How the Greeks' abandonment of religion led to science and technology

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Hmm ok, can you name a change in the observable world which can be demonstrably attributed to christ ?

Well, of course, just study the history of Christendom. But this is the problem right here: the things we are talking about are not in the domain of the sensible, which is the lowest possible domain, yet in modernity the only which is really recognized. Without this initial hurdle being solved, without changing your base premise, you will not be able to pierce through.

If you read carefully the book and have the innate ability to understand what is written, I think it will answer all the questions you asked. But bear in mind, that is only the beginning of the journey.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Of course you can't believe something just because someone told you so :)

Tsk, tsk. Of course believing what one is being told is the normal, default human behaviour (even if the application of that principle may vary hugely : thus it may be the case that you only believe members of your small in-group, considering everyone else as some sort of enemy). Of course you don't disbelieve in anything unless you have been provided a reason to disbelieve (even if that reason is bogus). Human communication would be impossible otherwise.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Hatred of secrecy is the mode of modernity and it's incredible to me how one can participate in a traditional religion like Catholicism and yet not understand that it entails necessarily levels of unveiling, as so many do here
This sounds a bit like Freemasonry. I know you wrote there is a difference between occultism and esotericism but based on your posts in this thread I struggle to see what the difference is. Christianity ultimately is supposed to be an exoteric religion, not a mystery esoteric religion like Gnosticism is - one of the reasons the two have been at odds since the beginning.

From Catholic philosopher Edward Feser:


Second, the Gnostic mentality holds that only an elect who have received a special gnosis or “knowledge” from a Gnostic sage can see through the illusory appearances of things to the reality of the incorrigible evil of this world. You might wonder how this differs from Christian appeal to special divine revelation. Once again, the difference is radical. Christian teaching is essentially exoteric. Christianity holds, first, that at least the basic truths of natural law and natural theology are available in principle to everyone and at any time, just by using their natural rational powers. Second, it holds also that even special divine revelation is publicly available to all, and backed by evidence that anyone can examine, viz. the evidence that a prophet claiming a revelation has performed genuine miracles. Gnostic teaching, by contrast, is esoteric. It holds that the truth cannot be known from the appearances of things or from any official sources, but has been passed along “under the radar” and is accessible only to the initiated. The Gnostic epistemology is what today would be called a “hermeneutics of suspicion.”
I would agree that the theological understanding of someone like Aquinas or one of the mystics is of course going to be more advanced than the one of a illiterate medieval peasant. But I would also say that the advanced knowledge of an Aquinas doesn't give him any sort of advanced spiritual advantage over the peasant in the eyes of God if the peasant is faithful. If God wanted spiritual rewards to be given based on advanced understanding and knowledge I imagine that Jesus would have chosen disciples from among the Pharisees. Instead he chose peasants intentionally to spite those people. For people who are more intellectually inclined, there's a lifetime of theological and philosophical study available to satisfy them and that's why there's people like Paul were also called but in the end, having special knowledge or understanding isn't the essential factor for the state of a person's soul.
 
Last edited:

J.E.

Robin
This is an interesting thread. Some philosophers of the Traditionalist school believe that the disease of modernity started already when recorded history began, something like 4000+ BC. They argue that the age of the gods, also known as Golden Age, is over, and regressed into the Silver Age, Bronze Age and now (in which we are living in) the Iron Age, the most godless and materialistic age. The historical view of Traditionalists is cyclical and not linear. They believe everything in the microcosm and macrocosm follows a cycle. So it is not surprising to read about an ancient Greek philosopher who proposed an idea that resembles the thought of the Iron Age, since, according to Traditionalists, modernity began already in ancient times.

I'm reading currently a book on it and will post again when I finished it.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
This sounds a bit like Freemasonry. I know you wrote there is a difference between occultism and esotericism but based on your posts in this thread I struggle to see what the difference is. Christianity ultimately is supposed to be an exoteric religion, not a mystery esoteric religion like Gnosticism is - one of the reasons the two have been at odds since the beginning.

From Catholic philosopher Edward Feser:


I think here is a confusion because of definition. To the quote from Feser I would say that what he is referring to is the pursuit of occult knowledge - although I do recognize that in modernity the two things have become conflated (so many others have too). But this is not what I meant when I used the word esoteric - that occult pursuit is satanic in the most exact sense of the word (going back to the Fall, ultimately). Esotericism is rather the recognition that 'many are called but few are chosen' as Christ said. And this structure is necessary for the very practice of the exoteric tradition: even protestants distinguish between the pastor and the flock, with the pastor, at least in practice if not in theory, having more insight into the deep meanings of Scripture. And in traditional Catholicism or Orthodoxy, there are of course many more hierarchical levels, which necessarily imply that everyone has a place but not everyone has the same place.

