Gnon-Theology and Time

A discussion of Gnon-Theology and Time deserves a preface, on Gnon-Theology, but there are several reasons to leap-frog that. Most obviously, it would be yet another prologue to an introduction to the first part of a promised series, and readers of this blog are quite probably thoroughly saturated (to the point of mild nausea) with that. It’s a cognitive disease, and it would be presumptuous to expect anybody else to take the same morbid interest in backward cascades that this blog does.

The more interesting reason to avoid prefacing the question of time, along any avenue of investigation, is that such methodical precautions are grave errors in this case. There is nothing more basic than time, or preliminary to it. In naming a preface or prologue, it is already introduced.  Time is a problem that cannot be conceptually pre-empted.

Gnon suspends ontological decision about God. It begins from what is real, whether God exists or not. A Gnon-trance is unsettled. It is not yet agnostic, any more than it is decidedly theistic or atheistic. It concerns itself primarily with that which has been accepted as real before anything is believed, and subsequently with whatever can be attained through methodical negation of intellectual haste.  Since suspension is its only positive determination, it collapses towards a raw intuition of time.

Evidently, Gnon-Theology cannot be dogmatic, even in part. Instead, it is hypothetical, in a maximally reduced sense, in which the hypothesis is an opportunity for cognitive exploration unshackled from ontological commitments. The content of Gnon-Theology is exhausted by the question: What does the idea of God enable us to think?

And ‘the idea of God’? — what in the name of Gnon is that? All we know, at first,  is that it has been grit-blasted of all encrustations from either positive or negative faith. It cannot be anything with which we have historical or revelatory familiarity, since it reaches us from out of the abyss (epoche), where only time and / or the unknown remain.

Glutted on forbidden fruit, Gnon-Theology strips God like an engine, down to the limit of abstraction, or eternity for-itself. Does any such perspective exist? We already know that this is not our question. All such ‘regional ontology’ has been suspended. We are nevertheless already entitled, through the grace of Gnon (which — remember — might (or might not) be God), to the assumption or acceptance of reality that: for any God to be God it cannot be less than eternity for-itself. Whatever eternity for-itself entails, any God will, too.

What it entails, unambiguously, is time-travel, in the strong sense of reverse causation, although not necessarily in the folk/Hollywood variant (which has also had serious defenders) based on the retro-transportation of physical objects into the past. Knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from counter-chronic transmission of information. This is perhaps the single most critical insight in realistic time-travel research — we’ll get back to it. (If anyone finds it less than logically irresistible, use the comments thread.)

To accelerate this discussion with bloggish crudity, on a heading out of Gnon-Theology into Occidental religious history (and to the possibility of sleep), we can jump to one simple, certain, and secure conclusion: No Christian can consistently deny the reality of time-travel. The objection ‘if (reverse) time-travel if possible, where are the time-travellers?’ is annulled by the Christian revelation itself. Messianic Incarnation (of God or eternity for-itself), along with all true prophecy,  providential history, and answered prayer, instantiates time-travel with technical exactitude. There can be no truth whatsoever to the Christian religion unless time-travel has fundamentally structured human history. Whatever else Christianity might be, it is a time-travel story, and one that at times appears to be peculiarly lacking in clear self-understanding.

(Time-travel, it should perhaps be noted explicitly, has no obvious dependency on Christianity, or even upon the God of Gnon-Theology. That is a topic for other occasions.)

June 16, 2013admin 52 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Uncategorized

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

52 Responses to this entry

  • The Reluctant Apostate Says:

    I guess I’ll bite and say that I don’t accept the logical irresistibility of knowledge of the future (as opposed to mere projection of the future) in the event of God’s existence, unless we consider that to be a defining characteristic of Nature’s God. Prophesy is important in Abrahamic theology, but I don’t understand why such a characteristic is a launching point for a discussion of any God.

