|
|
Post by rmcdra on Dec 31, 2013 13:39:09 GMT -5
Yes you read the title right. This is not a condemnation of any one or any group but merely a reflection. How do we make God in our image? What attributes do we give to God that creates the personal god/s we worship? Is there any advantage to doing this? If we do this, how do we recognize when we do this and how do we change this behavior? Why should we overcome this behavior?
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Jan 1, 2014 15:18:15 GMT -5
If I get mad, I make a God that get's mad----I try hard not to do that, but my God is sometimes only human  |
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Jan 5, 2014 3:02:11 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I follow the topic, but with the "God created man, and man created god" idea in mind I suppose our demi-urge/s are just reflections of us. I think you see that process in any religion. The evil aspect of religions is always our darker and more sinister desires.
When hardline atheists complain about wanting to get rid of religion b/c it is destroying mankind, or whatever other nonsense they're always whining about, I think that's basically like saying you're going to change who you are just by throwing your mirror away.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcdra on Jan 9, 2014 1:17:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I follow the topic, but with the "God created man, and man created god" idea in mind I suppose our demi-urge/s are just reflections of us. I think you see that process in any religion. The evil aspect of religions is always our darker and more sinister desires. When hardline atheists complain about wanting to get rid of religion b/c it is destroying mankind, or whatever other nonsense they're always whining about, I think that's basically like saying you're going to change who you are just by throwing your mirror away. The God created man, then man created god thing was what I had in mind as I was writing this. I also started thinking about how we all do this, some more than others. Rather than aiming the arrows at others, I thought it would be good to aim the arrows at ourselves and think about how we do this in our lives. And yeah as I was thinking about that, the questions I asked came to mind and thought they might lead to other questions that I hadn't of thought of yet and would lead to deeper discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Jan 9, 2014 22:52:36 GMT -5
We assume that God is logically "good" so I wonder sometimes if it is possible that we might be projecting our own ideals on "god" by always giving him good attributes.
I think it is a fair assumption though considering my experience of God though.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcdra on Jan 26, 2014 12:34:01 GMT -5
I could be projecting my own idea of good onto God. God is beyond our comprehension so yes God could very well not be good. But the reason we believe God to be good is because of Christ being the image of God. If Christ represents God and Christ is good, we can infer that God is also good. But I may be assuming too much |
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Jan 26, 2014 12:52:35 GMT -5
We don't really have any choice but to make assumptions. So far my experience of God is that He is good so I can't really come to any other conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Feb 3, 2014 15:06:49 GMT -5
We don't really have any choice but to make assumptions. So far my experience of God is that He is good so I can't really come to any other conclusion. Only "good" by what we perceive to be good. Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal. -Philip Good and evil is filtered down to our finite Aeon, and as a result we only experience it on our own level. They appear in different directions to us, but have a commonality beginning. As they all have sprouted (for lack of a better term) from the same seed, the sprouts will be dissolved and the seed once again pure. We cannot be sure of reflective images as truth. Just as a person with poor eye site needs glasses to aid in providing clarity. To do so makes us no better than the demiurge itself. So, the only truth is when we become, rather than be a reflection of. It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the things that actually exist unless he becomes like them. This is not the way with man in the world: he sees the sun without being a sun; and he sees the heaven and the earth and all other things, but he is not these things. This is quite in keeping with the truth. But you saw something of that place, and you became those things. You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father. So in this place you see everything and do not see yourself, but in that place you do see yourself - and what you see you shall become. -Philip This is the image I get anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Feb 10, 2014 11:03:41 GMT -5
Yes you read the title right. This is not a condemnation of any one or any group but merely a reflection. How do we make God in our image? What attributes do we give to God that creates the personal god/s we worship? Is there any advantage to doing this? If we do this, how do we recognize when we do this and how do we change this behavior? Why should we overcome this behavior? It all comes down to internalising your chosen myth.
unorthodoxchristian.freeforums.net/thread/95/spirituality-seeking-god-all-internal
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Feb 12, 2014 0:11:22 GMT -5
We don't really have any choice but to make assumptions. So far my experience of God is that He is good so I can't really come to any other conclusion. Only "good" by what we perceive to be good. Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal. -Philip . I seem to remember a Gnostic text that condemned very strongly this sort of idea, but unfortunately I do not have a mind for details so I can't recall it. If I remember correctly there didn't seem to be a strict consensus on whether or not Gnostics were Monists, dualists, or they combined the two with emanations. Personally I prefer emanations, and I'd have a bone to pick with anyone who says that good and evil are "inseparable." There was a huge blowup at Spiralinward.com about what camp modern Gnostics should fall into that basically destroyed the entire forum. I personally found the entire argument nonsensical, but it does seem to be a sensitive issue, so it's not one that I'm going to fight anybody over.  Saying "Gnostics" should be this way or that way is fairly ridiculous anyway. We have no canon and no pope. The Nag Hammadi as well as the Bible seem to me to represent a religion that was fighting to form an identity as well as constantly changing and shifting ideas on theology as well as mythology. Reconstructing "Gnosticism" would be a little bit like trying to rebuild a river. |
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Feb 12, 2014 1:38:24 GMT -5
"Gnosticism" is actually a seventeenth century word. "Gnostic" is basicallyy just pre-catholic Christianity, and it was split into a number of camps(which is why "catholic" which means "universal" came into being.; Modern Gnosticism not based on this version of history basically has it's roots in the theosophy movement of the nineteenth century. You may certainly recognise certain "gnostic" elements in christianity anywhere you look just for that reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Feb 13, 2014 8:46:18 GMT -5
Only "good" by what we perceive to be good. Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal. -Philip . I seem to remember a Gnostic text that condemned very strongly this sort of idea, but unfortunately I do not have a mind for details so I can't recall it. If I remember correctly there didn't seem to be a strict consensus on whether or not Gnostics were Monists, dualists, or they combined the two with emanations. Personally I prefer emanations, and I'd have a bone to pick with anyone who says that good and evil are "inseparable." There was a huge blowup at Spiralinward.com about what camp modern Gnostics should fall into that basically destroyed the entire forum. I personally found the entire argument nonsensical, but it does seem to be a sensitive issue, so it's not one that I'm going to fight anybody over. Saying "Gnostics" should be this way or that way is fairly ridiculous anyway. We have no canon and no pope. The Nag Hammadi as well as the Bible seem to me to represent a religion that was fighting to form an identity as well as constantly changing and shifting ideas on theology as well as mythology. Reconstructing "Gnosticism" would be a little bit like trying to rebuild a river.
Gnostic Christianity will eventually take over Christianity and Catholicism. It is the thinking man's religion and will retake it's rightful place at the top of the Christian sects. The word wants a theology that does not have to have fantasy, miracles and magic.
On the knowledge of good and evil. They are dualistic in nature. If you know the evil of something then you automatically know that reversing that condition is good. More or less. The actuality of good and evil seem to also be dualistic.
Let's pick at the bone. Do you have an argument showing where one can know the good of something and not the evil of it?
Regards DL
|
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Feb 13, 2014 10:25:03 GMT -5
Not everything has a morality to it.
I don't ever see Gnostic Christianity becoming that popular. For one thing most people don't like to think.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Feb 13, 2014 10:58:17 GMT -5
Not everything has a morality to it. I don't ever see Gnostic Christianity becoming that popular. For one thing most people don't like to think. ROTFL........... Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by xpistissopheiax on Feb 16, 2014 2:52:43 GMT -5
I should probably be more clear. As long as people find the Gnosis of God the vehicle of delivery isn't important. I feel like our texts are too cerebral for the average person, as I know they're often too cerebral for me, since when I read them I tend to stick to a small handful, and my eyes start to cross when I start read many of the others. It may truly be a "thinking man's religion" but for it's just not something that is useful to a large number of people b/c it is so esoteric and cerebral. The Gnosis of God is beyond thought and understanding, so I feel like a genuine seeker is likely to find it through much simpler means than reading our texts and following this path specifically.
If we're called to be "Gnostic Christian" specifically then that is important, and I think our tradition is an incredibly important one to carry forward, even though we'll always be a tiny minority.
|
|
