No one want's to talk about Gnosticism?

oh go on then I am an gnostic atheist as in I know there is no god because of religion failing it's burden of proof.

Quote from s1taekwon-do

oh go on then I am an gnostic atheist as in I know there is no god because of religion failing it's burden of proof.

You can't logically prove or disprove any religion. If you have any religious views, then you have faith. No one knows the ultimate truth about reality, though we can make conjectures or envision them. My views about the nature of the gods I worship are pretty gnostic but then again... I am heavily influenced by my Jungian understanding of psychology.

Quote from Carl Jung's Psychology and Alchemy

"Not the individual alone but the sum total of individual lives in a people proves the truth of this contention. The great events of our world as planned and executed by man do not breathe the spirit of Christianity but rather of unadorned paganism. These things originate in a psychic condition that has remained archaic and has not been even remotely touched by Christianity. The Church assumes, not altogether without reason, that the fact of semel credidisse (having once believed) leaves certain traces behind it; but of these traces nothing is to be seen in the march of events. Christian civilization has proved hollow to a terrifying degree: it is all veneer, but the inner man has remained untouched and therefore unchanged. His soul is out of key with his external beliefs; in his soul the Christian has not kept pace with external developments. Yes, everything is to be found outside - in image and in word, in Church and Bible - but never inside. Inside reign the archaic gods, supreme as of old; that is to say the inner correspondence with the outer Godimage is undeveloped for lack of psychological culture and has therefore got stuck in heathenism. Christian education has done all that is humanly possible, but it has not been enough. Too few people have experienced the divine image as the inner-most possession of their own souls. Christ only meets them from without, never from within the soul; that is why dark paganism still reigns there, a paganism which, now in a form so blatant that it can no longer be denied and now in all too threadbare disguise, is swamping the world of so-called Christian culture. his pagan unconscious, which has also influenced our literature and art, is clearly expressed in dreams long before it becomes apparent in action.

"A clergyman, for instance, in some doubt about his faith had the following dream: Coming into his church at night, he finds that the whole wall of the choir has collapsed. The altar and ruins are overgrown with vines hanging full of grapes, and the moon is shining in through the gap.' faith - i.e. the Church. This dream is picturesque and symbolic and remembering the symbolical and analogical character of dream imagery it is not very difficult to grasp that the outward expression of - is collapsing, and that something 'natural' is creeping in. The vine was an early Christian symbol -'I am the vine and ye are the branches'; it was also an important symbol of the orgiastic worship of the God Pan. The moon gives a romantic and slightly mysterious air to the whole picture; once it was regarded as a god or goddess and worshipped accordingly, and it is significant to remember this."

Quote from Basilides(Carl Jung's pen name)

"Blessed am I, for it is granted unto me to know the multiplicity and diversity of the Gods. Woe unto you, for you have substituted the oneness of God for the diversity that cannot be resolved into one. Through this you have created the torment of incomprehension, and the mutilation of the created world, the essence and law of which is diversity. How can you be true to your nature when you attempt to make one out of the many? What you do to the Gods, that also befalls you. All of you are made thus the same, and in this way your nature also becomes mutilated."

Quote from silentblood

No one want's to talk about Gnosticism?

Nope.

No one want's to talk about Gnosticism?

You lost me at "gnotism"

Quote from nickb275

You lost me at "gnotism"

Where my views are Gnostic his are very Gnostic compared to mine. Gnosticism is a playful exploration of the spiritual verities, a praxis (i.e. practical spirituality) based on a direct perception of the spiritual world (gnosis = to know), rather than as a purely speculative form and this is the key to understand Gnosticism.

One of the greatest difficulties in appreciating what a given Gnostic text means is that in most cases we read it as a text rather than appreciating it as a reflection, even a record of personal spiritual experience. Accordingly, Gnosticism ranges from the ascetic to the hedonistic, from a strictly dualistic worldview to an integral one. The creator(s) of matter can be seen as a gift-giver, a vicious demonic demiurge, a stern school teacher or a playful lover, depending on one’s perception and more importantly, one’s stage of spiritual growth.

