|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 19, 2015 6:44:17 GMT 1
Because much Flat Earth talk keeps reminding me of Gnosticism, I'm going to go through a little bit on why that is. I personally can't read the Gnostic texts. The ones I have tried seemed like some weird religious sci-fi and I found them quite boring but likely that means I must on the lower rungs of their spiritual hierarchy  . I'm more interested in theological ideas. So, I do know a little bit about the main points, especially when my memory is jogged. The only one I like is The Gospel of Thomas and I'm not sure if it is theologically Gnostic as I could imagine it being in the NT (it's been a while since I've read it though.). The Gnostic Demiurge is the creator God of the material world. I have mainly heard that he is flawed, blind and arrogant but not evil per se. But some may say he is evil. This Demiurge is to blame for the fallen nature that many cultures have perceived this world to be. In this theology, Divine Sparks were imprisoned in the material. This Divine essence, is fragmented inside mankind. Humans have the Divine Sparks which are trapped and imprisoned in the material world which fragmented from the Pleroma where the Fullness of the True and Transcendent God power is. This is dualism. Now Mark Sargent refers people to the movie, The Truman Show, for people to grasp his enclosed world theory. He believes our Earthly world is a machine and has a dome. It has been quite some time since I have seen The Truman Show but I recall it enough to see the Gnosticism one could easily glean from the movie. It isn't hard for me to see Christof as the Demiurge of that domed simulation of the real world. Truman is trapped in the simulated domed world of The Truman Show and Christof is God of this world, but not the True God. Furthermore, this domed world, isn't the real world either. In a FEOHP show Mark And Patricia were talking to each other about leaving the enclosed world as well as the negatives of this world and how it is cool outside of it. That sounds like dualism as well. Does he think outside, or somewhere else, is the Pleroma? I think it's a valid question since he usually states in his video briefs, "Are we inside a Truman show enclosed world, thousands of miles wide? This is part of a series of videos that shows not only is it possible, but likely."In this post, I quote from another FEOHP session between Mark and Patricia. See the link for the video reference and more. Here are some quotes with my comments added~ In the linked post, I comment on the problem of our consciousness they are creating by insisting it is machine-like. In the post I asked, are we ghosts in the machine? How exactly do we have real minds in this machine world?So, I have provided other references to make clear how literal Mark may actually be with The Truman Show analogy. Now, on to Rob Skiba who seems to have an affinity to the same idea but from his biblical perspective. I have edited the quote of mine below so as to remove what is unnecessary for the purposes of this discussion. But the link goes to the original full post. So, in the above video Rob Skiba actually says, "if this model is true, than this is Christof in the Truman Show". Christof is a flawed God of a simulated world. Christof is an individual being inside the same Universe as Truman. The domed world is only a simulation of the outside world. There is a God beyond Christof, since Christof is a dependent being of the universe he is in. He is not the True God. The true God, and reality, lay outside The Truman Show (outside the material world?). To be fair, Rob Skiba might not have looked at it like this though. I have a hard time not seeing it this way. I am not saying anyone is a Gnostic. I just can't help but notice these gnostic themes within the flat earth world. The Truman Show appears quite gnostic to me and we have two leaders using this movie as an analogy to the world we all live in. We have had many gnostic themed movies over the years. The Matrix is another popular one. Admittedly, it has been a long time since viewing The Truman Show, but I think the basic gnostic theme really is there. Why use The Truman Show for FE? Because Truman lived in a domed world? In theory, Truman lived in a domed world on a globe Earth too. Why this focus on the dome, machines and the building with no real evidence that I have seen so far, while using movies as analogous to our world? It seems ridiculous to me. I don't know, I am only presenting my thoughts, questions and observations from what I have gleaned from aspects of this movement or trend. As I have said elsewhere, gnosticism, is the perfect place alienated people can feel at home in...haha. So, maybe that's another reason why some people may like it.haha |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 9:32:46 GMT 1
I am new to this subject, to philosophy and to religion, and I am about to leave on vacation, but just to understand a little better, I would like to ask you to explain, in simple words, the meaning of the term "Gnostic", because I've looked it up and I found a wide range of definitions. For example, one even seems to suggest that "Gnostic" is similar to "demonic", at least for us conspiracy theorists: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_in_modern_times#Madame_BlavatskyI will be back to read your answer in tree weeks. |
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145 
|
Post by cal on Dec 19, 2015 23:51:02 GMT 1
heathen, Good detective work on linking Gnosticism with the flat earth conspirators. I hadn't noticed it myself, but then I haven't read any Gnostic texts. My first encounter with one was when I was reading a review article on Elaine Pagels.  Elaine Pagels I believe it was in regards to either The Gnostic Gospels or The Origin of Satan  In either case, at the time I was still quite deluded about Christianity and thought Pagels view incorrect. However, she is quite the scholar and a courageous soul to try to communicate to the deluded christian masses. Another author who has some interesting information about Gnosticism is my favorite author, Joseph P. Farrell.  Joseph P. FarrellIn his book, Thrice Great Hermetica and the Janus Age: Hermetic Cosmology, Finance, Politics and Culture in the Middle Ages through the Late Renaissance, he discusses how the Catholic Church has been bent on destroying any instance of Gnosticism in favor of their religion, Christianity instead, even if this means genocide.  |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 20, 2015 0:58:11 GMT 1
Yeah, I don't agree with gnosticism. The media is saturated with it. I don't think they have any theological answer for the problem of pain/evil even though they say they do. They've simply removed the problem one step by blaming the Demiurge and removing the Fullness of the True Transcendent God into the Plemora.
Essentially, they side stepped the problem. I believe that Christ on the cross does say something true about our world, although I do not have the faith per se, but I believe suffering and sacrifice is something real and a part of nature and in some way, is connected with God. And I respect my cultural heritage. I think of the cross as a sort of koan. And gnostics side step the koan and blame it all on the Demiurge.
Why gnostics choose to reproduce is something I question if we are trapped here by an arrogant God. Some in the past, have chosen not to reproduce from the logic of their own theology (I believe this may have been the Cathars). I think their theology is kind of weak because of their dualism and negative outlook aand rejection of this world. I wouldn't want my children growing up with such a theology, personally. I know some people will say it's not like this, and psychologize the demiurge as only being our ego, but I think that's sugar coating it. And some FE'ers have been clear in their view of this world being inherently negative.
I am someone who thinks the natural world is cosmically ordered, by an organizing principle, and following this order creates strong families, tribes, nations and creates beauty and harmony with it. I don't know if I am a polytheist or think the Gods are aspects of the One God. I could still think of Christ as an incarnation, I think. I don't outright reject Christianity, it is their extreme altruism I find problematic as I think it could be self destructive if people also don't have something else to ballance it out such as pride, strength and heroism.
Gnostic theology lacks this harmony in my mind as it is so dualistic. More so than traditional Christianity which can also be dualistic. But it isn't as strictly dualistic as the eastern orthodox is closer to being panentheistic (but, not precisely). And their resurrection is definitely not dualistic.
|
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Dec 20, 2015 2:15:59 GMT 1
As I stated above, I am still not that familiar with Gnosticism enough to comment intelligently. In my partial reading of one of the Gnostic texts it did not at all have the same "quality" as that of the New Testament books. But then again, this was only one text. I'm not sure that the Gnostic texts are authentic, but then again, I don't think the Dead Sea scrolls are authentic, and I'm even finding that the New Testament itself was forged. At the very least it is not what we are told it is. Yes, I'm familiar with the demiurge concept. In my thinking this is all trying to explain how consciousness takes up residence in man at his birth. How can the spiritual and material combine? Yes, it is surprising that gnostics reproduce at all given their asceticism and abhorrence of the material world. But maybe we are not told the whole truth? I have become wise to the deceptions of TPTB in this. We really need original/primary sources to verify these things for ourselves. However, Christianity is just as dualistic and destructive. IMHO it just takes a little longer. BTW I am studying the Roman Piso theory of the origin of Christianity. Quite amazing stuff. Here is his website and book: Faking the New Testament: A masterplan for geo-political domination.
The True Authorship of the New TestamentActually, my user handle is based on the founder of the New Testament: Arius Calpurnius Piso or Cal Piso for short (ariuspiso@gmail.com).  New Testament Bible Authored by the Calpurnius Piso's of Rome Part 1/5 Douglas Vogt |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 21, 2015 4:18:36 GMT 1
I am new to this subject, to philosophy and to religion, and I am about to leave on vacation, but just to understand a little better, I would like to ask you to explain, in simple words, the meaning of the term "Gnostic", because I've looked it up and I found a wide range of definitions. For example, one even seems to suggest that "Gnostic" is similar to "demonic", at least for us conspiracy theorists: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_in_modern_times#Madame_BlavatskyI will be back to read your answer in tree weeks. As I understand, they don't believe the world is fallen because of sin, but made fallen by the doofus, the Demiurge. Humans have a Divine Spark and are trapped in the material world. Humans are in ignorance of this Divine Spark, their origins (the Pleroma) and ignorant of their physical situation along with the flawed and worshipped God of this world, and the Gnostic experience provides them with secret knowledge. They may receive this message from the higher realm and/or inner experience. This secret knowledge is usually given to members of gnostic groups they are members of. They become initiated and receive knowledge and so their symbolic scriptures, make more sense. I don't know if "gnostic" should necessarily mean demonic. But I guess it is possible to be given some sort of knowledge from demons, in theory. I have problems with gnosticism, the 1st being the disharmony with the physical world, which I believe has an organizing principle, some call it Logos, the Tao, and Dharma, they aren't the exact same things but they have a similar gist with each other in my mind (and others as well). If we are trapped in this material universe than I think the organizing principle would likely be, or having something to with, the Demiruge in their system of thought. Their theology, in as much as it is sees the material world as inherently evil/negative, puts them at odds with the natural ordering of the universe they live in. This appears to me to be a theology of alienation from Nature. I think this same alienation may be observed in theories about this world being a machine, like The Truman Show. It makes sense for Truman to feel like leaving the domed world and go back into his true home and origins, the real world. Why Rob Skiba seems to miss this, I'm not sure. But The Truman Show doesn't help his theology, in my mind. Now, I may have been influenced by a man name Eric Voegelin and forgot, because he attaches alienation to Gnosticism as well. If that is the case, I would have been influenced from him and my own observations as well, because I study people and this sort of thing. I'm not sure how much I agree with this first wikipedia quote which says Gnostics are rejecting the Christian Kingdom of God, but I think it's interesting. Off the top of my head, Traditional societies generally believed in cycles rather than linear time. Other societies have even believed we are devolving from the higher to the lower. Also, in the cyclical view, they had the higher devolving to the lower, and then a return to the higher, and so on.
