Dogma vs. Gnosticism continued

A Reader commented on the last blog post and I decided that these are some really excellent questions worth digging into. Deep stuff. Here we go!

Paul(Nite Reflections) said: "I agree about being innocent by birth. I can also see evidence of the "born in sin" concept. When you look at the selfish instinct of a toddler. I guess if a toddler is told "no don't touch that" he could get protective of his own things. So, I guess that could be a learned response. Sorry I guess I am debating with myself here."

Debate until the day you die, man. Because really, what else is there? If we were stagnant and boring people then what the hell is the point of continuing to breathe? Really. Seriously contemplate that. What's the point of taking that next breath if this is all there is? This world is nuts. If there wasn't a point to it all I'd be six feet under right now. By nature, I am easily bored.

Confronting learned responses one at a time is vital to gnostic growth. Breaking yourself free from them is hard work. Baby steps. 

Here's the gnostic answer to your query about sin and children/adults: we grow through time, just like any other creature. The 'selfish' actions of a toddler are just exactly what they are- the actions of a child with a child's mind and a child's body. Through time we grow and learn what is not selfish. Our parents and community raise us to have morals which will help guide us through society successfully. But, it's up to us to freely use their advice or to ignore it. We create the life we want, period.  You already know this. So now comes the obvious question: where did the original morality come from?

Use it or ignore it, the same is true with pleroma's morality and the freedom that he shouts is available to us. It is up to us to decide how to use that freedom. The freedom has always really been ours but dogma is like a choke chain around our neck. It cuts off the oxygen to our very thirsty brain. It's such a profound thing to tell someone or to have pleroma whisper in their ear, "Life itself is not evil. Live it. Experience it. You can do whatever you want." 

It's like the person's internal bubble bursts and they start clawing and scrambling for walls that aren't there anymore. A lot of people freak out for a few months while they adjust to the epiphany. When pleroma says you can do whatever you want that's exactly what he means. You can get up out of bed for the day or you can lay and daydream. He knows there are repercussions for you choosing the second option and gosh darn it, he's going to let you figure out what they are! That doesn't mean he's not going to chide like the child you're being as you're laying there, though.

To put it into simple context-- If we were truly 'born in sin' then any civilization before Christ's intervention would have been nothing but a slobbery mass of murdering heathens with no concept of morality or organized structure. But this isn't so. Archeology is proving without a doubt that the time before Christ was rich and filled with hope, the same as now. Just for an example of the kind of organization and cooperation necessary to create community and purpose, read about Gobekli Tepe, a place we still know next to nothing about. This civilization is around 12,000 years old!!! Stone Henge is only between 4,000-5,000 thousand years old. Christianity is only around 2,000 years old. Doesn't that make your head spin? 

We're talk about 10,000 years of time before Christ in which these people lived and died and what they left behind is so momentous we are gaping at it like children. And yet look at the skyscrapers and airplanes we've built? Aren't they amazing? And yet we're still gaping like wide eyed children at people's leavings of over 10,000 years ago. 

Even Plato and Plotinus, Euripides, Ptolemy, Porphyry, and the like... these scientists and philosophers are only around 2,000 years old. When you think of what could have come before them, it makes you realize just how much humanity has lost and gained again. We're in a gnostic Renaissance right now. Stretching our intellect inside the tight dogmatic skin we've created for ourselves the past 2,000 years is going to be painful for a while yet.
  

Paul(Nite Reflections) said: "There are some things that are honestly are a stretch for me, having been taught otherwise for 50 years. The biggest question that came to my mind was, where do Gnostics stand on creation vs evolution. If we didn't rise up out of a garden, what is the Gnostic theory?"

This is a fundamentalist mind trap. It's a divisive diversion and we're stuck on it for a variety of reasons. We have to consider here, first, that the theory of evolution has only been in the mainstream education system for a handful of decades. Before that every school had a parochial slant in the science and history department so this is a lot for our older generations to recover from.

The gnostic theory is part of the Donut and Coke Bottle brain teaser I've been talking about for a few months. I believe that the creation/evolution question is never really going to be answered because of dogma. Dogmatic thought and control processes as part of our civilization are just too strong. All we can do is see it's(creation's/evolution's) results. Gnosis will always be a minority thought pattern. We will never have big glorious churches because there is no profit in that(we wouldn't use them anyway!) and the powers-that-be on this world(archons) are all about influence and control. 

