It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My opinion of the Gnostic Demiurge

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ChungTsuU
 


You like to beat around the bush, dont you???




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 





Fine, but you write of specifics and then apply them broadly.




Sights on a shotgun have no purpose.


I wanted to quote a lot of what you wrote in your post, but you have just summed up the entire basis for Don'tReally's attempts at understanding Gnosticism in this thread with those few words.

In other words, I have been trying to say the same thing.

It's like trying to play 'pin the tail on the jello'.


.
Which is not to say that Don'tReally is not really intelligent and interesting, this stuff would make great scifi; the good guys and bad guys are already so sharply delineated

edit on 26-8-2011 by Frater210 because: What he said.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


ChungTsuU seemed to be offering to arbitrate a little and I thought it was a good idea.

I would like to hear what he thinks as he seemed interested enough to work through the thread and then was inspired to make a suggestion.

Where is this thread going anyhow? I was thinking we could all friendly up and just exchange ideas seeing as we all like writing so much. I am always actively seeking for plot devices and the like and I love to share my ideas with others.

I think you should write, DR. Do a thing on this Sabbatean conspiracy or something.

I am really impressed with the little group that this thread has collected; obviously there is a small group of us that cannot resist this Gnostic and early church stuff. Let's jam (which we are already doing really).



P.S. How did an optimistic person who is down on Nihilism end up with a moniker like 'dontreally' and an avatar that says, 'I don't really care'?

P.S.S. How about the new avatar? (mine)


edit on 26-8-2011 by Frater210 because: Hm?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 





Are you interested in Crowley by any chance?


I will go ahead and answer this in the spirit of sharing as others may be eager to express where they have come from and where they are going with this stuff.

Yes, I had an interest in Crowley at the appropriate age for those that are going to get interested in Crowley: about ages 25 to 30, then I got past it. I have to say though that in those years I found Austin Spare and Paul Foster Case to be more interesting. These days my interests lie almost exclusively in Alchemy and being a heretic.

I started young, like many here. It started with Wilson's Illuminatus trilogy at about 11 and progressed rapidly through Daraul with a constant I.V. drip of Lovecraft and Howard and the gang.

Here is the where it gets weird, remember in the early 80's? Scorcese did Last Temptation of Christ and the book was really popular and all of a sudden the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha went mainstream?
Well I was there at the California epicenter of it all. My wife at the time had just finished a degree in Early Christian studies (all the rage at the time) just as I got out of the service. One of her professors was Howard M. Jackson, Professor of early Christian studies at Claremont, CA. Well, he sort of joined our group of friends.

I will never forget the time when he showed up at 2 a.m. to a party with this falling-apart sheaf of translations of graffitti he had just translated from the walls of bordellos in Pompeii. The dude was a riot. He had a sad end though.

Anywho, so I have been at this a long time as well, I am sure we all have our stories. The stuff has just stuck with me ever since I was exposed to it and I can't shake it.

So, yeah, Crowley was in there, but it was just sort of a stop on the Way.

Why? Are you gonna go all, 'Crowley was a baby eater' on me?



edit on 26-8-2011 by Frater210 because: punct



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Hey, I think I caught you here, Kabbalahnator.




So, conceptually speaking, the gnostic demiurge - the 7 spheres - and the Ze'ir Anpin = YHVH (tifereth being the sphere in which he manifests) align with the same reality.


First of all I am suspicious at all that you are going to try to apply Kabbalah to the 'Gnostics' but if you are going to insist on going there then I am wondering why you would attribute 'The Demiurgos' to Tipharet?

OK, hold on, I see that the tree that you are using is kind of wonky anyhow...researching...

OK. Why have you chosen to use this Tree with Daath and Malkut 'un-descended'? I don't know how you are counting these but I have always known Tipharet as 6. I know you did not choose that Otz Chaim by accident, so what is up?

Can't wait for the answer on this one. I have my snot shield up.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frater210
reply to post by dontreally
 


Where is this thread going anyhow? I was thinking we could all friendly up and just exchange ideas seeing as we all like writing so much. I am always actively seeking for plot devices and the like and I love to share my ideas with others.

I think you should write, DR. Do a thing on this Sabbatean conspiracy or something.

I am really impressed with the little group that this thread has collected; obviously there is a small group of us that cannot resist this Gnostic and early church stuff. Let's jam (which we are already doing really).





