Be wary of gnostic thinking.
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (37)
sorted by:
Let your faith ground you. Beware of gnosis. The trap is alluring for a reason.
Gnosticism is parasitic and infects everything. The establishments of Faith and Reason (science) are not safe as long as hermetic gnostics are prowling about, waiting to turn your faith or science into their hyper reality. Negation of the real and circular logic (as above, so below) are their key levers for infiltration.
If you are not aware of hermeticism or gnosticism (two of the oldest religions) I highly recommend you study up on them. Practicioners of these religions are crafty but if you're aware of their tools you can guard yourself from falling prey to their narratives.
I'm going to be brutally honest here, there has been quite a bit of gnostic thought present on these boards. Never be too certain of what you believe. Do not tempt yourself to think you know "more" than the sheep. If your head is in the clouds you better make sure your feet are on the ground.
If you want to learn more about gnosticism and how it has captured many institutions of faith and reason, how things like trans ideology presents as a hermetic gnostic cult then I highly recommend checking out James Lindsay of New Discourses on YouTube and spotify.
I consider myself a gnostic Christian, and I think you're completely wrong. Probably just misinformed. I found God through personal gnosis and it the only reason I am not a militant atheist as I was before.
If you don't believe in some form of the demiurge myth you're most likely not gnostic.
There are many schools of Gnosticism and many different conceptions of the demiurge. Would you like me to explain what I personally believe? Or the different concepts? Because it can get super confusing and complicated, I am willing to try though if you genuinely want to know
I'm willing to entertain you but I outright refuse the ideas of homo deus.
if I'm guessing correctly, that means 'man as God', and from the schools I'm familiar with, that isn't really what they say. It may be an interpretation or an incorrect interpretation.
You may be right that it's an incorrect interpretation, I'm just learning about gnosticism in the past few days and the interpretation I was presented with is that God split himself infinite > finite (present in man) and man can eventually become God through gnosis. Also the demiurge was presented as an antagonistic architect which placed us in fleshy prisons to suffer.
Ok cool.
Kinda, yeah, but not really depending on which school of thought you subscribe to. Now I see your point about 'homo deus'. My interpretation or personal understanding that rectifies this would be to say rather than becoming God, the goal is to realise the connection and the achieve a sort of union with God. Not that you yourself become god, but rather you recognise the divine 'spark' within you and know that you are a tiny piece of the whole that is God.
This isn't really a good explanation either and I do actually see you point more and more as I'm trying to avoid the issue.
Put it this way. I've known many people that became part of the psychedelic music and drug subculture. Without going into that too much, I am familiar with psychedelic experience as it relates to mystical and religious experiences. Many of the people that have a mystical experience end up with that interpretation, that they themselves are God. It's a kind of Solipsism. It's an extremely arrogant thing. It seems they take a short-cut towards something they haven't put in the time to study, and draw incorrect conclusions.
I'm a little bit tired and I'm struggling here, it's been a while. Consider this idea. Imagine concentric rings, smaller ones inside larger, expanding out infinitely or to whatever arbitrary point. My understanding of Gnosis is a state in which your mind is stilled sufficiently that you become supremely centred, within your heart of hearts or consciousness. The centre being the centre of the small concentric circle. That's little old 'you'. It shares it's centre with the heart of all creation. This is something within everyone but also outside and expanding to ever greater levels, whence my analogy of the concentric circles. The infinitely large circle if you can imagine such a thing would be the totality of everything or God. So you don't 'become' that, in a sense, but you can connect to the heart of it, the centre of it all that exists within you.
You could also argue that God wouldn't be the infinitely large circle but also whatever exists outside of it, if there could be such a thing. The boundary of the circle and analogy breaks down at that point and it doesn't really matter in any case.
yes so this is one idea, there are many and it gets super complicated. As to whether the demiurge is something to hate and reject or to accept as a smaller part of the larger totality that is god... there's a lot to it, It gets really hectic
As with all things 'occult' in nature, there are two paths. The Gnosis or mystic state that I described would be the 'right hand path', I suppose, of making your ego small and being humbled before an almighty, infinite God of which you are less than a grain of sand. The other path would be inflating your ego to the point that it becomes the whole. That might be what people are interpreting as Gnosticism, but like I say, it depends on the school of thought.
