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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I think the movie "Avatar" has an aura of gnosticism, because in the movie, god is made equal to nature. She is wisdom(Sophia) and intelligence. The Na'vi can hook up to her through the sacred trees.

Eywa,(Gaia) the 'mother' is a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing. There is noone above her. The Na'vi recognize that they are one with everything and have the living spark within them. The Na'vi have a unity of consciousness among all living things. Their beliefs are rooted less in faith than in experiences. The entire biosphere is a manifestation of a belief in 'one' through their inter-connectedness.




posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
For the record I believe that God is all good, and the creation is all good because it is better for there to be something than nothing at all, and it's nice to have something to do. I believe that God as the creator, is a role that God took on, and not the height of God as God is, but a role, and that the creator was created with creation. I suppose it is possible that once created, that the person of God could become deluded, mistaking the role he is playing as Creator for Himself, and therefore that perhaps we are here to remind him of his true nature by functioning as a representation of the innerance of the Godhead but not his apex/transcendence. And so what we have then is a relationship, not with the Creator, who, now that we are present as the crown of his creation, is no longer relevant, since it was only a role God assumed for God to become self realized, which is fair, but with God the very first and the very last, as the Alpha and Omega. I am here to say thank you God for being you and not just me, I love you too!
We must remember that there is no love unless there was always two, so spiritually, we are, and were always God's beloved.

"I was with you from BEFORE the very foundation of the world."

Now there is a statement by someone who knows (has gnosis of) the REAL God.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
P.S. if there was any flaw, such a flaw was introduced, when either we, or God, became deluded as to our true nature, or were untrue to ourselves, as we really are, and therein came evil as a lie taken to be true. Satan, then, as the father of lies may be considered simply the father of delusion.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by dontreally
 


1/ You have from OP and onwards created a strong and clearly outlined position, something I personally find commendable.

What I find less comendable is, that you try to strengthen this position by:

a/ Early in OP asking rhetorical question, which already are answered in Jonas' book.

b/ In the course of the thread self-proclaiming various kinds of 'authority'.

c/ In OP introducing condescending and irrelevant pop-psychology evaluations on the motives of gnosticism.

d/ Regarding a historical backtracking of gnosticism as more relevant than it is.



2/ Against this I will accentuate the following, which is the relevant essence of gnosticism:

a/ 'Gnosis' taken as the individual way of direct experience.

b/ The autonomous cosmogony and cosmology of gnosticism.



From your position (1), mainly disregarding what gnosticism is (2), it's not difficult to 'build a case'. The question is, who will believe this orchestration? I for one don't.





NICE!

In particular 2/ a & b

I am so tired of having others, specifically "Religious" superiors, tell me what I have and have not experienced. My gnosis!

I apoligize minor rant to follow...

Hypothetical:

Speaking to my so called "Religious" superior: "Um dude come into my meditation/prayer session and...wait sorry you are unable...Well never-mind, Source/God/The Creator/Sky God, just gave me an idea and intuitively I am going to act on it for the betterment of Humankind."

"Religious" superior comes back and says, "I quoth thou shall not...."

Source/God/The Creator/Sky God gave you and I shall's not shall not's. TPTB gave you and I the NOT's!

By acting on this I am going to ensure that I am mindful, acting from a base of love, and do not harm another beings free will.

OP this is why I do not come directly at you, and rather why I am trying to push you to think further.

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung
edit on 27-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-8-2011 by ChungTsuU because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ChungTsuU
 


Thanks for your response.

It's a pity, that this didn't go much beyond how to make the 'formal' arrangements in such a debate, to ensure that the thread isn't just a disguised sermon on one religion's (or system's) superiority.

Because both....... the intrinsic qualities I mentioned as being what gnosticism is (instead of the travesty created of/around it)......and the outer manifestations of gnosticism aren't the simplistic picture many have of it.

The 'mystery-school' similarities to gnosticism are obvious because of the direct-experience methodology all mystic traditions have, but the inclusion of secrecy, hocus-pocus and magic passwords is an exoteric fantasy-invention, as is the image of a 'higher initiate' as someone looking as a cross between Gandalf the white and a druid, and behaving accordingly.

It's a science-of-mind, where accessibility/in-accessibility lies in competence, not in diagrams with circles and arrows taking you straight to 'being there' or magic wands.

The cosmogony/cosmology of gnosticism is almost on par with the buddhistic, and is on general terms as good a philosophical position as that of any other religion.

The outer social manifestations of gnosticism, e.g. as an existential ethical system is similarly far from what's been implied in OP and later in the thread, and nihilism isn't part of it.

But theists often have problems with understanding the concept of 'freedom with responsibility'. Apparently the authority-dependency in monotheism DEFINES this concept away as impossible.

But I guess, we'll probably not get to that.


edit on 28-8-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Onboard2
 




You stated they are feminine, but yet call them a phallic symbol built by men? Pagan fertility symbol? Is an antenna a fertility symbol?


The Obelisk renders the universe femine

In the basic, archetypal scheme of things, masculine is 'active' ie; the man provides the basic seed which contains all the information, and therefore is the 'active' principle. Thus, all things in a position of activity, is regarded as masculine. The sky-heavens is Masculine, because it is 'above' ie; prior, to the manifestation and expression of its masculine potential.

Feminine energy is the expression of the cosmos. It is passivity, a receptacle, taking in from without, as a woman takes the seed of the male, or as nature takes the fecundating rain, and transforms whats potential, into the real.

In this scheme, created reality, nature, mankind, is objectively feminine, whereas God - the father - is masculine. We therefore RECIEVE, in a state of passivity, his benevolent guidance.

There is really nothing fundamentally different from ancient Egyptian religion, with its Obelisks, Pyramids, and its temple of man, and Gnosticism. They both elevate man above the cosmos, above the Creator, and so it is really silly to talk about a 'progression' in religion, when the difference between the Egyptians, and the Gnostics, many centuries later, is the outer form the myth takes on.

The Egyptians worshipped the self - the Ram - which is why Moshe told Pharoah he had to leave Egypt - or Mitzarim - the limatations of a created being - to serve YHVH. He had to LEAVE that world, of arrogance, and the worship of the self, in order to SEE, that indeed, above Elohim is a greater God, YHVH, who of course Pharoah (the ego) "doesnt know".

The obelisk, being a man made phallic symbol, signifies mans position as the active force, ie; it is MANS willpower that is deified. This renders the spiritual worlds passive. Mans behavior transforms spiritual reality, the same way EYWA is a tranformation of the name YHWH.

Its all sorcery. Changing the creation, pretending, or believing, that the creator G-d really isnt G-d.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ChungTsuU
 




OP this is why I do not come directly at you, and rather why I am trying to push you to think further.


You dont really understand the metaphysics of this whole subject, do you??

The creator God, the masculine "sky God", as you called him, is the LAW GIVER, in principle, because he is manifest within man as conscience and reason.

This is what is meant by the whole "God was walking in the garden" when Adam and Eve hid from him.

Listen, did you not read that i practice Zen meditation every sunday?? Obviously i am aware of what you believe. I dont need to be "pushed further", because unlike most people here, i test my beliefs. I am not afraid of dipping my toes into different waters.

I just find gnosticism mind numbingly obscene.

All systems of metaphysics have their moral implications, and i completely despise Gnosticisms. Additionally, each system makes its own presumptions about the nature of life. Gnosticm makes complete freedom of will to do as thou wilt as the whole of the law. Judaism, however, sees a metaphysical meaning and significance in self discipline and obedience to G-d.

Unlike Gnosticism, the Torah, Hebraism (and as taught by Judaism), has an objectively transcendant system to rely on - the Hebrew language, whereas Gnosticism has nothing but speculative philosophy.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


You wrote:

["Unlike Gnosticism, the Torah, Hebraism (and as taught by Judaism), has an objectively transcendant system to rely on - the Hebrew language,"]

To declare a langauage "objectively transcendent" is quite unusual and maybe needs some explanation; which also could include how transcendence can be objective at all.

Quote: ["whereas Gnosticism has nothing but speculative philosophy."]

So you choose to ignore the direct experience part of it. Why?



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Experience is subjective, hence why there are so many varying systems of metaphysics out there

And yes, declaring a language transcendant does sound weird and i dont blame you at all for catching me on that.

However, i said it because it is true, and its not simply something i believe, but a fairly common and accepted opinion, obviously amongst religious Jews, but also occultists.

Cornelius Agrippa was the first non Jewish philosopher/occultist to discuss the unusual nature of Hebrew; he regarded it as the language of the 'angels', that is, it speaks at an archetypal level.

