11550Re: Limited reading, have questions
- Oct 11, 2005--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Wilson
>particular following and way of gnosticism, when many facets are
> It seems that you might be trying to hard to understand one
prevelant today. Becareful in what you may read that says" all
gnostics are like this" Its not true.
Hello, David. In this group, however, we do compare/contrast to our
focus of *historical* Gnosticism of the late antiquities. And,
although there was some variation among sects, there were also
similarities, which allow us to loosely categorize them together.
The overriding one consistently found in these groups was the
function of Gnosis as salvific. So, although I wouldn't put all
Gnostics in a straightjacket, I also would *not* accept that many
paths, including some modern ones called "Gnostic," are necessarily
simpatico at all with the ancient groups we focus on.
> One last thing I would like to note that is we are creations of theunnamed one, and being of its creation, we share many aspects with
our. To balance the equation the creator must have to have something
to do with time and there are probably overlying rules which even it
>Well, the creator, the demiurge, craftsman/artisan of this world, did
> David W.
not remain "unnamed" with the Gnostics. In literature we see
Ialdabaoth also called Saklas (fool) and Samael (blind god).
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>