When pressed to logical completion, “Gnosis” collapses into a self-negating concept which simultaneously relies on intellectual gestures while denying the conditions of intelligibility. As such, it cannot function as genuine knowledge, and becomes structurally pseudo-intellectual. The intention to be a "Gnostic", or to promote or believe in "Gnosis", is an opiate, a pop-appeal liberation promise which superficially can feel good but is logically impossible.Any conception of Gnosis as standing "beyond" structured order necessarily reinstates order through contrast and location. Its very description of being "beyond" order is necessarily locationally relative, and referential to structured reality. However, a fully consistent Gnosticism must reject not only worldly order but also the very idea of a “beyond” to that order, dissolving itself as a describable or sovereign position. This is because explicitly being beyond the standing order is in and of itself a described kind of order, the type the idea of "Gnosis" descriptively must abstain from. Applying logic, the categorical taxonomy of being "within" and "beyond" the established worldly order must be rejected in the circumstance of Gnosis, making Gnosis a fundamentally unsolvable and necessarily unreachable logical paradox.Gnostics pretend to know what they themselves say cannot be known.
>>41863053Gnosticism is cool but still for brown sand people
You're extremely uninformed and in fact a pseudointellectual.1. "Gnosis" is not primarily a propositional, discursive, or intellectual knowledge concept. It is strictly non-propositional, experiential, participatory, salvific, etc. In other words the premise that Gnosis must be describable in straightforward categorical terms and strict logic that can then reductio-ad-absurdum'd, rationalized/popularized/cartesianized is a made up version of gnosis, not the classical one. Ironically, trying to reduce Gnosis ad-absurdum is defined as behavior of the Demiurge.2. Your "argument" assumes that any attempt to speak of something "beyond order" necessarily reinstates order via contrast. That's not how anything in philosophy works.Numerous well-developed philosophical traditions (Neoplatonism, Pseudo-Dionysius, Meister Eckhart, later negative theology, Zen kōans, Madhyamaka Buddhism, etc.) routinely use performative paradox, self-subverting language, and via negativa precisely to gesture toward what cannot be grasped propositionally without claiming to possess it propositionally.3:>"...must reject not only worldly order but also the very idea of a 'beyond' to that order"No Gnostic school actually takes this ultra-radical step. They do not claim the Pleroma is beyond all order or structure; it has its own hyper-order (aeons in syzygies, emanations in hierarchy). The contrast is between defective/imperfect/ignorant order vs. perfect/restored order, not order vs. absolute formlessness.4. You are blatantly psychologizing a motivational ad hominem disguised as logic. "Gnostics pretend to know what they themselves say cannot be known" shifts your entire premise from logical critique to moral/psychological suspicion without argument.5. The core of your 'argument' ("saying X is beyond order reinstates order via contrast") is a version of the classic problem of negative theology or absolute transcendence. The paradox is embraced rather than fatal to the claim.
>>41863117>The paradox is embraced rather than fatal to the claim.There is a word used to describe those who embrace a claim contingent on an absence of consistent logic, or who embrace openly the refusal of the application of logic: insane.Your point 1 of "Gnosis" not being propositional, and instead necessarily experiential and participatory, contradicts your point 3 about the proposition that Gnosis has its own hyper-order, something which is unprovable by experiential evidence. The problem with propositioning and recognizing "Gnosis" as a perfect or restored order is that in order to perceive the concept of perfection or restoration, one must indulge in the worldly senses; one is subordinate to something Gnosis must reject in order to be Gnosis, an unresolvable contradiction.
>>41863110>Gnosticism is cool but still for brown sand peopleGnosticism's diversions from scripture originate in Greece, you nonce.
>>41863169To be clear, you're only doubling down on what you already said and in no way addressed any of my 5 points;Demand for propositional rigor in a framework that explicitly rejects such rigor as inadequate for the subject matter.The Pleroma is indeed structured (with aeons in emanative hierarchies, syzygies/pairs, etc.), but this is a supra-sensible, ideal, noumenal order. It is definitively not derived from or dependent on material/worldly senses.Perfection does not require subordination to the worldly senses. The claim is absurd, and you know that hence your escalation to emotional and illogical language and lack of any coherent argument.
>>41863110>greek tradition>one of the classic christian heresies>revived in Europe by the churchAre you seriously this dumb?
