Jesus Christ is the Devil !!!!!!!!!666!!

[imported_Hollycaust]

Okay so I have this theory.
Its such an awesome theory, seriously. I dont know if I can justly explain it just through typing cause its the topic of a long and serious discussion and thats hard to do online. But i'll try to explain my genius theory anyway.
First of all let me just start by saying that I dont nessescarily believe in the bible or any organized religion, but if the bible was a true story then I feel my take on it is the right one. Thanks.
Before you read this, if youre a christian youre gunna get offended so know this now, and dont read this if you arent going to be open minded, you fucks.
Im the poster child for open mindedness btw.

Ok so the bible is split into 2 books. The old and new testament. The old testament is the book the of the bible that the Jews follow, and the new testament is the book that christians follow. Even though both of these books are called the bible, theyre completely different stories and somewhat hypocritical.
The old testament is the word of God and blah blah, and it talks about how the angel lucifer rebelled against god because he said that god wasnt anything and he could get people to follow and believe in him just as easily as they would believe in god and he could turn them against him. Well god "casts him down" from heaven.

So here we go, devil is out of heaven, on his own, to prove himself to god. So just saying, if youre the devil, and you want to go to earth to get people to follow you what would be the best way to decieve people? Say you're the son of god. He goes to the jews which god says are his chosen people and tries to get the jews to follow him and believe in him. So the bible is now split up into two parts ...the word of god and the word of jesus and his followers or w/e. Well in the new testament it even says that Jesus told people they didnt have to believe in the lord as long as they believed in his only son.

Anyway heres the kicker. What did jesus do for "us" that was so important. He died for our sins. Hmm wow sorry if I'm the only one who can see through this bullshit. Jesus dies for us so that we can sin and if we ask him for forgiveness we'll have eternal life. Its like hes saying, hey world, its ok to sin, cause im going to die for you, IM THE SON OF GOD, so sin on just believe in me and ask for my forgiveness and you're in!

Seriously. Hes the devil. The fucking devil. Anyway this is easier to explain irl because as soon as someone comes back with a counter arguement i always can answer quickly and put them in their place. If anyone can tell me LOGICALLY that im wrong, I'll give you $3.

[The One and Only...]

I think I found the error in your theory.

You're a fucktard.

[Chugs]

Ouch. That was not called for.

How does Lucifer classify as the son of God?

[Spectre X]

Dear Hollycaust,

There are several flaws in your theory:

1- It is not an awesome theory.

2- The Bible is not real. It's the most popular work of fiction ever, though.

3- YOUR USER PIC IS TOO FUCKING LARGE SHRINK THAT FUCKER DOWN JESUS CHRIST

[Sethomas]

Jesus' death was necessary because sin is inevitable. However, He said that to attain Heaven one must renounce his posessions, love his neighbor as himself, turn the other cheek, and live in utmost humility. In other words, sin is a fact of life, but not a lifestyle except by choice. Choose to live in sin and you go to hell.

Why would Satan tell anyone that? Wouldn't it kind of defeat the purpose of deceiving God's people?

In short, you're retarded.

[Chugs]

Snap.

Answer my question.

[El Blanco]

1) Christians do believe in the Old Testement. We believe Jesus fulfills the prophecies.

2) Prophecies. Jesus is predicted throughout the OT. Its deffinatly open to interpretation, but He's there.

3) The difference between the two books isn't with God, but our understanding of God. You see a great deal of spiritual, intellectual and philosophical "evolution" from Genesis through Revelations.

4) Jesus died to defeat sin and make death a temporary sleep, not the eternal darkness so many feared. He was the sacraficial lamb that saved us.


Your theory wasn't that awesome, or ground breaking, or even original. I've seen it before, articualted better.

[kellychaos]

Jesus' death was necessary because sin is inevitable. However, He said that to attain Heaven one must renounce his posessions, love his neighbor as himself, turn the other cheek, and live in utmost humility. In other words, sin is a fact of life, but not a lifestyle except by choice. Choose to live in sin and you go to hell.

Why would Satan tell anyone that? Wouldn't it kind of defeat the purpose of deceiving God's people?

In short, you're retarded.

Agreed, he's retarded. Just for the sake of argument; however, just because two separate dieties set the same goals for the human race, it does not necessarily mean that a duality does not exist. Hypothtically speaking, if one does meet these prerequsites, who then is the bestower of ultimate bliss in the end?

[kahljorn]

Somewhere in revelations it calls Jesus the "Morning Star". The morning star is also a reference to satan. I could probably find the exact verse if I wanted.
According to gnostics most of the story of lucifer falling is actually an allusion to the fall of mankind, akin to the stories of atlantis and of course herme's stories of Poimandres, the "Great dragon". The story of Jesus is the story of mankind "Rising" from the Sin of this universe and going back to where we belong. Christ is supposively actually a reference to the process and the "Spirit spark atom" inside of us, a remnant of divinity. This story is sort of like Bacchus, who the early christians actually said WAS jesus, and could/should be worshipped like him. Osiris, balder... there's lots of stories of jesus in mythology. Oh, and jesus' name in gematria is 666, Shem Yeheshuah.
So i guess if you wanted, you could say that Lucifer is Jesus, because lucifer is supposed to be a story about the falling of mankind to earth, like the story of Adam and Eve eatting the apple, while jesus is the story of mankind shedding it's humanity and rejoining divinity.



:gnostic

[Ant10708]

'Two stories' Have you ever even looked inside a Bible before you came up with this theory? It isn't an orginal theory anyways. You can find books on this same subject except without a retard as the narrative

[Emu]

It wasn't Jesus that was referred to as the morning star.

[kahljorn]

Emu, you're stupid. Don't talk to me.

revelations 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star."

ill throwinafew different versions..

22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.
that's KJV

I, Jesus, have sent (B)My angel to testify to you these things (C)for the churches I am (D)the root and the (E)descendant of David, the bright (F)morning star."

16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."


Want to shut the fuck up now, fucko? Seriously, argueit. Make me laugh.

[ziggytrix]

The old testament is the word of God and blah blah, and it talks about how the angel lucifer rebelled against god because he said that god wasnt anything and he could get people to follow and believe in him just as easily as they would believe in god and he could turn them against him. Well god "casts him down" from heaven.

And I can tell you've actually read the old testament, as opposed to say, just watching The Prophecy.

I like your divine conspiracy theory though, it's cute.

[Emu]

Take the fork out of your ass, all right? I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. But I was thinking of this:

Isaiah
14:4 that thou shalt take up this parable against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!...
14:10 All they shall answer and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
14:11 Thy pomp is brought down to Sheol, [and] the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and worms cover thee.
14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!

[Yggdrasill]

http://www.gregpiper.com/archives/photos/jesus-satan.jpg

As you can see, Jesus is on the left and Satan is cleary a seperate entity on the right. Where's my $3?

[Pub Lover]

You can't understand the Bible till you've read it in the original Klingon. :rolleyes

[Emu]

The Bible is really just a dirty Jew bastardization of the I-Ching, which is just a bastardization of the Necronomicon which was written by Aliester Crowley while he was surfing the cosmos and bringing the word of Wicca to the various planets across the galaxy after his conversion to it in Alpha Centaury by the R'kshawe beings of Betelgeuse. Duh.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Let's use the $3 and buy something really NICE.

[Sethomas]

My suggestion: Jack Chick tracts.

[Helm]

I feel strongly compelled to make fun of kahl for the "gnostic" business

[KevinTheOmnivore]

My suggestion: Jack Chick tracts.

Those little things RULE. I'm in.

[kahljorn]

It's okay emu, I just like acting like a jerk

[Emu]

aight :hug

[kellychaos]

There were too many forks in Kahl's reference tree. It left me a bit confuzzled.

[kahljorn]

I didn't have a reference tree, just cold hard facts based on easily comparable mythology.

"I feel strongly compelled to make fun of kahl for the "gnostic" business"

Try it, I'm too smart.

[sadie]

pub made me lol.

[Nom]

....
According to gnostics most of the story of lucifer falling is actually an allusion to the fall of mankind, akin to the stories of atlantis and of course herme's stories of Poimandres, the "Great dragon". The story of Jesus is the story of mankind "Rising" from the Sin of this universe and going back to where we belong. Christ is supposively actually a reference to the process and the "Spirit spark atom" inside of us, a remnant of divinity.....

As strange as it sounds, I would add that Gnosticism teaches that the creator is evil, and some sects believed that Jesus came to save people from this evil God, which by the way, is also commonly known as the Alien God (and they site that this Alien God realized what Jesus was up to and had him .. eliminated.. fantastic, but true). In fact, one can easily put the creator in Satan’s shoes (sure to be Gucci, of course), because the creator is said to have run amok in some way in respect to the Alien God (vis a vie Lucifer's fall). So, the hypothesis is not entirely without merit, and is on its way to discovering Gnostic belief proper. There’s a lot more to it; I have only recently rediscovered Gnosticism; I had not previously attempted to reconcile deity to the problem of evil, and upon doing so, found that Gnosticism settles it pretty well, providing a nicely packaged deity in lieu of atheism.

[kahljorn]

Actually according to gnostics we don't even know God because we are too many world's apart. however, the creator is 'Us'. That is what the story of the fall is, we were originally above this existance creating it, and like narcissus we fell in love with our "Reflection", our creations in this world, and fell into it.
The thing people call God is actually an archon, a collection of human egotistical energies.

