11103Re: "accepting one's lot"
- Jun 5, 2005--- In email@example.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
>Honestly, Gich, you need to know. At the very least, it's something
> >>> . . . 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?<<<
> I don't know.
you need to consider, and given that Gnostic material is replete with
such descriptions, I'm not sure how it has eluded you thus far.
I mentioned this quote from your "Harris" book back in April, but you
might have missed it:
>>>Gnostic cosmogony is noted for its elaborate cosmologies withmulti-storeyed heavens and spheres ..... The myths are not to be
interpreted in a literal way: the task is to penetrate the inner
meaning the myth enshrines and seek to comprehend the truth.<<<
[That is actually very similar to the advice that Nick just gave you
regarding the interpretation of "Thomas."]
In the case of Error, you don't seem to have picked up on even
the "literal" mention of it in the texts. I just don't see how you can
hope to explore the esoteric nature of this material when even the
exoteric isn't readily apparent.
In the end, if it really floats your boat to believe that there is some
comforting God up there (wherever you wish to compartmentalize him),
that Man has a quadripartite nature, and Creation is part of some
wonderful, perfect plan, then I hope it adds meaning to your life. If
you truly wish to pursue the writings of those early Gnostics though,
you may find it necessary to suspend some of your preconceptions.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>