PDA

View Full Version : Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal


Petr
06-20-2015, 12:40 PM
I really think that only traditionalist-minded, Bible-faithful Christians who keep these kind of archaic connections in their mind, and also the possibility that we might be entering the apocalyptic end times, can keep their heads straight nowadays. No matter how crazy and corrupt the world might get, those who follow the Scriptures know it has all been foretold, or been seen before:

https://truthxchange.com/articles/2000/09/01/androgyny-the-pagan-sexual-ideal/

Posted by Dr. Peter Jones on Sep 1, 2000

Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal


The material below was published in the January, 2000 Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. For footnote references, please refer to the printed version.

…being a gay man or lesbian entails far more than sexual behavior alone… a whole mode of being-in-the-world.

Paiens unt tort e Chrestianes unt dreit

- Chanson de Roland

1 Introduction

Like the ancient pagan Sodomites pounding on the door of Lot’s house millennia ago, the modern gay movement is gathering at the doors of our churches, our academies and our once traditionally “Christian” culture, demanding entrance and full recognition. Notable scholar, David A. J. Clines, professor of Old Testament at Sheffield University, for one, appears ready to lay down the welcome mat. He wrote in 1998: “…[though] queer theory has yet to show its face at the SBL [Society of Biblical Literature], gayness is challenging…all that we hold dear. When we begin to redraw the alterity map, the boundaries between same and different…we find ourselves having to think through everything, and not just sexuality, from scratch.” Clines, who not long ago was known for his conservative theological position, illustrates how far acceptance of the gay movement has come in recent years, even among those from strongly biblical backgrounds.

This movement has come a long way fast. It will not go away soon, I believe, because it is so intimately tied to deep changes in modern society, in particular, those associated philosophical Postmodernism. Because in the Postmodern hermeneutic all meaning is socially generated, queer commentary has little methodological difficulty finding a place in the contemporary religious and theological debate. In cooperation with feminist biblical interpretation, which has “destabilized normative heterosexuality” by alleging “sexist” bias, queer readings merely seek to take one more step in the hermeneutics of suspicion and expose the “heterosexist bias” of the Bible and Bible interpreters. Identifying exegesis as an exercise in social power, queer theorists reject the oppressive narrowness of the Bible’s male/female binary vision, and boldly generate textual meaning on the basis of the “inner erotic power” of the gay interpreter. What could be more Postmodern? Employing such a widely accepted methodology, and with “straight” Bible scholars now ready “to redraw the alterity map,” gay theology appears to have a bright future everywhere.

The theoretical progress is mirrored in popular society where resistance to the gay life-style is more and more impugned as anti-democratic and un-American. But the urgency of the situation for Bible-believing scholars is not merely the pressing need for a scholarly ethical response to an unfortunate moral aberration. The contemporary appearance of a homosexual movement says something about the particular times in which we live, granted both that pagan spirituality is enjoying a popular revival, and that throughout the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah have always served as the symbol for endtime pagan idolatry, ultimate moral disintegration and eschatological divine judgment. [B]The subject, in its spiritual, religious and even eschatological dimensions, needs to be treated and debated among us, not simply as an unfortunate social deviation or ephemeral social fad, but as a cutting-edge component of a rising, all-encompassing, religious world view that is diametrically opposed to the world view of Christian theism.[/B]

One fruitful way to approach this pressing issue is to consider the religious roots of homosexuality. The recent radical changes in our society, include, simultaneously, both the liberation of sex and the rediscovery of pagan mystical spirituality. Is such a pairing pure coincidence or is it the result of a necessary organic relationship? Has there always existed an ineluctable connection between pagan religion and pagan sex? For instance, while radical pagan feminists speak of the need of a “change of [religious] consciousness,” such spiritual transformation is always proposed by way of a radical recalibration of our perceptions of sexuality. In other words, sexuality appears central not peripheral to the spiritual quest. This, I believe, will become more and more evident in the homosexual movement, namely, that this particular sexual life style will be the promoter of a particular kind of religion. Thus, while sexual liberation in its popular, successful, government-financed versions, strategically associates itself with “civil rights,” with pro-choice civic values and with politically-correct tolerance, often studiously avoiding any obvious religious dimension, its ultimate legitimization [since all human beings are religious] proceeds from the age-old dogmas of paganism, which, unlike their modern equivalent, never tried to hide behind a thin veil of temple/state separation. If everything is indeed political, as the radicals often proclaim, everything is also spiritual, and thus the spiritual is also sexual. Charles Pickstone, a pagan believer in Anglican orders, affirms this in his recent book [I]The Divinity of Sex: “…sex is the spirituality that reveals the sacramental richness of matter.”

The thesis of this paper is that to understand the contemporary sexual revolution, we need to see the “new sexuality,” [particularly in this paper in its homosexual expression], as an integral expression of age-old religious paganism. In our response, we cannot follow Lot, who would have sacrificed his daughters to placate the aggressors. Nor can we claim personal moral superiority. We must always hear, in the clamor for acceptance and recognition, the cry of divine image-bearers, however marred and broken. [B]However, we must not shrink back from seeking to do justice to the whole Christian, biblical dimension of the problem. In a time of moral confusion and politically correct intimidating “tolerance,” we owe such clarity to our culture, to our sons and daughters, and to God, Creator and Redeemer, for whom all things exist.[/B]


[U]2 The Modern Revival of Paganism[/U]

In order to make this connection, some attempt must be made to define paganism. The Lutheran theologian, Carl Braaten defines the contemporary revival of paganism- what he calls “neopaganism”- as:

[QUOTE][the belief in] “a divine spark or seed [which] is innate in the individual human soul. [B]Salvation consists in liberating the divine essence from all that prevents true self-expression. [/B]The way of salvation is to turn inward and ‘get in touch with oneself.’
In a different but complimentary way I would suggest that the essence of paganism can be usefully described as monism, the belief that one principle defines and unites all of reality. Thus all is one, humanity is one divine reality, and all religions are ultimately many expressions of the one monistic truth. At the heart of this theoretical religious paganism lies a particular and powerful mystical experience of oneness. Indeed it is often claimed in today’s syncretistic age that at the core of all religions, beyond and behind their distinctive doctrines, is the same mystical encounter.

Louis Dupré, T. L. Riggs Professor of the Philosophy of Religion at Yale University does indeed make such a claim. After noting the universality of the “mystical drive” to union with the divine, Dupré wonders whether “all religions, which meet in this drive, are, at least in their mystical expression, identical.” He seems to have little doubt about the answer: “If different traditions share a state in which distinctions disappear [emphasis mine], should we not conclude that in its highest form all mysticism is identical.” This conclusion is affirmed in spite of major outward “doctrinal differences,” since beyond the level of doctrine is the spiritual unio mystica. Dupré determines that “…to the extent that the state of union is held to consist of an ecstatic, intrinsically transient experience, [then] the conclusion that mysticism is identical in all religions is indeed inescapable.” A leading history of religions “Christian” scholar, Huston Smith, believes that the present work of the Spirit is producing an “invisible geometry to shape the religions of the world into a single truth.” In a similar vein, the late Joseph Campbell combined Jungian psychology and New Age spirituality in his [I]The Hero with a Thousand Faces [/I]to express the notion that all human civilizations have the same monomyth with only minor differences in details.

According to pagan esoterism, spiritual understanding through intuition and meditation is the only way to salvation. This comes through a non-rational, mystical experience of seeing oneself as the center of a circle that has no boundaries, where all distinctions are eliminated. [B]As the great modern Gnostic, C. G. Jung said: “The self is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” From the center of one’s own limitless universe the self is sovereign. [/B]The unitive experience, essential to this worldview, is engendered through drugs, through time-honored (Hindu) meditation or otherwise induced trance. Meditation, rightly practiced, enables the mind/soul to be disconnected from the limitations of the body and to be in direct contact with cosmic spiritual unity. In the words of a leading neo-pagan mystic:

[QUOTE] [B]The ultimate metaphysical secret, if we dare to state it so simply, is that there are no boundaries in the universe.[/B] Boundaries are illusions, products not of reality but of the way we map and edit reality. And while it is fine to map out the territory, it is fatal to confuse the two [illusion and reality].[/QUOTE]
[B]This Eastern monism with a Western spin is in direct and total contradiction with Christian theism and the civilization it has engendered.[/B] There is here no neutral ground. This is true, as well, of sexuality. Both monism and theism have their particular views of sexuality, and here too there is no neutral ground. As one homosexual activist recently said: “Traditional family values suck.”

The vehemence of the above statement indicates how closely theology and sexuality are held, as well as the determination on the part of some to deconstruct heterosexuality as the norm of human society. Not surprisingly, this element of deconstruction, indeed, destruction of “traditional” sexuality, has accompanied the recent appearance of paganism and deconstructive Postmodernism in the West. That can be illustrated in the vertiginous increase in divorce, the phenomenal growth of pornography, the “liberation” of sex from monogamy, and the rising practice and public acceptance of homosexuality. This is all known and well documented. However, within the specific limits of this paper, I wish to describe the religious pagan sexual ideal as androgyny-which seems to be more and more proposed as the reconstructive model for our deconstructed world.

In what follows I will first provide a certain documentation and description of a phenomenon that consistently marks pagan spiritual practice-the association of the androgynous priest with the pagan cultus throughout time and space. I will present this evidence without any claim to complete or exhaustive systemization. In the second place, I will attempt a theological explanation.


[U]3 The Androgynous Priest/Shaman as the Embodiment of Pagan Spirituality[/U]

[B]Throughout time and across space, the pagan cultus consistently, though not exclusively, holds out as its sexual representative the emasculated, androgynous priest. Mircea Eliade, a respected expert in comparative religions, argues that androgyny as a religious universal or archetype appears virtually everywhere and at all times in the world’s religions.[/B] Much evidence exists to support this judgment.

The clearest textual testimony in ancient times comes from nineteenth century BC Mesopotamia. [B]Androgynous priests were associated with the worship of the goddess Istar from the Sumerian age (1800 BC).[/B] Their condition was due to their “devotion to Istar who herself had ‘transformed their masculinity into femininity.'” They functioned as occult shamans, who released the sick from the power of the demons just as, according to the cult myth, they had saved Istar from the devil’s lair. [B]“…as human beings,” says a contemporary scholar, “…they seem to have engendered demonic abhorrence in others;…[U]the fearful respect they provoked is to be sought in their otherness[/U], their position between myth and reality, and their divine-demonic ability to trans-gress boundaries.”
[/B]
The pagan religions of ancient Canaan appear to maintain a similar view of spirituality and sexuality. The goddess Anat preserves many of the characteristics of Istar. Like the Syrian goddess Cybele, Anat is headstrong and submits to no one. She is both young and nubile but also a bearded soldier, so that many commentators conclude that she is either androgynous or bi-sexual. She thus symbolizes the mystical union, which was celebrated by her worshipers as a ritual enactment of the [I]hieros gamos [/I][sacred spiritual marriage]. [B]The Old Testament gives some indication that Canaanite religion included homosexual androgyny, against which Israel was constantly put on guard.[/B]

[B]Livy describes initiation into the Bacchanalia of 186 BC as involving homosexual rape, [I]simillimi feminis mares[/I]. Walter Burkhart, professor of Classical Philology at the University of Zurich, comments upon this testimony: “Scholars at one time gave advice not to believe in slander of this sort, but we can hardly be sure. Parallels from initiations elsewhere are not difficult to find.”[/B] In other words, Burkhardt recognizes that there was something going on related to the cultic nature of the event, not simply a frenzied lack of control.

Examples of “religious” androgyny can be found in various forms in Syria and Asia Minor in the third century B.C., but its clearest and closest expression in that area comes from the Roman Empire at the beginning of the Christian era. It is well documented that the Great Mother under the names of Atargatis or Cybele had androgynous priests, called Galli, who cas-trated themselves as a permanent act of devotion to the goddess. A particular version of the goddess is worshipped under the name of Artemis at Ephesus where Paul established a church (Acts 19). In Syria, Cybele is called Rhea, whose effeminized itinerant priests imitated the deeds of the mythological Attis, in trance-like ecstasies. The rites of initiation into the Cybele or Rhea cults included baptism in the blood of a slaughtered bull or ram. This took place in a pit or taurobolium. At the end of the ceremony sometimes certain “powers” of the sacrificial bull, no doubt the animal’s genitals, were offered to the Mother of the gods, again a powerful symbol of male emasculation before the female divinity. The obvious intentions and results of such cultic mythology and practice were the feminization and emasculation of men under the occultic power of the goddess. Doubtless, the Cybele myth is reproducing the cult myth of Isis, where Osiris, the brother/lover of Isis, is killed by his brother who cuts his body in many pieces. Isis reassembles the pieces, except the phallus which was eaten by a crab, and magically restores him to life. In other words, even in death the ideal male is emasculated, like the Galli in life. Though there is no evidence of a specifically emasculated Isaic priesthood, the yearly festival to Isis included men dressing in women’s clothing. In this period, another example can be found in the worshipers of Aphrodite in Scythia. The ennares were hermaphrodite shamans who wore women’s clothes and received the gift of divination from the Goddess.

