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

11550Re: Limited reading, have questions

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    Oct 11, 2005
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, David Wilson
      <light_life_love@y...> wrote:
      > Chuck,
      > It seems that you might be trying to hard to understand one
      particular following and way of gnosticism, when many facets are
      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 the
      unnamed 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
      must follow.
      > David W.

      Well, the creator, the demiurge, craftsman/artisan of this world, did
      not remain "unnamed" with the Gnostics. In literature we see
      Ialdabaoth – also called Saklas (fool) and Samael (blind god).

    • Show all 82 messages in this topic