- Jun 6, 2002--- In gnosticism2@y..., pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Hate to say it "Play Nice", but I'm forced to question your graspon
> the notion of internal consistancy. Some of your statements simplyThat is partly because I'm not explaining them clear enough and also
> don't pan out.
partly because this is a very difficult subject to present in an
absolute sense of the word as you well know.
> I say this not to upset you, but to give you theI understand and examine my statements more closely than you think.
> opportunity to examine your statements a little more closely before
> you post them.
> Gerry and Cari are completely justified in questioningOf course they are. So are you and so am I.
> the way you come accross.
> However, let me base my points on theright
> idealogical, for instance....
> If there is such a thing as the "Infinite" source, then you are
> to some extent to point out that the notion of a "flaw" is in erroronce
> (since no opposites exist there). On the other hand it also means
> that the "everything is good" ideal is equally in error. Someone
> said that nothing is good or evil but that our thinking makes it soI would more agree with the latter. Everything isn't good as much as
> (yes, it was a Gnostic ;)).
everything isn't bad. I think that was the point I was trying to
make. When I come off sounding like everything is good, it is more to
illustrate the idea that everything is exactly as it should be and
not flawed is as valid as the idea that flaw and error exists. I'm
saying the same thing as you but adding this insight to it. The
former way of thinking allows one to see God's perfection much more
readily than the latter. Acceptance, love and compassion are things
of tremendous importance and value especially in this day and age,
are more easily assimilated into being than seeing things as flawed
or in error in my opinion. Humanity seeks to "fix" things that are
considered "flawed" or in "error". Our track record in judging what
is messed up or not isn't exactly the best if you catch my drift. I
don't trust that judgement as much as I trust love, tolerance and
compassion which by their very nature don't concern themselves with
the flaws and errors that seemingly exist from a perspective that
roots out love, compassion and tolerance in their thinking. I can see
that these are not valued from the perspective here when I get
comments from you and others that ideas based upon love, acceptance
and tolerance are "rose colored", "warm and fuzzy" and the like. Like
these are "bad" things. I'll tell you truly that warm and fuzzy ideas
are much more preferable to suicide bombers dieing and killing for
their belief in what they consider "right". Fixing what they consider
as flawed and in error. Rose colored glasses are better than blood
stained ones anyday.
This subject of truth and God and spirituality is very much a matter
of perspective. It isn't as objective as many people think it is. You
don't agree? That is why I question every path when it seems to me
that people are so married to one idea over all others. From what I
see here, Gnosticism isn't much different in this regard. Like I have
said a bunch of times already, truth isn't a matter of right and
wrong, good or bad, up or down, left or right. All things are part of
what is true. It is more about acceptance and tolerance than anything
else in my opinion.
> Let me post this again since I don't think it hit home....
> "Therefore they have introduced other types of explination, some
> saying that it is according to providence that the things which
> have thier being. These are the people who observe the stabilityand
> the conformity of the movement of creation. Others say that it isNo. It hit home. I would agree with that and it is why I say that "I
> something alien. These are the people who observe the diversity and
> the lawlessness and the evil of the powers. Others say that the
> things which exist are what is destined to happen. These are the
> people who were occupied with this matter. Others that it is
> something in accordance with nature. Others say that it is self
> existent. The majority, however, all who have reached as far as the
> visible elements, do not know anything more than them."
don't know shit". Compared to what there is to know, I don't. Neither
does anyone here. I give that the respect that it deserves. Doesn't
mean that I know nothing as much as it means that I have much to
learn. Much to remember. So do we all.
> The difference between the Gnostic "flaw" and the New Age rosenor
> colored glasses? Well the difference is that we make our mistake
> conciously rather than out of ignorace or the pathological need to
> feel warm and fuzzy in spite of the dual nature necessary for time
> to exist. We do it for the sake of description. However, that isn't
> the problem. The fact is, until you know what Gnostics mean by the
> things they say, you don't really know if you agree or disagree,
> how to state what is right or wrong about it. The thing is, you aremany
> still doing so. The word for this behavior is "presumption", and
> people find it annoying. I will be patient, as you have asked ofus,
> but don't think that "patience" is the same as letting you off theMy thinking about what is being said in here is critical. I'll try to
> hook where critical thinking is concerned.
be more clear if and when I decide to post anything in here again.
I'm sorry if I annoyed anyone.
> If you "don't know shit", then that is about what the "insights"you offer are worth.
I explained what I meant by that statement above so it should be
clearer to understand now.
> That doesn't mean that they may not be true, theysee
> just haven't flowered into true cogniscence yet. Hold on to them,
> test them, and after you _really_ know what we are talking about
> if they stand up to what you may learn here. We also believe wehave
> some insights as to where to find truth, and how to come to knowI have said many times that you all "know" as much as anyone when it
> it.... and it has much to do with flaw and error (at least in an
> allegorical sense). To add to that, there are some here who know
> thier "shit" pretty well.
comes to what is true. And all paths eventually lead to truth. You
know well what you know but compared to what there is to know,
well.....each of us doesn't know much. That isn't presumption. It is
> I hope you are able to take this in the light it is meant. I amgoing
> giving you a hard time, but it is not meant in an angry manner at
> all. I think the fact is that there are a few basic principles to
> Gnosticism that may still be a little foggy to you, let alone the
> deep stuff for now. Yes, there is a great deal of study that is
> to be involved if you wish to have some understanding of Gnosticismyou
> (whether or not you decide you agre with it), and you stated that
> are in fact curious.I am not at all irritated and have read a bunch of Gnostic "stuff"
already. I am still curious. The one item that impresses me the most
is the Gospel of Truth. The Gospel of Thomas is interesting but open
to too much interpretation by the reader. Words taken out of context
lends itself to much confusion in my opinion. Reminds me of what
fundamentalist Christianity does to support ideas that the original
teachings weren't meant to portray.
> Any true esoteic path is going to be blood sweatpreviously
> and tears, expect some work and some concepts that had not
> hit you. This is a continual process, and any worth while esotericSo true. I've been on the inner path for a while now and it is
> path is a tremendous amount of work.
exactly as you say. I have shared much with you in this post and
hopefully now you understand me and my "contradictory" nature a bit
more. Hey, come to think of it, a gnostic shouldn't have much of a
problem with contradictions. You have read the Gospel of Thomas
peace be with you,
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>