But the good things is that trying to get rid of religion in science(and vice versa) is ... well... impossible. The more our brightest scientists learn the more they keep turning to questioning religion and our origins. It's the greatest mystery for the human mind to ponder. Some scientists say it's the only question worth asking and they're finding bread crumbs to follow in everything from DNA folding(our understanding of which came from the art of origami paper folding!!!) to the gasses inside of stars and following their trajectory throughout their life. 

Looking out in the sciences isn't going to get us the real meaty answers, though. Those answers are going to come within and as individuals. This is the exoteric as opposed to the esoteric, however even this is becoming an old way of seeing things now because they're gradually merging! The exoteric sciences are leading to greater understanding of the esoteric sciences of our own soul and existence on this plane of reality.

The mass of humanity won't ever really get it.  But it will not be because information isn't made public; they won't 'get it' because it wont resonate with them on a personal level. They're not ready for it. Personal understanding is essential to going up that ladder toward him.

Read about white holes which are the opposite of black holes. Science is vital to understanding what we are as a physical manifestation but it's amazing to me just how much of this theory overlaps with metaphysical and religious theory. 

For example, some scientists are theorizing(with some proof to back it up so far) that we are nothing but holograms. No computer system today can DISprove it. These, and other scientists are also working on the theory that we are energetic beings which are so closely entwined that when confined alone we would go insane. We need one another for some real physical reason but the electricity is the only formed hypothesis so far. Electricity?!! What are we, batteries? Or is this relating to the aiua theory by Orson Scot Card(sci-fi writer extraordinaire) who has prompted study in this new field? But wait-the 'aiua' isn't new. It's old. Really old. The oldest gnostic thinkers knew about this but told us in allegorical stories. What is old is new again. Or is it being recycled through our massive human consciousness?

I'd never heard of white holes before last week and yet my answer concerning the Donut and Coke Bottle Challenge has already been written(Note: the answer is not a white hole, per say). Now there's a strange coincidence. Which isn't. Which makes it even more cosmically funny. Pleroma's a goofball.

Every gnostic piece of writing and every gnostic I have ever talked to about humanity's genesis have been in either of these two camps: 

1. One group answers with a koan like this, "How do you know we really originated on Earth?"  Truly enlightened people, I tell you.  They call us stardust babies.
2. The other group answers with scientific data and usually shrugs their shoulders and says, "The elder gnostics wrote what pleroma told them and didn't have any other way to explain it. Now we have the science but even so we're still children in that field. The Garden story is a metaphor for humanity growing up, which we are still doing as individuals as we combat dogma." 

Even Jesus himself as a man or spirit or somewhere in between, gnostics are all on the fence about him. Gnosis is individual but with some very common threads. 

We're questioners. That is what we do. That is our job. We are professional students of the human condition.
  

Paul(Nite Reflections) said: "With Sophia being the wisdom of Pleroma would you say that would be kind of the same thing as the Holy Spirit to Jehovah?"

Sophia. This spirit is something of an enigma to me still. Personally, I think I missed her along the way. I jumped right from "Tarot.. hmmm. could be interesting to learn about" which lasted a grand total of a year to "Holy crap, who's singing to me in the shower?!!" 

What I means is that someone can jump from hylic to psychic to pneumatic in weird off the wall ways. I never saw or felt Sophia along my way. I don't feel a separate manifestation from pleroma. I don't feel anything particularly female or separate from his intelligence or strong personality. 

All the reading I've done on Sophia does indicate she is like the Holy Spirit. Or even, in a pagan sense, the Goddess Mother. In my pagan phase I could never conjure up or talk to anyone like her, let along connect with any of those spirits. It would not surprise me in the least if this is exactly what she is; simply a pagan-turned-dogma character gnostics made up to create dialogue with fundamentalists using their concepts. Certainly wouldn't be the first time!

So then is the gnostic 'genesis' story still correct? Did Sophia create the demiurge? I don't know.  Personal experience tells me that I can sense pleroma, the demiurge, and all the archonic forces within our lives. But Sophia? I just don't know. There are some gnostic stories which have speculated that Sophia went on vacation somewhere after creating her awful child or that she merged back with pleroma to be at peace after her decision. So can we still sense her?

