The Eighth Sermon to the Dead

Fantastic Planet has a very cool post about a gnostic dream Jeremy had. Part of it really struck me. 14. Gnosis is not for Gnostics. You cannot be enlightened if you do not own a dog. I think this part is extremely accurate. Gnostics think too much. Gnosis isn't the product of thinking, but rather realizing that there are times when you can't think. Gnosis is about realizing, and doing, and loving, and living. And a dog is the perfect gnostic: Loyal, friendly, occasionally dominant, occasionally submissive. Usually Energetic. Unselfconcious, yet always aware of their place in the scheme. Always, always, full of love. Love the comes back, again and again.

The convention was opened by the Pope , no less. They are going to be running classes at the Regina Apostolorum on the medical, psychological, and religous aspects of Exorcism. Not a lot else on the convention, but I wonder if you have to be an Ordained Roman Catholic Priest to take the class. I can't read the university's website, because it's in Italian, of course. Yet another language I should pick up.

You scored as Mystical Communion Model . Your model of the church is Mystical Communion, which includes both People of God and Body of Christ. The church is essentially people in union with Christ and the Father through the Holy Spirit. Both lay people and clergy are drawn together in a family of faith. This model can exalt the church beyond what is appropriate, but can be supplemented with other models. Mystical Communion Model 89% Servant Model 72% Sacrament model 72% Herald Model 39% Institutional Model 33% What is your model of the church? [Dulles] created with QuizFarm.com

With the current chaos seemingly enveloping the US, I thought I'd draw everyone's attention back to the supposed time traveler who was posting on message boards back in 2000, John Titor. http://www.johntitor.com/ He lists 10 things you can do to help yourself survive a disaster of huge proportions, and Hurricane Katrina made me think of it again. Whether or not he was actually a time traveller, his ideas are a common sense approach to surviving when things get tougher than $4 a gallon gasoline. His advice is in black, my comments in blue. Here are the 10 things: 1. Do not eat or use products from any animal that is fed and eats parts of its own dead. We now know that CJD and Mad Cow are problems. 2. Do not kiss or have intimate relations with anyone you do not know. This only makes sense in the age of AIDS. 3. Learn basic sanitation and water purification. Humanure Handbook , OA Guide to Water Purification 4. Be comfortable around firearms. Learn to shoot and cl...

"that only those fully indoctrinated into their mind-cult can judge it." That is what John Horgan says in his comment section about Freudian Psychologists and String Theorists. The whole article is an interesting read, and I encourage you to read it and the rebuttal. However, I'm thinking of Gnosticism. Lots of folks 'don't get it', thinking it's all about dualistic material/spritual divides and pretty much useless. Until they learn about it, and see the complexities and questions it raises. But they can't do that, until they learn about it. So, is it true that "learning about it" is necessary for understanding, or is it simply switching our premises, so that the outlandish theory makes sense from a given premise? Or, in true Gnostic fashion, is it both?

http://the-philosophers-stone.com/articles/charlatn/magus.htm Wow. It blows one's mind. The idea that spiritual purity is not necessarily in step with spiritual purity. Or rather, that spiritual progress is not always made by remaining among the pure. I need to digest this one a bit.

Found a Neat site detailing how the bible/gospel relates to astrology and the zodiac. Haven't had a chance to dig into it, but I will. Thought I'd share.

Gnostic Desktop! And another one, also cool.

Sorry I haven't posted more about my formation progress. Course, there hasn't been much. I've gotten a new assignment (The Law and Ministry), and I'll be reading all kinds of books about those topics in the next few weeks (One called Ministry and the Law, another the Canon Law for the Johannite Church). After I've read the law, I'll be curious to know how this was all agreed upon by the church. Was it just an episcopal committee, or was their input from the laity and lower clergy as well. The question comes to mind, as I read about how the Catholic Church developed much of it's canon law, in "The Catholic Church: A short history" by Hans Küng. However, the archons have been tossing lots of wonderful little distractions my way. The mortgage check got all screwed up, and now I think it'll hit a NSF charge, and I can't talk to the bank because they're closed. I've got a work project that I should be doing right now, and we just had...

So, my next assignment deals with these areas: 1) Ethical standards in conducting ministry 2) Conduct of life as Ministry (the life of the priest taken as a real-world application of spiritual values, ie: leading by example as a type of ministry) 3) The Counseling policy of the Apostolic Johannite Church 4) Rights and responsibilities of Clergy in Church life 5) Rights and responsibilities of Laity in Church life 6) The Tentmaker: The 'Dichotomy' of Religious life and Secular employment as considered in the context of the above. Soo.... Any resources to help discuss these topics would be of use. I have the AJC code of law, but am looking for more general resources. Thanks.