At the beginning of the fifth century AD the cult of the goddess Cybele continued to have success. [B]Augustine in his [I]City of God [/I]vividly describes the “games” offered in honor of Tanit, the celestial “virgin” and mother of the gods, where obscene actors role-played disgusting acts “in the presence of an immense throng of spectators and listeners of both sexes.” He also describes the public display of homosexual priests ([I]galloi[/I]).[/B]

I have taken the time to include some of the more unsavory details of pagan worship in order to show the similarity of the sexual practices common to them. Even though separated by many centuries, a historical and “theological” connection between the Mesopotamian [I]assinnus[/I], the Canaanite [I]qedeshim[/I], the Scythian [I]ennares[/I], and the Syrian [I]galli[/I] is not difficult to imagine. They took on the same androgynous appearance, engaged in the same ecstatic behavior, including self-mutilation, were associated with occultic spirituality, and so in many ways occupied a similar liminal relationship to “normal” society. Such parallels suggest a profound and necessary connection growing out of the same ideological pagan root.

Later in the second and third centuries of the Christian church, the Gnostics were credited by their adversaries with mystery celebrations involving carnal knowledge. [B]The charge is credible because [U]“Christian” Gnosticism was the attempt to Christianize pagan spirituality[/U], even to the point of adopting some form of androgyny. [/B]Hippolytus (AD 170-236) reports that one particular Gnostic sect, the Naasenes, who worshipped the Serpent ([I]Naas[/I] in Hebrew) of Genesis, attended the secret ceremonies of the mysteries of the Great Mother in order “to understand the ‘universal mystery.'” Like modern syncretists who are encouraged to cross over into other religions, the Gnostics believed religious truth was one, to be found everywhere, and so they crossed over into pagan spirituality as a matter of religious principle. The most explicit testimony is from Irenaeus who says: “They prepare a bridal chamber and celebrate mysteries.” A homosexual encounter is perhaps insinuated in the “Secret Gospel of Mark.” [B]At the very least, the final logion 114 of the Gospel of Thomas appears to be an invitation to spiritual androgyny. [U]All this would justify the judgment of Burkhart that “certain Gnostic sects seem to have practiced mystery initiations, imitating or rather outdoing the pagans…”[/U][/B][/QUOTE]

Petr
06-20-2015, 12:51 PM
continued:

There is good reason to believe that a form of ancient Gnosticism, namely Hermeticism, survived and influenced the Medieval West through the mystical spirituality of Alchemy. This variant Egyptian version of Gnosis saw in Hermes the divine interpreter whose secrets enable Man to pass through various levels of reality, thus making esoteric transmutations possible. The spiritual alchemist became an initiate, one “who knows,” as the ancient Gnostics “knew.” Like Hermes, the alchemical Mercurius was understood as a kind of divine “other” who would intervene by affecting the resolution of opposites. While no explicit sexual perversion is promoted, joining of the opposites or union was frequently imaged as a hieros gamos, a holy marriage, the fruit of which is called “the Philosopher’s Stone.” This “fruit” is sometimes called “the child of the work” which is presented as the Hermetic Androgyne, under the rubric “Two-in-One.” At the very least we have to reckon here with a spiritualized form of what ‘Eliade calls “ritual androgynisation.”

In the same “illuminist” tradition, Jacob Böhme (1575-1624) a great mystic and proto-theosophist, believed Adam was androgynous and that the sexes appeared as a result of the fall. For this monistic mystic, the ideal human state was androgyny. According to Eliade, Böhme derived these notions not from the Qaballah but from Alchemy, for he makes use of alchemical terms. One of spiritual successors, Franz von Baader (1765-1841) postulated that the androgyne had existed at the beginning (Adam) and would appear again at the end of time.

One notable inheritor of the esoteric movements of alchemy and hermeticism in the modern world is Theosophy. It is not without interest that Madame Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society towards the end of the nineteenth century, may well have had a dominatrix lesbian relationship with her successor Annie Besant. Besant began public life as the wife of an Anglican minister, became first a birth-control propagandist, and then an occultist. Her possible lesbianism is suggested by the great authority on modern esotericism, James Webb who cites Besant’s “irreplaceable and fully authoritative biographer Arthur Nethercot.” Later theosophists such as Aleister Crowley, promoter of the occultist pagan Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as well as Charles Leadbeater, whom Blavatsky called her “bishop,” were noted homosexual pederasts. There is good reason to think that such activity was not the expression of personal weakness, but the consistent expression of pagan spirituality.

In 1923 Feder Mühle, a businessman who became involved in Spiritualism, founded the Gottesbund Tanatra in Görlitz, Silesia-home of Jacob Böhme. Members wore the God’s Eye badge and believed that homosexuals “were vocationally mediums.” They also, with a certain logical consistency, held that heterosexual intercourse impaired the mediumistic talent. This small detail of Germanic occultic history is significant, in this sense. Since leading contemporary homosexuals make the same claims, without any apparent dependence on the theories of Mühle, such parallel thinking would suggest an organic connection between homosexuality and shamanistic religious activity.

We do see such an organic connection in ancient religions that persists today. The Siberian shamans, known as Chukchi, and the shamans of Central Asian engage in ecstatic rituals and dress as androgynes. Among the Ngadju Dyak, a pagan people-group lost in the dense bush of southern Borneo, the basir, “asexual priest-shamans…true hermaphrodites, dressing and behaving like women,” have a priestly function.” This behavior also characterizes Amazonian shamans, Celtic priests [ancient and modern], and Indian [I]hijras[/I]. The hijras, who go back into the mists of Hinduism, are a religious community of men who “dress and act like women and whose culture centers on the worship of Bahuchara Mata, one of the many versions of the Mother Goddess worshipped throughout India.” [B]In another form of Hindu spirituality, Tantric Yoga, androgyny is also the goal, where the two contrary principles of Shiva and Shakti are joined. [/B]Eliade explains: “When Shakti, who sleeps in the shape of a serpent ([I]kundalini[/I]), at the base of his body, is awoken by certain yogic techniques, she moves…by way of the chakras up to the top of the skull, where Shiva dwells, and unites with him.” The yogin, through powerful techniques of sexual-spiritual meditation, is thus transformed “into a kind of ‘androgyne.”[B] In Buddhism also the true human, the archetype, called a bodhiasattva, is androgynous.[/B] These yogic practices and mystical teachings concerning androgyny are doubtless as old as the Mesopotamian and Syrian examples discussed above.

In American Indian religious practice homosexual transvestite males-[I]berdaches[/I]-have always functioned as shamans. Amongst the Navajo, the [I]nadle[/I], a feminized male serves as reconciler of conflict. According to Navajo myth, the original hermaphrodite went to the underworld to be associated with the dead and the devils of the lower world. Among the Zuñi, Awonawilona (“he-she”) is a powerful, positive mythological figure. Similar figures are to be found in African, Australian Aboriginal cultic practice. “Some African societies,” observes an ethnographer, “have developed intermediary genders of men-women and women-men who, like their Native American counterparts, are seen as sacred and as spiritually powerful individuals.” [B]Other examples of spiritual/physical androgyny include the homosexual priests of the Yoruba religion in Cuba and “young gay witches in Manhattan.”[/B] In light of the above, one would surely have to agree with the argument of a recent book tracing the history of gay male spirituality: “gender-variant men have fulfilled a sacred role throughout the millennia.”

Coming from a different angle, Harold Bloom would nevertheless agree with this judgment. He states: “Central to shamanism are its supposed mysteries: flight, levitation, gender-transformation, bilocation, and animal and bird incarnations. [B]All these phenomena, however startling, are merely means to the single end of shamanism: restoring the undying self of the dead.[/B]”

Emily Culpepper, an Ex-Southern Baptist, now a lesbian pagan witch, teaching at the University of Redlands in Southern California, agrees. She sees gays and lesbians, in her words, as “shamans for a future age.” She reserves a spiritual role for homosexuals, for a shaman is “…a charged, potent, awe-inspiring, and even fear-inspiring person who takes true risks by crossing over into other worlds.” A fuller definition leaves little to the imagination: “The power and effectiveness of shamans-witches, sibyls, Druids-emerges from their ability to communicate with the non-human: extra-terrestrial and subterranean forces, and the spirit-world of the dead.” This, the reader will recall, is exactly the claim of the Mesopotamian [I]assinnu/kurgarru[/I] and the Syrian [I]galli[/I]-that they had contact with the spirit realm of the Underworld and of the Dead.

Culpepper left the Church and repudiated Christianity. Others stay in and say essentially the same thing. In more familiar but strangely comparable terms, Virginia Mollenkott, calling herself “an evangelical lesbian feminist,” speaks for gays and lesbians, when she says, “We are God’s Ambassadors.” Indeed, Mollenkott claims she “was told” by her “guardian angel, a Spirit Guide, the Holy Spirit or Jesus [she is not sure]: “A great shift is occurring in the world, and you are a part of that shift.” [B]For Rosemary Radford Ruether, a leading “Christian” feminist theologian, “Androgyny is her model for a human species liberated from “dualistic” gender into “psychic wholeness.” [/B]Similarly, Judy Westerdorf, a United Methodist clergy-woman, triumphantly declared to the delegates at the pagano-“Christian” feminist RE-Imagining Conference in Minneapolis (1993) that “the Church has always been blessed by gays and lesbians,…witches…[and] shamans.”

No doubt without much awareness of these elitist theories and the deep, spiritual stakes involved, the media has shaped the sexual fantasy-world of America’s youth. The “gay” and mainstream presses are now documenting a disturbing trend. Young people are declaring themselves “homosexual” at earlier and earlier ages. Others are embracing bi-sexuality, as an expression of personal freedom and autonomy. Observers note “a growing trend [in contemporary youth culture]…to refuse to define their sexuality ….Youth today want more representations of a fluid sexuality that rejects definitions of ‘gay’ or ‘straight.'” The popular press documents the success of what it calls the “gender blur.”

Though promoted as an issue of civil rights, the homosexual/androgynous revival is not merely contemporary civics or chic theory. The close connection between pagan esoteric spirituality and androgynous sexuality, evident across time and space, demands that we not ignore the spiritual dimensions underlying the contemporary scene. Barbara Marx Hubbard’s spirit guide says that sexual identity confusion is a good thing; in the new age, “Your adolescence will be a joy. You will be androgynous.”

In the light of the above evidence, is should not be surprising to note that the revival of pagan religion in our day is accompanied by a powerful reappearance of pagan sexuality. In other words, homosexuality may be less a modern question of biological destiny or civil rights than a necessary practical outworking of age-old pagan spirituality. It is becoming more and more manifest that a particular religious commitment is always accompanied by a particular sexual theory and practice. But this is not to suggest some scarlet, conspiratorial thread connecting the dots. The connection is logical, theological, and inevitable. A monistic view of existence will work itself out in all the domains of human life, and especially in the domain of sexuality.

What then is the relationship?


[U]4 The Religious Significance of Androgyny[/U]

Witing during the “student revolution” of the 1960s, the Christian apologist, Francis Schaeffer perceptively sensed the deep religious inspiration fueling the liberation of sexuality. Specifically, he noted:

[QUOTE]“[B]Some forms of homosexuality today…are a philosophic expression…a denial of the antithesis. It has led in this case to an obliteration of the distinction between man and woman. [/B]So the male and the female as complimentary partners are finished…In much of modern thinking, all antithesis and all the order of God’s creation is to be fought against-including the male-female distinctions. The pressure towards unisex is largely rooted here. But this is not an isolated problem; it is part of the world-spirit of the generation which surrounds us…the result of the death of absolutes.”
Schaeffer’s passing remark is surely correct. As we discussed above, at the heart of pagan monism is a mystical, unitive experience, a state in which distinctions disappear and opposites are joined. Androgyny, on the sexual level, reflects and confirms such an experience. Not everyone engaging in such activity thinks about the ultimate spiritual stakes. However, the link is explicitly established by influential pagan theorists in both the ancient and the modern world. Their explanations, though separated by vast distances and great periods of time, are strikingly similar and consistent, and thus independently testify to the coherent connection this paper seeks to clarify.

In the ancient Gnostic texts such connections can be detected. The Church Father Hippolytus, documents how and why the “spiritual” Gnostics did not hesitate to imitate pagan spirituality and sexuality in one form or another. He explains the Gnostic Naasene participation in the cult of the Goddess. “Because they claimed that everything is spiritual,” the Naasenes did not become Galli physically but rather spiritually: “they only perform the functions of those who are castrated” by abstaining from sexual intercourse. So, concludes Hippolytus, the Naasene Gnostics imitate the Galli, the castrated priests of Cybele. “For they urge most severely and carefully that one should abstain, as those men (the Galli) do, from intercourse with women; their behavior otherwise…is like that of the castrated.” The mythological story of the castration of Attis thus led the Naasenes to conclude that the image of emasculation was a symbol of salvation. Attis cut off his testicles in order ”break with the baser and material world and gain access to immortal life, where there is no longer either male or female.” These “Christian” Gnostics sought, through a deep form of spiritual androgyny, a close association with paganism’s understanding of salvation.

Of what does such “salvation” consist? The Gnostic Gospel of Truth enunciates the theory: “It is within Unity that each one will attain himself; within knowledge he will purify himself from multiplicity into Unity…” The Gospel of Thomas develops the practical consequences: “Simon Peter said to them: “Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said: “Lo, I shall lead her, so that I may make her a male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself a male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Though on the surface less radical, and thus promoted as a Gospel on a par with the four canonical Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas is similarly driven by the androgynous pagan ideal. This Saying 114, being the last, doubtless represents the goal of the gospel, which is promised in the first-to “not experience death.” Here, apparently, is the road to salvation-the mystical attainment of an androgynous or sexless state. Saying 114 should be understood in the light of Saying 22: “And when you make the male and the female into a single one so that the male shall not be male and the female shall not be female…then you shall enter the kingdom.” Both these sayings suggest the “neutralization” of sexuality so that the ideal for Gnostics is to become, in this life, spiritually and ritually androgynous. Thomas is not a macho attack on women. It is a rejection of creational sexuality, a radical refusal of sexual differentiation, as presented in the Genesis account.

