- In regard to books ,
I am interested in books if they have some answers to my
questions . I cant help feeling the same way about any form
of knowledge or teaching . But at the moment i have one
question i need an answer for . IF i find that answer , im
sure another question will arise . Just that i find it hard
to work out many questions all at once . Please dont hold
that against me . Thanks for your help , i am learning .
So i keep getting the idea that this half god , or
imperfect god is a jealous god , wrathfull, bossy . Sounds like
he has an ego issue . Cant blame him for that , can we ?
See already another question has arose . But first i
need to know why he didnt want his children to understand,
or to see , what he and his archons understood or saw .
Ive learnt a new word ... ' archons ' .
Wow , i just had the thought . He didnt want them to
have knowledge because knowledge is power ? Mmm that makes
sence , but . He sounds more like a typical human , rather
than a god .
Anyway when you mentioned that the serpent may be a
messenger from the REAL god . That realy shone some light
on things . ill have to think a bit about this .
Any opinions would be appreciated .
Thankyou all , from Gort
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, gaye verrall <gayeverrall@...>
>come to the conclusion personally that this is the Demiurge.
> In many myths and religions there are the jealous gods and I have
>is wrathful and that is another term it seems for a jealous god.
> When you trace the actions of this god in the Old Testament he
>source of wisdom is Gnosis and Love. The serpent may be a Seraphic
> In the old myths the serpent is symbolic of Wisdom and the
Angel, a messenger of the higher Deity.
> In the Greek myths the Apples of Hesperides are guarded by a
>heresy by the followers of the old wrathful god whereas Christ and
> Gnosis is a good fruit but has a history of being attacked as
Sophia are spirits of love and compassion.
> gortoz77 <gortoz77@...> wrote:
> Well ... ok ,
> Thankyou very much for your patience , but honestly im not
> trying to get you to do the work for me .
> Im trying to understand a few things . You suggest i read
> some books . Ive had enough of boooks and the only REAL
> thing i have learnt from books is that most of these
> experts often DISAGREE with one another , and so we are back
> at sqaure one , again .
> I read that Gnosis is greek for knowledge , than i read
> it is an inner personal experience . If Gnosis means knowledge
> ( imformation ) then i have done more than enough research .
> See , thats what im trying to say to you .
> Too many books can make your mind inactive . I admire
> people who can think for themselves from the material .
> Thats why i thought i could actually ask people for their
> opinion . But then they refer me to books again , and around
> and around we go .
> So yea , i dont mind if people have their own opinion
> as long as its based on some experience , call it mystical
> or Gnostic or new age or religious or cosmic . Gnosis
> should cover all the different approches , cause doesnt the
> word Gnosis mean knowledge or more accurateley ... to know ?
> Or maybe i read it wrongly .
> My personal opinion > at this stage < , is that this
> demiurge or whatever you call it , was acting out of mercy
> for his creation . I dont believe it was evil . Even half
> gods dont do things for the sake of evil ... Do they ?
> But thats just my opinion . And if we dont agree , then
> niether of us have learnt a thing . Because i believe the
> truth is the same for everyone . I dont believe there are
> different truths . Of course i know many people will
> disagree with that .
> I realy dont want to argue or split hairs , I was
> just seeking an answer to a question .
> Regards from Gort ,
> --- In email@example.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@> wrote:
> > Gort
> > >>>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 .<<<
> > The question here would be whether the Gnostics MEAN this to be
> > understood philosophically. If they did not, then that is
> > but if a specific text is speaking philosophically by intentthen
> > maybe we should understand it in that way.to
> > >>>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 .<<<
> > The problem isn't that there is no answer, the problem is that
> > are many answers that are genre specific. This forum deals with
> > Gnosticism, so not all of those genres may be on topic here.
> > point to you (post 13191) about various answers is very valid.
> > >>>Am i being to complex ? I hope not , as i would reather talk
> > people about this , rather than read ten volumes of a book ,which
> > have learnt is a poor substitute for reality ( gnosis) .<<<
> > I would rather talk to people also, but we do expect people here
> > do SOME of their own research into the subject of Gnosticism. To
> > blunt (and not meant to be acerbic) we mods simply can't be
> > to do the research and then spoon feed the info for the forum.
> > raise issues and provide counterpoint for subjects inwe
> > We try to encourage people exploring their own questions within
> > topic of this forum.
> > The same is true with spiritual "truths". We don't assume them,
> > only ask that you connect them to the topic of Gnosticism.now.
> > >>>And isnt gnosis a personal experiance , isnt that what it
> > means ?<<<
> > Actually, no, that isn't what "Gnosis" means in this traditional
> > usage.
> > >>>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 .<<<
> > Socrates said "teach yourself to say 'I don't know'". It is good
> > that you accept "I don't know". However, I think the way you are
> > framing the question is also problematic in this case. It would
> > be fair of you to assume the problem is Lady Cari's ignorance of
> > subject (she actually knows the subject well).
> > Gnosis, in this usage, is not the same as a mystical experience.
> > PMCV
> Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit
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.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, lady_caritas <no_reply@...>
> --- In email@example.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In email@example.com, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@>
> > > >lot
> > > >
> > > > [ ]
> > > > 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
> > > > different than jealous .these
> > > > [ ]
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > questions due to what you deem contradictory claims, I'msomewhat
> > > disappointed that you seem far more willing to acceptinformation
> > youespecially
> > > encounter on the Internet with less of a critical eye
> > > when your gut instinct appears to raise a red flag on theissue.
> > Pleasethats
> > > find below some links that will clarify the definition of the
> > (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
> > just my opinion .the
> > Books are roads , some good some bad , they are NOT
> > destination . Many books can lead you down the wrong road .agree ?
> > 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
> > 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
> talking about being equally critical of information found on thein
> internet. Also, I'm not sure how critiquing the definition
> of "jealousy" ended up being associated with Gnosis in books, but,
> any event, you are not the first one to express an aversion to so-am
> called "experts" and their books. I do admit, though, that I also
> baffled why you might consider an opinion from someone on theto
> 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
> others information derived from various sorts of experience? Andin
> that some of these might be written by people with much expertise
> certain ways. Yes, some are reliable, and others are bunkum.Can
> Why should we pit one against the other ~ books and experience?
> they not work together as sources of information? Also, would youas
> 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
> being solely in one camp or another.an
> Tasting an apple is but part of the experience of learning about
> apple. Besides, it is my opinion that "tasting" in this case is aa
> metaphor for more than the literal sensual experience. But to use
> practical example, the sensual experience of tasting mightintroduce
> one to a firsthand familiarity of an aspect of `apple'. It doesnot,
> however, let one know what variety of apple or whether the appleis
> rotten, for example, until one compares with other experiences,one's
> own and perhaps, for added perspective, those of other peoplethrough
> conversation, books, etc.Furthermore
> 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.
> one even might read and mull over writings by others who havecomposition.
> specialized in scientific analysis of an apple's chemical
> What does "tasting" an apple mean in Genesis? To what extent one
> interprets this literally or metaphorically would have
> regarding meaning.kind
> In Gnostic literature, one might consider Allogenes as being a
> of expert. The Foreigner "prepared" himself and "deliberated fora
> hundred years" before having the abstract, mystical vision hewrote
> about. Then the luminaries instructed him to write down what hewas
> told. So, that is what the Foreigner did for the sake of othersto
> read who were "worthy."understanding
> 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,
> that with further reliable experiential information we just mightor
> 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
> where he obtained it. And you could even do a bit of researchdepending
> yourself to compare findings. There are lots of options,
> on your interest.to
> 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
> approach these writings, just as there are different ways ofknowing
> an actual apple or learning about jealousy.and
> 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"
> contained in a book, and relying more on random opinions andWhy
> experiences expressed by people on the internet or in conversation
> would be passing up a possible valuable source of information.
> not consider a mix?
> I'll stop here before I end up being accused of writing an entire
> tome. *lol*