    Further, in the event of only Nature existing, surely there would be no dependence upon any knowledge of the future, as no intelligent entity to hold such knowledge would exist. I take it then that limited monotheistic scenarios and polytheistic scenarios would fall under the category of Nature as opposed to Nature’s God if they had no such ability of time travel.

    Or did I just completely misunderstand this post?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Your first paragraph holds, except for God, whose existence is defined by super-temporal self-awareness. For any religion to count as significantly monotheistic, there has to be divine communication with humanity (between eternity and time), hence prophecy and providence, hence implementation of time-travel. The ‘Theistic’ alternative is Deism, in which God keeps time-travel to himself (with Laplace, for e.g., in the Promethean role — stealing time-travel from the heavens in the form of perfect scientific prediction, and thus retro-chronic message acquisition).

    [Reply]

    The Reluctant Apostate Reply:

    God, whose existence is defined by super-temporal self-awareness.

    Not to drag this into the weeds, but that raises a question for me of what super-temporal really means. Is eternity an orthogonal dimension of time accessible to God but not to beings of this universe such as ourselves or is it something else? The reasons I ask is while time may seem constraining to creatures like us who can only know the past and are destined to travel only into the future, that directionality is what allows us to act at all. All known processes are time dependent, including human thought and thus self-awareness. As such, how does God achieve thought if he is, unlike us, not entrained in some flow of time?

    In short: What does the concept of eternal existence actually mean?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Not the weeds, but the feverish jungles of the Outside. I couldn’t be more delighted than to see this line of questioning emerge.

    From the perspective of the Occidentally-elaborated Abrahamic tradition, the concept at stake is not ‘merely’ “eternal existence”, but eternal existence for-itself: a supra-temporal self-awareness (unconstrained by time-asymmetry). You ask, how can we analogize from human intra-temporal cognitive processes to the ‘thoughts’ of such a ‘being’? This is a question whose ambition far exceeds anything this post has attempted to apprehend, and I won’t attempt an absurdly premature resolution now. (In the interim, I hope it is obvious that I am not committed to the possibility of a resolution compatible with the expectations of dogmatic theology.)

    Perhaps this reference will suffice as a provisional parry. It approaches the same technical complexities from a very different angle.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    it means ur free in the most theocratic despotism

    Posted on June 16th, 2013 at 5:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orlandu84 Says:

    “No Christian can consistently deny the reality of time-travel. The objection ‘if (reverse) time-travel if possible, where are the time-travellers?’ is annulled by the Christian revelation itself. Messianic Incarnation (of God or eternity for-itself), along with all true prophecy, providential history, and answered prayer, instantiates time-travel with technical exactitude. There can be no truth whatsoever to the Christian religion unless time-travel has fundamentally structured human history. Whatever else Christianity might be, it is a time-travel story, and one that at times appears to be peculiarly lacking in clear self-understanding.”

    Whenever you start writing about GNON, I get worried. I will be less so from here on out. The above statement might be the clearest articulation of revelation that I have ever read, and i have read a lot of definitions of revelations!

    A quick aside that is worth pondering. St. Thomas Aquinas stated that it is impossible to demonstrate the creation of the world. Only Faith can assure one that God created the world at a particular point in time. If what you said about the future is true, then it seems applicable to the past in a certain way as well. I am not denying real knowledge of the past; I am contending that the further in the past one goes, the less certain one can be about it. Eventually, our postulations about the past are as driven by faith as our our understandings of the distant future.The significant difference between the two is that we tend to have far greater knowledge and certainty of the past then we do of the future.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    @ Orlandu84
    Thanks for the highly suggestive pointer. For the past to seem more certain than the future, memory has to dominate over the communication with Eternity. (In Judaism, this occurs with God’s retraction from creation, initiating the possibility of a pseudo-secular history.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 16th, 2013 at 5:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • fotrkd Says:

    I need to get over my (John Smiths’ induced) downer to understand this (or find the Basic Introduction to… Gnon Theology), but did you pick this study up back in February? Stretching the technology across time throws up interesting possibilities.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 16th, 2013 at 6:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    I think referring to the act of Divine Incarnation (etc.) as time travel is taking a pretty expansive view of time travel. It is not as though the eternally existent second person of the Trinity travelled from one point in cosmic (i.e., natural) space-time back to another… but, if it means anything at all (and I certainly affirm it does), that he travelled from outside time itself into it. Now you’d be correct to note that from this (i.e., temporal, spatial) side, it would be impossible to know the difference. It isn’t as though the withered fig tree could tell whether it had simply grown old or been cursed by God’s own Son (or both!)… But Christianity is not at bottom about this world (tho’ it does deeply care about it), but rather about the nature of what lies outside it… which to be sure turns back upon this world insofar as it reflects, and was designed so to reflect, the eternal one—one in which time as we conceive it as a measure of entropy in a given inertial frame simply does not exist.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    …that he travelled from outside time itself into it

    But you would presumably also agree the ‘time’ chosen wasn’t arbitrary but selected, therefore implying mastery of linear or historical time (travel)?

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Well, sure. It was obviously, in retrospect, extremely well-timed… and equally well-spaced. I’m merely objecting to the application of the word “travel” to an instance (or any instance) the divine puncturing creation. It just isn’t what the word means, and it would apply presumably to any such puncturing, not simply the Central One. If the creator created, and desires communion with his creation, then to say the creator “travels” to a particular point in time-space of his creation, even as it were to become himself a “creature”, is to largely miss the point of the relation, unless you are drastically expanding the definition of “travel”.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    FWIW I agree that “time-travel” is a (far) less than optimal term. I keep hunting around for alternatives that adequately capture the topic-problem, but nothing has stuck so far. There’s a tradition to consider, and ‘time-travel’ is the term we have inherited for phenomena involving radically non-linear time-structures.

    fotrkd Reply:

    Whatever else Christianity might be, it is a time-travel story

    I’m not (as stated above) in a position to fully grasp the post, but the bare minimum that I think admin is getting at, is that for Christianity (or eschatology more generally) to be conceivable you have to acknowledge an ‘outside of time‘. In itself that means time-travel is in some sense Gnon possible, even if not for those of us stuck within time.

    Posted on June 16th, 2013 at 6:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    Messianic Incarnation (of God or eternity for-itself), along with all true prophecy, providential history, and answered prayer, instantiates time-travel with technical exactitude. There can be no truth whatsoever to the Christian religion unless time-travel has fundamentally structured human history.

    One might add that the eternal sacrifice of the Second Person to the First, which entered historical time at Calvary, is ‘re-presented’ (not repeated) in the Mass. Past, present and future are united in a single act, one and the same sacrifice, the only one held to be “approved, reasonable and acceptable” (“ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque”).

    The cessation of the sacrifice of the altar (Mass destruction) would be a sign that time was at an end since time would then have outlived its usefulness. (Cf. Matthew 24:22.)

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    How integral is Messianic return to this order? It is the historical difference between the initial and terminal advent that constitutes the most fundamental — or at least the most dramatic — ‘time-travel narrative’ in the Occidental tradition (Alpha-Omega integration, supporting the architecture of distinctively Christian prophecy). Of course, I welcome the reference of this problem to the mystery of the Mass.

    [Reply]

    Orlandu84 Reply:

    “How integral is Messianic return to this order? It is the historical difference between the initial and terminal advent that constitutes the most fundamental — or at least the most dramatic — ‘time-travel narrative’ in the Occidental tradition.”

    Recently, some Cathedral thinkers interested in Christian thought have attempted to explain that history has been completed and that the Messianic return is not necessary. “Realized eschatology” is the theology that attempts to explain how Messianic return is not necessary. In broad strokes it wants to demonstrate that all the truth claims related to the perception of the end of the world have been already fulfilled. In other words, what happened on Calvary was the end of history. The most influential theologian who fits this category (in my humble opinion) is Rene Girard. See his wiki page for a good summary of his peculiar thought.

    The obvious problem with realized eschatology is that the world has kept on going! Why has two thousand years passed if what happened 2,000 years ago was complete in and of itself? The typical reply is that the victory of Calvary must be spread to every corner of the cosmos. This answer, however, undercuts the completion of the Messianic victory on Calvary in a very important sense since it makes the victory complete with a geographical qualification.

    Now, the more traditional answer is very simple but unsatisfying for most contemporary thinkers: we will never know when the end of the world will be. I would go so far as to claim that the question, “When will the cosmos cease to exist?” is not a real question. For the question attempts to use the way that the world exists as a way of measuring when it will not exist. Accordingly, one’s answer would be true only in so far as the world exists. Yet, it is not the extent of the world’s existence but its non-existence that the question is trying to answer. In other words, answering the question “When does the world end?” only informs you about how much you know about the world as it exists.

    Another way of discussing this problem would be to look at non-existence. By definition we do not know the absence of existence in itself. Only God (or for this blog GNON) would be in a position to know such a truth.

    What I find very interesting is how realized eschatology is a theological hot topic today. My own guess is that the Cathedral is attempting to understand what it must do to complete its own work. When will people be fully liberated, i.e. fully controlled? Centuries of work have not created paradise but only more work to do. Intellectually speaking (not politically) is the acceptance of “post-modern” as a term for thought an indicator that the Cathedral is senile?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Do you want me to flip your ‘cavalries’ into ‘calvaries’?

    admin Reply:

    ‘Realized eschatology’ becomes more persuasive when you conceive it as Zombie Apocalypse.
    When us say RE is a “theological hot topic” are you referring to growing interest in Girard, or is the phenomenon more general than that?

    Alex Reply:

    some Cathedral thinkers interested in Christian thought

    That would have to be the most elegantly devastating description of liberal Christianity ever.

    Alex Reply:

    How integral is Messianic return to this order? It is the historical difference between the initial and terminal advent that constitutes the most fundamental — or at least the most dramatic — ‘time-travel narrative’ in the Occidental tradition (Alpha-Omega integration, supporting the architecture of distinctively Christian prophecy). Of course, I welcome the reference of this problem to the mystery of the Mass.

    With its sacramental Christ and priest’s orientation to the East, the Mass marks time until the Second Coming. It has been identified with St Paul’s katechon or ‘restrainer’ whose elimination would allow all hell to break loose. (Others believe the “restrainer” to have been the Holy Roman Empire.)

    The notion of katechon was given added urgency in AD 1886 when Pope Leo XIII ordered an ‘exorcism prayer’ to St Michael the Archangel appended to every Low Mass after he was granted a vision of Christ acceding to Satan’s request for a free hand to unleash his full power against the Church.

    Once the katechon has been removed, the scene is set for the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy: “… the victim and the sacrifice shall fall: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.” Enter Antichrist stage left.

    Some understand the Abomination to be a kind of ersatz oblation, displeasing to God. The recommencement of sacrifices in a rebuilt Jewish Temple is a popular candidate; so is the abominable ‘new’ Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) imposed on the Latin Church in the wake of the second Vatican Council following the suppression of the Leonine prayer to St Michael. [Whatever else it might be, the Novus Ordo rite can be seen as the definitive triumph over the Church of what we would now call the Cathedral, as concepts of propitiatory sacrifice were downplayed in favour of a love-feast at which the congregation joyously affirmed their communal self-awareness as the ‘people of God’. Mass was now ‘celebrated’ rather than ‘offered’; priests no longer faced ad orientem; traditional high altars were reconfigured as freestanding tables; the “pure, holy, unblemished Victim” was now bathetically referred to as “fruit of the earth and work of human hands” which underwent a nebulous transignification, “becoming for us the bread of life”. Most alarmingly, changes to the hallowed words of consecration of the wine led some to believe the mystical separation of Body and Blood no longer occurred at the altar, thus robbing the Mass of its expiatory power!]