When I was a Christian in the dogmatic sense, I never once felt the Holy Ghost. I did feel(what I now recognize) pleroma trying to bust down my mental doors, but there was nothing Ghostly about it, not in anyway the Holy Ghost has ever been described as a spirit or essence of god.

Now, as a gnostic I think back to that time and realize that the reason was that it's all one. There is no two or three. It's just one. We try to personify him and compartmentalize him out into parts we can understand in human terms but it's just impossible.  He's massive. And this is the reason why he tries to be so gentle with us; he knows he overwhelms us! Look at all of the gnostic definitions for pleroma. Just reading down a small portion of that list makes my head throb. It's a physicists worst nightmare, trying to quantify that. And yet look at our universe itself. Is there a coincidence there?

In my article Gnostic Universe at a Glance I talk about the three main variations of how gnostics view our universe. I am more partial to the onion-verse. It makes more sense to me, especially regarding the demiurge(Jehovah/Yahweh).

Paul, with your background you'll probably find the mainstream Cathar depiction to be more understandable, at least for now. It looks quite a bit more like what you're used to. 

I'm going to be posting the answer to the Challenge soon and since I am referencing the Gnostic Universe at a Glance here I wanted to give another small hint-- invert the onion.

Satanism/Luciferianism-- Gnosticism?!

On YouTube there is a documentary called Killuminati which has prompted this post. The documentary isn't even finished being produced in all it's parts but it deserves commentary from a gnostic.  There is a deep misunderstanding brought to the surface during the 9th section which directly shows just how gnosticism gets lumped in with the evil crowd. This is instructive as this is precisely the kind of garbage being perpetuated world wide. It is important that we clear up this grave misunderstanding because... you're reading a gnostic blog!

Let me state emphatically here, right now-- gnosticism is not Lucifer worship, Satan worship, or anything you can possibly contrive about that(those) entities. I do not and would never worship anything evil. I loathe evil. I recognize it for what it is: bad stuff! I do not worship chaos or power hungry entities.

The erroneous motif of Luciferian worship in concordance with gnosticism has a long history; it spans back at least as far as Irenaeus and his 'Against Heresies' work. (available on Amazon here)He codified what it meant to be a heretic against the almighty Church and being gnostic was the gravest sin of all why? Because to be gnostic was to tell the world(and the Pope) that you did not need clerics to tell you the nature of good and evil. You did not need anyone to 'save' your soul because we are 'born in sin.' Instead, you believed that you were born innocent; tabula rasa, and instinctively knew what is good is not to be feared, ie. life experiences. How can an experience which teaches you something be bad? The Church wants you to repent for things you haven't even done yet. You were born a sinful, dirty thing and you should be ashamed of yourself for it.

The Church has tried to shove those very notions down the throat of everyone within reach for nearly two thousand years, creating the most horrific spectacle of evil on Earth. When I speak of evil I am not only inferring the molestation from priests and nuns, I'm talking about things far more profoundly evil than I can mention in my blog. Do your own reading. I'd suggest starting with Sister Charlotte Keckler. That's not even the tip of the iceburg, folks. The deeper you go the darker it gets. Research masonic lodges. Continue. Do your own reading.

I digress. Ok, so the Catholic Church is evil. Have they been pointing the finger at us(gnostics) throughout the ages as a way to divert attention from themselves? Absolutely. The problem is that there are other organizations which are directly connected with the Catholic Church which advertize themselves as non-religious orders but they in fact are. The members might not know it, though. (Masonic orders and the like. Illuminati at the core)And because they have bought into the out-of-the-field fundamentalist belief system of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden they have taken the kernel of truth gnostics take for a metaphor and spun it so wildly out of control that they make Jeffrey Dahmer look like a cute little bunny. Countless millions of people have suffered for this doctrine of hate through the millennia as a result.

What is this core metaphor gnostics know about the Garden of Eden story which gets us into so much trouble with the Church? It is simply this: the "snake" did us a favor.  But it is the identity of the "snake" itself which is only part of the problem. Roman Catholics call him Satan or Lucifer. In some stories gnostics call him pleroma or the All , the Good God, or even Sophia. Ahhhhh, so now do you see where the misunderstanding has come about? It all goes back to the fundamental misunderstanding of what is good and evil, who 'God' really is, and what the purpose of life is. If you don't understand who or what 'God' is in the context the gnostics are using him then yeah, it all turns into a name calling party. But it's not even really about what names are used for which character. This isn't about names. It's about a misunderstanding of the characters themselves and where they reside in the hierarchy of Good and Evil. 

Think of a totem pole of power. But you've never even heard of the guy on top. Why not? This is what gnostics ask fundamentalists to justify every single day and they refuse. The fundamentalists are stuck on worshiping the middle man instead of the real power. And no wonder that middle man feels the need to make everyone feel bad, he's got an inferiority complex!

That's a load of tripe, most people say. Now get back to the snake. How can you call Lucifer good? Well, we don't. Satanists and Luciferians do. Catholics have gone batshit crazy through the centuries(that's obvious even to atheists) and their doctrine is so flawed that when atheists and gnostics can agree on some things you have to admit that something is amiss. The reason we can agree with atheists is because they only hone in on the Abrahamic God personality not considering other possibilities, when that is the God they're pissed off at. I've already written about this in other posts. 

Ok, so those who worship Lucifer tell everyone that the snake did everyone a favor. Gnostics also think the snake did everyone a favor. But gnostics aren't Luciferians? How is this so? I'm going to make this as simple as I can for all the fundamentalists who come here and read this post so you can understand once and for all that you can't browbeat gnostics about this issue ever again.  As a matter of fact, from now on I'm going to consistently link people who make this assumption directly to this post. Here's the definitive answer.

Satanists and Luciferians were initially inspired by gnostics but have run so far afoul of the concepts that they have gone insane. That's the whole problem right there. They're nuts. They're fundamentalists of Evil. Gnostics want nothing to do with Luciferians or Satanists. Then why do we get tarred with the same brush?? Let's break it down.

Luciferian/Satanist point of view:

1.  Luciferians/Satanists believe Lucifer/Satan was either cast out of Heaven unjustly and/or created this world.
2. Luciferians/Satanists believe the God of the Old and New Testament(Jehovah/Yahweh) is evil. He wants to enslave humanity. 
3. They believe the 'snake' is Lucifer/Satan and that he should be worshiped and/or revered because he opened Adam and Eve's eyes to what freedom they could have outside God's protective garden.
4. Wiki: "While Satanists are deeply involved in living for the moment, content to remain who or what they currently are, Luciferians seek ways to aid humanity’s progression to the next stage of social, physical or intellectual evolution. One religion deals with the self, while the other deals with humanity as a whole and the natural world in which we live. In spite of using similar archetypes, the Luciferian pursuit of knowledge and understanding has little in common with the Satanic goal of immediate gratification."
5. Wiki: "Rather than focusing on “what comes next,” Luciferians feel that humans should be focused on this life and how to make the most of it every single day. Enlightenment is the ultimate goal."
6. Wiki: "Luciferian principles highlight truth and freedom of will, worshipping the inner self and one’s ultimate potential as opposed to bowing to the rules of a supernatural entity. Traditional dogma is shunned as a basis for morality on the grounds that humans should not need deities or fear of eternal punishment to distinguish right from wrong and to do good."
7. Wiki: "Most theistic Luciferians, however, are solitary practitioners, connecting with others who share their beliefs but not forming or following a particular institution. A personal relationship with Lucifer is commonly achieved through meditation and the practice of Magick, either independently or in small groups, unaffiliated with a larger community. While this relationship is a deeply personal one and, as such, varies from one practitioner to another, it follows by default the Neo Pagan approach of seeking camaraderie and inspiration rather than the father/child or master/servant dynamic of monotheistic beliefs. The thought of a spiritual hierarchy or submission to a higher power is looked down upon on the grounds that being a god is not enough; even a deity must earn respect and admiration from those who follow him. In some cases, Lucifer is seen as a rebel angel or opposing god who sought to move humankind forward in defiance of Jehovah’s will to keep them ignorant and childlike. In other cases, Lucifer is believed to be the actual creator of Earth and the mortal realm, and was punished for bringing humans into existence. Exact beliefs and practices vary greatly, as they do within any religion, but in all cases Lucifer is considered to be a positive figure of both social and intellectual progress, with magick and ritual as potential tools to follow in his footsteps."
8. Wiki: "Most, but not all, atheistic Luciferians are involved with the occult and practice magick, ritual and meditation. They do not accept the idea of non-corporeal entities but do often follow the occult as a means of harnessing the natural powers and energies around them to achieve their goals. In this way, many embrace the concept of Lucifer as the inner self, and essentially deify themselves by striving to understand, change and recreate the world around them, becoming their own “gods.” Striving for apotheosis is a common theme among most Luciferians, but the approach runs particularly strong amongst atheistic practitioners."
9. Wiki says: "Luciferianism does not support violence or amoral practices. Luciferians strongly believe in equality, moral excellence, honesty and integrity. They support the moral and intellectual development of children in particular, and the protection of the natural world." 
10. Man is meant to overpower those who are weaker than they are. Might makes right!
11. Greed is good. Look to the robes, symbology, accoutrements, and palaces of the Pope to see a good example of this. Follow the money and the history. Catholicism is Luciferian at its root. Magic is practiced every single day for its parishioners in open view and they accept it as being holy and good. This magic is used to tether people to dogma and a perception of perpetual sin and redemption. Luciferians will not admit to their connection with Catholicism, though. An ex-Catholic is a completely different story. They tend to open right up and tell it all, quite fearfully.

Gnostic point of view, in no particular order:

1. The demiurge(Jehovah) created this universe and declared himself God because he didn't know he wasn't the only one. His mother, Sophia, created him and was so embarrassed by him that she put him in a vacuum-like area. So he himself was all he could see. He thought he was God. He thought he just sprang forth from nothing and was all-powerful. 
2. There is no Satan in gnosticism, only layers of ideas or realms of ideas and spirits which can influence human beings which are called Archons. They vary in philosophy and purpose. They are spirits.
3. All gnostics are theists. We believe in a deity and spirits, if not several levels of them. We do not need the God of this world(the demiurge/Jehovah/Yahweh) but we do need the All/pleroma/the Good God. Pleroma is in essence our spiritual grandfather. He is not in any of the Genesis stories fundamentalists will ever tell because to talk about him or even acknowledge his presence is an affront to them. He is a separate entity entirely from Satan. We do not have anything to do with Satan. The 'snake' in our 'Genesis' story is actually Sophia, which is an emmination of Pleroma whom he calls his 'wisdom.'
4. Gnostics understand personal metamorphosis and forgiveness. We've never tortured or killed someone because they don't convert. Gnosis can't be faked. Personal room to grow is a fundamental right of gnosis. Everyone has a place in this world, no matter how contrary their ideas may be from ours. 
5. Humans are already free by birth. Humanity didn't need a helpful 'nudge' from any snake; we were born perfect and whole and fully capable of understanding good and evil simply by listening to our innate common sense. That innate common sense is our soul, which is divinely connected to pleroma/the All. We derive our common sense and conscience from him, directly. Bad people tune him out, good people tune him in. It's that simple. You are accountable for your actions and expected to act in a mature fashion. If you don't act in a mature fashion then you'll simply make yourself miserable. You get what you give.
6. Jehovah/Yahweh is evil. He has a purpose(overseer of this material world) but he is evil at the core. He wants to separate us from Big Love(pleroma) because he wants us to worship him instead of the real Love above him. He wants to keep us in fear and suspicion over every little move we make and every thing we think, saying they're sins and that we're too stupid to learn from our own mistakes and we need to blindly trust in Him to think for us.  Instead of allowing free will, his apostles feel they have to threaten humanity with tales of brimstone and fire to keep us all under their thumb and giving tithes to churches which revel in sins themselves. We already know what's right and wrong! We have a conscience. We don't need man telling us right from wrong. We can teach and influence one another but ultimately we are very intelligent beings and can sort this out for ourselves.
7. We co-opted the Garden story to argue with fundamentalist Christians. (Our Genesis story is drastically different, see #1.) We don't even believe it really happened. It's a metaphorical story.  Humans didn't magically 'rise up' from any garden. When gnostics have talked about it historically it is to create a dialogue about the differences between Jehovah(demiurge) and the Good God(pleroma/fullness/totality/the All) for visual and demonstrative purposes. Like using puppets to get the point across as to the intent of the subjects. Sophia was the puppet for pleroma, saying to Adam and Eve, "Hey! This jackass is lying to you! You live in a much livelier world than he's telling you about. There are colors you've never even seen before and they're all available if you remove the choke collar from your neck. Choking something you love isn't good or loving."
8. The material world is bad. Greed is bad. The material world is a distraction from the Good God who waits one day to fully merge with us again after death. Our lives do have meaning and it is to experience all we can of in this world and this existence so we learn from it; so we can grow more steadfast in our knowledge that good is worth living for and worth searching for. People are good at the core and will acknowledge it if you give them half a chance. 
9. Our purpose is to propagate good in people and let them see that greed in the material world hinders them from true and lasting happiness, not just after death, but here and now.  
10. We don't worship the 'inner self.' We worship pleroma, which we are divinely connected two and have always had access to.  Everyone has access to pleroma. He is the Good God attached to us by a spiritual umbilical cord. 
11. Narcisism is looked down upon in gnosticism. There isn't really such a thing as a 'person' when I look at you and then a 'person' when I look back at myself in a mirror. There is only 'us.' We all make up the body of pleroma. We have joint causes, not individual one. We are all connected and we all affect the growth of one another. Personal ambition is perpetual spiritual failure when taken to the extreme and for the wrong cause.
12. Lower level gnostics(psychic) do sometimes perform magic acts until they grow out of that need to use props to focus their energy. Ascended gnostics(pneumatic) have no need for that ceremony to understand the divine. Once fully initiated they are able to connect to pleroma with no ceremony, thus making them ascended. This is known as entering the bridal chamber. Understandably, this diversity in the ranks causes confusion to outsiders.  Some neo-pagan groups like Wicca can be seen as lower level gnostics. Some pretend that they are capable of gnosis but are not; they may even use some of the same names for spirits. They hold the same snare and hooks as dogmatic religion and fully intend to keep their practitioners there at the same level. It depends on the intention and the path being taken.  The lower deities and imaginative emmanations from humanity's past are merely footstools to ultimately arrive at the truth of pleroma and once that truth is realized those lower spirits become trivial. The goal is to use the power of one's own soul and mind to connect to the Good God, not to use magical props as a spiritual crutch.
13. Gnostics believe in reincarnation but not in Hell as literalist Christians have written about it. No fire and brimstone await us. The closest we come to 'Hell' is when we have lived a bad life and made bad choices and when we die we are put in a place furthest out from the Good God while we await to be reborn. Distance from the Good God isn't pleasant, it is painful because we're so jealous of those closer to him, but it is of our own choosing. When we choose to get closer to him in life then we enter into a ring of afterlife closer to him in distance. This is more pleasant because we can see him and sense his warmth and love for us. The ultimate goal is to finally merge with him completely and stop being reborn in the material world. To get there, you have to do GOOD!

The whole point is really this: Satanists/and Luciferians are inspired by gnosticism but they have taken one kernel truth of gnosticism(Jehovah being bad) and run so far out into Candyland with it there's no turning back. They're evil because they want to be evil. Period. They can't see any possibility for the existence of the Good God because they're so hell bent on hating Jehovah.

Protect the natural world? This sounds like a PR line. What are they, Greenpeace for the Morning Star? Ritual animal and human sacrifice. Sex magic with unwilling minors. Yes, they're really humanitarian in nature.

Gnostics do not collude with the Devil. (We leave that to the very capable hands of the Catholic Church.) Gnostics are heretics by definition of the Roman Catholic Church but only because the Church is so jealous and greedy. There is no money to be made in gnosis. They can't control us, they've never been able to. They've only ever been able to kill us. There is only personal understanding to be had; no power even, in gnosis. The only power which exists in this world is that of the Evil One because he rules this world but not our spirits.

The most pure hearted gnostics have always been dirt poor and lived in the gutters of their community.  Or, they've created communities which revolved around gnostic concepts and then had them razed to the ground by the Church. Read about Pope Innocent III and his rationale for wiping out the south of France.

I hope this article has helped dispel the myths. If you can think of anything I can add to make this even better please leave me a comment.

PS. Please pardon me for using Wiki as a source. Concerning Satanism/Luciferianism, all the other sources I found were basically saying the exact same thing as Wiki. So we know who's editing Wiki, right? 

Another Discussion On Free Will

Engaging non-gnostics in discussion about what happened in the Garden of Eden is an eclectic show of either snide childish humor and dismissal or the non-gnostic asking(what they think) to be deep questions about why we, as gnostics, choose to believe something which is what atheists call "self justification." In other words: "You just don't want to believe what I do because you're egotistical." Oh and then they usually call us Satanists. Sorry, hate to burst everyone's bubble of delusion and ignorance but gnostics are not Satanists.

Ego has nothing to do with the truth when found in gnosis, contrary to what misinformation is spread through the world wide web and other means. We don't worship ourselves as god, we simply acknowledge our divine connection through spirit to the All; as being part of his body. Ego does, on the other hand, have quite a bit to do with the reason why people keep their eyes squeezed shut so tightly against the truth when it's staring them in the face. Let me further flesh out this argument by quoting a recent discussion. Red text are my own thoughts. Changer01 on YouTube is talking about how he thinks gnostic texts are contradictory and that gnostics are Satanists. I reply:

The gnostic concept of the universe is the only way to logically answer "if God is good then why is our world so effed up?"

The answer is so obvious that it shocks people.

The gnostic gospels are "contradictory" because they're NOT meant to be understood literally but metaphorically. This is a huge step away from the literalist religions which saturate the world today.

Changer01 replies:

@GnosticUnrest That's just to justify your hatred against god. If you would really look at human behaviour then you would notice how true the bible really is. (And this guy is supposedly an atheist?!) But I guess you don't want to meet god because you think that god is in yourself, so you build a story around it that pulls itself out of the swamp to justify how you are living instead of seeking the truth. That's a poor anti-religion. (This is the self justification I'm talking about.)

I replied back:

I look at the Bible and I DO see how true it is... in regard to the people who read it literally. That is why our world is the way it is. I don't hate god. I hate the contradictory role he's created for himself in our world. I think that by attacking gnosis you're simply doing what the Vatican wants you to-- look for a scapegoat. Good job!!! *pat on the back*

I seek truth every single day. And I find it every single day. I don't run from it. And I live a very moral life.

Afterward I challenged him:

If you can give me one valid reason(not an excuse!) for why Jehovah/Yahweh put the Tree of Good and Evil in Eden then I'll concede that you understand God. And none of this "he meant it as a lesson" or any of that mess. Why would a loving parent put something "dangerous" within easy reach of their child only to condemn and DAMN them afterward for being curious? Having free will means having a sense of curiosity. But it is that very curiosity which God forbids. Why?

Why would further knowledge about god be wrong? Eating the fruit opened their eyes, made them see what WAS instead of what god wanted them to see.

He wrote back:

Since they had no sin and thus no necessity of acknowledging evil, they didn't need to eat from that tree. But they could eat from the tree of life whenever they wanted. Now because they didn't have any sin their inner being was not even curious for that forbidden tree so they would probably never have touched it. But then the snake came and brought them to doubt: "Should god have told you not to eat it?"

He continued on:

Why should they have had to know this? They had abundant life, knew only the good and not the evil (which was not ruling this world yet), plus they were like god in the world (god has set them to reign) and the snake lied at them and said the WOULD be like god if they ate from the tree! Gnosticism is like trying to wake up the died soul of adam, declared to a holy divine spark. Actually it's exactly that.

That's the spiritual principle of the old adam. Want rather something fresh?

I replied:

@Changer01, "Want something fresh?" ......No thank you. I prefer to keep my head up ABOVE the sand instead of sticking my head in it and my mind clear of that euphoric drug called "the illusion of free will" that the demiurge gave us upon creation. I prefer exercising that free will instead of merely saying I have it. It's like saying, "gay people can have rights but they just can't have THOSE rights." Hypocritical. Human is human and free will is free will. Accept it or enjoy those blinders.

Obvious Paradoxes & Contradictions

The Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio

In a discussion on the Atheist Camel's blog, an anonymous commenter made a few deductions which were so perfect I couldn't resist talking about it here.

The Atheist Camel's blog post was called Loving The One You Fear: The Peculiar Christian Dilemma. In it, Dromedary Hump points out the flawed and contradictory relationship literalist Christians have with their God. In essence, this is an abusive relationship.

