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

12372Re: The Yezidis

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Icybrethovhecate

      >>Melek 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.<<<

      It isn't that I haven't read anything on Yezidis, it is just that
      you and I have been reading different sources. I have to side with
      Will on this one... the sources you site in order to demonstrate
      your point seem questionable to me. Melek Taus doesn't mean "Black
      Peacock", and I am not aware of any critical historian that would
      agree with the notion that the Yezidis have been around for 4000
      years. Another site you list is nothing more than a copy of Isya's
      hopelessly outdated book... again full of questionable information.

      I am not trying to be adversarial here, but I think we should be a
      bit more questioning of our sources... don't you? I think I would
      rather take my info from more academic sources in this case rather
      than sensationalist occult resources.

      As with the Mandaeans, much of the early direct academic info on the
      Yezidis comes from E. Drower. It is of note that she believes the
      term "seiten" (or shaytan, etc.) enters the Yezidi lingo initially
      as an attack, and the reason Yazidis are forbidden to state the name
      is partly because it sounded superficially like a name they already
      had and they did not want thier god cursed with the equation.

      "Indeed, it is possibly the Yazidis themselves, by tabooing all
      mention of the name Shaitan, or Satan, as a libel upon this angel,
      who have fostered the idea that the Peacock Angel is identical with
      the dark fallen angel whom men call the Tempter." (E.Drower "Peacock
      Angel")

      She reports posing the question to a qawwal, point blank, and being
      told that the equation was a mistake.

      If you look in Isya's "Black Book" (which we don't know to be real,
      for sure... but you gave us a link to), you will actually see that
      it directly states that the name Satan is avoided because
      it "resembles" the name of thier god.

      Now, of course it is up to you whether you believe any one resource
      here more than another, but I think that there is enough evidence
      contrary to the usual occult line to at least warrent some
      scepticism. If you don't like what I say, at least allow for the
      possibility that I may not be completely ignorant. Since you are now
      talking in a community that values some academic perspective, try to
      allow that academic perspective have a place in your side of the
      conversation as well. I question your RESOURCES, not YOU.... please
      have the same respect.

      >>>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.<<<

      The so called "Gnostic Bible" contains many texts that scholars
      don't consider to be Gnostic. Even one of the book's editors, Dr
      Meyer, would surely tell you in retrospect that some of the texts
      are not technically "Gnostic". In fact, Dr Meyer states more
      recently in his essay for the Gospel of Judas that the category
      of "gnostic" is defined by a direct relation to Sethian beliefs. In
      other words, one of the compilers of your "Gnostic Bible" has
      perhaps become even more strict than ME in using this term.... and
      obviously can not consider some of the texts in his own book to
      be "Gnostic".

      If you go around saying that just because it is in the compilation
      called "The Gnostic Bible" it must be "Gnostic", it is almost like
      the Christians who say "the Bible says it so it must be true". The
      Gnostics had NO "Bible".... so don't take the "Gnostic Bible" too
      seriously.

      BTW, "Lucifer" enters our language as a mistranslation in the Latin
      Vulgate concerning the king of Babylon in Psalms. I doubt whether
      the average Yezidi has even heard the term. The Bible doesn't say
      that "Lucifer" tempted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of
      knowledge (not that we care what the Bible says *lol*)

      PMCV
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic