Is it uncool to believe in God?

LOL.

Weird.

Regards
DL

 

What is fact? What makes it the end all be all of understanding? Is a fact even real or relevant without humans to make it so? Every fact is as correct as it is incorrect. What makes a fact true is the exact same thing that makes it false.

 

Actually I believe that Jesus existed not because of the Bible but because of other historical documentation of his existance, even of his ministry. Take a look at the historian Josephus some time. Because of testament such as this I do believe that Jesus did exist and did have his own following in Judea. That does not mean that he is God. Of course that also doesn't mean he isn't. By my personal belief I cannot deny the possibilty of any deity being real.

 

Remember the law of the excluded middle?

Give an example of a fact that is both true and false.

Regards
DL

 

Ahh and now you should have me yes? Yet you see that a fact is based completely off of human understanding, therefore a fact is only as certain as human understanding is. We perceive facts and think that we know how the world works, yet who can truly say that we know anything more than what we as a species perceive

 

Josephus the creator of the N T and it's Jesus at Rome's urging.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJgvws0ZYUE"]Caesar's Messiah Promo - YouTube

As far as I know he did not officially write anything about Jesus and why would you believe a Jew who turned into a Roman?

He is a writer of fiction and you believe him.

"By my personal belief I cannot deny the possibilty of any deity being real.".

No one truthfully can. That is impossible to prove.

It does not mean there is one.

You are reading his book literally and confirm what I said above. Only one who read something literally can form a belief in God. You believe the words of a known liar.

Regards
DL

 

I did not think you could back up your statement.

Regards
DL

 

I spend alot of time working metaphysics and philosophical theory. I also don't claim that most of my statements can be backed up by common human understanding, I do however contend that if a person takes time to think outside the box, they may see the same things I do. At some point you should fill me in on actual Gnostic belief, this is the first I've heard of anyone actually practicing it and it seems quite different from the books I've read on the subject. I would like to see where it fits into my current understanding of religion and knowledge.

 

I have to agree with Indy here. It seems just nonsense! You can back it up if you like.

 

I am working on this O P and am pleased to give you a preview. I pose a question as well.

I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake and that makes me as hated by Christians today as the ancient Gnostics that Constantine had the Christians kill when he bought the Catholic Church.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of the O. T. God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.

This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness or what I call; the Godhead.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. It does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have exaggerated tribal mentalities and poor morals as they have developed a double standard to be able to stomach their God.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to ignore whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar of excellence and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Since then, I have tried to collect information that would help any that believe that apotheosis is possible, generally not Christians, --- as they do not believe in the mythical esoteric Jesus that I believe in and churches do not dare teach it.

This first clip gives the theological and philosophical interpretation of what Jesus taught and the second clip show what I think is a close representation of the method that helped me push my apotheosis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.

Which version do you think is more moral and deserving of praise and why?

Regards
DL

 

Gnostic belief begins the other way. It starts with people ruling each other; telling each other what to think, and as such the Lord becomes the refuge for the free thinking permission of All.

Nevertheless, so much in this time of cynical failure holds that the Lord gives everyone a bad rap that He made it happen; I mean the evil is his to give and absolve for He, stop kidding ourselves, causes both the normal and abnormal thoughts in our heads.

Can you imagine we can't just accept creation for the pure permission of risky thoughts and risky business?

 

I did but the statement is self evident.

If you have only read books on Jesus as fantasy and not literally then you cannot hold a literal belief in Jesus.

Regards
DL

 

Gnostic belief begin by seeking God. Those wo find one and keep what they find are idol worshipers.

When a Gnostic Christian like myself finds God through apotheosis, he raises the bar of excellence and seeks anew.

Regards
DL

 

It's not self evident at all.

That's a big IF, but anway it doesn't seem to explain that a belief in Jesus means that person has to read everything in the bible literally. Try again.

By the way, that you have found out you can't hold a belief in Jesus doesn't mean it counts for everybody else right?

 

Protecting yourself with the shield of Ayn Rand's moral identifier for the Being there and now.:sunny:

 

The Gnostic World View:
A Brief Summary of Gnosticism


I am NOT a believer of Gnosticism, thought you all might find this an interesting read.

GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions. It is nearer the truth to say that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of theology or philosophy, but which is instead closely affinitized to, and expresses itself through, the medium of myth. Indeed, one finds that most Gnostic scriptures take the forms of myths. The term “myth” should not here be taken to mean “stories that are not true”, but rather, that the truths embodied in these myths are of a different order from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy.
In the following summary, we will attempt to encapsulate in prose what the Gnostic myths express in their distinctively poetic and imaginative language.

The Cosmos

All religious traditions acknowledge that the world is imperfect. Where they differ is in the explanations which they offer to account for this imperfection and in what they suggest might be done about it. Gnostics have their own -- perhaps quite startling -- view of these matters: they hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner.
Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.
Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers.
Ways of evading the recognition of the flawed creation and its flawed creator have been devised over and over, but none of these arguments have impressed Gnostics. The ancient Greeks, especially the Platonists, advised people to look to the harmony of the universe, so that by venerating its grandeur they might forget their immediate afflictions. But since this harmony still contains the cruel flaws, forlornness and alienation of existence, this advice is considered of little value by Gnostics. Nor is the Eastern idea of Karma regarded by Gnostics as an adequate explanation of creation’s imperfection and suffering. Karma at best can only explain how the chain of suffering and imperfection works. It does not inform us in the first place why such a sorrowful and malign system should exist.
Once the initial shock of the “unusual” or “blasphemous” nature of the Gnostic explanation for suffering and imperfection of the world wears off, one may begin to recognize that it is in fact the most sensible of all explanations. To appreciate it fully, however, a familiarity with the Gnostic conception of the Godhead is required, both in its original essence as the True God and in its debased manifestation as the false or creator God.
Deity

The Gnostic God concept is more subtle than that of most religions. In its way, it unites and reconciles the recognitions of Monotheism and Polytheism, as well as of Theism, Deism and Pantheism.
In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence.
The basic Gnostic myth has many variations, but all of these refer to Aeons, intermediate deific beings who exist between the ultimate, True God and ourselves. They, together with the True God, comprise the realm of Fullness (Pleroma) wherein the potency of divinity operates fully. The Fullness stands in contrast to our existential state, which in comparison may be called emptiness.
One of the aeonial beings who bears the name Sophia (“Wisdom”) is of great importance to the Gnostic world view. In the course of her journeyings, Sophia came to emanate from her own being a flawed consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God. Since he took the already existing divine essence and fashioned it into various forms, he is also called the Demiurgos or “half-maker” There is an authentic half, a true deific component within creation, but it is not recognized by the half-maker and by his cosmic minions, the Archons or “rulers”.

The Human Being

Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the True God. Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic component, as well as a spiritual component which is a fragment of the divine essence. This latter part is often symbolically referred to as the “divine spark”. The recognition of this dual nature of the world and of the human being has earned the Gnostic tradition the epithet of “dualist”.
Humans are generally ignorant of the divine spark resident within them. This ignorance is fostered in human nature by the influence of the false creator and his Archons, who together are intent upon keeping men and women ignorant of their true nature and destiny. Anything that causes us to remain attached to earthly things serves to keep us in enslavement to these lower cosmic rulers. Death releases the divine spark from its lowly prison, but if there has not been a substantial work of Gnosis undertaken by the soul prior to death, it becomes likely that the divine spark will be hurled back into, and then re-embodied within, the pangs and slavery of the physical world.
Not all humans are spiritual (pneumatics) and thus ready for Gnosis and liberation. Some are earthbound and materialistic beings (hyletics), who recognize only the physical reality. Others live largely in their psyche (psychics). Such people usually mistake the Demiurge for the True God and have little or no awareness of the spiritual world beyond matter and mind.
In the course of history, humans progress from materialistic sensate slavery, by way of ethical religiosity, to spiritual freedom and liberating Gnosis. As the scholar G. Quispel wrote: “The world-spirit in exile must go through the Inferno of matter and the Purgatory of morals to arrive at the spiritual Paradise.” This kind of evolution of consciousness was envisioned by the Gnostics, long before the concept of evolution was known.

Salvation

Evolutionary forces alone are insufficient, however, to bring about spiritual freedom. Humans are caught in a predicament consisting of physical existence combined with ignorance of their true origins, their essential nature and their ultimate destiny. To be liberated from this predicament, human beings require help, although they must also contribute their own efforts.
From earliest times Messengers of the Light have come forth from the True God in order to assist humans in their quest for Gnosis. Only a few of these salvific figures are mentioned in Gnostic scripture; some of the most important are Seth (the third Son of Adam), Jesus, and the Prophet Mani. The majority of Gnostics always looked to Jesus as the principal savior figure (the Soter).
Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence. Ignorance -- whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities -- is dispelled only by Gnosis, and the decisive revelation of Gnosis is brought by the Messengers of Light, especially by Christ, the Logos of the True God. It is not by His suffering and death but by His life of teaching and His establishing of mysteries that Christ has performed His work of salvation.
The Gnostic concept of salvation, like other Gnostic concepts, is a subtle one. On the one hand, Gnostic salvation may easily be mistaken for an unmediated individual experience, a sort of spiritual do-it-yourself project. Gnostics hold that the potential for Gnosis, and thus, of salvation is present in every man and woman, and that salvation is not vicarious but individual. At the same time, they also acknowledge that Gnosis and salvation can be, indeed must be, stimulated and facilitated in order to effectively arise within consciousness. This stimulation is supplied by Messengers of Light who, in addition to their teachings, establish salvific mysteries (sacraments) which can be administered by apostles of the Messengers and their successors.
One needs also remember that knowledge of our true nature -- as well as other associated realizations -- are withheld from us by our very condition of earthly existence. The True God of transcendence is unknown in this world, in fact He is often called the Unknown Father. It is thus obvious that revelation from on High is needed to bring about salvation. The indwelling spark must be awakened from its terrestrial slumber by the saving knowledge that comes “from without”.