To become a true disciple, Mary must become a liberated Gnostic, untrammeled by the sexual distinctions of the original creation. She must become autonomous, and move beyond the bondage of her sex. As a spiritual androgyne, she attains mystical union with the All.

Having already noted the alchemical goal of a mystical/unitive hieros gamos, it is not difficult to follow the logic of a professor at a well-respected Catholic university who lends to the mystical pursuit of the alchemists a sexual twist. Professor Frederica Halligan perceives in the alchemists’ quest for “gold” a blueprint for the planet’s future. Halligan notes that the second of the seven stages of alchemistical meditation, called solutio, involves both a transformation of sexual energy and the destruction of the individual ego [the self]. This is a powerful mystical experience of pure monistic spirituality. For this Roman Catholic scholar, monism seems to present no problem. But the process is far from over.

The seventh stage, conjunctio, [“joining”] is a “new reality,” the final bringing together of all the opposites, producing “gold,” i.e., spiritual gold, i.e., “a tremendously deepened sense of the oneness of all….Unitive consciousness is awareness of the essential oneness with the Divine, that is, mystic consciousness….the unification of all the opposites within oneself.” Halligan’s final definition of the conjunctio is clear: “Beyond gender differences now, the mystics of both Eastern and Western traditions describe the bliss of abiding love.”[/QUOTE]

Don Quixote
06-20-2015, 12:59 PM
Interesting article.
A defining feature of Gnosticism ancient and modern is the abandonment of reason and rationality, often without any self-awareness of the abandonment. These people cheerfully babble on without any regard for the incoherence and contradictory nature of what is just plain nonsense.

Examples.

As the great modern Gnostic, C. G. Jung said: “The self is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” From the center of one’s own limitless universe the self is sovereign.
A circle is defined as "a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre)", Jung is just babbling contradiction.
Then this:
The ultimate metaphysical secret, if we dare to state it so simply, is that there are no boundaries in the universe. Boundaries are illusions, products not of reality but of the way we map and edit reality. And while it is fine to map out the territory, it is fatal to confuse the two [illusion and reality].
Universum means 'one whole', a complete something. A universe without limits is a contradiction. If they want to posit an unlimited spatio-temporality they can't call it a 'universe'. Furthermore, if limit belongs to thought only, a concept for organising experience - "map and edit reality" - how could this, as a real distinction, ever be known? Again, more contradiction.

To embrace gender and LGBTQLMFAO theory, one first needs to abandon reason - "throw off the tyranny of phallogocentrism". Without this crucial move, this stuff can only appear as it is: pure nonsense.

Don Quixote
06-20-2015, 01:08 PM
Having already noted the alchemical goal of a mystical/unitive hieros gamos, it is not difficult to follow the logic of a professor at a well-respected Catholic university who lends to the mystical pursuit of the alchemists a sexual twist. Professor Frederica Halligan perceives in the alchemists’ quest for “gold” a blueprint for the planet’s future. Halligan notes that the second of the seven stages of alchemistical meditation, called solutio, involves both a transformation of sexual energy and the destruction of the individual ego [the self]. This is a powerful mystical experience of pure monistic spirituality. For this Roman Catholic scholar, monism seems to present no problem. But the process is far from over.Rest assured, there is nothing remotely Catholic about any of this.

Petr
06-20-2015, 01:13 PM
continued:

Mircea Eliade, both a remarkable researcher of the phenomena of pagan spirituality, as well as one of the architects of the new spirituality, explains the spiritual meaning of androgyny as “a symbolic restoration of Chaos, of the undifferentiated unity that preceded the Creation.” The androgynous being thus sums up the very goal of the mystical, monistic quest, whether ancient or modern: “in mystical love and at death one completely integrates the spirit world: all contraries are collapsed. The distinctions between the sexes are erased: the two merge into an androgynous whole. In short, at the center one knows oneself, is known, and knows the nature of reality.” Or again, accordinging to Eliade, androgyny in many traditional religions functions as “an archaic and universal formula for the expression of wholeness, the co-existence of the contraries, or coincidentia oppositorum…. symboliz… perfection…[and] ultimate being….

The androgyne is thus the physical symbol of the pagan spiritual goal, which is the merging of two seemingly distinct entities, the self and God, and a mystical return to the state of godhead prior to creation. The joining of the opposites is the dissolution of creational distinctions and thus the destruction of creation’s hold upon human identity. Such joining brings a “liberating” recognition that the real self is “uncreated.” The solution to our angst, according to a feminist author, is healing through the sacred marriage, the [I]hieros gamos. This is the marriage of the ego and the self, which gives birth to “a divine child.” “A woman gives birth to herself as a divine androgynous being, autonomous, and in a state of perfection in the unity of the opposites. She is whole.”

This sacred marriage expresses what occurs, in particular, on the moral plane. The pagan monist assumes guiltless responsibility for all his actions whether “good” or “evil” and thus, in an exercise of personal, autonomous power, joins the opposites of good and evil. The early American monist, Ralph Waldo Emerson welcomed this spiritual option with enthusiasm. “‘If I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.’ No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to this or that.” The deliberate act of power which defiantly declares evil good and good evil flies in the face of the Creator’s designs and in so doing jumps into the waiting arms of the Tempter. One may well wonder if this joining of the opposites is a possible implication of the Serpent’s word, “…knowing good and evil.”

The psychoanalyst, C.G. Jung proposed a similar interpretation. Under the influence of Philemon, a familiar spirit, Jung wrote his famous “Seven Sermons to the Dead.” Using colorful imagery, Jung disavows Christianity and endorses pagan spirituality. Employing the pseudonym of Basilides, a famous second century Gnostic heretic, Jung addresses the spirits of dead Crusaders who had failed to find salvation in “Jerusalem.” He succeeds in converting them to the Gnostic god, Abraxas, who is “both good and evil,…a terrible hidden god that humans cannot perceive. Abraxas is behind the sun and night,…the creator and destroyer of the world, truth and evil, light and darkness,…the ‘hermaphrodite of the earliest beginning,’…the operation of all the gods and devils, and is ‘the world, its becoming and passing.'” Jung ends his sermon with a call to look to the god within rather than to the Christian God of the Bible. Later, he would represent this experience as a series of concentric circles within a larger circle, and for the rest of his life he “pointed to the Indian mandala (circle) as the best symbolic representation of wholeness or completeness in an individual, or as the supreme God in which all opposites are contained.” In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the definition of the mystical goal believed to be in all religions, given by Yale professor, Louis Dupré, -“a state in which all distinctions disappear.”

On the sexual plane, the homosexual androgyne, according to Jung, affirms his power by willingly assuming his physical proclivities and thus joining what God has put asunder. Indeed for Jung, spiritual androgyny symbolizes “the integration of the opposites or the state of the individuation of the autonomous individual.” Therefore, homosexuals are (though some unconsciously or only partially) true pagan monists, who have succeeded in translating spiritual theory into physical reality.

Jung himself suggested that homosexuality preserved an archetype of the androgynous original person. That is why homosexuals can propose themselves to society as “shamans.” In the monistic tradition, the same religious claim is made for homosexuality as is made for androgyny. Since both androgyny and homosexuality function religiously in traditional paganism, they are clearly related. The same emphasis is found in Karl Heinrichs Ulrichs (1825-1895), often considered the “grandfather” of the modern “gay rights” movement. Ulrichs rejected all psychological and behavioral explanations of homosexuality and adopted a psycho-spiritual one. He believed a homosexual was a man’s body inhabited by a woman’s soul (vice versa for a lesbian). Notice the “spiritual” terminology. He called homosexuality a “third sex,” that is, a true expression of androgyny.

The more theoretical explanation of the phenomenon finds popular expression in our contemporary culture. Recently a gay leader at a Pagan Spirit Gathering in 1985 made the spiritual claim: “We feel there is a power in our sexuality…[a] queer energy that most cultures consider magical. It is practically a requirement for certain kinds of medicine and magic.” Another gay pagan confirms the spiritual dynamic: “It is simply easier to blend with a nature spirit, or the spirit of a plant or an animal, if you are not concerned with a gender-specific role.” One is clearly not concerned with any of the other creational distinctions either. The separation between humans, animals and plants has been eliminated and, at that point, full-blown, monistic union ensues. “Blending” is another way of speaking of spiritual union with the All.

Eliade, in explaining the religious function of the asexual priest-shaman, true hermaphrodites, who dress and behave like women,” notes that is precisely because “they combine the two cosmological planes-earth and sky-and also from the fact that they combine in their own person the feminine element (earth) and the masculine element (sky). We here have ritual androgyny, a well-known archaic formula for the…coincidentia oppositorum.” This interpretation is confirmed via different terminology and conceptuality in the massive work on the Goddess by the Wiccan scholars, Monica Sjoo and Barbara Moor:

Creative women and men in all ages have found rigid heterosexuality in conflict with being fully alive and aware on all levels-sexual, psychic and spiritual [emphasis mine]…It is as if, on all levels of our being, we are split into one half, and forbidden the other. We are split against ourselves, and against the “self” in the other, by this moralistic opposition of natural polarities in the very depth of our souls.”
The physico-theological mechanism seems to function as follows: androgynous persons, whether homosexual or bi-sexual, are able to express within themselves both sexual roles and identities. In the sex act they engage both as male and female, equally as penetrator and penetrated, the “hard” and the “soft” -and thus taste in some form or other both physical and spiritual androgyny. As in classic monistic spirituality, they have, on the physical plane, joined the opposites, proving and experiencing that there are no distinctions. Just as the distinctions inherent in heterosexuality point to the fundamental theistic notion of the Creator/creature distinction, [U]so androgyny in its various forms eradicates distinction and elevates the spiritual blending of all things, including the idolatrous confusion of the human with the divine.[/U] This seems to be the very same logic that brings Paul to a similar conclusion already in Romans 1:18-27.

This seems to make sense theologically and theoretically. It is confirmed by contemporary gay thinkers. “Something in our gay/lesbian being as an all-encompassing existential standpoint,” says J. Michael Clark, professor at Emory University and Georgian State University, and a gay spokesman, “…appears to heighten our spiritual capacities.” Clark claims gays share the same sentiments as radical feminist theologians whose “religious impulses are being killed by [traditional] Judeo-Christianity…” Clark seems to be saying that the problem lies not with “mean-spirited” or “hateful” Christians, failing to be true, loving Christians. For gays the problem lies rather with the whole biblical worldview and theological paradigm. For this reason, Clark turns to Native American animism for an acceptable spiritual model. As Janie Spahr, the Presbyterian lesbian activist, stated with great candor: “Maybe we’re talking about a different God.”

Specifically, for Clark, the berdache, an androgynous American Indian shaman, born as a male but as an adult, choosing to live as a female, constitutes a desirable gay spiritual model, for the berdache achieves “the reunion of the cosmic, sexual and moral polarities,” or the “joining of the opposites.” How interesting that the Berdaches were known as “sacred Balancers,” unifying the polarities to “nurture wholeness…” This powerful spirituality involves the denial of distinctions, and the conscious assumption of all one’s contradictions and perversions. It turns out that one reigns divinely supreme over creational distortions.

We surely must conclude that sexual perversion and, in particular, the elimination of sexual distinctions, is not an incidental footnote of pagan religious history, of mere passing interest, but represents one of its fundamental ideological commitments. That the pagan priesthood would be so identified, across space and time, with the blurring of sexual identity via homosexual androgyny indicates, beyond a doubt, the enormous priority paganism has given, and continues to give, to the undermining of God-ordained monogamous heterosexuality, and the enthusiastic promotion of androgyny in its varied forms.


[U]5 Conclusion[/U]

When, during the Sixties, theologians triumphantly declared the “death of God,” they fostered a rejection of the theism of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, as well as an abandonment of biblical sexuality. Theologian David Miller declared in 1974:

[QUOTE]…the announcement of the death of God was the obituary of a useless single-minded and one-dimensional norm of a civilization that has been predominantly monotheistic, not only in its religion, but also in its politics, its history, its social order, its ethics, and its psychology. When released from the tyrannical imperialism of monotheism by the death of God, man has the opportunity of discovering new dimensions hidden in the depths of reality’s history.
In this liberating list, Miller did not mention sexuality, but it is implicitly there-in the announcement, at the funeral of the God, of the rebirth of the gods and goddesses of ancient Greece and Rome. At the time, this connection was not always obvious. The “Death of God” theologians were perceived as super-rationalist liberals intent on demonstrating that twentieth century Man had “come of age,” having outgrown the need of the “God hypothesis.” It took a generation for the implications of this to dawn. Mark C. Taylor, the postmodern philosopher, sees the implications with disarming clarity: “…the death of God the disappearance of self [no predetermined norms] and end of history [no meaningful events]…[it] unleashes the aberrant levity of free play…purposelessness.” He develops the implications of this new freedom: “The lawless land of erring, which is forever beyond good and evil, is the world of Dionysus, the Antichrist, who calls every wander[er] to carnival, comedy and carnality.”