    Be that as it may, such considerations lead us back to notions of ‘time travel’, reverse causation and time folding back to meet itself. An unacceptable sacrifice at the end of time evokes an ancient prototype: the reprobate Cain’s offering of “the fruits of the earth” which, unlike his brother’s blood sacrifice of “the firstlings of his flock”, failed to meet with divine approbation. Likewise Pope Leo’s vision irresistibly recalls the similar dialogue wherein Satan successfully petitioned God for permission to test the righteous Job.

    Here we arrive at the venerable Christian use of ‘typology’ to interpret history, according to which significant events repeatedly recur in more potent forms of which they are but foreshadowings. Typological time is directional but not straightforwardly linear, accelerating in ever tighter spirals to its final paroxysm …

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    This comment is a masterpiece, overflowing with riches — thanks.

    Posted on June 16th, 2013 at 10:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    @ fotrkd
    “Gnon possible” is a keeper.
    I’d perhaps go a little further than your gloss: If communication between time and the outside is real, than the structure of time is necessarily conducive to radically non-linear ‘anomalies’.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2013 at 12:43 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    A thought-provoking thought-experiment –

    Imagine that your sensory nerves are connected to a multi-track tape-recording of the electrical input that your eyes, ears, nose and skin fed to your brain yesterday. And this is the only input your brain has. When would “you” be? You would still experience yourself to be in the now, but when would “now” be – the “now” other people observe your body to be in, or the “now” of yesterday?

    Or imagine that your brain is connected to a recording of the sensory input from someone living a hundred years ago. Where would you experience yourself to be? 2013 or 1913?
    Then suppose that it were indeed possible to cast your mind into the future and experience the unfurling of future events. In what time would the self be? Your body may still be in this “now,” but where and when would “you” be?

    Explicating this thought-experiment in his book “The White Hole in Time,” Peter Russell goes on to say that –

    “Timeless experiences occur in deep meditation when the mind is still, yet awake. As it is a changeless state there is little sense of duration, no awareness of how much time has passed. One has returned to the present; and the present is discovered to be timeless.
    Consciousness in its natural unconditioned state is not in time. Time does not “pass,” nor does it have any particular location in time. It is no-when. Beyond time. But always “now.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m hoping it’s (Gnon) possible to splice that kind of mystical discourse into technological pragmatics, by finding the right code.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2013 at 11:58 am Reply | Quote
  • Orlandu84 Says:

    @admin: “Do you want me to flip your ‘cavalries’ into ‘calvaries’?” Yes, please. Stupid spell checker strikes again! Although I probably deserve the embarrassment for posting late at night.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Humiliation purifies the soul (or something).

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2013 at 2:11 pm Reply | Quote
  • Gom Jabbar Says:

    The (extremely non-official) Mormon take on this subject:

    http://adventures-in-mormonism.com/wp-content/20.3BurtonWebster.pdf

    The paper only touches briefly on time, right at the end, but is otherwise germane.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    (I still need a while with that — it looks gripping on cursory inspection)

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2013 at 2:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orlandu84 Says:

    @admin: “‘Realized eschatology’ becomes more persuasive when you conceive it as Zombie Apocalypse.
    When us say RE is a “theological hot topic” are you referring to growing interest in Girard, or is the phenomenon more general than that?”

    I think that Girard has become the standard bearer of a new kind of realized eschatology. C. H. Dodd was the first to come up with the idea that Jesus’s ministry was all that was necessary and sufficient for salvation for all time. Cathedral Christians (those Christians who want to belong both to the Cathedral and the greater Church) like that sort of thinking. Unfortunately, for most Cathedral Christians, traditional theologians undermined and debunked C. H. Dodd and others fairly well. More importantly, most traditional Christians did not give two figs for Dodd’s thought.