[ziggytrix]

Archon1: I'll trade you my extra 18th century Italian philosopher for your ancient Greek philosopher.

Archon2: Hmm, maybe if you throw in a couple dark age English peasants...

[Helm]

My method of making fun of you would focus on you being a crossdressing wanna-be-transexual prostitute that dabbles in drugs, talking about drug experiences, being smartassed on a message board and the greater 'occult' and how rediculous this sounds. You know, teenage satanist, just one step above perndog the vampire. And that one step because you're witty. Your actual knowledge of gnosticism I find irrelevant, as I consider it boring, unrelated to reality in any useful way and therefore more akin to mental masturbation that a legitimate philosophical path. If we were to discuss epistemologoy generally, we would start way more bare-bones than assuming 'gnosticism' is valid or invalid (as it is misleading ), and it would be a discussion between unbiased people, searching for common ground and perhaps the truth. Not people being 'too smart' on each other. As it stands, I would go for more ad hominem than actual civilized discussion over something. I'm sure you're a very smart person, and that in your social surroundings you're quite the alpha male due to that, but you're still very unintentionally funny.

[kahljorn]

"unrelated to reality in any useful way"

Only useful in the context of this thread, eh popeye? What is the context of this thread again? The discussion of Jesus being satan? What exactly did I do, compare them in light of various mythologies? Interesting. Thanks for calling yourself inept, fucko the sailor man.
Last I checked this thread was in reality, or are you just buying in to my reality where threads are threadly?

"we would start way more bare-bones than assuming 'gnosticism' is valid or invalid"

Who cares if it is valid or invalid. Nothing in my post stated it was valid at all, in fact, my post clearly stated, "According to the gnostics" not "Seeing as how gnostics are entirely correct about everything they say, I would like to insert this tidbit of my genius knowledge of the most sacred of arts." Dumbass.
You see, I can discuss things unbiased because I know what they say. It's simple. Just because I can understand something and even reliterate it doesn't mean I necessarily believe in it, and the fact that you think that makes you a fucking fool. You just talked about perndog, OH GOD YOU MUST BE PERNDOG. Moron.
(and another thing, this thread started off with a base assumption, Satan=Jesus, if you want to start a bare bones thread we'll start a thread called 'helm's skeleton closet, and the skeleton key of kahljorn', and you can dress and act like peewee)

"Not people being 'too smart' on each other."

Who cares, accept it. that's what happened. Like it wasn't a joke in the first place. Like me acting like a total asshole and not caring what anyone says is anything but a joke on a joking site while throwing in tidbits of knowledge, or maybe I'm just throwing in tidbits of assholism into knowledge? Either way, who cares, it's pretty blatantly obvious and if you have problems catching on to that little fact then obviously the greek education system is more involved in teaching grown men to fuck young children, you charimedean piece of shit.

"I would go for more ad hominem than actual civilized discussion over something"

Thanks for letting me in on your brilliant strategy there Stratego.

"but you're still very unintentionally funny."

You don't know how I'm funny at all, you just assume the way I act and the things i do is unintentional. Assumptious little dick, take your "Common ground" and "Unbiased" nature to a place that doesn't make you look like a boring hypocrite.


Like I said, I'm too smart for you.

[kellychaos]

I had not previously attempted to reconcile deity to the problem of evil, and upon doing so, found that Gnosticism settles it pretty well, providing a nicely packaged deity in lieu of atheism.

How can any religion be an alternative for atheism when atheism, by definition, is the absence of belief in any religion?

[Emu]

I was at my friend's house the other day and her mom had one of those books by that Tim LaHaye fag or whatever his name is who wrote those books about the Rapture. I randomly opened it to a page and it said something along the lines of "UNBELIEF IS A RELIGION." His argument was about two paragraphs long and it consisted entirely of "Thomas Jefferson said that unbelief is defined as a religion, therefore it is."

[kellychaos]

Where are the meetings being held?

[Emu]

It's a panel of religious (re: Christian) leaders in Montana.

[kellychaos]

I mean the atheist religion meetings. There must be someplace that their setting forth the doctrine, dolin' out the dogma, ect.

[Emu]

Oh. We meet once a week in the Pink Fortress of Homosexuals, Witches, Liberals and the people who make those Darwin fish off the coast of Kansas.

[kellychaos]

I love those fish (fishes ?). :)

[Helm]

Last I checked this thread was in reality, or are you just buying in to my reality where threads are threadly?

I wasn't discussing this thread at all. Did you notice? Jesus = Satan? Whatever. Jesus can be a big penis up in god's metaphorical ass for all I care. These discussions of how many angels can fit through the head of a needle mean nothing to me. You however, mean a lot to me. A lot very close to my heart. You are the poster boy of intellectual pretense, specifically since you know that and you embrace it. EXACTLY because you think that since you know it and embrace nobody else will be prepared to put value judgements on it, or in fact, call it hilarious.

Who cares if it is valid or invalid. Nothing in my post stated it was valid at all, in fact, my post clearly stated, "According to the gnostics" not "Seeing as how gnostics are entirely correct about everything they say, I would like to insert this tidbit of my genius knowledge of the most sacred of arts." Dumbass.

intellectual masturbation power initiate! Go! I really didn't think you are hilarious because you are or are not a gnostic. Do you understand now?

You see, I can discuss things unbiased because I know what they say. It's simple. Just because I can understand something and even reliterate it doesn't mean I necessarily believe in it

I don't really care. Discuss things which are meaningless with the pretense of a thousand cardinals. Don't mind if I laugh, however. The ability to understand things is great. Congratulations, how is it going for you?

You just talked about perndog, OH GOD YOU MUST BE PERNDOG. Moron.

uh, what

(and another thing, this thread started off with a base assumption, Satan=Jesus, if you want to start a bare bones thread we'll start a thread called 'helm's skeleton closet, and the skeleton key of kahljorn', and you can dress and act like peewee)

Sexy.

Who cares, accept it. that's what happened. Like it wasn't a joke in the first place. Like me acting like a total asshole and not caring what anyone says is anything but a joke on a joking site while throwing in tidbits of knowledge, or maybe I'm just throwing in tidbits of assholism into knowledge?

Maybe you think these things are more important than they are. By devaluing the importance of honesty and sincerity and the actual presupposition that there is at least a token belief in the theoretical possibility of what we're suggesting being true, you're introducing a strainuous focus on the ability to be sucessfully and constantly facetious. It's mock-arguments about how many different languages there could have been on the tower of babel. Just for the sake of it. Besides the fact that I don't follow that or agree with it as a method, I find it also unintentionally hilarious. You, are unintentionally hilarious. You, mean a lot to me. Please try to not get bored with me after a few posts, I'd like to keep this up.

You don't know how I'm funny at all! you just assume! Common ground! Unbiased! Boring Hypocrite! wahh

Please don't cry. I like you. I think you're a swell guy. Tell me more about how you aren't really a guy, or in fact very swell, or how 'being', according to gnostics doesn't really mean what it means, and how satan blah blah blah just for the benefit of discussion. Do you mind if I play with your penis under the table while you talk?

Like I said, I'm too smart for you.

Sure.

[Chojin]

By devaluing the importance of honesty and sincerity and the actual presupposition that there is at least a token belief in the theoretical possibility of what we're suggesting being true, you're introducing a strainuous focus on the ability to be sucessfully and constantly facetious.
I speak english natively and I have no idea what you're saying here :<

Tell me more about how you aren't really a guy, or in fact very swell, or how 'being', according to gnostics doesn't really mean what it means, and how satan blah blah blah just for the benefit of discussion. Do you mind if I play with your penis under the table while you talk?
lol :<

[Master of Demise]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y103/Master_of_Demise/Bloodbath.jpg

[Helm]

I'm sorry, I mean: by putting less emphasis on discussing things where opinions are actually held and they're rigoriously stressed for validity, the primary importance is shifted to just presenting various pieces of information, to show off how much you know. Kahl isn't really doing this (too much, at least), but I'm hoping he'll bite and retort with more angry weeping "Dumbass! You don't know how I'm funny! I'm funny when I put on my funny suit but I don't do that for just anybody, especially not for YOU, jerk!" hilarity.

[kahljorn]

You think I'm angry just because I made you feel stupid? Don't be so pointless.
I like how you've turned this into a "Pissing war" against me while talking about honesty and sincerity, and finding a common ground. Where is our "Bare bones" discussion? Where are your philosophical leaps? Unintentionally funny... I wonder if you make your personality a vague assortment of bullshit to be hilarious?


"intellectual masturbation power initiate! Go! I really didn't think you are hilarious because you are or are not a gnostic. Do you understand now?"

I never thought it had anything to do with that anyway. The only reason I even mentioned unbiased nature is to show how much better I am than you, and that i really don't care how I appear. Cuz' I'm cool like that, cuz.

[ziggytrix]

If you were paying attention, you'd know Helm sucessfully got rid of his personality at puberty.

[kahljorn]

Oh.

My nose is stuffy and I sorta have a hangover(though i got a headache too), it's making my head feel like a marshmallow, so I'm not really paying attention.

[kellychaos]

One does not necessarily have to have his personal beliefs staked in an argument in order to hold discourse on a given subject (re: Devil's advocate). It may indeed be the strongest court for objective discussion.

[Nom]

I had not previously attempted to reconcile deity to the problem of evil, and upon doing so, found that Gnosticism settles it pretty well, providing a nicely packaged deity in lieu of atheism.

How can any religion be an alternative for atheism when atheism, by definition, is the absence of belief in any religion?
"I had not previously attempted to reconcile deity to the problem of evil, and upon doing so, found that Gnosticism settles it pretty well, providing a nicely packaged deity in lieu of the absence of belief in any religion at all, atheism." .. better?

[ziggytrix]

no.
comma splice; run on.

[Nom]

.... Maybe you think these things are more important than they are.
Or maybe you think they are less important than they actually are.

[kellychaos]

No. A true atheist would not concern himself with the problems of evil ( formal philisophical value judgements/morality notwithstanding ) or the succor provided by faith in the metaphysical, be it monotheism, polytheism, ect. Faith does not equal belief in all people. I don't know how to make a more lucic argument at this time. I'll get back to you on this.

[Nom]

no.
comma splice; run on.
is not

[Nom]

Actually according to gnostics we don't even know God because we are too many world's apart. however, the creator is 'Us'. That is what the story of the fall is, we were originally above this existance creating it, and like narcissus we fell in love with our "Reflection", our creations in this world, and fell into it.
The thing people call God is actually an archon, a collection of human egotistical energies.
Anyyywayyy… I’d actually (does this qualify as the most overused word ever, yet?) like to know where you’re getting your info, kahl, because it does not fit what I’ve read on Gnosticism so far. I have not yet seen the Demiurge (creator) described as a sort of conglomeration of anything human. Like I said, I’m still learning about it, and still, I might add, excited at the prospects, so if you want to point me to a reference for this, I would like to see it. BTW, no offense, but will everyone PLEASE stop misspelling "existence". You're driving me crazy... er.

Nom

[ziggytrix]

The most overused word is actually I.

You just used it seven times in the span of five sentences. Two of which were run-ons.

[Ant10708]

I love grammar!

[kahljorn]

Do you know the definition of "Demiurge"?
I've learned my knowledge from reading, and I also attend lectures at a gnostic temple. I didn't say the "Creator" is a conglomeration of human energies. Read what i said. I said the creator of this material world was 'humans'. What humans consider as actually being God is a manifestation of human energies, and that the true "God" is something we can never know or realize because it is far away from this world.

Oh, and my reference was already made by Hermes story, on the first page. That is a reference to alot of what i said, I don't know about the whole God thing, I'm sure a little research into jung would satisfy that. or tulpas. Look up the Auric being i guess. That's a part of it, so to speak. I like to think of the bigger manifestation of energy god as the "Higher auric being" like how we have a "Higher self". Just makes sense when you compare their stories.

This was found through a simple search on "Gnosticism" and is a very basic page on it...

http://www.meta-religion.com/Esoterism/Gnosticism/gnosticism.htm

"The Gnostics taught that the Demiurge was Yehovah from the Old Testament. Jesus, on the other hand, they believe came from God and the Holy Spirit, not from the Demiurge."

Easy...

[Helm]

You think I'm angry just because I made you feel stupid? Don't be so pointless.

Err... what? You, I what where? Pointless? What are you saying here? What would the Demiurge say?


I like how you've turned this into a "Pissing war" against me while talking about honesty and sincerity, and finding a common ground. Where is our "Bare bones" discussion? Where are your philosophical leaps?

Obviously this is not it. This is me goading you into tamperamental fits. I'd seriously like to discuss things with you some other time but right now it's all about you being funny. This is not a pissing war. I don't care how long your penis is ( well I do, but for more practical reasons ) and I never claimed to be smarter than you, like you constantly do. I've very well prepared to admit you're smarter, brighter, IQer, intelligenter and occulter than me. Awesome. Seriously, rock on with your bad self. All I'm saying is that you are FUNNY because a person so intelligent like you gets irritated so easily over trivial personal attacks. Why can't you control yourself more? I know you're gonna say "I am in control. In absolute control. What you see isn't what's really realer than realistic reality. You think I'm funny, I DO THAT ON PURPOSE! FUNNY SUIT! DEMIURGE" and ok, maybe. I don't think so, but maybe.

Unintentionally funny... I wonder if you make your personality a vague assortment of bullshit to be hilarious?

Sometimes I try to be funny. But I'm not the brightest person on earth or well-read either so maybe a portion of the bullshit is really stuff I believe in. Thanks for asking. Wanna go to the movies?


I never thought it had anything to do with that anyway. The only reason I even mentioned unbiased nature is to show how much better I am than you, and that i really don't care how I appear. Cuz' I'm cool like that, cuz.

You go out of your way to show how better you are than me. Yet you don't care for appearances. Oh I know " I AM BEING CONTRADICTORY ON PURPOSE! IT'S A PERSONALITY THING! KISS THE TAILBONE OF THE GOD SERPENT! DEMIURGE!

I agree you're really cool. I bet you're a great guy to be around at parties and other such social gatherings. I bet you know beautiful girls and drug dealers. Can we hang out? I'll let you fuck me.

One does not necessarily have to have his personal beliefs staked in an argument in order to hold discourse on a given subject (re: Devil's advocate). It may indeed be the strongest court for objective discussion.

Objective discussion as in disparate, academic and completely useless to anyone trying to do anything sure.

Or maybe you think they are less important than they actually are.

Sure it might be the case. What you suggest is as powerful an argument as "hmm if you cross the street, it might be more dangerous than you think!". Thanks.

Faith does not equal belief in all people. I don't know how to make a more lucic argument at this time. I'll get back to you on this.

Might want to introduce the basic dichoctomy between Faith as absolute, and belief as finite and temporary and mutable. That I hold the belief that gravity will continue to function as it has so far does not constitute me having Faith in it. Faith in it would require my unrelenting convition that gravity will indeed forever function as it does, as it had, as it should. There are demands, in having Faith. There are none (or not so many?) in believing stuff.

Like I said, I’m still learning about it, and still, I might add, excited at the prospects, so if you want to point me to a reference for this, I would like to see it. BTW, no offense, but will everyone PLEASE stop misspelling "existence". You're driving me crazy... er.


I know what's wrong! You use too many commas. I used to do this a lot myself. This is how I fixed it: I went through my text after I was done and removed the commas that weren't strictly needed to properly convey what I happened to be talking about. Also, when there were a lot of secondary sentences involved I sometimes simplifed to the point of adding more periods. This made my text more robust. As well as more readable. And it suggests strong conviction in what. Was being. Said. Which is. Useful. Some. Times.

Good luck and the demiurge be with you!

[ziggytrix]

One does not necessarily have to have his personal beliefs staked in an argument in order to hold discourse on a given subject (re: Devil's advocate). It may indeed be the strongest court for objective discussion.

Objective discussion as in disparate, academic and completely useless to anyone trying to do anything sure.

In my opinion, you just described humanity's impression of philosophy in general. I somewhat share this opinion, as some of my favorite philosophical discourse involved moderate to extreme intoxication at parties with lots of humanities majors. Which, isn't to say that it's useless, rather just to say one can fuck for procreation OR for pleasure.

Might want to introduce the basic dichoctomy between Faith as absolute, and belief as finite and temporary and mutable. That I hold the belief that gravity will continue to function as it has so far does not constitute me having Faith in it. Faith in it would require my unrelenting convition that gravity will indeed forever function as it does, as it had, as it should. There are demands, in having Faith. There are none (or not so many?) in believing stuff.


I'd argue that it is within the realm of possibility that gravity, being understood only as an effect, and not causal (we don't know what makes mass attract mass) could have properties that we've never seen. It's not so much that I have Faith, rather that I have a sort of anti-faith. I'm willing at any moment to throw away cherished beliefs should new and compelling evidence present itself. If a scientist discovers a method of generating an "anti-gravity field" or some such other thing we now consider science fiction, it won't wreck my Faith in the science of Newton. Scientists like Einstien would be bothered by this though. Quantum physics pissed off a lot of classical physicists when it was first discovered because it clashed with their Faith in classical physics.

So in that sense, their unwillingness to accept new discoveries was a barrier to learning. So perhaps this disparate discourse is not completely without use, if it serves to unclench a closed mind. But I'll freely admit I have no such noble illusions when I engage in it. I do it all for Eris.

[Helm]

Which, isn't to say that it's useless, rather just to say one can fuck for procreation OR for pleasure.

Sure but as is the kahl case is how you approach philosophy for pleasure. With what attitude. I was making fun of the attitude. I've discussed the existence of god with women just to get in their pants. Now if I had the arrogance of the mighty noble savage discovering the hidden meanings of the universe painted over my face as I did that... well safe to say that someone mocking me would be doing me a favour.

it won't wreck my Faith in the science of Newton. Scientists like Einstien would be bothered by this though.

See we have to have a cohesive model of reality which rests upon some founding presuppositions to then concern ourselves with the various byproduct applications of the various sciences. That we do not know what makes mass attract mass is not the issue (and what kind of loaded question would it be to ask 'why' mass attracts mass anyway). The issue is that mass attracts mass. If we have identified this beyond reasonable (read: through rigorious testing) doubt that this is indeed so, we have a foundation to build on. These foundations are constantly refined, I agree, and at best still remain reasonable theories and now with QM stuff is in the air a lot. I don't have anywhere else to go with this so moving on.


