Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance: Primordial Dichotomous Dipole Inference

Author: AGnosticAgnostic

Posts

Total: 31
Topic's author
#1
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
I am currently working on a working/testable theorem that I would love to have falsified (if it can be, it needs to be anyways). It predicts a:

"belief"-in-and-of-itself / "knowledge"-in-and-itself
primordial antithetical dichotomous dipole singularity
as in: a primordial yang and yin.

I find it absolutely equivalent to the two so-called "Edenic" trees of life, and of knowledge of good and evil (explained later herein).

I derived it via beginning with the thought experiment thus:

Start with nothingness.
Let there be a universe (if so willing it can be this one) and designate this universe as 'that I am'.
Let there be a being "I am" in/of 'that I am'.
Let 'that I am' be absolutely unknown: god, no god, satan, no satan, flying spaghetti monster etc. absolutely 'unknown'.
Is it possible to infer 'that I am' if "I am" is also 'unknown' unto *itself*?
This gave rise to a component to the theorem: The Relative Infra-Inference Problem-Postulate (TRIIPP)
which begs that there be a reconsideration of:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
to:

All knowing is (by way of) indefinitely trying belief, but
not all belief is (by way of) indefinitely trying to know all.
rendering the former absolutely absurd.

It omits that knowing any/all *not* to "believe" by way of *falsification* is (as) a kind of knowledge-in-and-of-itself, and is essential to (con)science(s). For example, the negation of any "belief"-based assertion(s) otherwise taken to hold (ie. as generally true) may be tried (indefinitely, if needed) for ignorance(s) that may exist *unknowingly* and subsequently falsified, thus not to be "believed" in, which is a knowledge *as distinct from* belief. This demands a conscious knowledge of ignorance argument rendered thus:

CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF IGNORANCE ARGUMENT (CKOIA)
P1. Knowledge (ie. 'knowing') is certainly made attainable and/or practical by way of use of the (con)science(s) (ie. inquiry).
P2. Knowing (how) to consciously falsify (ie. try/test) belief(s) for ignorance(s) (ie. to consciously 'know' *if not* to believe) certainly exists and is definitely a (kind of) knowledge-in-and-of-itself.
P3. Any/all 'belief'-based ignorance(s) exist(s) in, as, of and/or by way of belief-in-and-of-itself.
C1. All-knowing is definitely approached by: indefinitely trying to consciously falsify any/all "belief(s)" indefinitely (ad infinitum).
This later gave rise to LORI: Laws of Relative Inference:


which predicts a bi-directional eye of a dipole:

2 (any/all)
1 KNOW (equivalent: Tree of Life)
0 I am willing to... ^v
4 BELIEVE (equivalent: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)
3 *not to* (negation/falsification)

wherein:

0-1-2-3-4 = I am willing to KNOW, (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE...(ad infinitum)
(tends towards knowledge of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) otherwise "believed" in by the unknowing / all-knowing god)
0-4-3-2-1 = I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* KNOW (any/all)...(ad infinitum)
(tends towards "belief"-based ignorance(s) lacking knowledge that would otherwise negate "belief" in/of them / all-believing satan)

which allows the rendering of the following dichotomous statement:

What (the presence of) "belief"-based ignorance is to *the absence of* knowledge,
(the presence of) knowledge is to *the absence of* "belief"-based ignorance.
And this all lead naturally to the dipole presented:
(+)knowledge/negation/ignorance(-).

Thus:

as ignorance increases
(for lacking knowledge *not* to believe),
suffering/death increases accordingly
to how one "eats".
and

as knowledge increases
(for lacking "belief"-based ignorance)
suffering/death decreases accordingly
to how one "eats".
This finally discovers:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
to be further begging of a modification of belief:

All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.
And this would certainly collapse any/all "belief"-based ideologies as being necessarily ignorant. Which finally brings me to ask:

Is there any way to falsify any of this?
Anything to be improved upon?
Does the CKOIA hold?

