Paul was a gnostic

[Foster Zygote]

Might someone point me to Lifegazer's "experiment" post? Did he have some sort of a meltdown? He seems reluctant to discuss it.

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

Never mind. I think I've found it.

Steven

 

[RandFan]

Might someone point me to Lifegazer's "experiment" post? Did he have some sort of a meltdown? He seems reluctant to discuss it.

I knew that regardless of the outcome his experiment that he would be back. No, I wasn't the only one to make that prediction but he's back.

Lifegazer?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I knew that regardless of the outcome his experiment that he would be back. No, I wasn't the only one to make that prediction but he's back.

Lifegazer?

Now I kind of feel sorry for him. I had thought he was simply seeking conflict, but now I suspect he may need professional help. He seems very angry and depressed to me.

Steven

 

[ynot]

This thread is sooooo funny! Just wanted to thank everyone involved. Especially Lifegazer. You should have your own show.

 

[RandFan]

...much of the NT about Christ's life was supposed to be historical.

Having watched the video Who Wrote the Bible again, I want to correct something. The gospels were supposedly historical but were actually written for propaganda purposes. It's a great video BTW.

 

[Ryokan]

Never mind. I think I've found it.

Steven

Did you read his farewell thread?

 

[Meffy]

Did you read his farewell thread?

Golly.

Indeed, I'm going on "a retreat" next week which will herald the dawn of this new era. From now on, I will seek existential salvation from the inside, as Jesus suggested ("the kingdom of God is within you").
And if I ever find it, woe betide this ******* awful world that I have had to endure. I will not obliterate it, but I will change it... whether it likes it or not.

Those that prefer the status-quo of selfishness and greed and separation and injustice and inequality and war and death, had better hope that nobody like me is ever successful.
Unfortunately though, you're all ****ed. Because success is guaranteed. So enjoy the rest of your mingy experiences and don't come complaining when those four horses come riding over the horizon.

Just... golly. I missed the second coming, the beginning of the new era, and didn't even get a souvenir tee-shirt. :-( Did anyone else notice the new era?

Lg, hope you find at least enough existential salvation to lose the pottymouth. It's considered poor form for godlike superbeings to be as petulant as that. Except when they're in world-destroying snits.

And remember, retreat is the opposite of attack.

[edited for clarity]

 

[nescafe]

Yeah whatever.
You haven't go a clue what a gnostic is. I can assure you now that ~faith~ plays no part in a true initiate of gnosticism.

Oh, so you are a member of the direct experience of the Divine school of Gnostic thought, then? If so, what proof do you have that your direct experience was real, and not just a result of a temporal lobe seizure, powerful psychedelics, or just a mind-blowing orgasm?

Since you are a "true initiate", perhaps you can tell us what (if any) organization you are an initiate to, when your initiation was, etc.

This thread invites discussion on whether the true message of Jesus was that given by gnostics or literalists. It also invites discussion on the ramifications for [literal] christianity given that gnostic christianity was what was meant to be preached.

The "true message of Jesus" died with him. All of his "message" that we currently have now is based Other People's Interpretations of that message.

 

[davefoc]

I have noticed that several people seemed to have been mildly annoyed by some of lifegazer's responses.

Why?

Lifegazer is a believer. He doesn't hide that fact. For most of us RandFan did a pretty good job of expressing how we see religion. But a believer either isn't likely to understand that or if he understands it he isn't likely to believe it.

So lifegazer expressed his true views about what RandFan had to say. The views weren't unexpected. Perhaps they weren't expressed with the maximum of tact, but do we really want everybody that posts here that disagrees with our particular view of the world to only post if they can figure out a way to express their views in such a way that they won't annoy us. Count me in the group that appreciates candor over tact.

 

[davefoc]

The reason that I clicked on this thread in the first place was because I was hoping for a little more insight into the idea of what gnoticism was.

I was surprised that lifegazer had a thought that there was anything consistent enough in the gnosticism to get the idea that they had happened on the one true religion.

My view of gnoticism before this thread was that it was just a word for grouping miscellaneous proto Christian sects together that had beliefs that weren't quite consistent with the Christianity that evolved over the centuries. I didn't realize there were sects completely unrelated to Christ also known as Gnostics. Is this correct?

 

[nescafe]

My view of gnoticism before this thread was that it was just a word for grouping miscellaneous proto Christian sects together that had beliefs that weren't quite consistent with the Christianity that evolved over the centuries. I didn't realize there were sects completely unrelated to Christ also known as Gnostics. Is this correct?

The root word here is Gnosis, which is usually used to denote a couple of things:

1. Direct experience of the {oneness of all things|Divine|mind of God|reality behind the veil of Maya}
2. The experience and process of acquiring the above.

Anyone who thinks that the above is possible and desireable can be called a Gnostic.
(ed. markup)

 

[wollery]

I have noticed that several people seemed to have been mildly annoyed by some of lifegazer's responses.

Why?

Lifegazer is a believer. He doesn't hide that fact. For most of us RandFan did a pretty good job of expressing how we see religion. But a believer either isn't likely to understand that or if he understands it he isn't likely to believe it.

So lifegazer expressed his true views about what RandFan had to say. The views weren't unexpected. Perhaps they weren't expressed with the maximum of tact, but do we really want everybody that posts here that disagrees with our particular view of the world to only post if they can figure out a way to express their views in such a way that they won't annoy us. Count me in the group that appreciates candor over tact.

I have no problem with believers, provided that they understand the definition of belief, i.e. faith without proof. Lifegazer (and others) come to a skeptic board and try to argue that their beliefs are founded in factual proof, and then get all huffy when people challenge them on it. Lifegazer is the worst offender in this respect, he offers philosophical arguments that are unoriginal, barely philosophical, illogical and, to be blunt, assertions rather than arguments. Anyone who disagrees with him, offers any counterargument, or points out flaws in his argument is either ignored or insulted (usually the latter). He's very careful to keep his insults within the forum rules, but insults they are. Then he has the gall to tell people to grow up if they say anything insulting or disparaging about him.

It's really not at all surprising that people have little patience with him.

 

[RandFan]

The reason that I clicked on this thread in the first place was because I was hoping for a little more insight into the idea of what gnoticism was.

Yeah, it's one of those words you hear about and get information about and it doesn't all completly stick in your brain until something brings it to the forefront.

My view of gnoticism before this thread was that it was just a word for grouping miscellaneous proto Christian sects together that had beliefs that weren't quite consistent with the Christianity that evolved over the centuries.

This was similar to my understanding.

Boy were we wrong. The Gnostics, ~know~ the truth. Damn, all of this time and it was right under our noses. This is sure going to piss off the Mormons. They think they have direct knowledge and ~know~ the truth.

 

[davefoc]

Thanks for the response Wollery,
As an infrequent participant in threads with lifegazer it was presumptious of me to make a post which was judgmental about something that I wasn't all that familiar with.

I suspect no religious people are going to be able to have conversations with skeptics on their religion that will be completely satisfactory to either party. So, I wouldn't expect a person like lifegazer to express his ideas on religion in a way that I find logical or self consistent. Similarly, I don't expect lifegazer or any believer to understand where I am coming from all that well either. I think that's just the way it is and the apparent expectations of skeptics that somehow discussions with believers will follow what the skeptics view as conversational norms are rarely going to be met IMHO.

For what it is worth I am not saying that I would not enjoy discussing lifegazer's ideas with him, I am saying that I wouldn't have high expectations for any kind of meeting of the minds as a result though.

 

[davefoc]

Yeah, it's one of those words you hear about and get information about and it doesn't all completly stick in your brain until something brings it to the forefront.

Well, I just spent an hour or so reading through various stuff on gnostics. I was hoping to get to the point that I understood enough to ask a question that would elicit some deep understanding of what was going on here from RandFan.

Alas, I remain too confused to ask a rational question. On one level, I suppose nescafe said it all. But, it seems somewhat difficult to tie that definition into the way that the word is used. The Nag Hammadi texts are generally labeled as gnostic writings, but in reading through some of them I didn't find much reference to a gnostic philosophy. Most of what I read just sounded like routine new testament story telling but with some different details.

Some of what I read suggested that the word is used to cover so much that it is hard to say that the word has much value. I think what lifegazer seems to be talking about is some modern movement that has focused on some particular subset of gnoticism as a great truth. But perhaps I'm off base there.

 

[Wudang]

Golly.

Just... golly. I missed the second coming, the beginning of the new era, and didn't even get a souvenir tee-shirt. :-( Did anyone else notice the new era?

It was awsome! First lifegazer emerged with his god-like powers but before he could re-arrange the world he had to battle Godzilla and King Kong. This a) tired him out and b) caused everyone great confusion as he kept yelling "no suffering anywhere" whilest being pummeled on by the big KK. Eventually he won and re-arranged the world completely. However while he was having a bit of breather, the Starship Enterprise arrived in a flood of chronometric particles and Kirk put things back the way they were. Unfortunately he made 1 mistake - he put lg back unchanged as well and still not knowing the difference between imply and infer. I actually kept some screenshots of the battle but I promised the government not to show them to anyone, for the general good you understand.

 

[Meffy]

Thanks. I probably subconsciously noticed something was going on but Microsoft Solitaire is just SOOOO engrossing... well, you can see how these things happen.

P.S.: It would've been more fun if KK had been Kurious Kathy instead of King Kong. But we can't have everything, can we?

 

[nescafe]

Well, I just spent an hour or so reading through various stuff on gnostics. I was hoping to get to the point that I understood enough to ask a question that would elicit some deep understanding of what was going on here from RandFan.

[speculation=unfounded]
Well, from what I can tell, LG found that some of the Gnostic texts agreed with his conception of the universe as $DEITY, and came back to educate us. He also implied that he was a "true initiate", which usually means either:

1. He has gone past just hanging out with those crazy O.T.O/Wicca/Pagan/Golden Dawn/(insert favourite occult organization here) people and actually forked over some cash and gone though whatever initiation ceremony they have.
2. He read a book that purports to "reveal the secrets of $occult" and then went through whatever self-initiation process that book has.
3. As above, except he just thought about the self initiation process alot.

[/speculation]

Alas, I remain too confused to ask a rational question. On one level, I suppose nescafe said it all. But, it seems somewhat difficult to tie that definition into the way that the word is used.

You could spend a lifetime studying the various mostly-dead forms of gnostic christianity, and not get a good answer. Gnostic traditions tend to have alot of occult knowledge.

The Nag Hammadi texts are generally labeled as gnostic writings, but in reading through some of them I didn't find much reference to a gnostic philosophy. Most of what I read just sounded like routine new testament story telling but with some different details.

I have only read a few excerpts online, but the Hypostasis of the Archons is chock-full of gnostic symbolism.

I think what lifegazer seems to be talking about is some modern movement that has focused on some particular subset of gnoticism as a great truth. But perhaps I'm off base there.

I think he has discovered that old religions have views that coincide with his philosophies, and that he wants us to see that it gives his philosophy some Authority.

 

[davefoc]

I read through your link Nescafe and I am not sure what to make of it.

One thing that I didn't find last night was a link to some commentary on the Nag Hammadi stuff.

The piece seems to be a spin on the biblical creation stories with a little bit of Noah thrown in. What specifically makes this gnostic?

Did this particular set of musings really represent a segment of the religious beliefs of the time or was this just the random musings of a semi-lunatic that happened to be saved for posterity?