Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11062re: "accepting one's lot"

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    Jun 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
      >
      > For me, this sort of discussion comes down to whether you consider
      > that there is (literally) a god, or gods, that are responsible for
      > the creation of the universe, the Earth and mankind. Suppose we
      > accept the hypothesis as I think the ancient gnostics did. It then
      > seems to me logical to consider that the gods must have some
      > purpose, some reason for the creation, some PLAN;


      Let me stop you for a moment right there, Gich. Suppose we accept
      that what you're suggesting is in line with what the Gnostics
      posited. Can you tell us where they outline this grand
      strategy . . . the divine PLAN behind creation? Seems to me it is
      generally described in terms of "error." What do you make of that?


      > . . . otherwise, why bother; what's the point?


      Exactly. Is that too scary to consider?


      > Fundamental to gnosticism is the possibility of immortality via
      > gnosis but why didn't the gods create us immortal in the first
      > place?


      Besides questioning "the gods," Gich, perhaps you should question
      your premise that "immortality" is a fundamental goal of Gnosticism.


      > Why bother with the rigmarole of life on Earth? It again seems to
      > me that life on Earth is part of the PLAN; there is a
      > reason for it; it has a purpose;


      It may very well seem that way to you, Gich, but the Gnostics
      described it quite differently from what you propose.


      > . . . it must be some sort of preparation for what follows.


      What exactly is it that follows? [If it's gonna sound like the fuzzy
      promises of a tent revival, I'd rather not hear about it.]


      > . . . It seems to me that the idea of "a god entity meting out
      > Gnosis on a merit basis" [although this isn't the form of words I
      > would use] is a valid concept in gnosticism and follows logically
      > from the foregoing.
      >


      It seems to me that such an understanding would follow from looking
      at Gnostic concepts from a mainstream perspective. There is a very
      good reason that we repeatedly caution against this here.

      Gerry
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic