| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
server
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:21 am Post subject: Theory of God |
 |
|
| message unavailable |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Day Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:21 am Post subject: Re: Theory of God |
|
|
Kater Moggin wrote:
| Quote: | Day Brown <daybrown@hypertech.net>:
If you dont wish the show to go on, you always have the right to leave.
Mighty white of you to give me the right to leave. Y'know
what really impresses me, though? I didn't even ask what
rights you would let me have -- you offered me that information
entirely on your own initiative.
|
I'm not aware of being the grantor. The right seems to be a part of the
projected reality I exist on, which may, or may not, be much like what you
see. St. Ramprasad, for one, notes that there are a myriad realities,
something which seems to be emerging out of quantum theory. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Krag
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2003 8:13 am Post subject: Re: A Question |
|
|
Al Klein wrote in message ...
| Quote: | On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:37:04 +1200, "Krag" <scorpius@ihug.co.nz
posted in alt.atheism:
Krag: Pathetic response. Obviously you can't refute a thing I've said.
Why don't we find out? When are you planning on saying something?
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were
an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force
against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer Paul Hill
rukbat at optonline dot net
|
Krag: another pathetic non-response by a pansy-ass devil-worshipper cum
atheist. The quote above is bullshit too, because Doctor Paul 'isn't' an
unborn fetus -- he's merely Doctor Paul. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Krag
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2003 8:18 am Post subject: Re: A Question |
|
|
Krag wrote in message ...
| Quote: |
Al Klein wrote in message ...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:37:04 +1200, "Krag" <scorpius@ihug.co.nz
posted in alt.atheism:
Krag: Pathetic response. Obviously you can't refute a thing I've said.
Why don't we find out? When are you planning on saying something?
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were
an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using
force
against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer Paul Hill
rukbat at optonline dot net
Krag: another pathetic non-response by a pansy-ass devil-worshipper cum
atheist. The quote above is bullshit too, because Doctor Paul 'isn't' an
unborn fetus -- he's merely Doctor Paul.
|
Krag: his statement means, "If I were not-I" which invalidates it
immediately. Christ says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto YOU"
not some hypothetical non-existent you (ie a fetus) but the *you* that is
making the statement
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Al Klein
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2003 8:22 am Post subject: Re: A Question |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 07:37:04 +1200, "Krag" <scorpius@ihug.co.nz>
posted in alt.atheism:
| Quote: | Krag: Pathetic response. Obviously you can't refute a thing I've said.
|
Why don't we find out? When are you planning on saying something?
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer Paul Hill
rukbat at optonline dot net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2003 1:26 pm Post subject: Re: Theory of God |
|
|
Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com>:
| Quote: | Mighty white of you to give me the right to leave. Y'know
what really impresses me, though? I didn't even ask what
rights you would let me have -- you offered me that information
entirely on your own initiative.
|
Day Brown <daybrown@hypertech.net>:
| Quote: | I'm not aware of being the grantor. The right seems to be a part of the
projected reality I exist on, which may, or may not, be much like what you
see. St. Ramprasad, for one, notes that there are a myriad realities,
something which seems to be emerging out of quantum theory.
|
You're a real font of info, DB. First you inform me of my
rights -- even w/out me asking or being arrested -- and now
you're filling me in on your lack of awareness. Thanks so much.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Al Klein
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2003 7:28 am Post subject: Re: A Question |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:13:04 +1200, "Krag" <scorpius@ihug.co.nz>
posted in alt.atheism:
| Quote: | "We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer Paul Hill
Krag: The quote above is bullshit too, because Doctor Paul 'isn't' an
unborn fetus -- he's merely Doctor Paul.
|
No, he's not a doctor, he's a doctor *KILLER*. A nice Christian
occupation.