So in that sense, their unwillingness to accept new discoveries was a barrier to learning. So perhaps this disparate discourse is not completely without use, if it serves to unclench a closed mind. But I'll freely admit I have no such noble illusions when I engage in it. I do it all for Eris.

This constantly happens in science. Almost all of the modern scientific breakthroughs, especially since they are modern have been about debunking old science in new and inventive ways. No discussion there. I agree that arguing from the point of view of the total sceptic is useful for more than intellectual wankery, it's just that most indulge in it just for that. They get so caught up on that "gosh, these are pretty complicated concepts and i'm managing them! I must be really smart! I must tell someone about all this to be validated!" which is such a waste, in my opinion. This is my general view of occultists of most types. They're just advanced crossword puzzle enthusiasts, for whom crosswords no longer are interesting enough, so they invent their own languages and own terminology, which by effect creates a whole new bunch of natural puzzles to solve. And what's more, they then teach other enthusiasts their new languages, and test each other to see who is geek alpha male in their little simulated field. They do this so much, after a while they start believing their invented language relates to deep human truths. They read crowley books about how to have a penetrating stare and they sometimes quietly look at the back of the head of the girl they like and go "YOU.. FEEL.. COMPELED TO WORSHIP.. ME". Nggrh. Heaven forbid when these people stumble upon something that works, for whichever reason. Then they're bona fide vampires, immortals, gods.

[kahljorn]

Here you go, little slugger.
I'm not the one who started talking about the demiurge.
I'm more hilarious than you will ever be.
i don't go to parties.

"All I'm saying is that you are FUNNY because a person so intelligent like you gets irritated so easily over trivial personal attacks."

What a strategy, "haha, you're not smart because I say you're angry, and if you say you're not angry I'll just say you're trying to back out of being angry when you so obviously are angry because you made fun of me and it hurt my ego".
Pointless bullshit, that nobody cares about. You can't gauge if a person is angry or not online, unless they say something like, "I'm literally fuming with anger! LITERALLY THERE IS SMOKE COMING OUT OF MY EARS" . So unless you are one of those retarded empathic psychic's like willow from buffy or some shit I would suggest getting off that train before people start asking you for reiki massages.
Also, I'm instigating an argument with you because if I can somehow win in a war of words obviously I've proven how much smarter I am to you, the message board and more importantly myself. God this will sure help my confidence problems, and next time I'm at a party I'll be like, "Yea, I totally outsmarted this guy online" and all the ladies will be all over you. Then you can share your philosophy of how you can make smart guys angry just by saying they're angry, like you can *will* it in to place. God damn Neo, bend that spoon.

One of the first things I said, to Emu, before our little "match" even begun is that I like acting like a jerk. Go read that, use it for reference that I don't really give a damn about your attacks.

[Helm]

Here you go, little slugger.

Thank you mister wanna play with us

I'm not the one who started talking about the demiurge.

I know but it's just softball

I'm more hilarious than you will ever be.

but can you hit a homerun?

i don't go to parties.

mister you're creepy



What a strategy, "haha, you're not smart because I say you're angry, and if you say you're not angry I'll just say you're trying to back out of being angry when you so obviously are angry because you made fun of me and it hurt my ego".

Jesus get over that! I KNOW you're smart! I'm not being sarcastic. You're smart! Intelligent-o! Lightbulb city! Get over it! Smart! Smarter! Smartest! I don't WANT to be smarter than you if it means I'll have to wear those horrible clothes PLEASE NO NO NOOO Don't show me your peepee I DON'T WANT TO SEE YOUR PEEPEE WHAT'S HAPPENING PEE PEEE

Seriously. You're smart. No joke. Pat yourself on the back, you're smart. Level up. Manage those skill points now. Good idea to invest in Speaking In Tongues for 3 points, Demiurge Summoning for 2 points and Penis Party Trick for 10 points. Slay some orcs for me.


POINTLESS BULL-SHIT, THAT NOBODY cares about.

WHOA WHOA there mister buddy I'm afraid I'm going to have to back down when I took you on I knew I'd have to expect some grade-a edginess you being the lord of darkness and all but that's just too much for me I've feen successfully intimidated.


You can't gauge if a person is angry or not online

You can't measure your penis online (que Achimp penis chart jpg) but that didn't stop you! And I never said you were angreeee I said you were upset! Sad! Crying orc! I bet you're chanting a hex curse spell on me or a summon monster IV or something whoa I've got rats in my house dude THE POWER OF THE DARK TALON

besides, are you angry? Are you shaking your little skinny fist on the computer screen SOMEDAY I'LL SHOW YOU GREEK PERSON ONLINE WHO DOESN'T BUY INTO MY BULLSHIT S-- SOMEDAY! I don't think so. You're too calm and collected to do any of that. You're... sitting there, contemplating, eating a burrito, maybe scratching your butt for buttlint which is an important spell component btw good thinking, and you're thinking thinking thinking and saying to yourself "-- I'm smart." I know it. You know it. Dead awesome smart. Smartasfuck. Congratulations.

, unless they say something like, "I'm literally fuming with anger! LITERALLY THERE IS SMOKE COMING OUT OF MY EARS" .

Please don't be so literal I'm expecting a high level of mysticality from an awesome smart occult transexual person like you. I've never met anyone like you and i'm honestly intrigued by you. Please love me with your awesome satan stick

So unless you are one of those retarded empathic psychic's like willow from buffy or some shit I would suggest getting off that train before people start asking you for reiki massages.

Dude I don't watch that Lord of the Rings faggot crap

Also, I'm instigating an argument with you because if I can somehow win in a war of words obviously I've proven how much smarter I am to you, the message board and more importantly myself.

Haha it's funny 'cause it's true! You're hilarious! I love this guy!

seriously, if somebody threw a rock and hit you right smack on the face, would you, bleeding mystical nose of power and all, pick up the rock, take it back to the guy and say " I KNOW you threw that rock at my face. You threw it because you thought it would HURT me and it DID. Now I'm going to TELL on you right on RIGHT ON TO YOUR MOM because what you did was BAD but YOU KNOW THIS ALREADY" I mean I've seen some reversed reverse reverse psychology in my time but come on

God this will sure help my confidence problems,

You don't have confidence problems. You're extremely well adjusted and this is just fun on the internet. People are reading this and are having a good time. We coordinate those posts over AIM before we post them, and laugh between the two of us also. We're in reality best buddies. You introduced me to trantric sex I introduced you to buttholing goats. We're a perfect match. The world is a wonderful place where DEMIURGE DEMIURGE DEMIURGE PSYCHE OUT

got you right come on, just a little?

and next time I'm at a party I'll be like, "Yea, I totally outsmarted this guy online"

haha yeah ok but you know I'm teaching you valuable lessons here, right? I mean -- ok you're teaching me, I'm teaching you it's a learning process that's what it is, I'm telling you you're gonna walk away from this a better man. The ways you'll be able to trivialize any important stuff other people might say and to turn insults into PURE GOLD OF FUNNYNESS we make a great team. I really like you. I think we look good together too we should take a picture.

Listen, I've been sidetracking every second thing I say to you into us being intimate and all that, will you get a fucking clue here I'm coming on to you. I mean I know you're the submissive type and all but COME ON how much do I have to work this? Don't just disregard anything that doesn't have to do with the demiurge here. You know besides the demiurge, there's other urges to keep in mind. Like my burning urge to be one with you. Plz baby don't turn me down I'll be good for you.

One of the first things I said, to Emu, before our little "match" even begun is that I like acting like a jerk. Go read that, use it for reference that I don't really give a damn about your attacks.

Ok so far we're doing good I think what do you guys think? I was kinda afraid you'd flake out on me by the second post but you seem to be doing fine I mean that willow thing was intentionally hilarious but baby steps baby steps I know I know what's coming next you're going to stake it out. You won't reply for a day or two, to make me desperate. But I'll be thinking about you, baby. All day, all night. Just me, Perndog and the demiurge. Kisses.

[Ant10708]

Least entertaining message board fight ever.

[kahljorn]

I'm glad you can admit that I'm a million times smarter than you helm, cause I'm THAT smart.

I'm sorry to have to share this with you but i have a girlfriend, and I'm not interested in making myself a new one. It's just too time consuming to break in an asshole to my gentle giganto of a penis. Thanks anyway, though, I really appreciate your stiffy mc comeupikins, I'll keep your pickup lines on file for one year in case the position frees up.

P.S. I'm not really interested in the occult, at all. The word occult actually kind of bothers me, and the idea of an "occult gathering" makes me want to never open my eyes again.

[Nom]

Do you know the definition of "Demiurge"?
I've learned my knowledge from reading, and I also attend lectures at a gnostic temple. I didn't say the "Creator" is a conglomeration of human energies. Read what i said. I said the creator of this material world was 'humans'. What humans consider as actually being God is a manifestation of human energies, and that the true "God" is something we can never know or realize because it is far away from this world.
Here’s MWs definition of Demiurge, which you will note is accurate to my definition.

Main Entry: demi•urge
Pronunciation: 'de-mE-"&rj
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin demiurgus, from Greek dEmiourgos, literally, artisan, one with special skill, from dEmios of the people (from dEmos people) + -ourgos worker (from ergon work) -- more at DEMAGOGUE, WORK
1 capitalized a : a Platonic subordinate deity who fashions the sensible world in the light of eternal ideas b : a Gnostic subordinate deity who is the creator of the material world
2 : one that is an autonomous creative force or decisive power
- demi•ur•gic /-jik/ also demi•ur•gi•cal /-ji-k&l/ adjective

You may be adding to the definition, and thereby enhancing it, but I think I’m safe in assuming that I have a correct enough version to discuss the Demiurge for the hypotheses which I intend to explore. Thanks, though, for the opportunity to confirm the veracity of my understanding of the term. You could have done that, you know.

Re your definition; unfortunately, I’m finding it hard to believe that it is humanly (or otherwise) possible to more starkly contradict yourself than (please notice it is not spelled “then” in this case – even LA Times is making this mistake these days - thank you) in these two sentences:

“I didn't say the "Creator" is a conglomeration of human energies.”
“What humans consider [as] God is a manifestation of human energies…”

… but at some point maybe you will elaborate on the obviously subtle distinction here. A point worthy of noting:

1. What humans consider as “actually being God” IS the creator.

The rest of you’s: I could NOT care less about your grammatical excellence. I merely said the misspelling of “existence” bugs me. However, that is NOT to say that I will NOT be happy to indulge (OMG – double negative) in grammar wars, which is always fun. Language is best served malleable, as evidenced by the general consensus adoption of prepositions for the end of a sentence. I support this btw, not the least of which reason being the extreme difficulty of properly ending a sentence as compels such and end.

Commas are underused these days. Frequently, those who have adopted the newer, “more streamlined, less commas” usage of commas, neglect their usage altogether where they really, properly ought to be, if for no other reason than improving meter.

Now that we have all that behind us, let me ask (with tentative attention), what anyone (kahljorn, you too) might think we ought do, in light of the assumption that our very creator is an evil bastard, i.e. .. oh hell, wtf do we do with this knowledge; how do we respond? Maybe we should start a thread on it. I have lots more questions *rubbing hands together gleefully and grinning like a bastard*. I enjoy verbal fencing as much as the next rube, but finally, I really would like to get somewhere on this topic. Just start out as if you’re talking to a five year old, and slowly increase the difficulty; I’ll let you know when to stop…

Nom

[Chojin]

Least entertaining message board fight ever.
Quoth one of the most tragically unfunny people here. I'm a VET, man, and I declare Helm FUNNY.

[kahljorn]

"creator of the material world"

dem·i·urge Audio pronunciation of "demiurge" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm-ûrj)
n.

1. A powerful creative force or personality.
2. A public magistrate in some ancient Greek states.
3. Demiurge A deity in Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and other religions who creates the material world and is often viewed as the originator of evil.
4. Demiurge A Platonic deity who orders or fashions the material world out of chaos.


demiurge

n : a subordinate deity, in some philosophies the creator of the universe


read this: http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/hermes.html

The Corpus Hermeticum is a good book.

http://www.granta.demon.co.uk/arsm/jg/corpus.html

I have most, if not all of the books on gnosticism available on my computer, and I also have a few Rosicrucian books if you want to read any of them...

the idea of the "Archon", the "God" that "Humans" believe in(go ahead and use semantics) and created, is that all our energies have manifested into a force, and this force is mostly egotistical and self-centered, and thus evil. I don't know, I read to much. Ask me some questions and I'll answer them, I'll give you references too if you really need them.. or you could just look up what I'm saying yourself.
The idea of us being the true creators of this world has to do with the fall, like when adam and eve bit into the apple, or the fall of atlantis. Either of those stories would really suffice, go read them. "The microcosm".

[kellychaos]

So then it's agreed. Refinement of theory, playing language games, shedding a new perspective on an old thing and an immense desire to impress your friends at parties does not change the "effect" in the least. Done and done.

Just out of curiousity, how should I be holding my wine glass and cigarette at parties when expounding on my new theories?

[kahljorn]

45 degree angles are to be maintained at all times, thank you.

[Chojin]

I like how kahljorn is being as stupid as the perceived thought process behind the thread's first post. ONLY! He knows he's being stupid and just playing along to get a reaction! ONLY! That goal is hypocritical! ONLY! He knows that too! ONLY! Hollycaust herself was being sarcastic! ONLY! Kahl, in his omnipotence, knows that too!

You're blowing my mind, man.

[kahljorn]

ONE EMOTICON TO UNITE THEM ALL, ONE EMOTICON TO SAVE THEM ALL, ONE EMOTICON TO EXPRESS IT ALL!

:bow

[Helm]

I'm glad you can admit that I'm a million times smarter than you helm, cause I'm THAT smart.

Listen, I have to confess something: every time I agreed with you saying you were smart/er/est and all that? I was being sarcastic. I'm not really sure you're very smart. Sorry man.

Okay, right there? What I just said? It wasn't true. I really do think you're smart but I'm trying to prolong the argument because it is funny.

No no, see what I'm doing? I'm just giving you comfort space so this doesn't degenerate to just silly namecalling or even stops. You being smart or not, or in fact being anything at all is of no importance to me. I'm not interested in you at all, really. I just was just up for mocking someone or something. I don't even do it because I feel strongly about it. I do it because of sorta the ghost of the memory from when I cared about these things. I still feel obliged to make fun of mediocrity and stupidity, that's why we're here.

See, that's just not true. It's very humane to tell people you don't care about them like that to their face. I guess I could care about you more if I knew you in real life and we got to hang out. Maybe I'd think about you more as a person rather than a shrewd mangled bunch of neurotic contradictions that is just so fun to poke at.

I'm sorry to have to share this with you but i have a girlfriend

Did she use your body as a sexual stimulus too? Gotta watch out for that stuff.

Thanks anyway, though, I really appreciate your stiffy mc comeupikins,

Thanks. Your last post is a bit disapointing and I don't know what to do. If I insult you more, you'll probably stop posting or something. This is not the end I envisioned for us.

P.S. I'm not really interested in the occult, at all. The word occult actually kind of bothers me, and the idea of an "occult gathering" makes me want to never open my eyes again.

Dude come on. I say 'haha gnostic!' and you go 'I'm no gnostic! I just attend gnostic temple meetings because the chicks are hott' I say 'demiurge lol' you go 'I didn't bring up the demiurge! HE did!' I say 'occult zomg!' and you go 'I'm no occultist! Actually the word makes me break out in hives that's why I didn't join the military to fight them damn towelheads!'

you're so mutable. I can practically alter any part of your personality through just peer pressure. It's fine though, I'll let off before I convince you that you're gay enough to leave your girlfriend for me or something so severe 'cause I'm a nice guy blah blah blah

Bottom line kahl: you're rediculous.

[kahljorn]

Bottom line i just dont really care about being gnostic, an occultist or whatever. I just care about learning various things. Besides, the gnostic teachings are part of other teachings, like hermeticism. Which is fun. Also, I'm now a mason. 16th degree. Thanks.

[Helm]

I agree learning things feels good. It all seems to lead somewhere, and getting pieces together - besides being a good intellectual puzzle - reenforces us and makes us feel better since understanding equals control, and control means safety. I know there's a lot more to it than that, but I do think this is a good place to start when dealing with the origins of intellectual curiosity.

Anyway, how are the masons? Did they make you shout to the four winds and everything? Do you wear the ring or is the ring business bulshit? Do spoil all their secrets ( well the secrets known to one of the 16th degree I guess ) since I think a person such as you should have no respect for the concept of secrecy, especially towards a boy's treehouse secret club thing.

[kahljorn]

I am unable to reveil any secrets at this juncture, please refer to albert pike. There's a masonic temple in town, and a rosicrucian temple. I think this city is on the golden spiral. There's so many crazy temples here...

Four winds is wiccan bullshit, cooze.

[kellychaos]

Hell hath no fury like a Kahl mocked. He hath broken the name-calling seal. Game on.

[kellychaos]

If we cannot justify philosophy by common sense, we can at least contrast it with common sense, and so approach it from that more familiar ground. Since we must admit that philosophy is at odds with common sense, let us make the most of it. What, then, is common sense? First of all it is evident that this is not a commonsense question. One of the things peculiar to common sense is that it must not be questioned, but taken for granted. It is made up of a mass of convictions that by common consent are to be allowed to stand; one does not ask questions about them, but appeals to them to determine what questions shall be asked. They are the conservative opinion, the solidified and uniform belief, on which men act and which is the unconscious premise of most human reasoning. As a man of common sense, I use common sense to live by or to think by; it is a practical and theoretical bias which I share with my fellows, but which I do not think about at all. 3
Now suppose that in some whimsical and senseless mood I do think about common sense. Something very startling happens. This once unchallenged authority is proved to be highly fallible. Its spell is gone. It at once appears, for example, that common sense has had a history, and that it has varied with times and places. The absurdities of yesterday are the common sense of to-day; the common sense of yesterday is now obsolete and quaint. The crank of the sixteenth century was the man who said that the earth moved; the crank of the twentieth century is the man who says that it does not. Moreover, once common sense is thus reflected upon, it is seen to be in part, at least, the result of wholly irrational forces, such as habit and imitation. What has been long believed, or repeatedly asserted, acquires a hardness and fixity from that fact; in the future it is always easier to believe, more difficult to disbelieve, than anything recent or novel. And what others about us believe, we tend unconsciously to reflect in our own belief, just as our speech catches the accent and idioms of our social circle. Furthermore, a belief once widely diffused takes on the authority of established usage. It is supported by public opinion, as anything normal or regular is supported; unbelievers are viewed with hostile suspicion as unreliable and incalculable. “You can never tell what they will do next.” Or they are forcibly persecuted as a menace to the public peace. I have called habit and imitation “irrational” forces. By that I mean that they have no special regard for truth. They operate in the same way to confirm and propagate a bad way of thinking as a good way of thinking. It does not follow that common sense is necessarily mistaken; indeed reasons can be adduced to show that common sense is a very good guide indeed. But if so, then common sense is justified on other grounds; it is not itself the last court of appeal. Common sense, despite its stability and vogue, perhaps on account of its stability and vogue, is open to criticism. We cannot be sure that it is true; and it may positively stand in the way of truth through giving an unwarranted authority to the old and familiar, and through shutting our minds so that no new light can get in. 4
The philosopher, then, is one who at the risk of being thought queer, challenges common sense; he sets himself against the majority in order that the majority may be brought to reflect upon what they have through inertia or blindness taken for granted. He is the reckless critic, the insuppressible asker of questions, who doesn’t know where to stop. He has a way of pinching the human intelligence, when he thinks it has gone to sleep. Every time there is a fresh revival of philosophical interest, and a new philosophical movement, as there is periodically, this is what happens. Some eccentric or highly reflective individual like Socrates, or Bacon, or Descartes, or Locke, or Kant, strays from the beaten track of thought, and then discovers that although it was easier to move in the old track, one is more likely to reach the goal if one beats out a new one. Such a thinker demands a re-examination of old premises, a revision of old methods; he stations himself at a new center, and adopts new axes of reference. 5
Philosophy is opposed to common sense, then, in so far as common sense is habitual and imitative. But there are other characteristics of common sense with which the true genius of philosophy is out of accord. We can discover these best by considering the terms of praise or blame which are employed in behalf of common sense. When ideas are condemned as contrary to common sense, what is ordinarily said of them? I find three favorite forms of condemnation: ideas are pronounced “unpractical,” “too general,” or “intangible.” Any man of common sense feels these to be terms of reproach. It is implied, of course, that to be agreeable to common sense, ideas must be “practical,” “particular,” and “tangible.” And it is the office of philosophy, as corrective of common sense, to show that such judgments, actual and implied, cannot be accepted as final.

[kahljorn]

Sorry I couldn't respond much yesterday helm, I have a kitten who hurt her leg and she's been limpin about.

[Mr. Vagiclean]

okay nobody meant ANYTHING they said move along now

[Helm]

hehe

[kahljorn]

Did you hear that Helm? It's a clear message that you should go clean out your semen crusted vagina.

[Helm]

neat

[Nom]

kahljorn - Thanks for the expanded definitions and the reading references; I will definitely (not "definately" - the word does not exist) check out the latter when I have time. Please note that it does make a difference whether or not it is the pronoun (capitalized) version of “Demiurge”, which is the connotation I have been using in context with its usage in reference to Gnosticism. It ought to be said, if there are sects of Gnosticism which assert that humans are co-creators with the Demiurge; I will go out of my way to identify and ignore and/or stay far away from them. I think what’s egotistical is to presume that homo sapiens plays some special role in the “creation of this world”, other than the realms directly at our disposal, i.e. Earth and its environment, etc. It also seems you are saying that the “Archon” or Demiurge is created/manifested by humans, which is equally perplexing. It’s like saying we created God; which is all but atheistic. I don’t see how Gnosticism, being theistic, could logically support this stance. Nevermind, I’ll read up and save commenting for now. Thanks!

[kellychaos]

Thanks for taking my call. I will hang up and listen for your response. :)

[kahljorn]

It's not human beings. It's the "Microcosm". The "Divine seed of the divine human" inside of us. Sorry to ruin your wonderful perception of gnosticism, but it's all bulshit(what you've been reading, especially). They say human beings can never know God and never understand existence, though. Just the microcosm inside of us. Pick up some books by Jan van rijckenborgh and max heindel. They are the more recent writers on gnostic ideas. They are rosicrucians. I'd also reccomend the gospel of thomas, which they talk about alot, and the Book of Enoch just because a lot ofpeople treat him like Hermes or Thoth-- andgnostic teachings seem tobederieved from them. In fact, you could even read plato, since alotof their teachings come from him, especially the allegory ofthecave.
Freemasonry is good to look into if you want to learn about gnosis. You know, it doesn't really matter what you study, once you start reading into it, and not phony internet shit(which i can tell you're reading. You may or may not know this but 90% of the people who have webpages on the internet arecomplete morons who don't know what theyare talking about. People with the mind of a 12 year old playcating themselves as some ancient gnostic).
Also, you should stop trying to correct people's spellings when you don't even understand what you're reading. The idea, and very definition, of gnosis is "knowledge". Why would anyone who seeks knowledge and gains it continue to seek knowledge if the bullshit you're saying is correct? Why would it even still be around? Shock value? Shock people out of what? Where's the momentum? This is why you're a complete moron. Spell checkers don't raise your iq at all, it helps to at least understand what you're talking about. Use your brain, read something that isn't some worthless asshole's opinion on the internet about the "Demiurge".
This whole "God is evil thing" doesn't even work into the picture with the way gnostics consider things. Dialectics, we live in a dialectic universe, where everything dies. There's nothing permanant, here, in this world--not even death. That's what they say. Not that God's evil. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Gnosis is about learning, not ascribing to a set ideaor a setpath. It's an investigation into the knowledge of the world, all kinds. It's taking religion and belief and ascribing philosophy to it,psychology, and techniques to work your existence. Not, "ITS THE DEMIURGE WHO CONTROS US, OH NO". That's pointless. In short, you're boring. Nobody is impressed with you.

Essentially it's observing the universe around you, it's natural laws, and placing them onto your psychology and mode of operation. That's really what all religion/belief/meditation/philosophy is though. In all honesty, who really cares what god is if you can't even operate your mind properly. A simple investigation into physics would tell you what you can and can't do with your mind, and even give you the techniques to do them with. Everything operates on the same principal.

[ziggytrix]

It’s like saying we created God; which is all but atheistic. I don’t see how Gnosticism, being theistic, could logically support this stance.

For someone so distressingly anal as to correct spelling errors that haven't even been made in this discussion, you really ought to understand English a little better. Atheisim means NO God. The notion that God exists as a manifestation of human energies isn't even remotely similar to atheism because of that whole "God exists" part.

Also you would do well to look up the words 'create' and 'manifest' as they are not synonymous.

[Nom]

Since you insist on comparing understanding of this - I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but apparently what passes for gnosis where you are attending lectures is a late, and sadly, lacking adaptation of the original gist of early Gnostic teachings. However, that fact is not eclipsed by the glaringly apparent lack of your own understanding.

…

From Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm):

“… While the thwarting necessity of nature is, for the Existentialist, a simple, unquestioned fact; for the Gnostics it is the result of the malignant designs of an inferior god, the Demiurge, carried out through and by this ignorant deity's own law. In other words, nature is, for modern Existentialism, merely indifferent, while for the Gnostics it was actively hostile toward the human endeavor.”

In any case, I believe these things:
1. Evil exists in the universe, literally.
2. Something had a hand in creating it, and is therefore evil also.

I don’t give a shit what the present take on Gnosticism is, other than to distinguish whether its current form bears any weight for me personally, and fits into my beliefs. I also believe you are wrong to suggest that your interpretation (which unfortunately, I presume by what you’ve said, must be the mainstream interpretive consensus) is the correct one. There were many philosophically differing sects which arose in the first and second centuries. Some of these did equate the creator to a malignant, ignorant deity, as do I, whether you like it or not.

Again, I don’t give a shit either whether you deign to critique my outward disdain for certain misspellings. It’s my feeble attempt at creating awareness of the common errors, and someone, somewhere, will care and take heed, again – irregardless of what you think. I take pride in my deconstruction. You, sir, are powerless to staunch the flow of my corrections.

Also from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“According to the Gnostics, this world, the material cosmos, is the result of a primordial error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called Sophia (Wisdom) or simply the Logos. This being is described as the final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Plêrôma or "Fullness," at the head of which resides the supreme God, the One beyond Being. The error of Sophia, which is usually identified as a reckless desire to know the transcendent God, leads to the hypostatization of her desire in the form of a semi-divine and essentially ignorant creature known as the Demiurge (Greek: dêmiourgos, "craftsman"), or Ialdabaoth, who is responsible for the formation of the material cosmos. This act of craftsmanship is actually an imitation of the realm of the Pleroma, but the Demiurge is ignorant of this, and hubristically declares himself the only existing God."

Ignorance breeds suffering, and I call suffering evil. One of the (more reliable) definitions of “evil” is that which causes harm. So I am on firm, common ground with my definition. If you choose to only allow certain definitions for your world view, let me know, so I can slip into something more semantically confining.

It’s like saying we created God; which is all but atheistic. I don’t see how Gnosticism, being theistic, could logically support this stance.

