Metaphysics

Christopher
I've been doing a bit of outside reading on the background material from which
the Kult cosmology has been developed and just thought I'd share a couple book
titles that might prove interesting for anyone wanting to get some deeper ideas.
Cioran, E.M. The New Gods. Translated by Richard Howard Quadrangle. New York:
The New York Times Book Company, 1974. This author seems to believe some of the
cosmology to be true. He belittles the Demiurge and offers some bizarre insights
into death. The end of the book is a series of aphorisms. No introduction or
index is included to help the reader find out just what the author is getting
at, which makes the whole read that much more creepy. For French speakers here,
the book was originally in French entitled "Le Mauvais Demiurge."
I was also re-reading Jeffrey Burton Russell's "Satan: The Early Christian
Tradition" and his account of Christian Gnosticism (which is concise and very
readable). As he presents it, the Demiurge should really be equated with the
Devil (Astaroth) and the "true" God should exist, albeit in a very distant
relationship to most humans. This becomes problematic in Kult if you take the
Messiah, and Awakened human, to be the "real" equivalent of Jesus Christ. In
Gnosticism, Jesus was sent from the true God in a form that only appeared human
to impart the gnosis to humanity that they might free themselves from the
Demiurge. There was no separate Devil-figure. However, in alignment with Kult,
Marcion, one of the more prolific gnostic, did say the Devil and the Demiurge
were two separate entities, thus confusing matters all the more. I offer this
for the sake of discussion and our mutual further education.
Erik Growen
I will see if I can dig up the books here and give 'em a whirl. Another area
which I find personally interesting is the Cathar beliefs that were wiped out by
the Catholic church during the Albigensean Crusade (the only Crusade to take
place within Europe -southern France). The Cathars held a much more dualistic
view than the Catholics with the forces of Good and Evil evenly matched up and
ruling separate realms. The 'Good God' held sway over the soul in heaven and the
'Bad God' held sway over our mortal bodies here on Earth (essentially Hell was
right here and they were living in it). They also believed in a more personal
form of worship that did not require churches or intermediaries (priests etc...)
but instead every individual had an equal connection with God. Needless to say
it was all very heretical to Rome and thus the bloody Crusade which wiped them
out. There is an obvious possible link to Kult with the Hell on Earth analogy as
well as the basic dualistic existence of the Demiurge and Astaroth.
As far as the Messiah goes, there is an interesting take on Jesus presented in
the books 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail', 'The Messianic Legacy' and 'The Dead Sea
Scroll Deception' the first two by Henry Lincoln, Micheal Baigent and Richard
Leigh and the third written without Lincoln. In them Jesus is presented as a
true Messiah ('the annointed one')in the ancient Jewish tradition of a warriorpriest, descended from the holy royal blood of Soloman and David and thus the
King of Israel (This royal lineage is backed by the gospels of Matthew and
Luke). If this is taken to be the truth then the Awakened human Messiah
presented in Kult can be fit in quite easily. In fact an interesting story could
be made around the return of the Messiah to Israel in modern times and the
impact such a visit would have. (Netanyahu handing over the reins of power to
the Messiah, the Arab world's reaction etc.. could be the centre of a scenario).
Christopher
I certainly don't want to offend anyone's sensibilities on this otherwise very
polite forum, but as a Roman Catholic theologian, I thought I'd offer a couple

of fine tunings to your exposition. Both are in regard to the Cathars. The
medieval Cathars are just a very well-known revival of the persistent error of
Gnosticism throughout history. It existed in many forms before them and after
them and I experiencing a revival today. The Marcionites and the Valentinians
are much closer to the origins of that belief system. It is not correct to say
that a Crusade was launched against the Cathars. The Inquisition was. I'm not
such a historical revisionist to suggest that no blood was shed in the rooting
out of the Cathars, but the Inquisition should not be erroneously confused with
that political machine of a few centuries later called the Spanish Inquisition.
I am familiar with the titles of the texts on the Messiah, but I have not read
them. I understand your explanation however. If one takes an "adoptionist"
stance, that is, Jesus was a human who came to a realization of his Divine
Mission and thus became the Messiah, than the Kult Messiah works just fine.
However, if Jesus is the Incarnate Second Person of the Trinity , as all
mainstream Christian Churches attest, than he would have to have been sent by a
"good God" (now I'm speaking in gnostic terms) beyond the power of the Demiurge.
It all gets very confusing very quickly...
Erik Growen
I too do not want any to take offense but I have to disagree with your
assessment of the wiping out of Catharism as being part of an Inquisition.
Historical fact does not support this. The Albigensian Crusade was called for by
Pope Innocent III in 1208 and lasted until 1226, although the last large scale
engagement took place in 1213. The call was answered primarily by troops from
northern France and were led by the half-English Simon de Montfort. King Philip
II took no personal part in the crusade but did urge his Barons to send men to
answer the call (and capture the wealthy southern lands while they were at it politics, as always quickly entering the field). The conflict began when a papal
legate, Peter de Castelnau (a Cistercian) was murdered, probably at the hands of
one of the Albigensian nobility. It was not until the blood-letting had been
over for 7 years, in 1233, and Pope Gregory IX was in power that the Inquisition
was called under the control of the Dominicans to root out what was left of the
surviving Cathars.
Catharism was not an error in Gnosticism, but a fusing of Gnostic with Christian
and Pagan beliefs by its founder Mani who styled himself an 'Apostle of Jesus
Christ', the final interpreter of Zoroaster and of Bhudda.
All of this not withstanding, the basic belief system of the Cathars can be of
use in Kult. It is a fairly straight forward dualistic system which believed in
the coexistence of two principles, good and evil, represented by God and the
Evil One, light and dark, the soul and the body, the next life and this life,
peace and war, et cetera. This life was seen as inherently evil which led to the
rather curious practice of suicide through starvation in order to hasten the end
of this existence and bring about the next 'good' one. This was not done by all
practicing Cathars needless to say.
I do not,
defend it
historian
record of

by the way, actually believe in Catharism and I am not trying to

or any other faith. I do not pretend to be a theologian, but I am a
and a political scientist who is trying to present the historical
the event and the Cathar faith as accuratly as possible.

By the way, I am quite enjoying the various lines of discussion that you have
brought up. It makes the forum a much more interesting place to check out. It
has been sorely lacking in the last few months.
Christopher
Thanks for the response. Pending checking some facts on my side, I concede to
your presentation of the use of a Crusade and the Inquisition regarding the

Cathars. I must still clarify a bit on the point of Catharist belief however. I
think a certain misunderstanding crept in: I wasn't saying that Catharism was an
error in Gnosticism (it's about as gnostic as you can get), but rather that it
was an error in the Truth (understood from the medieval' point of view or, as
for myself, the believers' point of view). I can only suspect that Mani borrowed
his name from the 4th c. Mani, founder of the Manichaeans. Where did you get the
idea that the medieval
Mani would have considered himself an interpreter of the Buddha? It seems
strange that any word of that philosophy would have reached so far west.
Bringing this back to Kult, straight Gnosticism seems to me to still be
problematic. First, the Kult cosmology has fused Gnosticism and the kabbalah,
which complicates matters. (Have you read "The Dark Arts," BTW?) But even from a
solely gnostic view, the spiritual or good principle wants to help humanity. The
Demiurge however fabricated the Illusion and then (possibly) left humanity to
suffer under Astaroth. The Demiurge did not offer any "gnosis" to help humanity.
Furthermore, I'm still bothered by this Messiah question...