We are in a unique position as humans. We aren't so lowly as a bug or bacteria, we are capable of reason and self reflection. We also aren't so mighty that we are tempted to think of ourselves as gods, most of the time anyway. It's a unique middle sort of position in the scale of things. I think there is something in Buddhist thought about this.
Nothing like a person with a little fresh information- probably from one source, who then throws all such sources into the same bag and condemns it. Keep studying and researching until you have had a little more experience with the subject, little hopper.
To add to u/outsider_X 's elaboration of gnosticism (I read the whole exposition and it was quite good), my research suggests that the Cabal uses many of the same tenets of gnosticism but twists it into it's own designs. This is somewhat akin to the "left hand" and "right hand" paths that were discussed. I don't like those definitions because it put's the ideas into a box that aren't necessarily appropriate.
In short, there seem to be many similarities, but also fundamental differences, between the religion of the Cabal and the fundamental philosophy of Gnosticism.
To begin an elaboration I feel it is important to state that I think those terms themselves are commonly inappropriately labeled. The religion of the Cabal is not "Satanism" as we understand the term. I think it is more appropriate to say that it is The Truth, with some important bits left out. On the other side, the philosophies of gnosis are not Gnosticism, because they aren't a dogma (inherently).
The Cabal "religion" is like gnosis (which means "to know"), in that it appreciates our connection to Source, but it leaves out an appreciation that we are all equally connected to Source. By this appreciation of our connection to Source, but without the appreciation of our equal footing in that regard, it allows for "the strong to prey on the weak." It is an abuse of Natural Law, whereby all actions are justified because they are allowed by Natural Law.
The philosophy of gnosis on the other hand is, I think, most succinctly stated as exactly what I implied; an appreciation, a "grokking," that we are all equally and inextricably connected to Source (some use the term "God," but that means different things to different people, so I prefer "Source," which is unambiguous). So it's not just that We are Source, as the Cabal teaches its initiates, but that We are ALL Source.
The statement "You are God" is nothing more than an appreciation that it is impossible to be separated from Source. That we are somehow separate from Source (where we give Source attributes like "The Guy in the sky") is, I suggest, the Big Lie that was created specifically to send us into the Dark Ages, where the Church had complete dominion over humanity through that belief. You willingly give up your Sovereignty to "The Lord your God" when you lose an appreciation of your own Divinity, and the Emperor (later called the Pope) is "The Lord's Divine Mouthpiece."
you have nailed it fren. I have forgotten how to explain this sort of thing, it's been a while. You've filled in imported bits that I forgot to mention or explained poorly, and given better definitions.
I guess I can see how those that come from within the Church would see this stuff as inherently blasphemous because it defies the doctrines and things they take for granted as their experience of religious expression. I deliberately tried to distance my explanation from the topics and terms that they might recoil at, but you've actually explained that really well.
precisely this.
curiously, maybe you will find this relevant, when I had my experience of awakening or whatever you want to call it, I was naturally drawn to 'conspiracies' and hidden/untold history. I felt intuitively, that if this was the truth, it must have been hidden and there must be some concerted effort to do so.
I wasn't really interested in that stuff before, I was a radical atheist rebelling from a Catholic private school upbringing.
So I followed the conspiracy rabbit hole and learned about all things 'Illuminati' and what have you, and my politics was naturally inclined towards bleeding heart leftism, for this reason;
and I still maintain that, though over time and thanks to the Trump/MAGA movement I started to learn about the politics of the 'other side' and realised many of the people in the 'awakening/truth' movement were jumping on this Trump train. I saw that he wasn't one of the 'them' by the way they attacked him. I went from a kind of anarcho-socialist/communist to a kind of an-cap libertarian. I say that but my political compass results are never as radical as I like to pretend they are. I end up slightly to the right and slightly below centre, lol.
I had assumed that 'right wing' meant racist, selfish capitalist evil shit, because that is what my path had lead me to think before I learned the arguments and philosophy.
It's a bit confusing to explain really. Deep down, I'm a true John Denver-esque flower power hippie, but over time I've learned the value of realism and the arguments for free market capitalism, plus the importance of traditional values etc.
