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

Re: knowledge

Expand Messages
  • Mark
    Why did the genesis god NOT want adam and eve to see as he did ??? 1) This god was evil and did not want humans to escape the bondage of ignorance. 2) This god
    Message 1 of 34 , Nov 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Why did the genesis god NOT want adam and eve to see as
      he did ???

      1) This god was evil and did not want humans to escape the bondage of
      ignorance.

      2) This god was good and wanted to save humans from suffering, which
      comes from knowledge, or wanted to test their loyality to see if they
      would obey, or ...

      Actually it is hard to find a good reason why this god of Genesis, if
      good, would tell humans not to eat of the tree of knowledge. This is
      a tension that orthodox beliefs are willing to maintain. Many
      Gnostics were unwilling to maintain this tension and went for a more
      obvious answer: this god of Genesis is not the True God, but a lesser
      god, the Demiurge.

      I feel that your "simplicity" is a mask to control our responses and
      make us do the work for you.

      Which answer do you chose?

      Mark

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@...> wrote:
      >
      > Yes lady Caritas ,
      > i did read all those links Yes thankyou .
      > Yes i also understand these myths represent things ,
      > but that doesnt make them any less real , or literal .
      > I think it makes much more sence to discuss the story as
      > a story without going tooooo deep and disappear into a
      > mist of philosophy . Im just being simple in my approach
      > with simple questions .
      > Such as , why did the genesis god NOT want his
      children
      > to see as he did ? Is that not a simple enough question ?
      > If there is no answer for this , then i will accept
      > that .
      > I am a simple person trying to understand a story ,
      > which is exactly what genesis is . Maybe what the whole
      > universe is ! A simple story . Am i being to complex ?
      > I hope not , as i would reather talk to people about
      this ,
      > rather than read ten volumes of a book , which i have
      learnt
      > is a poor substitute for reality ( gnosis) .
      > And isnt gnosis a personal experiance , isnt that what it
      > means ? I would rather talk to a nobody who had that
      > experience then a best selling author who hadnt .
      > Even though i have asked a few times now i hope you
      > dont mind if i ask again .
      > Why did the genesis god NOT want adam and eve to see
      as
      > he did ???
      > I will accept ' i dont know ' as an answer and would consider
      > it an honest answer .
      >
      > Regards Gort ,
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Yes thankyou , i just read it . Besides eve being the
      > > > higher self and adam the lower self , the following
      > > sentence
      > > > stuck in my mind .
      > > >
      > > > The developement of the human race depended on
      > the 'fall' ?
      > > >
      > > > So the Demiurge did NOT want them to fall , and so
      > he
      > > > didnt want the human race to develope ?
      > > > But the serpent did ?
      > > > Excuse me if im a bit slow .
      > > >
      > > > From Gort ,
      > >
      > >
      > > Hello, Gort. Maybe we'd better back up a bit. I don't know if
      > > you've already read this article from our "Links" section, but it
      > > does give a very brief overview of the Gnostic cosmology,
      > including
      > > the place of the Demiurge and humans within the mythology. I
      hope
      > > this helps a little. There are also books available that provide
      > a
      > > more in-depth introduction to Gnosticism and the ancient writings.
      > >
      > > http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
      > >
      > > Please continue to bring back any questions so all members here
      > can
      > > help each other in our continuing effort to approach
      understanding.
      > >
      > >
      > > Cari
      > >
      >
    • pmcvflag
      DOH! I started a post in answer to this same querry, but I had not been able to get back to complete it before today. I knew Lady Cari was busy, but I also
      Message 34 of 34 , Nov 5, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        DOH!

        I started a post in answer to this same querry, but I had not been
        able to get back to complete it before today. I knew Lady Cari was
        busy, but I also knew that as dedicated as she is she would jump
        right back in the mix as soon as she was able.... so I was trying to
        get to it to give her some time off. I was about two thirds done,
        but since I see that Lady Cary expressed almost identical
        observations (and as always, much better than I generally can) I'll
        just erase my own response and say "ditto".

        I'll try to concentrate on the other post I was working on at the
        same time conversing with some of Chester's points instead.

        PMCV


        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@>
        wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > […]
        > > > > I aslo joined one other gnostic group when you were
        > > > > away . This question was also raised there .
        > > > > […]
        > > > > Im not sure if this is correct , but , the original word
        > > > > jealous was checked to translate into 'unceasing'. Thats a
        lot
        > > > > different than jealous .
        > > > > […]
        > > > >
        > > > > From Gort ,
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Indeed, Gort, I would have to agree that "unceasing" is quite
        > > > different from "jealous." Given that you seem to have an
        > > > aversion to conducting further research in books regarding
        these
        > > > questions due to what you deem contradictory claims, I'm
        somewhat
        > > > disappointed that you seem far more willing to accept
        information
        > > you
        > > > encounter on the Internet with less of a critical eye—
        especially
        > > > when your gut instinct appears to raise a red flag on the
        issue.
        > > Please
        > > > find below some links that will clarify the definition of the
        > word
        > > (and
        > > > its original root) used in the OT verses:
        > > >
        > >
        > > Hi Gerry ,
        > > Thanks for the links , but words do get a little
        > > limited at times . I've learnt to avoid 'expert' opinions .
        > > Why should the internet and peoples opinions and
        > > experiences , be any less authorative than a boook ? Many
        > > books arent worth the paper they are written on . But
        thats
        > > just my opinion .
        > > Books are roads , some good some bad , they are NOT
        the
        > > destination . Many books can lead you down the wrong road .
        > > True understanding or gnosis of things above , can never
        > > ever be found in a book .
        > > Did the serpent offer them a book ? Reading about
        > > apples is no substitute for tasting one . Dont you
        agree ?
        > >
        > > Regards Gort ,
        > >
        >
        >
        > Hi there, Gort.
        >
        > I don't see where Gerry suggested that people's opinions on the
        > internet were any less authoritative than a book. I believe he
        was
        > talking about being equally critical of information found on the
        > internet. Also, I'm not sure how critiquing the definition
        > of "jealousy" ended up being associated with Gnosis in books, but,
        in
        > any event, you are not the first one to express an aversion to so-
        > called "experts" and their books. I do admit, though, that I also
        am
        > baffled why you might consider an opinion from someone on the
        > internet, whom you do not know, to be preferable to a so-called
        > expert. They could both be hogwash. And, for that matter, an
        > internet person might also be an author.
        >
        > Would you agree, or not, that many books are a means of relaying
        to
        > others information derived from various sorts of experience? And
        > that some of these might be written by people with much expertise
        in
        > certain ways. Yes, some are reliable, and others are bunkum.
        >
        > Why should we pit one against the other ~ books and experience?
        Can
        > they not work together as sources of information? Also, would you
        > agree that experience could entail intellectual or technical
        > experience as well as emotional or sensual experience? It's not
        > evident that the Gnostics viewed mystical or spiritual experience
        as
        > being solely in one camp or another.
        >
        > Tasting an apple is but part of the experience of learning about
        an
        > apple. Besides, it is my opinion that "tasting" in this case is a
        > metaphor for more than the literal sensual experience. But to use
        a
        > practical example, the sensual experience of tasting might
        introduce
        > one to a firsthand familiarity of an aspect of `apple'. It does
        not,
        > however, let one know what variety of apple or whether the apple
        is
        > rotten, for example, until one compares with other experiences,
        one's
        > own and perhaps, for added perspective, those of other people
        through
        > conversation, books, etc.
        >
        > There are other aspects of `apple' one might want to discover.
        > Perhaps one could explore the apple more fully with other senses.
        > Taste alone also involves the senses of touch and smell.
        Furthermore
        > one even might read and mull over writings by others who have
        > specialized in scientific analysis of an apple's chemical
        composition.
        > http://fst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/12/6/477
        >
        > What does "tasting" an apple mean in Genesis? To what extent one
        > interprets this literally or metaphorically would have
        significance
        > regarding meaning.
        >
        > In Gnostic literature, one might consider Allogenes as being a
        kind
        > of expert. The Foreigner "prepared" himself and "deliberated for
        a
        > hundred years" before having the abstract, mystical vision he
        wrote
        > about. Then the luminaries instructed him to write down what he
        was
        > told. So, that is what the Foreigner did for the sake of others
        to
        > read who were "worthy."
        >
        > Is this book reliable or not?
        >
        > I suppose that is where critical judgment comes into play. And we
        > might use all kinds of experience in making a decision,
        understanding
        > that with further reliable experiential information we just might
        > change our minds.
        >
        > If in your experience, Gort, you feel that "unceasing" is "a lot
        > different than "jealous", you could just leave it at that. Or you
        > could question the person who supplied that information as to how
        or
        > where he obtained it. And you could even do a bit of research
        > yourself to compare findings. There are lots of options,
        depending
        > on your interest.
        >
        > One could have personal experience or vision or intellectual
        > abstraction and call it Gnosis. Why not? In addition, one could
        > call it Gnosis and still have an interest in other people's ideas
        > of "Gnosis" for comparison. Some of these people might even be
        > dead. And the only way we know of their thoughts and experiences
        > would be through their writings. Some modern people even like to
        > specialize in learning about these ancient writings to try to
        > understand the authors' intentions. And there are different ways
        to
        > approach these writings, just as there are different ways of
        knowing
        > an actual apple or learning about jealousy.
        >
        > I guess my point is that no one here is asking anyone to accept
        > others' beliefs, but it seems to me that avoiding particular
        > opinions, just because they are considered by some to be "expert"
        and
        > contained in a book, and relying more on random opinions and
        > experiences expressed by people on the internet or in conversation
        > would be passing up a possible valuable source of information.
        Why
        > not consider a mix?
        >
        > I'll stop here before I end up being accused of writing an entire
        > tome. *lol*
        >
        > Cari
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.