During this same post-death-of-God generation, radical feminism, in an incredible show of power, made sure God would die. [B]In 1979 Naomi Goldenberg, a leading feminist, declared, (with no apparent conscious reference to the Death of God theology, as far as I can tell): “The feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Jahweh.” [/B]Carol P. Christ announced one death-dealing method to bring about the undoing of God: “…using the titles Goddess and God the Mother is probably the only way to shatter the hold of [the] idolatrous male God on the psyche.” In other words, God and sex were inextricably linked even in death. Of course, in the same way, the resurrection of the pagan gods would give new life to sexual options. Radical feminist theology was read by many unsuspecting Church pluralists as a relatively innocuous religious version of the contemporary agenda of civil rights. On the contrary, it turns out that these theologians were proponents of a deep, pagan spirituality, which had nothing to do with rationalism, and very little to do with civil rights. [I]After Patriarchy: Feminist Transformations of the World’s Religions looks both like the “lawless land of [pansexual] erring,” and like one more element in the progress of global syncretism. The agenda is captured in the title of a recent book on theology by a Roman Catholic scholar-[I]When God Becomes Goddess: The Transformation of American Religion[/I]. God does not have to die: he simply had to undergo a sex change. Unfortunately, he also had to change religion, and take up abode in the pagan pantheon.

At the beginning of a new millennium, we can begin to sense that such apostasy from God and from the biblical notions of gender is pagan to the core, and has produced in one generation, in “Christian” America, a torrential flood of the same spirituality and sexuality that has always characterized occult paganism. Understanding where such radical theology has always taken a society in its sexual practice will help us to see the necessarily close association between theology and sexuality, and the manner in which the one affects the other. In the last thirty years America has abandoned theism and embraced the spirituality of Eastern paganism. These same years that have produced the most radical social engineering in America’s history-the deconstruction of normative biblical heterosexuality and the revival and pagan idealization of homosexual androgyny.

There is a spiritual-sexual agenda in our Jungian, post-theistic, postmodern, pro-choice, non-judgmental culture. As we naively crossed the bridge into the third millennium to the tune of Lennon’s “Imagine,” full of hope for a new world “order” of unity and love, respect and democracy, we have brought across that bridge the agenda of the ideal, androgy-nous, sexually unfettered, New Man of pagan spirituality. At the very moment when the New Age gurus declare the imminent arrival of the Age of Aquarius, the eighteenth century theosophist Baader’s prophecy seems to be appearing-the return of the original androgyne. [B]Might we be on the verge of witnessing the construction of an eschatological Sodom and Gomorrah, as the title of a recent pro-gay book, [I]Reclaiming Sodom[/I], suggests? [/B]The masses are rendered insensate with a constant diet of sexual degradation, while, at the same time, reassured by the spiritual and moral liberation that spiritual paganism offers. Although only the radicals may understand and believe monistic theory in its purest form, the entire society is inevitably affected. While the elite sometimes fail, as did Julian the Apostate in the fourth century A.D., in their success, they can wreak havoc on a culture. The deconstruction of the biblical God and biblical sexuality as a philosophical and ideological program is already deeply embedded in our collective unconscious. Some powerful leaders see the future as the brave new global world of sexual and spiritual pluralism, where liberty of self-expression in these areas is the essence of human progress. One could even imagine a society of pagan religious syncretism where bi-sexuality and homosexual androgyny would be the spiritual and social ideal, the sexuality of choice for those in power, while heterosexuality would be tolerated, considered inferior, and strictly controlled-for it has happened before.

[B]Clearly God is interested in sex, or Satan would not be so passionately committed to its deconstruction. To destroy God’s created structures, the Evil One rips from the body politic the sexual distinctions hard-wired into creation to recall the deep truth about existence-the absolute distinction between the Creator and creation. [/B]The attack on these structures succeeds in convincing many that they, in themselves, are a detestable oppression, the very cause of social and human dislocation. This is relatively easy to do because such structures are necessarily are marred by sin. The result is dramatic. As in ancient Gnosticism, the patriarchal God of Scripture is eliminated from respectable “cutting-edge” theology, and even from polite campus speech in some evangelical schools, all in the name of Christ. Such a trade-off prevents many well-meaning Christians from seeing the essential goal of the sexual revolution as the subtle destruction of a theistic worldview. In the place of sexual differentiation, we are offered monistic, egalitarian androgyny as a physical, social and spiritual ideal. Thus many, espousing gender liberation in the name of Christ and the Gospel, only, too late, discover a culture “liberated” from the God who, in Christ, both created and redeemed the world. What is often not seen in the debate on sexuality is that we are also in the presence of two “Gospels”: the one, pagan, preaches redemption as liberation from the Creator and repudiation of creation’s structures; the other, Christian, proclaims redemption as reconciliation with the Creator, and the proclamation of creation’s goodness. [B]In a pagan world, a truncated Gospel of personal salvation will no longer do. Sexuality within the context of creation must be announced as an essential part of the Christian message of reconciliation with God and glad submission to his good will.[/B]

Firmly engaged on a wild path of sexual deconstruction and androgynous experimentation, our self-liberating culture is like a little child alone in a small boat on a big lake. As it giddily strikes out into the uncharted waters of the twenty-first century, lured by irrational hopes of human progress, and ignorant of the costly experiments of the pasts, our youth-obsessed culture is tragically adrift from its Christian roots and cut off from its life-sustaining creational moorings.

The theosophist Eliade, one of most doughty proponents of the “new humanism,” nevertheless felt obliged to give a serious warning before he died in 1986. In speaking about “ritual androgyny” as both a “source of power,” but also as a fearsome possibility of great loss, Eliade offered this sobering admonition:

[QUOTE]Every attempt to transcend the opposites carries with it a certain danger. This is why the ideas of a coincidentia oppositorum always arouse ambivalent feelings: on the one side, man is haunted by the desire to escape from his particular situation and regain a transpersonal mode of life; on the other, he is paralyzed by the fear of losing his “identity” and “forgetting” himself.”[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Petr
06-20-2015, 01:31 PM
Btw, the writer of this insightful piece was a childhood pal of John Lennon:

https://truthxchange.com/about/staff/dr-peter-jones/

Dr. Peter Jones

Executive Director

I was born in Liverpool, England, where I would buy fish and chips on Penny Lane with John Lennon, a high school friend with whom I shared a desk for five years. Not that we did much at those desks! I was too interested in football (soccer), while John spent his time messing around. We played music together at school, but I never became a Beatle, because my Christian parents wouldn’t allow me to go to clubs. When I got serious about my studies, I went to the University of Wales, then to Gordon Divinity School, near Boston. During my master’s year at Harvard Divinity School I met Francis Schaeffer (through his books) and a Wellesley College student, Rebecca Clowney, daughter of Edmund P. Clowney, president for many years of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

Schaeffer’s analysis of his culture, and his expression of the Christian faith in a coherent system helped me to apply biblical understanding to all areas of life.
Peter Jones has specialized in studying the neo-pagan threat to Christianity.

Petr
06-20-2015, 02:03 PM
The clearest textual testimony in ancient times comes from nineteenth century BC Mesopotamia. Androgynous priests were associated with the worship of the goddess Istar from the Sumerian age (1800 BC). Their condition was due to their “devotion to Istar who herself had ‘transformed their masculinity into femininity.'” They functioned as occult shamans, who released the sick from the power of the demons just as, according to the cult myth, they had saved Istar from the devil’s lair. “…as human beings,” says a contemporary scholar, “…they seem to have engendered demonic abhorrence in others;…the fearful respect they provoked is to be sought in their otherness, their position between myth and reality, and their divine-demonic ability to transgress boundaries.”
We can see that it was not uncommon among pagans for homosexuals to enter priesthood. Even among manly Nordic warrior-peoples, this archetype showed up:

http://www.seidh.org/articles/sex-status-seidh/


Sex, Status, and Seiðr: Homosexuality and Germanic Religion

Jochens sees the involvement of men in seidh (however despised) as a devolution from ancient times. "Originally a monopoly of the goddesses, the magic seidhr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sei%C3%B0r) was needed by human sibyls to perform their predictions. This connection between women and goddesses suggests that not only divination, but also magic had originally been a female monopoly.... " (307)

I would rather suggest that it was not female physiology, but a female identity or social role which was the prerequisite for access to certain kinds of spiritual power. Certainly there is evidence that transexuality had a recognized place in the religion of the barbarian period.

Tacitus tells us that the Naharvali, a Suevian tribe, possessed a grove of ". . .immemorial sanctity. A priest in female attire (ornatus mulieribus) had the charge of it." (43) In this grove twin deities called the Alcis and identified with Castor and Pollux were worshipped. We must also cite the well-known passage from Saxo, describing how Starkad, having lived for some years with the Swedish royal family, returns to Denmark, "for, living at Uppsala in the period of sacrifices, he had become disgusted with the womanish body movements, the clatter of actors on the stage, and the soft tinkling of bells." (History of the Danes VI:154))

It was against such cults of sacred gender-bending (very common among pagan Canaanites) that this Mosaic law was given:


Deuteronomy 22:5 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-5.htm)

A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God.

Pitirim Sorokin
06-20-2015, 02:13 PM
This is interesting about homosexuals as shamans: in ancient myths trickster gods sometimes changes sex and engaged in copulation with males, sometimes even giving birth. Thinking Loki for example.

clefty
06-20-2015, 02:17 PM
It was against such cults of sacred gender-bending (very common among pagan Canaanites) that this Mosaic law was given:



but just to joos...

and plus...we are no longer under Law...right?

Blighter
06-20-2015, 04:02 PM
Interesting article.
A defining feature of Gnosticism ancient and modern is the abandonment of reason and rationality, often without any self-awareness of the abandonment. These people cheerfully babble on without any regard for the incoherence and contradictory nature of what is just plain nonsense.

Examples.

As the great modern Gnostic, C. G. Jung said: “The self is a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” From the center of one’s own limitless universe the self is sovereign.

A circle is defined as "a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre)", Jung is just babbling contradiction.

Then this:

The ultimate metaphysical secret, if we dare to state it so simply, is that there are no boundaries in the universe. Boundaries are illusions, products not of reality but of the way we map and edit reality. And while it is fine to map out the territory, it is fatal to confuse the two [illusion and reality].

Universum means 'one whole', a complete something. A universe without limits is a contradiction. If they want to posit an unlimited spatio-temporality they can't call it a 'universe'. Furthermore, if limit belongs to thought only, a concept for organising experience - "map and edit reality" - how could this, as a real distinction, ever be known? Again, more contradiction.

With all due respect, I do not think you have entered into an interpretation of either of these examples in a suitable frame of mind. Your refutations are so obtuse that one cannot doubt that your intention from the outset was to justify an instinctive disapproval, without making any attempt to understand.

The former example, attributed to Jung although he is unquestionably not the originator of the concept, can be found echoed in the writings of other Christian thinkers -- not all of whom, one hopes, are deserving of the contempt you apparently have for Jung.

Alien Settler
06-20-2015, 05:11 PM
I would suggest the following:

http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/06/accommodate-this/


http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=1039


Also:

Hermaphrodites, Gynomorphs and Jesus: She-Male Gods and the Roots of Christianity by Hillman

As follows from the description:

Devotees of gynomorphic divinities were the first westerners to promote the religious practice known as necromancy. The first “baptists” were cross-dressing necromancers, who celebrated the Gynomorph. Eunuchs who served the same goddess were chemically castrated with scorpion venom. Ancient pre-Christian oracles declared that the messiah must be a hermaphrodite. Christianity tried to assimilate and employ the use of necromancy. The earliest Christians used designer sex drugs in their rituals in order to venerate a messiah given gynomorphic status by church bishops.

Don Quixote
06-20-2015, 06:17 PM
With all due respect, I do not think you have entered into an interpretation of either of these examples in a suitable frame of mind. Your refutations are so obtuse that one cannot doubt that your intention from the outset was to justify an instinctive disapproval, without making any attempt to understand.

The former example, attributed to Jung although he is unquestionably not the originator of the concept, can be found echoed in the writings of other Christian thinkers -- not all of whom, one hopes, are deserving of the contempt you apparently have for Jung.I identified objective contradictions, you, on the other hand, suggest I'm somehow wrong but offer no arguments in support of that claim. You go on to make claims about "other Christian thinkers", but offer no evidence. In other words, a content-free post, literally.

Petr
06-20-2015, 07:08 PM
Just as the distinctions inherent in heterosexuality point to the fundamental theistic notion of the Creator/creature distinction, so androgyny in its various forms eradicates distinction and elevates the spiritual blending of all things, including the idolatrous confusion of the human with the divine. This seems to be the very same logic that brings Paul to a similar conclusion already in Romans 1:18-27 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-27&version=NIV).
This concept is very important to that school of fundamentalist Christian thinkers that Jones represents - here is explained why egalitarianism can be literally demonic doctrine:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1089925&postcount=6

I submit Christians must enter into this great war that has been being waged since the garden. It was in the garden where the first successful salvo against Biblical Christianity was fired against the family as the Serpent attacked family ties, bypassing Adam’s authority to beguile Eve, in a successful attempt to sell the poison of man’s equality with God, which resulted in a collectivism against God. In point of fact the greatest need in the Church today is to realize the threat that egalitarianism is to Biblical Christianity. The drive to fuzz and deny all distinctions, to erase all notions of biblical hierarchies (Husbands w/ headship over wives, Parents w/ headship over children, women the weaker vessel compared to men, Employers w/ headship over employees,) and to flatten out all God ordained differences is the worldview that currently is the greatest threat to Biblical Christianity in the West.