Exactly! It is wide ranging discussion with like-minded people of widely varied backgrounds. Kind of cool. This is the good stuff for sipping beer on a patio in my world.

Donttreally's background is intriguing and thought provoking-- and unlike me, likes to start threads.

Now, a point of perspective:

Remember this from Star Trek?



I think it is called the "Doomsday Machine"

I had a professor reference this image as regards to ancient Gnosticism. He explained, that Gnostics consumed and assimilated everything in their path-- seeking out religions to absorb and make their own-- taking what fit and annihilating the rest.

Marcion is an excellent example. Wrote the New Testament? No. Edited? Yes-- with a knife. Paul a Gnostic? No. Paul's teaching agreeable to Gnostics? Apparently. And I like that. Just as I like the Muslims teaching about the Virgin Mary and the return of Christ-- just as I like the Hindu teachings about a greater life after death in and of this world, and so on. Common denominators are fun. I am a bit suspicious that the Gnostics had found the major common denominators of the ancient spiritual teachings, now lost.

Of course, from Tertullion and Irenaeus, what I know most of the Gnostics is the differences, not the common.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 





Architecture of a plaza, No.


Are you referring to nowadays or in ancient times??

In ancient times, the entire city was designed to reflect some metaphysical concept(read Eliad Mircea)

Today, only sacred buildings could be expected to be based on such principles.




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.


Whats malevolent about my accumption??

Frater, who just starred your post, is more than willing to freely discuss and extol the virtues in spiritual rebellion against the 'demiurge'. ...

To me, it is malevolent. To someone else, it isnt.



Because the catholic church, to its credit, has done a reasonable job ingraining Jewsh values, like conscience, fear and love of God, prayer, confession, etc, into its followers, admitting to the 'real' meaning of the Obelisk - which is along ARCHETYPAL grounds, and so much deeper, and foundational than your little neat theory, would be unnecessary, and infact it would do no good at all for the Church, or their spiritual mission.




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.


The Temple is the physical microcosm of the spiritual cosmos; every level, and world, is reflected in the physical structure.

Theres a book available online called "the secrets of the future temple", written by the Kabbalah Moshe Chaim Luzatto in the 18th century. It expounds on Ezekiels vision of the future temple and explains, by detail, each asect of this temple. From the ouer courtyard, and what it symbolizes, to the inner courtyard, the womans court, the males court, the levitical portico, the cohenic portico, the temple entrance, sanctuary,etc. Every litttle detail is accounted for, and each aspect of the entire structure corresponds as an exact physical representation of the spiritual cosmos. The ark pf the covenant corresponding to the infinite creators presence within the Shekinah (the divine presence), and so the Rabbis in the Talmud say this room was dimensionless. If one were to go into it, the arks dimensions would be too big for the room, and yet it would be contained with it (to express the idea of the infinite being merged with the finite). The holy of holies corresponding to the next level of world, through the sanctuary, etc etc, until you arrive at the foot of the Temple mount.

This is how deep the idea goes. EVERY ASPECT OF CREATION IS MIRRORED IN THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE of THE SACRED BUILDING.



So might I make the same claim about the meaning of the use of an obelisk from within my own tradition?


Well, i was a catholic, i am trained in Catholic tradition, and teachings.

In anycase, this is nothing like the analogue.

I merely said there was a fixed metaphysical interpretation that wold align with the exoteric literal meaning of the Torah. So, the Torahs main theme is justice, law and order, love for God etc, thus you would expect for this general doctrine to be imbedded within the Torahs metaphysics. Which it is.

Conversely, im merely sayng that there is a metaphysical basis for the design of St. Peters Basillica, patterned after their ideal world (And that christ idea you gave for the obelisk doesnt adhere to a cosmic metaphysical conception). Thus, each aspect of the entire whole, would correspond to some aspect within the cosmos.

The reason the Jewish temple is a SQUARE, is because it emphasizes EQUALITY, EQUITY, JUSTICE. A square is equal on all sides. This is also why the Muslims worship by the Kaaba in Mecca - a square.

The Egyptians conversely were nihilists, and so elitist. Only those of powerful families would be at the top, perpetually, while those born of a lesser parentage would be apart of the system only as to SUSTAIN those at the top.

Thus, the pyramid reflects the heirarchially mentality of the ancient Egyptians. Thus, thir actual CONCEPTION of the cosmos was mirrored in their architecture.

Same with the Babylonian Ziggurat.




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?


Do you not see a problem in your reasoning here?