There is a connection between the sounds of the Hebrew words and the reality they speak of. They are infact one and the same thing.

But this doesnt exactly touch on the "objectivity" that i mentioned earlier. All languages, at a grammatical level, are somewhat magical, hence the etymological similarity between the English Grammar and the French "grimmoire". This more or less reflects the collective consciousness of the speakers of that particular language. But this again, is completely subjective.

What makes Hebrew OBJECTIVE is Gematria. Anyone who has studied Gematria, if they have any sense of intellectual honesty, will come away with a different opinion than what they originally had.

There is a consistency within Hebrew that is simply not present in any other language. Not just that, but the correspondences seem to be inherent within the reality they describe.

For instance, 13 is a major number in Hebraic thought (funny that the west has such an uneasiness about 13). 13, archetypally, is seen as the unification of the cosmos. There are for instance 12 lines to a square; 13 is therefore seen as the unification of its 12 lines or elements (there is also a correspondence between this and the 12 signs of the zodiac, which are seen as its heavenly cognate). The Gematria of the words for one and love in Hebrew, Echad, and Ahavah, is 13. Love is a sense of oneness. Avi - my father, ie; referring to our source and creator, also has the gematria of 13. Meaning, God is One, and he is also love (which could explain why God and good in English are differentiated by an extra "o" ie; God is Good) and one can only bind himself to that awareness by merging his consciousness with the higher reality of "my father".

Every number corresponds to an archetypal reality, and so gives rise to a particular concept that corresponds with it. The important thing though is the archetypal nature of the concept. It doesnt have to be in agreement with it; for instance, love and one are both positive and express different aspects of the same reality. On the flip side, 13 can give expression to negative realities (this being a fundamental aspect of Hebraic metaphysics. Nothing is good or bad until man acts). Thus, 13 is also the gematria of Bohu - void, emptiness, or da'agah, worry or anxiety.

The basic idea of 13 is unification.

This just shows you how true it is, that Hebrew is the language of creation, and so used, as manual of sorts by occultists to manipulate the celestial worlds.

To separate God from reality creates a world of Bohu - chaos or void; this being the essential nature of pagan religion. Thus, Hadad, a deity corresponding to the sky god of pagan worship, has this gematria - 13. It unifies reality in another manner, according to mans desires. It may be a world of Bohu - void, Da'agah - agitation, dominated by the Oyev - enemy, but this is what God, or the "demiurge", has given us. He has given us the choice, to come near him through doing whats good and right, or separating ourselves from him by doing what we feel.

This is just the number 13, and im sure you think im being arbitary in my interpretations.

However, the more intimate an understanding of Gematria you get, the less realistic those doubts become.

Elohim - 86, the name which created the world, has the same gematria as HaTeva - nature. Elohim, is the archetype of contraction, it is the process of reality becoming created. Thus, HaTeva also means a 'word' (which is the contraction of thought) aswell as an "ark", as in Noahs Ark. Even the dimensions of Noahs Ark 30 cubits wide, 300 cubits long and 50 cubits high, equals the Hebrew word "lashon" - tongue. As explained, HaTeva also means word. What provides the "dimensions" to a word? The tongue.

This hardly seems coincidental.

86 is also the value of Kli YHVH - the vessel of YHVH. Aswell as Kos - a cup (which contains another substance), aswell as Moom - a defect (that is, Elohim/Hateva - nature/this world appears defective) aswell as Meli "I spoke", that is, Elohim spoke and the world - through the name Elohim - was created.

You can go on all day doing this. It is wonderous. Completely mind bogglingly inexplicable.

If youre an atheist and so completely opposed to these ideas, your welcome to ignore, or be skeptical about the reality of this subject, but it wont change anything. I know its real, having experimented with practical Kabbalah, i can verify the reality of Hebrew being the language of the angels - they say so themselves...And since they say so, and Hebrew, numerologically, is so incredibly consistent, there must be a truth to it.

And besides, this isnt anything new. The Sepher Yetzirah - the book of creation - which explains this topic at its fundamentals, is over 2000 years old.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


You wrote:

["Experience is subjective, hence why there are so many varying systems of metaphysics out there"]

True, considered from standard objective procedure as used in hard science. 'Experience' can only be evaluated to some extent by the comparative analyses used in social sciences.

Quote: [" And yes, declaring a language transcendant does sound weird and i dont blame you at all for catching me on that. However, i said it because it is true, and its not simply something i believe, but a fairly common and accepted opinion, obviously amongst religious Jews, but also occultists."]

Is referring to 'authority' your best bid? Besides occultism has very little to do with transcendentalism.

Quote: ["Cornelius Agrippa was the first non Jewish philosopher/occultist to discuss the unusual nature of Hebrew; he regarded it as the language of the 'angels', that is, it speaks at an archetypal level."]

More 'authority'.

Quote: ["There is a connection between the sounds of the Hebrew words and the reality they speak of. They are infact one and the same thing."]

And which reality is that and how can this be demonstrated?

Quote: ["What makes Hebrew OBJECTIVE is Gematria. Anyone who has studied Gematria, if they have any sense of intellectual honesty, will come away with a different opinion than what they originally had."]

So you mean you can conclude objective reality from numerology. That would be something.

Quote: ["You can go on all day doing this. It is wonderous. Completely mind bogglingly inexplicable."]

A lot of people have such 'methods' as hobbies, and that's fine with me, until they start putting them above pragmatism and rationalism without a iota of evidence, and then start pushing them.

Quote: [" If youre an atheist and so completely opposed to these ideas, your welcome to ignore, or be skeptical about the reality of this subject, but it wont change anything. I know its real, having experimented with practical Kabbalah, i can verify the reality of Hebrew being the language of the angels - they say so themselves...And since they say so, and Hebrew, numerologically, is so incredibly consistent, there must be a truth to it."]

In other words, just like everybody else being 'saved' on something, 'knowing' it to be 'true', you promote your subjective 'knowledge' to something so objective, that you feel justified to critisize another religion, you appear to know little about, on general principles.

Quote: ["And besides, this isnt anything new. The Sepher Yetzirah - the book of creation - which explains this topic at its fundamentals, is over 2000 years old."]

Age has nothing to do with 'truth'. Genesis 1 and 2 are very old, and it's pure bosh.

But considering, that this thread is about the gnostic demiurge concept, it would be appropriate to take up this topic directly, and on realistic terms, instead of pushing kabbalah. I have already written a couple of relevant posts on gnosticism, if you need something to start from.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





And which reality is that and how can this be demonstrated?


So, umm, i clearly made a mistake trying to explain this subject to you.

But in anycase. What reality does numerology relate to? The metaphysical ie; the mental world.

This all supposes a basic thing; do you believe in the hermetic "axiom", of as above, so below???

Do you think "mind" ie, will, imagination, thought, emotion, and other abstract realities, are real things? If not. We can finish right here, Obviously, this subject to you is an exercise in argumentation.

If you do subscribe to this position, that the 'upper worlds', or mind etc, is real, than i can begin to discuss the significance of Hebrew.

Although there are varying views as to the current significance of Hebrew, relative to a more ancient and primordial language (some people posit an "edenics" which got 'confused' within other languages), the Hebrew language we have today is widely regarded (and when i mentioned occultists, im merely making a point. Occultism is practical magick ie; there are certain actions that have certain effects; both physically and astrally, therefore it is as good as any other science) as a 'piece' of this language.

The words within the language not only refer to the reality it speaks of, but unlike in other languages, it is not mere convention, but the actual, phsyical materialization in sound of the reality as it exists metaphysically, and so physically (because, again, if you subscribe to the heremtic axiom, which i do, this world is a projection of a higher world).

This has an entire metaphysical basis; and when i say metaphysical, no book can make claim to the scientific fidelity of this subject the way the Sefer Yetzirah can (infact, you can really appreciate the confidence that Judah Ha-Levy shows - an 11th century rabbi and poet, when he says no other book of any other nation/people can compare with the simple science of the Sepher Yetzirah).

The Sepher Yetzirah starts off by explaining the significance of the numbers 3, 7 and 12, and how together these elements compose the 22 letters of the Hebrew Alephbet.

It then explains the difference between letters - consonants - and vowels (the 10 vowels and 22 letters constituting the '32 paths of wisdom').

The 3 aspects of the Hebrew language are its shape, number and sound. These correspond to the metaphysical dimensions of Time, Space and Soul (consciousness). The shape of the letter refers to the archetypal nature of the letter as it gives rise to its time element. The numerical value of the letter corresponds to the space dimension (and just as in space, the number is contained within it), while the pronounciatino corresponds to the soul dimension.

With this in mind, the theoretical basis of the archetypal reality - the Hebrew word - and its physical manifestation, is established. When one speaks a particular Hebrew word, lets say, aBRaCaDaBRa (Heb. "I create that which i speak") he activates that particular reality.

For instance, in the book Raziel, theres plenty of invocations and names of angels, powers etc that one can use to contact that reality.

Theres a particularly powerful formula, called the Shem HaMephorash, which is encoded within teh verse in Genesis where Moses parts the red sea. By ordering the verse in a particular way, you can derive the 72 name of God, which is essentially the metaphysical information for the 72 pathways between man and the cosmic creator (or demiurge, to gnostics. Since they use this as if it were a computer program). By contacting one of these powers, which has its own archetypal associations, one can gain information about others, and all sorts of other "miraculous" things. In reality, it is simply a metaphysical set of laws which govern the 'spiritual' dimensions.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
For the record I believe that God is all good, and the creation is all good because it is better for there to be something than nothing at all, and it's nice to have something to do. I believe that God as the creator, is a role that God took on, and not the height of God as God is, but a role, and that the creator was created with creation. I suppose it is possible that once created, that the person of God could become deluded, mistaking the role he is playing as Creator for Himself, and therefore that perhaps we are here to remind him of his true nature by functioning as a representation of the innerance of the Godhead but not his apex/transcendence. And so what we have then is a relationship, not with the Creator, who, now that we are present as the crown of his creation, is no longer relevant, since it was only a role God assumed for God to become self realized, which is fair, but with God the very first and the very last, as the Alpha and Omega. I am here to say thank you God for being you and not just me, I love you too!
We must remember that there is no love unless there was always two, so spiritually, we are, and were always God's beloved.

"I was with you from BEFORE the very foundation of the world."

Now there is a statement by someone who knows (has gnosis of) the REAL God.


I noticed that no one noticed this concept, the idea that the creator God may not be God as the very first/last cause, but simply a role that God assumed, perhaps in the process mistaking the role of Creator-God for God himself as God truly is (transcendent) yet "deaf dumb and blind" so to speak, until actualized and self realized, by reflection, of his innerant manifestation, which is in human form as the crown of all creation (at least in potential).

And so I've been trying to come up with some sort of metaphor or allegory to shed light on this notion, and for some reason The Who's "Pinball Wizard" came to mind, which might be a little off the mark i realize, but I thought I'd offer it up anyway, just for fun.

[You have to imagine that it's being sung by Yaweh-Jehovah (creator God) as an ode to, and about God Transcendent as the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega, who is without equal.]


Ever since I was a young boy I've played the silver ball
From Soho down to Brighton I must have played them all
But I ain't seen nothing like him In any amusement hall
That deaf, dumb and blind kid Sure plays a mean pinball
He stands like a statue Becomes part of the machine
Feeling all the bumpers Always plays it clean
He plays by intuition The digit counters fall
That deaf, dumb and blind kid Sure plays a mean pinball

He's a pinball wizard There's got to be a twist A pinball wizard He's got such a supple wrist
How do you think he does it? (I don't know) What makes him so good?
He ain't got no distractions Can't hear those buzzers and bells
Don't see lights a flashin' Plays by sense of smell
Always gets a replay Never tilts at all That deaf, dumb and blind kid Sure plays a mean pinball

I thought I was The Bally table king But I just handed My pinball crown to him

Even on my usual table He can beat my best His disciples lead him in And he just does the rest
He's got crazy flipper fingers Never seen him fall That deaf, dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean Pinball.



And once God is fully self realized in human form, the role of creator God assumed can be differentiated by God in the mirror of man, the "Pinball Wizard" (so to speak) is no longer "deaf dumb and blind" and while he's certainly no "kid" perhaps he may get to feel like one again, except without the possibility of self forgetting ever again.

This then resolves the Demiurge paradox, once processed and recognized (re cognize) in eternity, and whoever generates this awareness or re-discovery of God, not in the role of creator but God as God is, has true gnosis or knowledge of God, at the junction where we know as we are known. And while we are first chosen, and first loved (in spite of ourselves), the choice remains for us to chose God and choose life in turn, so the stakes are high, since to choose God is to bring our will and our love into increasing alignment with his, not to MAKE us do anything, but made truly free to freely love as we are loved and
In the face of such love, who would chose hatred, whether of self or other?

So it's by no means "do as thou wilt" being the whole of the law, but instead, as St. Augustine boldly proclaimed.

"Love, and do as you will."

to which I would add, love as we are loved, and then do.




edit on 29-8-2011 by NewAgeMan because: Hey if you can't have a little fun what's the point?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   
You see, if as Yeshua the Jewish Rabbi said "scripture cannot be broken" there is simply no other way to explain in its entirety "God's" behavior in the OT.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


You wrote:

["So, umm, i clearly made a mistake trying to explain this subject to you."]

By not getting across, yes; which sofar is a question of the combined outcome of our communication-skills, but not about the competence we each have in our specific areas.

Quote: ["This all supposes a basic thing; do you believe in the hermetic "axiom", of as above, so below???"]

As an overall principle (it's e.g. also applicable in science concerning 'natural laws'). This does however not legitimize just any version of it.

Quote: [" Do you think "mind" ie, will, imagination, thought, emotion, and other abstract realities, are real things?"]

My model of 'relative realities' allows for that.

Quote: ["Obviously, this subject to you is an exercise in argumentation."]

Or in insisting on the inclusion of some amount of logic.

Quote: [" If you do subscribe to this position, that the 'upper worlds', or mind etc, is real, than i can begin to discuss the significance of Hebrew."]

I have actually asked for the gnostic demiurge to be brought back into it, not for a sales-talk about your system.

Quote: [" Although there are varying views as to the current significance of Hebrew, relative to a more ancient and primordial language (some people posit an "edenics" which got 'confused' within other languages), the Hebrew language we have today is widely regarded (and when i mentioned occultists, im merely making a point. Occultism is practical magick ie;...."]

Agreed, occultism is practical magic, which is non-transcendental.

Quote continued.....: ["there are certain actions that have certain effects; both physically and astrally, therefore it is as good as any other science) as a 'piece' of this language."]

True. In a cosmic context, there is causality. But the general concept causality doesn't lead to the conclusion, that "it is as good as any other science". Such can be promoted from an assumption only through an epistemological evaluation, based on the systematic methodology of the system, and on this system's demonstrated validity.

Any old cottage-industry 'theory of everything' won't don't do, because causality is mentioned somewhere along the line.

Quote: ["The words within the language not only refer to the reality it speaks of, but unlike in other languages, it is not mere convention, but the actual, phsyical materialization in sound of the reality as it exists metaphysically, and so physically (because, again, if you subscribe to the heremtic axiom, which i do, this world is a projection of a higher world)."]

That's what you wrote in your last post also. Repeating the same claim doesn't make it more true this time.

Quote: [" This has an entire metaphysical basis; and when i say metaphysical, no book........"]

Depends on how you define metaphysics. I am e.g. myself a rational metaphysicist, with an emphasis on 'physicist', while the more common definition implies 'above physics'.

Quoute continued: ["......can make claim to the scientific fidelity of this subject the way the Sefer Yetzirah can"]

Metaphysics is (in any of its forms) not a scientific subject, but a philosophical one. And while philosophy can use science in its arguments, there are (to my knowledge) no direct scientific implications on metaphysics apart from the consequences of the double-slit experiment.

Nothing prevents you from using other kinds of 'science' than the standard version, e.g. can I very well see the justification of a 'science-of-mind' (in a 'spiritual' sense), but generalized claims based on genelarized methodology are worthless.

Quote: ["(infact, you can really appreciate the confidence that Judah Ha-Levy shows - an 11th century rabbi and poet, when he says no other book of any other nation/people can compare with the simple science of the Sepher Yetzirah)."]

Only if you ascribe any importance to authority-based argumentation in general, and on this 'authority' specifically. I don't.

Quote: ["The Sepher Yetzirah starts off by explaining the significance of the numbers 3, 7 and 12, and how together these elements compose the 22 letters of the Hebrew Alephbet. It then explains the difference between letters - consonants - and vowels (the 10 vowels and 22 letters constituting the '32 paths of wisdom')."]

Just to save time. I have read a couple of Sepher Yetzirah versions.

Quote: [" The 3 aspects of the Hebrew language are its shape, number and sound. These correspond to the metaphysical dimensions of Time, Space and Soul (consciousness)."]