    In Girard, Cathedral Christians found a new hope. Here was a deeply contemporary thinker. His thought and mentality are firmly Cathedral approved – violence and morality are always the product of social interactions and not referable to human nature. Accordingly, change the social system and you change humanity. Many Cathedral Christians see in Girard a way of communicating with the Cathedral and demonstrating their allegiance to Cathedral thinking. In effect they use his thinking to show that Christianity is not dangerous to the Cathedral or its goals. For according to the followers of Girard the Cathedral’s project is the continuation of the Church’s project – non violence by dialogue.

    Traditional Christians cannot figure out the attraction of Cathedral Christians to Girard and RE in general. Since they accept the need of eschatology for the coherence of traditional Christian theology, Girard seems reductionist – Girard’s claims about Jesus reduce him to a revolutionary/prophet of sorts. Yet the attraction of Cathedral acceptance keeps on going.

    Since reading this blog I have had a crazy thought. I think that Girard is reading the Cathedral into the Bible. In sort his RE applies not to Jesus Christ but to the Cathedral. The Cathedral has already done everything it can to reveal the true nature of traditional morality and violence. In place of traditional understandings it has created its own noble lie. That noble lie is now in turn being revealed so that its system of order is dying. If my analysis is correct, then Girard’s thought shows that the Cathedral does not have much time left.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    You mention Christian theology and theologians, but what of Christian mysticism and the likes of Meister Eckhart, Jan Van Ruysbroeck, St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, Jacob Boehme, William Blake, the annonymous author of “The Cloud of Unknowing”, and more recently, Bernadette Roberts?
    Here (G)non-ordinary experience and (G)non-ordinary states of consciousness connect Christianity with the mystical aspects of all other religious traditions, and contribute to what Aldous Huxley called “The Perennial Philosophy,” constituting a “Highest Common Factor” among religions.

    Incidentally, the overwhelming experience of timeless unity/oneness which such states bestow may well account for the egalitarian impulse, and thus the persistence of egalitarianism would need to be explained by more than mere reference to Cathedral propaganda and status-conferring. Its appeal may be hard-wired into the brain.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “the overwhelming experience of timeless unity/oneness which such states bestow may well account for the egalitarian impulse” — perhaps, but this experience of sublime non-differentiation extends from amoebae to a demigods, and has been especially exalted amongst the most highly-stratified societies the world has ever known.

    [Reply]

    northanger Reply:

    i think the idea is locating a “mystic impulse” in the highly-stratified noise. possibly check: Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy by Mircea Eliade.

    John Hannon Reply:

    Yes, a stratified society is necessary for the egalitarian impulse to arise in the first place (insofar as it is defined by its opposition to social stratification), and there’s never any guarantees of its fulfillment.
    Civilization could have collapsed long ago if there were.

    Posted on June 18th, 2013 at 2:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    Thanks for the background on RE — I’ll follow up on it, but from the perspective of extreme ignorance it looks like a time-straightening exercise.

    Your final paragraph — where you’ve packed the fireworks — is quite compressed, and cryptic. Are you suggesting that Girard is esoterically investigating the death of the Cathedral?

    [Reply]

    northanger Reply:

    “Satan is mimetic contagion at its most secret power” –René Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’m still adjusting to Orlandu’s side of the mirror.

    [Reply]

    northanger Reply:

    “mimetic contagion” has your name all over it. just saying.

    Posted on June 18th, 2013 at 10:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chevalier de Johnstone Says:

    Have you read Aquinas? Because it seems that you should have, except that it appears you have not. How can you define what is “real”, or have an “idea”, without deciding whether or not God exists? Aquinas shows that you can’t, so don’t you at least need to refute that argument?

    Furthermore, your definition of “God” as “eternity-for-itself”, is completely antithetical to any scholarly or popularly accepted theological doctrine of divinity in any known human religious tradition for all of recorded human history. (Nor is “super-temporal self awareness” any less post-modern.) If you read any kind of anthropological study of religion, you’ll see that people tend to equate divinity with things like getting enough rain and the sun rising on time, and nobody gives two shits about “eternity”.

