was widely considered (before 19th century American Protestant revisionism further drove the Literalist viewpoint into the Christian mainstream) to represent the truth about God and humanity's place within God's creation. Jesus was considered the corporeal manifestation of the human understanding of that truth, sent to earth to rescue that truth from the corruption it was suffering at the hands of the corporeal chaos that has always ruled the world. The Word as flesh - the truth as properly internalized within the human mind. Of course, the Literalists see The Word as God's active intent launched into physical manifestation (like the spoken word expresses the intellectual concept as sound vibrations that stir the space around the human brain) but the history of the development of the narrative itself suggests a much different interpretation.

The Literalists battled the Gnostics for control over the Christian message, and the Romans saw the Literalists as much more usable for their efforts to impose a one-religion solution over their increasingly fractured and difficult to manage empire. So, they backed them, and the rest is Christian church history. The Romans never looked past the expediency of having culturally imposed lockstep order, and the Literalist Christians were more than happy to give that to them in exchange for official recognition of their rigid interpretation of this odd Greek/Hebrew hybrid myth as historical fact, and a required religion for all Roman subjects. It's very well established that the Christian narrative that we know today was imposed by violence and threat of violence, but then all theologies have been aggressively imposed upon people and cultures throughout human history.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Frira

 

The idea that it represents some hidden and obscene secret motive of the Church does not come easily-- or reasonably.

First, i never said 8 was obscene. There is nothing obscene about the number 8.

Second, i find it HIGHLY, incredibly highly, unlikely, that anything in the Vatican complex - any major monument, or architectural design, is without any metaphysical basis.

ALL religions have always been based on this.

Religion, Yes;
Architecture of a plaza, No.

You see the acanthus leaf motif in church carvings all over Europe and the US. If you carve wood, you'll know why. If you don't, then you may speculate that the acanthus leaf is believed to have mystical power and an ingredient in some medieval concoction used in a secret rite. You would be wrong.

Or as Freud says, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

I don't know, but equal mystical speculation goes like this:
"Your Holiness, the piazza lacks a vertical component, but we do not wish to build anything there which would block the view of the basilica."
"Well, then, how about that damnable monolith from the circus which witnessed so many of the early martyrdom?"
"A pagan symbol?"
"A symbol of two dead Empires. One which oppressed the Jews and the other which sought the extinction of the Christians and the Jews. We will take it, exorcise it, and top it with a Cross"

So, why your malevolent assumption and why not my benevolent one? It really was exorcised and it really was topped by a Cross. That is to say, in keeping with ancient Christian mystical belief, the profane cannot endure against the holy-- that which had been set apart for evil can be cleansed and set apart for witness-- made new.

So perhaps the Church is declaring, "The world looks for potency-- look no farther than the Incarnation! All else is passing away!"

The Jewish temple, of course was based on this conception.

Indeed it was. The Tabernacle, in fact, an earthly (and fleeting!) sign of the Heavenly. A pattern and a type. Issiah's vision, and John's both are easily understood as pointing to exactly that very idea.

To think the Catholic church is exempt from this principle is to play fairy tale games with someone too educated to believe differently.

Your error, here, is to assume that I deny the mystical because I disagree with your speculative interpretation. I do not deny the mystical-- am certain that not only does the mystical Reality exist, but that it is more Real than the temporal-spatial.

I get to disagree with speculation without being dismissively accused of engaging in "fairy tales"-- like it or not.

Sauce for the goose. Did not you just write that it was absurd to deny the Jewish interpretation of their own Scripture because a non-Jew claims it means something else? So might I make the same claim about the meaning of the use of an obelisk from within my own tradition?

Im telling you, there is a metaphysical reasoning for why the vatican is built as it is, why a certain number of saints surround its roof, why the cobblestone in st peters square is designed the way it is, with 8 partitions, 4 larger, 4 smaller, and 8 spokes between each partition.

Perhaps, but are you certain that your interpretation is free from a bias? I am not. Sometimes practical and aesthetic are primary. How many horse stalls were placed in the stable at the Vatican-- based on how many horses they expected to need to accommodate or is their a mystical meaning?

How many icons I have on my wall? Is it the number of them or it who which is telling?

There is a point in which a study of meaning departs from what can be known and can consume with an unintended fixation. I'll touch on that again in a moment.

The science of metaphysics, simply put, is NEVER separated with the building of a sacred structure, and above all, not the Vatican.

I agree with qualification. There is also a context for meaning. My speculation presumes an intent no more and no less than your speculation-- but we both presume.

