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

Terrorism and the sad truth about 9.11

Expand Messages
  • martin12617
    I have a response to 9.11 or a comment to make. I consider myself Gnostic, and I am aware of the distinction between the true God who is more human than the
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I have a response to 9.11 or a comment to make.
      I consider myself Gnostic, and I am aware of the distinction between
      the "true God" who is more human than the one, which created the body
      and the psyche alone or with the help of the archons.
      We know from the bible that Yehovah mostly resembles the demiurge; he
      has not been too kind to humanity for instance when he flooded
      humanity like rats, allegedly for their transgressions, insanity,
      sodomy all the hebrew baldadash.

      However, Yehovah is still with us. Eventhough I don;t pray to
      Yehovah, for that would be a quite inhuman undertaking, I came to
      understand that one of his principles is indeed Justice as the bible
      emphasizes. Some people fed up with their lives and desperate,
      miserable, tell me, there is no justice in this world. And I say
      wrong, justice is already in the world here and now.
      Justice is rooted on a balance concept too.

      Inbalance brings about an impulse to restore the balance. I think
      Yehovah can't help it, this is the law of the universe.
      This is his nature. People act in this game, scenery as tools, or
      messangers. Therefore Osama Bin Laden or for this matter, Adolf
      Hitler and others are not personally blameable in that sense that
      they are the personification of the worst evil etc. They are taking
      it literally, for they are a persona so they personify the evil. But
      this view is limited. People are tools and messangers.

      America so they say has inflicted injustice upon the third world, be
      it in matters financial or political. On the Arabs too. Not being
      into politics that much, I actually do not need the precise data.
      Justice exists, and reminds us that there was an unbalance of
      justice, unbalance of power. America has done something to unbalance
      the scales of justice (cause), for which the restoration assuredly
      came (effect). Sadly, it was an Arab, Osama. He is innocent, it is
      the law of this universe, which acted through him. I don't know if
      this makes sense, but this is my perception, I hope it can clarify
      few things .Martin
    • pmcvflag
      ... between the true God who is more human than the one, which created the body and the psyche alone or with the help of the archons.
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        >>>I consider myself Gnostic, and I am aware of the distinction
        between the "true God" who is more human than the one, which created
        the body and the psyche alone or with the help of the archons.<<<<

        Hello again Martin. I thought I would point out that generally in
        traditional "Gnosticism" it is exactly the opposite. Traditionally
        the "True God" is completely inhuman, seperate, infinite. Any god
        with anthropomorphic (human) qualities is considered either inferior,
        or downright false. Many times we have posted examples of apophatic
        theology from Gnostic texts in here, so I wont bother doing it again,
        but merely point out how works like the Tripartite Tractate deny any
        human quality, or even definable quality, in the "True God".

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "martin12617" <martin12617@y...>
        wrote:
        > I have a response to 9.11 or a comment to make.
        > I consider myself Gnostic, and I am aware of the distinction
        between
        > the "true God" who is more human than the one, which created the
        body
        > and the psyche alone or with the help of the archons.
        > We know from the bible that Yehovah mostly resembles the demiurge;
        he
        > has not been too kind to humanity for instance when he flooded
        > humanity like rats, allegedly for their transgressions, insanity,
        > sodomy all the hebrew baldadash.
        >
        > However, Yehovah is still with us. Eventhough I don;t pray to
        > Yehovah, for that would be a quite inhuman undertaking, I came to
        > understand that one of his principles is indeed Justice as the
        bible
        > emphasizes. Some people fed up with their lives and desperate,
        > miserable, tell me, there is no justice in this world. And I say
        > wrong, justice is already in the world here and now.
        > Justice is rooted on a balance concept too.
        >
        > Inbalance brings about an impulse to restore the balance. I think
        > Yehovah can't help it, this is the law of the universe.
        > This is his nature. People act in this game, scenery as tools, or
        > messangers. Therefore Osama Bin Laden or for this matter, Adolf
        > Hitler and others are not personally blameable in that sense that
        > they are the personification of the worst evil etc. They are taking
        > it literally, for they are a persona so they personify the evil.
        But
        > this view is limited. People are tools and messangers.
        >
        > America so they say has inflicted injustice upon the third world,
        be
        > it in matters financial or political. On the Arabs too. Not being
        > into politics that much, I actually do not need the precise data.
        > Justice exists, and reminds us that there was an unbalance of
        > justice, unbalance of power. America has done something to
        unbalance
        > the scales of justice (cause), for which the restoration assuredly
        > came (effect). Sadly, it was an Arab, Osama. He is innocent, it is
        > the law of this universe, which acted through him. I don't know if
        > this makes sense, but this is my perception, I hope it can clarify
        > few things .Martin
      • martin12617
        Hi pcmvflag, the nature of the true God remains undiscoverable. At least most gnostic scriptures conclude this way, although many attributes are given to the
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi pcmvflag,

          the nature of the "true God" remains undiscoverable. At least most
          gnostic scriptures conclude this way, although many attributes are
          given to the Supreme Being. I liked your attributes. Not going into
          the detail, what I meant is that the true God is more human than the
          demiurge at least, who has not shown any [particular appreciation for
          humanity, starting with the "creation" to this very day, see
          Terrorist attacks 9.11.