Gnosticism then must be appreciated as dynamic, changing according to need rather than as a canonical of sacred writings which are immutable and beyond question. While Gnosticism uses such concepts as good and evil, the Demiurge(s), dualism and so on, these are temporary constructs valuable only insomuch as they help the seeker gain spiritual insight. They are not ultimate truths or great secrets but more frameworks which are discarded when a further stage of development is achieved.

Gnosticism probably has more in common with the Dharma of the Buddha. When the Buddha states the Dharma is like a boat which takes you across the river of Samsara (life and death) and reminds us to use it to gain liberation and then leave it behind, he is stating an essential Gnostic tenet.

This is a good start on Gnosticism

I know the sun rises and even if I wish it not to, it will rise nonetheless. So apparently there is a power stronger than me at work. As to the rest, I have no pretension of knowing what that is. I hardly believe any other human being actually knows what it/he/she/them/thing is. I guess I'll find that out the easy way, until then the subject is pure conjecture on my part and a complete waste of my time. If by any chance my good or bad actions in my insignificant breath taking on this planet means anything, so be it. I highly doubt even the most influential human that ever lived has influenced a gnat at the other end of the universe.

I think all and any who claim to know the truth are delusional, not in a bad way, they just need some form of comfort to justify their frontal lobes which scream for meaning to it all.

I myself, know for a fact, as I have seen it with thy own eye, that my individual self will live on long after my death, in the form of maybe ash, rot, leakage into the earth and feel comfort in the fact I may allow a few blades of grass to have the same opportunity I had at life. At which point a cosmic lawnmower will rip my reborn self from the earth in a great cataclysmic roar of chaos, spit thousands of light years away (atomic speak for a few feet) to start the process all over again.

Ah yes, the complexities of life and the answers are as endless as the fears and hopes those same questions bring about. Great stuff really, gives me reason to shoot my mouth off about seeming to say intelligent things while saying nothing and maybe make a few bucks as the vatican does on said meaning of life questions.

Funny actually when I think of all the things humans have done in the name of gnotism.

My personal belief is that I have no more importance than the fly buzzing at my head. To think otherwise would be to denigrate the very existance of said fly and its cosmic reason of being. Maybe I only exist to be future fly flood for this god of another world. I mean, pound for pound, this fly is a higher power. These entities can survive literally anything, be revived in salt. Christ on a bike, they can fly, they have wings. Name one human that can do that.

My personal favorite is the butterfly. Now that amazing marvel of life is downright the best rags to riches story I have ever encountered.

Life on this rock is very rich. A marvel beyond my simple mind. Trying to understand it would drive me crazy in the least. I choose to live it, eat it, shit it, take it, give it and not really ask to many questions. A gift this big should not be questioned. When the uncontrollable happens, my end of being in the state I know as of this instant. Who knows? Do you? If you do, don't tell, it will ruin my ultimate surprise.

People believe strange things and those who purport not to believe in some particular thing believe in anything at all.

CJ Jung wrote much, often quite jumbled and rambling (he did go through a profound psychotic period) and you (Caff) highlight some of what he said and do not highlight other points he said.

Inside reign the archaic gods, supreme as of old; that is to say the inner correspondence with the outer Godimage is undeveloped for lack of psychological culture and has therefore got stuck in heathenism.Christian education has done all that is humanly possible, but it has not been enough. Too few people have experienced the divine image as the inner-most possession of their own souls. Christ only meets them from without, never from within the soul;

Interestingly , Jung could have been speaking directly to you here.

Christian Doctrine is that God is within. Jung confused even himself at times. 'Tis pity he didn't use a Hall of Mirrors' an an analogy.


The last sentence is easily misinterpreted.

It is because you cannot prove religion that I know it is wrong I say again religion has failed to convince me because it fails its burden of proof my position requires no faith at all.

Quote from Percywinkles

Interestingly , Jung could have been speaking directly to you here.

Jung has influenced modern Gnostic philosophy(and he was influenced by ancient Gnosticism) and neo-paganism. I do not honestly believe Jung was either a Gnostic or pagan. I believe he was a Christian with some unorthodox views about the nature of the Christian God.

Warning: What follows is very ramble-like but it is obviously influenced by Jungian thinking applied to my relgious beliefs.

We can find several examples of Gnostic-style myths in the Norse lore, the most obvious of which is Odin descending into the mountain to retrieve the mead of wisdom, but there is also prominently the descent of Freyr as Frodi into this world to help overcome the slave-system the giants had set up, and Saxo, defensively calling upon Jesus, makes reference to a narrative whereby at that time God descended into human flesh with which he clothed himself in order to bring about blessings.

We can find traces of a Gnostic-style myth when Freya's husband Odr goes astray and being led by things of this world, comes back into the strife of this world after peace has been declared by the Gods. After he has been exiled, and transformed into a beast, Freya descends into the world as she wanders about diverse lands taking on many names, searching for her lover. Since Odr is equivalent to the poetic capacity of imagination and soul in human beings, the ascent of Odr into the heavenly realm and then being dragged back down by issues of generation and strife in this world (his mortal son being endangered) definitely has a Gnostic flavor to it. There is a fall of the soul depicted there, with Freya, Love, going out to search for Soul in this world, wandering in many forms, finally discovering him in bestial form, and then bringing him back up into the heavens, after he has found his true genealogy, for he has lost knowledge of who he actually is. I don't know how we could get a more Gnostic myth than this! To find his hidden genealogy, of which he was unaware, Freya must take him down into the underworld itself, into the cavern of monsters, where She who Deludes and Hides Information will share with him the knowledge that he is related to all beings in the cosmos! The incredible genealogy reproduced in Hyndluljod shows him to be related to giants, elves, Vanir, men, and the Aesir! I don't believe there is any mention of dwarves but they may be included as well. The point is, he is related to every being in the cosmos, and when he gains this information he is able to ascend into Valhall to spend his days in Folkvang, the Meadow of the Folk in Sessrumnir, the Roomy Benches of Freya's Hall, with her.

The Gnostic themes don't end with these three very prominent examples. There is a famous story of Thor's hammer, that which gives him his might and power to fight off the monsters, being stolen, and ending up deep in the earth in the land of the monsters, and he having to feminize himself, go into the world of the monsters, and there, in a sort of comedic parody of the hieros gamos or sacred marriage, reclaim the hammer through which he has his might. There is also the story of Thor descending down into the Lair of Illusion, and having to tassle with illusions. This, again, is a very Gnostic theme. And so we have many deities of the pantheon, and major ones at that --- Odin, Thor, Freya, Frey --- participating in what the Gnostics of the Mediterranean would have found to be stunningly Gnostic myths.

Now Gnostic myths always admit of creativity, and Gnostic themselves often encouraged people to write their own variations of the Gnostic myth, but the basic essence of the Gnostic myth is that there is something corrupt about this world, a corrupt element has woven its way into its world, or that this particular world itself in fact began with corruption, and that there is an attempt on the part of the beneficent beings to themselves infiltrate this world with elements of good that can help redeem nature from its monstrous qualities. This features prominently in Norse cosmology, where in the beginning of time we find the emergence of matter as a giant, roaring monster, out of which the Gods try to make lemonade out of some lemons by killing this monster and reshaping its forms to create a living world. Now it's fairly clear that there were worlds outside of this, because both Niflheim and Muspelheim are mentioned, with a gap between them, and of course, the World-Tree has ever existed, and thus it would appear that the emergence of Ymir marks the possibility of a new world emerging on the World Tree, one quite monstrous in form, an alchemical discard of poison, fire, and ice, and that the Gods reform this monstrosity into Midgard, a realm with good chances for its beings to make good and refind the circle of life. It is by no means perfect, and full of pitfalls, its very substance being "monster corpse", as it were, but it has its possibilities. The world is fallen, but not entirely so. It is in the process of being repaired. The Gods are a part of that long repair project, and they have placed essences or gifts within us as human beings that allow us to participate in that renewal process.

Unfortunately this is a process of repeated trial and error, there having been continual falls that have followed the original fall. When many of the elves left the divine order and fell into darkness, a great deal of the forces that tend to the world of nature and allow divine essence to be infused into the monstrous matrix disappeared, allowing for darker and more monstrous forces to remain intact in this world, leaving a gap that perhaps might be filled by enlightened human beings, although we have yet, at least most of us, to find the elvish powers that would allow us to actually penetrate into the heart of nature itself with our will and song as elves do (although perhaps this is the very science after which the alchemists sought).

The struggle of the Gods against the monstrous elements of this world were often visualized in terms of battle, which is a kind of natural image of such struggle, as well as a creative coopting for the good of those unfortunate elements of strife that often appear in human society as well as the world, and the old societies were not naive about the presence of evil in this world, and therefore the necessity to defend oneself from those ills. In fact, in the Teutonic lore, one of the foremost patriarchs, the first Judge and Jarl of the folk, and Lawgiver, was named Scyld, as well as "Borgar", which can also mean "protector" or "saviour", both concepts of protection being necessary in a world where large numbers of people have fallen into corruption and greed. This necessity to be ready for attack, and the images of warfare against powers of ill were ready at hand when Germania had to confront Rome as a "civilized" empire, but as Tacitus indicates, they had already had several tassles with the Celts in Gaul, who themselves had begun their if not ascent, at least assimilation of several aspects of empire. Caesar makes it very clear that for all the enlightenment of the Druids, the common people were treated almost as mere serfs in Gaulish society, which demonstrates at least the emergence of terrifically unfree forms of hierarchy. These were formidable enemies against which the German peoples had to defend themselves, and eventually became proud of their ability to preserve their freedom with arms. The problem is, of course, as Teutonic society became more and more militarized in its intergenerational wars with the Roman Empire, and then later, as its northern Scandinavian branches tassled with the Roman Catholic Empire, these images of warfare originally intended to invoke the Gnostic struggle were more and more transformed into vulgar glorifications of war by those who had become rigidly armored in Reichian terms. This is no surprise. Whenever there are good runes, Gullveig is quick to come up with corruptions of those into bad runes. That process seems very clear in the myths. The Hindus for their part understand very well that in the Kali Yuga, tools originally channeled by loving shamanic priests to help human beings love each other and learn their good nature themselves can become tools of domination and enslavement, and thus innovative approaches become necessary.

There is a problem, of course, a misperception that paganism is simply a simplistic affirmation of nature, as well as the fact that our invocation of that concept of nature is a confused and muddled idea that doesn't allow us to confront the nuances of existence or its contradictions. This can degenerate into a vulgar "what exists is good, simply because it exists" stance, which is a stance that every status quo loves to reinforce. "Nature" is one of the most pernicious, and indeed, regressive concepts, utilized by tyrants all over the world to reinforce their status quo, and those possessed by empire love to see empire reflected in nature. Now, I don't doubt that there are such corrupted elements to be found in nature, but the extent of this may be rightfully doubted. Indeed, even the idea of a "pecking order" as such has only been around for a hundred years or so, and recent studies both of wolves and of dogs, which for a long time had presumed the existence of dominance hierarchies, have now been demonstrated to be false, and to be results of captivity. It would appear in both wolf and dog societies it is the elders who are given deference, and these elders have been given the name of "alphas" by human researchers, where what we find is a simple family structure. However, we are told a hundred times daily in myriad forms in our hierarchical society that such hierarchies are natural and therefore, of course, we ought to accept them. There are those who would invoke the Lay of Rig to justify this through calling up the "three classes" of Teutonic society, but let us make this clear : the Lay of Rig makes it painfully obvious to those who read it carefully that if there is a hierarchy, it is of those who are enlightened, who have opened themselves to the mysteries of existence, and since those mysteries are primarily revealed in myths which we have already demonstrated to be Gnostic in flavor, presenting the drama of a monstrous world being struggled against by divine powers which are in process of mending it by interweaving divine elements, but which struggle against human beings who become subject to the sorceries of negative powers, we can see that this is a very different kind of hierarchy than is usually propagated.

The naive "paganism = veneration of nature" equation becomes further corrupted in modern times into a "Social Darwinist Paganism", that, seeing nature solely through Social Darwinist eyes, meaning projecting empire and tyranny's worst characteristics onto nature, then seeks to worship that sociological model that has been projected into nature, a kind of vile heresy if I may so call it.