Voegelin on gnosticismNow the Social Alienation aspect is what I find easily agreeable to. Social alienationOn 11/18/2015, I listened to this video at the 18 min mark as you (Acenci) stated he starts talking about God and religion. Flatheads vs Controlers Stargods Time Stamped at 18:04 I'm not sure if that last part about the dome being a control system is a comment on the dome itself or, the theory and debate of the dome. But that is beside the point, because he already said the world itself is a control system. Link to my original comment. And in a comment of that Stargods video I found this ( original post here)~ 
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 21, 2015 5:52:34 GMT 1
Hey @acenci , I happened upon this website of this guy's book. He promotes gnosticism or, his blunt view of it, and he has his book on his website where he distills the theme of each chapter here. He has his book on Amazon here. To get an idea, see these chapters in particular, on his website. Just a few paragraphs each. I haven't gone through every chapter on his website but I think it could be useful to understand some things. Check these ones out~ Matter is evil Satan, the Oppressor Lucifer, the Liberator He also has a "statements" page where he gives 32 gnostic statements (I didn't read it al). There is also a page called "The author" where he describes his experience. I don't like gnosticism because, as it appears to me, it is in constant disharmony with nature and the world. In my mind, that means constant disharmony with the Organizing Principle of all of existence. The principle that holds together all the things and natural systems of existence. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 23, 2015 7:19:46 GMT 1
LORD of the Dome and Stockholm Syndrome
Stargods
He is talking about his take on Adam and Eve, eternal life and the flesh being corruption before what I am quoting here (below). I have not listened to this video, I simply saw someone comment on a time stamp and happened to find this at minute 19:57.
Then goes into talking as if god says, "yes you did, in the garden of Eden...". Then he says, "that is the most ludicrous, childish argument to make..."
Then he goes on about all the suffering and cruelty and death.
The main thing I would like to highlight is the comment about the dome, as that comment fits the subject of this thread.
The domed world is a prison and God is a warden, apparently.
His video brief states,
I may listen to this whole video but I don't have time at the moment. There's interesting positive comments on the youtube video....
Hold on, I'll add one more quote~
Wonderful stuff...The problem of pain and suffering (theodicy) is now answered, the god of the world is a warden and the world is a prison.
If anyone's curious, they can get an idea of some church fathers views on theodicy and soteriology on their own using those keywords along with church fathers. I think it's healthier than this stuff. Basically, God became a man (Jesus) so that man might become God. And the incarnation of God in Jesus was supposed be the incarnation of the Logos/Word, which is the divine and rational organizing principle of this world. This theology of God in Jesus, is God internalizing suffering and death from the creature's point of view, which recapitulates all of creation toward becoming in union with this God. Well, that's a rough way to put it. But along those lines.
I think that's a little more harmonic.
I say this in case anyone could use an alternative theology, especially, if they are already of the Christian orientation.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 24, 2015 7:44:30 GMT 1
Jehovah is a liar and Warden of our Prison Dome Stargods This looks like a good one. Haven't listened to it yet but found this interesting, and funny to me, comment. Insanity is Sanity asks how to get out and declares, "we will break this dome". References in attachments   Yet, we don't have actual evidence of a dome, or that this is a prison, for that matter. I have a hard time believing we live in a snow globe or in a box. Ok, so let me see, before, we all lived on a globe, a blue marble, a dot surrounded by vast expanses of empty space and without any cosmic meaning. Just random chance on a dot. Now, we live in a domed prison, possibly a doe in a box, on a flat earth and god is the warden? We humans just can't win. We didn't have God before and now, well, we can't get away from him.....Is this how it goes? Before, we had unimaginable space and now, we live in a cramped box. Oh, we have no actual evidence, but we are all in a prison....I find it more believable our 3D world is in some sort of 4th dimensional space or object of some kind, rather than a mechanically "built" snow globe or box. Our sufferings could be likened to birthing pangs, the baby doesn't understand the pain, or what is happening, or that things will get better and he will understand more as he grows. How can there be heroism and sacrifice in the Pleroma where there is no anxiety for self preservation, along with feelings of love and goodwill for family and friends who also face adversity? It is the risk and the danger to self and others which creates the environment for making heroic choices and sacrifices. You don't get that in the Pleroma, because it is "heaven", where nothing hurts and also, where nothing is risked. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 25, 2015 19:54:31 GMT 1
