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

Re: religious backgroup, Cari's request

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... Gnostic idea of the Unknown Father? ... from the Nag Hammadi build a mythos around their Godhead -- i.e. he lives with his Aeons in the Pleroma (or, as
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 12, 2005
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Alan Raider <flowjack11@y...>

      > Cari asks: "How does this existent god you describe differ from a
      Gnostic idea of the Unknown Father?"
      > They don't really, I suppose. Only so far as the Gnostic texts
      from the Nag Hammadi build a mythos around their Godhead -- i.e. he
      lives with his Aeons in the Pleroma (or, as PCMV noted, in a place
      that is not quite within the Pleroma nor quite without it), the
      Universe was created when Wisdom fell from the Pleroma and
      birthed "the child God", and so forth -- while I do not claim to know
      anything about my God, the place wherein He dwells. I only claim
      that he exists and directly caused creation -- hence the chronology
      presented in the views I have held in the past (God is good, wants us
      to be good", and, secondly, as defined in the paragraph about the
      distinction between "good" and "bad", a more 'deist' view that simply
      posits God's existence without having knowledge of him). In other
      words, these days I do not claim that God is good, bad, or any of
      those -- just that He exists.

      Thank you, Chuck, for your thoughts. Already more conversation has
      transpired regarding the Gnostic Unknown Father, so I won't belabor
      ideas by rehashing them in depth here, but I do have one comment that
      disagrees with your comparison. While you are going through this
      process on your path, consider that the Unknown Father was *not*
      considered existent, not a personal god, not a deistic god, not a god
      actually, in the normal sense of the word.

      Here's that Basilides quote PMCV mentioned that he has posted in the
      ......"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."......
      ( http://www.gnosis.org/library/basilide.htm )

      Gnostics recognized that we, as existents, could only perceive
      through images.

      "Truth did not come to the world nakedly; rather, it came in
      prototypes and images: the world will not accept it in any other
      form." (Gospel of Philip)

      What the Gnostics perceived was recognized as representing this
      absolute, infinite unknown. As you say, the Gnostics used mythos,
      representational narrative. But comprehending the images was not the
      same as literally changing the Unknown to a concrete existent.

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