Welcome ye Traveller!

Wait! Rest! And Chillax for a while! For the world - as you know - is a tiresome place at times! --- Reading may as well be - 'tiresome' - but if you're easy mooded - you can kill some boring hours by just ... staring into the sky and wonder! This sky though is filled with Words - and I want to invite you to stay here for a while and look at what these got to say!

Are you not a believer? Well - let us throw the juggling with words and scientific terms aboard for the while! This site isn't made for believers - yet is it not so that the believer shouldn't feel welcome here! Now, if you have a problem with this attitude then I must say that there are very many insults that should be adequate on you!

Gnosis F.a.Q.:

This part is about my own 'World-View' as it got and gets. I do not claim that the things I am going to tell you here are what the 'educated world' might tell you about these things if you were to ask (one of) them, my goal here however is not to explain words, but to explain ideas - using words that might possibly exist elsewhere within different conditions.

What is Gnosis?

Gnosis is an 'alias term' for Recognition, Cognition, Insight - while in the ancient idea being "the way of Gaining Salvation through cognition".
Gnosis as that focusses on gaining the same, where in the focus there are 'experiences'; While in the most advanced sense this is about experiences that go beyond this physical space.
It is thereto different from 'spirituality' in that the focus on these experiences isn't about the experience - but the intellectual worth thereof. Fire, for instance, may be a bad experience - yet in the gnostic term this experience will add unto someones mind the various things that 'fire is'.

In further sense 'Gnosis' as 'Religion' is a self-centered 'definition'. That means - that as 'Gnostic' - the individual describes itself as someone who is in search for "Enlightenment". It is thereby the basis of finding God, or to as based on that to further increase knowledge about the world as it is.
A 'Gnostic' is thereby as well a scientist as much as a believer. Experience is thereby not the only 'tool' at disposal. One other may be Philosophy, the Philosophy however is not the important part, important is that the Philosophy is to expand the individuals 'cognitive foundation'; Where as the Philosophy might be flawed - it is the insight that it provides that is of matter, which further is as valid as the perceiving mind can tell!

Self-centered and then?

A problem each religion faces is its definition. If someone wouldn't like it, that one might go away and re-invent it. As 'Gnostic' foundation we might say that we do believe in Christ - which means: It is paramount to a Universal correspondence to be capable of ultimately saying "right" or "wrong" about things that are accessible. God, as the most Universal Entity is known to be also the most accessible - which is why this is a very simple thing to say.
Matter of fact the Religion in its invention is built on Christ, however not saying that someone that does not (yet) see the same truth cannot be a gnostic. It is rather so that he is a Gnostic until he then becomes a "Real Gnostic". But so, at some point, there comes the question: What is one who became a "Real Gnostic" when defined as environment-centered?

Whence talking about Good and Evil, Right and Wrong - things like that - within terms of Religion the field gets a bit blurry. What is "being with God?" or "Being on Gods side?" other than just words? "What is confession?" is the question we so asked. Built on the Gnostic foundation, whether the individual would consider itself Gnostic or not, there are two general ways to treat the gained knowledge. The one is in support of the Truth, ther other is against it.

The Truth thereby is in simplicity derived from the fact that we Live in this world and that there is a word from God that is attached to His plan. If I now decide to support that Truth, I'm 'for' it - if I decide to put my effort into fighting it, I'm 'against' it. Because Christ is the Truth, that is introducing the two "greater religions" - Christendom and Anti-Christendom.

In-between there are those Gnostics that are not yet capable of deciding between the two. While formerly calling those that would be capable of doing so "Real Gnostics", we are to rather call those that are not yet capable of doing so "Young Gnostics".

Support?

The general purpose is to draw a clear line. If I were to say that I believe in Christ and do furthermore follow the Rule-book down to the point, but were to do so with the interest of deception, thus not being truly living the Christian life while trying to manipulate people into turning away from Christendom - that would also be an Anti-Christian.

Whenever it would seem like too much hair-splitting in the details of the definition, it is just that: Too much detail! Thereby the word 'Evil' is used to make it all finally as simple as it can be. Evil is all that which does in its essence rise up against God. Thereby 'Good' is all that which God is and is of God without ideological impairment (the Human is not Good, although of God) - because it is God who is upon all things that by His plan created a way where we can reconcile with Him and one another despite our flaws. Anything that follows another plan that is against this one is evil because it interupts the simplicity by establishing a choice where none should be! Hence it is also called the way, which is also called 'Christendom', which is why Anti-Christendom is defined as Evil.

What is Christendom about?

First of all one must not mistake the Old Covenant (10 Commandments/Books of Moses) for the New Covenant (Gospels/Book of Mormon/Baptism). Most so called Christians would lean towards the Old Testament when thinking of Rules - the thing is however that the new Covenant has no explicit rules while it is also primarily directed to the so called 'Gentiles'. The Mormon tradition tells, that it is first to come unto the Gentiles, so that it will come from the Gentiles back to the Jews.

Christendom thereby essentially knows only one real rule - but this rule is "just" the one of carrying out the word. That is what support is all about when actively following it up, and hence is arguably what every real Christian should also be doing. We might also call it: Extroverted Gnosticism.

Next to that there is the problem of identity. Identity could be established by for instance learning of the multiple religions that do exist that one thing: An individual clings to the philophy it corresponds to the most. A Seventh Day Adventist for instance focusses on the ideologies of the Old Testament in combination with the Gospel. A Mormon, as opposed to that, would rather hold on to the values of keeping direct contact with the Most High while in general appreciating the more static as opposed to the transcendental stuff. A "Buddhist" would prefer to not occupy the own mind with such details, but to rather learn from life itself. Then, even a 'Satanist' could find himself within Christendom - thereby focussing on the pragmatic acknowledgements of human nature - opposed to whom an 'Evangelist' (or whatever) would rather not.

This is to say that Christendom is, in the end, about one thing - and nothing else: Peace.

Peace within Differences as strong as between Night and Day?

Once two groups that are as different as night and day exist - it is not guaranteed that they will even ever meet! So, there is not the problem! The problem is within how a group would treat an individual that is different. Because no "sane mortal individual" that has its whitts together would hurt someone just because he or she or it is different - the problem ain't there either!

The problem obviously is that someone who is different would rather not become part of a group that is different to his ideals - and so, the problem is revealed and thereby revealed as rather simple to solve! Except - and that is the one thing - the group would hold the real intention to help but cannot find a way of doing so.

What we so would need is an instance above all "groups" to help coordinate - if that were how the situation is.

Is Christendom now "Free for all"?

What does this question ask? It asks - that while we might say that now "even Satanists" may join the Christian church - we wonder if it can at all be that simple. The answer is: Kindof.

In reality someone who truly holds on to God, who would ask Him for where to go, what to do, things like that; Someone who would take the ideology given because it is from God and not because he thinks it's right - someone like that is like a child; And that is what we all are supposed to be! As such it makes only sense, in these regards, to not say "so called Christians", but rather: "Children of God".

However, picking a religion based on the own ideology isn't really all that stupid! It may be stupid from some angle and perception, but we don't wanna be that hair-splitting here. The issue however is that while the ideology of God is actually quite "that simple" - the actual issue is found within pride. Would you only turn towards Christendom because it now would support your pride? If - then that wouldn't be really an issue while worse case scenarios still would have you on the dark side then!

While 'Children of God' basically do it wrong - they still do it right! While it would take a really bad God to make them turn away, they would also be a sign, or more like a 'true voice' that has to have automatically more to say when it comes to things like these. It is however not up to anyone to judge your validity - while it is true that we are supposed to welcome everyone.

Satanic Christendom?

Be careful not to get this into the wrong head! This is of course, as far as I'm concerned, the 'big bullet point' at this point in time at least! Satanism, as far as I "got it", is much more coupled to the expectation of some sort of magic than Christianism. The more one would look into such magic, the more that person would find that it is either up to God to make it happen since nothing is really being found, or to suppose that the things being looked for are to be then finally yet and after all found within that which is evil.