Why Did They Release Flat Earth? Jesse Spots3:21 "let's say they had a stipulation which was, avoid the dome at all costs". 6:51 ".....the New World Order values that are coming. Moral relativity natural law" 7:18 ".....Alice Bailey and the Externalization of the Hierarchy........This was basically how the Luciferians were going to take the inner secrets of their secret societies and then just open up the blossoms, you know the petals one by one, and the secrets would become, you know, just what's outside on the street...." 10:27 ".....Well they definitely didn't want people to latch onto the dome. They wanted it to go more toward whatevers on the other side of the ice wall, you know, maybe there's like ancient civilizations, like fallen angel cities and customs, you know. Going to ancient wisdom and ancient truth, that's where they would prefer that we were." But I see a focus on the dome. Let's see, leaders such as Rob Skiba, Stargods, Mark Sargent, Jesse Spots, Patricia Steere and many others focus on the dome. Even Mark Sargent spent almost two hours interpreting Freemason symbology in this video below (which is, funny enough, at 6,606 views at this time). Perceptions 11 - A Masonic Flat Earth? markksargentThis was an interesting show and he is gets into "the structure", which is the dome as well. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 25, 2015 20:06:59 GMT 1
Also, this isn't the first time Jesse Spots has made the comment about the NWO bringing moral relativity and natural law. I wonder if he thinks natural law means natural selection of survival of the fittest? Because I'm not sure how the NWO would bring both moral relativity and natural law. Natural law is related to the Logos, the ordering principle of Nature or, of God. So the Logos is the meta-ethical ground/foundation on which ethics would be based.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Dec 27, 2015 3:11:36 GMT 1
This last comment makes sense. Associating NWO with natural law possibly indicates an ignoramus, but I am not familiar with the referenced individual.
I'm not well read about natural law, but my understanding is that it is not in any way some new invention, but rather a legal tradition preserved at least since Greco-Roman times in many countries including the Ottoman Empire which had such staying power precisely because it adopted the principles of East Roman laws and civization as its own as attested by Ottoman historians such as Halide Edib Adivar and others. Conversely, elements in the west since the medieval Frankish papacy have sought to steadily abandon natural law as I understand, but I have not made a devoted study of this.
Perhaps this parallels the long history of progressive accumulation and exploitation analyzed in Marx's 'Kapital'. There's another more concise one volume chronicle of the degeneration of western legal history since the crusades by the Marxist lawyer who defended Angela Davis and other Black Panthers, but I don't recall his name just this moment. However, the point of his book is the degeneration of law in the west to serve the interests of a wealthy few and to the detriment of the many which brings to mind ML King's letter from a Birmingham jail that "an unjust law is no law at all."
So it would seem to me that the so-called NWO has been forming for centuries, and it in involves the eradication of legitimate ancient legal tradition like natural law.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Dec 28, 2015 18:23:48 GMT 1
Found it. This legal book by the famous Marxist lawyer Michael Tigar is a legal history of Western Europe from the Crusades to Napoleon has an epic scope of about 800 years and probably loses sight of a couple of noteworthy historical trends therein as one reviewer has said, but it's it's perspective of the overall trend is accurate. I recently walked into a Sufi Turkish cultural centre's bookshop and discovered Michael Tigar had co-authored a rather well discerned book defending religious rights of minority muslims such as Sufis from the secular government of Turkey which succeeded in establishing tolerance for religious rights through a series of trials of the a famous Sufi leader named Fethullah Gulen. Turkey's government had been imposed oppressively westernized secularism on its population since Kemal Ataturk threw out Ottoman customs in the 1920s. Unfortunately, since Turkey's ruling class remained in power seeing their control through secularism was waning, they turned to the current government of Islamic demagogues which has recently revived the same oppressive policies of the old discredited secularists, and religious rights like Gulen's movement are trampled once again. 'Law and the Rise of Capitalism' By Michael Tigar monthlyreview.org/product/law_and_the_rise_of_capitalism/ en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tigar |
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Dec 28, 2015 19:19:09 GMT 1
heathen & dionysios, Thank you both for your posts on this. The aspects of natural law, Jesus the Logos/organizing principle, Gnostic thought--all interest me. I'm curious as to how all these tie together. I am not sure if I understand what natural law is and would like a concise definition of it. Also is it the same natural law that Jefferson referred to in the Declaration of Independence when he referred to "the laws of nature and of nature's God"?
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 29, 2015 6:44:54 GMT 1
So, as I understand it, since ethics are about in values, the ethical theory needs to be grounded in something. That grounding is what makes something good or bad.
The theist gets to ground their ethical theory in something eternal, God (and I use theist and God loosely in this sentence). The ethical theory is supposed to have a foundation that tells us what it is that makes something good or bad.
The atheist/materialist will have to ground their ethical theories in something. They would need something to ground their values. Grounding ethical values in taste will sound weak to a lot of people, for example.
I don't know that much about legal systems.
By natural law, I was meaning it as order in human society (ethics), which corresponds with the harmony we find in nature, and the grounding would be the Organizing Principle of Nature. I would call this the organizing principle, the Logos, because I am in the West and my cultural heritage is Christianity. The Logos also predates Christianity. Heraclitus, the philosopher/"sage", talked about the Logos.
I will quote from this book I own,
I also like this video, and in particular this quote, which I have quoted on this forum a couple of times already. It describes the current direction of my philosophy or theology.
I relate this last quote about nature, and in particular, how it is like a symphony, with the previous quote I gave about the Logos maintaining equilibrium and balance of the universe, at every moment.
So, the reason the organizing principle is being brought up as the ground of existence, which holds everything together, was because of the idea of a demiurge trapping us here. If the demiurge trapped us in this world, or under this dome, than I wonder if it is being said that the Logos is this demiurge?
Since, if the Logos is the source of existence, the one that maintains balance and equilibrium of this world, then is this logos equated with the demiurge? Is this Logos, the Warden of this Prison?
Now, I don't believe that. But if the demiurge is taken this literal, I become a little concerned that the demiurge is being equated with the Logos. The Logos which creates order.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Dec 29, 2015 17:40:33 GMT 1
I used to have that book 'Christ the Eternal Tao' by Damascene, but I threw it out some years ago for basically two reasons.
First, I ultimately concluded that the author was mistaken about Taoism. My initial attraction to the book was based on faith in the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition of which I concluded this book is not a part. This is partly because I scrutinized the book at length for historic connections between Taoism and the Orthodox Church and found none in spite of how the book is put together apparently very much designed to lead one to the conclusion that the two have some in some way a common past or association which simply doesn't exist as far as I could tell.
Secondly, I later concluded that the Greek and Russian churches including the tradition of which Damascene and his monastery are a part departed from the Orthodox Church during the Nikonian schism of the 1600's and have been heretical ever since which helps explain why such as Damascene would turn to other religions in syncretism and oecumenism. I simply discovered that their opposites in that schism, namely the Old Rite Orthodox Church (aka Old Believers) preserved the ancient Christian traditions unchanged unlike the new rite and other novelties adopted by the followers of Nikon.
The "saints" (who are primarily Russian) of the past 350 years presented in Damascene's book are no saints. I'll give one example. I haven't looked at this book in some years, but it's quite likely the nineteenth century bishop Innocent of Alaska is mentioned in a very reverential way as if he were someone godly.
Ilya Vinkovetsky, a Russian author, has written a decent history of Russian Alaska from a critical perspective analyzing it as a colonial, exploitative, and generally negative phenomenon. Since the time of Peter Romanov, the Nikonian heresy officially became a department of the Russian state of which the czar was the head and separation of church and state were thrown to the winds. Among other things, Vinkovetsky writes of Innocent of Alaska that he routinely reported to the secular authorities anyone of his parishioners whom he knew or suspected of disloyalty to the regime. This included any knowledge he gained through confessions. Furthermore, this was typical, standard duties required of Russian priests who were expected to do this without of course giving any hint of it to the laity. Innocent was also a good friend of Macarius of Moscow whom he succeeded as Metropolitan of Moscow. Macarius was a zealous persecutor of the Old Believer church along with Nicholas I causing the arrest and death of many Old Believers including bishops and clergy whom they attempted to completely annihilate in the 1830's and 1840's, and Innocent was okay with this. Perhaps the book also praises Macarius, but I don't recall. Macarius is the author of the catechism which became the official catechism of the Russian church in the nineteenth century.
I'm interested in these things like the Logos, and the doctrines of Greek and other philosophers which echo these things. I just don't trust that particular book as a guide to such things.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Dec 29, 2015 17:58:43 GMT 1
I'm not unfamiliar with the book or monastery. In 2003, I actually visited the monastery in northern California and met Damascene and happened to purchase over $1200 of books from them at that time.
To give credit where it's due, they do publish two outstanding books.
1) 'Creation, Genesis, and Early Man' which is in a second greatly expanded edition is the single best one stop guide book to creationism (both biological and geological) that exists in the English language. It's very up to date bibiography is to die for and including complete references to all the best creation science works in English and the west both in the nineteenth century and now, but it also does the same for creationist books coming out of Russia. And this 1000+ page book is written from an Eastern Orthodox perspective with Patristic references which Protestant creationist books lack.
2) Soul After Death - likely the best book written in English on demonology and the spirit world in several centuries. It will include occasional quotes from Nikonian saints, but mostly the Church Fathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Dec 29, 2015 21:06:47 GMT 1
As far as subjects such the Logos, the tri-partite soul, the nous, et cetera are concerned, a modern author (still living) I like is Ierotheos Vlachos. Even though he's not an Old Believer (like other Greeks, he follows the new rites fabricated in the seventeenth century), Ierotheos Vlachos's theological studies mostly follow the Church Father Gregory Palamas of the fourteenth century and earlier. In other words, he primarily reads writings of saints before the schism with the Old Rite and the quality of his books reflects it.
By contrast, Damascene's Herman Press has primarily published writings of Nikonians from the 1800's such as the Optina series. Every aspect of that religion including its iconography and music was degenerate during that era and (unlike the Russian Old Rite) cannot withstand scrutiny and comparison with Byzantine antecedents.
Just one example of the new rite which evidences it was invented as an impudent mischief to mock the Church has to do with astronomy a of all things. On Pascha (Easter), all the Christians exit the Church at a certain point in the liturgy and walk around it clockwise - in the same direction that the sun, moon, and stars travel. This is from the beginning of the Church. The satanic new rites reversed this ancient tradition and stipulate that the people walk around the Church counter-clockwise which is against nature. Intetesting that this change came during the same century that heliocentrism was becoming accepted in the west and the Greeks accepted it like sleepwalkers.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Dec 30, 2015 17:20:22 GMT 1
I am not sure if I understand what natural law is and would like a concise definition of it. Also is it the same natural law that Jefferson referred to in the Declaration of Independence when he referred to "the laws of nature and of nature's God"? Perhaps the first part of this pamphlet gives a definition. A It's a Christian perspective, but not the view of western civilization. It would be interesting to search to what extent Islam has preserved this. scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1386&context=ajj |
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Dec 31, 2015 4:12:28 GMT 1
Thank you for the time and effort it took to find this dionysios . My interest in Natural Law stems partly from a paper I wrote on the Declaration of Independence. I found the Eastern Orthodox definition to be quite good. I read the first couple of pages and it summarized Natural Law well: The Declaration of Independence article I quoted earlier does offer some explanation of Natural Law as deriving from God and Nature giving man the right to rule and govern himself: And from a paper on the Declaration that I (a Canadian) wrote a dozen years ago I talk about Natural Rights Philosophy although I don't think I hold the same position today. Then I thought that God instituted governments whereas now I understand that government is just a totally bad idea: |
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Dec 31, 2015 11:37:09 GMT 1
In my opinion, some civilizations have preserved natural law better (and differently than others). I believe that for many centuries now, natural law in the west has deteriorated far more rapidly than it has in Islamic countries.
In my opinion, I agree with that position which you earlier held about governments being institutions of God. Of course, I do not at all mean things such as the perverted European colonial doctrine of the Divine right of kings which is abusive.
They certainly have their errors, but I believe the Ottomans are an outstanding example of government as God ordained precisely because religion is not the essence of the office which Caesar exercises. Christ made a distinction with the Denarius between the things of God and the affairs of Caesar. The history of relations between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ottoman Empire is primarily one of harmony. The Ottoman sultans were the Caesars of the East Roman Empire which continued unabated in Islamic form after 1453. Contrary to western libels, the earlier Roman emperors who set the standards like Justinian understood the separation of Church and state. This policy continued with the Ottomans, especially in the earlier phases of their empire, and the Ottomans benefited and preserved the Orthodox Church within their realm often protecting them from decadent western influences.
I came to the conclusion that Marxism is much more compatible with authentic Christian doctrine and perspective regarding Caesar and worldly affairs as opposed to anarchism or opposition to government's existence. I looked into anarchists like Kropotkin at length and determined their desire to eliminate government dovetails with capitalists who also see it as an obstacle to their domination of others and politicians like American republicans and libertarians who want to minimize government. This characteristic makes anarchism fundamentally a right wing phenomenon. And Kropotkin ended as a bitter critic of Lenin sharing the views of the rabid anti-communist conservatives and big capital in the west.
Likewise, Godwin the father of anarchism admitted that he actually derived the essence of the anarchist part of his philosophy from Edmund Burke.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Dec 31, 2015 18:20:11 GMT 1
I quoted from Christ the Eternal Tao, which was a quote of another book, concerning Heraclitus and the Logos. As I have stated, I have issues with Christianity and I am not Orthodox. My concern is with the ordering principle. The Logos is in John and I think he was using that word to say this was the incarnation of that Logos. I didn't get the idea from Christ the Eternal Tao that is was about making a connection between Taosim and their church or Christianity. But that the Logos is similar to the Tao and that Heraclitus and Lao Tzu were talking about the same thing. That the Logos is the Tao that Lao Tzu spoke of, which has come to humans in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, as the book of John states. It was not a book about Christianity being connected to Taoism. Although, I do recall it saying some Chinese translations use the word Tao instead of Logos in the book of John.
dionysis said
I believe Jesus was not saying this for the purposes of a separation of church and state but was avoiding being entrapped and turned the tables. All things are God's.
dionysis
Marxism is an atheist religion with the cult of personality to boot. The religion and the state are one under Marxism! Marxism is messianic, it is like the materialist version of the kingdom of God, except the kingdom is communism. It is what, "immanentizing the eschaton", means!
You have got to be kidding, "I looked into anarchists like Kropotkin at length and determined their desire to eliminate government dovetails with capitalists who also see it as an obstacle to their domination of others".
You did not state how Kropotkin's anarchism dovetails with capitalists, who you said both see the state as as an obstacle to their domination of others. And you didn't state how you or Marxists think capitalists dominate. It has to do with the means of production.
Of course, Marxism is domination...It is, that's why they say they need to oppress the oppressors by taking over the state and making it a "worker's state".
But as I have said to you before, the communist state is in essence a capitalist state. The whole nation state is a corporation and the ruling class is the capitalist class. The ruling class is in control of the means of production and the workers obey. It is created and based on the idea that class conflict creates order, which is the exact opposite of what I am saying about the Logos and natural order. Natural order recognizes all human societies have classes and instead of fighting it, creating harmony with what already exists. The Marxist state puts all the power into the hands of the ruling class and so therefore is unbalanced. It is only "classless" in name only.
|
|
cal
Freethinker
Concave & Flat
Posts: 145
|
Post by cal on Dec 31, 2015 18:40:57 GMT 1
The reason I no longer hold to my previous position is because I now believe that the New Testament was not divinely inspired of God. See this link which I may have previously posted, Faking the New Testament: A masterplan for geo-political domination. Thus if the book/source authorizing divinely inspired governments is a fake, then it follows that governments themselves are illegitimate. Another line of thought is the etymology of the word government. It is a compound Latin word composed of the two words 'guber' and 'ment-al.' Guber means to control, and -ment or mental is the mind. So by its very definition the word government means mind control. So that is the only way they can make us willing slaves, is to control our minds. As Larken Rose says, phrases such as "consent of the governed" are ridiculous and an oxymoron, a weak excuse at voluntary slavery since everyone knows that involutary slavery is a very bad idea. It is obvious that you are well read. I do not know enough about the Ottoman empire to comment here. Neither do I know much about Marxism except that Marx did not write the tome attributed to him. Again this is just another attempt at a governmental control system. My understanding is that anarchism is correct, however those who attempt to change the existing system will fail miserably. How can a leopard change its spots? (Jeremiah 13:23) Those who are thieves will always be thieves unless they are changed by the grace of God. Government is a system of wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich. What does Revelation 22:11 tell us? "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." So we can be an anarchist and have nothing to do with their ungodly system. Let us depart out of Babylon. Thanks for your references to Godwin and Burke. I will have to investigate them further when I have time. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Jan 1, 2016 4:41:23 GMT 1
At 5:10 He is quoting a line from Homer, "oh, if only there were no more strife in the world", then he says Heraclitus would say, "that is calling for the destruction of the universe!" In my thoughts, above, on gnosticism, I talked about how I noticed a disvaluation of the material world, which is considered a simulation of the real world, the Pleroma/heaven. This is why I stated that in heaven there is nothing sacrificed and nothing risked. Jesus said, the greatest gift a man could give, is his life for his friends. In this world, where there is sacrifice and risk to self, there is also heroism and authentic love. I interpret The Truman Show as a dualism, the material world (the simulated world in the movie) is bad because of death, suffering and decay etc. and the Pleroma is good (outside of the dome). Christof appears as the demiurge of Truman's domed world. I have come across others on the net who have seen Christof as the demiurge as well, so I don't think it's all in my head. Inside Truman's domed world, it is a simulated world, outside is the real world. This is the message I get if we live in a Truman Show world because The Truman Show isn't about a flat earth. His world is domed because it is a simulation. If our world is a simulation, or we are trapped here, this alienates us from nature, and the Logos, which is the ground of all existence and holds everything together. Our bodies are not "machines" nor is the world a built machine. 6:00"Heraclitus teaches, that we should harmonize our internal Logos with the external Logos through the proper moderation of our desires and actions......By moderating, by properly limiting, our desires and actions we actually produce the needed tension to make those desires and intentions so much more richer. If we got everything that we want, this is another aphorism, he says, if we got everything we want without any effort or, even with effort if we got everything we want than we would lose our necessary tension and fall out of alignment with the Logos and with the world." I think it is the Logos, which creates the order, the symphony of creation, in the Logos' unity of opposites (strife). |
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Jan 1, 2016 6:34:20 GMT 1
heathen- Copy what you said about the book by Damascene. As to Marxism, we obviously believe contradictory things about it. As I see it, your statements about Marxism such as it's somehow making a religion of the state are crude and fanatical prejudices which are grounded in anti-communist propaganda rather than any knowledge as the things you wrote contradict historical reality. Religious liberty in the USSR during the time that Lenin and Stalin was incomparably better than it was during the czarist era. The nature of the USSR was designed to let religious and national cultures flourish which they did. Also, Marxism has no cult of personality as neither Marx, Engels, Lenin, nor Stalin ever wrote in favor of any cult of personality. They were all against such a thing, and Stalin specifically went on record against the cult of personality saying he detested it and that his enemies created it to mock him. Specifically, the cult of personality around Stalin was created by Karl Radek, a Trotskyite who by his own confession acted as an agent of German Nazism coordinating murders and sabotage in the USSR. That Stalin despised the cult of personality has been attested to even by non-communists who visited and talked with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Jan 1, 2016 6:46:38 GMT 1