Conduct

If the words “ethics” or “morality” are taken to mean a system of rules, then Gnosticism is opposed to them both. Such systems usually originate with the Demiurge and are covertly designed to serve his purposes. If, on the other hand, morality is said to consist of an inner integrity arising from the illumination of the indwelling spark, then the Gnostic will embrace this spiritually informed existential ethic as ideal.
To the Gnostic, commandments and rules are not salvific; they are not substantially conducive to salvation. Rules of conduct may serve numerous ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. Rules, however, are not relevant to salvation; that is brought about only by Gnosis. Morality therefore needs to be viewed primarily in temporal and secular terms; it is ever subject to changes and modifications in accordance with the spiritual development of the individual.
As noted in the discussion above, “hyletic materialists” usually have little interest in morality, while “psychic disciplinarians” often grant to it a great importance. In contrast, “Pneumatic spiritual” persons are generally more concerned with other, higher matters. Different historical periods also require variant attitudes regarding human conduct. Thus both the Manichaean and Cathar Gnostic movements, which functioned in times where purity of conduct was regarded as an issue of high import, responded in kind. The present period of Western culture perhaps resembles in more ways that of second and third century Alexandria. It seems therefore appropriate that Gnostics in our age adopt the attitudes of classical Alexandrian Gnosticism, wherein matters of conduct were largely left to the insight of the individual.
Gnosticism embraces numerous general attitudes toward life: it encourages non-attachment and non-conformity to the world, a “being in the world, but not of the world”; a lack of egotism; and a respect for the freedom and dignity of other beings. Nonetheless, it appertains to the intuition and wisdom of every individual “Gnostic” to distill from these principles individual guidelines for their personal application.

Destiny

When Confucius was asked about death, he replied: “Why do you ask me about death when you do not know how to live?” This answer might easily have been given by a Gnostic. To a similar question posed in the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Jesus answered that human beings must come by Gnosis to know the ineffable, divine reality from whence they have originated, and whither they will return. This transcendental knowledge must come to them while they are still embodied on earth.
Death does not automatically bring about liberation from bondage in the realms of the Demiurge. Those who have not attained to a liberating Gnosis while they were in embodiment may become trapped in existence once more. It is quite likely that this might occur by way of the cycle of rebirths. Gnosticism does not emphasize the doctrine of reincarnation prominently, but it is implicitly understood in most Gnostic teachings that those who have not made effective contact with their transcendental origins while they were in embodiment would have to return into the sorrowful condition of earthly life.
In regard to salvation, or the fate of the spirit and soul after death, one needs to be aware that help is available. Valentinus, the greatest of Gnostic teachers, taught that Christ and Sophia await the spiritual man -- the pneumatic Gnostic -- at the entrance of the Pleroma, and help him to enter the bridechamber of final reunion. Ptolemaeus, disciple of Valentinus, taught that even those not of pneumatic status, the psychics, could be redeemed and live in a heavenworld at the entrance of the Pleroma. In the fullness of time, every spiritual being will receive Gnosis and will be united with its higher Self -- the angelic Twin -- thus becoming qualified to enter the Pleroma. None of this is possible, however, without earnest striving for Gnosis.

Gnosis and Psyche: The Depth Psychological Connection

Throughout the twentieth Century the new scientific discipline of depth psychology has gained much prominence. Among the depth psychologists who have shown a pronounced and informed interest in Gnosticism, a place of signal distinction belongs to C. G. Jung. Jung was instrumental in calling attention to the Nag Hammadi library of Gnostic writings in the 1950's because he perceived the outstanding psychological relevance of Gnostic insights.
The noted scholar of Gnosticism, G. Filoramo, wrote: "Jung's reflections had long been immersed in the thought of the ancient Gnostics to such an extent that he considered them the virtual discoverers of 'depth psychology' . . . ancient Gnosis, albeit in its form of universal religion, in a certain sense prefigured, and at the same time helped to clarify, the nature of Jungian spiritual therapy." In the light of such recognitions one may ask: "Is Gnosticism a religion or a psychology?" The answer is that it may very-well be both. Most mythologems found in Gnostic scriptures possess psychological relevance and applicability. For instance the blind and arrogant creator-demiurge bears a close resemblance to the alienated human ego that has lost contact with the ontological Self. Also, the myth of Sophia resembles closely the story of the human psyche that loses its connection with the collective unconscious and needs to be rescued by the Self. Analogies of this sort exist in great profusion.
Many esoteric teachings have proclaimed, "As it is above, so it is below." Our psychological nature (the microcosm) mirrors metaphysical nature (the macrocosm), thus Gnosticism may possess both a psychological and a religious authenticity. Gnostic psychology and Gnostic religion need not be exclusive of one another but may complement each other within an implicit order of wholeness. Gnostics have always held that divinity is immanent within the human spirit, although it is not limited to it. The convergence of Gnostic religious teaching with psychological insight is thus quite understandable in terms of time-honored Gnostic principles.