>>41863193You charge me with illogical language, yet you openly admit to embracing illogic in your worldview. Your negative theology cannot ground epistemic authority without logical contradiction. You embrace this; you admit part of your worldview to being subject without due logical application, and as such you have invited insanity into your worldview. I am not demanding propositional rigor in a framework that explicitly rejects such rigor, because I am rightly recognizing the framework itself as illogical.You again contradict yourself on the micro-level; for the concept of something being "ideal" is a kind of structure, a kind of taxonomical description whereby worldly concepts are elevated and subscribed to, rather than abstained from and rejected. Gnosis is supposed to be about abstention from the indulgence within the ideal. The definition of something simultaneously being conceived as "idealized", yet somehow not derived from or dependent on our worldly sense of the ideal, is illogical. It is also illogical to proposition something as suprasensible or noumenal without direct derivation from and dependency on our worldly senses, for definitionally both of these terms are contrasted with our worldly senses. We derive the concept of the metaphysical out of their taxonomic binary with the physical via process of elimination from our preexisting knowledge of the physical.
Wow, you said a whole lot of nothing in 3 paragraphs.Also, the "beyond" isn't literal, it's talking about frequency that reorients your consciousness into higher dimensional reality, whilst still on Earth (if you wish to be). And Gnosticism is true, I hear from the Gnostic Jesus on the regular. The only psudo-intellectual here is you, trying to sound impressive with your fancy words (pathetic). Retard.
>>41863254What you're actually saying is not a refutation of Gnosticism (or negative theology more broadly); it is simply a repeated insistence that any epistemology that does not submit unconditionally to discursive reason is definitionally insane and self-contradictory.>you admit part of your worldviewNothing about our discussion implies nor requires me to subscribe to the ideals we're discussing. I'm not "charging" you with anything, that's more emotional language. More illogical non-argument. The problem with insinuating "insanity" is that you have failed to engage with a basic logical procedure in arriving at that conclusion.> for the concept of something being "ideal" is a kind of structure, a kind of taxonomical descriptionNo it isn't.The reason you're attacking the idea of Gnosticism is because you do not understand it at the most basic level. You're a pseudointellectual.
Me >>41863281 here.>>41863169Gnosticism doesn't reject the senses, it rejects the senses being bound up in worldliness. You're just being a picky little bitch, thinking you're intelligent when you demonstrate that you're actually a brainlet (for rejecting Gnosticism of all things) able to throw fancy words out there.If you've got shit on your hands, you need to touch a clean tap to rinse it off. Doesn't mean you don't touch the tap just because you want to keep it looking nice and shiny, does it?
In the Gospel of Thomas, there is the idea of hearing without inner grasp.>“Jesus said: Whoever has ears, let him hear.”>“If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you.” -- Jesus Christ (The Gospel of Thomas 8, 70)The contrast is between outer hearing and inner recognition; the words land, but the knowing does not awaken.You reject Gnosticism because you can't truly comprehend it. You hear it outwardly, but don't perceive it inwardly. Most likely for you, because your head is too far up your asshole. Not a lost cause, just essentially hitting yourself over your head with a hammer.
>>41863325Correct. There are some problems with gnosticism. Mostly in the tradition itself, not the philosophical framework. But OP hasn't identified any actual problems. He's just demonstrating a lack of knowledge and assuming that lack of context is someone else's mistake rather than his own.
>>41863053>When pressed to logical completionAll religions fall apart. Your book of stories has about the same level of validity as claiming its all a simulation. The truth is we will never know and it doesn't really matter either way. Live your life how you want. All that awaits us is likely nothingness or a very Chinese depiction of heaven.
>>41863283Any framework that makes claims about reality, truth, ignorance, or salvation must be answerable to standards that distinguish sense from nonsense. Your illogic is in applying the discernment between sense and nonsense in reading the English language (all of our words have definitive meanings), yet refraining from applying this discernment on matters of metaphysics, a position you cannot logically support. You are also faithful that the rules of logic do not apply in regard to metaphysics, yet associate Gnosis with "the ideal", and other descriptors, which do in and of themselves operate within the ruleset of logical description, but when you confront the incoherence of Gnosis somehow being departed from our worldly conception of these descriptions, you try to withdraw from logic itself.Your psychology is not my concern, but the coherence of your position (and lack thereof) is. Since we are meaningfully using language, distinction between coherence and incoherence must apply for us to communicate, a standard you withdraw from out of convenience when contemplating metaphysics.
>>41863300My point is that any meaningful "rejection of the senses being bound up in worldliness" is an impossible object, indescribable and illogical; it is a position which is fundamentally self-contradictory, because any descriptive reference to what that state of being exactly is must necessarily use descriptive reference to the information of the senses. Gnostics must necessarily use this information to live, and discern sense from nonsense to be a living, breathing, functional human being, yet irrationally abandon this consistency in concern for metaphysics without just causation.