A horse stall is an UNIMPORTANT aspect of the Vatican . It can easily be ignored. It is a mere addition, and need, for the Vaticans acitivities.

Whereas the floor of St. Peters square, which is an expression of art (with a metaphysical basis) with the obelisk placed in its center is an IMPORTANT and focal aspect of the Vatican.





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




I think i am making a reasonable speculation.

Skepticism isnt always reasonable. Sometimes, when you have enough information about a particular thing, its justified to take that 'leap' and make a general statement, such as, all - or the vast majority - of sacred buildings are designed with metaphysical considerations in mind.

Now, the VATICAN, being the single most powerful, and prestigious religious building in the world for the last thousand plus years, a place of tremendous scholars, social elites, a place of political and temporal authority, undoubtedly, these men put the deepest type of metaphysical thought into the construction of the vatican, their taking an obelisk from Alexandria (originally built by an early Egyptian pharoah) and placing it in the center of St Peters Square.

I think its safe to speculate that Romes elite knew what they were doing.




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?


Point taken.




It is not about my ability or desire for power and control.


Umm, ok.

My point was, the spiritual realm is a real place. Theres a PRACTICAL VALUE in building sacred structures according to a metaphysical system. It draws down those energies.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 





Theres a book available online called "the secrets of the future temple", written by the Kabbalah Moshe Chaim Luzatto in the 18th century. It expounds on Ezekiels vision of the future temple and explains, by detail, each asect of this temple. From the ouer courtyard, and what it symbolizes, to the inner courtyard, the womans court, the males court, the levitical portico, the cohenic portico, the temple entrance, sanctuary,etc.

Every litttle detail is accounted for, and each aspect of the entire structure corresponds as an exact physical representation of the spiritual cosmos. The ark pf the covenant corresponding to the infinite creators presence within the Shekinah (the divine presence), and so the Rabbis in the Talmud say this room was dimensionless. If one were to go into it, the arks dimensions would be too big for the room, and yet it would be contained with it (to express the idea of the infinite being merged with the finite). The holy of holies corresponding to the next level of world, through the sanctuary, etc etc, until you arrive at the foot of the Temple mount.


I Found this quote from you to be very interesting. In my searches for information on The Pillars of Mena I have come to the conclusion that the whole Mecca set up for Hajj is rather impermanent and a little like a theme park.

It's like the Jews have Temple Land and the Muslims have Mecca Land; Christians have been known to set this kind of thing up as well (hell, they'll set up the stations of the cross just for fun) and I think I recently heard of a Noah's Ark theme park.

Anyhow, I just found that intriguing. It causes me to fall on the side of Frira concerning the Obelisk at the Vatican. I was just about all the way over to begin with, anyway. Roman left overs.





edit on 26-8-2011 by Frater210 because:




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Hey everybody ( all 4 of us).

I was inspired (briefly) to try and put the Weird Al treatment on Alanis Morrisette's Isn't it Ironic and try to change it to Isn't it Archonic; but afetr reading the lyrics I find that they don't really need any changing at all, maybe just some additional lyrics if anyone is feeling inspired.

Anyway, Morrisette uses the word ironic but it could easily be replaced with Archonic...


An old man turned ninety-eight

He won the lottery and died the next day

It's a black fly in your Chardonnay

It's a death row pardon two minutes too late

And isn't it Archonic... don't you think
It's like rain on your wedding day

It's a free ride when you've already paid
It's the good advice that you just didn't take

Who would've thought... it figures

Mr. Play It Safe was afraid to fly

He packed his suitcase and kissed his kids goodbye

He waited his whole damn life to take that flight

And as the plane crashed down he thought "Well isn't this nice..."

And isn't it Archonic... don't you think









P.S. Hey, does anybody know how to see who is giving stars and flags in a thread? I have always wondered if it is possible or maybe DR is just Psychick.
Anyone?
edit on 26-8-2011 by Frater210 because: ?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Friend:

Sorry if that came out wrong. I was tired and should not have put it that way.

You are smart, and I was hoping that rather than looking around at the differences and arguing semantics, you would see it in a new light. I was trying to push you to go beyond, thus by doing so, I am hoping that you begin to recognize the actual similarities of each.

Also, remember that there was a religious group that burned the Library of Alexandra and stole from the world most of the ancient text that I am sure you and I would love to be reading now!

Go to the Eastern Orthodox Church and see how close some core belief structures are to Gnosticism. In the U2U I mentioned looking across the board to the number 7.