Now, probing the significance of the sacred design, of why they chose 8, an obelisk, etc, we can only speculate.

...
since ancient times this has been the raison d'etre, when building ANY structure.

The first structure I built was dog house from my childhood pet dachshund. It's dimensions were ruled by a slab of Formica I had and needed to use as its base. I was not surprised, then, when I read that the geometry of the piazza was dictated by the geographical constraints.

Likewise, when I create a design, I often make use of the Golden Ratio-- because it pleases. Much speculation as to why that is-- including a mystical speculation, but then again, the dimensions of the tabernacle do not use that ratio. I checked. Nor the ark. Nor anything else. But I measure the text on a page of a book-- and it is almost always in accordance with that ratio. That means something, but it probably does not mean all designers of all those books are hiding a profane secret.

Why else is the church, almost always located in the center of a city? Or facing the east?? Isnt that METAPHYSICS? Of course it is. The east, where the sun rises, is associated with the 'source' of the universe. Thus, east is associated with the concept of spiritual proximity, and this 'likeness' is imitated on earth when we build physical structures. We actually draw the spiritual energies (which only exist in the abstract. So, an abstract principle imbedded in a physical structure will attract the spiritual energies associated with it).

And yes, since this is a esoteric subject, deliberately kept hidden (since the knowledge itself is hidden beneath the veil of physical reality.

Yes, but we are were not referring to a Church but the piazza, and now a dog house.

I wrote: For that matter, steeples could be considered phallic. All those "quaint" little hillside chapel-- nothing but pagan fertility symbols?

You wrote:
Now youre just reaching.

Ha! No more than you are! Which was my point.

This is something i encounter often with Catholics.

Which is something I encounter in everyone-- including you. Hi! Let me introduce you to human beings! Yes, I imagine you often do encounter disagreement with your interpretation by Catholics. Is that due to their bias or just your bias?

One of us suspects it works both ways-- the other is you.

Im a former catholic, my sister is a catholic, and same with my mom and dad.

I'm a former agnostic, my mother an Edgar Casey adherent, and Jean Dixon, "Chariots of the Gods" and a cast of a thousand witches, seers, palm readers, astrologers and such. It was all about control for her-- demented, nasty wretch that my dear mother is. But perhaps, God in His wisdom, has made use of her cruelty to drive me into His arms? Consumed by evil and her own guilt, her own son represents to her the Enemy, while I seek to understand and forgive-- a life's work in itself.

So, what was your point? Mine is addressing the uncertainty of knowing but doing the best you can, and the pitfalls of using the mystical for one's own purposes.

God once handed me a Sword. By obedience, I reluctantly gave it back. He bled on it from the Cross, and by obedience, I reluctantly let it remain. My sword remains there at the foot of the Cross, and I wait to be brought by Him to that Place before I take it up again. To this day, I go unarmed; but I go anyway. It is dangerous that way, you know? Does that have meaning?

A phallic symbol is a phallic symbol. You cant change a symbol when the idea already associated with it is so primordial; archetypal by its very nature.

I am a fan of Jung. But one word: Cigars.

...[The Gnsotics] knew this because they had an already highly evolved system for CONTROLLING, and MANIPULATING, these higher realities.

I know this, because im a curious person, and i myself have seen with my own eyes the reality of this world being nothing more then the projection of a spiritual reality. If you utter certain Hebrew names (or in other lesser systems, Enochian for instance - which seems to be fitted towards the demonic), properly, with the proper instructions, knowing theoretically how it all works, you can uncover some pretty insane things. About other people, about yourself, etc.

Well, that one makes me uncomfortable-- I struggle with, and sometimes against, this notion.

My first formal instruction-- submitting to a master who was appalled that I had gone so long without help. Is the mystical about power and control?

Missions of my own desires, no matter how holy they are in my eyes, have been utter frustration. Mystical missions given me by the Author of purpose, have succeeded despite me. It is a lesson well learned.

There is a distinct and clear, "Hey, you have this power, you could..." Nope! It is not about power. It is not about manipulation-- it is about participation, and then it is know with Whom (or mere whom) one is participating. It is about relation, it is about good, it is about purpose, it is about teleology, it is about obedience, it is about reason, it is about the heart and soul and mind and body, it is about altruism, and it is about God. It is not about my ability or desire for power and control.

My point with all this, metaphysics is REAL, and thus, putting a great deal of thought into how you want to design a church, or a st. peters basillica, is an imperative.

edit on 26-8-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Fine, but you write of specifics and then apply them broadly. Sights on a shotgun have no purpose.