    If you’re not going to bother to address the basic theological arguments, you should probably stop pretending to engage in theological discussion and stick with political philosophy. For example, monotheism doesn’t require communication between “eternity and time” or any such frou-frou crap, it just requires someone with sufficient power to say and enforce the rule, “Don’t worship anyone except ____, or else I will kill you and sell your children into slavery.” This is what commonly happened in ancient Babylon and Egypt: see for example Amenhotep 4.

    I realize this blog has a bunch of pseudo-atheist techno-fasco-libertarian fanboys (and that’s not a bad thing!), and I’m not in any way suggesting that you all need to accept Jesus as your savior or any crap like that, but when you say you’re going to talk about theology and then you completely ignore extremely basic, established, widely-known theological arguments refuting your stated position, you look like a dumbfuck. People, if you are going to disagree with or argue a new interpretation of Abrahamist/Christian theology, at least educate yourself to the fifth grade level as to what it is.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I don’t think you understand what a ‘refutation’ is. You’re not even talking about ‘theological arguments’ — except in the initial quick skid past Aquinas — but instead cholerically demanding doctrinal subservience to folk religious traditions. This blog is not under church authority, and not even based in the West, so petulant foot-stamping is pointless.

    “monotheism doesn’t require communication between ‘eternity and time'” is simply wrong. What do you think revealed religion means? And if your objection is that the metaphysical implications of religion mean nothing to ordinary people, so much the better, you can discuss “things like getting enough rain and the sun rising on time” in plenty of other places.

    There isn’t anyone “with sufficient power to say and enforce the rule, ‘Don’t worship anyone except ____, or else I will kill you and sell your children into slavery.'” Live with it.

    And finally, if you comment again in that gutter-splattered tone I’ll delete it immediately. It makes you sound like an oaf with anger-management issues.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >monotheism doesn’t require communication between ‘eternity and time’

    christians are verily schizophrenic

    antisemites too.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 19th, 2013 at 12:57 am Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    @ John Hannon
    “a stratified society is necessary for the egalitarian impulse to arise in the first place” — the mystic non-differentiators are found at the top (Brahmins), which isn’t incompatible with your thesis, but twists it in a pathological altruism ‘direction’. The view from the bottom is sheer folk idolatry and mesmerized priest-worship.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    Just looked at Jared Taylor’s review of that Pathological Altruism study. Seems the offhand remark I made about the appeal of egalitarianism being hard-wired into the brain might have more evidence to support it than I’d thought.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    There’s enough egalitarianism wired into the brain to make communism inevitable, combined with enough self-interest to make it impossible, hence the pleasant contours of human history.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    – so far
    But which (if any) of the impulses in this standoff is in the evolutionary ascendant?

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    war is de father ov all thingse

    Posted on June 19th, 2013 at 2:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • admin Says:

    “But which (if any) of the impulses in this standoff is in the evolutionary ascendant?” — that’s the War.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    mayne we be sharing some current

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 21st, 2013 at 12:37 am Reply | Quote
  • Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » On Gnon Says:

    […] ‘Meditations on Moloch‘ might want to take a look at this. (Also more Gnon, here, and […]

    Posted on July 30th, 2014 at 9:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Vague Pronouns – ossipago Says:

    […] “entails, unambiguously, is time travel, in the strong sense of reverse causation.”  (Gnon-Theology and Time.) If cause can operate atemporally, or retrochronically, there is not only room for a “God […]

    Posted on August 17th, 2016 at 9:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • A Teologia de Gnon e o Tempo – Outlandish Says:

    […] Original. […]

    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 12:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    >Time is a problem that cannot be conceptually pre-empted.

    tao woke

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 2:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    shiet negro

    http://www.hyperion-journal.net/the-sacred-in-the-roman-tradition.html

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 17th, 2016 at 2:40 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment