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

Re: Salvation

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Annie.... ... something being worked toward , then they re even bigger fools than we are, and allowed something to happen for no reason.
    Message 1 of 83 , Sep 3 8:20 PM
      Annie....

      >>>"If our creators had no purpose or intention in the sense of
      something being 'worked toward', then they're even bigger fools than
      we are, and allowed something to happen for no reason."<<<

      It is funny you should say that, because that is essentially the
      Gnostic stance, or at least part of it. The Sethians very
      specifically call our creator "Fool" (Saklas) The real source of the
      spirit, on the other hand, is not our Creator, the Demiurge
      (Craftsman).

      >>>"I felt like my ideas are not seen as gnostic, which I don't mind,
      because I have never put too specific a label on my things of this
      nature."<<<

      Annie, you should not feel bad about that for another reason. The
      fact is, technically speakin no one here is part of that category
      called "Gnosticism". So no, your ideas are not necessarily Gnostic,
      but then neither are mine are anyone else in the modern era... at
      least not technically.

      >>>"The attachment I have toward the name G-d seems to be a barrier
      in mutual understandings, as I was beginning to suspect."<<<

      Let me post something from the real Basilides that may help with that
      point.....

      ......"There was when naught was: nay, even that "naught" was not
      aught of things that are. But nakedly, conjecture and mental
      quibbling apart, there was absolutely not even the one. And when I
      use the term "was" I do not mean to say that it was ;but merely to
      give some suggestion of what i wish to indicate, I use the
      expression "there was absolutely naught". Naught was, neither matter,
      nor substance, nor voidness of substance, nor simplicity, nor
      impossibility of composition, nor inconceptibility, imperceptibility,
      neither man, nor angel, nor God ; in fine, anything at all for which
      man has ever found a name, nor by any operation which falls within
      range of his perception or conception."......

      This is a cut and paste from the Gnosis.org website, and there could
      be some problems with this translation (besides some spelling and
      grammar errors) but I think for now it gets the point across.
      However, I do understand what you mean in that we do need some kind
      of word.

      PMCV
    • pmcvflag
      Aleada ... and Elaine Pagels, Gnostic Gospel but mostly from experiencing personal Gnosis which I m sorry to say is being separated from this discussion or
      Message 83 of 83 , Jul 1, 2006
        Aleada

        >>>With this background and also having read Freke and Gandy's books
        and Elaine Pagels, Gnostic Gospel but mostly from experiencing
        personal Gnosis which I'm sorry to say is being separated from this
        discussion or seems to be discounted.<<<

        It isn't that your personal definition of the word "Gnosis" is
        discounted here, just that it isn't the definition of the
        word "Gnosis" that this forum uses.

        >>>Freke and Gandy explain the experience of Gnosis as more than can
        be written, it must be experienced, it is that knowledge or knowing
        beyond intellect that cannot contain the totality to Gnosis.<<<

        Freke and Gandy also claim that this definition of the word "Gnosis"
        is the one used by the traditional Gnostics... but I should point
        out that Freke and Gandy are mistaken. We are a bit more technical
        here.

        >>>You are all so intelligent but you miss the mark if you think you
        will "get it" from all your books and reading, get quiet and get in
        touch with the God with in and you may start to have Gnosis.<<<

        You misunderstand, Aleada, no body suggested that your idea
        of "Gnosis" is something that would be found in a book, but you need
        to also understand the historical meaning of the word "Gnosis" and
        not only the modern definition you get from people like Freke and
        Gandy.

        >>>>Whatever the culture it's all the same God or Great Spirit,
        whatever; the experience of Gnosis is the same, look at the mystics
        and refer to Barbara's experience and you will see what it is to
        have Gnosis.<<<

        No, that is what it means to have a mystical experience..... not
        Gnosis. They are not the same thing.

        Why do you feel that we must use your definition of the
        word "Gnosis" rather than the one this forum was designed to deal
        with? It isn't that I disagree with the importance of the experience
        you are talking about, it is just that we don't call that
        experience "Gnosis" here.

        PMCV
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.