Every traditional religion is both exoteric and esoteric - every Christian is supposed to be baptized, receive communion and be confirmed into the Church, but the common Christian will not penetrate the mystery of Christ in the same way as the monk, at least in this life - and the spiritual work of the monk is impossible if he remains at the level of the common Christian. To attempt to bring their understanding to the same level does not elevate the common Christian, it merely lowers the monk. And this is not a question of arrogance, in fact, absolute humility is necessary to become a monk - that is, humility to adhere to the exoteric religious practice is necessary to penetrate its esoteric meaning in full.

What makes freemasonry, theosophy and stuff like that of the devil, utter folly and dangerous, is that they reject orthodox religion (the exoteric), not the existence of secrecy nor the existence of degrees. It's that they follow the serpent in Genesis, in rejecting the true way to God (exoteric religious tradition) and instead attempt to achieve the esoteric understanding by their own hand in rebellion against revelation. This is why, while adhering to secrecy, they work in the world toward the abolition of every mystery, of every distinction, of any concept of superiority or inferiority - in politics, in education, in everything.

They are, in other words, tools of the antichrist, which is the counterfeit Christ, its complete inversion - which it is written will fool many because it will outwardly (exoterically) resemblance the real thing, but it will be its exact opposite in its deeper meaning.
 
Last edited:

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
This is an interesting thread. Some philosophers of the Traditionalist school believe that the disease of modernity started already when recorded history began, something like 4000+ BC. They argue that the age of the gods, also known as Golden Age, is over, and regressed into the Silver Age, Bronze Age and now (in which we are living in) the Iron Age, the most godless and materialistic age. The historical view of Traditionalists is cyclical and not linear. They believe everything in the microcosm and macrocosm follows a cycle. So it is not surprising to read about an ancient Greek philosopher who proposed an idea that resembles the thought of the Iron Age, since, according to Traditionalists, modernity began already in ancient times.

I'm reading currently a book on it and will post again when I finished it.

Evola avatar, or so it seems to me. I haven't delved into him properly yet.

I would only caution that the idea that traditional Christianity understood time as linear is a modern distortion - coming from its enemies, no less. In the first few verses of Genesis it's already clear, if we discard our modern erroneous lens, that time is necessarily related to cycle.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Christianity ultimately is supposed to be an exoteric religion, not a mystery esoteric religion like Gnosticism is

From Catholic philosopher Edward Feser:

I would argue that Feser is wrong and that the two (exoterism/esoterism), in the sense you mean are not incompatible.

By the way, there's a lot of nonsense talk about "Gnosticism" today.

You might say that there are two meanings to the word. The first meaning is historical and totally non-controversial, it's a certain heretical sect (or a collection of sects) from the first centuries of the Church (and by the way ,when Irenaeus refutes gnosticism he calls it "pseudo-gnosis", indicating that there is a real gnosis to be found in Christianity).

The second meaning is specifically modern, very vague and ideological. Nobody has a precise definition for it (it is alleged that "gnosticism secretly survived", be afraid!), but it's generally used for things or people you don't like. "Gnostic" is more or less the "spiritual conservative" equivalent of "Nazi/reactionary/thisorthatphobe" for leftists.

Gnosticism is a godsend for uninspired writers. If you don't know what to talk about, just find "gnosticism" someplace nobody thought to look for it before (just like a leftist might look for evil "stereotypes" or "social constructs"). Emotion and polemics guaranteed !

The irony here is that just like anti-racists are the most intolerant racists in the world, anti-gnosticists are guilty of what they accuse "gnosticists" of - they claim to have the secret knowledge of how "the gnostic conspiracy secretly survived", when even the Church didn't notice. The official list of heresies from the Church is not enough for them. They are so smart that they figured out a giant, omnipresent heresy the Church was too obtuse to realize.

Also, "gnosticism" like "cultural Marxism" is often used by Christians afraid to say the J-word.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile you have completely ignored the subject of this thread which is that without the Greeks' abandonment of religion there would be no science and technology at all.
Their religion wasnt TRUE. Obviously it would help with whatever you are trying to do, to get rid of an untruth.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
@Wutang somehow I missed the part you wrote after the Feser quote. Of course the esoteric is not necessary for salvation, it's not supposed to be. It's a calling, a vocation - and in that sense it is just like any other vocation and calling: not for everyone at all times. But it does go beyond mere study and reading, it is a spiritual path more than a rational one, as all monastics attest to.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
The second meaning is specifically modern, very vague and ideological. Nobody has a precise definition for it (it is alleged that "gnosticism secretly survived", be afraid!), but it's generally used for things or people you don't like. "Gnostic" is more or less the "spiritual conservative" equivalent of "Nazi/reactionary/thisorthatphobe" for leftists.
I would encourage you to read the Feser article I linked to above if you want a more precise definition of it. Some quick quotes to describe it

Second, the Gnostic mentality holds that only an elect who have received a special gnosis or “knowledge” from a Gnostic sage can see through the illusory appearances of things to the reality of the incorrigible evil of this world...

Fourth, the Gnostic lives in what Voegelin calls a “dream world.” This is inevitable given the subjectivism and irrationality entailed by the Gnostic’s esotericism, and the paranoia entailed by his Manicheanism. The Gnostic sees the manifestation of evil forces everywhere.

Sixth, the Gnostic posits a final victory of the “pure” over the evil forces that govern everyday reality. For Gnostic heretical movements of the past, this entailed an ultimate release from the material world.

There could disagreement on whether these sort of beliefs are true or heretical, but based on the details above I don't think the charge that it's simply an ill-defined boogeyman to point at in fear is true. There's very clear definitions being given here. Later on in the article Feser also refers to specific movements that have risen up since then that bear the characteristics that Gnosticism has.

As for Irenaeus, I would agree with him that Gnostic belief is "pseudo-gnosis" since there are some similarities between it and Christian thought. In each case however, important features gets changed that end up making it in essence different and therefore heretical. An example given in the article would be the doctrine of original sin.

You might wonder how this differs from the Christian doctrine of original sin. It differs radically. Christianity teaches the basic goodness of the created order. It teaches that human beings have a natural capacity for knowledge and practice of the good – the idea of natural law. It teaches that basic social institutions like the family and the state are grounded in the natural law, and are therefore good. To be sure, it also teaches that original sin has massively damaged our moral capacities and social life. But it has not obliterated the good that is in them. And its damage has been mitigated by special divine revelation since the beginning of the human race, as recorded in scripture. The Gnostic mindset takes a much darker view. The original Gnostic movements regarded the material world as essentially evil. They saw marriage and family as evil. They regarded the God of the Old Testament as the malign creator and ruler of the present sinister order of things. The Gnostic mentality is thus one of radical alienation from the created order.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
We actually have a resident gnostic on this forum who has made a few posts on a thread that was discussing Gnosticism's impact on Christianity. Check what he wrote on the thread and I think you'll find his attitude illustrates the gnostic mentality pretty well.


The other thing is that much of the original Gnostic Knowledge has been lost, so it is especially something that requires a very inquisitive and persistent mind and the willingness to even accept things at times which haven't been fully concluded.

You probably also would not find many Gnostics who are open to revealing everything, because some of the most Sacred Knowledge of Gnosticism is only expressed in the Mystery Schools, and one has to demonstrate an earnest desire to learn more of it and also demonstrate responsibility for handling the information that would be disclosed to them in the process of learning.

The fact is that spiritually "illuminated" people do not worship Idols or utilize any form of "worship". It the demonic forces or "gods" that demand their followers worship them. The "Real God" does not demand worship, and also there is no "Getting Good / Right with God".

But if there is to be any correct religion of sorts, it must be universally applicable and compatible for all humans. This obviously isn't the case with Manmade religions.

There is also the line in the Bible book of Genesis that says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness".

The book "GENEsis" was not named that way on accident.

The context of this implies the process of genetic alteration of the Human species. It is not God speaking himself that says that.
 
Last edited:

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Tsk, tsk. Of course believing what one is being told is the normal, default human behaviour (even if the application of that principle may vary hugely : thus it may be the case that you only believe members of your small in-group, considering everyone else as some sort of enemy). Of course you don't disbelieve in anything unless you have been provided a reason to disbelieve (even if that reason is bogus). Human communication would be impossible otherwise.
Human "communication" is often difficult.

What will most people talk to you about anyway ?
Covid, global warming, the dangers of nationalist movements making a resurgence ..
Given the subjects I let you imagine what they might say :)

Written is often worse, there are so many layers of semantical poisoning in most press articles that it boggles the mind.
The last time I tried to decypher an article I found "interesting", I found 4 levels. Might have missed some, who knows ..
The first one is always obvious, then it gets trickier the deeper you go.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I would encourage you to read the Feser article I linked to above if you want a more precise definition of it. Some quick quotes to describe it








There could disagreement on whether these sort of beliefs are true or heretical, but based on the details above I don't think the charge that it's simply an ill-defined boogeyman to point at in fear is true. There's very clear definitions being given here. Later on in the article Feser also refers to specific movements that have risen up since then that bear the characteristics that Gnosticism has.

As for Irenaeus, I would agree with him that Gnostic belief is "pseudo-gnosis" since there are some similarities between it and Christian thought. In each case however, important features gets changed that end up making it in essence different and therefore heretical. An example given in the article would be the doctrine of original sin.

The thing is esoterism has nothing to do necessarily with gnosticism, which is a specific heresy. Esoterism is really integral to all true religious (exoteric) traditions, and in fact it is part of a basic pattern of reality (Heaven and Earth being its primordial form). In fact, because gnosticism has no exoteric tradition, it cannot also have any esoteric core, as the two things are really related. As every heresy, it is a counterfeit and a falsification of true doctrine.

I think today, in particular, it prevails not in confused people like the guy in that other thread, but rather in the techno utopian and transhumanist silicon valley types, who may or may not know what they are doing, but clearly their view is that the world of matter is evil and has to be transcended, not through theosis, but by our own efforts. Of course, the whole point of the Incarnation is to underline what was said in Genesis, that Creation, matter is good in itself, because God himself is good and made this world out of love, not an evil thing to be escaped which was created by a demiurge, and hence the promise by Christ of resurrection in the body on a new physical earth, not some kind of new agey spiritual existence alone (which, in fact, is what you have in hades).
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Human "communication" is often difficult.

What will most people talk to you about anyway ?
Covid, global warming, the dangers of nationalist movements making a resurgence ..
Given the subjects I let you imagine what they might say :)

Written is often worse, there are so many layers of semantical poisoning in most press articles that it boggles the mind.
The last time I tried to decypher an article I found "interesting", I found 4 levels. Might have missed some, who knows ..
The first one is always obvious, then it gets trickier the deeper you go.

We all have to be more discerning of who and what we engage with. That is the key.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
The destruction of the Templars was the beginning of modernity. I take some pride in the fact that Portugal resisted this by immediately creating the Order of Christ, which absorbed a large part of them. The slander about the Templars is normal given that modernity won but I thought you would know better. You keep disappointing me to be honest.

Ditto. I think you're poorly informed, if anything the Templars were exactly a vector for what we describe as "modernity", since they run a system of international banking. How in the world is international banking not the worst aspect and the main driver of the evil side of modernity?!?

The Templars were kabbalistic luciferian sodomite international bankers who constituted a globalist entity conspiring against the Catholic Church and the nation state. Their initiation ceremony involved homosexual acts, not unlike those you might find with other masonic sects like the Skull and Bones, and they worshiped baphomet:

"Yes, in our profound conviction, the Grand Masters of the Order of Templars worshipped the Baphomet, and caused it to be worshipped by their initiates; yes, there existed in the past, and there may be still in the present, assemblies which are presided over by this figure, seated on a throne and having a flaming torch between the horns." Éliphas Lévi, "Dogme et rituel de la haute magie"

the-baphomet-of-the-templars-copy-of-an-ivory-casket-found-at-essarois_u-l-p567bu0.jpg

The Baphomet of the Templars, Copy of an Ivory Casket Found at Essarois


Why do you think theTemplars are worshiped by the freemasons, whom claim to be their direct spiritual descendants?

Why did the masons who conspired to destroy the French monarchy tell king Louis XVI just before he was going to be beheaded that Jacques de Molay (leader of the Templars who was arrested and executed by the French monarch Philippe le Bel) was finally avenged? Why did they lead the sack of Constantinople, and the desacralization of Haga Sophia, in a manner that's very similar to the desecrating of French cathedrals after the Revolution, or of newer ritual church desecrations by the likes of Femen?

Once the crusaders got in to the city, they burnt and plundered with an unseemly ferocity and made a point of desecrating the ancient cathedral of the Hagia Sophia (holy wisdom). This included crowning a whore on the bishop’s throne. There is a contemporary description of this event:

Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister of the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch’s seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently.

Why is the de Molay Order, named after the last Templar leader, a masonic cult for youth?
 
Top