Without Biblical distinctions regarding gender, roles, ethnic groups, and authority structure, we will be amalgamated into the herd reality that Dostoevsky warns about. It will be a herd reality where a few elite are, in essence, the Farmers over the undistinguished and undifferentiated mass herd. Those who advocate complete equality in terms of “equality of identity” are the enemy and they are the enemy because Scripture identifies them as such. They are the enemy who overthrow the 5th commandment where a distinction and hierarchy of parents is required before they can be honored. They are the enemy who overthrow the great commission where a distinction of nations is required before those nations can be baptized, discipled and taught to observe all things taught by Christ. They are the enemy who overthrow Galatians 3:28 where a existing distinction between Jews and Gentiles, Slave and Free, Men and Women, must exist before there can be comfort that all can be justified in Christ. They are the enemy who overthrow the 9th commandment where a distinction must exist between what is my property and what is not my property before any forbidding of theft can make sense. Egalitarianism is the enemy and egalitarians are the enemy precisely because their egalitarianism strikes at the heart of God’s revelation. Keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the Father of egalitarianism is to erase the distinction and hierarchy between the Creator and the creature. They desire to make God and man a common denominator. That is the ultimate distinction that is under attack in all of these penultimate battles.

Petr
06-20-2015, 07:33 PM
According to historian Michelet, Alexander the Great was seduced by the androgynous mysteries of Babylon:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1316787

One fine morning this Achilles became Asiatic, and turned his back to Homer and Greece. Babylon, the great mistress in monarchical prostitutions, accomplished in one day upon Alexander those effects which it required a hundred years to produce on the Persians. Shameful and unforeseen spectacle! The conquered found themselves to be the vanquishers. Asia, that was at that moment worn out, stained, and in the cadaverous condition of Chaldean rottenness, — old Asia obtained her master for her lover. A gilded sepulchre, the sink of love, through which the world had passed, such was the passion of Alexander the Great. Modern writers, when they see in all this an admirable political sagacity, are insane. If the Greeks had to contract a little of the Asiatic manners and thinking, this certainly was not the way to do it.
...

The scenes which were exhibited on the return were extraordinary for madness and despair. Alexander had lost his senses, and was scarcely a man. He built a city in honor of his dog; another for the tomb of his horse. He played Bacchus, carrying the thyrsus, and crowned all his army with ivy, making Bacchantes of all those sunburnt old soldiers. From the height of his world-wide imperial throne, he taught and exemplified that which the kings of Asia hid in their seraglios. He was already an Heliogabalus, with all the infamies of Atys, and of Adonis of double sex, "the lover of Venus, and the fair beloved of Apollo." He wept over Hephaestion with the passion of a woman; he killed his physicians, burned the temple of Esculapius, and asked the oracle of Anion to make a demigod of the dead Hephaestion. The love-feast in honor of the child Bagoas, displayed before the army, was more astonishing still — an unique scene which is not to be found in the history of the Caesars.
NO-S0-jcwEY

It was against this kind of cultural-sexual seduction, practiced by the Canaanites (Semitic cousins of the Babylonians), that the stern laws of Moses were primarily intended to oppose.

Petr
06-20-2015, 07:49 PM
Like with the serpents and dragons, Christian culture has traditionally seen androgyny as creepy or evil, whereas pagan cultures can see it even as somehow holy. In his Passion of Christ, Mel Gibson made Satan look like sexually ambiguous drag-queen:

9kJFf6VDd6o

Petr
06-20-2015, 08:13 PM
This is interesting about homosexuals as shamans: in ancient myths trickster gods sometimes changes sex and engaged in copulation with males, sometimes even giving birth. Thinking Loki for example.
Queers are very over-represented in media and show business today, and what are media people, those wizards of semiotics, but modern shamans who are molding our psyches?

Blighter
06-20-2015, 09:51 PM
I identified objective contradictions, you, on the other hand, suggest I'm somehow wrong but offer no arguments in support of that claim. You go on to make claims about "other Christian thinkers", but offer no evidence. In other words, a content-free post, literally.

My post wasn't content-free; if it were, I wouldn't have bothered writing it. Even less so, the metaphor of the infinite sphere, alluded to in the Jung quote you dismissed as babbling contradiction, is not anything of the sort -- it may be paradoxical, but it is not without meaning. The issue is not lack of content, but your own refusal to look for it.

I didn't offer you any evidence that other Christian thinkers have referred to the circle/sphere whose centre is everywhere, circumference nowhere, because I imagined that you also have access to Google. In relation to this topic, you could look up Meister Eckhart, Nicolaus Cusanus, Giordano Bruno or Blaise Pascal, for example, who applied the same metaphor in various ways. I have also seen the same reference made by followers of Jacob Boehme.

You may find an interesting discussion in Chapter 23 of De Docta Ignorantia.

http://jasper-hopkins.info/DI-I-12-2000.pdf

I believe that the original source is Liber XXIV Philosophorum.

https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Liber_viginti_quattor_philosophorum/II

A short essay on the topic by Borges:

https://sites.google.com/site/jimeikner/home/borges/the-fearful-sphere-of-pascal

Don Quixote
06-20-2015, 11:41 PM
My post wasn't content-free; if it were, I wouldn't have bothered writing it. Even less so, the metaphor of the infinite sphere, alluded to in the Jung quote you dismissed as babbling contradiction, is not anything of the sort -- it may be paradoxical, but it is not without meaning.Contradictions are void of meaning by definition. The post was content free as you only said I was wrong and then referred vaguely to "other Christian thinkers".

The issue is not lack of content, but your own refusal to look for it.

I didn't offer you any evidence that other Christian thinkers have referred to the circle/sphere whose centre is everywhere, circumference nowhere, because I imagined that you also have access to Google. It's not my responsibility to make your case for you.

You are now adding the sphere where the cited quotes only refer to the circle. This is crucial as a point on the surface of a sphere is a whole other matter to that of the centre of a circle or a point on the circumference. Which is it to be?

In relation to this topic, you could look up Meister Eckhart, Nicolaus Cusanus, Giordano Bruno or Blaise Pascal, for example, who applied the same metaphor in various ways. I have also seen the same reference made by followers of Jacob Boehme. Look up what? You are referring to hundreds if not thousands of pages of material. Am I further expected to make your case for you by engaging in a massive research project to boot?
You may find an interesting discussion in Chapter 23 of De Docta Ignorantia.

http://jasper-hopkins.info/DI-I-12-2000.pdfCusanus is talking about the sphere which is irrelevant to my original analysis.

I believe that the original source is Liber XXIV Philosophorum.

https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Liber_viginti_quattor_philosophorum/II

A short essay on the topic by Borges:

https://sites.google.com/site/jimeikner/home/borges/the-fearful-sphere-of-pascalBorges is also talking about the sphere.

Blighter
06-21-2015, 11:17 AM
Contradictions are void of meaning by definition. The post was content free as you only said I was wrong and then referred vaguely to "other Christian thinkers".

I also explained why you have erred, and your subsequent posts have shared the same fault.

It's not my responsibility to make your case for you.

Look up what? You are referring to hundreds if not thousands of pages of material. Am I further expected to make your case for you by engaging in a massive research project to boot?

I'm not putting a formal case to you; you have slapped away a valuable metaphor and I am suggesting that you reconsider. If you don't want to, no harm.

You are now adding the sphere where the cited quotes only refer to the circle. This is crucial as a point on the surface of a sphere is a whole other matter to that of the centre of a circle or a point on the circumference. Which is it to be?

Cusanus is talking about the sphere which is irrelevant to my original analysis.

Borges is also talking about the sphere.

This is preposterous. What are you saying, that your intellectual objection to an infinite circle does not extend to an infinite sphere? I don't see how you can justify that. The metaphor and its meaning are absolutely the same.

The different choice of words might be due to context; if Jung, or anyone else, were making the connection with a drawing -- a mandala, for example -- it makes some sense to talk about a circle rather than a sphere, simply because a circle, like a piece of paper, is flat. The expectation is probably that the reader is capable of making the mental leap into the third dimension.

I have also seen the rendering: The centre of centres is everywhere, its circumference nowhere. Perhaps this wording would be more acceptable to you, since it doesn't involve quite the same problem with the definition of shapes.

Petr
06-21-2015, 06:12 PM
Here one can find the footnotes to Jones' essay - there are some interesting tidbits there as well:

http://www.piney.com/Worship.Androgyny.The.Pagan.Sexual.Ideal.html

17 Ibid., emphasis mine. Jennifer Woodhull, “Meditation, Prayer and the Still Point Within,” in The Meditation and Prayer Catalog (1999) 2, states that the 12 major religions and more than five hundred movements and sects are all born of the “same spark.” She describes this experience of unio mystica as “the soundless still point of the sacred.” The Theosophical Society pronounces valid the ideas about God in all the world’s religions—all but one, Biblical/Christian monotheism. As the Society’s brochure states: “Esoteric Philosophy [read proto-New Age thinking] reconciles all nations, strips every one of its outward human garments, and shows the root of each to be identical with that of every other great religion. It proves the necessity of a Divine Absolute Principle in Nature. It denies Deity no more than it does the sun. Esoteric Philosophy has never rejected God in Nature, nor Deity as the absolute and abstract End. It only refuses to accept any of the gods of the so-called monotheistic religions, gods created by man in his own image and likeness, a blasphemous and sorry caricature of the Ever Unknowable.”
34 Richard Seaford, “In the Mirror of Dionysus,” in The Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient Greece (ed. Sue Blundell and Margaret Williamson; London/New York: Routledge, 1998) 133, shows that transvestism functions as a right of passage into the cult of Dionysus. In the cult “females may be like males and males like females” (131). This is because “liminal inversion of identity required for mystic initiation.” Such “confusion” is also seen not merely between male and female but also between “human (or god) and animal, and between living and dead” (132L).

137 Though Islam, a Christian heresy, maintains the structure of theism and disavows homosexuality, the monist variant, Sufism, is certainly growing in popularity in the West. A pro-gay Muslim makes this interesting observation: “Religious gays in the realm of Islam . . . would have to take recourse in the antinomian Sufism (mysticism) . . . (where) all that counts is union with the divine through mystic exaltation. On that level it becomes immaterial whether a believer is hetero- or homosexual” (Khalid Duran, “Homosexuality and Islam,” in Homosexuality and World Religions 196).

David "Spengler" Goldman observed the connections between Sufism, sodomy and narcissism here:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JH12Ak03.html

Sufism seeks one-ness with the universe through spiritual exercises that lead individual consciousness to dissolve into the cosmos. But nothing is more narcissistic than the contemplation of the cosmos, for if we become one with the cosmos, what we love in the cosmos is simply an idealized image of ourselves. An idealized self-image is also what attracts the aging lecher to the adolescent boy. That is the secret of Sufi as well as other pederasty, for pederasty is an extreme expression of self-love. That is the conventional psychiatric view; Freud for example wrote of the “basic narcissism of the vast majority of pederasts … proceeding as from narcissism, they seek their own image in young people.”

Sufism enjoys a faddish ripple of interest in America, where self-admiration is the national pastime. As opposed to the Biblical God, the cosmos is an unthreatening thing to worship. The universe, after all, is no one in particular, and those who seek to merge their consciousness with no one in particular at the end are left alone with themselves. Worship the cosmos, and you worship yours truly; worship yourself, and it is not unusual to adore your own idealized image.

...

On the extreme opposite of the spiritual spectrum, we encounter pederasty as the foundational experience of Sufism. According to Wikipedia,

As a Sufi practice of spiritual realization and union with the godhead, the meditation known in Arabic as [I]Nazar ila'l-murd, "contemplation of the beardless," or Shahed-bazi, "witness play" in Persian has been practiced from the earliest years of Islam. It is seen as an act of worship intended to help one ascend to the absolute beauty that is God through the relative beauty that is a boy.

The medieval Persians were not the first to practice the higher sodomy. The Greeks of the 6th century BC preferred young boys, procreating out of patriotic habit while their women closed their eyes and thought of Athens. Adoration of youth is a very different way to capture from love a sense of immortality. In Greek legend the gods turned Narcissus into a flower to punish his pride in refusing male suitors. Pederasty thus was present at the origin of the concept of narcissism.

Don Quixote
06-22-2015, 06:23 PM
I also explained why you have erred, and your subsequent posts have shared the same fault.You didn't explain it, you repeated it.
I'm not putting a formal case to you; you have slapped away a valuable metaphor and I am suggesting that you reconsider. If you don't want to, no harm.I didn't ask for a formal case, I merely asked for some argument in rebuttal and some evidence to support a claim you made. Very normal round here and very reasonable in itself.
This is preposterous. What are you saying, that your intellectual objection to an infinite circle does not extend to an infinite sphere? I don't see how you can justify that. The metaphor and its meaning are absolutely the same. Except that in the original quotes I attacked, there was no indication of metaphor. Notwithstanding, such metaphors as infinite spheres rae unhelpful as such a thing is inconceivable since a sphere is, by definition, a determinate object, part of which is to have a limit, i.e. the outer surface.