What I kind of believe, is that ultimately, yes, the ultimate future and truth may lay in some kind of luxury gay space communism one world, one people type system, but that side of politics has been 'hijacked' by the Cabal. We are not ready for that, as a species, and any attempt to bring that about or promise to bring that about would lead actually to slavery and the nightmarish scenarios people imagine. 'The Great Reset' for example.
I believe in individual sovereignty, strongly. The globalist agenda is an encroachment and attempt to rob us of that and enslave us. So at least temporarily, 'Nationalism' is a protection against this globalist agenda. It's our only protection. So I'm kind of a bleeding heart lefty, ultimately, but recognise that now is the time for nationalism, capitalism and conservatism, lol. Don't know if that makes any sense.
I guess I don't really know what that makes me and I don't really care. I hate the Cabal and I will not accept their agenda or anything related to it until they are destroyed and we are free to figure things out as a species without their influence.
And there is only one man with the knowledge, power and personality to pull that off and tie this whole thing together in a ridiculously ironic yet beautiful way. The magnificent Orange One, my beloved Donald Trump. It's glorious, really.
I wish I could explain this to one of my best friends that is a hardcore mainstream leftist... He doesn't understand my support of Trump and has tried to bait me into argument about it, rubbing in the indictments etc... I don't know how to explain any of this to him, and if he continues we're going to end up having a fight and not being friends anymore, because I will defend Trump to the death. I've disowned my own brother over this already after the election was stolen.
Not too long ago, I had a long conversation with someone about the nature of government, law, and Sovereignty. Assuming the statements made within it are sufficiently complete to elaborate the problem, the only possible path out of our current situation is for each individual in the world (or some "critical mass") to fully appreciate the fraud of all governments that we understand today. I invite you to read it. I think it may be enlightening. It's one of my better posts, if I do say so myself.
That response is part of a larger conversation which itself is quite enlightening, but it meanders a bit. It does give a better context for that "final answer" post if you want to read the whole conversation. It begins from the top comment by bubble_bursts and my reply to it. In order to follow it, you will have to follow it down several branches, because unfortunately this reddit style format prunes the display of branches, and in some cases, the main thread continued down a different branch than my first response.
I don't address it in the conversation above, but the entire concept of "the left" and "the right" are purposeful contrivances designed to keep us divided and controlled. The ideologies of both sides are created for each respective group by the same controlling entity. Each side gets pieces of the truth, and then forced, by propaganda, to focus on the part of the truth they see, and the statement that "the other side is lying." This is how the whole world is run. The idea of Nationalism (as we conceive of the term in the authoritative legal sense) is itself highly problematic, and a fundamental fraud. Capitalism too is a fundamental fraud, as is "conservativism" (as is "liberalism") It is essential that we see these frauds or we will fall right back into the same trap we are in.
That requires more elaboration, but at the least read the first post I linked to above so that the elaboration will make sense. If you read the whole response tree it will make more sense, but again, it meanders a bit (though still, I think it is sufficiently coherent to recommend it).
As above so below is not circular logic. It is an acknowledgement that nature is parsimonious and likes to re-use patterns, like in a fractal.
It's missing the other part "as above so below and as below so above"
If it is as below so above, then it also means it is above so below. So, yes, it can be considered circular. Things like "fake it til you make it" or "as within, so without" are iterations of this logic structure.
You're right that the logical structure is similar, but the term "circular logic" is when a circular causal relationship is stated, like "A caused B and B caused A", which is often a logical fallacy but can be valid in feedback loops where a repetitious sequence of phenomena is self perpetuating to some degree and may be initiated at any point in the circle.
An example of this is the oppressor-victim-savior triangle that plays out in matters of law. Possibly oppression initiates such a sequence, or someone may claim victimhood falsely, initiating a savior to appear who then oppresses the falsely accused who must then save themselves with exculpatory evidence and may retaliate.
If you want to learn more about the manifestations of gnosticism in the modern world I have to recommend this video.
https://youtu.be/spetALxmcSc
Thank you, that's literally the same man I plugged in my last paragraph haha!
Lol nice, I read most of your post but was skimming by the end of it and didn't see that. We are on the same page!
Guard yourself with the Armor of God.
i love that no matter what religion you criticize here, you get someone jumping down your throat. good demonstration of why freedom of religion exists, and why it won't be going away anytime soon.
Why?
Sorry, you replied before I could finish typing up my comment, but I refer you to that.