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

Contradicitons

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    Reply to Play’s message #5962: Again, I have only one question for you this time, and I’ll ask it right at the start and elaborate below—Is it much of a
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment

       

      Reply to Play’s message #5962:

       

       

      Again, I have only one question for you this time, and I’ll ask it right at the start and elaborate below—Is it much of a burden to have all the answers, or do you find it a blissful delight?

       

      >>I call for a truce and I apologize if I came across that I know better than any of you here. I don't. Actually I don't "know" shit. But I do have some insights of where we may be able to find truth and how you can come to know it. And it has nothing to do with flaw and error.<<

       

      Play, I really wish you would realize why a person would have to doubt your sincerity when you make contradictory statements like that.  Remember that you’re at a Gnostic site, and there are many people here who recognize a flawed universe around them.  Your apology has little value, if any, when the same paragraph ends with you suggesting that we, too, can come to know the Truth if we’d but get over our “flawed” perspective.  Before you accuse me of misinterpreting something there (as I recognize the REMOTE possibility that you’re simply suggesting that your way is an alternative to ours), I might also point out that you did the same thing in your first paragraph:

       

      >>Anyone who still sees the law and error in this creation can never understand.<<

       

      Never???  That’s a very long time, Play.  Sounds like you’re willing to tolerate our ignorance while you continue to bring us the Word.  How very considerate of you, but if that’s your idea of a truce—I find it sorely lacking.

       

      >>Your assumptions are just that. Assumptions.<<

       

      Well, to be precise, as I already pointed out, they were based on your own assertions.  Since they were your ideas, Play, only you can decide if we are really perfect, even when you deem some of us imperfect—or whether Man was responsible for the division of light and dark by his judgement, even when you had light and dark preceding Man as one with the Prime Source.  Of course, before you could decide any of that, you would have to WANT to take a closer look at your comments.  It is painfully apparent that you have no such desire to do so.

       

      >>Basically, what you are really telling me is to just shut up and listen. So, OK. I'll take your advice. As PMCV asked, I'll do this tactfully and just say that at the present time, I simply don't agree with many of the concepts presented to me so far.<<

       

      Actually, I didn’t tell you to shut up—I simply did not want you to answer my post as you had others previously, which was basically by skirting the issues without really giving them consideration.  If that meant refraining from responding while you attempted to digest what had already been discussed, then I wouldn’t take the absence of a reply as an indication of complete disregard, however, you’re not gonna digest anything when you keep regurgitating the same tired stuff you’ve already been projecting.

       

      And yes, I understand that you don’t agree with many of the concepts presented from the Gnostic perspective.  That’s also why I thought it would be more advantageous for you to forget about the Gnostic concepts for a moment and focus on re-examining your own assertions, which I had already pointed out.  It seemed to me that this might give you a better insight on how many of us view things—WITHIN the context of your own beliefs.  But for Chrissakes, Play, if you’re not willing to apply critical thinking to anything you’ve offered up, then forget about it.  I realize that the contradictions you’ve written that are obvious to us are just “perfect” in your little world—but since you’re the one who has to live in it, it really doesn’t concern me.  You may want to consider peddling it elsewhere, though.

       

      >>If you are ever interested in why I disagree, just ask.<<

       

      I suppose if it were really that simple, I would have gotten some relevant feedback from you on those other occasions when  I asked about what you were saying.  If I ever feel like I need a refresher on Conversations With God, I’ll pick up the book again.  For now, though, I think I got a pretty good idea of what ol’ Neale Donald is all about—and it ain’t Gnosticism!   *smiles*

       

       

      Gerry

       

    • lady_caritas
      Gosh, Gerry, talk about timing. Was I reading your thoughts or were you reading mine? LOL Cari
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Gosh, Gerry, talk about timing. Was I reading your thoughts or were
        you reading mine? LOL

        Cari
      • Gerry
        ... ’Twas but another Jungian synchronicity, I guess. Either way, we’ve got to stop meeting like this. Seriously! :-) ... Poppycock! I, for one, think
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment

           

          Reply to Cari’s message #5965:

           

           

          >>...talk about timing. Was I reading your thoughts or were you reading mine?<<

           

          ’Twas but another Jungian synchronicity, I guess.  Either way, we’ve got to stop meeting like this.  Seriously!  :-)

           

          >>This postscript acts as an admission (*not* stemming from an unworthy, guilt-ridden self image) to the possibility that I could very well be in "error."<<  #5964

           

          Poppycock!  I, for one, think you’re perfect—just the way you are.

           

          Gerry

           

        • lady_caritas
          ... reading mine?
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@y..., "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Reply to Cari's message #5965:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > >>...talk about timing. Was I reading your thoughts or were you
            reading mine?<<
            >
            >
            >
            > 'Twas but another Jungian synchronicity, I guess. Either way,
            we've got to stop meeting like this. Seriously! :-)
            >
            >
            >
            > >>This postscript acts as an admission (*not* stemming from an
            unworthy, guilt-ridden self image) to the possibility that I could
            very well be in "error."<< #5964
            >
            >
            >
            > Poppycock! I, for one, think you're perfect—just the way you are.
            >
            >
            >
            > Gerry


            Sweet talker. ;-)
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.