Be wary of gnostic thinking.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
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.
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.