7 chakras
7 seals (revelation)

Further more, I would ask you for a definition of "unconditional love". Then I ask you, to compare it to these following ideas from Buddhism, Christianity, and the Tao.

Buddhism's, mindful oneness of all beings.
Christianities, love thy neighbor as thy self.
Taoisms, being at the center without judgment.


I have not completely studied the Kabbala, I do get from it that the central idea is "we are all ONE". Given the proximity to Egypt and the fact that Moses was raised under Pharoh, I see "The Law of ONE" emerge as a theme spanning across various regions of the world showing up in religion.

I hope that makes sense?

Regards and Nameste,

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

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

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



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
You've forgotten on little point....it's all made up! It's all a spin...a yarn! It is so convoluted and confusing (on purpose)...It's not that complicated with stories, rules...gods, demi-gods...with all the different cultures having a different name for the exact same made up character....

Relax...it's not that complicated.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by blazenresearcher
 





Relax...it's not that complicated.


What, may I ask, is not so complicated?




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
It is like the devil is in the details...run down every rabbit hole until you are blind. I just believe for myself that it is not that complicated, but has only been made complicated.

I'll add that I have studied in this area some, but I've made up my mind and don't even feel the need to debate my viewpoint. So I will leave you all to carry on.
edit on 26-8-2011 by blazenresearcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


The Gnostics believe you find God by looking IN. The church teaches that God is something outside of you. Jesus taught to look inside of you. So you can say he was a Gnostic. His teachings put the establishment in danger, that is why he was crucified. Modern Christianity is a invention. Real Christianity and Judaism are two different things. The God that Jesus spoke of is not Yahweh. Jesus' "God" loves unconditionally. Yahweh is a warmonger, jealous, temperamental "god" that destroyed cities full of men, women and children AND accepted human sacrifice.

Israel were the chosen one by "Yahweh,(The Demiurge) and this is why they own this world. Nothing against Jewish people by the way, but we live under their system. Societies "moral code", and economic system is theirs. Its a game they have been playing for a looong time. You can see Jewish influence in almost every major war and conflict since the fall of the Roman empire. (Which by the way, Rome didn't fall. It bacame the Catholic Church, people in Europe still pay "church tax" "Tribute"). They have been Usurers since biblical times. You can see their influence in modern Catholic churches. They look just like masonic temples inside nowdays.

By the way, I'm not saying this with hate. It is what it is. But be aware of the God you are praying to at night.

Btw. From Wikipedia. Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a grammatically singular or plural noun for "god" or "gods" in both modern and ancient Hebrew language. When used with singular verbs and adjectives elohim is usually singular, "god" or especially, the God. When used with plural verbs and adjectives elohim is usually plural, "gods" or "powers"

Remember this?
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Genesis 3: 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Genesis 11:5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

Who were this "us" he was speaking to?

Also take a loot at www.fatimamovement.com... on how Judaism took over the Catholic church. This page is written by Catholics themselves.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

I think that may be close, but likely no cigar.

Why? Because it's becoming ever more clear that Jesus the man, was both a student of gnosis according to the ancient wisdom teachings, passed down in this case by a mystical Judaism (is there any other kind?), as well as the master, with a double dose of spirit, John the Baptist being his initiator, if not the reincarnation, of Elijah.

More on Elija (I think this is worth investigating)

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...



edit on 27-8-2011 by NewAgeMan because: forgot the H in Elijah, info link added.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by dn4cer2000
 


I agree that Judaisms moral code, ie; conscience, has spread and become the common heritage of all mankind.

But economically. Whats wrong with you??? All the noble houses and temporal authorities since ancient times have been CHRISTIANS or pagans - and not Jewish.

Only recently have Jews like the Rothschilds, Warburgs and Schiffs become powerful, and even than, they are secular, sabbatean leftists who support the REFORMATION of Judaism (an infact, warburg and schiffs helped finance the reform movement, building temples, universities etc) and so in no way represent the authentic Jewish spirit.

Sabbateanism if you arent aware is Gnosticism, under a Jewish garb.

Thus, even the Jewish 'elites' are gnostics, playing ball with the rest of the non-Jewish elites.

Oh, and as for the plurality of the name Elohim, and the being made in "our image".

The divine form or image in which man was made was the universe, or in gnostic terminology, the "archons" (as they are apt to due, devaluing the amazing cosmic order), thus, all the various elements of the cosmic chain of creation contributed a part to the creation of Man. This is what is implied by the name Elohim.
edit on 27-8-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Judaism is no way way shape or form related to gnosticism.

They are diametrically opposed.

I also doubt that Yeshua taught anything as absurdly antinomian as the gnostics.

In anycase, "mystical Judaism", is somewhat of a misnomer, and indeed, many Rabbis would take offense to that term.

Its not that a mystical dimension doesnt exist (and by mystical, i mean more metaphysical, and spiritual, and less the irrational nonsense of the gnostics) its just that its not emphasized to the degree as the moral and temporal is.

The purpose of mans existence in this world is to BETTER the world, and so engage it, perform good deeds, in speech and action. By doing so we make this world an abode for the Almighty.

Gnostics however could not be anymore repulsed by this idea. Being Satanists, essentially, their whole deal is antinomian, anti-demiurge (which means anti-order) and so really, they are nihilists with no care at all for morality, which to them is merely enslaving yourself to the psychical order of the demiurge.

Strange, and twisted.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ChungTsuU
 






Go to the Eastern Orthodox Church and see how close some core belief structures are to Gnosticism


Thats quite interesting.

Explains why an Eastern Orthodox Bishop led his followers on Haunukah to the Chabad lubavitch headquarters and pulled out the Menorah, brought it to the public square and conducted a ceremony over it.



As is known, Haunukah is the celebration of the Jewish spirit over the Hellenistic spirit. The Hellenistic spirit is what vivifies Christianity - and especially our modern culture today.

The actual story alludes to the metaphysical beliefs of the Jews. 7 days corresponds to this world. While the 8th, corresponds to the 'world to come', alluding to the future messianic era. For the 7th candle to last 8 days is to basically say, after this 'world' is over, it will be the Jewish ethos, and spirit, which will enter the new aeon of the messianic age.

This should answer your speculation of Judaism being just like the other religions.

Not quite. Of course, oneness and unity is emphasized, afterall, the Hebrew word for love - ahavah, and one, Echad, have the same gematria - 13. But the framework is different.

Mankind is commanded to follow 7 laws, called the 'nohahide laws'. These limitations and contractions of behavior on the part of man imitates Gods own act of creation. For God to become materialized, and so spiritualize this lower world, man has to take it upon himself to act as God did.

Each law corresponds to a sefirah, or sphere of activity. It creates a 'vessel', in which the name YHVH can enter, and so vivify the creation.

The basic laws are:

Do not murder
Do not steal
Do not harm nature, or animals
Do not blasphemy God (and by extension, anyone made in Gods image. That is, do not gossip, slander, etc. this sanctifies the power of speech)
Do not engage in idolatry (that is, do not worship your ideas, beliefs)
Do not act sexually immoral (refrain from the following actions; anal sex, incest, orgies)

And the 7th is to enforce these laws through a judicial system.
edit on 27-8-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Well, you take care then, DR, I would say that I hope you find all of the answers you are looking for someday but I get the impression you feel as though you have already found them, so I will just say that I hope you find someone to listen to all that you have learned, despite your delivery style.

Before I go I just wanted to ask if you have ever heard this saying from Zen Buddhism...

"Flea bites iron bull"...

...?

See ya, thanks for the chuckles.




posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Frira
 





Architecture of a plaza, No.


Are you referring to nowadays or in ancient times??

In ancient times, the entire city was designed to reflect some metaphysical concept(read Eliad Mircea)

Today, only sacred buildings could be expected to be based on such principles.


I'm referring to 1586.





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.


Whats malevolent about my accumption??

Did I misunderstand? I was under the impression that your were associating the placement of the obelisk at the Piazza (in 1586) with a Roman Catholic ascription to what was intended by its original builders. Therefore, my response was to indicate that the evidence is the to the contrary (exorcisms of the object and placement of a Cross upon it).



Frater, who just starred your post, is more than willing to freely discuss and extol the virtues in spiritual rebellion against the 'demiurge'. ...

As a monotheist, the Creator is the One True God, Lord God of Hosts. The plural forms in Hebrew Scripture either a reference to Trinity of Persons or to creatures existing within the Heavenly realm(s) subordinate to God in both nature and essence (e.g., Angels -- the "Hosts", being warriors).

Despite the Gnostic adoption of Paul, via Marcion, I find that Paul's writing point to something a pantheon of rebellious creatures, superior to man, but essentially demonic in their rebellion. Man has confused great spiritual power with God throughout history-- ignoring or denying that spiritual evil exists.

That said, monotheism can be set aside by me in terms of this discussion as I seek to discern what others answer to the "Now what?" The "One God in Trinity of Persons" whether understood by other faiths as pantheistic or monotheistic still look a lot alike-- reconcilable for my purposes. The question I look to answer is, given a belief in a Creator, and given a belief in supernatural powers, existence and Reality beyond the common human perception-- now what? What do we do as a result of this glimpsed or revealed or intuited-- or whatever-- knowledge.



To me, it is malevolent. To someone else, it isnt.

Yes, but your assertion seemed to be presented with a bias against Catholicism, whereas my explanation is amiable to the Catholics; but neither seemed necessary to the discussion. I came into the discussion asking what significance you were suggesting, perhaps rhetorically, concerning the obelisk in the Piazza.

Just a few days earlier, I had been Google-Earth-ing Vatican City because of something I had read in an article. So when I your reference to the obelisk, it was fresh in my mind.



Because the catholic church, to its credit, has done a reasonable job ingraining Jewsh values, like conscience, fear and love of God, prayer, confession, etc, into its followers, admitting to the 'real' meaning of the Obelisk - which is along ARCHETYPAL grounds, and so much deeper, and foundational than your little neat theory, would be unnecessary, and infact it would do no good at all for the Church, or their spiritual mission.

First of all: "Little neat theory" is a bit dismissive-- especially when the evidence is on my side; furthermore (and less obvious to you) it is inappropriate, because I am no idiot. Evangelical Fundamentalist snipe at the Catholic Church as almost a hobby. Do a Google search on using Vatican obelisk and the vast majority will be recent anti-catholic, pro-Evangelical blogs.

Again I say, for history, I read books with footnotes and Bibliographies, and pay little attention to blogs written in the author's mother's basement with cheeto-stained fingers.

I haven't met an Evangelical-Fundamentalist who had a clue about the history of the Church before the Reformation. I don't mean they are stupid, I mean that the classes they take have such a bias and political agenda, that it demonizes to the point of twisting, warping and even eliminating history, that unless one does his or her own research, the truth cannot be known, and what is false will be accepted and repeated.

Discussion this week with a friend-- the Crusades. The Pope militarizing the Church to descend upon all those peaceful Muslims. Patently untrue, but undeniably the most prevalent way the story is told; but one has to actually research to decide whose view is truth. That is the sort of thing I am talking about.

Find an anti-catholic blog which mentions the exorcisms. Go ahead. Try. Why can't you find that? Because it gets into intent, and if the Vatican intended to remove any evil before erecting (oh my Goodness-- I so wanted to avoid that word!) the obelisk in the Piazza, then it takes away the meaning of mentioning the pagan symbol being used by the Catholics.

Which brings me back to your theory-- neither did you mention the exorcisms. Not because you were being dishonest, I trust, but because it is not what you had been taught-- and you had reason to trust your teachers and your sources.





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.


The Temple is the physical microcosm of the spiritual cosmos; every level, and world, is reflected in the physical structure.

Theres a book available online called "the secrets of the future temple", written by the Kabbalah Moshe Chaim Luzatto in the 18th century. It expounds on Ezekiels vision of the future temple and explains, by detail, each asect of this temple. From the ouer courtyard, and what it symbolizes, to the inner courtyard, the womans court, the males court, the levitical portico, the cohenic portico, the temple entrance, sanctuary,etc. Every litttle detail is accounted for, and each aspect of the entire structure corresponds as an exact physical representation of the spiritual cosmos. The ark pf the covenant corresponding to the infinite creators presence within the Shekinah (the divine presence), and so the Rabbis in the Talmud say this room was dimensionless. If one were to go into it, the arks dimensions would be too big for the room, and yet it would be contained with it (to express the idea of the infinite being merged with the finite). The holy of holies corresponding to the next level of world, through the sanctuary, etc etc, until you arrive at the foot of the Temple mount.

This is how deep the idea goes. EVERY ASPECT OF CREATION IS MIRRORED IN THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE of THE SACRED BUILDING.

I love that stuff!

In both the Tabernacle and subsequent Temples, the Veil was dark blue with stars embroidered on it-- signifying the Heavens-- perhaps a star map. That underscores what you just wrote for me. Not to mention how it points to an inclusio: with the Heavens ripping apart at the Baptism of Christ and then the representation of the Heavens (the veil) tearing apart at His death-- each time with a voice stating Him as the "Son".