cal - Godwin wrote a good book refuting Malthus's over population theory. Malthus's theory is a rationale for genocide. It is Godwin's anarchist theory for which he is most famous that he credits Burke for, and Burke is the classic representative of the right primarily because of his book against the French Revolution. As far as that goes, the Unitarian preacher and chemist scientist Joseph Priestley wrote a refutation of Edmund Burke's book thereby defending the French Revolution. For this, the British burned down his house, and he left Britain resettling in Pennsylvania. Generally, I sympathize with the left politics of the Unitarians and historic British non-establishment churches which were persecuted by the Anglicans and the British government much as the Czarist Russian government persecuted the Old Believers, Muslims, and Jews.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Jan 1, 2016 6:47:00 GMT 1
cal - Copy what you said about the book by Damascene. As to Marxism, we obviously believe contradictory things about it. As I see it, your statements about Marxism such as it's somehow making a religion of the state are crude and fanatical prejudices which are grounded in anti-communist propaganda rather than any knowledge as the things you wrote contradict historical reality. Religious liberty in the USSR during the time that Lenin and Stalin was incomparably better than it was during the czarist era. The nature of the USSR was designed to let religious and national cultures flourish which they did. Also, Marxism has no cult of personality as neither Marx, Engels, Lenin, nor Stalin ever wrote in favor of any cult of personality. They were all against such a thing, and Stalin specifically went on record against the cult of personality saying he detested it and that his enemies created it to mock him. Specifically, the cult of personality around Stalin was created by Karl Radek, a Trotskyite who by his own confession acted as an agent of German Nazism coordinating murders and sabotage in the USSR. That Stalin despised the cult of personality has been attested to even by non-communists who visited and talked with him. I have family members of a religion which was banned in communist countries. You can state that my objections are crude and fanatical, and write them off as me being propagandized, but I addressed your rosy colored glasses of Marxism with an argument. Which you don't provide. In fact, in a previous discussion on, 10/24/2015, you told me, you're not very knowledgeable about Marxism, and yet you state this about me who is at least putting up objections to your pro-Marxists comments. The communist future where the state withers away is like the kingdom of God and that is an attempt to immanentize the eschaton by human beings via the conflict of classes to create the future order. Whether or not Stalin said he was against the cult of personality, and meant it, it was there. Jeez, Stalin, of course must all be propaganda against a great man too... |
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Jan 1, 2016 7:18:36 GMT 1
As to a religion being banned in a communist country, I'd be interested to know merely the country and the religion because most governments calling themselves communist after Stalin were not communist but followed capitalism under the banner of revising Marxism.
Forgive me as I assumed the common interest of anarchism and big business would be obvious, but I'll spell it out. They both have a problem with sovereign government. When government is weaker than the capitalists, it loses any sovereignty it had and becomes their instrument. This is fascism in a general sense, and the bourgeois democracies such as the U.S. are a moderate form of fascism.
Anarchism is an ideology (like libertarianism and Trotskyism) which often misleads well intentioned leftists into supporting the policies of their exploiters, their enemies.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Jan 1, 2016 7:32:20 GMT 1
cal - I would say that capitalist government redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich which is what happens in the US where the gap between poor and rich ever widens. Communist government is a redistribution from rich to poor. Lenin disinherited the Russian nobles taking their lands and private property from them redistributing it. As to a capitalist class in the USSR, it did not exist in Stalin's time. The accumulation that occurred under the czarist government was alien to the USSR until the Five Year Plans were abandoned in all but name by Brezhnev's economic plan of the early 1960's which remade the USSR into a capitalist system and established the possibilities for accumulation by greedy persons which culminated in the robber barons of the Yeltsin era.
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on Jan 1, 2016 7:32:27 GMT 1
As to a religion being banned in a communist country, I'd be interested to know merely the country and the religion because most governments calling themselves communist after Stalin were not communist but followed capitalism under the banner of revising Marxism. Forgive me as I assumed the common interest of anarchism and big business would be obvious, but I'll spell it out. They both have a problem with sovereign government. When government is weaker than the capitalists, it loses any sovereignty it had and becomes their instrument. This is fascism in a general sense, and the bourgeois democracies such as the U.S. are a moderate form of fascism. Anarchism is an ideology (like libertarianism and Trotskyism) which often misleads well intentioned leftists into supporting the policies of their exploiters, their enemies. No, the common interest of anarchism and big business is not obvious. The anarcho-capitalists want a privatized state for all I can see as they argue private business can provide what the state does. So, it is a privatized state. You added Kropotkin into the mix and said, "anarchists like Kropotkin at length and determined their desire to eliminate government dovetails with capitalists who also see it as an obstacle to their domination of others..." You added Kropotkin into this without any argument, and claimed anarchists desire the elimination of the state as it is an obstacle to domination. I argued that Marxism is inherently dominating. Marxist's theory that the workers need the state to fight the capitalist class, because they claim the state is a form of class domination, is itself about gaining power to dominate. My problem with Marxism in this thread is that it is about fomenting class conflicts so to create "order". But I believe this creates chaos and in fact, creates more oppression. |
|
. I'm more interested in theological ideas. So, I do know a little bit about the main points, especially when my memory is jogged. The only one I like is The Gospel of Thomas and I'm not sure if it is theologically Gnostic as I could imagine it being in the NT (it's been a while since I've read it though.). 
