- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Hey Gort
> >>>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 .<<<
> The Gnostic mythological structure turns some of the more familiar
> aspects of Genesis upside down. Gnostics noticed that YHVH of the
> Testement betrayed what they thought to be some ratheranthropomorphic
> traits, including some that were negative. This "God" demandsanimal
> sacrifice, orders his followers to kill entire cities and act inways
> that are unethical. He admits to being a jealous, and worriesabout
> other gods that ostensibly don't exist and therefore shouldn't bea
> threat.of an
> On the other hand, the Gnostics concieve of a much higher notion
> apophatic "God". If there is a "God" it must surely be greaterthan 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 tosomething
> greater than what was presented as this Demiurge is evidence thatwe
> can aspire to a higher spiritual truth than the notion of the godin
> Genesis. The Gnostic myth then uses this Biblical "God" as aliterary
> example to explain this problem and combat it.his
> There are some Gnostic myths that deal with the issue in different
> ways. In some versions the Demiurge is not evil, just ignorant of
> own origin (thus thinking he is the highest being). Perhaps he orone
> of his Archons repent and find themselves on the same path ashumans
> 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 ofBabel) and
> fears the true spiritual realm above him. Either way, in Gnosticback
> thinking the message of the Logos and Sophia are seen as the means
> to the higher spiritual realm from which the divine spark withinus
> came.Hello pm ,
Thanks for explaining that . I think this question is
crucial in understanding why everything went wrong . It realy
does seem like someone up there made a mistake . But i
suppose if you do throw choice or what they call free will
( if it exists ) into the equation , things are bound to go
wrong . It just doesnt make sence . To give your creatures
free choice and then throw in a forbidden fruit , and
because they use their free choice are then punished .
I realy dont think this demuirge thought of himself as
evil . I would prefer to think that he is ignorant of his own
Could you please tell me what branch of Gnosis implies
I aslo joined one other gnostic group when you were
away . This question was also raised there . One said that
the demuirge didnt want them to eat the fruit because ...
' then we wouldnt need him anymore '
Another implied ... ' because the part of god within us may
be dangerous ' Like what you said before . That would lead to
some very interesting thought . Is there no gnostic thought
that the demiurge was concerned rather than cruel towards
his creatures ?
Whatever , but there was one other thing of interest .
Im not sure if this is correct , but , the original word
jealous was checked to translate into 'unceasing'. Thats a lot
different than jealous .
But i see what you mean now about the messages from
above , from the higher one . Possibly through the serpent .
Hope im not burdening you with my queries . Im just
sort of thinking aloud .
From Gort ,
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 email@example.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "gortoz77" <gortoz77@> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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*