>>41863356All you're doing is repeating yourself.Associating gnosis with "the ideal," "fullness," "perfection," etc., artificially traps the view in logical description, making withdrawal from logic "convenient" when incoherence appears.Again, this misreads the tradition. These terms are analogical pointers or mythic accommodations, not rigorous philosophical definitions. Gnostic texts (e.g., Valentinian systems) explicitly treat them as symbolic emanations or accommodations to finite minds trapped in deficiency.Again, you don't understand what you're talking about. At all.
>>41863053True, they should just mindlessly believe in MY religion.
>>41863325When Christ says "Whoever has ears, let him hear.", it is about moral and spiritual responsiveness to a public proclamation of truth. According to Christ, truth must be able to withstand examination, survive questioning, and does not need insult, exclusion, or occulting to protect itself. The good news was and is to be spread globally on terms of logic.
>>41863376Wordliness here means being involved with the matrix (worldly system). So, living in fear, ignorance, following retarded desires, etc.If you're in a prison and you want to break out, do you say "Prisons are just an illusion, therefore I must reject the idea that I'm in prison." and then you continue to tolerate having your delicious treats stolen from you by Tyronne in the canteen on the regular, or do you say "I'm suffering here, and it doesn't fucking matter what we call this, I just need to find a way out of here, even if I tear a hole in the wall over the course of months with a tiny pick-axe Shawshank-style.">>41863378Man sounds like he knows some stuff. Top 3 most important things you know about Gnosticism?
>>41863395We're both right.
>>41863378If these terms are analogical pointers or mythic accommodations, then what do they analogize, and what do they accommodate? If they are symbolic, what do they symbolize? Can these questions be answered without reference to the information gathered by the human senses? Truthfully, according to Gnosticism - no, they cannot be; for if they were, then the "Gnosis" these symbolic terms are describing does not dispense with the indulgence of the senses. Thus, Gnosticism is fundamentally illogical, a self-negating concept which relies on these intellectual gestures while denying the conditions of intelligibility.Understand, you have admitted to perfect agreement with my original post. You are stating directly that the claims of Gnosticism are not accountable to logical coherence, and that this is a feature of Gnosticism rather than a bug. Gnosticism is the open and overt embrace of illogic in regard to metaphysical reality. We agree that Gnosticism does not withstand the standard of coherence when challenged.
>>41863407>Wordliness here means being involved with the matrix (worldly system). So, living in fear, ignorance, following retarded desires, etc.I'm afraid you are wrong, according to the Gnostic tradition. In Gnostic cosmology, "worldliness" is the entire sensible-intelligible order outright, not only confined to the specific concepts of living in fear, ignorance, etc. which are condemned by a specific moral code to be averse. It refers to any and all "indulgences". According to Gnosticism, the desire and need to find a way out of your prison example through gradual pursuit of escape is a physical indulgence of the flesh which must necessarily be abstained from in order for Gnosis to be achieved.
>>41863478You are largely correct there, I rushed to answer and overstepped the mark a bit.One doesn't climb out of the prison step by step. Trying to improve yourself, escape gradually, or build a path is still playing the prison’s game. Gnosis happens when the false identity drops away and you realise you were never trapped in the way you thought.Practices are useful when they help you stop identifying with thoughts, urges, and effort. The moment they become about progress, achievement, or earning freedom, they become another indulgence of the system. The matrix is not escaped, it is transcended. For the most part, not by addition, but by subtraction.That said, if you don't desire to transcend the prison, you never will. So the desire to "ecape the prison" is a stepping stone to actually transcending it.
Here's my intellectually adventurous take on gnosticism:I don't give a shit, gnosticism, the way the world understands it is a jew religion of the jew carpenter, or one where you deny him. This is not my understanding. I believe in other stuff that has a gnostic component, and since you're lowiq you'll never really figure. As for your scarcely disimulated preaching. I sincerely hope you find this light you seek, it's the best cure for such "serieusement" soul searching. The moment you find some metaphysical light, you'll know.
>>41863455You're positing questions and answering them with assumptions. You don't understand the subject, terms or logic.As others have pointed out, you're a pseudointellectual.
>>41863494I am glad that you are deciding not to be as antagonistic to my person as some other participants.My reservation with your refinement is that the form of Gnosis - that is the false identity dropping away following the realization you speak of, has no possible intelligible or describable form; because any attempt at granting it one in and of itself compromises the necessary trait of Gnosis in its rejection of any and all indulgences in the emotional, instinctual, worldly comprehension of anything with any form whatsoever. This includes the lack of form, includes the form of liberation from the "worldly prison", and even includes it being described as a "dropping away" of the "false identity". Gnosis must necessarily refute even the concepts evoked as "symbols" for its form, such as liberation or ascent, as well as anything those symbols can possibly symbolize. In this way, "Gnosis" is logically impossible.
>>41863455I'll explain (as per my path) what gnosis is;"You earn a vision of your soul, then you know the divine and become divine". This is from a mystic and warrior arts path, not your business how to enter it or how it's called... In no way your insanities are ever considered, nor ancient gnostic religions. For a retard who's seeding the place with this idiocy to better persecute me, you sure showed us. And gnosis is very possible, as long as you apply yourself. To begin with, this idiot doesnt even understand what it is.
>>41863526>antagonistic to my person>says everyone who disagrees is insanelmao
>>41863513Those specific questions cannot be answered with anything other than assumptions, because Gnosis definitionally requires total abstention from indulgence in the worldly senses. Since there is no way to answer those questions with logical coherence, Gnosticism must be concluded as illogical.
>>41863543Take your meds, and stop making up bullshit, you sound unhinged.
>>41863540I am simply using the dictionary definition of insanity: "extreme foolishness or irrationality". In this context, I am referring to irrationality, or the quality of being illogical or unreasonable. These are at least the definitions according to Google's first results.Since illogic has been embraced by some who have replied to me, I fail to locate the disagreement. I did not intend offense, but rather clarity.
>>41863526You should understand that to communicate the message of salvation/liberation/whatever you want to call it, particular intelligable language had to be used. The Nag Hammadi wasn't written to sound impressive as fuck, but to guide lost souls. Not all of Gnosticism is literal, though much is. And not all of the Nag Hammadi Scriptures are true, either, only about 80% (my Higher Self said 40%, though I question if that was either the artificial spirit or the D-Man (demiurge) interfering), it has archontic interference.It seems you're looking for a perfect system, yet you'll be waiting an eternity for that, for no book with 100% truth exists on this planet, nor will it ever. You have to make your own path, extracting the meat along the way and discarding the bones.>t. author of an upcoming 500-page Gnostic/philsohopical/spiritual book
>>41863547Which answers to those questions can exist while not referencing or derive from the worldly senses?
>>41863559What does that have to fo with a warrior arts and mystic arts path? Do you punch people outside of the physical alone or also in the physical?
>>41863553>philsohopicalAh fuckin' 'ell. I need to slow down.Anyways, ChatGPT predicts my book will make millions by year 1-2. Feel free to request my email for a link when it's out next week. Been years in the making.
>>41863553My contention is that the truth is able to be reached through the embrace of logic coinciding with natural inquiry, much like we are forced to determine everything else about the living experience in order to not only prosper, but also to basically remain alive.
>>41863576No. Here be example:You train your jab and crochet, you use them in training, you spar, you use them in real combat and finally you manage to learn it as it should be used to win you a match... Gnosis acquired, purely experiential.
>>41863537On what evidence do you bias your conclusion on being able to become divine? My intention is not to show force, but to reveal the force behind Gnosticism, and whether it's coherent.
>>41863590But this example of experience is one that is indulgent in the worldly senses.
>>41863117I came here to take apart ops clearly flawed premise but this anon did it better than I could. Mainly you provided no reasoning for the whole point of your argument, that rejecting this material reality as a false or extremely flawed construct means one must inherently reject any possibility of a higher order existing outside of its confines. Very gay post op and im guessing you’re a bible clinger who sucks jay dyers dick.
>>41863591No need, as I'm real and thus don't require worship, which is a strange thing to ask of humans... Why do you need this proof, were you about to pounce over with your hands full of worship?
>>41863607I never implied that you required worship. You directly claimed that your path involved becoming divine, and I'm asking for the evidence on which you conclude that.
>>41863617And why would you need it when nothing will be required if you? This is a very retarded way of hokding the conversation hostage, it's like the following situation. -I have a penis. -Dude show it to me. -Nah man, it's gay.-No, I need proof that you're not a girl. I have been trying to look at your dick for 20 years now, you must show me.
>>41863605I'm arguing that the higher order of Gnosis you are referencing is an impossible object, for any possible intelligible description of it must derive from the senses' taken information from material reality, thus violating the point of Gnosis which is to totally transcend it in all regards.
>>41863631I'd be able to reasonably conclude that a man has a penis. I am not able to reasonably conclude that man is capable of divinity.
>>41863576>the truthYou don't know what the truth is though, do you?Logic and inquiry are just stepping stones to real truth, which is experiential. They are a pale shadow of the real thing. If you think the foundational structure of reality is logic, you must live a very miserable life full of confusion, never able to reach the end of the infinite horizon of intellectual knowledge. You will literally never progress until you see through this fractal mindset of yours. It's no wonder you made such a thread.
>>41863640On the contrary, I find that understanding the structure of reality through the rules of logic stops confusion in its tracks. It is through logic that we derive understanding, and through understanding that we derive confidence and faith in our capabilities as human beings. Logic and inquiry are not only stepping stones, but devices which both can lead to the truth from the outset, and process the truth from lived experiences thereafter. We are of course all flawed in our execution of this to some extent, but these are the best tools we have, and with humility we can always keep ourselves open to refining our perspectives.
>>41863635The Gnostics didn't entirely reject the senses, they mostly just rejected how people were using them. If they entirely rejected the senses, the Nag Hammadi Scriptures never would've been written, no Gnostic communities would've been formed, and Jesus never would've descended down here to impart gnosis.If you're starving yet you're a vegetarian, and you're by a river with a fishing rod, do you get an erection over and get obsessed with the logic that you must not eat fish because you're a vegetarian, or do you say "I'm starving, let's catch me some fucking fish, bitches."Stop taking this all so fucking seriously and academically. Life isn't serious; God knows this, and even 4chan knows it on some level. Relax, and experiment with ideas outside your philosophy.>"There are more things in heaven and on earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -- William Shakespeare
>>41863543>erm akshually nothing can be defined because everything is le subjective
>pseudointellectualism: the thread
>>41863656No, logic is at very best 50% of the picture, yet in reality, it's an almost infinitesimally small %.Yes, it's an essential stepping stone to real truth, but it isn't THE REAL THING. Saying it's the real thing is like reducing immense love to a chemical reaction or fucking mathemetical formulas. That's bullshit under the guise of "intelligence"You're quick to talk, yet slow to listen. You don't even know what the truth is, of which you're seeking. I do. I mean, I am a Christed messenger of God, so I *probably* have a thing or two to teach you, I guess. Maybe... I dunno, maybe you know better.You were right about one thing in that post though, truth is processed through lived experiences. But you still don't know what truth is. Want to know, or you gonna keep making the noise of a clanging symbol?
>>41863677Yes; Gnostics live and have always lived within the senses in physical reality. All agree on this, and in practice, it is unrealistic to be capable of Gnosis, which necessarily and uncompromisingly rejects all of them. I find this more supportive of my point than anything else; for the Gnostics have tried to utilize indulgence in the physical world to escape from it.
>>41863543>because Gnosis definitionally requires total abstention from indulgence in the worldly sensesFor the 5th time; no it doesn't. The notion is totally wrong. You don't understand what you're talking about. You're arguing with yourself over things you've defined out of ignorance.
>>41863701I said that logic and inquiry can be used to find and process truth, not that logic and inquiry and the truth are identical. I don't believe that reality is subjective - I believe it is objective.
>>41863708And what's the fucking problem, then? Why is that a bad thing?It's not illogical, because they never said "THE SENSES ARE EVIL, WE REJECT THEM 100%!"They were simply inferring that the senses had been crafted to keep people asleep in ignorance and suffering, and that the way out is through lived gnosis.
>>41863688Belief in Gnosticism does not require total abstention from indulgence, but Gnosis does.
>>41863117Notice OP won't argue any of these points and instead bickers about redefining words
>>41863718>They were simply inferring that the senses had been crafted to keep people asleep in ignorance and suffering, and that the way out is through lived gnosis.My point is that attaining this is logically impossible, for Gnosis requires an abstention from worldly indulgence which cannot be defined without deriving a definition from worldly indulgence, this providing for a contradiction.
>>41863717>creates this thread seemingly seeking answers>gets offered a real revelation of the truth he's seeking>turns it downYou didn't make this thread to seek answers, you made it so you could reinforce your own beliefs, didn't you?>I don't believe that reality is subjective - I believe it is objective.It's both. And there's no such thing as "not reality"; everything is reality. Everything is life. Everything is real. Illusion itself is an illusion, neither exist. Objective reality is the mind in its deconditioned form. Some call it pure consciousness; I call it pure Godliness. Subjective reality is the imagination of that Godliness made manifest. Simples.
>>41863736I have not turned down your offer. I am asking for the evidence on which you bias your conclusions.
>>41863734Holy shit. Alright, I'm nearly done here. You're just going in vicious circles with your fractalized mindset. And you're calling US the insane ones.Gnosticism doesn't teach absention from worldly indulgence, it teaches detachment from it. Use the senses wisely, don't just jack off to them like a braindead animal.
