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

Re: picture it

Expand Messages
  • beautiful2afault
    it was not a they, they was orginally a one which divided becoming two then the buggers got it on the fact was it were a few of them so the few divided became
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      it was not a they, they was orginally a one which divided becoming two
      then the buggers got it on

      the fact was it were a few of them
      so the few divided became two and as the little buggers became from
      them getting it on diversity and branching sprung

      b

      --- In gnosticism2@y..., "karl_marxiii" <karl_marxiii@y...> wrote:
      > I can't for the life of me figure how they first multiplied, they
      > are they in the mud, swelling, but how do they duplicate? It must
      > have been more of an accident. An iron oxide bumps into a
      > phosphorous oxide (OK, im sorry i'm not a chemist these are
      > hypothetical chemicals) two iron oxides and two phosphorous oxides
      > Which carry on to establish the path of life. With a few minor
      > variations soon the chemicals branch out to become different things
      > which only react when they meet one of the same things. Before you
      > know it world war three comes along and there's nothing left.
      >
      > If someone writes their version below, and someone else thiers
      below
      > that, we might understand it cause it's hard! Pass it on.
    • karl_marxiii
      Are you sure, Beautiful to a fault? If it was a division then why do we no longer replicate by division? I see the origins of life as the predecessr of the
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 5, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Are you sure, Beautiful to a fault? If it was a division then why do
        we no longer replicate by division? I see the origins of life as the
        predecessr of the male / female union, where two forces create a
        third. Also why would a certain chemical begin to divide and
        replicate? If this was the point of origin, it seems to have no
        cause, and is therefore hard to understand. If division and
        replication are seen as the origins of the will of organisms to life,
        where did this will come from? I believe there must be a certain mix
        of molecules/ chemicals/ whatever that creates an abundance of those
        forms, and that this is the origin of life. The magical
        partnership. I could see this as a collision of basic elements that
        had complementary gravity or electrical charge or chemical
        volatility, but before even the first amoeba developed the ignition
        for this must have been some catharsis engendered by a holy communion
        of complementary forces.


        --- In gnosticism2@y..., "beautiful2afault" <beautiful2afault@y...>
        wrote:
        > it was not a they, they was orginally a one which divided becoming
        two
        > then the buggers got it on
        >
        > the fact was it were a few of them
        > so the few divided became two and as the little buggers became from
        > them getting it on diversity and branching sprung
        >
        > b
        >
        > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "karl_marxiii" <karl_marxiii@y...> wrote:
        > > I can't for the life of me figure how they first multiplied,
        they
        > > are they in the mud, swelling, but how do they duplicate? It
        must
        > > have been more of an accident. An iron oxide bumps into a
        > > phosphorous oxide (OK, im sorry i'm not a chemist these are
        > > hypothetical chemicals) two iron oxides and two phosphorous
        oxides
        > > Which carry on to establish the path of life. With a few minor
        > > variations soon the chemicals branch out to become different
        things
        > > which only react when they meet one of the same things. Before
        you
        > > know it world war three comes along and there's nothing left.
        > >
        > > If someone writes their version below, and someone else thiers
        > below
        > > that, we might understand it cause it's hard! Pass it on.
      • beautiful2afault
        i was talking about the holy force what were you thinking? amoebi? this is how it was for humanity the creation of male and female in the spiritual form then
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          i was talking about the holy force
          what were you thinking?

          amoebi?

          this is how it was for humanity
          the creation of male and female in the spiritual form

          then the transformation upon earth. that took a little more and yes
          i guess it did start with the amoeba.

          as for the amoeba, sure. they divide
          division, the building blocks of the universe

          then some lone wolf just sent me an e-mail. creation and all that.

          but i will spare you those details. i imagine many recieved it as
          well.

          b
          beautiful2afault

          --- In gnosticism2@y..., "karl_marxiii" <karl_marxiii@y...> wrote:
          > Are you sure, Beautiful to a fault? If it was a division then why
          do
          > we no longer replicate by division? I see the origins of life as
          the
          > predecessr of the male / female union, where two forces create a
          > third. Also why would a certain chemical begin to divide and
          > replicate? If this was the point of origin, it seems to have no
          > cause, and is therefore hard to understand. If division and
          > replication are seen as the origins of the will of organisms to
          life,
          > where did this will come from? I believe there must be a certain
          mix
          > of molecules/ chemicals/ whatever that creates an abundance of
          those
          > forms, and that this is the origin of life. The magical
          > partnership. I could see this as a collision of basic elements
          that
          > had complementary gravity or electrical charge or chemical
          > volatility, but before even the first amoeba developed the ignition
          > for this must have been some catharsis engendered by a holy
          communion
          > of complementary forces.
          >
          >
          > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "beautiful2afault" <beautiful2afault@y...>
          > wrote:
          > > it was not a they, they was orginally a one which divided
          becoming
          > two
          > > then the buggers got it on
          > >
          > > the fact was it were a few of them
          > > so the few divided became two and as the little buggers became
          from
          > > them getting it on diversity and branching sprung
          > >
          > > b
          > >
          > > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "karl_marxiii" <karl_marxiii@y...> wrote:
          > > > I can't for the life of me figure how they first multiplied,
          > they
          > > > are they in the mud, swelling, but how do they duplicate? It
          > must
          > > > have been more of an accident. An iron oxide bumps into a
          > > > phosphorous oxide (OK, im sorry i'm not a chemist these are
          > > > hypothetical chemicals) two iron oxides and two phosphorous
          > oxides
          > > > Which carry on to establish the path of life. With a few minor
          > > > variations soon the chemicals branch out to become different
          > things
          > > > which only react when they meet one of the same things. Before
          > you
          > > > know it world war three comes along and there's nothing left.
          > > >
          > > > If someone writes their version below, and someone else thiers
          > > below
          > > > that, we might understand it cause it's hard! Pass it on.
        • karl_marxiii
          Well okay the holy force, the dao, the most high, as a one which divided becoming two? could you see this as the biiiiiig bang? What horrors! Perhaps it was
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Well okay the holy force, the dao, the most high, as a one which
            divided becoming two? could you see this as the biiiiiig bang? What
            horrors! Perhaps it was split due to some malevolence? Or do you
            think it wanted to, so it could grow. I'm not sure. I can see it
            growing like a seed, sending forth roots and shoots into the cold
            dark nothing to become a something, in which case we are all a part
            of a big plant. Cool!

            But i still don't see how it could just grow itself. Heat and
            moisture are the classical recipe for the enablance of life. I still
            somehow feel that it must have been a combination of things (sorry
            for such a weak word but i can't think of another and am pressed for
            time) that led to such an over spill of life.

            God Luck! karl

            --- In gnosticism2@y..., "beautiful2afault" <beautiful2afault@y...>
            wrote:
            > i was talking about the holy force
            > what were you thinking?
            >
            > amoebi?
            >
            > this is how it was for humanity
            > the creation of male and female in the spiritual form
            >
            > then the transformation upon earth. that took a little more and
            yes
            > i guess it did start with the amoeba.
            >
            > as for the amoeba, sure. they divide
            > division, the building blocks of the universe
            >
            > then some lone wolf just sent me an e-mail. creation and all that.
            >
            > but i will spare you those details. i imagine many recieved it as
            > well.
            >
            > b
            > beautiful2afault
            >
            > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "karl_marxiii" <karl_marxiii@y...> wrote:
            > > Are you sure, Beautiful to a fault? If it was a division then
            why
            > do
            > > we no longer replicate by division? I see the origins of life as
            > the
            > > predecessr of the male / female union, where two forces create a
            > > third. Also why would a certain chemical begin to divide and
            > > replicate? If this was the point of origin, it seems to have no
            > > cause, and is therefore hard to understand. If division and
            > > replication are seen as the origins of the will of organisms to
            > life,
            > > where did this will come from? I believe there must be a certain
            > mix
            > > of molecules/ chemicals/ whatever that creates an abundance of
            > those
            > > forms, and that this is the origin of life. The magical
            > > partnership. I could see this as a collision of basic elements
            > that
            > > had complementary gravity or electrical charge or chemical
            > > volatility, but before even the first amoeba developed the
            ignition
            > > for this must have been some catharsis engendered by a holy
            > communion
            > > of complementary forces.
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "beautiful2afault"
            <beautiful2afault@y...>
            > > wrote:
            > > > it was not a they, they was orginally a one which divided
            > becoming
            > > two
            > > > then the buggers got it on
            > > >
            > > > the fact was it were a few of them
            > > > so the few divided became two and as the little buggers became
            > from
            > > > them getting it on diversity and branching sprung
            > > >
            > > > b
            > > >
            > > > --- In gnosticism2@y..., "karl_marxiii" <karl_marxiii@y...>
            wrote:
            > > > > I can't for the life of me figure how they first multiplied,
            > > they
            > > > > are they in the mud, swelling, but how do they duplicate? It
            > > must
            > > > > have been more of an accident. An iron oxide bumps into a
            > > > > phosphorous oxide (OK, im sorry i'm not a chemist these are
            > > > > hypothetical chemicals) two iron oxides and two phosphorous
            > > oxides
            > > > > Which carry on to establish the path of life. With a few
            minor
            > > > > variations soon the chemicals branch out to become different
            > > things
            > > > > which only react when they meet one of the same things.
            Before
            > > you
            > > > > know it world war three comes along and there's nothing left.
            > > > >
            > > > > If someone writes their version below, and someone else
            thiers
            > > > below
            > > > > that, we might understand it cause it's hard! Pass it on.
          • beautiful2afault
            all i know is that the model for humanity was first drawn up within the spirit. from that process where by a being to decend upon the earth was conceptualized.
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              all i know
              is that the model for humanity was first drawn up within the spirit.
              from that process where by a being to decend upon the earth was
              conceptualized. then the process began...the evolution in spirit to
              the eventual evolution upon the earth.

