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.
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...
Nowadays most people called gnostics are connected to secret-oath societies.
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...
And yet still 1/3 of those here (at least the votes) deem this to be a discussion not worth having.
SAD
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?
Isn’t that syncretic with “his will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? I’ve yet to be convinced the wisdom of the mysteries is incompatible with the unveiling of the wisdom of Christ.
I still would love to see a deep dive on the subject, especially the counterpoints you might raise.
This sub might be a good place for such a discussion?
I’ve never seen so many weasel words and so much spell-casting in one headline/byline
“Link” suggests tenuous
“Probed” suggests a remote, alien (un)likelihood
“Researchers” suggests authority
“Several” suggests disparate
“Theories” suggests yet more unlikelihood
“Under” suggests buried
“Investigation” suggests investigators, yet higher authority still
“Seeking” suggests good intentions when we detect anything but
“Among” suggests sus
“Small” suggests negligible
“Numbers” suggests insignificance
We see through this shit, let’s focus on helping the multitudes remove their blinding specks
“This user has no posts”
Shut the fuck up shill
Ayhdk, iayhrc that had to do with clocks
More days than not, I wonder how and sometimes even if we “in the know” will be able to save the lives of those who do the bidding of the enemy “unknowingly”:
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/11S0l4Vgo4/change-my-view-the-existence-of-/c
Jesuit was originally derogatory!
It meant “someone who wears Jesus like a cloak, to hide their own malfeasance”
“Converso” is another word I’ve heard for “marrano”
Everyone involved in trek is jewish.
Shatnerstein, nimoyberg, roddenberg, etc.
Even the people running it into the ground today are from that line (goldsman and kurtzman, who’ve made the recent GARBAGE reboots)
Have you ever shined a laser into a glass of water? Same thing
Oi ‘ave no opinyuns meself onda madda, buh I fink yous in me audience moight, so commen’ below m80s
Her name was Tiffany Dover
Her Name Was Tiffany DOVER
HER NAME WAS TIFFANY PAULSON
I heard they had fire there, good to know!
I sometimes wonder about things like this...
Where do you get your weed man?
Ahh, interesting book that outlines ~15 things that just do not fit in any of the current paradigms, that could very well lead to revolutions when better understood.
Here’s an interview with him from around its release:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/05/rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-delusion
Have you read Sheldrake’s “The Science Delusion”?
You should ask in c/meta for an occult.win, I think it could help centralize what has so far been spread out over a ton of .wins, and allow for deeper, less reactionary discussions to occur. You might even get support from places like GA and Christianity, I know plenty of people here and on ConsumeProduct who would be interested
they're totally ignoring the very real and very boring villains right in front of their faces.
Qui? Qui?! QUI?!?!?
Elucidate the truth for us then, illuminated one.
{who} is pulling (((their))) strings?
Fuck off shill
It’s barely 2% and that’s counting all ethnic jews not just practitioners of judaism...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews
Why are you trying to warp reality instead of confronting it?
Logic doesn’t work on shills unfortunately.