The different choice of words might be due to context; if Jung, or anyone else, were making the connection with a drawing -- a mandala, for example -- it makes some sense to talk about a circle rather than a sphere, simply because a circle, like a piece of paper, is flat. The expectation is probably that the reader is capable of making the mental leap into the third dimension. Probably? You mean this is your interpretation. Fair enough, but then you would have to explain why your intepretation of Jung is better than mine.
I have also seen the rendering: The centre of centres is everywhere, its circumference nowhere. Perhaps this wording would be more acceptable to you, since it doesn't involve quite the same problem with the definition of shapes.Of course not. It would have been better to say "therefore it is without circumference" but then it would have made no sense to describe "it" as having a centre either.

I have no problem with metaphors, in fact I love them. What I (and all thinking beings) have a problem with is contradictions, even if they are presented in the form of metaphors. Aristotle observed that it is easy to speak contradictions but it is impossible to think them. A metaphor that relies on contradictions is no metaphor at all, it is just nonsense, literally.

Back to the thread topic, Gnosticism was nonsense in the 1st century and it remains nonsense in the 21st, whether packaged literally or metaphorically.

Alien Settler
06-22-2015, 06:41 PM
Aristokratia is not afraid of controversy and contention, even among themselves! Boris Rad delivers a spirited piece against “Androgyny,” which ultimately appears to be the root of all evils, from Adam to the modern world. Though derived from Evola and his sources, by the time even alchemy and the hermetic tradition are thrown under the bus along with Christianity, one wonders whether the author of The Hermetic Tradition would still recognize himself here. And did not Evola himself (or one of his pseudonyms, writing an appreciation of Taoism reprinted in his collection Introduction to Magic) mock the “myth of manhood based on muscles and metallic strength” and counsel instead absorbing “the ambiguous virtue of the female”?



http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/03/aristokratia-ii/

Hermetic
06-23-2015, 07:21 AM
Androgyny is also the core of Judaism. Its known in Judaism El the God of the Jews, is both male and female.

"And Elohim said, Let us make Adam in our image, after our likeness... So Elohim created Adam in his [own] image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them. And Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it... And Elohim saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. - Genesis 1

Hermetic
06-23-2015, 09:29 AM
The Zohar states the heart of Judaism is the esoteric meaning of the five books of the Torah. That the literalist meaning is a veil for the Goyim.

Right in the Zohar is what Judaism is based upon again the same in Tantra and every Pagan religion:

"And he asks: when does the Shekinah reside within him? And he said: when he marries, and this sign enters to its place, to the Shekinah. Then they are attached together, the male and the female, who are the sign of the covenant and the Shekinah, and are called by one name, and supernal Chesed rests upon them." - Zohar

Blighter
06-23-2015, 01:08 PM
You didn't explain it, you repeated it.

Remind yourself that you are talking about my first post. I did not repeat anything in my first post, because I made no previous post to repeat.

I didn't ask for a formal case, I merely asked for some argument in rebuttal and some evidence to support a claim you made. Very normal round here and very reasonable in itself.

My claims were, a) that you failed to understand Jung's point because you made no real effort to do so, and b) that the quote attributed to Jung is not conceptually original to him, having graced the pages of many previous texts, some of them explicitly Christian.

There is little point discussing a), because you can always deny your own motivations, but b) I have provided proof for, which you rejected on the spurious basis that the wording is slightly different.

Except that in the original quotes I attacked, there was no indication of metaphor.

Few authors ever explicitly indicate that they are using a metaphor, the reader is required to pick up on it for themselves. Defiance of literal interpretation would be an extremely strong clue that some other approach to understanding might be required.

Notwithstanding, such metaphors as infinite spheres rae unhelpful as such a thing is inconceivable since a sphere is, by definition, a determinate object, part of which is to have a limit, i.e. the outer surface.

I am aware that you do not appreciate the value of the metaphor, but your failure to appreciate it does not convince me that it is 'unhelpful'. Notwithstanding the fact that it helps me to understand, giving me direct proof of its value, it seems rather unlikely that it would have gained such traction with a range of intelligent men if it were patent nonsense.

Probably? You mean this is your interpretation. Fair enough, but then you would have to explain why your intepretation of Jung is better than mine.

Mine is better than yours, firstly, because I'm not determined to refute him right out of the gates, and secondly because I am familiar with the idea he is discussing, which you do not seem to be.

Of course not. It would have been better to say "therefore it is without circumference" but then it would have made no sense to describe "it" as having a centre either.

I don't see that describing an infinite circle as having neither circumference nor centre would dispel the element of paradox that you are opposed to. By the same token that you dismissed Jung, one could easily dismiss you.

I have no problem with metaphors, in fact I love them. What I (and all thinking beings) have a problem with is contradictions, even if they are presented in the form of metaphors. Aristotle observed that it is easy to speak contradictions but it is impossible to think them. A metaphor that relies on contradictions is no metaphor at all, it is just nonsense, literally.

In my experience, many religious and philosophical texts from both East and West are riddled with with paradoxical metaphors. I think that there is value in their contemplation, and quite clearly the men that devised them also thought so.

Petr
08-08-2015, 07:10 PM
More on Gnostic-pagan occultism and gender-bending:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3933/gnosticism_vs_the_incarnation_the_ancient_battle_renewed.aspx

Gnosticism vs. The Incarnation: The Ancient Battle Renewed

June 08, 2015

The contemporary sexual revolution is thoroughly Gnostic, attacking the institution of marriage, thwarting the conception of children, and denying the differences between men and women

John B. Buescher

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Content/Site140/Articles/06_01_2015/3933temptationo_00000003352.jpg

“Temptation of Jesus Christ” (1901-03) by Ilya Repin [WikiArt.org]


There is a tale, whose threads are too long to unravel here, of the meanderings of an idea through history—the idea that, as Nicolas Gómez-Davila parsed it, man is “a god imprisoned in the dull inertia of his flesh, or a god who elevates matter as his cry of victory.” This is the “knowledge” of both the old and the new Gnostics: We are not who we think we are, but gods imprisoned in matter. And knowing that we are gods is the condition for freedom, for it is only our wills that keep us from rising up divine.

If man is a god, then his essence is a will, exercised in purely unrestricted freedom. His sovereignty is expressed gratuitously. That sovereign will must be identical in everyone (or else it is not sovereign), and everything else about individuals exists as mere accidents, signs, or externalities. Indeed such things are impediments to which our wills are shackled.

The ancient form of the tale includes these basic propositions:

[I]The prison in which we are shackled is matter. [/I]Yet matter does not matter. It is a dream into which we were born, and in which our spirits serve time in blind darkness, until death, or emancipation.
[I]
The creator of this world of matter was demented or malevolent. [/I]He is not the One who is the source of our spirit and our freedom.

[I]Being born into this world is our problem. [/I]Exiting this world is the solution. Our bodies—and all the things that derive from being embodied and being pinned down into particularity—are features of our prison. That is most especially true of the most basic particularity of our bodies: the division into male and female. It is the primordial cleft, which ramifies throughout all other distinctions. [B][U]In our highest form, we are androgynous.[/U][/B]

[B][I]Acting upon the sexual distinction, therefore, is the most basic sin.[/I] Above all, conceiving and bringing children into this fallen world of matter merely traps their free spirits and consigns them to bondage. When born, everyone has been conceived in the sin of his parents and is clothed in the prison uniform of his signifying flesh. [/B]

The ancient Gnostic responded by avoiding the generation of children. Some of them became extreme ascetics and totally celibate and even sacramentalized their fasting unto death. But some of them became “free spirits” who flouted all sexual taboos and customs—upon which the world’s prison bars were built—and engaged in every sort of sexual irregularity. It demonstrated the Gnostics’ contempt for the deep distinctions and features of the material world and how they were living purely in the spirit, and no longer bound by the world. It was a sign of contradiction to the fallen world, and was, in itself, a way to arise out of it, ringing the changes on what that world held to be sin, entering into it, but without being caught in it, and thereby wearing it out, exploding it from the inside, deconstructing it, turning the sexual act into something that would not result in the conception of children. Such acts too, for the Gnostic, could be sacramental.

Sexual activity engaged in by the unenlightened followed the logic of the prison world and resulted in its continuation into succeeding generations. Sexual activity that might be engaged in by the enlightened was done to arouse the “spirit,” but then to turn it to a purely spiritual purpose and away from the generation of children. The strategy was the uncoupling of the act from its worldly consequence, the generation of children.

At the very heart of this was the determination to undermine the foundation of this prison world. Whether the strategy was one of extreme asceticism or extreme licentiousness, the point was the same—the defeat of the material world by the freed spirit, whose essence was its own divine, sovereign will, unencumbered by any consequences that were not the expressions of its free choice.

...

The Gnostic Pose as True Christianity

The Gnostic idea mimics the Christian idea, and then, once inside the gates, throws off its disguise and destroys the city of the false god who created this prison world and entrapped free spirits within it. It presents the case for same-sex marriage, for example, as merely an extension of Christian charity to all, while hiding, until it is safe to unveil it, its animus for the procreative union of male and female. For the old Gnostics as well as the new ones, that demented god, the Patriarch, who created this world and who pretends to be the true God is the God of the Old Testament. And for them, the New Testament is precisely an outline that gives the strategy for overthrowing him.

The Gnostic idea is wholly opposed to the actual Christian idea, whose central pillar is the Incarnation of God in the person of a man, Jesus Christ. The Gnostic idea rejects the Incarnation, and replaces it with a narrative of disguised secrets and salvation via deception. It does not accept the reality of Christ’s true birth in the flesh, his true life as a man, fully embodied. Nor does it accept the reality of his true suffering and true death. It turns all this into a sham, a simulacrum of life and death, a show by a divine actor in disguise. For the good God could not embrace matter.

In short, it refuses the idea that the Creator of the world is good, and that the world He created is good, and that the body we have is good, and that it is good that we should go forth and multiply. It cannot allow that the natural world that God created is good and true and beautiful as it is, but only that it must be turned to the purposes of pure spirit, to our purposes, not to his. We must all strain to be “spiritual, but not religious.” We must look forward to the resurrection from the body. We all must become as angels, a process that proceeds through mimicking the Christian process of regeneration.

All of this makes the Gnostic idea a heresy. (Or, if it is not a heresy, then nothing is a heresy.) And its particular danger is its close resemblance to the Christian truth, so close that it has confused many Christians (lay and cleric both) into thinking that it is the Christian truth, rather than the anti-Christian “truth.” We are not gods. We are not pure spirits. We are not angels. We look forward to the resurrection of the body. Our wills are not the will of God. We enter into the most perilous territory when we try to redirect our own futures simply to suit our own wills. There is a tremendous cost in blood when we accept the “knowledge” of the serpent in Eden.

...

The Gnostic Ascent of Man

Everything about the sexual revolution flowed from this: all the encouragement of sex that had no consequences except the stirring of the passion and “vital energies,” the concern to prevent “unwanted” pregnancy, all the exotic physical techniques (for arousing but then withholding and “transmuting” the semen) and all the chemical and mechanical technologies to accomplish that, all the conviction that the mother’s “choice” turned a lifeless mass of tissue into a person of inestimable and divine value, all the segregation of the “breeding” of children from the spiritual (read: made materially inconsequential) act of sex. In general, one might say, the goal was for men to hold in their semen and transform it into spirit, and for women to generate children by sleeping with spirits. All children would then be “immaculate conceptions,” freed from what, today, is being referred to as the “rape culture.” Is this not, in allegedly “secular” and “progressive” terms, merely an aping of something else?

...

And who, today, are those convinced they have been regenerated in this way? It is not difficult to pick them out. They are the ones who, like one reporter who, when commenting on a couple who had a dozen children, snarked, “Don’t they know anything about sex?”—an absurd question on its face, but clearly one that attempted to place the couple as ignorant troglodytes and to place himself as “knowing” about sex, when, in fact, what he “knew” about sex was how to prevent conception. From his “raised consciousness,” he and his comrades will, if they get the chance, prevent those of “false consciousness” from multiplying. It is a eugenics and euthanasia club, with a program for breeding better babies, for taking our evolution into our own hands, for regenerating the human race. For they “know” that gender is merely an adventitious social construct of the oppressive and malevolent “Patriarchy.” They know that the world is shot through with injustice: it is the creation and continuation of a primordial rape by a deluded and lustful Patriarch. Having attended mandatory “sexual harassment orientations,” they know that every act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is, consciously or unconsciously, an echo of that rape.

They know that Jesus was a freedom fighter and social revolutionary, intent on “queering” the customs of the world, and thus healing and reconciling the evil effects of that rape. They know that he was a savior because he was a sign of contradiction and the stone that the builders of the world prison rejected, who shall be the cornerstone of the New Age.

This is the culture that has now arrived. Despite what some may think, it is not devoid of a deeply “religious conviction,” but the conviction is a Gnostic one. And it is not Christian. It is a most profoundly twisted Christian heresy. And Christianity cannot assimilate it or compromise with it, except with fatal results. But that is in fact the Gnostics’ goal.

