WHAT DO WE WANT FROM THE GODS?

[Roma]

that a Soul has 5 levels. But, the Soul as a whole need to be respected.

In the Egyptian/Jewish Kabbalah there are 5 souls (coordinating entities) within the standard human.

That is my observation too.

As the human learns to control the personality, the complex of intelligences changes and the human becomes increasingly transparent to yet higher entities

 

[Xenophon]

Wait how can we use magic passed from angels but don't believe in God's. I don't get that. Akala principle? Highest realm of spirit, lying higher than the elemental realms, where the highest point lives - suggested on enochian magic - is Akala.
This is god. You have a monad, this is god. It is not Christian god, but is God nonetheless.
I know we come from different schools of magic, but we need to be able to agree on like, the basics of the foundations of the principles to get anywhere. Otherwise we are literally the same as caveman. Can't we use the actual teachings from actual angels instead of making stuff up and calling other people deluded?

Whose actual angels? And which set of actual teachings? Folks have been scrapping about first principles since afore they coined the word.

Post automatically merged: Oct 14, 2023

In the Egyptian/Jewish Kabbalah there are 5 souls (coordinating entities) within the standard human.

That is my observation too.

As the human learns to control the personality, the complex of intelligences changes and the human becomes increasingly transparent to yet higher entities

There are five by my count, too. But I can't promise more might not crop up/collapse into.

 

[pixel_fortune]

The model that makes most sense to me is: your friend helps you move house and you buy them a 6-pack of beer as a thank you

You friend can afford his own beer.
The cost of the labour he gave you was WAY more than the price of the beer.
It's not transactional, and it's not grovelling. It's just a nice gesture!
It demonstrates your appreciation in a way that saying "thank you" doesn't, even though the monetary value is pretty trivial

 

[Roma]

Occasionally while meditating I am offered a cube of energy. I test it for smell, intent and plane. If it seems good, I take it in and push it out several times to ensure that it is what it seems

These energy cubes add to my light-body

The result generally is that I can immediately see and interact a bit more clearly on the plane of the new substance

That might be considered a gift from the gods

 

[Xenophon]

The model that makes most sense to me is: your friend helps you move house and you buy them a 6-pack of beer as a thank you

You friend can afford his own beer.
The cost of the labour he gave you was WAY more than the price of the beer.
It's not transactional, and it's not grovelling. It's just a nice gesture!
It demonstrates your appreciation in a way that saying "thank you" doesn't, even though the monetary value is pretty trivial

Let's hope your friend sees things the same way, no?

 

[Challis]

Whose actual angels? And which set of actual teachings? Folks have been scrapping about first principles since afore they coined the word.

Post automatically merged: Oct 14, 2023

There are five by my count, too. But I can't promise more might not crop up/collapse into.

The angels. The ones who visited John dee and passed on the teachings.

 

[Diluculo_DelFuego]

A good comedy-drama reality show.

 

[Vandheer]

Absolutely nothing.

 

[Xenophon]

Absolutely nothing.

That's not a bad answer. The question for this thread, as framed, is broad to the point of being inchoate. From some deities like the Adamic posse, I just expect to be left alone. From a few others like Odin or Quirinus I'd appreciate an occasional slap on the back. So I guess one should spell out what he means by "god." (I mean some "god" definitions get pretty contrived and less-than-compelling. The 12-Steppers' anagram-God as "good orderly direction." Robert Jay Matthews' anagram-Wotan as "will of the Aryan nation.")

 

[Wintruz]

Gurdjieff once said that the prayers of humans were like knowing that 2+2=4 but wishing that 2+2=5.

My view; there are unconscious, mechanical forces at work in this Universe and those forces determine what happens to most lives at most times. Those forces also create the "mind" with which most humans identify. All of this can be called Fate. The Sorcerer is one who has activated a hidden part of his/her consciousness which has given it a degree of independence from the mechanical outer world. This allows her/him to interfere with Fate and alter what otherwise might have been. This could range from someone deciding that they will be the first in their family to reject poverty and get a good education to lifelong sorcery workings aimed at total self-transformation. In all instances, Work depends upon the individual Sorcerer rather than a god.

