Howdy Guest!  / Create an account
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.
#31
So, I'm goint to approach my reply to you, driftwood, by going between both of your comments. Likely, it'll be back and forth, but it will hopefully still feel smooth.

First off, 

Quote:"I believe Gnostics came before Christians". 

Actually, Gnosticisim came as a response the the Judeo-Christian religion. Not so much to the Old Testament, but as a bit of a pushback against the New Testament, in concert with the Old Testament.

If you want something interesting to compare it to, it's essentially like a courtroom witness saying one thing, but giving the police a different statement altogether. And then the lawyer ends up saying, "Well, one of these accounts is a lie. So, were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

What makes the above interesting is that it is the way that Gnostics approach the situation, but the difference between the Old and New Testaments is such that there is a clear reason and divide for many of the moral claims that are made between the two testaments.

The next thing I think is important to note is the distinction between common sense and logic. Common sense is knowledge that has been generally accepted by the majority of the populous. This means that it is the common opinion that you will find in society. Common sense can be wrong. That is the reason why people are now saying that "common sense is not all that common anymore". No, it still is all that common. It's just that what is considered common sense has changed, along with values and group-think.

Logic, on the other hand, is a process used to tackle specific types of problems. The process itself is objective and requires cultivation to be applied properly. Logic itself aims to give proofs about what it posits. Through a priori arguments, we are able to come to a thoroughly thought-out conclusion.

Imagination is neither common sense, nor is it logic. Imagination is not a process, it's a fabrication, inferentially sourced and baseless, in certain respects. Imagination is only inherent to the individual, meaning that it could never become common sense, unless placed under the guise of logic. Furthermore, in order to quantify any imaginative creations, you must apply logic or empiricism to find the ways in which it could exist independently of the individual who fabricated its existence.

It is clear that imagination is in a completely different sphere than that of logic, science, or common sense. I don't think that Einstein would have meant that imagination is "far more powerful" than logic in any material or philosophical respect. It is, however, much more powerful than logic, in the realm of make-believe. To that, I'll grant you the claim, but that's as far as it can be entertained.

Now, to link it all to morality. Utilizing the latter part of the discussion above, it is clear that imagination cannot be effectively linked to morality. If everyone ran around and just made up moral principles, off-hand, when it suits them, it'd be anarchy and chaos. Imagination is no basis for morality, no matter how "powerful" it is.

That leaves common-sense, which is linked to societal value, and logic, which has 2 facets.

Common-sense morality would be based on what is considered the common opinion of society. Society's opinion is based on an averaging of values (in a democracy) and a single/limited value-set (in other forms of gov. I.E. Dictatorships and communism). Running with a democracy, what we have is an individual with their own sets of values. Those values are influenced by a variety of factors, including: Rearing, education, group-think, friends, their own past experiences in life, work, religion or other moral systems etc.
Already largely influenced in their opinion of the world, the single value-set becomes averaged with others in their region, during state/provincial elections. Now, it isn't their voice, but a compromisation of their lesser prioritized values, in order to ensure the priorities with greater value to them. This comprimisation may pan out, or it may fail. When it fails, it fails because the individual was not in the majority opinion of what values are important. In other words, the individual lacks the common sense that is prevalent within the region.

Lets assume that they are within the common-sense majority. They've successfully averaged their values with that of others. Now, they get to average them again, federally. The exact same predicament happens, however it is even less representative of their value-set, and it generalizes the common-sense pool even further.

Now, assuming again that our hypothetical individual falls in the category of the majority. They have an elected government that will then average the averaged values of the country, and create laws that will govern the behaviour of their citizens. However, have you noticed I haven't mentioned morality yet?

These laws that will be passed will create policy that is based on the averaged upon averaged subjective values of the individual citizens in the country. What does that mean? Well, what may have been wrong 4 years ago could be alright under a new regime/public opinion. You can now steal. Perhaps the death penalty returns. Both of those things are hard-line, positive/negative decisions. What that means is that there is effectively a switch that turns off and on. We can or we can't. However, morality understand that there are shades of grey, and sometimes those shades work in favour of one person, sometimes they work against one person. However, they are not slaves to opinion and value-sets of the subjective individual.

