Paul was a gnostic

[CapelDodger]

Wow! That's where I met the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Steven

The FSM is a statist perversion of the original faith - the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

 

[Pauliesonne]

Lives a lie and was born with no penis.
Is the bastard son of a woman and a golden labradour.
Farts when he see's a vagina.
Eats none of the above.
Goats in french maid's are a fantasie for him.
After sex, he likes to stick a pineapple up his rectum.
Z is not the last word in the english alphabet. ( according to him )
Ever since he was born, he's wanted to return to the womb.
Ronald Reagan fired him for making shrewd remarks about his goldfish and a certain alcoholic drink.

 

[RandFan]

And I don't give a monkies what dictionaries say. Since when were the publishers of dictionaries the absolute authority upon everything?

Here I agree with you - linguists are not absolute authorities on everything. But that is irrelevant to this thread.

I agree. If a Gnostic isn't what the dictionary says it is (I did provide another source FWIW) then we ought to come to a consensus or try to come to a consensus as to what that word means. But the consensus ought to be based on some logic. It shouldn't arbitrarily be what lifegazer or anyone else says that it is.

 

[CapelDodger]

A true initiate of gnosticism does not 'believe' that he knows the truth... nor does he have 'faith' that what he knows is true. He just KNOWS that it is true.

That's nonsense, and I know that just from parsing it.

And I don't give a monkies what dictionaries say.

Humpty Dumpty had the same attitude, and look where it got him.

 

[lifegazer]

No, I'm arguing no such thing. However, to clarify, there is objective truth and belief. I don't deal in absolutes.

Name one objective truth. In other words, define what is objective.

It has been explained many times that the world is an experience given by sensations and the ability to fathom the order thereof.
Therefore, do not tell me that an objective truth is that the world exists and revolves around the existing sun.

Can you prove that a Gnostic Christian knows that Christ lives?

Not to you, no, since your idea of 'proof' would involve what you consider to be a miracle or a meeting with Christ at the pub.

What distinction? A belief is a belief. Believing that you know the truth is still a belief.

I never said that they "believed" that they knew the truth. I said that they knew the truth. A distinction.

Further, you cannot claim that you absolutely KNOW that all knowledge is by faith. Your claim is reduced to a faith in itself by your own proclamation.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The FSM is a statist perversion of the original faith - the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

The heretics who follow the false horn will meet divine justice drowning in the sacred red sauce of truth! The noodley appendage will smite the unbelievers with the garlic bread of retribution.

So sayeth Steven

 

[Meffy]

Garlic bread?! Yum -- smite away. I have teeth, and I'm not afraid to use them! *ganache ganache*

 

[lifegazer]

Wow! That's where I met the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Steven

Gnostics don't believe in the reality of anything, except God.
To meet Christ in your mind is to meet the totality of existence and know both yourself... and God.

As I said... get serious please. You're intelligent... use it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Garlic bread?! Yum -- smite away. I have teeth, and I'm not afraid to use them! *ganache ganache*

Honestly Meffy, if you won't be serious then I can't be bothered to argue with you. So I'm just going to take my ball and go home.

Steven

P.S. It's *gnash gnash* Jeez, everybody knows that!

 

[RandFan]

Name one objective truth. In other words, define what is objective.

In terms that I believe we can but agree on, objective is that which you and I can both come to agreement on because we can both demonstrate that it is true. If you drop a ball and it falls to the ground and I drop a ball and it falls to the ground then we can both agree that there is an underlying order that consistently demonstrates to both of us the same thing.

It has been explained many times that the world is an experience given by sensations and the ability to fathom the order thereof.

Fine, let's be consistent. Objective is that which we can both test and can both come to the same conclusions about. "Objective reality" is that which causes you to go to work to earn money to feed yourself and keep a roof over your head. You claim that it is just an illusion but you go anyway.

Therefore, do not tell me that an objective truth is that the world exists and revolves around the existing sun.

Objective truth is that which is consistent. The day you stop going to work, using a computer, eating food and drinking water is the day that I will believe that you are completely convinced that there is no objective reality.

Not to you, no, since your idea of 'proof' would involve what you consider to be a miracle or a meeting with Christ at the pub.

No, I'm just talking about a consistency in our objective/percieved reality. When I come home from work I'm met by the same woman. She never magically becomes Heidi Klume or a swan that lays golden eggs. So, I'm only asking for proof of the order that your banker would ask of you to demonstrate that you have a job. I'm assuming that you live by the same underlying order that the rest of us live by. When you want to buy a car or get a credit card you have to demonstrate some truth about yourself. I'm guessing that arguing with the banker that reality isn't real doesn't get you a loan, right?