The idea of an Aristotelian god (as in most of the Abrahamic movements) doesn't get off the mark with me. It doesn't exist, though belief in it has driven humans to even greater depths of insanity than would have otherwise come naturally to them. I am open to the idea of a Neoplatonic Absolute which exists at gradated levels of purity (as in Late Hellenismos and, through Greece, some forms of Sufism) but the idea of "wanting" anything from that is absurd. It just Is. As in pagan Neoplatonism, that Absolute is refracted in a refined way through the gods. The extent to which I interact with them is the extent to which they are incarnate in the ecstasies and strengths that sometimes attend my Work. I value those moments as a form of exchange between me and the gods but I am not asking them to take care of my life for me. I think any god worthy of reverence would be repulsed by that idea.

 

[Xenophon]

Gurdjieff once said that the prayers of humans were like knowing that 2+2=4 but wishing that 2+2=5.

My view; there are unconscious, mechanical forces at work in this Universe and those forces determine what happens to most lives at most times. Those forces also create the "mind" with which most humans identify. All of this can be called Fate. The Sorcerer is one who has activated a hidden part of his/her consciousness which has given it a degree of independence from the mechanical outer world. This allows her/him to interfere with Fate and alter what otherwise might have been. This could range from someone deciding that they will be the first in their family to reject poverty and get a good education to lifelong sorcery workings aimed at total self-transformation. In all instances, Work depends upon the individual Sorcerer rather than a god.

The idea of an Aristotelian god (as in most of the Abrahamic movements) doesn't get off the mark with me. It doesn't exist, though belief in it has driven humans to even greater depths of insanity than would have otherwise come naturally to them. I am open to the idea of a Neoplatonic Absolute which exists at gradated levels of purity (as in Late Hellenismos and, through Greece, some forms of Sufism) but the idea of "wanting" anything from that is absurd. It just Is. As in pagan Neoplatonism, that Absolute is refracted in a refined way through the gods. The extent to which I interact with them is the extent to which they are incarnate in the ecstasies and strengths that sometimes attend my Work. I value those moments as a form of exchange between me and the gods but I am not asking them to take care of my life for me. I think any god worthy of reverence would be repulsed by that idea.

Aristotle's god is scarcely that of the Adamic creeds. It's pretty detached and scarcely loving. At times the Stagirite hints that this god is but "thought thinking itself" which is nothing like YHWH, Allah, or Jesus' Our Father. Thomas Aquinas is the real culprit in the tale. He borrowed arguments from Aristotle that (arguably) prove the existence of a First Cause, then leap frogs and calls this "God" then triple jumps like an electro-shocked jack rabbit and identifies this God with the one in the Bible. (Yes, he says this last step is a matter of faith, but by then the damage has been done.)

 

[Wintruz]

It started earlier than Aquinas when the Heebs encountered the Persians' Ahura Mazda and Platonism and had to elevate their tribal totem to cosmic Master of the Universe. Avicenna and Maimonides were also prior to Aquinas and developed Islam and Judaism in light of Aristotle.

There's a reason that they poured YHVH into the Aristotelian mould and it's because Aristotle's is a God which can be quantifiably reduced. This is indicated by Aquinas saying that "reason in man is like God in the world". They seize upon the rational faculty which deals with quantity and matter rather than quality and insight. Those faculties, such as Plato's idea of nous, are avoided by these people, because they can only understand things on the most basic, materialistic level.

 

[Xingtian]

You would have to have a sub-Wikipedia understanding of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to think they avoided Plato’s nous. Even the privileging of Aristotle in Islam and Latin Christianity did not prevent strong Neoplatonism infusing these religions, whether through Macrobius’ commentary on the Dream of Scipio or smuggled under Aristotle’s name (eg The Book of Causes and The Theology of Aristotle, which were actually mostly extracts from Proclus). Immaterial, suprarational, and apophatic realities abound in all of these religions.

 

[Wintruz]

You would have to have a sub-Wikipedia understanding

Try PhD in the History of Religion from Oxford.

In my original post, the one you've scrolled past, I attributed Neoplatonism to some forms of Islam (I probably could have spared a mention for Eastern Orthodoxy too). You'll find outliers in Judaism (see that long post of mine which explained that Cabala was mostly stolen from the Greeks) and Christianity (Ficino for example) but I was obviously talking about the popular reception of theology rather than marginal voices.

Still, I'm not surprised that a post criticising the Jews brought out the forums' resident Bolshevist.

 

[Xingtian]

Try PhD in the History of Religion from Oxford.

In my original post, the one you've scrolled past, I attributed Neoplatonism to some forms of Islam (I probably could have spared a mention for Eastern Orthodoxy too). You'll find outliers in Judaism (see that long post of mine which explained that Cabala was mostly stolen from the Greeks) and Christianity (Ficino for example) but I was obviously talking about the popular reception of theology rather than marginal voices.