There is where subjective morality falls apart, along with common-sense morality (which doesn't exist). A moral system (every moral system) has universal claims of what you ought to and not ought to do. "Thou shalt not steal" means you ought not to steal. Period. It's a hard-line claim that is independent of the individual and applies to all people. That is the definition of objective. And it's not just Christianity that holds universal principles as the basis for their moral system. Buddhism does. Islam does. Wicca does. Hinduism does. Every moral system holds universal principles as the basis for their moral system. That is because it is supposed to apply to all people independently of what they hold as values, in their own head.
Understanding that, universality requires objectivity to approach. Morality is a normative philosophy, where normativity is determined by the process of deductive logic.

The last thing I have to mention is a call-back to something you said in your first post.

Quote:"Objectivity,norms,and morals aren't always universal. I believe Gnostic beliefs seek out truths by great objectivity. That is my objective view. But perhaps I misspoke."

Not saying this in an accusatory manner, but it does show that perhaps you are a bit mistaken as to what objectivity vs subjectivity is.

When you say "I believe" you are entering into a subjective declaration. That means that means that you personally believe. Objectivity means that it exists regardless of your beliefs. Thus, when you follow up with "That is my objective view", it doesn't make sense. If you were to say (and you'd be wrong in saying it, in relation to the above) "That is the objective view", you would removing your personal opinion from the matter and leaving it solely to logic. Only logic can determine whether an objective view is both accurate and objective.

Despite all of this, Gnosticism is not objective in the least. The proof is in the first sentence of the Gnosis world view, found HERE.

"The knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means."

After my explanation of subjectivity vs objectivity, it is clear that Gnosis is dependent on the individual's own interior values and intuition. Intuition is influenced by all of the same factors that values are influenced by. The difference is in its application. Intuition occurs before deliberation, where deliberation necessitates logic. The "interior" bit shows how it isn't about what happens outside of the Gnostic agent, it's about what happens within. Again, subjective. When you take a subjective world-view and empower it with subjective behaviour, you do not get an objective system. You get the exact opposite.
[-] The following 2 users say Thank You to KaelisRa for this post:
  • driftwoodms14, Vultyrex
#32
*drops the mic*
[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to KaelisRa for this post:
  • Vultyrex
#33
(03-02-2018, 10:24 AM)KaelisRa Wrote: So, I'm goint to approach my reply to you, driftwood, by going between both of your comments. Likely, it'll be back and forth, but it will hopefully still feel smooth.

First off, 

Quote:"I believe Gnostics came before Christians". 

Actually, Gnosticisim came as a response the the Judeo-Christian religion. Not so much to the Old Testament, but as a bit of a pushback against the New Testament, in concert with the Old Testament.

If you want something interesting to compare it to, it's essentially like a courtroom witness saying one thing, but giving the police a different statement altogether. And then the lawyer ends up saying, "Well, one of these accounts is a lie. So, were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

What makes the above interesting is that it is the way that Gnostics approach the situation, but the difference between the Old and New Testaments is such that there is a clear reason and divide for many of the moral claims that are made between the two testaments.

The next thing I think is important to note is the distinction between common sense and logic. Common sense is knowledge that has been generally accepted by the majority of the populous. This means that it is the common opinion that you will find in society. Common sense can be wrong. That is the reason why people are now saying that "common sense is not all that common anymore". No, it still is all that common. It's just that what is considered common sense has changed, along with values and group-think.

Logic, on the other hand, is a process used to tackle specific types of problems. The process itself is objective and requires cultivation to be applied properly. Logic itself aims to give proofs about what it posits. Through a priori arguments, we are able to come to a thoroughly thought-out conclusion.

Imagination is neither common sense, nor is it logic. Imagination is not a process, it's a fabrication, inferentially sourced and baseless, in certain respects. Imagination is only inherent to the individual, meaning that it could never become common sense, unless placed under the guise of logic. Furthermore, in order to quantify any imaginative creations, you must apply logic or empiricism to find the ways in which it could exist independently of the individual who fabricated its existence.