Thanks for reading and consideration.
#2
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
It kind of sounds like you are saying all knowledge is ignorance. Is that what you are saying?
Topic's author
#3
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@Mopac
It kind of sounds like you are saying all knowledge is ignorance(?). Is that what you are saying?
No, you have it backwards: all belief is ignorance. Knowledge negates belief and is thus antithetical to belief.

All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.

#4
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
I can not say I agree with your use of language if you are saying that to say "I believe because I know" or "I believe what I know" can never be meaningfully said.

Topic's author
#5
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@Mopac
I can not say I agree with your use of language if you are saying that to say "I believe because I know" or "I believe what I know" can never be meaningfully said.
"I believe because I know..."
"I believe what I know..."

are ignorant statements. It is not that it is *not* "meaningful", it just means the person is ignorant. Look:

I think, therefor I am.
is similarly ignorant. There is no conscious acknowledgement of self. In fact, there is a conflation of being with thought:

i. one can can think less they exist, and
ii. one can not even begin to think less
having knowingly been born in the mind
as a thought: "I think, therefor I am!".

Try:

I think, therefor I know I am able to think.
which is still ignorant of self, but recognizes the ability/capacity of the self to think. Try:

I think not, knowing I am willing not to think.
which is a full acknowledgement of self:
i. distinguishes the being from the thought process of that being
ii. recognizes the ability/capacity of self
iii. acknowledges self

Now replace with "belief":

I believe, therefor I am.
absurd and ignorant.

"I believe because I know..."
"I believe what I know..."
are ignorant statements. It is not that it is *not* "meaningful", it just means the person is ignorant.

Try:

i. I believe not, because I know.
ii. I believe not what I know.
which are consciously justified:
i. knowledge negates belief - knowing any/all *not* to "believe"
ii. knowledge negates belief - believing entails degrees of uncertainty, whereas knowledge contains none

And so the one who "believes" in what they "know" are themselves confused without real knowledge-negating-belief.

I think, therefor I am.
is thus backwards:

I am, therefor I (may) think.
is correct.

I believe I am...
is ignorant: no knowledge of self.

I know I (merely) believe...
is a knowledge. It recognizes that "belief" has (a) limitation(s), and knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to that "belief" is also knowledge. It is therefor a knowledgeable "belief".

If a person "believes" something and merely takes it to by 'true' without a conscious acknowledgement of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to that "belief", the person is ignorant and in "belief"-based ignorance. This is much/all of "belief"-based theology.
#6
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
If all knowledge is belief, and all belief is ignorance, but you say knowledge negates belief...

I am not really sure what you are saying.

Topic's author
#7
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@Mopac
If all knowledge is belief, and all belief is ignorance, but you say knowledge negates belief...

I am not really sure what you are saying.

All knowledge is *NOT* belief. The philosophical assertion:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
Is absurd. Try:

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.
which establishes the need to try any/all belief for belief-based ignorance(s).

So it is technically true that knowing *requires* belief, but black is not white.

What BELIEF is to black (ie. ignorance), <-* satan requires belief
KNOWLEDGE is to white (ie. knowledge) <-* god is all-knowing
and knowledge negates belief ad infinitum. <-* yang and yin

Now with this in mind, reconsider 0-1-2-3-4 and 0-4-3-2-1:

2 (any/all)
1 KNOW (equivalent: Tree of Life)
0 I am willing to... ^v
4 BELIEVE (equivalent: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)
3 *not to* (negation/falsification)

wherein:

0-1-2-3-4 = I am willing to KNOW, (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE...(ad infinitum)
(tends towards knowledge of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) otherwise "believed" in by the unknowing / all-knowing god)

0-4-3-2-1 = I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* any/all KNOW...(ad infinitum)
(tends towards "belief"-based ignorance(s) lacking knowledge that would otherwise negate "belief" in/of them / all-believing satan)

The theorem predicts that these are the two Edenic trees:


wherein there are only two variables:

KNOWLEDGE
of
BELIEF(-BASED IGNORANCE)

and knowledge negates belief: knowing any/all *not* to "believe". This establishes a Truth by Way of Negation model:

Truth: whatever can not be **NEGATED**
Way: conscience; consciously trying/testing ad infinitum (ie. consciousness itself)
Living: duality; knowledge/of/ignorance; true/false (ie. light/darkness)

Hence the Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance Theorem.