Still, I'm not surprised that a post criticising the Jews brought out the forums' resident Bolshevist.

Ah, I see you have unblocked me!

The suggestion that Origen, the Cappadocian fathers, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus, etc are “marginal voices” or “outliers” confirms my assessment of your level of understanding.

As for Aquinas, you misquote him. Here’s what he actually says:

Man is said to be after the image of God, not as regards his body, but as regards that whereby he excels other animals. Hence, when it is said, "Let us make man to our image and likeness", it is added, "And let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea" (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). Now man excels all animals by his reason and intelligence; hence it is according to his intelligence and reason, which are incorporeal, that man is said to be according to the image of God.

Note that the word translated “intelligence” here, “intellectum”, is the Latin rendition of nous. Time to actually read some of that Western heritage you lot are always going on about instead of relying on memes and YouTube.

 

[Wintruz]

You never were blocked, merely ignored. Enjoy your three minutes of my attention before it's withdrawn again.

The suggestion that Origen, the Cappadocian fathers, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maximus, etc are “marginal voices” or “outliers” confirms my assessment of your level of understanding.

The same Origen who is a designated heretic even by the Orthodox, let alone Catholics? That Origen? Being classified as a heretic is the near-definition of being marginal(ised).

It really is peak Redditor-vision to think that more than a tiny number of Christians of any time have been wandering around, talking about the pre-existence of the soul and the three levels of interpreting scripture. This is not to diminish the influence of some of these ideas (especially in the case of Pseudo-Dionysius) among priests and theologians (and I already mentioned the Orthodox who are generally better informed about their theology) but these Neoplatonic ideas have not shaped the popular understanding and practice of Christian religion to anything near the extent of Aristotelianism.

Note that the word translated “intelligence” here, “intellectum”, is the Latin rendition of nous. Time to actually read some of that Western heritage you lot are always going on about instead of relying on memes and YouTube.

Congratulations. In trying to make someone else look like a fool, you've exposed yourself as one.

"Nous" comes to us as "intellect" but "intellect" does not have the Platonic connotations that "nous" does in Greek and it hasn't since before the fall of Rome! Just as today a person might be called "intellectual", it doesn't mean that that person is thought to have insight into God, it merely means that they are engaged in mental activity. Which is what Aquinas is talking about. It corresponds entirely with Aristotelianism. If you think that Aquinas was somehow a secret Neoplatonist I really hope you're going to provide some excellent sources to a peer-reviewed journal because you'd be upturning the entire history of theology.

I'm glad that you're interested in Neoplatonism (a much healthier option than Judeo-Bolshevism) but, really, please don't bother me again until you know what you're talking about.

 

[Xingtian]

The same Origen who is a designated heretic even by the Orthodox, let alone Catholics? That Origen? Being classified as a heretic is the near-definition of being marginal(ised).

A very facile reading of the situation. There would be no orthodoxy without Origen. That later Orthodox found certain of his views embarrassing and tried to cover up their own tracks is neither here nor there. Many of the key figures in orthodox theology were open admirers of Origen. The first Philokalia, compiled by Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzen, was a compilation of extracts from Origen. These two men along with Gregory of Nyssa are the main figures responsible for the theology expressed in the second ecumenical council and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed that Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants still recite today. And Origen’s hermeneutic approach basically set the standard for later orthodox commentaries on scripture.Note also that Maximus the Confessor, another thoroughgoing Platonist, laid the theological foundation for the 6th ecumenical council. So no, not marginal of all.

It really is peak Redditor-vision to think that more than a tiny number of Christians of any time have been wandering around, talking about the pre-existence of the soul and the three levels of interpreting scripture. This is not to diminish the influence of some of these ideas (especially in the case of Pseudo-Dionysius) among priests and theologians (and I already mentioned the Orthodox who are generally better informed about their theology) but these Neoplatonic ideas have not shaped the popular understanding and practice of Christian religion to anything near the extent of Aristotelianism.

Yes, I see Catholics everywhere talking about substance and accidents.

"Nous" comes to us as "intellect" but "intellect" does not have the Platonic connotations that "nous" does in Greek and it hasn't since before the fall of Rome!

Everyone take note: the Oxford phd is here to inform us that, for example, John Scotus Eriugena (9th century) and Marsilio Ficino (15th century) made their translations of Platonist works before the fall of Rome. Neat!

Just as today a person might be called "intellectual", it doesn't mean that that person is thought to have insight into God, it merely means that they are engaged in mental activity. Which is what Aquinas is talking about.

Ah, it’s mental activity, that settles it. You’re just pushing words around with no thought to their highly variable use and connotation in history.

It corresponds entirely with Aristotelianism. If you think that Aquinas was somehow a secret Neoplatonist I really hope you're going to provide some excellent sources to a peer-reviewed journal because you'd be upturning the entire history of theology.

It’s not really a secret. Eg,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm glad that you're interested in Neoplatonism (a much healthier option than Judeo-Bolshevism)

Hey it all comes together in Hegel. //;-=)

 

[Wintruz]

It’s not really a secret. Eg,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Do tell the Vatican that someone on the internet knows their theology better than they do and that they’ve been wrongly catechising their priests for 800 years. They’ll take everything you have to say with the utmost seriousness.

Everyone take note: the Oxford phd is here to inform us that, for example, John Scotus Eriugena (9th century) and Marsilio Ficino (15th century) made their translations of Platonist works before the fall of Rome. Neat!

I haven’t read Scotus directly and, unlike you, I don’t comment on things that I haven’t learnt. Ficino, however, does use Plato’s terminology. Of course he does. He was translating him!

Honest to goodness, I think I’m too quick to use a person’s politics as an indication of the health of their soul. So often, good old fashioned stupidity is explanation enough.

We’re done now.

 

[Xingtian]

Do tell the Vatican that someone on the internet knows their theology better than they do and that they’ve been wrongly catechising their priests for 800 years. They’ll take everything you have to say with the utmost seriousness.

Peer reviewed academic article (as you requested) published in a Thomist journal by a Catholic university= “someone on the internet.”

I haven’t read Scotus directly and, unlike you, I don’t comment on things that I haven’t learnt. Ficino, however, does use Plato’s terminology. Of course he does. He was translating him!

Ah, and what words does he use to translate “nous”?

Honest to goodness, I think I’m too quick to use a person’s politics as an indication of the health of their soul. So often, good old fashioned stupidity is explanation enough.

We’re done now.

Yes I do believe you have a plane to catch:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Post automatically merged: Mar 27, 2024

And lest anyone think Neoplatonism is to blame for Wintruz’s brainworms, here’s Apollo on the Jews, according to major Neoplatonist Porphyry:

Steep and rough is the road that leads to heaven, / Entered at first through portals bound with brass. / Within are found innumerable paths, / Which for the endless good of all humankind / They first revealed, who Nile’s sweet waters drink. / From them the heavenward paths Phoenicia learned, / Assyria, Lydia, and the Hebrew descent group”

“Only Chaldeans and Hebrews found wisdom / In the pure worship of a self-born god.”

One circle is around the world on every side, / In seven zones rising to the starlit paths: / These, in their sevenfold orbits as they roll, / Chaldeans and enviable Hebrews / Named heavens to go on a sevenfold circuit.”

 

[Angelical]

If there are such things as 'Gods' at all (which I personally have serious doubts about) then I didn't make them & they didn't make me so we're quits on that score. By definition, a 'God' must be both omniscient & omnipotent - otherwise they cannot possibly be anything remotely resembling a 'supreme being', and I see no signs at all of any omniscient creatures in this world at all - and don't get onto the whole 'free will' thing either, as that's a red herring.
What I do see signs of are other intelligences that seem to exist on a different plane to us (and I am not referring to anything modern physicists term the 'Multiverse' as that is utter BS) - we can only 'see' a tiny portion of the spectrum of light and it is highly likely there are creatures all around us that we cannot percieve any more than most of them are able to precieve us but that is no argument to go around 'believing' in them.
Can they be contacted? Almost certainly YES - but therein lies a dilemma that should be obvious to all.

What attitude do I want to see here? Above all else, honesty!
If you genuinely believe in an actual God, then that's perfectly okay with me - just because I don't accept that idea does not make me right (and I will always reserve the right to change any of my opinions if presented with suitable evidence) any more than an absolute belief in any Gods makes the believer right. We could all be wrong - after all, is it not written ' There are more things in Heaven & Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy'?

They did make You. The Story of Titanomachy is as much about Humans becoming Humans as it is about Zeus becoming a God. Chronos is Time, there was Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers, that was a Real Split, and Hunter Gatherers were sometimes like Homeless People on the Streets Today when they weren’t Native American Tribes.

and before that there was no Farming, just God and the Angels (some are Demons). The Gods.