--
Zymurgist # 2
rukbat at optonline dot net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Al Klein
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2003 7:29 am Post subject: Re: A Question |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:18:30 +1200, "Krag" <scorpius@ihug.co.nz>
posted in alt.atheism:
| Quote: | "We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer Paul Hill
Krag: his statement means, "If I were not-I" which invalidates it
immediately. Christ says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto YOU"
not some hypothetical non-existent you (ie a fetus) but the *you* that is
making the statement
|
You're arguing against an anti-choice Christian.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
rukbat at optonline dot net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
CyberHatter
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:51 am Post subject: Re: PASSWORD HACKZ 6498 |
|
|
Fuckin scammer liar motherfucker
On 6/30/03 7:11 PM, in article 3f00d1c6$1$15070$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com,
"utehee@mindspring.com" <utehee@mindspring.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Hey guys!
I signed up for this adult porno site 5 months ago. It's really good but I
don't want to pay for it any more. So I'm going to give away my username and
password for free to anyone who wants to check it out before I cancel my
membership.
I've encoded my user/pass in this URL so you won't have to log in. It should
log you in with my username automatically (I've tested it). But just in case
here it is (special69/friend69).
http://filthy.freehostingpeople.com/
Hope you enjoy it as much as I have!
stjnoglygiby
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:40 am Post subject: Re: CNN : The Jesus Mysteries |
|
|
[adding ARG, follow-ups set]
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <phf@ghg.net>:
| Quote: | http://www.cnn.com/2000/books/news/09/21/jesus.mysteries/index.html
The mystics speak for themselves - Until 1947,
when a group of ancient manuscripts were
discovered near Nag Hammadi in Egypt, little
was known about the mystic Christian groups
known as the Gnostics.
|
False. A great deal was known about the gnostics prior to
the Nag Hammadi discovery. Church Dads like Irenaeus and
Tertullian preserved reams of info about them, including quotes
-- sometimes very long ones. Info was also available from
other sources and from gnostic writings. I'll get into details
below.
| Quote: | The only information
came from orthodox writers, usually in the
form of a polemic.
|
Dead wrong. Christian polemicists did supply lots of info
about gnosticism, but they were by no means the only source
which existed before Nag Hammadi. Other perspectives were also
available, for example al-Nadim's _Fihrist_ and Plotinus in
the _Enneads_ (number two, ninth tractate, in case anyone wants
to know).
| Quote: | The discovery of the actual Gnostic texts allowed
the mystics to speak for themselves for the first
time in nearly 2000 years.
|
More misinformation. "Actual gnostic texts" were
circulating before the Nag Hammadi discovery. Examples include
a wealth of Mandaean items (the Left and Right Ginzas, the
Book of John, etc.), the Pistis Sophia, a variety of Manichaean
literature, the Books of Jeu, and the Apocryphon of John
(although the last was delayed in publication), plus the quotes
in the Fathers.
| Quote: | ... The Gnostic tradition is now revealed to be
widespread, [Freke] added, and has its own take on
matters.
|
Nothing new there. The spread of gnosticism was mentioned
by Tertullian, so it's been known for a damn long while.
Same goes for the gnostics' perspective -- e.g., their idea the
Creator of this world isn't the true God -- which is common
knowledge among folks interested in these things. Not remotely
a stop-the-presses item.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Cerinthus
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:46 pm Post subject: Re: Why blame him? |
|
|
"Krag" <scorpius@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bf2oan$o89$4@lust.ihug.co.nz...
| Quote: |
Cerinthus wrote in message <395Ra.81016$JA5.1643834@news.xtra.co.nz>...
"Krag" <scorpius@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bf1rqb$186$4@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Cerinthus wrote in message ...
"Krag" <scorpius@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bf09ts$stp$4@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Cerinthus wrote in message ...
"Kater Moggin" <moggin@attbi.THORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-5F309E.23571714072003@netnews.attbi.com...
Krag <scorpius@ihug.co.nz>:
]
[snipped]
What are your references?
Krag: don't need any. I'm not trying to persuade you
Never suggested you were. However, if there are no references, or you
see
no need, then all meaningful discussion on gnosticism is finished. It
reduces this discussion to mere gossip and baseless speculation.
The Tripartite Tractate seems to regard things as
different. What you are saying is complete rubbish.
I quote from the Tripartite Tractate:
"Those who have been brought forth in a lowly thought of vanity, that
is,
(a
thought) which goes to things which are evil through the thought which
[draws] them down through the lust for power, these have received the
possession which is freedom, from the abundance of the grace which
looked
upon the children. It was, however, a disturbance of the passion and a
destruction of those things which he cast off from himself at first,
when
the Logos separated them from himself, (the Logos) who was the cause
of
their being destined for destruction, though he kept <them> at <the
end
of
the organisation and allowed them to exist because even they were
useful
for
the things which were ordained.
"Mankind came to be in 3 essential types, the spiritual, the psychic
and
the
material, conforming to the triple disposition of the Logos, from
which
were
brought forth the material ones and the psychic ones and the spiritual
ones.
Each of the three essential types is known by its fruit. And they were
not
know at first but only at the coming of the Saviour, who shone upon
the
saints and revealed what each was." (Tripartite Tractate
117:36-118:28)
I would like to draw attention to the 3 "essential types" which were
from
where the "the material ones and the psychic ones and the spiritual
ones"
were "brought forth". The Essential types, (any real Gnostic feel free
to
correct me here), are similar to Plato's idea of Forms. They were the
basic
essences from which 3 types of humans were brought forth. This being
the
case, there is no initiation from one type to the next. There is no
mention,
and if my understanding is correct, there is no possibility. If you
are
African, then you are African. If you are psychic, then you are
psychic.
No
changes.
In the next paragraph, the Tractate says:
"The spiritual race, being like light from light abd like spirit from
spirit, when its head appeared, it ran toward him immediately. It
immediately became a body of its head. It suddenly received knowledge
in
the
revelation. The psychic race is like light from a fire, since it
hesitated
to accept knowledge of him who appeared to it. (It hesitated) even
more
to
run toward him in faith. Rather, through a voice it was instructed and
this
was sufficient, since it was nor far from the hope according to the
promise,
since it received, so to speak as a pledge, the assurance of the
things
which were to be. The material race, however, is alien in every way;
since
it is dark, it shuns the shining of the light because its appearance
destroys it. And since it has not received its unity, it is something
excessive and hateful toward the Lord at his revelation." (Tract.
118:28-119:16)
Again, the word "race" signifies a quality that is intrinsic to each
human,
part their essence. This is unable to be changed by so-called
"initiation".
The material race is "dark in every way" and is "destroyed by [the
light's]
appearance".
Krag: nothing you've said here contradicts me. The body doesn't inherit
eternal life, neither does psyche when oriented toward the world. The
pneumatic man, already *is* eternal and so the inititaions are
revelations
of that which is, in ever clearer degrees. This involves a movement
into
the
eternal now in which spirit always is. The only way to complete this
stage
is by a leap of faith across the abyss that separates
time/matter/manifestation from eternity, non-being, non-manifestation.
In
gnosticism, the demi-urge is damned forever and so are you and I,
because
we
can't make that leap. To the body, only the body is real. To psyche,
only
psyche is real. Neither can know spirit. The most psyche can do, is
repent
and turn back to God. The psyche is form-bound, it cannot know what is
beyond form and God is beyond form or mental 9psychic) representation.
The
body can't even do this (ie repent) and is irrevocably opposed to
spirit.
Meditation techniques and will-power are needed in order to subdue it,
until
the mind is strong enough to abandon itself to the possibility of
non-being.
The "bottomless abyss" in the book of revelation is the final obstacle
of
the initiate. It is where we confront ourselves in all our darkness and
evil
and realise that we ARE the demi-urge -- the magician who created the
illusion of the universe. This is a terrifying ordeal and the psychic
inititation has to be perfected before it can be achieved. If you've
seen
the movie, "Little Buddha" -- something like what Keanu Reeves
experiences
before enlightenment. The inititate must be calm and detached, even
amidst
torture. Most people don't understand how they could have created the
universe because they view themselves as separate and static
manifestations
of the One, rather than as a continual gesturing of that One
maha-mudra,
or
'great gesture' itself which knows no separation. Life is this great
gesture. It is nothing, yet not nothing. It's almost like God played a
big
joke. The demi-urge, ie ego, wants us to take it seriously.
This is new age, not gnosticism. You suggested that a hylic may become a
pneumatic through meditation techniques and then claimed that this idea
was
"gnosticism".
