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

11064Re: [Gnosticism2] re: "accepting one's lot"

Expand Messages
  • David Wilson
    Jun 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      One thing I want to stress... becareful of taking a named group of individuals and placing them all into one direct narrow path. All Gnostics followed many different paths, some were more open then others and some were close minded.

      Gerry <gerryhsp@...> wrote:

      --- 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.


      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

    • Show all 15 messages in this topic