Satanic Christendom is not about magic! It is however about, or at least to some extent, sticking to the Christian Religion only as much as absolutely required! Thereby worship is for instance one of those things that can be handled more flexibly. The Bible, so in the New Testament, only tell us as much that if we are to pray to God we are to "do so in the Truth". The 'Satanist' if I may put it as bold would not seek out to be Anti-Christian in his orientation, but to still - soberly told - 'oppose' God in His ritualistic "empire". Acknowledging God and what He does for us, accepting the Gospel, getting batpized, turning away from Evil - all that is one thing which is however different to going as far as to stop having 'other dieties' for instance. A diety there is not a diety like 'equal to God' - simply because that is Gnostically impossible. Emotional attachment, dedication, Kink, whatever - such things, things that to some extent contradict the 'Holy' - which is why we might for simplicity also say 'Unholy' - are recognized there as what defines it as a greater ideology within the True Light.
It is even so that God can give His blessings unto a properly defined idol - where an idol may represent a thing, like a certain pleasure or value - which is stupid unless God allows it to become a part of His grace, like a Prism in mutual understanding and recognition of the Truth and our freedom as living individuals that don't need to disrespect the Source of all Creation in order to appreciate the joys He is capable of allowing us to have!

Unholy is thereby however once again different from Satanic. The Satanic more consciously focusses on being its own Religious empire, while the Unholy isn't about anything really specific. That means that it isn't Holy, nor Satanistic.

What is Holy?

Or: When is something that what we think it is?

Well - this then actually would rather be a 'book topic' - which means - it is far too much detail for here. Not that this would not be able to hold such detail - it is however already science that goes beyond a simple introduction.

Holy and Good can be equal, Satanic can be Antichristian and Evil can be Unholy - it all depends on situation and environment and what not. In the center of these changes there is what could be best understood once calling it "Hype Field". Some psycho-interactive global common sphere of emotional forces of some sort (-> Astair). Evil will try to get its hand on all that it can as much as the Good in here would try to do so. Within this ever-changing current of idea there is only one true Constant: God.

I call myself a 'Child of God' - for, as far as I can tell, I'd not be here (doing these things) if I were not. Then eventually I turned into a Gnostic, and wheter or not I have been a "Young Gnostic" prior to that, what does it matter? After being a Gnostic, I slowly figured that I find myself drawn towards Satanism - and being the child I am it took its good old time for me to embrace the idea, thereby learning of how idolatry can enhance the sexual experience and things like that. These things however are nonsense - the more we are to properly function intellectually, the less these things are of any concern whatsoever; Yet so are different preferences in orientation. Yet so every now and again we don't want to just function intellectually proper, but we want to use the capabilities of our mind for nonsense - and that is where these things begin to matter.

That is why we have wine!
For instance.

But if the vastness of the riches of existence tell us one thing, then it would be that wine alone is not enough!

This, kindof, next to the Doctrine of the Gospel itself (3 Nephi 11:29-37(+/-)), is all that there is that all the books in the world could be comming down to in their base. But so - in the verses just presented it says something of the Devil, something about contention, something about being not quite alright. And of course the devil is who tries to trick us into doing things we should not be doing. Yet 'Holy' is far more than just rebuking its temptation. Even so - when asking: "And lead us not into temptation", what is it, exactly, that God means us to thereby be asking for?

Throughout the years I have come to see, since I deliberately choose to pray the Lords prayer rather than finding my own words, that it requires trust in Gods care and foresight, which further means that I am asking Him to not bother my mind with evil nonsense - which means that the things that I might recognize for temptation could as well be fruits meant for me to pick up!

I won't be telling you here what is right or wrong - hence - I may not get straight about what Holy is exactly. In the end it is yours to find, I just hope I could be of a little bit of help, and helping make this place we call our planet a little bit more pleasant to be on!