Conclusion

Some writers make a distinction between “Gnosis” and “Gnosticism”. Such distinctions are both helpful and misleading. Gnosis is undoubtedly an experience based not in concepts and precepts, but in the sensibility of the heart. Gnosticism, on the other hand, is the world-view based on the experience of Gnosis. For this reason, in languages other than English, the word Gnosis is often used to denote both the experience and the world view (die Gnosis in German, la Gnose in French).
In a sense, there is no Gnosis without Gnosticism, for the experience of Gnosis inevitably calls forth a world view wherein it finds its place. The Gnostic world view is experiential, it is based on a certain kind of spiritual experience of Gnosis. Therefore, it will not do to omit, or to dilute, various parts of the Gnostic world view, for were one to do this, the world view would no longer conform to experience.
Theology has been called an intellectual wrapping around the spiritual kernel of a religion. If this is true, then it is also true that most religions are being strangled and stifled by their wrappings. Gnosticism does not run this danger, because its world view is stated in myth rather than in theology. Myths, including the Gnostic myths, may be interpreted in diverse ways. Transcendence, numinosity, as well as psychological archetypes along with other elements, play a role in such interpretation. Still, such mythic statements tell of profound truths that will not be denied.
Gnosticism can bring us such truths with a high authority, for it speaks with the voice of the highest part of the human -- the spirit. Of this spirit, it has been said, “it bloweth where it listeth”. This then is the reason why the Gnostic world view could not be extirpated in spite of many centuries of persecution.
The Gnostic world view has always been timely, for it always responded best to the “knowledge of the heart” that is true Gnosis. Yet today, its timeliness is increasing, for the end of the second millennium has seen the radical deterioration of many ideologies which evaded the great questions and answers addressed by Gnosticism. The clarity, frankness, and authenticity of the Gnostic answer to the questions of the human predicament cannot fail to impress and (in time) to convince. If your reactions to this summary have been of a similarly positive order, then perhaps you are a Gnostic yourself!

 

I have no idea as to what you are talking about.
I don't know the guy.

Regards
DL

 

Simply not so, reading books and upholding belief are not the same. You can entertain belief in the existence of a man having not read a single book. Then in the same turn you can have an extant man represented fictionally in books or even in personal testimony. Further you can have contradictory beliefs if by belief you mean a symbol chosen to represent an unknown variable. For example you may believe it wrong to kill in one instant and believe you are justified in killing in the next.

The axiomatic statements attributed to jesus remain demonstrably true with application regardless whether the person of jesus was real or fiction.
Every written word requires interpretation because written words are symbols of conditions not the conditions themselves. If the words written were the conditions themselves then they would be indeed self evident but they are obviously not as there are many selfish interpretations, interpretations that we do not share. Knowledge is being shared.

I know I have teased you regarding your apotheotic transformation but what good is jesus or your god if they do not inform you of the dynamics of your mortal transactions, for instance the laws of perception? I do not think you are uninspired but talk is cheap and we can see through! We can see through your habit of calling facts that you cannot reasonably dismiss, B.S..
Bring reason to your dismissive-ness and demonstrate that you raise the bar of truth instead of delivering your cock-a-doodle-doo,

pretty please?,

fondly,
thedope

 

That was not a bad summary and I think you for it.

It does show a few outdated beliefs though depending on the school of though. For instance, my school of thought does not see the world as flawed. I see it as evolving perfection. The apparent flaws lead to our wish lists for making things better but I recognize that things are the best that they can possibly be given all the conditions that brought us here. We are evolving perfection and moving forward at all times even if we think we are moving backwards.

I like to use the term evolving perfection for nature. Otherwise, a perfect God or nature becomes a stagnant pool of information and our souls and consciousness as a part of that perfection would be useless to the universe.

Evolving, the perfection of whatever God and nature was, to whatever God and nature will be, means we have to think this way, unless you see God as somehow losing his initial perfection. This is not allowed in a perfect God’s or natures repertoire.

When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynical view of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on the anthropic principle and pure logic.

What do you think?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA

This is done by nature and not a God but would be a requirement of a God if he were real.

Regards
DL*

 

Demonstrably gnostic I must admit!