It can be used to predict:
i. The original sin(s) (so-called)
ii. Source(s) of suffering: Nazism/fascism, socialism etc.
iii. Peace model that tends towards peace, instead of "us vs. them" / "believer vs. unbeliever" etc.
#8
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Don't you have to believe you have knowledge?

I still believe knowledge/belief is a false dichotomy, and I am still not really clear  on what it is you are really trying to say.




Topic's author
#9
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@Mopac
Don't you have to believe you have knowledge?

I still believe knowledge/belief is a false dichotomy, and I am still not really clear  on what it is you are really trying to say.
BELIEF - as containing one or more degrees of uncertainty
KNOWLEDGE - as containing no degrees of uncertainty

No, you do not have to "believe" you have knowledge.
You can "know" you have knowledge with no degree of uncertainty.

If knowledge/belief is a false dichotomy:
knowing *not* to believe, would not exist, and
knowing to believe, and to what degree(s), would not exist, and
believing to know while being wrong (ie ignorance, learning), would not exist, and
believing to know and being right (ie. to know, intelligence), would not exist.

It's clearly absurd to deny a knowledge/belief dichotomy.
It is *the* dichotomy that defines the fixed characteristics of god/satan:

god: knowledge-in-and-of-itself (ie. all-knowing)
satan: belief-in-and-of-itself (ie. requires belief)

I know not to believe... I am receiving revelations from a god. <-* knowledge vs.
I believe I am ... receiving revelations from a god. <-* belief-based ignorance


#10
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
You can be very certain and simply delusional. Sure, the delusional might believe they know.

Topic's author
#11
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@Mopac
You can be very certain and simply delusional. Sure, the delusional might believe they know.
This is precisely what happens to people who eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: they "believe" they "know" but are dead wrong.

very certain of what *not* to BELIEVE = tree of living
delusional of what *to* BELIEVE = tree of knowledge of good and evil

Notice how the top requires no belief, and all-knowing god would certainly know any/all *not* to "believe"
Notice how the bottom one requires belief, which satan certainly requires in order that any believer believe:
i. belief-in-and-of-itself is a virtue
ii. evil is good (whatever they may be)
iii. satan is god

So knowledge is discovered to be the inverse of "belief": the total negation of it until all-knowing of any/all *not* to believe.

What knowledge is to white,
belief is to black, which is the
opposite of white. Black can
become white as any/all
"belief"-based ignorance(s)
are tried/tested and falsified,
becoming new knowledge,
of any/all *not* to "believe".
Black becomes white, but
white needs to try/test black
to become white.

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but <-*as in: tree of living
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all. <-*as in: tree of knowledge of good and evil

The problem with modern-day philosophy is in the statement:

All knowing is belief (?), but not all belief is knowing.
it is absurd. A knowledge-in-and-of-itself exists such that negates any/all false belief, thus is not a belief(-in-and-of-itself), but the counterpart to it!


#12
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
The difference between simply believing you know and truly knowing is the difference between gnosis and epignosis.

Relying solely on the self very easily leads to plané, which is why even monastics, whose very vocation implies solitude, swear to obey and follow the discipline and instruction of an abbot. An experienced guide knows how to test the spirits, and can identify more quickly what could have potentially derailed the student from The Way. 
#13
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
I believe I know little of what you’re talking about. Can you simplify it for me?

Topic's author
#14
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
The difference between simply believing you know and truly knowing is the difference between gnosis and epignosis.

Relying solely on the self very easily leads to plané, which is why even monastics, whose very vocation implies solitude, swear to obey and follow the discipline and instruction of an abbot. An experienced guide knows how to test the spirits, and can identify more quickly what could have potentially derailed the student from The Way. 
The difference actually is just "belief". Once you remove "belief" you either know, or you know you know not. In either case, it is gnosis.

If one identifies with their own ignorance (if they are conscious of it), rather than identifying with what they know, the ignorance can become knowledge. However, in order for that to even begin, there must be a conscious knowledge of that ignorance. Else is ignorance-in-and-of-itself in perpetuity.

That is why the theorem predicts one can not infer an unknown from an unknown:

Set the universe to 'that I am' which is a primordial dichotomy of good vs. evil (don't even try to define them - this is eating from the tree itself).
Set 'that I am' as absolutely unknown outside of there appears to be good and evil in the cosmos (ie. yang and yin).
If an 'I am' being enters this universe, how can 'I am' ever infer 'that I am' if 'I am' is unknown unto/by itself?
It can not. Therefor 'know thy self' is found to be a universal axiom no different than the temple of Delphi. It's fixed.

Therefor, the degree to which one 'I am' identifies with their own *ignorance* is the same degree to which they can infer 'that I am' knowing they are themselves ignorant. It scales: the more one knows of themselves, the more they can infer what is on the other side of them.

This is why people who whine/squeal about there not being a proof for god are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves. The proof is themselves: I can't force them to know themselves anymore they can force me to "believe" in a god esp. less knowing myself whence to infer one.

I believe I know little of what you’re talking about. Can you simplify it for me?
If/when you know you know, let me know. It will be simpler then.
#15
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Sometimes saying "I don't know" can really be another way of saying "I know better".

Topic's author
#16
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
Sometimes saying "I don't know" can really be another way of saying "I know better".
Sometimes saying "I know better" can also really be another way of saying "I'll know better for next time".

If only humanity could take this attitude towards things like fascism. Unfortunately, they don't even know where it is coming from due to "belief".



#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
@AGnosticAgnostic
As all data is internally stored.

Then gnosis is epignosis.

And religious belief and assumed knowledge are the same also.

Input, store, think and sometimes output.


#18
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
It seems to me that you believe a lot of things. 

#19
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
The Truth is not knowledge. The Truth is not contingent on knowing. The Truth is not data that is internally stored.
Topic's author
#20
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
1. As all data is internally stored.

2. Then gnosis is epignosis.

3. And religious belief and assumed knowledge are the same also.

4. Input, store, think and sometimes output.

1. But not all data is outside-in. It can be generated from the inside-out.
2. Gnosis means to know. There is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself counter-part to ignorance-in-and-of-itself.
3. This is the ignorance-in-and-of-itself of 2.
4. No see, there are two directions. Input can come from both inside and outside. Store: in and out. Think: in and out.

Bestowal (ie. in) and reception (ie. out) is the First Fundamental Distinction of creation:

Genesis 1:3
And saying elohim <-* masc./fem. shared
'Let be light,' <-* masc. bestowal
and light was. <-* fem. reception

the 'letting be' can (ie. does) happen from the inside-out.
Will and light have many shared properties.

Mopac: It seems to me that you believe a lot of things.
You may be mistaking the lens of your own "believing" eye for mine: you believe I only believe, and merely believe to know. There is an alternative 'state' to belief: acknowledgement. Instead of believing I know or do not know, simply acknowledge without need for belief in or disbelief in, acknowledgement can be just as still as silence itself. It usually takes a mad one to upset what could otherwise be peace. See how mad they get when their holy man is ridiculed or criticized? They start spilling blood over that kind of thing. That is the opposite of peace. It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good. It takes one who knows not to "believe" to know good and evil to see them just the way they are without "belief".

The Truth is not knowledge. The Truth is not contingent on knowing. The Truth is not data that is internally stored.
Knowledge tends towards truth, because truth involves any/all *not* to believe, which leaves whatever could be true.
Knowing is contingent on truth.
Data are like fingers pointing at the moon. Can concentrate on fingers or moon - choice is individual.
#21
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic

I know you don't understand my faith, but you seem to have strong opinions about it.


Topic's author
#22
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
I know you don't understand my faith, but you seem to have strong opinions about it.
I'm of no particular opinion(s) in/of matters without substance, and knowing not (of) your personal faith(s), as relatively equivalent to me as matters without substance could possibly be, I could not so much as have any opinion whatsoever about such matters without substance even if I so desired to - if not already lacking: as it were, as it so remains, and as it so shall: I understand not, for caring not to understand matters without substance knowing not your personal faith(s).

#23
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
I am an Orthodox Christian. You expressed your opinion that the church was intentionally hiding the hidden meaning behind the gospels, which is that they are astrology books.

I am here to inform you that this is not true, and you should probably not educate yourself about the faith through the so called "gnostics" or youtube videos. Rather, if you are to be educated it should be with the guidance of the Church.


The so called gnostics are not Christian, they never have been. They like to use our scriptures, but their real intent is to undermine the faith in teaching a false doctrine.

The so called "gnostics" do not have a unified doctrine, they all tend to believe different often contradictory things. What unites the so called gnostics is that they practice "knowingism" or really, to put it simply... they put  an awful lot of faith in their own understanding and knowledge. It is a type of self righteousness or spiritual egotism. It is counterfit.

One way the ancient church distinguished itself from those who would attempt to take advantage of people's familiarity with Christ for their own purposes is that the true church has Apostolic succession. That is, our bishops can trace their ordinations back to the apostles(Take note that this disqualifies every protestant church).


The gnostics have never had apostolic succession because they were never part of the church. My point is, you shouldn't believe what the so called gnostics teach, because they will only lead you astray.



Topic's author
#24
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@Mopac
I am an Orthodox Christian. You expressed your opinion that the church was intentionally hiding the hidden meaning behind the gospels, which is that they are astrology books.
It's not that they are necessarily intentionally hiding them, it's just that they are themselves ignorant of what they actually are. I understand Christians have an attachment to their faith, and it might be the reason should you be defensive/offensive against gnosticism (which is just a word meaning: to know).


I am here to inform you that this is not true, and you should probably not educate yourself about the faith through the so called "gnostics" or youtube videos. Rather, if you are to be educated it should be with the guidance of the Church.
You can't inform me of either: in agreement with, or contrary to, what I already know. I neither appeal to authority: I let truth stand in its place, even if knowing it not, but knowing what is *not* true is not in any way harmful.



The so called gnostics are not Christian, they never have been. They like to use our scriptures, but their real intent is to undermine the faith in teaching a false doctrine.
Christianity is idolatrous and derived from Canaanite sacrificial rituals: absolution of sins via human sacrifice.


The so called "gnostics" do not have a unified doctrine, they all tend to believe different often contradictory things. What unites the so called gnostics is that they practice "knowingism" or really, to put it simply... they put  an awful lot of faith in their own understanding and knowledge. It is a type of self righteousness or spiritual egotism. It is counterfit.
Actually: everything you just said applies to Christianity. Including the counter-fit part (Mithraism).


One way the ancient church distinguished itself from those who would attempt to take advantage of people's familiarity with Christ for their own purposes is that the true church has Apostolic succession. That is, our bishops can trace their ordinations back to the apostles(Take note that this disqualifies every protestant church).


The gnostics have never had apostolic succession because they were never part of the church. My point is, you shouldn't believe what the so called gnostics teach, because they will only lead you astray.
"Believers" certainly have no familiarity with Christ: Jesus did not teach he was the "belief"-of-the-way-of-the-life.

I don't see any reason why a gnostic would want to be a part of any church, including a gnostic one. The word gnosis means 'to know' and that is all. It takes any/all a "believer" to become astray.

Pigs whine and squeal.
Sheep tend to flock.
Goats climb mountains.

What can you tell me about Jesus?
#25
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
It's not that they are necessarily intentionally hiding them, it's just that they are themselves ignorant of what they actually are. I understand Christians have an attachment to their faith, and it might be the reason should you be defensive/offensive against gnosticism (which is just a word meaning: to know).


The church wrote the gospels. The church knows what they are. I know what gnosticism means. This is why I called it "so called" gnosticism. I maintain that true gnosis is found in The Trinity.


You can't inform me of either: in agreement with, or contrary to, what I already know. I neither appeal to authority: I let truth stand in its place, even if knowing it not, but knowing what is *not* true is not in any way harmful.

Truth is the authority.


Christianity is idolatrous and derived from Canaanite sacrificial rituals: absolution of sins via human sacrifice.

Oh no, certainly not idolatrous. It does appear that  way, but what the faith does in fact is address idolatry very well. I tell you, it isn't as you say.

Human sacrifice does not absolve sins. In fact, human sacrifice is an abomination.

Christ is God, The Ultimate Reality, incarnate as man, becoming death and ascending back to heaven, filling all things and reconciling all of creation back to divinity. God with us, our salvation.

And it is this humility of God becoming creation that gives us our life. For we were created and subsist on The Word of God, by which all things were made.



Actually: everything you just said applies to Christianity. Including the counter-fit part (Mithraism).


Not so much Orthodox Christianity. We all pretty much get what it is about. The things that we do differ about amongst ourselves are not the fundamentals of faith, rather nonessential NERD STUFF. 

And yiu are wrong. Ours is not a faith in our own understanding. The god of gnosticism is what is called "knowledge". The God we know to be The One True God is The Ultimate Reality. To know this God and Jesus Christ is to have epignosis, or true knowledge. I say this not as  someone who has only book knowledge, but experiential knowledge. 



"Believers" certainly have no familiarity with Christ: Jesus did not teach he was the "belief"-of-the-way-of-the-life.

I don't see any reason why a gnostic would want to be a part of any church, including a gnostic one. The word gnosis means 'to know' and that is all. It takes any/all a "believer" to become astray.

Pigs whine and squeal.
Sheep tend to flock.
Goats climb mountains.

What can you tell me about Jesus?


He is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."


Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. And he is worshipped and glorified, together with the unoriginate Father and Life giving Spirit unto ages of ages amen.

#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Outside in, inside out.

Non-inherent data obviously has to come in before it can be stored and perhaps be reworked and adapted before it can go out again. 

Nonetheless the process and decision making is always internal.

No matter how exceptional it may seem, it is still only an internal physiological process.

Though it is fair to suggest that the process could have a purpose other than chance physiology.

A greater purpose though, could mean a hundred and one different things.

Nonetheless, if there is a greater purpose I'm pretty certain that it will be based of some sort of yet to be developed pragmatic technology, rather than such archaic nonsense as cross nailing, hymn singing and incense wafting etc.
#27
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
It is less about the singing and incense than it is about being a sincere person striving for perfect love.
Topic's author
#28
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
The church wrote the gospels. The church knows what they are. I know what gnosticism means. This is why I called it "so called" gnosticism. I maintain that true gnosis is found in The Trinity.
It does not ultimately matter who wrote the gospels - it is an unnecessary imposition of boundary condition(s) even focusing on it.

What Trinity? A "belief"-based one? Or a knowledgeable one? There is certainly a knowledgeable one contained in Genesis 1:1 and 1:3.

ELOHIM (*+* masc. / fem *-*) 'Let us make Adam...male and female...image/likeness...'
*(+/-)*
(*+* bestowal-give / reception-take *-*) = folded 0 (infinity)
= (-)(8)(+)

......(+)......
(:.....8.....:)
...:..(-)..:...

