13040Re: Mysticism a Regressional Experience?
- Apr 4, 2007
>>>I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of thehistorical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the point",
but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual failure
I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
authors of the texts can be valuable.<<<
Judgmetal you may think it is (and you would certainly know all about
being judgemental, eh?), I was not alluding to your attempts to
understand the intent of the ancients. I was refering to the fact
that discussions on the ACTUAL, real, mystical experience of gnosis
is not encouraged in this group, I have not been allowed to even post
things as they didn't fit the definition of gnosis in its historical
and academic boundries AS IT PERTAINS TO YOUR GROUP, and to focus on
gnosticism only in such contexts DOES miss the point, IMHO (and I am
allowed that, or should be). Is this not true? The experience of
gnosis is real, and happens to people NOW, as it did then, but this
is not what is desired for discussion in this group. Or did I
misunderstand? Can we discuss the experience, that people ALIVE
TODAY have, or does that not fit into the criteria of this group?
Our discussions offgroup led me to believe this, but mayhaps you have
had a change of heart?
--- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Hey Thomas
> In response to Cari's question you state...
> >>> First, I am attracted to it because i beleive that Adam and Eve
> were the first modern humans on earth. Of course there were other
> creautres, hominids, predecessors to Adam and Eve, but I no more
> consider them to be human then a chimpanzee is the same as a lemur.
> I beleive the Ethian lineage is the possessors and guardians of
> the varied esoteric doctrines that were promulgated over the Earth.
> Each opf these fragments of the primal knowledge was passed down
> father to son, begining with Adam to Seth, and eventually
> in Jesus of Nazareth.<<<
> I find it difficult to reconcile the two versions of the creation
> mythology that you seem to present, but then again perhaps that
> not matter. I would like to ask you a question, though. Do you feel
> that the historical Sethians intended their myths to be taken
> literally? Or, do you feel the expression of the text is intended
> be allegorical?
> I know it is this kind of question relating to readings of the
> historical text that causes Imdarkchylde to say we "miss the
> but in spite of her judgemental presumption of our spiritual
> I feel that attempting to understand the intent of the original
> authors of the texts can be valuable.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>