For someone so distressingly anal as to correct spelling errors that haven't even been made in this discussion, you really ought to understand English a little better. Atheisim means NO God. The notion that God exists as a manifestation of human energies isn't even remotely similar to atheism because of that whole "God exists" part.

Also you would do well to look up the words 'create' and 'manifest' as they are not synonymous.


Atheists are commonly desirous to point out that homo sapiens created the imaginary façade of God. I don’t give a damn how you want to frame “Atheism”; this is an idea that atheists, chiefly, promote. Further, I did not use the term atheism at all, I said atheistic. So, you may look at it as me redefining or twisting the definition a little to suit my purpose, which was in fact, subconsciously yet intentionally done. Atheists wrote the book on anal btw – see your post above. Also, interchanging “create” and “manifest” in kahljorn’s abysmally reconstructed lackadaisical definition of his flawed understanding of the entirety of Gnostic philosophy would not have saved his position.

[ziggytrix]

Jesus fucking Christ, would you please shut up?

[Nom]

Jesus fucking Christ, would you please shut up?
I’m just putting you on notice that condescending quips and statements intended to intellectually demean are easily dispatched. I’ve got a few of my own. Can’t stand the heat, get outta the kitchen.

[ziggytrix]

No really, shut up. Something about your posts gives me a headache. >:

[kahljorn]

irregardless isn'ta word, I'll respond more later when I have time. Ialready saw alot in yourpost to respond to. Like the "inferior god". All your questions havealready been answered by the idea of "Dialectics". There's no good orevil in creation and existing.

[kahljorn]

I read some more ofwhat you said, I should also have you know that "outta" is also not a word.

The gospel of thomas, did you go readit? Of course not...

I know all about that shit, really Ido. You just don't know how much more I know than you, thefact thatthe "Demiurge" is alesser god that you obsess over provides thatmuch knowledge in and ofitself. Nobody cares if the "Demiurge" is capitolized but you. An ignorant beast of a creature doesn't deserve the attention.Infact, it's kind of funny that you obsess over this, when the very nature of the being is being ignorant thatit's not god. "IM GOD IM GOD", "hey, check this guy out. He's kind of cool". What saves you from a two year old going, "Im the presidentof poopyville", "Hey, check this guy out, he's kind of cool".
The entire idea of presenting the idea ofthe demiurge is for you to get past it. Fuck the demiurge, fuck the earthly god. The material god, the godof material. Honestly, whocould care about such a being? You? The human endeavor isto escape death and suffering,and as such to escape life in a sense. Suffering will always be apparant in this world, hence the God of the material is ignorantand evil.
You see, there are simple philosophies inthis world. Yes, i use the word world as in this universe, solar system, galaxy etc. Moving on, this universe follows a few simple rules. Like gravity. What does gravity do? It takes from things. The bigger gets the smaller things. So where there could've been a planet(with people on it), the sun envelops it. Where there could've been world peace, an asshole king collects his gold. Notice a similarity? How about this, everytime you get a job to help yourself, some poor asshole bum is fucked out of the job. Everytime you get online?Polution. Global heating, animals dying, fish in the sea dying, gross fish, people eatting gross fish and drinking bad water, death, sickness, suffering, Assholes who prophet off of it.
Everytime smart people discuss things, someone feels stupid. Everytime you eat food, you'recontributing to natural forests being cut down for farms which kills animals. Gravity. People gather, then they contradict other gatherings. People die.
Further maybe? Everytime you talk toa person and treat them like shit, you'recontributing to their negative attitude, and they arecontributing to someone else's negative attitude when they finally explode. Giving birth? That child will end up giving people grief, who will give other people grief. It will go on forever, because the people who received grief from the people who recieved grief will give grief topeople who will give grief to other people. There's noaction that doesn't have a reaction, even NO ACTION. You remove yourself fromasituation, and anything you could've down for the situation is removed. Reactions have reactions, and those reactions have reactions. The funny thing is even good natured actions can have evil reactions,and always do. But then, evil actions can have goodnatured reactions.
Are you really surprised that the "God" of this world is "Evil"? You're stupid if you're surprised. That factis apparant in it's very nature.

The real point of gnosticism? Knowledge, gnosis. Why would there be an "Endeavor" to gain knowledge? To leave this place? To change it? If there were changes, or if you left-- what would happen? Where would you be? What different 'laws' and rules would bethere? What would the "new endeavor" be? How would your existance be different? What is the "SUPREME GOD" that gnosis talks about. Not the demiurge, the clearly fake god, who only thinks it's the real god, but is ignorant of the fact thatit's not. Who could possibly care about a fake god that has little to no power? Why would anybody care about that God? THE QUESTIONSOF THE SPHINX >:
(Only someone trying desperately to make a point they don't know would care about an evil God. You don't know what you're doing here trying to act like you some suprognostic who obviously doesn't know whatthe fuck they're talking about. Move on with your life. The bible says that God is evil. Only idiots who were stuck in the christian religion argue that point. Hey, so now we come to you. Trying to shock christians because you were oncea christian, right? How old are you, 12? I remember doing that when I was 12, 13 years old. "Hey guys, the god you think is all loving and shit is evil, haha. I WIN AGAINST MYSELF(i dont lose though!). ") [all ofthat was a secret side note]. {SHHH}
Do you ask these questions?No, because you're boring, and stupid.

The end.

[kahljorn]

P.s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

good references on there. "Immanatize the eschaton"(like discordians). It's great. notice those references? notice howmuch smarter i am than you? GAME OVER, GUMBY WINS.

Also, i have mostof those books bookmarkedor in ebook form, and if i ever feel unlazy i might be so inclined to send them to you...

Also..."The endura" "Transfiguration". Learn those terms.

[Helm]

Kahl, as you use the term dialectic (as in: dialectic materialism. excuse me if the rosa crux idiots use the term in some other way) when you later on describe in the processes of action (or the action of inaction) and reaction isn't really dialectic as much as it is reactionary. I'd hesitate to call 'somebody is born, then brings grief to the world' a dialectic opposition. Dialectic materialism is mostly useful in spotting the coorelations between fundamental aspects of reality (primarily the 'inside' and 'outside' of human perception) and is mainly used in philosophy as a useful socratic 'organon' to define things which cannot generally be a priori defined, against each other. What is existing? It is the oposite of not existing. And so on, so forth. It's actually not a very bright way to define things, but it has it's uses especially for leftists who just want to get ontology OUT OF THE WAY so they can start talking about soup lines and class struggle. Although okay, I can see where you're going with dialecticism in your examples, you're putting a value judgement in various situations, and then counterweighing everything and saying 'dialectic!' whereas dialectic is an ontological thing, not ethical. But whatever, suck my cock.

[Nom]

Finally we’re getting somewhere. I don’t know why it was so hard to admit that the Demiurge can be described as evil. Now that that’s out of the way, thanks for getting to some of the real points, such as what do we do with this knowledge. I guess everyone’s got to be the initiate for at least a day. Don’t go getting all Zen on me though, I haven’t got the patience in regards to this topic, nor do I have the time to pore over umpteen references; that’s what I have you suckers for! Not that I don’t appreciate the references, I do, and I will try to peruse them.

I’m aware that there are whole schools of thought on dialectics. I just think it’s purely semantics; I’m not convinced that dialectics represent reality. Evil exists as suffering, if nothing else. That’s my metaphor and I’m sticking to it.

I could be considered a recovering Christian. Curiously enough though (ziggytrix, close your eyes for this part – Surgeon General declares it’s headache inducing), Gnosticism at its root IS a primarily Christian sect, and it’s fascinating to me, that mainstream Christians generally have not even HEARD of Gnosticism. I hadn’t. I read something somewhere, but had not comprehended the logic. I had my own epiphany on the POE without having (the luxury of?) a professor drilling it into my head. And yeah, if I may indulge in mythical definition, I’m pissed that I did not recognize the inherent evil of the creator, partly due to his propensity for thwarting discovery of his true nature.

That said; don’t miss the inference that I am not interested in whether I live up to Gnosticism, but in finding out how well Gnosticism lines up with my version of the truth; and of course, by the by acquiring new perspectives.

You said (kahljorn), “Nobody cares if the "Demiurge" is capitolized but you. An ignorant beast of a creature doesn't deserve the attention. In fact, it's kind of funny that you obsess over this, when the very nature of the being is being ignorant that it's not god”.

I’m not saying the Demiurge is cool. Far from it. The only reason I’m “obsessed” with the creator, as you put it, is precisely because I hate the bastard. To know thine enemy is to know how to defeat him (or escape him). And no, I’m not trying to shock Christians (but if that’s a byproduct, cool); I just think Gnosticism embodies what Christianity SHOULD HAVE EVOLVED INTO over the years.

So, I win; I’m Gumby dammit.

Regards,

Nom

[ziggytrix]

Finally we’re getting somewhere. I don’t know why it was so hard to admit that the Demiurge can be blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Furthermore, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah English reference blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah gratuitous egosim blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

In conclusion, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Demiurge Demiurge Demiurge WOO! blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[kellychaos]

From where does all the knowledge of all these ancient beings come? I mean that in the basic sense. Was it handed down genetically, telepathically, ect. Did mountains boom? Did birds speak? Did it emenate from the primordial ooze? Why should I accept this fairy tale over all others? ... and don't you DARE say faith!

[kahljorn]

"I don’t know why it was so hard to admit that the Demiurge can be described as evil."
I never said he wasn't, you're just too stupid tounderstand what I'm saying. The demiurge isn't the creator. Let's use an analogy. Let's say you have a program on the computer, like a virus, who's job is to create a bunch of trash and be evil. Now this program thinks it's god,thinks it's the creator. Great. But it'snot,the real god, the real creator, is somewhere far faraway. Quit calling him the creator. The only thing he may have even created is the material world, andnot even all of that,the material world was here before he came here. The story of the demiurge goes that sophia's (Achamoth) daughter merged with matter and chaos and out came the demiurge, hence he created nothing. Only formed, like the word demiurge implies sinceit was originally used to indicate craftsmen. I don't know of you know this, but sophia is the LOWEST of the emanantions of god, which makes the demiurge lower than the lowest of the low. "The logos".
Like i said, most of the demiurge story is more of an allegory than anything,just like most of mythology. The demiurge is a bullshit being, by his very nature. Nobody should care about him, he's so far from God and the source of things and the CREATOR that he should be dismissed as a child having a tantrum. Talk about something with a point.
The idea of the demiurge was taken from Plato, Timaeus. Go read. i probablywon't talk to you anymore. Good day.

[Nom]

Kelly – I like the way you framed your question, very creative. I’m working on an answer, see you tomorrow.

[ziggytrix]

Thanks a fuckin ton, Kelly. >:

[executioneer]

guys this thread is massively boring

[Ant10708]

I thought so too executioneer but we are just too unfunny to appreciate it. Chojin is a VET and Helm is funny and since he is a big contributer to this thread I think the thread is funny by default.

Or it could just be massively boring like you said. I think Ziggy is the only thing making it entertaining for all us too humor impaired to find the rest of the thread funny and enjoyable.

[ziggytrix]

Aw shit, I just got the LCD seal of approval. :)

If you are decent at last minute cram-style scanning, you can pick some funny bits out of helm & khal's exchange, but really, this isnt the funnies page of the forum so why you bitchin?

And Nom, don't take that as validation of your worthless infestation of this thread, just so there's no misunderstanding. Reading your words is like slow :suicide

[Ant10708]

I'm not. This forum(and sometimes movies and games) is the only forum I go to. Chojin is the one who finds my posts in threads discussing current events to be painfully unfunny. I never knew I was suppose to crack jokes in every thread just because its called Imockery. But let's not sidetrack this thread again with my cancer inducing posts. Continue the heated discussion at your own pleasure and risk.

[Helm]

ok guys we got the ok from ant

[Nom]

Nevermind Kelly. There’s no reason to bore everyone. This is obviously not the place to have this conversation. Later.

[ziggytrix]

:imock

[Chojin]

Chojin is a VET and Helm is funny and since he is a big contributer to this thread I think the thread is funny by default.
No, it's still boring as sin, but this is really the forum for such shenanigans.

[executioneer]

i just had such high expectations cause it was a hollycaust thread is all :(

[kellychaos]

Nevermind Kelly. There’s no reason to bore everyone. This is obviously not the place to have this conversation. Later.

Quitter.

P.S. Sorry, Ziggy. Perhaps my above repsponse will give you the closure on this topic that you so desire.

P.S.S. Dialetics is the uber-form of passive aggressive behavior. Smartassimus maximus. I find it most entertaining.

[kahljorn]

Dialetics isn't a word, it's dialectics. Also, it's existence, not existance. Geez, I will never adjust to people who spell existence wrong. Ireegardless, I'm a jackass.

[swimini]

this supposed theory is such drivel that it hardly merits a post, but I must say I was impressed to see people quoting form the Bible, you should know a source before you denounce it. Anyway i was wondering if anyone could point out where it describes in the Bible the fall of Satan. See in my Bible it starts with whole 'in the beginnnig thing' and Satan had already fallen by then. I think perhaps you are being inflluenced by later works such as Dante's Divine Comedy (1318) Milton's heroic 'Paradise Lost' (1667) which is largely responsible for the image of Lucifer/Satan as rebel angel we find so attractive today. Incidently I adore Paradise Lost and would reccomend anyone with an interest in the 'dark side' to read it, well at least books one and two anyway.

[kahljorn]

There'svarious sources depending on what pointof view you'd like to take, I guess. Most of what i said was from gnostic sources, but from a more traditional point of view some people think the Angel's who were cast out of heaven and bred with human women to make nephilim in the book of enoch is the fall of lucifer. I think even within the church and educated folk there's a few different opinions on what exactly constitutes the fall of lucifer... don't forget, though, there's plenty of other books that aren't in the traditional bible. Like the Nag hammadhi writings, the writings of valentius, the dead sea scrolls, the pseudepigrapha and the apocyphra... a few of those were around even before jesus, and most of the others no more than 500 years after...

[Nom]

it's Valentinus, and apocrypha, respectively

[swimini]

kahl I wasnt taking issue with you here, the works you site are all very relevant, my problem is with the original thread starter who so briefly the describes the Bible as being split into just 'two' books. I am all for experimental thinking but if you are going to propose such notions you ought to have some knowledge of what you dealing with. Incidently kahl, how do you know so much about early christian writings? is this something you have studied or the mighty of power of google?

[kahljorn]

No, it's something i study(more or less), with other things. When i found sources for it, though, I used yahoo-- but that's only because most of my books are in ebook or real book form which wouldn't help anybody online.
Ididn't think you were having aproblem with me, I was just answering for the hell of it... i really don't think there's anywhere in the bible where they talk about lucifer falling. I know at one point Jesus mentions he "Saw him fall", but who knows what that means... i don't really read the bible, incidently. Most writings like that are kind of boring. I've been reading various copies of the tibetan book of the dead, and all the prayers and bullshit just make me want to burn the books. So irritating. I'll have to type one of the more annoying ones up soon...

[kellychaos]

Second-hand sourcing! >:

Isn't it better to develop one's own opinion from the primary source? Too much is diluted in another's interpretation.

[ziggytrix]

Yeah, but last time God talked to me I was REALLY high, and I don't do that anymore.

[kahljorn]

I'd say that's rather impossible, kellychaos, since most bibles have been "interpreted" already. If there is a "primary source" i couldn't read it, anyhow, and I doubt there's a library that loans it out.

P.S. the things i was sourcing were the primary source, i was linking to the actual books, or at least fragments of the books.

[Dr.Merlin]

The origional books reside in rome in the vatican in environmentally stable glass cases.
The origional bible actually had more prayers that would help with farming and other types of prayers that got results.
it was like a really handy spiritual boy scout handbook.
as the church re invented itself over and over again, some things were later thought of as heresy.?!
understand that the Church was to Control the People at this time, it was through the ages of corrupt kings that the bible began to change, the church began to change.
Sure I have questions, we all do.
BUT,
at the root of it all,

There is an infinite creator who loves the creation infinitely.

so, keep an open mind, study the ways of the Jedi, do what you will, and don't hurt anybody.

Don't follow Leaders, and watch your parking meters.

[Sethomas]

That's pretty fucking stupid. Ooooh, the "Vatican", they speak Italian and have marble floors, there must be a conspiracy somewhere in there.

There is no "original" copy of the bible. The OT was passed down by oral tradition for centuries leading up to their final transcription in Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE, and towards the end of the first century CE they were revised by the Jewish people in Jerusalem (though it's an ongoing argument in Christianity whether the modern torah or the LXX has more relevance).

As far as the New Testament goes, there was no original copy since every composite work within it was written centuries before St. Athanasius began the process of labelling them as canonical. By that time they had been circulating along with various apocryphal texts for centuries, and had been written down by countless scribes who liked them for whatever personal reason.

The concept of having a united bible comprising the Old and New Testaments in their entirety didn't even invent itself until the early High Middle Ages, as prior the book-making process was so rediculously expensive that you'd have to be retarded to undertake such a project, since those wealthy enough to own that many pages of scripture had the patience and intelligence to deal with them in serial.

As far as the idea of "hidden" books of the Bible go, most Christian theologies entail some primitive notion of metaphysical consequence (though not always so cogent) that basically says that God gave us the Bible in such a way that if some part were missing from it, it would de facto not really be scripture. You could have a book written in blood whose DNA matches that of Christ, and it wouldn't be part of the bible since had it been meant to be canon then God would have revealed it to us by now. It's contrary to common sense to posit a God as existing who inspired scripture yet was foiled by some cloak and dagger bullshit.

[Emu]

Dialetics isn't a word, it's dialectics. Also, it's existence, not existance. Geez, I will never adjust to people who spell existence wrong. Ireegardless, I'm a jackass.

Irregardless isn't a word.

[Helm]

we've already been there

[kahljorn]

:lol

[kellychaos]

Yeah, but last time God talked to me I was REALLY high, and I don't do that anymore.


I hope that you have an anytime minutes program.

[imported_Hollycaust]

I come back 309835 days later and see all this shit about gnostic. fuck you.

btw Im going to write a book and title it "The Holly Code". I know people will read it. I mean... why wouldnt they? I'm fucking fabulous. It will have a collection of my thoughts and my theory on Jesus being the Devil. It will be great, trust this.

[ziggytrix]

you aren't gonna do shit and you know it.


fabulous like a month old carton of milk.