Genesis 1:1
At the beginning by way of (+8-) is created (essence of) all above and (essence of) all below.

(essence of) all above
..............(+8-)..............
all below (essence of).

Shared property: (essence of) therefor is an 'known' agency by ELOHIM / GOD (if even unknown to all others)

Plug:

Genesis 1:3
And willing elohim,
'Let be light,
and light was.

Into:

(essence of) all above
..............(+8-)..............
all below (essence of)

'Let be light, <-*+* (bestowal-give  /
And willing elohim, <-(*+* bestowal-give / reception-take *-*)
and light was <- /  reception-take *-*)

viz.
I AM
that
I am

Think about the burning bush.

Truth is the authority.
Correct.

Oh no, certainly not idolatrous. It does appear that  way, but what the faith does in fact is address idolatry very well. I tell you, it isn't as you say.
Which tree do you eat from?

Human sacrifice does not absolve sins. In fact, human sacrifice is an abomination.
...

Christ is God, The Ultimate Reality, incarnate as man, becoming death and ascending back to heaven, filling all things and reconciling all of creation back to divinity. God with us, our salvation.
I AM <- call it pure beingness
I AM (+belief in/of...) <- call it separation

I AM <- call it pure beingness
that
I am (+belief in/of...) <- call it separation

If you knew the lower, you'd know the higher.

Hence the CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF IGNORANCE INFERENCE THEOREM.

And it is this humility of God becoming creation that gives us our life. For we were created and subsist on The Word of God, by which all things were made.
...

Not so much Orthodox Christianity. We all pretty much get what it is about. The things that we do differ about amongst ourselves are not the fundamentals of faith, rather nonessential NERD STUFF. 
...

And yiu are wrong. Ours is not a faith in our own understanding. The god of gnosticism is what is called "knowledge". The God we know to be The One True God is The Ultimate Reality. To know this God and Jesus Christ is to have epignosis, or true knowledge. I say this not as  someone who has only book knowledge, but experiential knowledge. 
You need more burning bush.

He is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
...

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. And he is worshipped and glorified, together with the unoriginate Father and Life giving Spirit unto ages of ages amen.
The
truth of the way of the living is
truth by way of negation.

Whatever negates not, neither negates, is true.

Think of the burning bush.

Topic's author
#29
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
Outside in, inside out.
inside-out, outside-in, inside-out, outside-in
egg-chicken, chicken-egg, egg-chicken, chicken-egg
which came first? (they are one-and-the-same).


Non-inherent data obviously has to come in before it can be stored and perhaps be reworked and adapted before it can go out again.

Nonetheless the process and decision making is always internal.

No matter how exceptional it may seem, it is still only an internal physiological process.

Though it is fair to suggest that the process could have a purpose other than chance physiology.

A greater purpose though, could mean a hundred and one different things.

Nonetheless, if there is a greater purpose I'm pretty certain that it will be based of some sort of yet to be developed pragmatic technology, rather than such archaic nonsense as cross nailing, hymn singing and incense wafting etc.
If the CKIIT theorem holds, it predicts (lack of) conscious knowledge of ignorance as resulting in/from such nonsense.

This is why it attempts to clarify the so-called Edenic good/evil problem-in-and-of-itself as "belief"-based ignorance-in-and-of-itself.

Mopac: It is less about the singing and incense than it is about being a sincere person striving for perfect love.
'Perfect love' is an ideal and subject to the graven images in the heavens problem-in-and-of-itself.
Love is not intrinsically good: it can be exploited esp. less knowledge of how/why.
#30
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
'Perfect love' is an ideal and subject to the graven images in the heavens problem-in-and-of-itself.
Love is not intrinsically good: it can be exploited esp. less knowledge of how/why.

A pure heart doesn't care if it is exploited. A pure heart sees God.