The Eighth Sermon to the Dead

A friend of mine was recently banned from Facebook, because he was using a pseudonym. I've never felt the need to use a pseudonym on Facebook, as I’m both fairly mundane in my postings there, and fairly naïve about how the data is used. I’m sure it’s mined 7 ways from Sunday, but most of my data is of so little use as to be laughable. However, he brought up a couple good points. I asked him if it was an opportunity for growth, and he responded: 'no just an opportunity to discover how the changing landscape of communication favours isolation... I'd rather be alone in a crowd than alone in my room.' The online world gives us the illusion of being with others, while still being able to maintain our ‘security’ or ‘anonymity’. We can interact without having to actually interact. In my mind, that’s becoming more and more of a bad thing. I use Facebook as much as anyone. It’s on my phone, and usually open in my web browser. I use it most when I’m bored or tired...

Today, someone I don't know posted on a friend's facebook timeline: Don't waste your time. Religion is the biggest joke played on man. A good god would've revealed itself. I had a mixed reaction to this. On the one hand, I recognized that this person's ' Reality Tunnel ' is firmly entrenched in a non-religious track. What benefit, to me or them, to contradict their tunnel? On the other, I really WANTED to contradict their tunnel, as I find religion to be both useful and beneficial in my daily life. Meditations, prayers, and rituals all help me to organize my day to day thoughts, and find my center. When I have solid ground to start from, the rest of my life falls into place a lot easier than not. Then again, when I think of religion, I think of a very personal set of practices, surrounded by an accepting community of like minded people. I have no idea what this person thinks of when they hear the word 'religion', other than 'it's a joke...

I was asked how I balance being a clergyperson and an esotericist. Do I see them as part of a greater continuum, or keep them separate. I definitely see them as a continuum. I think the clergy person is an esotericist, even he or she does no magic or joins no orders. The clergy, after all, read obscure books and have obscure knowledge, which can only be described as 'esoteric'. Some of it is overtly so, parables and numerology and mysticism, and some of it is not. In any case, the goal of the clergy and the practicing esotericist should be the same: The salvation of as many as possible. The clergy person does it directly, through pastoral efforts and education of the populace. Sometimes, the efforts of clergy are misguided, but I do genuinely think that most are trying to provide for the lost in their own context. That context may not be appropriate, and there are bad examples. The esotericist is looking for the salvation of many via the learning of, wrestling with, and p...

A blogger by the name of Madcap asks some questions in the course of discussing Nietzsche as a Gnostic. I won't speak to Nietzsche as a Gnostic, as I've not read enough of the German Philosopher to have an informed opinion. I do have an uniformed one, but that's neither here nor there. The questions: Do Gnostics, as you define them, think that humanity can come to a point in time where things like starvation and war will be no more? If so, how will this come to pass? Of course not. I've never met one. I've met some Socialists, some Utopians, who thought so, but never anyone who claimed Gnostic as a title, or acted Gnostic in their thought processes. Even the ancient texts recognize that there is something irretrievably fucked up about the world. Not evil, just not working correctly. The key is irretrievably, trying to change it in a permanent way is futile, because the tools you work with contain the seeds of the destruction of what you've built. Do Gn...