Innocence and the contemporary hierophant

[Amorphos]

Innocence and the contemporary hierophant

Basic meaning; ‘I am not the creator of myself nor the world’ and am not to blame for them. When we do something ‘wrong’ the issue is concerned with the specifics of the case and does not denote who we are. A small but critical difference, that no one is to blame for life! …and that if for example someone commits murder, usually they consider themselves to be ‘a murderer’ rather than understanding that, after the deed is done they are innocent again. This doesn’t mean people should not be punished for their actions, it just means that they are not defined by them, the chain of causality is simply continued by both parties if we don’t find a way to break it in both the mind of the accused and accuser.

> I suppose this is kind of opposite to the notion of ‘original sin‘.

The ‘spiritual’ side of the equation

If we consider that awareness is universal, and that we are but transient expressions of that in the form of consciousness, then the hierophant delivers the release from our karmic bonds, that the essential being remains innocent. If we don’t do that it is like we dirty the eternal pool, nature does a similar thing, a beast does its necessary deeds and is immediately absolved and the line of innocence is continued.
We may look at nature and indeed human society as in places seemingly ‘evil’, because we see it all from an individualistic perspective, but from the universal perspective it is apparent that fundamental natures like awareness would remain pure - so to say I.e. of themselves. Expressions of universals are transient as are their exponents in given act, this makes it finite and of the moment, it does not make a moment eternally shameful and blame perpetual.

Our bodies are the vehicles of such expressions, we are the driver and yet so to does the vehicle drive itself, so at times it is as though [or actually so] we are but a passenger watching as events unfold around us. In terms of averages I suppose we could say that we are only ever partially responsible for events as there are always other parties involved.

For the believers in god; lets imagine that god isn’t separated from reality, that would mean we are all literally sons and daughters of god, and that god would need to have a way to absolve himself and his sons from all ills.


In short, deal with the issue and not the person, a criminal is you put into a different set of circumstances, and if there is a need to blame, blame also the moment and the issue therein.

[Ummon]

There is no hierophany without the absolute, and there is no complete hierophany of the absolute.

[Amorphos]

There is no hierophany without the absolute, and there is no complete hierophany of the absolute.

I see your point which would be valid if you didn’t use the term; ‘absolute’, this provides us with a notion of something external to reality and the processes therein, which even in the bible is clearly not the case; as god interacts ~ or we wouldn’t have a bible right! I think the arcane is provided within us as we and ‘god’ may not be distinct from one another, indeed we are in his shape and manner to some degree.

there is then at least some hierophany.

[Ummon]

Hierophany means manifestation of the holy. There is only One Holy, which is composed of all Holies. That is one reason why they call Him (He resides in) the the Holy of Holies.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Considerations on hebrew superlatives aside, that is.

Or as I was saying a smirk of time ago, to the good Monarchist, all truth is the first truth.

[Amorphos]

Hierophany means manifestation of the holy.

Or more specifically; the pagan version…
Hierophant; The presiding priest who initiated candidates at the Eleusinian mysteries; hence, one who teaches the mysteries and duties of religion.

There is only One Holy, which is composed of all Holies. That is one reason why they call Him (He resides in) the the Holy of Holies.

Does that include the sacred feminine ~ I hope not all in one body lols, perhaps this is why alchemists see divinity as androgynous.

to the good Monarchist, all truth is the first truth.

dont you mean monotheist? isn’t truth just truth and not all of it the first and primary truth ~ if there is such a thing.

[cfmonkey45]

Or more specifically; the pagan version…
Hierophant; The presiding priest who initiated candidates at the Eleusinian mysteries; hence, one who teaches the mysteries and duties of religion.

I have to confess, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue in this thread. Are you taking the abstract theological/philosophical interpretations of time and existence and trying to juxtapose it onto a legal system, or are you trying to establish some theodicy or divine predicament to open a theological discourse?

Does that include the sacred feminine ~ I hope not all in one body lols, perhaps this is why alchemists see divinity as androgynous.

I never quite understood why people always try to emphasize a gender archetype for a deity. Within the monotheistic tradition, the only masculine element of God is His authoritative position, and of course his incarnation, Jesus Christ. Although, from the perspective of Spinoza's God, I can understand and agree with the assumption that the universe is somewhat analogous to the Greek Demiurge Gaia.

dont you mean monotheist? isn’t truth just truth and not all of it the first and primary truth ~ if there is such a thing.

I believe he may in fact be referencing a third party, either a user name Monarchist, or some other person known by that pseudonym.

[MaximiIian]

I never quite understood why people always try to emphasize a gender archetype for a deity.

Perhaps, just as the masculine is ascribed to a deity for its authoritative behaviours, other behaviours or attributes might cause humans to ascribe masculine or feminine identities to a given deity.

Or, alternatively, that deity revealed itself to humans in the guise or form of another human. So as not to scare the living piss out of them.

[Amorphos]

cfmonkey45

I have to confess, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue in this thread. Are you taking the abstract theological/philosophical interpretations of time and existence and trying to juxtapose it onto a legal system, or are you trying to establish some theodicy or divine predicament to open a theological discourse?

Begin at this interpretation of nietzsche's writings [as quoted from another forum as a comparison]

The fable of intelligible freedom.— The principal stages in the history of the sensations by virtue of which we make anyone accountable for his actions, that is to say, of the moral sensations, are as follows. First of all, one calls individual actions good or bad quite irrespective of their motives but solely on account of their useful or harmful consequences. Soon, however, one forgets the origin of these designations and believes that the quality 'good' and 'evil' is inherent in the actions themselves, irrespective of their consequences: thus committing the same error as that by which language designates the stone itself as hard, the tree itself as green—that is to say, by taking for cause that which is effect.
The one consigns the being good or being evil to the motives and regards the deeds in themselves as morally ambiguous. One goes further and accords the predicate good or evil no longer to the individual motive but to the whole nature of man out of whom the motive grows as the plan does from the soil. Thus one successively makes men accountable for the effects they produce, then for their actions, then for their motives, and finally for their nature. Now one finally discovers that this nature, too, cannot be accountable, in as much as it is altogether a necessary consequence and assembled from the elements and influences of things past and present: that is to say, that man can be made accountable for nothing, not for his nature, nor for his motives, nor for his actions, nor for the effects he produces. One has thereby attained to the knowledge that the history of the moral sensations is the history of an error, the error of accountability, which rests on the error of freedom of will.
[. . .] No one is accountable for his deeds, no one for his nature; to judge is the same thing as to be unjust. This applies when the individual judges himself. The proposition is as clear as daylight, and yet here everyone prefers to retreat back into the shadows of untruth: from fear of the consequences.

Then give it a fundamental basis rather than accepting its self reliance.

I never quite understood why people always try to emphasize a gender archetype for a deity.

Deities tend to have gender, certainly Christians seam to think god is a male.

------------
Ummon

Which sacred feminine?

Any.

--------
Nietzsche

Let me first ask if I have this right: we are not defined by our actions, we are not responsible for them, nor are we actually the initiator of them?

Its something of a balance between our free will and all the forces of our existence.

[Ummon]

Does that include the sacred feminine ~ I hope not all in one body lols, perhaps this is why alchemists see divinity as androgynous.

Which sacred feminine?

I believe he may in fact be referencing a third party, either a user name Monarchist, or some other person known by that pseudonym.

Or both.

[Nietzsche]

Let me first ask if I have this right: we are not defined by our actions, we are not responsible for them, nor are we actually the initiator of them?

[Ummon]

If any, you will bear with the Virgin. Who, unlike other parallel figures, prides Herself of being conceived immaculately, and not sinning at all.

[Copperknickers II]

In short, deal with the issue and not the person, a criminal is you put into a different set of circumstances, and if there is a need to blame, blame also the moment and the issue therein.

I partly agree. Criminals are not neccasarily 'you put into a different set of circumstances'. It is not true that criminals are blameless, either. Some, eg those with mental health issues or truly horrific lives leading to social issues, can be justified to a large extent in their acts. Prevention beats direct fire with fire, of course.

Technically, our destinies are scripted by chemical reactions, but although we therefore cannot be held responsible, that does not mean we should not be held responsible for our misdeeds.