So might I make the same claim about the meaning of the use of an obelisk from within my own tradition?


Well, i was a catholic, i am trained in Catholic tradition, and teachings.

Yes, but I hold those traditions-- that is the difference.



In anycase, this is nothing like the analogue.

I merely said there was a fixed metaphysical interpretation that wold align with the exoteric literal meaning of the Torah. So, the Torahs main theme is justice, law and order, love for God etc, thus you would expect for this general doctrine to be imbedded within the Torahs metaphysics. Which it is.

Conversely, im merely sayng that there is a metaphysical basis for the design of St. Peters Basillica, patterned after their ideal world (And that christ idea you gave for the obelisk doesnt adhere to a cosmic metaphysical conception).


Sure it does. There is difference, like it or not, in your experience with the metaphysical and the experience another has. Neither is perfect if we speak of mere humans. Denying that you are fallible, is folly.



Thus, each aspect of the entire whole, would correspond to some aspect within the cosmos.

The reason the Jewish temple is a SQUARE, is because it emphasizes EQUALITY, EQUITY, JUSTICE. A square is equal on all sides. This is also why the Muslims worship by the Kaaba in Mecca - a square.

The Egyptians conversely were nihilists, and so elitist. Only those of powerful families would be at the top, perpetually, while those born of a lesser parentage would be apart of the system only as to SUSTAIN those at the top.

Thus, the pyramid reflects the heirarchially mentality of the ancient Egyptians. Thus, thir actual CONCEPTION of the cosmos was mirrored in their architecture.

Same with the Babylonian Ziggurat.

Whoa there!

You seem to assume that all who build structures have read what you have read and agree with your meaning and interpretation-- and without which no structure is built.

Humans do this:
"I'm so great, I want everybody to know it! Go build me something big and tall and powerful-- something which symbolism for them (and particularly the pretty women) how potent I am!"


Humans don't, typically, think:
"Hey, I want a monument. Make it some multiple of seven lengths of my forearm because seven is the number of perfection, and then add one more multiple, making it eight, to signify that I am more powerful than any god. Now, it has to have four sides, because the people will need to know that my greatness extends to the corners of the earth (in all directions), and make it pointy-- because I am uncircumcised and I want the people to know I hate the Jews, and make sure it points up, because I want them to know that my power has not yet been spent, and then..."

Come on!





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?


Do you not see a problem in your reasoning here?

A horse stall is an UNIMPORTANT aspect of the Vatican . It can easily be ignored. It is a mere addition, and need, for the Vaticans acitivities.

Whereas the floor of St. Peters square, which is an expression of art (with a metaphysical basis) with the obelisk placed in its center is an IMPORTANT and focal aspect of the Vatican.

I see the point. I made it.

And what happened to your (all caps) "EVERYTHING" is built to spiritual purpose?

The point is that you assume that the obelisk was erected with a specific spiritual intent and deny any other interpretation than your own as "little" and "fairy tales". Take three deep breaths and whisper to yourself, "I could be wrong-- after all I have no proof. Does my world and faith collapse if I am wrong about my assumptions?"





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


I think i am making a reasonable speculation.

Given the above, I fear you think you have discovered the keys to unlocking the mysteries of the universe and you won't let go until you find a lock which is actually opened by what is in your hand.



Skepticism isnt always reasonable. Sometimes, when you have enough information about a particular thing, its justified to take that 'leap' and make a general statement, such as, all - or the vast majority - of sacred buildings are designed with metaphysical considerations in mind.

Now, the VATICAN, being the single most powerful, and prestigious religious building in the world for the last thousand plus years, a place of tremendous scholars, social elites, a place of political and temporal authority, undoubtedly, these men put the deepest type of metaphysical thought into the construction of the vatican, their taking an obelisk from Alexandria (originally built by an early Egyptian pharoah) and placing it in the center of St Peters Square.

I think its safe to speculate that Romes elite knew what they were doing.

But you do not speculate-- there is no wonder, you write, "undoubtedly." Well, I doubt. So much for your safe assumption.





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?


Point taken.




It is not about my ability or desire for power and control.


Umm, ok.

My point was, the spiritual realm is a real place. Theres a PRACTICAL VALUE in building sacred structures according to a metaphysical system. It draws down those energies.


And I agree with that point.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join