I shared some speculation about this triple ritual over a decade ago:
A triple ritual just took place on the occult dates of Walpurgis Night/Beltane in the City of London, the Vatican and the District of Columbia: the royal alchemical wedding, the pope's beatification (resurrection) and the burning/sacrifice of the straw man
Now we have the "Astro" (star) ritual.
"star or celestial body; outer space," from Greek astro-, stem and combining form of astron "star," which is related to aster "star," from PIE root *ster- (2) "star." In ancient Greek, aster typically was "a star" and astron mostly in plural, "the stars." In singular it mostly meant "Sirius" (the brightest star).
Astro=Sirius
These were rituals.
Earth=Sirius
Something big is coming.
except, there aren’t even actual “groups” of gnostics/hermetics/etc, and thus there is no-one and no-thing to swear oaths to.
Also I find it odd your issue with “oaths”, yet you put “creeds” (which is another word for oaths) at the top of your “who is righteous” detector.
If “as above, so below” predated the New Testament? Would that change your mind about “not much to discuss” or would you brush that off like your brush off the enuma elish?
Nowadays most people called gnostics are connected to secret-oath societies. In the past, though we have to infer because they are secret, it generally appears that secret knowledge was received by an individual and shared only with those initiates who had sworn sufficient loyalty, and these oaths were deliberately kept from the masses, especially if they contravened the mass cultus. WP examples: Clement of Alexandria says that Valentinus got secret knowledge from Theudas who got it from Paul, who allegedly had an inner circle who learned different things than the public epistles taught. Valentinus Fragment G indicates that Gnostic material overlaps but differs from "publicly available books".
Acceptance of a creed is a public oath, not a secret one. Not about who is righteous, just a content guideline. There's a lot of unrighteousness among professed Christians and a lot of righteousness among those who hesitate at the creeds.
WP also has a nice article on "as above so below" that affirms what I've said. The general issue is whether an early source changes the thrust of the Biblical revelation, which would be the jackpot the anti-Bible crowd seeks. For instance Jesus's Golden Rule is simply a negation of a proverb from Hillel, and is not far from what Aristotle and others taught. But Jesus's framing is original, is most quoted, and is a perfect summary of human living. So knowing the origin and sources doesn't matter much. This is not brushing aside, this is to say whenever I've looked it hasn't changed matters but strengthened them.
Please feel free to cite sources that you think interesting, and I'll always give you the time I can; I find lots of old material that upends modern notions, typically just by reading the Bible and asking about the meanings of the words, but often elsewhere. This week I discovered that the historical Queen Amestris is a good fit for the Biblical Esther, except that Amestris was reportedly much grislier than Esther's just having Haman's ten sons hung (corresponding to Herodotus 7.114). So if Esther was not the lily-white queen often depicted, that's a shakeup I'm wiling to accept; but it doesn't change the fact that she was saved by grace and her story inspires millions today.
u/axolotl_peyotl, absolutely there is evidence of conspiracy in OP, but that conspiracy only serves to set narratives and threaten destinies. Our God has already set the narrative and controls all the destinies, so we don't shake even when the earth does, because we are firmly set in heaven. "So below" doesn't work for them if God prevents the devil from affecting our heaven in any way.
I disagree, I would think that most “gnostics” are merely people who see the confusion of the denominations and think they “know” or “see” a layer of thought normally hidden or obscured (occulted even, sometimes, but surely more people today know the “secrets” of the freemasons than have ever sworn an oath to them, same with crowley-types who claim to practice “magik”).
That is to say, with the dearth of resources available today (and even in certain times in the past. Newton springs to mind as a self-directed seeker who effectively fits what I think is the fair and rational definition of “gnostic”) I think “gnosticism” gets a bad rap by attempts to define it as “illuminati satanism”. Like I’ve tried to explain before, I think the proper definition is “someone seeking the correct interpretation of existence”. I find your definition is always slanted to be able to dismiss it out of hand as blatantly wrong. For example reducible dualism. Every gnostic interpretation I’ve seen has had reducible dualism (pleroma, bythos, monad, etc), yet you define gnosticism as irreducible dualism. Even Taoism, which gets quite skewered by some, has its “dualism” reduced into the monism of the Tao.
Idk where I’m going with this, maybe just picking up where I left off some time back. But uhh yeah, reducible dualism...
WP: "The Mandaeans are an ancient Gnostic sect still active in Iran and Iraq with small communities in other parts of the world .... A number of ecclesiastical bodies that identify as Gnostic have set up or re-founded since World War II as well, including the Ecclesia Gnostica, Johannite Church, Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, the Thomasine Church (not to be confused with the St. Thomas Christians of India), the Alexandrian Gnostic Church, and the North American College of Gnostic Bishops." OK, so let's say my impression of those claiming gnostic beliefs is more aligned with the more familiar secret societies than with these groups (which probably also have similar elements). So let's say both our definitions are based on what we think people are adopting, but the point should not be what the definition is but what hidden layer of thought is true. I keep forgetting that you're defining the word primarily with reference to what you believe people ought to be doing rather than otherwise.
WP: "Radical dualism, or absolute dualism, posits two co-equal divine forces, while in mitigated dualism one of the two principles is in some way inferior to the other." OK, so let's assume there's some of both.
WP: "Christian dualism refers to the belief that God and creation are distinct, but interrelated through an indivisible bond. However, Gnosticism is a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in a belief in a distinction between a supreme, transcendent God and a blind, evil demiurge responsible for creating the material universe, thereby trapping the divine spark within matter." There's a Creator, and you're not him. What interpretation do you need to seek? You just want to hang out at this Win and upvote the inexplicable stuff? I used to be a junkie of the inexplicable and then found that the Bible really does explain everything. Now I can get on with life doing what God directs because I don't get hung up on what appears momentarily inexplicable. I'll let my jury stay out on the Astros because it doesn't affect me either way because I have a greater Power who loves and protects me who is served by greater rituals that save lives instead of destroy them. I have the one human sacrifice for all time that never runs out and still delivers and that anyone can trust, Jesus Christ, the one virgin for every volcano. The Father runs the universe (and is called the true demiurge or public-servant in the Bible) and the Son redeems the universe, and I don't need to sweat whether I have all the details right because he's got it covered when I don't.
So if you see a layer of meaning, or you see confusion, speak it out and it will be validated or refined by the speaking. But to call it "gnostic" is a word game, and one that weakens your ability to communicate. Mysteries are fun because they are to be revealed, and because the revelation enhances reality. If they have to stay shut up and are stressors, they're no fun.
I frequently try to. My main thing is that circumspection of the physical, plus deep meditative effort, seems to lead to “magic” “healing” “powers”. Chang, and Qi Gong are inexplicable to (modern) Christianity beyond “demunz did it”... Then I wonder if that’s what the gnostics were talking about...Then I wonder if that’s why Rome waged such a campaign of blotting out...