Anonymous goes even deeper into the paradox saying,

"Do we love abusive parents too? I personally can't stand to read about a parent who abuses their own.

For example, would you build a playground for your kids, and than put a running chainsaw in the center?(garden of Eden).

Would you leave your toddler(s) alone in the neighborhood knowing that a drug pusher was going to try to convince your kids to do something forbidden?(Serpent in said garden).

Would you kill all your kids but one and his immediate family?(Noah).

Imagine two of your kids gave you a present. Would you tell one child how wonderful his present was, and tell the other what a piece of crap HIS present was?(Cain and Able)

How about this..... Your kids are having problems. So you instuct one child(Moses) to tell the other child (Pharaoh)to knock it off, or he will pay. In the mean time, you tell the other child NOT to listen to the first("and he harden the Pharaohs heart). Then, just for kicks you kill all the innocent first born in the second childs village to teach him a lesson!!! Man, that's one terrible dad!!

The last example(of many) is one of my all time favorites. You make a bet with your sworn enemy(Satan) that he can't shake the love of your best behaved child(Job). Your enemy tortures your kid to the point of death, destroys those he loves, and generally is a real terror to him. Well, your kid still loves you, and your enemy is proven wrong. But to what end? All that horror has made absolutly zero difference!! Your enemy is still your enemy, he hasn't changed, but your kid is scarred for life!! What a great parent!!!

Above all, don't forget the Xtian mantra "god gave us free will". Yeah, sure he did "love me or burn". That's not free will. Free will would be "believe in me and go to heaven", or "don't believe and go to heaven". They confuse freedom of choice with free will. Sorry, abusers don't give free will."

-- The Serpent Was Right

Tree of Life

Since I was first old enough to read and comprehend the Bible from cover to cover there has always been something which upset me in Genesis. Gnosticism answers this question for me in such a way that while it makes sense, it also gives an example of the kind of simplicity which can be used to understand(and decode) the rest of the mysterious oxymoronic whims of the Bible's writers. Especially its editors and compilers.

The Tree of Life was placed in the Garden of Eden... why?

Literal/dogmatic Christians answer this question making a grand assumption. They say, "it was placed there to tempt humans to see if they were worthy of God's love." This answer worked for oh.. the first ten years of my life. After that it began to taste a bit sour. The reason is that I couldn't believe God would want to do something so vile to his own children. It's like leaving a book of matches out for a ten year old to find. Damn straight they're going to play with them!!

Adam and Eve were simple. They lived simply. They supposedly had no desires or needs beyond eating, naming animals and plants, and playing. But when Big Daddy puts a pretty tree smack in the middle of their playground and says, "Touch it and you'll die" what do you think they did? They did what any curious child would do. They circled it. Looked at it. Touched it. Trying to discern what was so special about it that their God didn't want them to know.

Gnostics' take on the Tree of Life is simple: God couldn't control what happened or what was created in Eden because it was a reflection of himself. ("I made humans in the image of myself.") Therefore the Tree of Life was created and the only thing He could do was warn his children away from it. What, he couldn't destroy it? Why not? And why wouldn't He? Answer: Eden is a reflection of what He is and therefore the Tree reflects a certain aspect of God at that age-- flawed concerning knowledge of surroundings and Himself in the grand scheme of the universe. He can't see past his own nose.

Think about it. What did the fruit do? It opened Adam and Eve's eyes to see their bodies and surroundings in new ways. God hobbled his two children with blindness. Why? For what purpose? Why would a father do such a thing to his children? This is the reason why Gnostics call the demiurge(God/Yahweh) "the arrogant one." He made humans to be a science project. He wanted someone to worship him. Then the guinea pigs got their eyes opened and saw the cage they were in. Darn! So naturally He does what any pissed off narcissist does: he threw them out of His playground. "You don't want to play right ... so go! Leave. Scram. Get out of here!"

And from then on humans have looked toward God with more fear than love.

A lighter, more humorous way to see just how out of control the demiurge's powers of creation are: look at the platypus.


What in the world was He thinking when he made that bizarre animal? A poisonous beaver/duck whose young lick it's mother's milk off its fur instead of from a teat. And whoever said all duckies were sweet, innocent little creatures should have their head examined. True story: I had my pants pulled down by a duck when I was five years old in a park because I wasn't feeding it fast enough. Evil little bastards.