Inner Space :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For discussions on all matters relating to personal development, religion, philosophy, psychology and so on.
Hi Kimberley,
You wrote "I personally, don't like to use the word "pagan" for the ancient Gnostics. Pagan suggests that they worshipped a myriad of gods and performed rituals and sacrifices to these gods. I don't think this was the case with the "original Egyptians", or at least their leaders or Priests. The "pagan" worship was introduced later, no doubt......that seems to be the nature of mankind, never satisfied with worshipping and obeying the One True God.
Yes I agree with you that the word Pagan isn't particularly apt - it's difficult to describe a people who understood the pre-Christian Gnostic teaching though, which the AE (in my opinion) undoubtedly did. Tough one. I also agree with you on the point of the AE worshipping a myriad of Gods etc. I really don't know that they thought of the images they created as being real characters. Rather, I have for some time now been of the belief that they were portraying the essence of a "state/mood" or an object, or a psychological trait even - and portraying it as masculine or feminine in the way that is still used in languages that have a male or female determination (ie La Pluie = the rain but it isn't a woman)
In this sense, I think pre-Christian Gnostics to a certain degree (and also Christian Gnositc subsequently with their explanations of the Monad and the Holy Spirit etc) were explaining the masculine and feminine essence of everything.
For that reason, I can agree with you when you say "I think the ancients called their founding fathers "gods" in the same way the Bible uses the term "sons of God" to denote the ancient ancestors of the Hebrews. They weren't really gods in themselves but exhibited qualities of being the creation of God in His image.
Because I see everything in creation as exhibiting qualities of the creative force/spirit, and yet I see none of them, including the creator, as a person. But a very efficient way of defining all of creation and matter and spirit is by using men and women in the imagery, right up to and including God - which the Gnostics describe as the Father-Mother.
Hope that makes sense
Jaq
You wrote "I personally, don't like to use the word "pagan" for the ancient Gnostics. Pagan suggests that they worshipped a myriad of gods and performed rituals and sacrifices to these gods. I don't think this was the case with the "original Egyptians", or at least their leaders or Priests. The "pagan" worship was introduced later, no doubt......that seems to be the nature of mankind, never satisfied with worshipping and obeying the One True God.
Yes I agree with you that the word Pagan isn't particularly apt - it's difficult to describe a people who understood the pre-Christian Gnostic teaching though, which the AE (in my opinion) undoubtedly did. Tough one. I also agree with you on the point of the AE worshipping a myriad of Gods etc. I really don't know that they thought of the images they created as being real characters. Rather, I have for some time now been of the belief that they were portraying the essence of a "state/mood" or an object, or a psychological trait even - and portraying it as masculine or feminine in the way that is still used in languages that have a male or female determination (ie La Pluie = the rain but it isn't a woman)
In this sense, I think pre-Christian Gnostics to a certain degree (and also Christian Gnositc subsequently with their explanations of the Monad and the Holy Spirit etc) were explaining the masculine and feminine essence of everything.
For that reason, I can agree with you when you say "I think the ancients called their founding fathers "gods" in the same way the Bible uses the term "sons of God" to denote the ancient ancestors of the Hebrews. They weren't really gods in themselves but exhibited qualities of being the creation of God in His image.
Because I see everything in creation as exhibiting qualities of the creative force/spirit, and yet I see none of them, including the creator, as a person. But a very efficient way of defining all of creation and matter and spirit is by using men and women in the imagery, right up to and including God - which the Gnostics describe as the Father-Mother.
Hope that makes sense
Jaq
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.