Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kahljorn
Do you know the definition of "Demiurge"?
I've learned my knowledge from reading, and I also attend lectures at a gnostic temple. I didn't say the "Creator" is a conglomeration of human energies. Read what i said. I said the creator of this material world was 'humans'. What humans consider as actually being God is a manifestation of human energies, and that the true "God" is something we can never know or realize because it is far away from this world.
|
Here’s MWs definition of Demiurge, which you will note is accurate to my definition.
Main Entry: demi•urge
Pronunciation: 'de-mE-"&rj
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin demiurgus, from Greek dEmiourgos, literally, artisan, one with special skill, from dEmios of the people (from dEmos people) + -ourgos worker (from ergon work) -- more at DEMAGOGUE, WORK
1 capitalized a : a Platonic subordinate deity who fashions the sensible world in the light of eternal ideas b : a Gnostic subordinate deity who is the creator of the material world
2 : one that is an autonomous creative force or decisive power
- demi•ur•gic /-jik/ also demi•ur•gi•cal /-ji-k&l/ adjective
You may be adding to the definition, and thereby enhancing it, but I think I’m safe in assuming that I have a correct enough version to discuss the Demiurge for the hypotheses which I intend to explore. Thanks, though, for the opportunity to confirm the veracity of my understanding of the term. You could have done that, you know.
Re your definition; unfortunately, I’m finding it hard to believe that it is humanly (or otherwise) possible to more starkly contradict yourself than (please notice it is not spelled “then” in this case – even LA Times is making this mistake these days - thank you) in these two sentences:
“I didn't say the "Creator" is a conglomeration of human energies.”
“What humans consider [as] God is a manifestation of human energies…”
… but at some point maybe you will elaborate on the obviously subtle distinction here. A point worthy of noting:
1. What humans consider as “actually being God” IS the creator.
The rest of you’s: I could NOT care less about your grammatical excellence. I merely said the misspelling of “existence” bugs me. However, that is NOT to say that I will NOT be happy to indulge (OMG – double negative) in grammar wars, which is always fun. Language is best served malleable, as evidenced by the general consensus adoption of prepositions for the end of a sentence. I support this btw, not the least of which reason being the extreme difficulty of properly ending a sentence as compels such and end.
Commas are underused these days. Frequently, those who have adopted the newer, “more streamlined, less commas” usage of commas, neglect their usage altogether where they really, properly ought to be, if for no other reason than improving meter.
Now that we have all that behind us, let me ask (with tentative attention), what anyone (kahljorn, you too) might think we ought do, in light of the assumption that our very creator is an evil bastard, i.e. .. oh hell, wtf do we do with this knowledge; how do we respond? Maybe we should start a thread on it. I have lots more questions *rubbing hands together gleefully and grinning like a bastard*. I enjoy verbal fencing as much as the next rube, but finally, I really would like to get somewhere on this topic. Just start out as if you’re talking to a five year old, and slowly increase the difficulty; I’ll let you know when to stop…
Nom
Threaded Mode