- Hey Gort
>>>So i keep getting the idea that this half god , orimperfect 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 .<<<
The Gnostic mythological structure turns some of the more familiar
aspects of Genesis upside down. Gnostics noticed that YHVH of the Old
Testement betrayed what they thought to be some rather anthropomorphic
traits, including some that were negative. This "God" demands animal
sacrifice, orders his followers to kill entire cities and act in ways
that are unethical. He admits to being a jealous, and worries about
other gods that ostensibly don't exist and therefore shouldn't be a
On the other hand, the Gnostics concieve of a much higher notion of an
apophatic "God". If there is a "God" it must surely be greater than the
human mind, so how could this rather trite god be the final word? The
way they saw it, the evidence that our minds could aspire to something
greater than what was presented as this Demiurge is evidence that we
can aspire to a higher spiritual truth than the notion of the god in
Genesis. The Gnostic myth then uses this Biblical "God" as a literary
example to explain this problem and combat it.
There are some Gnostic myths that deal with the issue in different
ways. In some versions the Demiurge is not evil, just ignorant of his
own origin (thus thinking he is the highest being). Perhaps he or one
of his Archons repent and find themselves on the same path as humans
can attempt. In others he is presented as a downright evil slave-master
who who fears our potential (as in the story of the tower of Babel) and
fears the true spiritual realm above him. Either way, in Gnostic
thinking the message of the Logos and Sophia are seen as the means back
to the higher spiritual realm from which the divine spark within us
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*