12370Re: The Yezidis
- May 1, 2006Melek Taus is definetly Lucifer, I don't know what your talking
about. His name is Melek Taus(black peacock) because he is "as proud
as a peacock" and he's a sun-god(a peacock with spreaded tail
feathers is a symbol of the sun). His secret name is Shaitan(Satan)
which the Yezidis are forbidden to speak. His color is blue, as
Lucifer's color. And like Lucifer, he is fallen and has an evil
aspect(remember, he is fir as light and fire as burn). Read more on
Yezidism before you make claims. And yes, the Yezidis are Gnostic,
they believe that Lucifer(Melek Taus) is the Demiurge, and they value
knowledge rather than faith as the means of salvation(remember, it is
Lucifer who told Adam and Eve to eat from The Tree of Knowledge).
Theyn also honor Jesus. And the Mandeans are included in my Gnostic
Bible, so their Gnostic as well. Personally, I am a Luciferian and I
like the Yezidis even if I don't agree with all their beliefs.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Hey Mer248lina
> >>>I would welcome a lengthier response please to the highlighted
> line. Could you please elucidate why neither the mandaeans nor the
> Yezidis are 'technically' gnostic groups.<<<
> Well, perhaps it is easier to raise the question of what exactly
> would make them "Gnostic" in the more technical sense. I know that
> right now it is a vogue to talk about everything esoteric
> as "Gnostic", and any kind of lesser known middle eastern religion
> gets thrown in, and anything mystical as well.
> I am not trying to be a "focus fascist" here *lol*, I think some of
> these groups certainly have enough in common to make them of
> here. For instance, even though the Sufis are not technically
> Gnostics, the conversation about them certainly was of interest
> Instead I am trying to keep the issue of categorization in the
> conversation here so that people do understand that this forum is
> much more specific than the other two hundred or so Yahoo groups on
> A number of recent scholarly works, including "Rethinking
> by Williams, and "What is Gnosticism?" by King have raised
> issues with just what the historical category of "Gnosticism"
> technically is. Many groups that used to be lumped into the
> such as Manichaeans, Mandaeans, Marcionites and Cathars don't
> actually fit.
> The Mandaeans were thrown in the category of "Gnosticism" initially
> by E. Drower, who said she did so based on the influence of a
> She stated that at the time she didn't know much about Gnosticism
> (her specialty was the Mid East, not Gnosticism), and after more
> study she realized that this categorization was false. Much of the
> categorization was based on the name "Mandaean", which was actually
> not even a name these people used for themselves. There was also a
> bit of a hasty generalization of thier soteriology that turned out
> not be completely accurate. The initial categorization was then
> repeated by people like Robinson who specialized in Gnosticism, but
> not necessarily clear on the Mandaean belief system.
> I have heard that as they have been in diaspora, many of the
> youth have taken up the "Gnostic" label and have actually become
> closer to Gnostic thinking by mixing the religions a little.
> Initially though, Mandaeans are not Platonists, and they don't
> believe that "Gnosis" is salvation (a critical attribute for
> something to be "Gnostic"). In the absence of such a defining
> attribute, the question would be why would we categorize them
> as "Gnostic" at all? The answer is that now scholars of this
> generally don't.
> Yezidis were never categorized as "Gnostic" in the first place. Why
> would they be?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>