          To the contrary, he crippled man from the very beginning. Thanks to
          Sophia, men was able to stand up, shake off the dirt, and walk
          straight. She helped humanity from many impediments. Orthodox say,
          God gave man a free will and dominion over all creatures, and wisdom.
          Therefore man builds freeways, does genetical research and
          experiments, builds aeroplanes. How, I argued with the orthodox, is
          then man destroying ultimately, what his God made in the first place?
          God created lakes, forests etc. not freeways, nor were aeroplanes in
          the hangars in the jungle with the pilot's manual. Sophia helps us
          out of our misery. We are crippled and limited, therefore we need the
          technology, which is a true sign of Gnosticism in our world.

          Pursuing this thought, I arrived at the final conclusion: Man hunts
          for aliens, but has not recognized that he is an alien himself in
          this world. Man's works reveal him/her to be out of this world. The
          demiurge created man from the mud, for his own purposes of
          [precreation to capture and imprison souls. Sophia brings man into
          competition with his own creator, the demiurge, and so the jealousy
          battle goes on again.

          It would be interesting for me to reflect now whom I met in my
          experience, when I was assured victory and rewarded, but I dont
          recall any particular images, nor radiant light. I hope it was not
          Yehovah.

          For the "true God" is the ground of (any) being for me, the radiant
          source of the emanation process, from which all originates and to
          which all returns, in this world seen and beyond. Martin
        • Mike Leavitt
          Hello pmcvflag ... Absolutely correct. That needed to be stated. Just because negative human traits are ascribed to old Saklas doesn t mean positive ones can
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 3, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello pmcvflag

            On 03-Jul-03, you wrote:

            >> I consider myself Gnostic, and I am aware of the distinction
            >> between the "true God" who is more human than the one, which
            >> created the body and the psyche alone or with the help of the
            >> archons.
            >
            > Hello again Martin. I thought I would point out that generally in
            > traditional "Gnosticism" it is exactly the opposite. Traditionally
            > the "True God" is completely inhuman, separate, infinite. Any god
            > with anthropomorphic (human) qualities is considered either
            > inferior, or downright false. Many times we have posted examples of
            > apophatic theology from Gnostic texts in here, so I wont bother
            > doing it again, but merely point out how works like the Tripartite
            > Tractate deny any human quality, or even definable quality, in the
            > "True God".
            >
            > PMCV

            Absolutely correct. That needed to be stated. Just because negative
            human traits are ascribed to old Saklas doesn't mean positive ones
            can be attributed to the Unknown Father. His name says a lot about
            him, if you think about it.

            Regards
            --
            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
          • incognito_lightbringer
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              <<. Just because negative
              human traits are ascribed to old Saklas doesn't mean positive ones
              can be attributed to the Unknown Father.>>

              I view it as more complicated than this. Positive traits are
              attributed to he Unknown Father, in gnostic texts, in the very
              passages which employ apophatic descriptions. Moreover, there are
              emanations of the True God into the field of existence/space/time,
              which do have positive qualities, and never negative (that I'm aware
              of, if there are please state passages). I'm not convinced the
              resolution of duality means that both dualistic sides are eliminated.
              It seems more that the negative is a form of absence, while the
              positive is that which was all along. The existence of the negative
              is the existence of the positive, by which we view the positive. In
              other words, one defines the other. If one is eliminated the other is
              no longer defineable in dualism. Otherwise, what "is" is then beyond
              existence (or nonexistence). However, in this world, the two have
              mixed, and gnostic and hermetic texts are against mixtures. Which
              they claim produce error and are corruption. (I was never certain if
              this meant there was supposed to be a dualistic universe in which the
              two coexisted seperately, before things went screwy. Thus a heaven
              and a hell. In some texts Sophia falls into matter that already
              exists, for example. Or as in Origin of the World, chaos exists prior
              to the demiurge and matter. Or paraphrase of Shem, where there are
              three seperate roots. When there's a mix, things go wrong.)

              My question is, what is "human"? The body and the psyche are included
              in commonplace understanding of the term, but that's not what it is
              in gnostic texts. Human (as in First Man or inner Man) seems a
              reference to something entirely different, perfect, and unique in
              itself; (the spirit?). It's also the path to the unknown Father, who
              we are told we can unite with and whose kingdom we inherit, as we are
              told only the Son knows the Father, and we can *become like him*. But
              this entails transcendence. Again, more complicated than simply
              stating he's "unknown". He's unknown in rational logical dualistic
              worldly "knowledge", but not in terms of gnosis or union.

