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

Re: Terrorism and the sad truth about 9.11

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.