It is clear that imagination is in a completely different sphere than that of logic, science, or common sense. I don't think that Einstein would have meant that imagination is "far more powerful" than logic in any material or philosophical respect. It is, however, much more powerful than logic, in the realm of make-believe. To that, I'll grant you the claim, but that's as far as it can be entertained.

Now, to link it all to morality. Utilizing the latter part of the discussion above, it is clear that imagination cannot be effectively linked to morality. If everyone ran around and just made up moral principles, off-hand, when it suits them, it'd be anarchy and chaos. Imagination is no basis for morality, no matter how "powerful" it is.

That leaves common-sense, which is linked to societal value, and logic, which has 2 facets.

Common-sense morality would be based on what is considered the common opinion of society. Society's opinion is based on an averaging of values (in a democracy) and a single/limited value-set (in other forms of gov. I.E. Dictatorships and communism). Running with a democracy, what we have is an individual with their own sets of values. Those values are influenced by a variety of factors, including: Rearing, education, group-think, friends, their own past experiences in life, work, religion or other moral systems etc.
Already largely influenced in their opinion of the world, the single value-set becomes averaged with others in their region, during state/provincial elections. Now, it isn't their voice, but a compromisation of their lesser prioritized values, in order to ensure the priorities with greater value to them. This comprimisation may pan out, or it may fail. When it fails, it fails because the individual was not in the majority opinion of what values are important. In other words, the individual lacks the common sense that is prevalent within the region.

Lets assume that they are within the common-sense majority. They've successfully averaged their values with that of others. Now, they get to average them again, federally. The exact same predicament happens, however it is even less representative of their value-set, and it generalizes the common-sense pool even further.

Now, assuming again that our hypothetical individual falls in the category of the majority. They have an elected government that will then average the averaged values of the country, and create laws that will govern the behaviour of their citizens. However, have you noticed I haven't mentioned morality yet?

These laws that will be passed will create policy that is based on the averaged upon averaged subjective values of the individual citizens in the country. What does that mean? Well, what may have been wrong 4 years ago could be alright under a new regime/public opinion. You can now steal. Perhaps the death penalty returns. Both of those things are hard-line, positive/negative decisions. What that means is that there is effectively a switch that turns off and on. We can or we can't. However, morality understand that there are shades of grey, and sometimes those shades work in favour of one person, sometimes they work against one person. However, they are not slaves to opinion and value-sets of the subjective individual.

There is where subjective morality falls apart, along with common-sense morality (which doesn't exist). A moral system (every moral system) has universal claims of what you ought to and not ought to do. "Thou shalt not steal" means you ought not to steal. Period. It's a hard-line claim that is independent of the individual and applies to all people. That is the definition of objective. And it's not just Christianity that holds universal principles as the basis for their moral system. Buddhism does. Islam does. Wicca does. Hinduism does. Every moral system holds universal principles as the basis for their moral system. That is because it is supposed to apply to all people independently of what they hold as values, in their own head.
Understanding that, universality requires objectivity to approach. Morality is a normative philosophy, where normativity is determined by the process of deductive logic.

The last thing I have to mention is a call-back to something you said in your first post.

Quote:"Objectivity,norms,and morals aren't always universal. I believe Gnostic beliefs seek out truths by great objectivity. That is my objective view. But perhaps I misspoke."

Not saying this in an accusatory manner, but it does show that perhaps you are a bit mistaken as to what objectivity vs subjectivity is.

When you say "I believe" you are entering into a subjective declaration. That means that means that you personally believe. Objectivity means that it exists regardless of your beliefs. Thus, when you follow up with "That is my objective view", it doesn't make sense. If you were to say (and you'd be wrong in saying it, in relation to the above) "That is the objective view", you would removing your personal opinion from the matter and leaving it solely to logic. Only logic can determine whether an objective view is both accurate and objective.

Despite all of this, Gnosticism is not objective in the least. The proof is in the first sentence of the Gnosis world view, found HERE.