              there are phases and no i don't know the vehicle of spark in either
              the spirit or the physical.

              so the mystery remains.
              whom/what is the great mind behind the spirit, behind the spark in
              life.

              warmth and moisture you say? upon a third component. sure.
              in the physical realm
              what of the spiritual realm

              warmth and moisture, upon structure. if thought can be such.

              structured thought upon void and space.

              others surely have seen this.
              the thought
              the structure
              the evolution

              this which depicts the creation of humanity of woman and man, our
              status in the universe our divine origins, our divine place.

              if not in this recient time line of humanity then possible in other
              ages past.

              see the mandella of the chinees. they try to depict a somewhat
              structure of divine

              the caste system of india, a functional structure of the divine
              progress, even if the system is primative, the concept formulative
              toward an evolution process

              other religions talk of a process a divine thing...the quabella or
              some such spelling. both jew and muslem

              some others have seen
              i do belive mostly others have heard
              elaborated and tried to fathom the meaning of its presence in the
              spiritual to the point of making that practical. as with the caste
              system as with the chinees mandella and today i think with the
              seeking of the equality of woman in a world wide fashion from
              politics, to religion, and personal attitude.

              if this spiritual design, this great mind has been moving through the
              ages within humanity to reveal its creation, its practical
              applications and possible direction, i believe in this current age of
              spirit. it is to bring about equality to both genders and the freedom
              to be spiritual and physical with the gifts which are endowed to both.

              yep, equality is the issue of the current spiritual age. freedom
              and equality. love of course is the highest aim. but even that,
              love must come in as an evolutionary process

              beautiful2afault






              it cause it's hard! Pass it on.
            • Coraxo
              ... Hi B2aF; These are nice sentiments but are not consistent with what is depicted in classical gnosticism. First the concept of equality, or egalitarianism
              Message 6 of 9 , Sep 6, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: picture it

                > From: "beautiful2afault" <beautiful2afault@...>
                >
                > if this spiritual design, this great mind has been moving through the
                > ages within humanity to reveal its creation, its practical
                > applications and possible direction, i believe in this current age of
                > spirit. it is to bring about equality to both genders and the freedom
                > to be spiritual and physical with the gifts which are endowed to both.
                >
                > yep,  equality is the issue of the current spiritual age.  freedom
                > and equality.  love of course is the highest aim.  but even that,
                > love must come in as an evolutionary process
                >
                > beautiful2afault   

                Hi B2aF;

                These are nice sentiments but are not consistent with what is depicted in classical gnosticism.

                First the concept of equality, or egalitarianism of the Spirit is not shared by the Classical gnostics. the human condition was divided into a tripartite view of Hylic, psychic and Pneumatic.

                An evolutionary process was similarly not recognozed; in classical systems humans are the product of a flawed Creator and the substrate of the Cosmos is and will remain corrupt; the gnostics quest is liberation from materiality, not evolution within it.

                The current age is not necessarily one of Freedom, in fact the trends that we see are trends towards totalitarianism of a different sort from the totalitarianism of the past, yet it is totalitarianism all the same based on the principle of Rulership; that is to say, Archontics.

                Gender equality is irrelevant in classical Gnosticism because there is no gender in the Kingdom of Heaven; what are considered male and female are the paired szyzygies - which bear no correspondence towards genes or genetalis. In fact in Valentinism the Pneumatic Church is given as Brides to the Angels of Christ; that is male and female Pneumatics are the Brides of the Angels of Christ.

                Love is of course not the highest aim; The Gnosis is. The Agape referred to by Paul is most likely an initiatory event, and not transcendent love as is surmised by modern theologians; so one may have Gnosis but without initiation is not restored to the Pleroma - Agape most likely being the Bridal Chamber Mystery.

                Love is not a process or evolutionary; it is Love - yet what is Love? In the Troubador traditions there are Storge, Ludos, Cherritas, etc., all roughly translated as "Love", yet as we are coming to understand, things do not translate well into English, a language more suited to materiality than Spirituality.

                Is this a current age of the Spirit? Doubtful, in fact it seems that the hylic grip is even tighter than before, so I must politely disagree with the expressions that you have put forth in your recent missives.

                The classical Gnostic approach is based upon the knowledge of the flawed design of the Universe, the knowledge that suffering and death constitute the outcomes of Birth, and that the human Spirit is alien to the world of matter and the world of human social construction. Only through a genuine Gnosis of the Spirit, one which is not the product of works or effort, but of Grace and Metanoia is it possible to overcome the failure of the evolutionary project.

                In this manner Gnosticism diverges from the spiritualities of the Orient and New Age because it is in essence one which does not see a salvific effect in personal effort alone; the healing must take place from the Soteriologic principle which lies outside the world in which the person is trapped.

                Corax


              • pessy@chez.com
                ... exactly! ... that s why I can t talk English or German without employing an insane amount of latinism and grecism. And even those are not perfect. ... In
                Message 7 of 9 , Sep 7, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Coraxo writes:
                  > Gender equality is irrelevant in classical Gnosticism because there is no
                  > gender in the Kingdom of Heaven;

                  exactly!

                  > things do not translate well into English,
                  > a language more suited to materiality than
                  > Spirituality.
                  >
                  that's why I can't talk English or German without employing an insane amount
                  of latinism and grecism. And even those are not perfect.

                  > Is this a current age of the Spirit?

                  In this world, there'll never be an age of the spirit.
                  The Aeons are metaphysical ages, as only the worldly aeon is subject to
                  time, space, and causality.
                  >
                  > The classical Gnostic approach is based upon the knowledge of the flawed
                  > design of the Universe,

                  exactly.

                  Klaus Schilling
                • beautiful2afault
                  The big lie and other jokes ask any nine of ten muslems the terrorist comspiracy of the jewish sort came with names like Mohomad Abdule Moieser Beeks good
                  Message 8 of 9 , Sep 7, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The big lie and other jokes

                    ask any nine of ten muslems
                    the terrorist comspiracy of
                    the jewish sort came with
                    names like
                    Mohomad
                    Abdule
                    Moieser
                    Beeks

                    good jewish names
                    learing to fly
                    paid for the
                    money laundered
                    though isreal
                    banks

                    ah the muslems laugh
                    away the fact that
                    Bin ladin may be dead

                    surely the man is dead
                    with mortification
                    having his compadreys
                    lay the balame of 9-11
                    upon the jewish state

                    no, they just click
                    their elbows into ribs
                    hoping he will rise
                    like lazerist or christ
                    and othere dead men
                    on the religious side

                    to stand by them again
                    retelling stories and
                    jokes to the men about
                    the day little hitler
                    went jean paul satre
                    in a jone's bourgho style

                    karen

                    --- In gnosticism2@y..., pessy@c... wrote:
                    > Coraxo writes:
                    > > Gender equality is irrelevant in classical Gnosticism because
                    there is no
                    > > gender in the Kingdom of Heaven;
                    >
                    > exactly!
                    >
                    > > things do not translate well into English,
                    > > a language more suited to materiality than
                    > > Spirituality.
                    > >
                    > that's why I can't talk English or German without employing an
                    insane amount
                    > of latinism and grecism. And even those are not perfect.
                    >
                    > > Is this a current age of the Spirit?
                    >
                    > In this world, there'll never be an age of the spirit.
                    > The Aeons are metaphysical ages, as only the worldly aeon is
                    subject to
                    > time, space, and causality.
                    > >
                    > > The classical Gnostic approach is based upon the knowledge of
                    the flawed
                    > > design of the Universe,
                    >
                    > exactly.
                    >
                    > Klaus Schilling
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.