Yeah, all of a suddent percieved/objective reality hits you in the ass and you demonstrate those truths.

I never said that they "believed" that they knew the truth. I said that they knew the truth. A distinction.

And we would know this how?

Further, you cannot claim that you absolutely KNOW that all knowledge is by faith. Your claim is reduced to a faith in itself by your own proclamation.

By your logic we can't know nothing.

The truth is that I don't absolutely KNOW anything. However I go to work because it works and when I don't I get hungry and my landlord kicks me out in the street. I'm assuming that you live by the same set of underlying rules of our perceived reality.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Gnostics don't believe in the reality of anything, except God.
To meet Christ in your mind is to meet the totality of existence and know both yourself... and God.

As I said... get serious please. You're intelligent... use it.

I am serious, about learning the result of your experiment.

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

or a swan that lays golden eggs.

I have a niece who s**ts nickles. Of course she has to eat them first so it doesn't really pay off.

Steven

 

[RandFan]

I have a niece who s**ts nickles. Of course she has to eat them first so it doesn't really pay off.

Steven

I love my wife but just once I'd like to come home to Heidi Klume. Sadly, I would have to turn into Brad Pitt or she wouldn't want to be with me.

Reality, it is what it is.

 

[lifegazer]

In terms that I believe we can but agree on, objective is that which you and I can both come to agreement on because we can both demonstrate that it is true.

This asserts that only actions (demonstrations) are true/real. What about the underlying being behind them?

If you drop a ball and it falls to the ground and I drop a ball and it falls to the ground then we can both agree that there is an underlying order that consistently demonstrates to both of us the same thing.

Maybe - it proves that there is underlying order inherent within the EXPERIENCE of the world. But it tells us nothing about REALITY since experience isn't reality. Neither does it tell us from whence this order comes.
In short, it says nothing objective about any real thing... which means, essentially, that it isn't an objective truth.
It's a bit like saying that Tom always chases Jerry. That's how far your statement goes to providing an objective truth about existence.

Fine, let's be consistent. Objective is that which we can both test and can both come to the same conclusions about.

How do we "test" this?
Via demonstration, via experience?!

"Objective reality" is that which causes you to go to work to earn money to feed yourself and keep a roof over your head. You claim that it is just an illusion but you go anyway.

Silly... and far from objective.
Many men have lived without working for money or without the need for money.
Regardless, you don't even address the nature of man or why most men work or whether there is a possibility that mankind doesn't have to work - you just blurt out the incomplete evidence of your sense and claim it to be absolutely universal.
That is not objectivity.

Objective truth is that which is consistent.

Two hundred years ago, it was "consistent" to force black people to be slaves. Would it have been an objective truth to declare black people as lower forms of humanity? Why not? After all, objective truths are - according to you - just persistent events that one experiences!!!!!!!!!!

The day you stop going to work, using a computer, eating food and drinking water is the day that I will believe that you are completely convinced that there is no objective reality.

I am not saying that there is no experienced world and that my being is not involved within this experience. I'm saying that the quality of one's involvement depends upon whether one knows that one is a slave or a master to the experience that one creates for itself.

By your logic we can know nothing. I don't absolutely KNOW anything. However I go to work because it works and when I don't I get hungry and my landlord kicks me out in the street. I'm assuming that you live by the same set of underlying rules of our perceived reality.

Gnostics know two things - that they are God... and that the world of experience is theirs to mould as they would ordain.
That's why so-called miracles are part of gnostic truth: a gnostic is no longer slave to the world, but it's master.

 

[Meffy]

Honestly Meffy, if you won't be serious then I can't be bothered to argue with you. So I'm just going to take my ball and go home.

Awwww...

P.S. It's *gnash gnash* Jeez, everybody knows that!

No it's not, it's a delicious garlic ganache, goes great with garlic bread to give it that extra garlic flavor that real garlic aficionados crave.

 

[Meffy]

How much ganache could a gnostic gnash if a gnostic could gnash ganache?

 

[RandFan]

This asserts that only actions (demonstrations) are true/real. What about the underlying being behind them?

Not relevant to this discussion. Do you address "the underlying being" when you are trying to get a loan?

Maybe - it proves that there is underlying order inherent within the EXPERIENCE of the world. But it tells us nothing about REALITY since experience isn't reality. Neither does it tell us from whence this order comes.

So what? We live as though it is reality. That is the only truth that matters to you. It is that truth that you are forced to live by and it is that reality that makes it possible for you to use your computer. You can deny the reality but your actions belie you. That is the only reality that we have. If I claim I have a TV I can show you that TV. You can choose to believe that it isn't real but we can both still watch movies on it.