But that there is an experience of sacred nature that is essential to heathenism is without question. There is a numinosity found in the deepest forests that teaches us the nature of the Gods. Here the Gods have hidden themselves, as it were, providing opportunities for revelation through epiphany. The reality of epiphanous nature does not, however, mean, that everything in the world is sacred, and that there has been nothing touched by the giants. There is in fact a great drama going on, and a drama which it is important to perceive because the true function of warriors is to defend that realm which has been reclaimed from the giants and allows the world to be an epiphany of the good Gods, and keep it from being seized back by the monstrous forces. Thus when it comes to nature, heathenism is both neither-nor and both-and. It is a very complex and subtle doctrine not easily sloganized nor understood in simplistic binary terms.

My love of heathenism stems in large part, in fact, from its ability to embrace such complexity and enfold within itself sophisticated dialectics that can encompass many other spiritual movements, such as the Gnostic tendencies I've explored here ; when we consider that it was the spirituality of an entire "civilization" as it were, if we use that word to mean the accumulated culture of a nation of interrelated tribes, this complexity should come as no surprise.

Quote from s1taekwon-do

It is because you cannot prove religion that I know it is wrong

To know implies that you have some insight to the absolute truth. Not even anyone with Gnostic tendencies knows the absolute truth. That's my point. You think or believe that religion is false, you do not know. For comparison's sake: I am a person that works in a scientific field that rapidly changes, I might say that I know that X theory is correct but...there is always the caveat of "until proven otherwise."

When people believe in a religious position, some believe it due to logical conclusions, some based on faith, and others due to emotions, but in most cases a mix of all three.

It is one thing to not be convinced by arguments from religious people but it's another to make obviously untrue claims. We do not know the absolute truth.

apart from your own faith what empirical evidence do you have that shows my position to be untrue?

Quote from s1taekwon-do

apart from your own faith what empirical evidence do you have that shows my position to be untrue?

None. But, I am not saying your position is totally untrue, I am saying that it is wrong to make the blatantly false claim to know. That is my point.

I've repeated some of this elsewhere, but I think it's valid here:

At the risk of sounding like a bitch...No you don't. You know how I know you don't? Because you can't prove it. The word you're looking for is believe. You believe there is no God in the Heavens which shaped you in the womb, just as you believe the planet is not a Goddess entity which gave you life or whatever.

It's the same as religious people. The Christians can say they know God is in the heavens, but they really don't. They believe it so strongly that to them it could be argued that they know it, but they can't prove it. I believe that everything in the universe has a spirit and in the Aesir and Vanir, but if I want to be intellectually honest with myself I have to admit that despite the fact it feels right with every fiber of my being, I can't say that I know it to be true.

To "know" is to have an awareness of absolute truth, of unshakable, unassailable, unquestioned, total understanding. It's really not something covered by science as it is intended to be used, since it would make further exploration of knowledge invalid. A lot of scientists behave as if their knowledge is an absolute in casual conversation (I certainly do anyway), but when pressed are usually willing to acknowledge that they have an awareness that is as well evidenced as it can be based on current methods of acquiring and analyzing information. Everything always comes with an attached caveat of "Until proven otherwise." that often goes unsaid.

To believe is different things to different people, some relying on evidence, some on logical extrapolation and others on faith... or for most people, some combination of all three.

It's part of why real hardcore, absolute atheism is viewed as being as much a product of belief as any religion is, evidencing a negative is difficult. Proving a negative as an absolute is even harder.

So let's all be honest in our word usage.

OHEC Can you name a single absolute truth?
know(know)
Pronunciation:/nō, /

verb (past knew /n(y)o͞o/; past participle known /nōn/)

• 1 [with clause] be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information:most people know that CFCs can damage the ozone layerI know what I'm doing
• [with object] have knowledge or information concerning:I would write to him if I knew his address[no object] :I know of one local who shot himself
• be absolutely certain or sure about something:I just knew it was something I wanted to do[with object] :I knew it!
• 2 [with object] have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with:he knew and respected Laura
• have a good command of (a subject or language).
• recognize (someone or something):Isabel couldn't hear the words clearly, but she knew the voice
• be familiar or acquainted with (something):a little restaurant she knew near Times Square
• have personal experience of (an emotion or situation):a man who had known better times
• (usually be known as) regard or perceive as having a specified characteristic:he is also known as an amateur painter
• (usually be known as) give (someone or something) a particular name or title:the doctor was universally known as “ Hubert. ”
• (know someone/something from) be able to distinguish one person or thing from (another):you are convinced you know your own baby from any other in the world
• 3 [with object] archaic have sexual intercourse with (someone). [a Hebraism that has passed into modern languages; compare with German erkennen, French connaître]

Phrases
all one knows

used to emphasize the limited nature of one's knowledge concerning something:all I knew was that she was a schoolteacher
· used to emphasize the importance or significance of the following fact or facts:all she knew was that she was cold and hungry and thirsty
and one knows it

said to emphasize that someone is well aware of a fact although they might pretend otherwise:the senator's priorities do not add up and he knows it
—— as we know it

as is familiar or customary in the present:by the year 2000 management as we know it will not exist
before one knows where one is (or before one knows it)

informal with baffling speed.
be in the know

be aware of something known only to a few people:he had a tip from a friend in the know: the horse was a sure bet
be not to know

have no way of being aware of:you weren't to know he was about to die
don't I know it!

informal used as an expression of rueful assent or agreement.
don't you know

informal used to emphasize what one has just said or is about to say:I was, don't you know, a great automobile enthusiast in those days
for all someone knows

used to express the limited scope or extent of one's information:she could be dead for all I know
God (or goodness or heaven) knows

· 1 used to emphasize that one does not know something:God knows what else they might find
· 2 used to emphasize the truth of a statement:God knows, we deserve a glass of bubbly after all these years
I know

· 1 I agree:“ It's not the same without Rosie. ” “ I know. ”
· 2 (also I know what)I have a new idea or suggestion:I know what, let's do it now
know best

have better knowledge or more appropriate skills.
know better than

be wise or polite enough to avoid doing a particular thing:you ought to know better than to ask that
know someone by sight

recognize someone by their appearance without knowing their name or being so well acquainted as to talk to them.
know different (or otherwise)

be aware of information or evidence to the contrary.
know something for a fact

be aware of something that is irrefutable or beyond doubt:I know for a fact that he can't speak a word of Japanese
know someone in the biblical sense

informal humorous have sexual intercourse with someone.
know no bounds

have no limits:their courage knows no bounds
know one's own mind

be decisive and certain.
know one's way around

be familiar with (an area, procedure, or subject).
know the ropes

have experience of the appropriate procedures. [with reference to ropes used in sailing]
know what's what

informal be experienced and competent in a particular area.
know who's who

be aware of the identity and status of each person.
let it be (or make something) known

ensure that people are informed about something, especially via a third party:[with clause] :the commissioner let it be known that he was not seeking reappointment
not know from nothing

informal be totally ignorant, either generally or concerning something in particular:she shakes her head while you talk, as if to say you don't know from nothing
not know the first thing about

have not the slightest idea about (something).
not know that

informal used to express one‘s doubts about one’s ability to do something:I don't know that I can sum up my meaning on paper
not know what to do with oneself

be at a loss as to know what to do , typically through boredom, embarrassment, or anxiety.
not know where (or which way) to look

feel great embarrassment and not know how to react.
not want to know

informal refuse to react or take notice:they just didn't want to know when I gave my side of the story
what does —— know?

informal used to indicate that someone knows nothing about the subject in question:what does he know about football, anyway?
what do you know (about that)?

informal used as an expression of surprise.
wouldn't you like to know?

informal used to express the speaker‘s firm intention not to reveal something in spite of a questioner’s curiosity:“ You‘re dating him, aren’t you? ” “ Wouldn't you like to know? ”
you know

informal used to imply that what is being referred to is known to or understood by the listener:when in Rome, you know
· used as a gap-filler in conversation:well, you know, I was wondering if you had any jobs for me
you know something (or what)?

informal used to indicate that one is going to say something interesting or surprising:you know what? I believed her
you never know

informal you can never be certain; it's impossible to predict.
Derivatives

knowable

adjective
knower

noun
Origin

Old English cnāwan (earlier gecnāwan) 'recognize, identify,' of Germanic origin; from an Indo-European root shared by Latin (g)noscere, Greek gignōskein, also by can and ken
having knowledge or perception of situation or fact
definition of know from Oxford Dictionaries Online

I dont think you're a bitch lady c Im just playing now to lighten the mood
YouTube - ‪That Mitchell and Webb Look - Evil Vicar‬‏