              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
              > Hello pmcvflag
              >
              > On 03-Jul-03, you wrote:
              >
              > >> I consider myself Gnostic, and I am aware of the distinction
              > >> between the "true God" who is more human than the one, which
              > >> created the body and the psyche alone or with the help of the
              > >> archons.
              > >
              > > Hello again Martin. I thought I would point out that generally in
              > > traditional "Gnosticism" it is exactly the opposite. Traditionally
              > > the "True God" is completely inhuman, separate, infinite. Any god
              > > with anthropomorphic (human) qualities is considered either
              > > inferior, or downright false. Many times we have posted examples
              of
              > > apophatic theology from Gnostic texts in here, so I wont bother
              > > doing it again, but merely point out how works like the Tripartite
              > > Tractate deny any human quality, or even definable quality, in the
              > > "True God".
              > >
              > > PMCV
              >
              > Absolutely correct. That needed to be stated. Just because
              negative
              > human traits are ascribed to old Saklas doesn't mean positive ones
              > can be attributed to the Unknown Father. His name says a lot about
              > him, if you think about it.
              >
              > Regards
              > --
              > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
            • Martin Khoury
              Absolutely! This is what I was trying to convey. Martin incognito_lightbringer wrote:
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Absolutely! This is what I was trying to convey. Martin

                incognito_lightbringer <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                <<. Just because negative
                human traits are ascribed to old Saklas doesn't mean positive ones
                can be attributed to the Unknown Father.>>

                I view it as more complicated than this. Positive traits are
                attributed to he Unknown Father, in gnostic texts, in the very
                passages which employ apophatic descriptions. Moreover, there are
                emanations of the True God into the field of existence/space/time,
                which do have positive qualities, and never negative (that I'm aware
                of, if there are please state passages). I'm not convinced the
                resolution of duality means that both dualistic sides are eliminated.
                It seems more that the negative is a form of absence, while the
                positive is that which was all along. The existence of the negative
                is the existence of the positive, by which we view the positive. In
                other words, one defines the other. If one is eliminated the other is
                no longer defineable in dualism. Otherwise, what "is" is then beyond
                existence (or nonexistence). However, in this world, the two have
                mixed, and gnostic and hermetic texts are against mixtures. Which
                they claim produce error and are corruption. (I was never certain if
                this meant there was supposed to be a dualistic universe in which the
                two coexisted seperately, before things went screwy. Thus a heaven
                and a hell. In some texts Sophia falls into matter that already
                exists, for example. Or as in Origin of the World, chaos exists prior
                to the demiurge and matter. Or paraphrase of Shem, where there are
                three seperate roots. When there's a mix, things go wrong.)

                My question is, what is "human"? The body and the psyche are included
                in commonplace understanding of the term, but that's not what it is
                in gnostic texts. Human (as in First Man or inner Man) seems a
                reference to something entirely different, perfect, and unique in
                itself; (the spirit?). It's also the path to the unknown Father, who
                we are told we can unite with and whose kingdom we inherit, as we are
                told only the Son knows the Father, and we can *become like him*. But
                this entails transcendence. Again, more complicated than simply
                stating he's "unknown". He's unknown in rational logical dualistic
                worldly "knowledge", but not in terms of gnosis or union.

                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                > Hello pmcvflag
                >
                > On 03-Jul-03, you wrote:
                >
                > >> I consider myself Gnostic, and I am aware of the distinction
                > >> between the "true God" who is more human than the one, which
                > >> created the body and the psyche alone or with the help of the
                > >> archons.
                > >
                > > Hello again Martin. I thought I would point out that generally in
                > > traditional "Gnosticism" it is exactly the opposite. Traditionally
                > > the "True God" is completely inhuman, separate, infinite. Any god
                > > with anthropomorphic (human) qualities is considered either
                > > inferior, or downright false. Many times we have posted examples
                of
                > > apophatic theology from Gnostic texts in here, so I wont bother
                > > doing it again, but merely point out how works like the Tripartite
                > > Tractate deny any human quality, or even definable quality, in the
                > > "True God".
                > >
                > > PMCV
                >
                > Absolutely correct.  That needed to be stated.  Just because
                negative
                > human traits are ascribed to old Saklas doesn't mean positive ones
                > can be attributed to the Unknown Father.  His name says a lot about
                > him, if you think about it.
                >
                > Regards
                > --
                > Mike Leavitt  ac998@l...


                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT
                click here

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                Do you Yahoo!?
                SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.