I am also familiar with various versions of 'sacred geometry', religious/metaphysical mathematical cosmogony-structures and the possible relationship these have to the scientific model of cosmos. Just referring to one of such options doesn't automatically make it THE reference-point.

Quote: ["With this in mind, the theoretical basis of the archetypal reality - the Hebrew word - and its physical manifestation, is established."]

It is 'established' inside the confines of the self-containing system used to 'validate' it. Not outside.

Quote: ["For instance, in the book Raziel, theres plenty of invocations and names of angels, powers etc that one can use to contact that reality."]

I'll take your word for it, and......?

Quote: ["By contacting one of these powers, which has its own archetypal associations, one can gain information about others, and all sorts of other "miraculous" things."]

I am first-hand quite familiar with manifested anomalies (which technically speaking aren't 'miracles'). And even more with claims of such. Both methodology and validation of results must be precise.

Quote: ["In reality, it is simply a metaphysical set of laws which govern the 'spiritual' dimensions."]

You do appear to have great faith in, that repeating claims make them 'true'.

When do we get around to gnosticism??



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


You wrote:

["I noticed that no one noticed this concept, the idea that the creator God may not be God as the very first/last cause, but simply a role that God assumed, perhaps in the process mistaking the role of Creator-God for God himself as God truly is (transcendent) yet "deaf dumb and blind" so to speak, until actualized and self realized, by reflection, of his innerant manifestation, which is in human form as the crown of all creation (at least in potential)."]

As this is at the core of gnosticism, I am convinced, that anyone on this thread familiar with gnosticism already knows this and won't comment on the obvious.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


As a curious sidenote, I got the idea, not from gnosticism, but from the cosmogeny and cosmology of a so-called "avatar" "Godman" by the name of Meher Baba who is of the Hindu mystical tradition, and simply extrapolated it to Christian thought whereby Yeshua Messiah may be considered the completed and perfected embodiment of the tree of life as the true pattern of creation at its pinnacle.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Some people try to put all existence in a diagram with circles and arrows, others are sceptical to such an approach, as they say: The map is not the territory.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
The Word says "those that are in the Son are free indeed"

Therefore if God set us free at the cross then why the hell do people make themselves captive and slaves again to religion?

Yeshua did away with religion, and told us simply to love God and each other..

Thats it.

But man soo does love his captivity in his self imposed world of religious bullcrap..

Yeshua said to "beware of scribes and pharisees for they are white washed tombs" are "full of dead mens bones" "lock up the kingdom of heaven against men, never going in themselves nor allow anyone else to enter" and "how can they escape the condemnation of hell?"

Relgious folk are nothing but "foul corruptors" who "devour widows houses, and for pretense make long prayers"

Bind yourself with religion all you want, but in the end, all you are doing is trampling and spitting on that Holy Blood that set you free, making it of no effect.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


You wrote:

["Yeshua did away with religion, and told us simply to love God and each other.. "]

That sounds reasonable, and without being a theist myself I can only support such a view.

But you see, this was 'countered' very, very quickly after Jesus allegedly launched for heaven. 'Love' still has to be an 'authorized'-version love, not any ol' individualistic love.

We can't have people going around loving without any order to it. That would lead to nihilism and rapings on streetcorners in clear daylight.

As to WHY it's going to happen this way, that's easy: "BECAUSE".

As the individualistically oriented gnosticism is 'explained away' with a similar 'because'.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by EvanB
 


You wrote:

["Yeshua did away with religion, and told us simply to love God and each other.. "]

That sounds reasonable, and without being a theist myself I can only support such a view.

But you see, this was 'countered' very, very quickly after Jesus allegedly launched for heaven. 'Love' still has to be an 'authorized'-version love, not any ol' individualistic love.

We can't have people going around loving without any order to it. That would lead to nihilism and rapings on streetcorners in clear daylight.

As to WHY it's going to happen this way, that's easy: "BECAUSE".

As the individualistically oriented gnosticism is 'explained away' with a similar 'because'.




What utter bollocks

If I love you I will not steel from you, rape you, murder you or dishonour you in any way.

Love in itself is its own rule. Nihilism can never come into it because I FEEL love therefore do not hurt those that I love.

If I dishonour you then I dishonour God because you are made in His image.

Love God, love those made in His image, love those made in His Image and Love God.

The two are not mutually exclusive, thus love is all we have to do.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join