"The knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means."

After my explanation of subjectivity vs objectivity, it is clear that Gnosis is dependent on the individual's own interior values and intuition. Intuition is influenced by all of the same factors that values are influenced by. The difference is in its application. Intuition occurs before deliberation, where deliberation necessitates logic. The "interior" bit shows how it isn't about what happens outside of the Gnostic agent, it's about what happens within. Again, subjective. When you take a subjective world-view and empower it with subjective behaviour, you do not get an objective system. You get the exact opposite.
   Hi,
     You are correct about my quote defining my gnostic beliefs. And by the way I believe in some of the beliefs of all the Major Religions,including Wiccan,and other religious beliefs considered Pagan. I long ago,was grieving my beloved 'Grama," and began questioning my existence,life,the unfairness of life and even God,or a Higher Power,if you will.
     I was drawn to organized religion hoping to find my answers. Sadly,I was far from satisfied although I loved the music. Indeed I was hired as Minister of Music. I am a somewhat accomplished musician and composer. I eventually left my church taking what made sense to me and felt right. Through the years I studied most religions,from the East to the West and all in between. Again I loved certain religious beliefs but not enough to be satisfied. During this sojourn, I questioned everything using the scientific method,as well as,what felt right. What was reliable(consistent)and what was valid(meaningful). 
     So, I should have said in my quote above that I am a Spiritual person(spirit) who has found his answers to life,suffering,unfairness,etc. by absorbing,questioning,and seeking truths and what vibed with my Essence(ie. my True Self,my Spirit). I believe and practice(ie. live by) some of this and that in relation to religion(s) or spiritual beliefs. I always used objective means to fulfill valid(meaningful) and reliable(consistent) approaches(ie. experimental). However, there is always that which is Subjective and that which is taken on Faith. 
     So,I hope I get a reprieve. And I don't know,are there people who call themselves Gnostic Christians with twisted ideals? If there are,I assure you I am not one. I am a simple servant of God trying to give out as much love and light to this extremely difficult Earthly plane. Enough for me bed time. I really hope that you believe now that I am well schooled in subjectivity,objectivity,norms and am a Kindred Spirit. Take Care!
drift
#34
(02-13-2018, 04:28 PM)Ascension Wrote: Yes this is due to the fundemental code in our universe consisting of Duality, Duality is a Truth  Light/Darkness, Positive/Negative. good/evil, we must engage in evil because this material plane is evil, an imperfect simulation run by an evil entity = The Demiurge, we must engage in good because we have that divine spark, that non physical mind that accepts good as the greater moral and the instinct that we are Divine. Together a Dual mechanic and simplicity which shapes our perceptions.
     Hi,
Duality in God too? I serve God Mother and God Father. The Bible in several places,including the beginning of Genesis says "We created you in Our Imagine."
     Mother God has always been there. Jesus taught us this. But those in power would never allow the belief in Mother God exist nor all the True Teachings of Christ. In fact,as much as I love parts of the Christian Bible,80% either makes no sense or is the words of wealthy, influential men who created a means to control the masses and add to their wealth.
     Seriously,my God(I often refer to Father God and Mother God as just God) would never destroy entire civilizations,would not have favorites,do what happened to Job,etc. My God is all knowing,all loving, doesn't send anyone to hell(it doesn't exist),and loves us all equally.
     My God allows us to leave the perfectness that is Heaven in order to grow spiritually,help others,and experiencing all this in a dimension (world) where evil exists. We cannot learn in a perfect place. And God did not create evil. Rather God gave all of us Free Will. So, over time, some of God's children made negative, consciously bad moral decisions. They became greedy and thirsted for power. Then they crossed over the line into Malice and opposed God. 
     God allows evil and unfairness because our brothers and sisters created it(free will) and again to grow in adversity. Also,I contend that when we enter Earth for example,we forget most of our knowledge, because again, there would be no point in leaving The Other Side. 
     And of course God helps us through it all. God created a lot of help in form of Guides, Angels, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, etc. 
     Oh, sorry if I got off topic. Yeah evil is necessary here in our current dimension. But evil was not created by God...why do we give God our imperfect human attributes? Finally ,evil spirits, evil entities, are not ever allowed into Heaven. 
     And the True Gnostics did not create or bring evil into this world. I know I said perhaps too much concerning my Spiritual Beliefs. And I'm sure I'll hear other...beliefs. Forgive me. I just love God. Thanks!
drift
#35
(03-02-2018, 09:22 PM)KaelisRa Wrote: *drops the mic*
*picks up mic*  Hey, these things are expensive and sometimes fragile!
-DFB

Subject: I have a black cat.
Believer: Black cats are bad luck.
Non-believer: It's just a cat.
Crackpot: Black cats are part of the New World Order government conspiracy.
Skeptic: I can test if black cats are more or less lucky than another cat.
Cynic: You only have a black cat to gain power and prestige.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9iIf4tFoyE

[-] The following 1 user says Thank You to Darkforeboding for this post:
  • driftwoodms14
#36
(03-03-2018, 01:24 PM)Darkforeboding Wrote:
(03-02-2018, 09:22 PM)KaelisRa Wrote: *drops the mic*
*picks up mic*  Hey, these things are expensive and sometimes fragile!

And that is why I was Shure (haha you'll get it in a minute) to make it an SM58 Wink



#37
Hey drift,

No harm, no foul. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, just in case people just miss-communicated their views. Subjectivity and objectivity might seem straight-forward, but it can be difficult to determine whether or not you are being objective where you should be. That is the reason why I made the long post (sorry about it btw xD). I've actually said it before, a few times, when trying to explain it to people. I usually don't mind re-posting something like that, because you might not know where to go back and look on the forum for the description.

At any rate, yes. Subjectivity has its place in the way we live our lives. It's important to have healthy personal values that do not transgress on objective moral obligations. You actually made a very good point, to help support my argument about morality and religion. You said that you agree with a few moral rules of many different religions. That is not easy to accomplish, unless morality is normative and objectively based.

You might agree with multiple religions (and that would be your subjective approach to morality. I.E. what you value), but their objectivity makes it able for you to relate to them in some way. That was a very interesting realization to make, once you described yourself a bit more to me.

Good night!
#38
(03-01-2018, 10:27 PM)driftwoodms14 Wrote:
(02-13-2018, 04:48 PM)KaelisRa Wrote: I'll start off by properly finding the word for which you were trying to find. If "doing evil must have conscious volition", then, in law, they actually call that intent. It's the mens rea. Other than that, it is one of the two cornerstones of law. I agree that you must have the knowledge that you are doing evil unto another. However, that is not the only time sin can be applied to anybody.
There is also the instance where you choose to remain willfully ignorant of a situation, because knowing more about the scenario could find you culpable of a crime, should it go against what you want to do in the first place. That is also a sin, in its own right.

Gnostic Christians posit an evil "genocidal son murdering God like Yahweh, because they are full of evil themselves. They use bad pseudo-logic to fuel their tirades, with hope that people of faith will buckle and succumb to their opinions. When these people of faith manage to resist the Gnostic assault, they get heated and begin to lash out wherever their minds feel it can take them.

The necessity to do evil, in order to survive, is only the realization of the Gnostic "Christians", because their logic is too limited to think outside the box, so as to find ways to thrive without infringing on other people's rights.

Redaction: Re-reading your explanation, we agree on the mens rea bit. I was a bit hasty in my comment. Plus, black on a dark grey theme is difficult to track properly. I actually had to highlight everything the second time through.
     The poor Gnostics Again!? I must have read the wrong scrolls. I believe Gnostics came before Christians. Furthermore,I believe Jesus Christ didn't or wouldn't want to have anything but love and peace. Seek to help each other without ego or seeking enlightenment. Use common sense as well as logic. Logic is often over-rated. I believe Einstein said the imagination is far more powerful than logic.
     Live to give out light and help as many people,animals,etc. along the way. And evil is quiet,kind, and persuasive when it  wears  it's mask. Then you see a Hitler rise to power. 
     Its cool to be open to different beliefs. Temperance tested. But if sensitive I've been told to put up your psychic self-defenses. Peace to all. I gotta meet up with a "Legend of a Mind," and make some trips along the bay.
   Take Care!