In short, it says nothing objective about any real thing... which means, essentially, that it isn't an objective truth.

But it is a truth that you rely on. You rely on the underlying order to make your car work, to grow your food, to keep you dry. So all this bluster about no objective reality is meaningless in the long scheme of things because in the end you still have to demonstrate truth to get a loan.

It's a bit like saying that Tom always chases Jerry. That's how far your statement goes to providing an objective truth about existence.

Saying that "Tom always chases Jerry" won't put food on the table. You getting of your rear end in the morning will. So you do.

How do we "test" this?

We both do it. We both have the same results. I go to work and I can feed my family. I don't, I can't. You go to work, you can feed your family (or just yourself). You don't, you can't. Again, you can deny reality all day but at the end of that day you can't escape it.

Via demonstration, via experience?!

Yep, otherwise, you aren't even there. You are but a figment of my imagination. I either accept that this reality is real or you don't exist.

Silly... and far from objective.

Perhaps, but you still live as though it is.

Many men have lived without working for money or without the need for money.

They haven't lived without food. You need food. And most of us don't have a choice about working for money. Most of us need money so we go to work. If it wasn't the truth we wouldn't do it.

Regardless, you don't even address the nature of man or why most men work or whether there is a possibility that mankind doesn't have to work - you just blurt out the incomplete evidence of your sense and claim it to be absolutely universal.

Because there is no escaping cause and effect. If I don't work I starve. If I don't work I will become homeless. If I don't eat I will die. If I don't drink water I will die. If I don't protect myself from the elements I will die. And you, lifegazer, will eat food.

That is not objectivity.

Perhaps not but you will be forced to live as though it is. You will still use your keyboard and mouse to control your computer. You will still walk using both legs. You will still use your mouth to consume food and water. You can claim to not believe in reality but reality is far more powerful than you and you will urinate and defecate and pass gas like all of the rest of us non-existing life forms because reality is stronger than you are.

Two hundred years ago, it was "consistent" to force black people to be slaves. Would it have been an objective truth to declare black people as lower forms of humanity? Why not? After all, objective truths are - according to you - just persistent events that one experiences!!!!!!!!!!

Non sequitur. The objective truth was that people enslaved others. Since recorded history no one has been able to live without food and water. Gravity has always worked and you will still sit down on the toilet to eliminate your wastes. Slavery has come and gone but the physical world has not. It might not be real but you live as though it is.

I am not saying that there is no experienced world and that my being is not involved within this experience. I'm saying that the quality of one's involvement depends upon whether one knows that one is a slave or a master to the experience that one creates for itself.

You still eat food.
You still drink water.
You still urinate and defecate.
You still bleed when cut.
You still sleep at night.

Gnostics know two things - that they are God... and that the world of experience is theirs to mould as they would ordain.

But this can't be proven anymore than the literalists beliefs can be proven.

That's why so-called miracles are part of gnostic truth: a gnostic is no longer slave to the world, but it's master.

Sure thing mister gnostic, don't eat, don't drink water, don't sleep. You do that for 14 days straight in a controlled experiment and I will believe you. Otherwise it's all just words.

 

[SezMe]

Gnostics don't believe in the reality of anything, except God.

That does it. I have now officially converted to Gnosticism.



Now I don't believe lifegazer exists. Gnosticism is sweet.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Lifegazer, please tell me about your experiment.

Steven

 

[wollery]

I noted a while ago that Lifegazer was abandoning his own threads faster than he did before his sabbatical

7th July; Individual experience for The One, Lifegazer's last post #61

13th July; Why science must eventually reform, Lifegazer's last post #207. Actually made it to page 6.

15th July; One ~Thing~ observing two stars simultaneously, Lifegazer's last post #29.

18th July; my philosophy - pyramid-down, Lifegazer's last post #21.

19th July; The brain & human experience, Lifegazer's last post #48

25th July; The Annihilation of the p-zombie, Lifegazer's last post #72.

He used to argue the toss for page after page. Now, apart from one thread, he's giving up before the end of the second page. It's also interesting to note how he's suddenly changed topics, the last thread was about the p-zombie, this one's about Paul being a Gnostic. I get the feeling that he's searching for some topic on which he can get someone to agree with him, or at least admit that he's raised a good point.


Oh, by the way Lifegazer, you claim that the difference between Gnostics and people of other faiths is that Gnostics know that they are right. The problem with this argument is that most people of most religions would say that they know that they're right, that they know that their god exists.