Bitcoin Forum

I'm not a 'type', not one that has a name that you are likely to know, anyway.

I'm an old Earth evolutionary creationist.  Which means that I think that the Earth is billions of years old, and that natural selection is one method by which God creates.  Perhaps one out of many, yet unknown, ongoing or former processes.

I believe that reincarnation is possible, and may be probable.  I think that the "born again" verses in the gospel refer directly to this.  I don't believe that this is intended as a punishment, so much as an educational tool.

I believe that hell exists, but it is reserved for for the unredeemable.

I do not believe in the 'doctrine of divine preservation', and judge each bible text (canonical or otherwise) independently upon it's own merits.

I do believe in free will, and believe that God has rules that functionally prohibit there to be proof for or against the existence of a spiritual component to the universe.  For if proof exists, then there is no real freedom to deny the result.

I believe that some form of higher order spiritual beings do exist, let's call them angels for reference, that know and abide by the rules of God, or violate them at their own peril.  But I also believe that they have free will as well, but largely function as God's agents.  I will not speculate as to their origin or nature.

I believe that it's part of human nature to desire personal freedom in every aspect of it that we can pursue, and the ambition towards greater power over other men is a perversion of this aspect of human nature.

I also believe that the pursuit of knowledge is part of human nature, and it's the relentless pursuit of knowledge of creation (gnosis, literally in greek) that draws humanity closer to it's own creator; destined to become a higher spiritual being.

I believe in the duality of mankind and of creation itself, the "as above, so below" reflecting pool symbolism so common in gnostic documents.  The ying-yang symbolism of eastern cultures illustrate this nature well.

I believe that certain books in the canonical bible are written in coded language, and as such cannot be interpreted literally or symbolically.  One such book is Revelations.

I believe in the Trinity, i.e. the three (at least, why would there be a limit?) primary 'natures' of God.  This was once a uniquely gnostic doctrine, that defined an entire class of early Christian Gnostics.  These days it's the majority perspective; but for about 300 years, just expressing this point of view could get you declared a heretic and potentially killed.

I believe that one of these 'natures' literally imbued it's nature into a human form, by the most 'energy cost effective' method possible.  A natural birth and human growth process.  Literally 'popping' into a human form was not out of the question, it was just that it wasn't the most subtle or efficient possibility available.  And if there is no other thing that gnostics can agree upon, we can all agree that God was an engineer, and a very efficient one at that.

I believe that the pursuit of 'gnosis' (i.e. spiritual knowledge) is a primary mission of mankind, both collectively and individually.  (It's this doctrine that pretty much defines a gnostic, whether of the christian version or otherwise)  History has shown us that we are not very good at maintaining such momentum collectively, and that often devolves into something that is often called "organized religion" in the modern lexicon.  This kind of spiritual stagnation is not simply a delay in the process, but is actually counterproductive, and has resulted in many of the worst periods of injustice across human history.  As such, the individual method is preferable.  Which is why gnostics are rare and do not proselytize, as a general rule.  In part, because the search depends upon the limits of our own reason, and thus we can never be certain for ourselves, much less lead others.

I believe that my salvation is my own problem, and your salvation is not my problem.  This is another reason that gnostics don't proselytize.  Because it's a waste of our life to attempt to convince others of their errors, assuming that we are even certain of the errors.  To gain knowledge (gnosis), it's a fundamental principle that one must desire it enough to seek it; and if you seek, so shall ye find.

Too much "I believe" for a "Gnostic", a "Gnostic" (With knowledge) doesn't need to "believe", because he "knows" (or at least "believe to know", which ends up to be his only belief from an outside point of view).

Stop and read what you just wrote, and the try to tell me what you think might be the differences between "I believe" and "I know" to a gnostic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS5DaTIF1a0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS5DaTIF1a0)

Seeking knowledge is what Agnostics do (not know doesn't mean not to seek for it), Gnostics believe themselves to already have that knowledge.

That's false.  And much like a Catholic trying to tell a Baptist what his preacher believes.

That's funny!  Poor bastard.

That Catholic can tell the Baptist his preacher believes in Christ. Otherwise why would he be Christian in the first place? You see... somethings are endogenous to a condition; a Gnostic is not gnostic because "the name is cool" or he "likes it", it has to be because he thinks to have knowledge, once that's exactly what the word means.

Endogenous conditions always prevails; i.e.
One is gay because likes man -> Endogenous (it is what the word means so if he wasn't up to men wouldn't be calling himself gay)
One is gay because rides a pink bike -> Exogenous (has nothing to do with the condition, the rider can be or not gay, not possible to tell by this reason alone)

So if you tell me that you're Gnostic than it's endogenous that "You've the knowledge" (not seeking for it, already got it). If you "founded" this or that God or none, that would be already exogenous to such condition.  ;)

A gnostic is a gnostic because he believes that the details are important, and therefore seeks the knowledge of those details.  It does not imply that he already has said knowledge.

An agnostic will refer to himself as agnostic, not simply because he doesn't know the answer, but because he has come to believe that there is no answer.


An incorrect interpretation.

learning what people believe > telling people what they believe

An Agnostic can give care for details, Gnosticism != "detailism" or more thrill.
Also an Agnostic claims to not know the truth and can have several assortments about it:

- Believe it doesn't matter anyway
- Believe it can't be achieved
- Keep looking(...)

The religious position is represented by two axis: Belief and Knowledge. The axis of Belief goes from Theists to Atheists (Believe there's God... or not), the axis of Knowledge goes from Gnostics to Agnostics (Have knowledge to don't have).

I see your point, just don't see why you call yourself Gnostic when you've nothing but belief.

I'm Strong Agnostic, btw.

Here you've:

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000768957/polls_atheisttheistagnosticgnyh5_4932_9332_answer_7_xlarge.jpeg

Because belief is all there is.  No matter how certain I may or may not be about my own perspectives, it is impossible for me to prove (even to myself) that I'm correct so long as I live.  Likewise, you cannot prove that you are not in the Matrix.  This is true for anyone.  Just because I state my beliefs, doesn't mean that I have any significant doubts about them.

I can't see images, BTW.

I've nothing against (or for) your beliefs, as long as you don't try to impose them on me, I'll not react on such grounds.

Just when you say "Gnostic" which means "to know God" probably many people will react with "WHAT?!"  ;D

Perhaps you need to do some research before you state authoritatively what someone else does or does not believe.


Gnosticism isn't about "already having knowledge", you are wrong. I say this as a staunch atheist.

BitterTea,

I know about that, and is not "some esoteric knowledge", those movements aimed or claimed to actually have esoteric knowledge.
Wikipedia, being open to edit by anyone is far from being that "authority" either. You see... the "probably we don't know it" social way is pretty recent and mostly bind to the Western culture. Fanatics for an instance live in a "Gnosis" state of mind. You can say they don't know... but that's your view, not theirs.

As your wikipedia article, however, states, "Ancient", for the "modern" Gnostics movements, they're almost all around what some people would call "witchcraft".

What some people would call something is irrelevent.  Some people would call Mormanism a sect.  Some people would call a Buddist a godless heretic.  Some people would call what you are doing here in this tread, trolling.

All of those people have a higher claim that they are correct than you have to claim that you know what I should believe, based upon what you believe about the proper definition of a word.