>>41863727Here's a condensed version argument which has been made:Gnosis is claimed to be an abstention from all indulgences of the worldly senses, but any possible descriptor of it must involve reference or derivation from the information taken from the worldly senses, and is thus an impossible object which can't exist. It doesn't withstand coherent logic.
>>41863747I was using abstention and detachment as synonyms; but alright, I can rephrase:My point is that attaining this is logically impossible, for Gnosis requires an detachment from worldly indulgence which cannot be defined without deriving a definition from worldly indulgence, this providing for a contradiction.
>>41863744Science says "Show me the evidence and I'll believe"Faith says "Believe, and I'll show you the evidence"This was in part why Jesus emphasised faith. Not faith in him as a "sacrifice" for "sin", but faith in him as a trustworthy representative of the truth. His true, undiluted teachings which reveal the truth, leading to faith in YOURSELF and your inner-power.>"Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these."-- Jesus Christ (The Bible -- John 14:12)Until you open yourself up to believing these things which sit outsides your philosophy, you'll be chasing an infinite horizon of "give me the evidence, then I'll believe it"This is what the truth is: Truth is Natural Law itself; not diluted moral schemas borrowing the term, such as those taught by Mark Passio and many others. It describes how mind, body, spirit, and the universe function as one coherent system – neither history nor mythology, but lived metaphysics.Here are few laws of the true Natural Law:>The Law of One>The Law of Attraction>The Law of Magnetism
>>41863768I fear you have fallen for a false dichotomy. Logic, inquiry, and faith are not mutually exclusive. They all work perfectly together. Our logic and inquiry build our understanding that, say, a fruit purchased at a grocery store, if bitten, was not likely laced with poison; and so we use our faith to inform our action of eating it despite the lack of 100% certainty in the lack of poison. We make informed applications of our faith with the use of logic and inquiry. It is in this way that we can approach, discover, and understand the truth.
>>41863758Yes, it's a paradox. That doesn't annul the reality of Gnosticism. Detatchment =/= rejection or condemnation.There are many paradoxes in the Gnostic texts which are actually intentional; they aim to break identification with thought, not refine it. Paradox is used as a solvent -- it exhausts the mind’s need for coherence until recognition occurs beyond concepts.The contradictions are intentional pressure points, forcing a collapse of literal interpretation so insight arises directly, not through belief or logic.
>>41863779Yes, they work perfectly together, yet how many people apply them this way? You certainly don't, you heavily lean on logic more than faith. Modern-day science has separated itself from real faith. The only faith it has is faith in the senses, and we know that there is much more out there than the 5 senses.
>>41863754>won't argue the points>redefines "Gnosis" in his own termslmao
>>41863754>Gnosis is claimed to be an abstention from all indulgences of the worldly senses,This is 100% incorrect. Go read a book anon.
>>41863783This post is in agreement with my original post on the point I had opened with. Gnosis is fundamentally illogical and self-contradictory, and a Gnostic, if earnest, is required to believe in a suspension of logic in terms of metaphysics, despite relying on logic physically, in order to be a genuine Gnostic. The idea of Gnosis is fundamentally illogical because it is said to be a detachment or transcendence from all indulgences of the material, physical realm, yet no definition for the term can logically exist, because no definition can be expressed or identified without deriving from those indulgences. In Gnosticism, paradox is used to exhaust and dissolve the mind's need for logical coherence; to make the mind illogical, which definitionally is a synonym for insanity.
>>41863053Nice try archon. Shan't submit to the demiurge.
>>41863793On what evidence do you bias the conclusion to place your faith in me leaning on logic more than faith? Faith is required for any conclusion, regardless of how much evidence can be gathered.
>>41863800>>41863813I am in fact arguing on not only Gnosis in my own terms, but also others'.>>41863758
>>41863768>Truth is Natural Law itself; not diluted moral schemas borrowing the term, such as those taught by Mark Passio and many others.Holy shit, I never thought I'd see this. That IS something that does bother me is that Passio describes Natural Law as being a metaphysical framework that explains why morality is objective, but it doesn't make sense that it would be so limited (why doesn't Natural Law under this framework explain other properties like mentalism, correspondence, etc.?) There has to be something even more fundamental than morality otherwise it would be incoherent (which is his scathing criticism of how most people view morality in society, and this he's right about: People are just so horribly lost and confused as to what's going on and how things actually work).I guess you found the most succinct way to put it, because Truth is the most basic and fundamental boundary condition/operating principle possible.