I think that Gnostic Christianity predated the Christianity we know today.
I think we were the older Chrestian religion before Christianity usurped our writings.
I have yet to prove it though and likely wont be able to do so till some old or original text are found.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...At-PAkgqls

Regards
DL
#39
Hi
RE: we must engage in evil because this material plane is evil, an imperfect simulation run by an evil entity = The Demiurge

This rigid concepts of right and wrong can be avoided simply by true compassion and love which will to an understanding of the nature of good and such qualities will help to destroy the misguided and warped concepts of evil. As long as you believe in this evil it becomes a reality in YOUR SYSTEM, and you will always find it demonstrated. Your belief in this evil will find justification. And if you haul this approach thru successive reincarnations, creations then you'll add to its reality.
This little note may come in handy when you review your LIFE; may help in the lectures.
And don't worry if you can't BELIEVE it now the SELF has it's journey it KNOWS.

Good luck in your search for answers.
#40
@Gnostic;
I'm going to forego the part where you saw "I have yet to prove it though". My reason for this is because it's far less interesting than the reason for which Gnostic Christianity (as per their own statements) claim to have been created.

Just based on simple logic, Gnostic Christianity could not possibly have predated Christianity, because Christianity would have to have been in play in order for the very system to be formed around it. Based on everything you've described, Gnosticism is more of a reaction to belief systems and religions. That means that in order for it to create itself, it needs to have a system to criticize.

However, outside of that, I'll be quite honest. I am quite familiar with Gnosticism in it's root form. Academically, I've graduated with my masters in philosophy. Professionally, it's interesting how you can find jobs that have nothing to do with your academics xD hahaha. OK soooooo....

I spent a lot of time on certain topics. First and foremost, moral philosophy and political applications. Second, (and obviously) epistemology. Lastly, the philosophy of religion. I can literally look to my left and look at several books by Kierkegaard, St. Aquinas, Aristotle, and Nietzsche. But I digress. My only point is that I have been trying to, nicely, explain to you why Gnosticism does not make any real sense.

Gnosticism, not gnostic christianity, predates Christianity. However, it does not necessarily predate the Hebrew scriptures that it relies so heavily on. Gnostic Christianity was created as a response to Christianity, in much the same way that Gnosticism was created as a response to the Hebrew scriptures. Furthermore, gnosticism relies heavily on Platonic writings and Aristotelian logic. The only problem is...as you have shown in many of your posts...it doesn't actually follow any of their principles. Not in logic, not in beliefs. It takes from the logic what it must, and then puts its own spin on things (as many religions do).

One interesting fact, that many do not know, is that the great philosophers of ancient times (and from different countries/regions) did actually meet together. They swapped ideas, and you can find similar principles and logical arguments between the cultures of Ancient Greece and India. There has always been an exchange of ideas. It's just that, since they predate dependable archival measures, things would jumble and get lost.

Gnosticism looked to logically approach religion, but failed. No logical approach to any form of Abrahamic religions was seen until the likes of Aquinas and others of his ilk. At that point in time, Gnosticism came and went without a blip on philosophers' radar. It's sad, but true.

You cannot find documentation proving Gnostic Christianity predates Christianity, because it doesn't exist. You can find gnostic documents, not to do with Christianity, but they will have very little application to the Abrahamic religion, as it has developed over time. Gnosticism is just a system that refuses to die. It should. It should definitely leave to make room for something better, but it won't.

By God, it won't.


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Which commandments do you think are superior; Yahweh’s or Gnostic Christianity’s? Enemy No. 1 Gnostic 4 1,562 12-04-2017, 06:08 PM
Last Post: Enemy No. 1 Gnostic



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)






About Talk Paranormal Forum

...

              Quick Links

              User Links

             ...

  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...