Krag: the meditation techniques purify the mind and simply allow it to see
what is *already* there or not-there...ie spirit. Mind doesn't become
spirit, any more than wood becomes ashes. It only appears that way because
we do not understand how time/becoming falsifies a static identity. How
can
A become not-A? It can't. And it was never A in the first place.
The Tripartite Tractate clearly makes a distinction between 3
types of humans, (3 *essential* types), which share in no common destiny.
The reason I emphasise "essential" is that the types are at the very
basis
of one's being. There is no change. This is how the Gnostics understood
it.
It is how their opponents understood it.
And how the hell you came to identify Yaldabaoth with the "ego" is
anyone's
guess. No gnostic work I know of does that.
So, rather than copping out with a pathetic "I don't need to" on the
references, provide some.
Krag: There are no references. You can't understand how the demi-urge is
your ego until you have gnostic experience.
|
Again, you cop out for providing any evidence for Gnostics ever teaching
that Yaldabaoth is our "ego". Despite the fact that you have been given
references to the opposite from the sources that were written by Gnostics
themselves.
All you have supplied are assertions. Nothing more. What you speak is not
Gnosticism. It is New Age syncretism.
--
Cerinthus
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
-- W. C. Fields (1880 - 1946) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Cerinthus
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:57 pm Post subject: Re: Why blame him? |
|
|
<pessy@chez.com> wrote in message
news:878yr2k0q2.fsf@debian.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me...
| Quote: | "Cerinthus" <Noway@getlost.com> writes:
Kater is a gnostic, (IIRC), and would of course label God as a "crappy
demi-urge".
The pseudogod of the Tanakh, of course,
not the truly divine one who is only knowable
by denunciation of the carnal desires.
Klaus Schilling
|
Of course. That was the understanding that I was going with, though I was
not so clear about that.
--
Cerinthus
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
-- W. C. Fields (1880 - 1946) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Cerinthus
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:05 pm Post subject: Re: eastern gnosticism |
|
|
"Isabella" <isabellariley@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gPmdnRhVx9_x3I2iU-KYgw@comcast.com...
| Quote: |
"Kater Moggin" <moggin@attbi.THORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-FB6722.00380612072003@netnews.attbi.com...
Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com>:
No, Buddhism and Hinduism aren't gnosticism, and no reason
to pretend otherwise.
Krag <scorpius@ihug.co.nz>:
not ALL buddhism and hinduism are gnostic.
Buddhism and Hinduism are simply not gnosticism. They are
different religions with their own histories, beliefs, and
traditions. Labeling Hinduism "gnosticism" is as ridiculous as
calling gnosticism "Hinduism."
-- Moggin
Right on, my sentiments exactly. It's one thing to say that Buddhism has
this or that in common with gnosticism, but another to say that Buddhism
is
gnosticism. I recall reading about a particular Hindu tradition which was
amazingly similar to gnosticism, but I can't recall the name now, of
course,
there's no way of telling whether or not this particular gnostic/hindu
comparison was honest - if the author intentionally left out significant
points. Of course it's fairly popular these days to create these hybrid
faiths and labels, but so much loses it's meaning in terms like 'christ
consciousness' - what the heck is that supposed to mean, the consciousness
of the messiah of Judaism...
Isabella
Absolutely agreed. Buffet religion just doesn't work. As one Kabbalist said |
of the idea of "Christian Kabbalah": It is not Jewish, so it is not
Kabbalah. Outside of the Jewish faith, Kabbalah ceases to be Kabbalah and
becomes an aenemic imitation of it.
Sames goes for Gnosticism. Buddhism and Hinduism are definitely not
dualistic in their view of God/demi-urge characters. There is no basis for
equating the archons or the aeons with the gods of Hinduism. Gnosticism is
not Buddhism or Hinduism.
This syncretism is new age bullshit.
--
Cerinthus
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
-- W. C. Fields (1880 - 1946) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Cerinthus
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: eastern gnosticism |
|
|
"Nuvoadam" <Nuvoadam@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:93508a0.0307150155.1e37f180@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | Adam:
Hindu-ism and Buddh-ism are not Gnostic-ism. Each has
their own dogmatic ISM going for it, their rituals and fables. But
what each has in common is the Ascended Masters produced from within
their ranks. These are Gnostics
Muggins:
False. Gnostics are by definition adherents of gnosticism.
Adam:
Keep spinnin yer wheels guy, cuz your "ism" is never going to take you
anywhere close to Gnosis spiritually. It is the kiss of death and the
path of reincarnation, but at least in your next life you won't have
to deal with your erroneous assumptions built upon redacted fairy
tales of dubious historicity.
The Church fathers tried to tell the groups you hold forth as solely
being Gnostic that they were NOT. They had "by definition"
misappropriated the title for themselves when it did not apply. A true
Gnostic was one who had experientially connected with the light within
their minds-- the Totality of the All. A Gnostic wasn't a Muggins,
they were a Magi-- exhibiting the Moksha power to manipulate time and
space. You would have the seeker believe that a Gnostic was and is one
who gathered fairy-tales!
|
Partly, what you say is true, but then you leap into fairy tales that the
Church Fathers never claimed. In a sense, the Church Fathers did say that
the Gnostics "misappropriated" the term "gnostic". However the Church
Fathers never made mention of a "true Gnostic" being one who connected with
the "light within their minds". The Church Fathers constantly ridiculed and
attacked Gnostic dualism and belief in the aeons and archons. The Church
Fathers also constantly stated that the God of the Old Testament was the one
true God, and that Jesus Christ was his Son and was fully divine, (unlike in
Gnostic Christology). Salvation was by faith and obedience to Jesus Christ,
not by special secret knowledge.
| Quote: | Over the course of YEARS I have repeatedly asked you, Puss, what you
personally are doing to break free from the bonds of duality. You
have never once answered, choosing instead to go on the offensive
every time, and I think that sez a lot about who you are and what
youre really all about. Face it guy-- you are an academic Gnosiologist
who collects myths and is perfectly content to make his name and fame
expounding upon them. Which you do rather nicely, I and many others
are grateful. But you are not a GNOSTIC or even an aspiring one. You
are a scholar. PERIOD. And I for one think it is pitiful how you act
like ALPHA-DOG going around and marking your ARG turf by pissing on
everybody who dares cross your path.
PL:
Right as always, Moggin. Nuvoadam just _loves_ to spread his
profoundly misinformed, subjective views. And I just _love_ to read
your refutations of his junk.
Adam:
Muggins "always right"? Dayum dude, are you stalking him or what? Do
you have his picture up above your bed or sumthin? Your effusive
attempts to cull Muggles favor are pathetic! How can you feel good
about yourself when you kiss ass like that so much? It is almost
every single post now isn't it (your unsubdued ardour that is). Your
hubris and arrogance are only natural for one who has no frickin clue
what enlightenment is all about. Not a C.L.U.E. But you sure got
butt-kissin down to a science dontcha bubbah? Take a break for
awhile, get some fresh air. You will see that there is life possible
without Moggin to validate your daily existance. Good luck with all
that.
|
Actually, PL is right. Although I disagree with Moggin on some major issues,
in this one, he is right. Gnostics are not Ascended Masters. They are
followers of the schools of Gnosticism, essentially characterised by a
belief in dualism, (the true God and Yaldabaoth), special knowledge that
allows escape from this world and the belief that all matter is inherently
evil, being created out of ignorance by an arrogant and ignorant Yaldabaoth.
Ascended Masters is not a Gnostic concept. To suggest they are, is nothing
more than patent falsehood and lies.
--
Cerinthus
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
-- W. C. Fields (1880 - 1946) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Isabella
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:52 pm Post subject: Re: eastern gnosticism |
|
|
"Krag" <scorpius@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:betmgq$ug8$4@lust.ihug.co.nz...
| Quote: | Krag; no view is necessary at all. In fact, all perspectives need to be
abandoned. To be afraid of being wrong is ridiculous, since wrong and
right
arise together. One cannot exist independently of the other. So the only
liberating view can be the one that encompasses everything, ie no view. No
perspective, no relativity, no 'this', 'that' or 'the other'. Complete
silence of the mind, far above duality and delusion. This is nirvana
|
You say no view is necessary, then you state your view. Do you see this?
Isabella |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
