I'm generally in favor. Insulting groups "not here" makes assumptions about both contributors and lurkers, and because it's dehumanizing can fall under either "be respectful" or "[no] calls to violence", but it'd be interesting to see if the community disagrees with me. A vote about mods should, as I said originally, have a clear binary and presumably the alternative should include some path to retaining an active community-approved mod, which hasn't been proposed; I interpreted the last votes as saying that we do want a mod but we didn't have strong consensus as to who.
I use m-w.com, if there's a deprecatory usage note that's a pretty good indicator of a no-no word. They don't put a note on nazi, but she is willing to include political slurs like others.
Case in point. Whoosh.
I'm not reporting this, but: By current standards "retarded" is deprecated (I would affirm someone posting a community vote on Rule 1). By my standards "troglodyte behavior" shouldn't be deprecated because it's about behavior rather than person, and "no reading comprehension" shouldn't be because it's implied to be based on available evidence; but I don't know the mods' current standards.
Hi, since you're alluding to me: (1) You're obviously ban-evading and u/Thisisnotanexit said that's two weeks, but I'd propose you might be able not to get banned if you contacted her privately instead; if you think the discussion should be public, then privately ask her for early release for that purpose. (2) You should probably report u/DresdenFirebomber privately since you don't list any public rationale for specific mod actions. (3) She's already agreed on rejecting the word nazi. (4) I appealed a number of post removals that were reversed, appeals work, they work with bans too if the person recognizes and amends the behavior banned. (5) I'm sure she would want to work on not being condescending, patronizing, etc. and will take it to heart. (6) Neo1 brought up the need for organization and between him and me there were discussions about getting a new mod and many names proposed; it was after that that admin informed TINAE she was the likeliest candidate based on the community response. (7) I'm all for criticism of Christianity on a level playing field, accusations that Christians are taking over Conspiracies are a proper topic if not made into excessive meta posts (right now meta posts would need review); I even join in on posts that certain Christians really messed up if it's constructive. (8) I affirm a community vote on the meaning of Rule 1, and have said so for months, but I probably shouldn't be the one to post it (a neutral post on the topic from a ban evader might not get deleted, but I can't say).
Post was removed by u/clemaneuverers on 2024-06-04 at 22:35:51 GMT, that's why. u/Thisisnotanexit has only deleted 2 of your posts, and she's expressed being open to negotiation.
I don't slander White people. No evidence. I suppose I call myself a cracker now and then if that counts.
I did ask that rules be enforced and proposed interpretations of those rules just as you do. I'm affirming your civil interpretation and pointing out that it would require you not to use a double standard, which I'd be interested in your response to. [Add: She called your bluff so now she is holding you to that higher standard at your own request.] Or, perhaps you have no intent to ask people to stop saying "nazi" because you really believe the rule should be interpreted to admit broad dehumanization and personal slurs; you have free speech to make that argument too, but I don't think the community would support it.
too much of a coward to draw a cross on a piece of paper
What if someone says they call you a nazi simply because they think your policies are nationalist and socialist and it has nothing to do with your race? That would be the same standard. If the standard is just that Vlad finds these words neutral and those words offensive, without regard to any other view, that standard isn't a sovereign negotiating objectively with other sovereigns, is it?
hung them like they deserve
Do you respect the laws of this country? Do you believe in hanging the children along with the adults? Do you believe in fair trials, plain published charges, the right to confront accusers? Because you can larp that you don't, but that's regarded as calling for violence (including by admin) and is against the old rules that were here all along. Defamation attorney Lin Wood pointed out there's nothing wrong with stating the belief that named individuals have committed capital crimes and should be executed, but that doesn't apply to races or to lack of credible criminal charges.
Porn is an evil, and a conspiracy issue, and serious enough that it shouldn't be compromised with side issues. Name The Jew For Real. Tell them Solomon Friedman is a PornHub partner whose name was scrubbed from Wikipedia; quote his odd views. Don't give me this generic, overblown exaggeration that trivializes the facts. Direct your righteous anger wisely.
Jesus never broke rules, by definition. If one said table-flipping was against the rules (and they did say that about other things he did), we would listen to both sides and make a judgment (which we have). Discussion is welcome as to the nonselective enforcement of the text handed down to us by the prior generation of Conspiracies. Like I said, start a neutral post.
I'm here to spread truth too!
The truth is that lowering yourself to the standard of your opponents dramatically harms the cause of truth. When you call names because Jews do, by acting like a Jew you legitimize the Jews.
EVERY SINGLE JEW is a hypocrite
That statement includes the children. You're taking a self-designated term for race and redefining it to mean something else, which is grouping the innocent with the guilty. The Bible speaks about the rare cases in which children can be held accountable for crimes on their own recognizance, and this isn't one of them.
I'm comfortable with how many interesting posts and comments I contributed in the years before Neo1 made the most recent call for moderation, and in the months since when I stepped up my participation. So far moderation is a net improvement. There is not censorship of content, only of behavior that violates the rules (which are not about content). I've been pretty active in thwarting the recurring Indian pedophile accounts, and I don't see the forum having a problem with posts favoring gays or Jews. When I've moderated, as you know, I've promoted civil dissent but asked people to follow a simple honor code in clean language; I just approved you wanting to discuss whether the current interpretation of language standards doesn't reflect the community's desire, which is varied. Maybe you should start a post on it, without using slurs even as you are free to mention them as examples, and find out more objectively what the community is willing to share about its views.
If you recognize u/Thisisnotanexit is a she, that might help your appeal process in demonstrating your ability to read the room. You might even make a successful appeal that queue entries more than a few months old might be canceled as moot rather than enforced. But, as I said, I think your best route is to negotiate. If you reposted this post without a slur in the title, why would it be deleted? There is only one other post of yours she deleted, which was a meta about her. There is no evidence of going back years to delete old posts, maybe you're thinking of some specific example where the logs can show what really happened (maybe it was a different mod)?
Violation is not based on downvotes, that's part of the openness to debate that you mention. If you are really interested in a single standard, your proposal that you find "nazi" racially offensive might pass muster alongside the proposal of others (established by dictionary consultation) that they find other words offensive; but then you'd need to change your habits to be consistent, wouldn't you?
If u/Thisisnotanexit were to rule that "nazi" or "Nazi" was sometimes used to mean White person, would you agree with her rulings about other words too, or are you just being selective? For instance, would you agree that people should stop saying "goy", even sarcastically, since that too is racial and has application to White people and others?
If people stopped talking about me (earned media) and stopped making categorical errors about things, I'd have very little to contribute here! Those two steps are great excuses for me to wind down. But they don't happen very often, do they?
The word "nazi" is a racial epithet.
Umm, I've always heard it's used as a political epithet: it doesn't mean "German". Politics is freely chosen so it's fair game. Oh, do you mean the old nickname "Nazi" for "Ignaz" that was reference to a country bumpkin before the party got started? I could agree with that, but nobody uses it that way. Plus, some people here identify as Nazis. If we forbid lowercase "nazi", we should probably forbid a couple other words in your comment. You might get more traction for your proposal if you didn't use such a blatant double standard. Did you know it's possible to criticize Jews without any collectivizing? You act like it's never occurred to you.
Mod Privileges
I said I'm neutral about the next topic so I'm upvoting you anyway. It might be worth discussion. I would also suggest that since this is a voting thread I would think you shouldn't be deleted herein as an obvious violation of respect and speaking to the argument.
The fact that I've spoken with you about the need for sovereigns to deign to accede to local requests such as basic civility, and that you don't agree and choose not to recognize local rules, suggests that you might not understand how to get your posts accepted. The mod standard I use is that even a slight edit in the right direction might be enough to allow a deletion to be restored. Negotiation works so much better than violation.
See, it doesn't matter if I go short or long.
I'll grant you that I'm not finding the evidence on which OED makes its determinations. Possibly a slightly interesting twist, but, (logic) since the theory is that the Khazars joined other Jews, the people doesn't cease to be Jews.
The Jewish people have a continuous polity from the time of Judah. If we have the right to tell Jews they're not Jews, they have the right to tell Americans they're not Americans.
Apparently you don't understand the duck test. On the internet, if it quacks like a duck it can be treated like a duck. If a handshake evinces knowledge of community tropes in username and first comment, it's clear it's somebody regular who is abusing an alt. If not actually an alt, he could complain via modmail and be apprised of the situation and perhaps even be given a provisional credit of some kind. But judgment about platform manipulation does take situational factors into account. The fact of several repetitions of the same behavior kinda confirms the first judgment.
Y'know, maybe I shouldn't feed a disruptor, but I wrote it so there it is.
Variants of "Jew" begin in the 10th century, elision from Latin "Judaeus".
If some but not all have Khazar heritage, by what right do we say the Jews don't get to decide who are Jews if we want to prevent them from saying Americans don't get to decide who are Americans?
The link has nothing actionable. Freedman's theory is that two peoples can be distinguished and kept separate throughout history, but this doesn't agree with the facts. There was a Judahite people in diaspora and a Khazarian people in Khazaria, and they agreed to merge in that Khazarians were given citizenship and intermarriage rights with Judahites. In the 10th century the word "Ju" and homonyms was first noticed in French as a short form of Latin "Judaeus"; they were used synonymously. At the end of the 10th century the Khazars were conquered and didn't retain their identity as a people, even though those who had escaped continued to be accepted as Judahites.
Peoples have the rights to accept mergers and to decide for themselves what name they use. For Freedman's theory to work there would have to be no intermarriage and no unity of polity, but it's long recognized that Ashkenazi (largely descended from Khazarians) and Sephardi (largely descended from earlier Judahites) have different genes but equal citizenship, marriage rights, and unity of polity.
Separately, Bible passages were brought forward as if they applied to all Jews. Textually they don't at all, but it's also neglected that according to Acts 3-4, the crowd that called for Jesus's death also constituted hundreds of the first 5,000 catholic Christians. So that did a lot of work on reversing the curse. In the end it will be totally reversed, Romans 11.
For us to say the Jews are not Jews is tantamount to giving them permission to say the Americans are not Americans.
All the verses I quoted for pisteuo are active verbs. John 14:1 and Acts 19:4 are both imperative. The only difference is plural versus singular, and Paul uses the aorist which refers to a state of being rather than an immediate action, i.e., "be believing". But it's rare that one needs tense to interpret accurately what a text says.
On my own, I looked at all the classic discrepancies alleged in the Bible, and found that 100% of them rely upon assuming one knows better rather than looking into the culture to see if the person could have had a consistent meaning. The same is true of other holy books like the Quran; if you give the source credit you can resolve every charge of contradiction. The same is not true of any major narrative franchise or cinematic universe proposed nowadays: they all have admitted irreconcilable narrative gaps that are spotted by fans; some of them are retconned by special pleading, and some just ignored. Watson told Holmes he was shot in the arm, then later he was shot in the leg, with no evidence he was shot in both places, and the fans all know that and accept it. But the tensions in long-accepted texts are accepted by fans because they do have reconciliations, not because they are judged irreconcilable; that comes from a contrary spirit. This is why I'm so open to apocrypha and pseudepigrapha: because most of the time they really are reconcilable (and on occasion, when the fans themselves did point out a true impossibility, that remains known and accepted as a reason for the text to have lesser status than others). All the 19th-century skepticism against the Bible rejected the text as culturally transmitted and stood against it to fight it; in prior eras nobody could mass together to do that.
Kabbalah means "received" and should have meant any formal teaching. I pointed out that the same word, in Greek, was used for the confession of the resurrection in the 30s, as evidenced later. It was used by proto-orthodox, by gnostics, by rabbinicals, and by Essenes for their formal creeds and symbols. Only the rabbinical strand retained it as the word "kabbalah", so nowadays it means a narrative containing ten core attributes, the withdrawal of light and the divine spark, and the return of human superpowers, very much like gnosticism with its aeons. Its only problem is if it denies the nature of God while getting sidetracked with its human advancement.
Like I said before Jesus came to teach a message of love and forgiveness and spiritual transformation. There's nothing to prove here.
If it's not proven to someone that love is the way, the message doesn't click. Love requires both the spirit and the mind; if I fail by losing focus on either, I apologize.
This takes me back to the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where Emperor Constantine and the bishops chose which gospels would be canonized and which would be hidden or destroyed. The alternative gospels, Gospel of Thomas a collection of sayings of Jesus given secretly to the apostles, those that gave Mary Magdalene her true power, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of the Egyptians and many more were rejected, their teachings suppressed for centuries. These gospels were branded heresy. Their wisdom was forbidden. And the memory blurred until only fragments remained.
Didn't happen, fren. There's no Nicene action about the Scriptural canon. I find that Jerome mentioned that Nicea used Judith in its deliberations, but canonization happened later. There was no suppression of any document there except the writings of Arius, there was no branding any of these as heresy, there was no forbidding their reading. The Gospel of Thomas found was dated 340; its use was noted by Cyril in the 4th century and continued by Manichaeans in the 5th. The Gospel of Mary didn't circulate enough to get much notice from the church, it appears to be 2nd-century origin from its framing, and only has a couple Coptic and Greek manuscripts. The Gospel of Philip also circulated into later in the 4th century, though its origin may be 3rd-century in Syriac thought. The Gospel of Truth which we have may have been one rejected by Irenaeus, or may have been written in the 4th century, but it had enough literary merit that it circulated quite awhile and was knowably related to (but distinct from) Valentinian gnosticism. The Gospel of the Egyptians (Coptic), with five ogdoads, Sakla creating archons, is also late in Nag Hammadi but I don't see its immediate provenance (it sounds quite late with its developments).
So, trying to make the best reconciliation of your statement, what I find is: (1) Constantine did make up a list, exact contents unknown, of books to be included in 50 Bibles he ordered for printing for Constantinople; this is not likely equal to the dual canon that arose later. (2) There are no acts through the 4th century calling for destruction of old texts circulating among Christians besides those of Arius. (3) Nag Hammadi did take it on itself to protect (and lose track of) a number of the alternative books, which very few others were able to do; yet this was not active suppression or rejection. (4) There were individuals who deprecated individual books in exactly the same way any opinion was raised against any book, including some of the canonical books like Hebrews, 1-3 John, and Revelation. (5) The boundary between heresy and orthodoxy was pretty straightforward at this time, with the only blurry one being that Valentinus was condemned 200 years later (I can't prove that his works were burned) and some of the circulating works echo Valentinianism.
To paint a narrative in which a coordinated power actively suppressed and rejected apocrypha and pseudepigrapha would go against the fact that when there was active suppression and rejection we have clear marks of it. Now we could try the conspiracy theory that the powers subtly coached Christians toward accepting some and forgetting about others, without overt action, which is indeed a general trend that happens over centuries, but that potential framing doesn't agree with yours. What actually happens is that leaders either condemn books on their own initiative as voices in a continuum, or groups give formal condemnation in the cases of clearly defined heresies like that of Arius, or certain books are promoted to the neglect of other books. But for the most part Christian leaders allowed ideas to circulate so that they could be proven right or wrong, and only judged heresies after long periods of circulation. The idea that Christian emperors secretly judged writings to be detrimental to their retaining power is belied by their not taking formal action against them; I wouldn't have a problem with counting these emperors as engaging an informal war of attrition against them when noticed, but the manuscripts were too weakly supported already to be worthy of formal imperial attention.
But those fragments, those forbidden lines and half buried stories, refuse to die.
I'm all for going to all the sources, there's tremendous much in Egyptology for instance. They give alternatives of what was thought at the time. It rarely means that those at the time were all wrong and the hidden text was all correct; it usually only means that our current understanding has occasional neglected aspects. Considering all the uncovered stories we've now accessed, I don't see that much in the way of significant error. I'm pretty active about one such error, the loss of 7th-day Sabbath, but after 25 years of investigation I was finally able to reconcile church practice with the actual meaning of the 7th day, and I think such reconciliation is available for any gnostic tension.
When I say there's no evidence, it's an invitation for evidence (manuscripts and archaeology) to be produced. I greatly appreciate your producing narrative, which I judge on the likelihood of its fit to the known evidence.
Yes, Gnostics were subjected to censorship. However, it is known that efforts to destroy Gnostic texts were largely successful, resulting in the survival of very little writing by Gnostic thinkers and theologians. And yes, Gnostics were persecuted. Gnostic groups were often persecuted as a result of being declared a heresy. The response of orthodoxy to gnosticism significantly defined the evolution of Christian doctrine and church order. After gnostic and orthodox Christianity parted, Gnostic Christianity continued as a separate movement in some areas for centuries.
I don't see it. I see that Irenaeus ridiculed Valentinus, and Hippolytus condemned Naassenes, which would obviously chill some gnostic speech locally, but that is not censorship. There was no hierarchical structure and Irenaeus worked by voluntaryism and bridge-building, not authoritarianism. I don't see efforts to destroy gnostic texts. I see that gnostic teachers had a bad habit of mostly not committing to writing texts. As I said, Manichaeanism was the chief surviving aspect of gnosticism because it contained reconcilable elements instead of being a personality cult. Tertullian rehabilitated it, and then Augustine claimed what could still be retained of its usefulness. I might grant you that Theodosian I created a "parting of ways" in 381 or 382 (not under the name gnosticism but Manichaeanism), but I see nothing about suppression of the gnostic system in those edicts, only about generic (loosely enforced) deprecation of teachings against trinitarianism. There was no formal schism event for gnosticism that I see, and I try to find all the schism events!
There's no denial the persecution of Gnostics took place, for example, during the Inquisition and the Albigensian Crusade.
I didn't think we were talking about medieval times because that isn't about the Roman empire's fears but about the HRE's fears, which is quite different.
Peter the fisherman has a career described in the gospels and the two letters attributed to him. Why would I doubt his place as a unique leader among the disciples? Maybe you're trying to ask if I think him supreme as opposed to primary?
I also have no problem with greater study on the role of every Mary and other woman in the NT. It is very traditional to regard the Virgin Mary as a mirror for the divine feminine, and there's evidence this also transfers to Mary Magdalene (though some gnostics transferred it to their own love interests, which was generally regarded as a warning sign because demonstrably abused much more than used). I don't think Magdalene was silenced. The oral tradition that went into the Gospel of Mary was not strong, but now we have it and it fits with the rest. But what's overlooked is that the diatesseron gospels, whose glorification and ennoblement of women is now banally familiar to us, were cutting-edge at the time in their promotion of the feminine and contradicted the suppression of women in most other contemporary Hebrew, Greek, or Latin texts. So Mary was not silenced, but she was given a nonpareil place as first witness of the resurrection and her influence was demonstrated in hundreds of cases of Christian promotion of femininity. The fact that the Gospel of Mary is within that trend, and has a few unique aspects not found elsewhere, is not a real loss of any doctrine of femininity.
Similarly, Christians made exceeding much of the character of Sophia as depicted in their sourcetexts like Proverbs 8. They overcame Greek abstractions by presenting a real power compatible with the many prior indications in Judaism, and this overlapped with their high view of the Virgin and others. This is why they didn't neatly accept a message that Sophia ever erred, or indeed that the Virgin Mary ever did. It seems to me that every case that can be made, saying that something about females is neglected, can be answered by demonstration from orthodox tradition that it was not neglected but promoted. The primary contribution of the Gospel of Mary is the mystic experience, which is echoed in later anchorite traditions of gnosis and theoria; that experience developed from the first century but was only hinted at it in small bits and has taken centuries for any movement to get well-established views about. So I don't see much there for a story of silencing. We could certainly theorize together that certain truths were omitted or sidelined, but if they are really truths they can be tested objectively!
Thanks so much! I'll just add three comments from handshakes that are of the same character and leave it there for tonight (I really appreciate the review):
-
u/ErnestWorrell - Does anyone else see a white collar, tie and jacket in the above sigil? https://propercloth.com/images/collars_overview/english_spread/tie_thumb.jpg
-
u/KarlSumeran - Maybe this made them do it: https://x.com/AdameMedia/status/2007248844585873632
-
u/Xsaymoklash - 155. But for their violation of their covenant, and their denial of Allahβs revelations, and their killing of the prophets unjustly, and for their saying, βOur minds are closed.β In fact, Allah has se
Holy cow Sunday School is over, you failed, and I'm done with you. I have more important things to do with my time than have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Thanks for the projection. The one true god and I get along just fine in our unity and diversity. You're actually talking to one of the people most sympathetic to Arius that you'll ever find, but suit yourself.
Thank you for being so responsive! Some of these may have been in queue merely because the autofilter held them but without true rule-based reason. It'd probably be more efficient for me to just message you a proposed list when it's done. I appreciate your attentiveness.
u/Thisisnotanexit, deletion reason not evident from title and thumbnail. Thanks for your attention.
Thisisnotanexit removed post by StolenCBSContent1 - 9/11 Predictive Programming Video
u/Thisisnotanexit, deletion reason not evident from title and thumbnail. Thanks for your attention.
Thisisnotanexit removed post by LastEvidence - Satanic leftists are trying to create an ICE storm in Minneapolis
The word used here ΟΞΉΟΟΞ΅ΟΟ (pisteΓΊΕ) means to obey.
Don't know where you're getting that, pisteuo is the verb and pistis is the noun of the same thing, and the cluster of concepts is faith, belief, trust. Obedience is allied to these, and theologically manifests alongside them, but it's not the same thing. The actual Greek for hearken or obey is hypakouo G5219, which Jesus doesn't use about our relation to him. But Paul uses the same pisteuo G4100 as Jesus uses in the same way, Acts 16:31, 19:4, Gal. 2:16, Phil. 1:29, 1 Tim. 1:16. So even if there were distinction between pisteuo and pistis, Paul and Jesus are saying the same thing with pisteuo.
Ehrman is credentialed but not the guy you want for history as he has an axe to grind. However, if you choose to take his view against those who count Luke the most exact and accurate historian of the era, the message of Jesus can be proven without Luke, Acts, Paul, or Hebrews, if you like.
The Gnostics called it the divine spark.
So did the kabbalists, who informed Talmudism. But unless there's evidence they were more inspired than Matthew, Mark, and John, I stick with the direct testimony of what Jesus said, and he said "image" to reflect the language of Genesis. It's not that relevant what it's called, as long as we are clear on what it is.
But without the window, the light does not enter the room. All you have to do is create a space within your mind. That's what Buddhists do, just pay attention. In that gap lives your freedom. In that gap the spark becomes perceptible. The Gnostic teachers called this gap the bridal chamber.
I.e., the union of Christ and his bride. This doesn't happen without the will of both Christ and the bride. Thomas similarly describes the union of Self and Other (though this is partial). The kingdom manifests both within and without at the same time. (And, all of that seems the same in Jesus and in Paul.)
You are simply noticing what was always there.
Yes, always there but inactive until awoken.
It existed before this body and will exist after.
The divine nature preexisted; the image or "spark" is newly manifested at conception but its preexistence is in the divine plan, which is a little different but compatible.
Not as audible voices, not as visions, as knowing.
That's a fair way of saying it's internal. When guidance comes externally, it must be tested as it may be divine or it may be creaturely and brought to you as a test.
Igniting the divine spark means reclaiming your true identity.
I'll affirm that because it reminds me Jesus and Paul did use lots of fire language. One that comes to mind, often ignored, is 2 Tim. 1:6, "Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands"; that's definitely a fire reference.
You don't need faith, all you need is recognition, that is recognize the divine spark in you.
What is your meaning for "faith" here? When I recognize something, I believe it. Perhaps you mean no further propositions are needed for "belief" than a core recognition of the divine? Oh, but that's Heb. 11:6, which interestingly doesn't mention Jesus.
Lucifer did not create your divine spark. He created the cage that surrounds it. And he appointed the archons to guard that cage and keep you from remembering what you truly are.
I don't attribute any creation or appointment to him. I don't count the physical as any prison; 1 Peter 3:19 said that death (separation) was the prison. The whole idea of the physical being a mistake comes from that cosmology, informed by Egypt and Greece, that attempts to get the Monad off the hook for evil existing but just complicates the narrative, as I've said. If John the Baptist can begin to testify from the womb, it seems that the fictive prison threats and guards are not able to convince everyone they are real. What good does it do to your system to give them any credit instead of just to say that all their pretense at control is just part of their deception? Why should we make lucifer out to be more powerful than Jesus says he is?
Jesus's message is about compassion of forgiveness. Not about Moses or Caesar.
I quoted you how he applied it to Moses and Caesar. He said to submit to both of them what is their due. The spiritual message you cite, poverty of spirit, doesn't contradict that.
To me that's just another way of defining censorship.
Censorship is active, official suppression. There's no evidence church leaders suppressed all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha; they relied heavily on Maccabees, Odes of Solomon, Didache, and quoted and circulated many others, including uncountable patristics. It's just that known apostolic books got quoted and circulated much more. I'm trying to think of a way where a lower level of attention (by leaders who were regularly persecuted) somehow connotes active, official animus, and I don't see it. I do see that Constantine personally censored Arius in 325 as a civil matter, requiring his works to be burned up on pain of death, but Arius was no gnostic and this has nothing to do with texts that circulated with public approval.
Summary: I've been looking for support for your distinctives and not finding it, while I'm happy to agree with a number of statements you make that are found in more systems than your own and often in the Bible or in Thomas. If you want to deprecate Luke and Paul, they're gravy but we can learn the truth without them (of course, Peter says Paul is Scripture, but that's a point that need not be made tendentious). If you want to glorify lucifer and the archons, you're free to do that but I don't participate and I think in the long run it's unhelpful to you. About my only concern is that I'm seeing a trend of the way you see things not lining up with the texts or with the history as we have them. When that's the case, the texts and history might be wrong, but it takes a good preponderance of evidence to overcome them. And by evidence I mean that which manifests to the spirit (the image or "spark"), because one word of truth dispels a multitude of lies. To tell people that I perceive this to be true and I perceive a massive, intersupportive collection of evidence to be all false, I need to present extraordinary evidence. (I do this all the time when I defend young earth against evolutionists, or lightspeed decay against physicists, or conspiracy facts against journalists.) It's not enough for me to perceive it, because I must test my own perception too when it might be deceiving me. When I do this, I agree that there are unrepaired difficulties in the mainstream narrative of Christian development, but I disagree that they affect the core. There are unresolved concerns in gnostic texts, but they can be harmonized without need of rejecting tradition. So I think you are on a good track, while it's those unsupported assertions that seem unnecessary that appear to me to be dampers on the robustness of your message. And, I'll repeat for my own sake, it may well be that the "spiritual body" has the freedom both to use and to eschew the material, and that Origenist harmony seems like it might address a core concern of gnostics from the very start.
What in the World are They Spraying? by G. Edward Griffin.
What's your submission statement? This would be an excellent post to have one rather than to just drop a fact and not propose a constructive way forward.