Hello flowjack11 ... God the Unknown Father is not perfect nor is he imperfect because he transcends all qualities, indeed he transcends existance itself. ...Message 1 of 82 , Oct 7, 2005View SourceHello flowjack11
On 10/08/05, you wrote:
> Hello, all,
> I have been reading the online recources lately that define and
> discuss religious Gnosticism. Namely, I have read through much
> of "Gnosis.org" and a few other sites. As such, I wouldn't call
> myself a particularly well-read persron with regards to Gnostic Lit.
> Still, I think that I have a fairly decent idea of what Gnosticism
> means today. As such, there are a few questions I would like to ask.
> Before asking them, however, I would like to clarify a few things
> that define the nature and purpose of my inquiry: a) I am not a
> Christian seeking to declaim against Gnosticism, call it heresy or
> any suchlike; b) I am not particularly religous at this moment, nor
> am I, as the saying is, "spiritual"; I believe in God but do not
> claim to have any knowledge about him/her/it. For all I know, God
> either hates us, loves us, a combination of the two, or else he is
> completely indifferent to us; c) I am basically a fascinated
> observer, intrigued by Gnosticism, perhaps considering a conversion,
> yet remaining skeptical, as I am with religions of any kind.
> 1) Is the "Unknown Father God" considered to be Absolutely Perfect?
> If so, what is the standard definition of "perfection" for
> Gnosticism? Is the "Unknown Father God" at all like Descartes idea
> of God as an "Ontological God", meaning the most perfect being
God the Unknown Father is not perfect nor is he imperfect because he
transcends all qualities, indeed he transcends existance itself.
> 2) Which is more perfect: A) A fruit seed which never whithers,
> decays, or becomes unwholesome in any way, regardless of age, or B)
> a fruit seed which decays after a few months and becomes infertile?
From a Gnostic viewpoint neither, they are both part of the imperfect
physical rhealm, in other words as a gnostic the question is
irrelevant. From a physical perspective, the first would be more
desirable, of course.
> Those two questions will do for now. I'll wait and see what happens
> with them, if anything, and then consider asking other questions.
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> Click here to rescue a little child from a
> life of poverty.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove -'s
Hey David ... need to ask ya first. Did Early Gnostics really think and speak in allegorical terms? Cause if so that may answer a lot but only open moreMessage 82 of 82 , Oct 27, 2005View SourceHey David
>>>wow, your questions really sparked some thought in my head, Ineed to ask ya first. Did Early "Gnostics" really think and speak in
allegorical terms? Cause if so that may answer a lot but only open
more questions to debate. very good questions at that.<<<
Thanks, glad you liked the questions :) As Lady Cari states, there
is evidence in the original Gnostic writings for allegorical
hermeneutic. Part of the point I was trying to bring up was exactly
where this should be applied. In other words... Philip, the
Tripartite Tractate, and other texts state directly that there is
allegory (so there is no question on that front), but exactly where
and how it is applied is very open to discussion.
In this particular case, I was asking if you think that that
allegory extends to the notion of the Demiurge or not. Let me also
point out that the idea that something may literally be true does
not exclude the notion that it may have also been allegorical in
meaning. So.... where do you think this all fit in the original
intent of the Gnostic texts?