Don't know if I would align with anti-dualism, because I see an inherent polarity in God, I just don't see it as a "personality trait" of an embodied god if that's what you're into. I added stuff about Jesus to infer that the path to what you might call gnosis if you're a gnostic is available in very simple language through Jesus' direct commands. I say this only because very recently I took an interest in this from a somewhat perennialist perspective, so it is on my mind. It seems to me that following and understanding his commands is one of the most accessible keys to the "divine lock", and if there is a demiurge, I don't think following the wisdom in Jesus' commands would lead you to it by default.
All "negativities" in this world serve a purpose like a force that squeezes a tube of toothpaste. The toothpaste will all come out the end eventually, but some of it will need to undergo more unpleasant squeezing before it makes its way out
The entire thing is spiritual and moral so I don't follow your logic that I'm not allowed to use that language or else you will misunderstand me. Maybe stop pointing your finger around and point it at yourself instead, I know I do. I don't really know enough about what "post-christianity" is to follow what you mean when you say that that is also what christians are when they argue against gnosticism. Am I to gather that you are a gnostic and you took my post as a personal attack against gnosticism? It wasn't really. But Chao's language like "Only if you're a subservient little bootlicker to Jehova Yahweh "can't handle his own creations even with omnipotence" God" is vengeful and twisted finger-pointing (self-destructive) I think. No surprise her profile photo is a representation of immense suffering - people who hold that stuff in their mind inflict it upon themselves
Cringe, don't think I've talked like this since 2008. Were you born after 9/11 by any chance? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Really a challenge, you start the post interesting then strike down my poor heart with "ad cringinum", but notwithstanding! Starting from the top, when I say anti-dualism I'm referring to:
But there is no lesser/weaker/secondary creator that is possible to follow, because it would not be the Creator/God
A basic idea of a dualistic doctrine is that there are two opposite forces at play - sometimes they are not associated with good or evil per se as in Taoism, sometimes they are directly associated with good and evil as in Manicheanism. Basically, when you say that there isn't a secondary 'god' or 'force' separate from an 'original creator', you're de facto denying dualism by this formulation.
When you're talking about perennialism, I'd say I enjoy the works of Evola and Guenon, but I question whether or not perennialism is starting from a solid foundation philosophically. I won't try to get into my critiques here, because I'd need to think about it, but that school of thought has some interesting ideas I'll say.
Your opinion that people will "eventually find the right path" and "All "negativities" in this world serve a purpose" are ideas reminiscent of the Holy Spirit, the world after redemption, and Divine Providence - ergo the belief that god doesn't permit any infernal forces to confound human reason. I personally don't agree on the simple basis that people are obviously continuously confounded, our reason and perception are, from a logical position alone, very suspect (ala Hume and the Problem of Induction) and religions seem to come and go like the tide as society's rise and decay away.
Why did I oppose the spiritualization of your phrasing?
I like when people actually live according to the watchmaker analogy
Because just like how this guys put it, it feels like you're putting out a 'Jeffersonian God' vibe and not a 'perennial truth manifested in exoteric and esoteric forms', or at least, it didn't until this most recent post. The fact that I didn't see that doesn't necessarily indicate my reading comprehension is at fault here, doubly so since two people didn't see it that way.
I don't really know enough about what "post-christianity" is
I'm talking about a few things with this, but the most basic idea is that religion centers around worshipping a god who actually
is all goodness, all truth, all justice, and in whose image man is made and the universe was formed (Divine Simplicity & Thomistic theology).
what christians are when they argue against gnosticism
Aside from your addition of perennialism, what you've said thus far is basically consonant with their arguments, that's why I drew the comparison. Just look at what I'm quoting above and that's what I'm saying is comparable, a lot of those things were denied by Gnostics, who believed that knowledge attained on Earth was fundamentally suspect and so even knowledge of the divine was suspect as it was acquired on Earth. A lot of Gnostics were dualistic and formulated that the Earth was itself evil or was made by a fundamental force of evil - but they shared a general distrust in human reason and the possibility for true knowledge.
Am I to gather that you are a gnostic and you took my post as a personal attack against gnosticism?
I'm not really, but if you'd like to, sure. I would more align with an epistemology best called 'phenomenalism', but say what you will. I share their distrust of the ability of humanity to acquire fundamental truths, but a lot of their other doctrines and their reaction to this distrust I don't share at all.
But Chao's language like "Only if you're a subservient little bootlicker to Jehova Yahweh "can't handle his own creations even with omnipotence" God" is vengeful and twisted finger-pointing (self-destructive) I think.
Modernity makes a lot of people vengeful and twisted. Generally shuffling them into cities, making it impossible to see the stars at night, and wiping out their gods and sense of purpose will do that. But I can understand not being particularly favorable to the Christian god, since Christianity has had two-thousand years to make its mark - and it created a civilization that undid itself and threatens to utterly ruin the natural state of human existence... soo.... Oh, and it doesn't accept responsibility for this: just like communists, the problem is that true Christianity hasn't been tried, and it's all these fake-communists (er... Christians) who ruined the whole thing. Those two millenia didn't
really exist.
No surprise her profile photo is a representation of immense suffering - people who hold that stuff in their mind inflict it upon themselves
Suffering isn't an indication of being wrong or even of being unhealthy necessarily. A lot of people who were deeply right suffered.
Cringe, don't think I've talked like this since 2008. Were you born after 9/11 by any chance? HAHAHAHAHAHA
You know, you got me. I'm actually 12, and I wanted to impress you with my knowledge, so I tried really hard to show you my efforts. Will you please pat me on the head and say 'good boy'?