Petr
01-18-2016, 12:47 AM
Here is more on how androgyny (among other abominations) connects to demonic deceptions and Biblical end times. This is another example of what I would call "smart Christian fundamentalism" (which is my personal goal as well); being well-read, sophisticated and aware of Satan's cunning devices (2 Corinthians 2:11 (http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/2-11.htm)), while being determinedly opposed to them.

http://patriotsandliberty.com/lindas-latest/2016/1/14/new-age-spirituality-carl-jung-abraxas-and-baphomet-1

New Age Spirituality, Carl Jung, Abraxas, and Baphomet


It is no exaggeration to say that the highly respected psychologist, Dr. Carl Jung, is the Father of Neo-Gnosticism and the New Age movement, which is why Dr. Jeffrey Satinover comments that,

"One of the most powerful modern forms of Gnosticism is without question Jungian psychology, both within or without the Church". (Satinover, The Empty Self, p. 27)

This being the case and because of his great influence in propagating gnostic philosophy and morals in churches and synagogues,

"...Jung deserves a closer look. The moral relativism that released upon us the sexual revolution is rooted in an outlook of which (Jung) is the most brilliant contemporary expositor." Jung "blended psychological reductionism with gnostic spirituality to produce a modern variant of mystical, pagan polytheism in which the multiple ‘images of the instincts’ (his ‘archetypes’) are worshipped as gods." (Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 238)

Though many Christians mistakenly embrace Carl Jung the truth is that he rejected Jesus Christ in favor of the gnostic god Abraxas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraxas). Like all Gnostic magicians ancient and modern, Jung sought to combine good with evil and male with female, thus for Jung it was regrettable that Christ in his goodness and maleness lacked a shadowy feminized side, and God the Father, who is the Light, lacked darkness.

In his 1916 book, "The Seven Sermons to the Dead," the heavily demonized Jung, whose familiar spirit Philemon appeared to him as an old man with the horns of a bull and the wings of a fisher, called Abraxas a god higher than the Christian God  that combines all opposites into one Being. He said that Abraxas is a polymorphous world spirit, a coiled knot of winged serpents which permeates the very fabric of existence.

 Two primary characteristics of ancient and modern pagan Gnostic ideology revolve around two ideas.  The first is that this world is a horrible mistake.  The world and our bodies are places of suffering and evil that should never have existed.  The second is that the Creator God of Scripture is the malevolent being responsible for both this evil world and our evil bodies while the winged serpent Satan is the enlightener and liberator of man.

 Abraxas comes from ancient Egypt and Greece and is associated with the earliest beginnings of Gnosticism, which according to the Jewish Encyclopedia originated in ancient Chaldea with the Jews during their Babylonian exile.  It was then that certain Jews invented the mystical Babylonian Kabbalah which they modeled on the Babylonian Mystery Religion, the mother of all mystery religions throughout the history of the world.   According to modern occult Mason Albert Pike,

 "The Kabbalah is the key to the occult sciences; and the Gnostics were born of the Kabalists." (Morals and Dogma, p. 626)

The Gnostic Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit teaches that Abraxas is an Aeon dwelling with other Aeons of the Pleroma.  Pleroma generally refers to the totality of divine powers contained within and emanating (evolving) as energies from the Realm of Light (Ein Sof of the Kabbalah).  

In  "The Dictionary of Mind and Spirit" (1991), we learn that for the second-century Alexandrian Gnostic Basilides, Abraxas was the Supreme Being or Realm of Light from which emanated the following energies: Mind, Understanding, Wisdom, Power and a whole succession of powers, principalities and Aeons.  Basilides believed there were 365 Aeons, all of them personifications of the energies emanating from the Supreme Being.  The first of these Aeons was Christ, or Nous.   

 According to ancient Gnostic texts, Abraxas is the astral serpent (Satan) on the tree who gives the illumination of both good and evil to Adam and Eve whose eyes were then opened. The powerful occult symbol, the Oroboros (snake biting its' tail), signifies Abraxas, the king worm who rules this world. Abraxas is the maker of good and evil rolled into one persona described by the Gnostic Basilides as "the greatest God" (De vir. ill. 21), "the highest God" (Dial. adv. Lucif. 23), "the Almighty God" (Comm. in Amos iii. 9), and "the Lord the Creator" (Comm. in Nah. i. 11).

In modern Gnostic accounts such as the popular movie "The Matrix," Abraxas is the Cosmic Mind, a mysterious Divine One Substance, an "immeasurable light which is pure, holy and immaculate." (Apocryphon of John)  On the other hand, the Holy Trinity is represented by the evil Machine Overlords.  (Wake up! Gnosticism and Buddhism in The Matrix, Frances Flannery-Daily and Rachel Wagner, Journal of Religion and Film)

Gnostic accounts generally demote the Holy Trinity to one of the lesser Aeons and portray Him as an evil, malformed, ignorant deity sometimes called Yaldabaoth who mistakenly believes he is the only god.  Although traditions vary, Yaldabaoth is said to have breathed the divine spark of his mother Sophia (another Aeon)  into the human being (Apoc. of John) resulting in the human dilemma: man is not fallen and in need of a Savior but rather a divine spark trapped by Yaldabaoth in an evil material body in a false world of matter. The astral Pleroma is his true home but he is in exile.

Rather than Yaldabaoth, modern Gnostic Transhumanists  such as Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom, one of the founders of the World Transhumanist Association together with like-minded physicists suggest that the Holy Trinity is an evil alien supercomputer. In this account, the world we live in is a computer simulation in the minds of Robotic Overlords who are using humanity as playthings.  This is the "scientific" theory put forward by Bostrom and a number of physicists whose Gnostic account of the evil alien supercomputer is reminiscent of entities depicted in Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey:

"It is perhaps a ripe coincidence, that the Coptic word for simulation found in Gnostic texts is hal, recalling HAL the rebellious computer in Kubrick's 2001." (3)

In Bostrom's account, the Holy Trinity is the expression of an ego-driven consciousness, the evil Lord Archon –  a counterfeit spirit (Apoc. John III, 36:17) who has entrapped humanity through deceit and parasitism in a simulated world of matter to prevent human beings from remembering that they are divine spirits whose real home is the Gnostic Pleroma.

Celebrated by the Satanic Temple as well as by Masons and Wiccans, the devilish goat-headed Baphomet, known as the phallic god Pan, the ancient hermaphrodite god of nature, is another representation of the Gnostic Abraxas. As Pan, the goat-headed deity is the first principle or essence of nature while in astrology,

"...Pan...is also equated with Satan and life...in its base aspects." (J.E. Cirlot, A Dictionary of Symbols, 1971)

In a Presentation at Norwood Lodge No. 90 in 1991, Master Mason Eugene Plawiuk revealed the Chaldean pedigree of Baphomet and its close connection to astrology's elemental spirits in 'Liber Capricornus: the Symbolism of the Goat.' Plawiuk explains that the goat is known to all of us through,

"....the ancient science of Astrology first developed by the Chaldeans, or as they are commonly known; Babylonians. The Goat symbolizes male fertility (and is represented by) the astrological sign of Capricorn...In fact the...Babylonians who gave us this symbol of Capricorn and the science of Astrology were the first Temple Builders, and the goat for them symbolized the essence of the Temple or Lodge...According to a research monograph on the Dionysian Artificers and Early Masonry edited by Manly P. Hall, the symbolism of the goat relates to the prechristian God Pan, Dionysius. The Goat-God was accepted by the later Greek Mystery Schools as the symbol of the Temple Builders." (Presentation at Norwood Lodge No. 90, A.F. &A.M.G.R.A., Sept. 3, 1991, Masonic World)

Today's New Age or what Dr. Peter Jones describes as neo-Gnostic pagan spirituality relies heavily on spirit revelations channeled through Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey, Neale Donald Walsh, and many other contemporary mediums (including Carl Jung) some of them occupying positions at the UN.  The Lord however, strongly condemns all forms of Spiritism:

"anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord." Deuteronomy 18:10-12

Satan is the great deceiver (Rev. 12:9). He uses his servants of deception to manipulate, confuse, and mislead (Ephesians 4:14), and one of his most important servants, the evangelical apostate Alice Bailey (1880-1949) is a major architect of today's rapidly spreading, morally relative, transgender embracing serpent-powered neo-Gnostic New Age movement, a spiritual juggernaut effecting a counter-conversion of consciousness that closes the soul to Jesus Christ while opening it to powers of darkness.

According to Bailey's contemporary apostles, a master 'Plan' telepathically revealed to Bailey for the coming New Age millennium can be traced back to the fall of Lucifer and his angels from heaven. Bailey's demon-master, the Tibetan, described the revolt of the angels against the Holy God as part of the "divine plan of evolution," by which angels,

"descended from their sinless and free state of existence in order to develop full divine awareness on earth." (Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 224)

In this total reversal and inversion of the Revealed Word of God, the Fall of man was really an evolutionary ascent to liberating knowledge by which man's eyes were opened to good (Satan) and evil (the Holy God). Thus Helena Blavatsky, another important servant of Satan and architect of New Age spirituality concluded that it is but natural to view Satan, the Centrifugal Energy of the Universe,

"... the Serpent of Genesis, as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind. For it was he who was the 'Harbinger of Light,' bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of the automaton created by Jehovah...Indeed, (mankind) was taught wisdom and the hidden knowledge by the 'Fallen Angel." (ibid, pp. 224-225)

As man's benefactor, Lucifer continues to assist man's evolution. In the words of the apostate evangelical, now New Age theologian David Spangler, a disciple of both Blavatsky and Bailey, Lucifer is 'the angel of man's evolution' and all who seek entry to the NWO must submit to the Luciferian initiation.

Satan's servants are out in the open today. They have successfully initiated a devastating assault upon the whole body of the Christian church and by extension, upon Western and American society in ways that to previous generations would have seemed unthinkable.

Therefore, "Put you on the armor of God that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil." Ephesians 6:11 and remember that "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world." (1 John 4:4)

@Linda Kimball

Petr
01-18-2016, 01:28 AM
Kevin MacDonald has lately delved into some rather Freudian territory (for a Jew-critic), studying how pre-Christian pagan Norsemen understood sexuality and gender issues:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/01/hyper-masculine-behavior-among-iron-age-scandinavian-men/

A recurring topic at TOO is what northwest Europeans were like before Christianity and before modernity. This excerpt us from Lotte Hedeager, Iron Age Myth and Materiality: An Archeology of Scandinavia, AD 400–1000 (http://atibook.ir/dl/en/Siences/Natural%20sciences/Archaeological/9780415606042_iron_age_myth_and_materiality_an_archaeology_of_scandinavia_ad_400_1000.pdf) (London: Routledge, 2011), 115ff. It paints a picture of a hyper-masculine, completely militarized society in which male sexual penetration was a marker of power, while being penetrated was, for a male, the ultimate insult. Accusing a man of having been sodomized was a grievous accusation, with the same penalty as for murder. Older males lacking the power or ability to penetrate took on the status of women and were even ridiculed by slaves. Women were spoils of warfare and raiding. The implication is that the social ties within the Mannerbunde did not involve homosexual sex, but Hedeager claims that there is evidence that, in some groups at least, attraction to young boys was common.

...

Old men became females because they no longer penetrated others:

As an old man living ‘innan stokks’ (the women’s domain), Egill was no longer part of the public world of his youth and manhood, and even the thrall [slave] women treated him with no respect, laughed at him, teased him, etc. Egill ends his life not only surrounded by women, but in a sense as one of them. In Sonatorrek (1) Egill himself complains about his weakness and the softness of his ‘bore (drill bit) of the foot/leg of taste/pleasure’. In Clover’s explanation the bore becomes a metaphor for the tongue, sword and penis — all three have softened and for that reason Egill ends far down the gender scale — as a powerless, effeminate geriatric. ‘Sooner or later, all of us end up alike in our softness – regardless of our past and regardless of our sex’ (Clover 1993: 385). Thus, sex changed progressively through life and was not a generalised category related to gender. To become argr was to become soft, impotent and powerless – including a man on whom a sexual act was performed.

Ahknaton
01-18-2016, 04:19 AM
David Bowie was probably the most famous "androgynous" celebrity in popular culture, and his androgyny has been celebrated by liberal media like Slate following his death:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/01/11/why_david_bowie_s_androgyny_was_a_rare_precious_gift.html

Petr
01-18-2016, 06:01 AM
According to ancient Gnostic texts, Abraxas is the astral serpent (Satan) on the tree who gives the illumination of both good and evil to Adam and Eve whose eyes were then opened. The powerful occult symbol, the Oroboros (snake biting its' tail), signifies Abraxas, the king worm who rules this world.
I was reminded here of this poem by G.K. Chesterton:

http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/the_wise_men.html

Oh, we have learnt to peer and pore
On tortured puzzles from our youth,
We know all the labyrinthine lore,
We are the three wise men of yore,
And we know all things but truth.

We have gone round and round the hill
And lost the wood among the trees,
And learnt long names for every ill,
And serve the made gods, naming still
The furies the Eumenides.

The gods of violence took the veil
Of vision and philosophy,
The Serpent that brought all men bale,
He bites his own accursed tail,
And calls himself Eternity.

Norse mythology also knows the idea of a malicious serpent who is devouring the world tree:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%AD%C3%B0h%C3%B6ggr

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Nidhogg.png

Níðhöggr gnaws the roots of Yggdrasill in this illustration from a 17th-century Icelandic manuscript.

In Norse mythology, Níðhöggr (Malice Striker, often anglicized Nidhogg[1]) is a dragon who gnaws at a root of the world tree, Yggdrasil.

...

Níðhöggr is also mentioned at the end of Völuspá, where he is identified as a dragon and a serpent.

From below the dragon
dark comes forth,
Nithhogg flying
from Nithafjoll;
The bodies of men
on his wings he bears,
The serpent bright:
but now must I sink.

Petr
01-19-2016, 01:17 AM
The Zohar states the heart of Judaism is the esoteric meaning of the five books of the Torah. That the literalist meaning is a veil for the Goyim.
The Zohar was composed even much later than the Talmud, and it hasn't got any legitimate connection to the Old Testament, any more than the Koran does.

In any case, early Christians recognized that there was shady occult lore going on among the Jews of their own times, and clearly repudiated it:

http://biblehub.com/titus/1-14.htm

Titus 1:13-14

This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Nesta Webster adds:

http://iamthewitness.com/books/Nesta.H.Webster/Secret.Societies.and.Subversive.Movements.htm#fna110

The prevalence of sorcery amongst the Jews during the first century of the Christian era is shown by other passages in the Acts of the Apostles; in Paphos the "false prophet," a Jew, whose surname was Bar-Jesus, otherwise known as "Elymas the sorcerer," opposed the teaching of St. Paul and brought on himself the imprecation: "O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

Petr
03-10-2016, 01:20 PM
I do not consider myself obsessed with homosexuality, or sexual issues in general, but whether I liked it or not, it seems that they are becoming one of the clearest dividing lines between true Christians and the reprobate "children of this world":

http://patriotsandliberty.com/lindas-latest/2016/3/8/the-men

This upside-down view leads to a philosophy of moral relativism because if men were once something else, a genderless blob of matter, and still later, lizards, and later still, some kind of ape-like creature, then not only are humans going to become something else--maybe divine supermen or super robots---but nothing can be said about homosexuality, transgender, and lesbianism since all life forms arose from a genderless blob of matter generated by a Big Bang.

With the triumph of evolutionary science and the satanically-energized will of Gnostic pagans over the Revealed Word of God, New York Times columnist Frank Bruni brazenly demands that church leaders be forced to take "homosexuality off the sin list." (Christians 'Must Be Made' to Bow, Rod Dreher, The American Conservative, Apr. 4, 2015)

...

In other words, by forsaking our Creator, the fountain of life, in favor of non-life-bearing matter and energy, men destroy themselves. In effect they make themselves into walking dead bodies whose ‘new’ reality is non-self, meaning that by the logic of their choice there is no one home.

In short, if all that exists is matter and energy then it logically follows that there is no source for life, mind, conscience and will, the two sexes, human dignity and worth, or for that matter the much bragged about "reason of scientifically enlightened progressives." Without the Holy Trinity, meaning drains into meaninglessness and man is less than nothing, a conclusion Buddha reached long before the stupidity and depravity of Enlightenment Deists and fellow travelers paved the way for the West and then America to plunge into the void where man is no longer a person. Nor is he or she either male or female but rather a soulless, sexless aggregate of matter or psychic energy in motion while the powers and abilities of his mind are nothing more than energies and chemicals acting on grey matter. In short, within the closed-system of "new" paganism, man is nothing but an evolved hominid or bio-machine, a conscious product of energy acting on matter over millions of years, a process called evolution.

The disintegration of man’s dignity as a creature of the Holy God of creation is not the result of science, as Western evolution worshippers falsely claim, but rather the product of a depraved mind, evil conscience, and will turned toward evil that justifies the depersonalization and abuse of others as the exercise of sovereign freedom. It is hostility toward and outright hatred of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and His image-bearers disguised behind magic science and linguistic sophistry.

Androgyny: the Pagan Ideal

Following hard on the heels of the disintegration of man's inner person is the rapid loss of male and female distinctions, which quickly drain away into androgyny. This in its' turn necessitates the radical recasting of marriage, family, Scripture, and orthodox Christianity and the use of toddlers, older children and even babies for the sexual satisfaction of depraved pan-sexual and omni-gendered bio-machines. This hideous evil will not only be tolerated but declared a sign of enlightened progress because with the Holy Triune God dead in their hearts, then so too is the entire structure of Biblically grounded presuppositions, norms, standards, principles, moral law, sexual ethics, social institutions and society built thereon. In the resulting void, everything—no matter how evil– is now possible (Psalm 36:1-4).

In an article entitled, "Hundred Years of Pedophilia," Olavo de Carvalho (born 29 April 1947), a Brazilian essayist and historian warns of evils just over our horizon:

"In Greece and in the Roman Empire, the use of minors for the sexual satisfaction of adults was a tolerated and even prized costume. (sic) In China, castrating young boys to sell them to rich pederasts was legitimate commerce during millennia. In the Islamic world, the rigid morals that ordain the relationships between men and women was not rarely compensated by the tolerance with homosexual pedophilia. In some countries this lasted at least until the beginning of the 20th century, making Algeria, for example, a garden of delights for depraved travelers (read the memoirs of André Gide, "Si le grain ne meurt"). ....In all the places where the practice of pedophilia receded, it was the influence of Christianism — practically alone — that freed the children from this awful rule. .....But this had a price. It is as if an undercurrent of hate and resentment had gone through two millennia of history, waiting for the moment of revenge. This moment has arrived." (olavodecarvalho.org)

...

Despite the hideous depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah the practice of homosexual marriage was unknown there. Not since the pre-flood time of Noah has there been a nation that sanctioned homosexual marriage, that is, not until the United States of America, which under the leadership of ‘rainbow’ Obama, has been trying to force homosexuality on the rest of the world.

Thus today, godless paganized America stands guilty before the Lord of committing the crime that equates to the last step in the downward spiral that caused God’s judgment to fall upon the pre-flood world. Preceding the last step however, was the original pre-flood idolatry wherein, according to early Church Father Tertullian, people believed that after death they would magically change (evolve) into gods (Tertullian Treatise on the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0310.htm) 57). Today the original idolatry has been recast and made palatable to modern Westerners by being dressed up as reincarnation, evolution, and science. With respect to the last step, according to ancient rabbis,

“The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.” Genesis Rabbah 26:4-5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9

“And what did they do? A man…married…a man, and a woman a woman, a man married a woman and her daughter, and a woman was married to two (men). Therefore it is said, “And you shall not walk in their statutes.” Sifra Acharei Mot, Parashah 9:8 (Commentary on Leviticus 18:3)

By the logic of their choice, idolatrous Gnostics have destroyed themselves, and in the end, their choice inevitably lands them in Hell.

Petr
03-10-2016, 03:33 PM
For they “know” that gender is merely an adventitious social construct of the oppressive and malevolent “Patriarchy.” They know that the world is shot through with injustice: it is the creation and continuation of a primordial rape by a deluded and lustful Patriarch. Having attended mandatory “sexual harassment orientations,” they know that every act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is, consciously or unconsciously, an echo of that rape.

They know that Jesus was a freedom fighter and social revolutionary, intent on “queering” the customs of the world, and thus healing and reconciling the evil effects of that rape. They know that he was a savior because he was a sign of contradiction and the stone that the builders of the world prison rejected, who shall be the cornerstone of the New Age.
Thus the neo-Gnostic heretics will eventually present us with full-blown "False Christ." I am reminded of this poem by William Blake (who himself was a quite wild antinomian mystic) when I contemplate the fraudulent image of SJW Jesus:

http://www.bartleby.com/236/58.html

THE VISION OF CHRIST that thou dost see
Is my vision’s greatest enemy.
Thine has a great hook nose like thine;
Mine has a snub nose like to mine.
Thine is the Friend of all Mankind;
Mine speaks in parables to the blind.
Thine loves the same world that mine hates;
Thy heaven doors are my hell gates.
Socrates taught what Meletus
Loath’d as a nation’s bitterest curse,
And Caiaphas was in his own mind
A benefactor to mankind.
Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read’st black where I read white.
The fundamental division of sheeps and goats is inevitable, that far I can agree with Blake. Although I might well ultimately be on the other side than he was.

Petr
05-14-2016, 10:34 AM
The ancient Gnostic responded by avoiding the generation of children. Some of them became extreme ascetics and totally celibate and even sacramentalized their fasting unto death. But some of them became “free spirits” who flouted all sexual taboos and customs—upon which the world’s prison bars were built—and engaged in every sort of sexual irregularity. It demonstrated the Gnostics’ contempt for the deep distinctions and features of the material world and how they were living purely in the spirit, and no longer bound by the world.
R.J. Rushdoony also noted this connection between perverse asceticism and perverse sexuality (the unity of opposites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites)):

https://bible.org/article/rushdoony-neoplatonism-and-biblical-view-sex

Listen again to Rushdoony:

On hippies (the book was written in 1973):

“This attitude is very much like that of the modern hippy, who despises the flesh and shows contempt for the body and its dress. The hippy, in his sexuality, expresses contempt for the body, either by treating sexual acts as of no account in casual promiscuity, or by a bored denial of sex. There is far more abstention from sex among hippies than is generally recognized. Either in abstention or in casual, unemotional promiscuity, it is a contempt of the flesh which is manifested. Dirty bodies and dirty clothing are other means of manifesting the same faith.” (p. 5)
Many Manosphere writers have complained that Christianity has contributed to the "pedestalization" of women, seeing them as better or more "spiritual" than they truly are. In my opinion, the modern churchians who are doing that cannot find much support for their position in either the Bible or church history (many church fathers, as sour ascetics, wrote some of the most women-despising material ever). They can, however, find support in the ideas of Gnostic underworld:

Finally, neoplatonism has infected radical feminism:

“Much of what has been condemned as a product of Catholic and Protestant teaching has been the continuing influence of neoplatonism and best exemplified in its original form among Greeks and Romans.

“Neoplatonism was very powerful in the feminist movement of the 19th and 20th centuries. Now, however, the roles were reversed. Woman was seen as pure and spiritual, and man as coarse and material. Women, it was thus held, are more ‘spiritual’ and therefore superior beings. . . . Virginia Leblick in The New Era: Woman’s Era; or Transformation from Barbaric to Humane Civilization (1910) said that the lowest prostitute was better than the best of men.” (p. 65)

Petr
01-22-2017, 10:54 PM
Here is some esoteric Alt-Right speculation about Europe's mysterious prehistory:

http://www.tradyouth.org/2016/12/white-turan-against-gay-atlantis-polarity-plurality-and-ancient-sexuality/

It was thus that Oswald Spengler, in his unfinished posthumous work, could refer to the original Aryan homeland and horse-driven culture complex as “Turan.” (He called Old Europe “Atlantis” and argued that it was the first maritime culture.)

Spengler wrote that the Indo-Europeans emphasized “sky instead of sun” and “did not think of the sun as a star, but rather the light, the redness, brightness, heat of the heavens…” The gods of this “Turan” were elemental “expressions of polarity,” not the southern “colorful image of a set of figures.” They were “weaving powers, not concrete figures… No personal gods.”

The most interesting and convincing aspect of this portrait of the Indo-Europeans is that their spirituality was fundamentally [I]anti-humanistic. It can arguably be seen as a pagan anticipation of St. John Chrysostom’s doctrine that God has nothing in common with man, or at least somewhat analogous to it. It is far removed from later cabalist-infused revisionist Renaissance and Masonic attempts to supposedly revive Europe’s pre-Christian heritage.

The conquering Indo-Europeans smashed the by-then-degenerated fertility goddess of Old Europe, who had most likely become a pornographic “fag hag” anti-matriarch—the appropriate and rightful mistress of any culture based on homosexuality.[v] She partially survived into the Classical civilization, but was virulently opposed by everything that was truly Indo-European in it, until finally being crushed by Christianity. Nothing is more humanistic at its essence than homosexual sodomy, so the Indo-European spirituality could not have been based on it in any way.


[vii] The Mongols, who actually give us the clearest picture of what the original Indo-European culture-complex of the steppe had been like, punished homosexuality with death. The Mongolian and “Turanian” beliefs—as Mircea Eliade, like posthumous Spengler, argued—are accurate reflections of the Indo-Europeans who had initially invented that horse-driven lifestyle. Furthermore, according to Tacitus, the ancient Germanic tribes had similar anti-homosexual laws.

The Indo-European heritage of the family-centered Romans reflected Aristotle’s heterosexual vision of the family and the state, and Christ was still a child when Augustus enacted anti-homosexual measures in Rome. The rampant homosexuality of the Classical world was already frowned upon by the Romans, at least in theory. Plutarch, for example, treats it as a vice at best. We can therefore conclude that Christianity answered what the Romans already saw as a social problem.

The Aryan-Turanic steppe’s emphasis on polarity over plurality can also be noticed in Virgil’s work, which Spengler, like Houston Stewart Chamberlain before him, wrongly dismissed as “servile” and inferior to Homer. (“Servile” compared to what? Homer’s unbridled artistic freedom?) [I]The Aeneid, that “Godfather Part II” of Classical literature, replaces the pluralistic chaos and other residually Old European elements of The Illiad with heterosexual, celestial polarity.

[On the Mongolian anti-homosexual laws see Onon, Urgunge, The Secret History of the Mongols, p. 11. For the best example of Eliade’s argument that the Indo-European outlook was dualistic, see his Zalmoxis: The Vanishing God.]

Petr
01-28-2017, 02:39 AM
The degenerate dirtbag Marquis de Sade was one of the pioneers of queer emancipation - this is from his 1795 book Philosophy in the Bedroom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_the_Bedroom), one of de Sade's most "Apollonian" works, as he indulges in it in some intellectual theorizing, instead of his usual sickening Dionysian excesses:

http://www.slideshare.net/crift1/marquis-de-sadephilosophyinthebedroom

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/marquisdesade-philosophyinthebedroom-140415005942-phpapp02/95/yet-another-effort-frenchmen-if-you-would-become-republicans-22-638.jpg