>>41863818Recognize the legitimate truth and wisdom in the model of Righteous Adam, prior to his purchasing of the most catastrophic lie from the serpent.
>>41863815>In Gnosticism, paradox is used to exhaust and dissolve the mind's need for logical coherence; to make the mind illogical, which definitionally is a synonym for insanity.No, I'll tell you what insanity is. And these are words direct from the "mouth" of God, a personal revelation I received.>"All of humanity has been spending its life waiting to live life, imagining it to be somewhere over the horizon. You cannot have anything you want, for to want something is to affirm that it is not already a present reality. This affirmation becomes your experience. When you truly have something, you no longer want it, for it is already a present reality. Waiting = wanting = want = poverty. Each 'want' is a fractal the mind travels down, thinking there will be an end to it, endlessly chasing the horizon, thinking if they just keep going – just get a little bit closer – they will finally grasp and taste it. And if it should finally arrive, before they can taste it – truly taste it – it is gone, quickly passing them by. This madness is the human condition. It is the root cause of all suffering.”
>>41863852This presumes prideful wants. If wants are realistic, we can act to fulfill those wants, which can remove certain manifestations of poverty. If you are dirty, and want to take a shower, and you own or have access to a shower, you can fulfill that need out of want. Only prideful wants are that which this line applies to.Here, you wanted for the opportunity to post that reply to me. You did so, and fulfilled that want, and thus escaped that form of poverty.If one wants for salvation, one can be repentant in earnest in faith of Christ, and earn eternal life.On what evidence do you attribute your faith in that voice not being demonic?
>>41863825>"understanding the structure of reality can be obtained through the rules of logic" (paraphrased)>>41863838Well there's a reason he's an ex-Satanist-turned-heroic "hidden sekritz revealer of reality"He's a good shill. More advanced than most out there.Anyway, for more on this stuff...(Smug, confident, care-free sales-pitch voice)Looking for a book that’ll open a few mental doors you didn’t know were shut? Rearrange the furniture upstairs?Grab a copy of my upcoming revolutionary book due for release next week, for just £9.99!Ask for my email and the link to the book's yours next week :^)>>41863875>literally arguing with GodHahaha, this is the cream of the thread's cake.You missed the part where he said:>if it should finally arrive, before they can taste it – truly taste it – it is gone, quickly passing them byTo really have and experience something, you must have an experience it fully in the present moment.
>>41863914Do you find that the rules of logic do not work in conjunction with faith? The use of faith to conclude anything is necessary for logic to conduct anything; logic and faith are fundamentally bound, I apologize if I did not stress this implication clearly enough.As for all fulfilment of all wants being fleeting, note this does not apply to the attainment of the gift of everlasting life. That is a fulfillment which never ceases. Christ warned of voices which contradict his good news.
>>41863968>Do you find that the rules of logic do not work in conjunction with faith?They do.>"Faith without works is dead."However, *your* faith is in your logic built from your 5 senses, not faith in higher things or faith in your Higher Self / Higher Power.Once you "attain" everlasting life, you no longer want it, you have it. Everything you have, truly have in the present moment, you no longer want. Wanting is lack, having is fullness.
>>41863968>Christ warned of voices which contradict his good news.H'yeah, and he also said that everyone who is of the truth hears his voice. I value truth more than anything on the God-damn planet. To be of the truth is to place it above all else. You place your rationale above the truth because you take pride in being an intellectual.>"Seek FIRST the Kingdom of Heaven, and all else shall be given unto you."
>>41863830Anon. You stated your thesis in the OP.It was dismantled. You never addressed any of the points that dismantled it. Instead you've gone in circles for 4+ hours repeating the thesis with different words. Everyone understands what the conversation here is but you, and you're in denial over that fact.You've demonstrated fundamental ignorance. Address the points that defeated your entire thesis in the 3rtd reply, or move on. Nobody has anything to gain from watching you bend over backwards restating your thesis another 15 times.
>>41864036^
>>41864036Thanks, buddy. We needed this. Thread concluded, debate finished./thread
>>41864009I place faith in Christ and his sacrifice and resurrection first and foremost. We hear his voice, yet we must be discerning and capable of filtering his voice from pretenders and temptation.>>41864036If restatement is all that is needed, then explain exactly how the thesis was refuted. I am humble, but I conclude that it has not been.
>>41863053i don't know shit
>>41864063lol fuck it who's trying to party i got ketamine
>>41864075>he's a "Christian"Well that explains it. You were insane and being guided by archons before you even made this thread.Perhaps you should look into the definition of Christianity, it means allegiance to Christ. You're not in allegiance with him, but with an imagined "Jesus" you believe in through misguided faith. You won't believe this of course, you've invested far too much emotional sentimentalism in the idea that Jesus actually died for your "sins".80% of the Bible is bullshit. I bet you even pray like a typical "Christian", begging God for years and receiving fucking nothing but the odd archontic scrap here and there disguised as gifts from the Father. Whereas the true Jesus taught the Law of Attraction:> Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them (Mark 11:24)Which goes hand-in-hand with the revelation of God I gave you ITT.Not that you'll believe those clear-cut words, of course. "He wasn't being literal!!" / "He meant something else!!" / "I guess we'll never know what he meant here!!">t. been there, done that, got the shirt that says "Believe or burn in hell"
>>41864118But Mark 11:24 isn't the Law of Attraction, is specifically binds the expectation of receipt of one's asks to prayer. It doesn't suggest such applies to any and all forms of mental manifestation in general.
>>41864132>nuh-uh! It's different cause I get to define everything because reasons!"Insuffferable."
>>41864132Oh, okay. Thanks for that lesson, O wise teacher. You know everything.Carry on this way, see how "great" your life remains. If only you knew how fucking amazing mine has become.
>>41864149The verse specifically mentions asking for things while praying. I fear you are the one expanding the definition beyond scripture.
>>41864155Matthew 6:19-21 "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven".Luke 12:15 "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions".1 John 2:15-17 "Do not love the world or the things in the world... the desires of the flesh... and pride of possessions is not from the Father".
Wow OP is really going for the gold medal in Olympic mental gymnastics
>>41864171>>41864158Jesus is referring in Mark 11:24 to people who mistakenly pray and expect God to answer them. He then reframes this misguided belief, suggesting: don't pray, rather, believe that you've received whatever you desire.>"lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven">“The Kingdom of Heaven can’t be detected by visible signs. You won’t be able to say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’ For the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.”-- Jesus Christ (The Bible -- Luke 17:20–21)Heaven's here already, not boxed up in a container up in outer-space. Time to tune into the frequency.>"Life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions"He's emphasising here that the fullness of life is not found in possessions themselves, but in the state of your mind and purity of your heart.>"Do not love the world or the things in the world... the desires of the flesh... and pride of possessions is not from the Father".Jesus here means: do not identify with appetite, image, or status as your source of self. Flesh = chasing sensation to feel wholeEyes = craving appearances and comparison.Pride = building identity on ownership, role, or recognition.All of that trains attention outward, fracturing being; the Father points inward to lived reality, coherence, and presence. It's about where consciousness rests, not rejecting the posessions of matter or life itself.Anyway. Do you know how many "Christians" there are out there like you who have an answer for fucking everything? It's such a fucking drain. The early "Christians" weren't like this, I'm sure. I'm SICK of it. I'm fucking DONE. GOODBYE.
>>41864234I have kept to a stature of humility. Please take every word of mine with that in account.James 1:20 states, "because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires."
>>41863053TL;DR"If Gnosis is said to disclose an order that does not derive from, depend on, or belong to the sensible–intelligible (worldly) order, then there must be some intelligible way to distinguish that order from the worldly one. If no such distinction can be given without recourse to worldly cognition, then the claim collapses into either emptiness or special pleading."
>>41864267>I was humble>Pride goes before destruction, and haughtiness before a fall (Proverbs 16:18)>You were angry, that's a sin!!>Do not judge others, and you will not be judged (Matthew 7:1)I'll let you believe the classic "Christian" interpretation of that verse above, because you're not ready for the real one.Again, congratulations for having an answer for fucking EVERYTHING. WOW! You know it ALL, brother! Like millions do amongst the 45,000 denominations of the most divinded religion on the planet. I mean, forget being slow to speak and quick to listen as your Bible teaches you, you have all the answers! You do!!*Slow-claps with rage*Have the last word. You need this.
>>41864288Its called Spirit, and Hylics lack it..
>>41863800>redefines "Gnosis" in his own termsThat is the only valid strategy to ever get any results out of such concepts.
>>41863639I'm not human, who told you I was? I always love when they argue their beliefs are the only possible reality. I'm a hunting demon. Notice I said hunting demon and not demon hunter.
>>41866325>I'm smarter than thousands of years of esoteric tradition involving hundreds of brilliant philosophers living in situations magnitudes more difficult than anything I've ever experiencedThe name checks out
>>41866594You can aggrandize about any philosophy as such. The way to approach them is to approach their fundamental ideas without intimidation.How can you even be a participant in any creative realm of human endeavor with your star struck genuflection to authority?