I've been reading the Catechism of the AJC, and I've learned a lot with just the first couple pages. The hierarchy and doctrinal statements of the AJC have kind of puzzled me in a Gnostic setting, as Gnosticism is not so much about statements but about experience. The emphasis of the curriculum on studying Christian theology also puzzled me. However, experience without a reference point is meaningless. The Doctrines, as spelled out by the AJC, are there to guide the experiences of the initiates and parishioners. Think of them as signposts. You can go on a journey, but without knowing where you are, having a point of reference, you're not just wandering: you're lost. Christian Theology has been dealing with these problems for centuries, and so those doctrines and statements also form a valuable signpost from which to proceed. It's kind of like "Ok, I know my friend is over here, but I want to go THIS way..."

For those who are interested in the course of study I'll be following, the curriculum is attached. It's freely available on the AJC website.

You are dependable, popular, and observant. Deep and thoughtful, you are prone to moodiness. In fact, your emotions tend to influence everything you do. You are unique, creative, and expressive. You don't mind waving your freak flag every once and a while. And lucky for you, most people find your weird ways charming! The World's Shortest Personality Test

I had a friend ask me "Why did you decide ot seek ordination in a Gnostic church rather than one of the other heritage churches?" My response follows. Well, I've had several mystical experiences. In a subjective sense, I know (understand, have insight) that God, in some manner, exists and affects my life. I don't have faith in what someone else is telling me. I don't feel any particular need to be saved through the sacrifice of any individual other than myself. The Gnostic mythology makes sense to me as a symbolic method of explaining what the world is about and what to expect. It's not scientific, but it has the huge benefit of not CLAIMING to be scientific. It's an internal understanding of the world within, and how that affects the world without. It's an explicit understanding that we live in our heads. The Mythology is tools to grasp the reasons behind what saint Paul said: "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, t...

Divinity known Not in peals of thunder, but The silence between

I've taken a slight break from Christian Theology, to take and read John Ringo's "The Road to Damascus", which is a Bolo novel, about a giant war machine and the deteriorating situation on the planet the machine is supposed to defend. It's been a good book, light read. It's got some ideas about how a government should be run, and how guns = security, etc. Standard Libertarian fare. I've enjoyed it, as I've enjoyed all of Mr. Ringo's work. I recommend his books. I have a quote in the book that I really liked, and wanted to pass on. I'll do so when I find the quote again.

"If, as (F.D.E.) Schleiermacher suggests [in Christian Faith, 1821-2], the distinctive essense of Christianity consists in the fact that God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ, and through no one else and in no other way, it must follow that the Christian understanding of God, Jesus Christ, and human nature should be consistent with this understanding of redemption. Thus the Christian understanding of God must be such that God can effect the redemption of humanity through Christ; the Christian understanding of Christ must be such that God may effect our redemption through him; the Christian understanding of humanity must be such that redemption is both possible and genuine. In other words, it is essential that the Christian understanding of God, Christ, and humanity is consistent with the principle of redemption through Christ alone. According to Schleiermacher, the rejection or denial of the princple that God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ is nothing less than the reject...

Although I'm not a thelemic practitioner, I do enjoy the Podcast "Thelema Coast to Coast." This week, the interview a fellow who wrote a book about the Symbolism of Led Zepplin IV. It's a very cool interview, go check it out.

Tim Boucher writes: One of the other points that Nathan made indirectly is the idea of giving people permission. Permission to actually follow their interests. A lot of people need that, are lacking it, and can’t seem to give it to themselves. They’re worried that people will laugh at them or think they are crazy. I've run into that myself, the feeling that you need permission to study things outside the mainstream: Whether it's Gnosticism, or Theology, or Freemasonry, or what have you. Tim makes the quote in the context of Conspiracy theory, but this can apply to any field of inquiry that doesn't have to do with the "mainstream" of music, tv, sports, etc...

I've been reading in "Christian Theology: an Introduction" about the divinity of Christ. One of the things I came across is the idea that Jesus had to be both Man and God in order for the Redemption to be effected. Under Gnostic thought, this is the case with every human, as we each have a part and parcel of the Sacrae Flamme. This leads to the idea that Jesus, in his being, was not special, as he is under orthodox formulations. Which makes the idea of Gnostic Christianity a little stranger, for why would we commemorate a person who wasn't special? For the Christ (or Xristos) under Gnostic thought was not a particular human being. I haven't really pursued the idea very far of what the Xristos WAS, mind you. I'll be doing more research and thinking on that subject. However, the idea that it was a particular human named Yeshua bar Joseph doesn't seem to figure into it. I'll post more on the topic as I progress.