... Nonsense, Will! There’s no crime in paying attention to detail with regards to posts of your personal quest or any other discussion, especially asMessage 1 of 2 , Oct 20, 2002View Source
Reply to Will’s post #6751:
>>Laura, I am an old button-pusher from way back. I am not part of this group, being an interloper who is not a Gnostic, so do not think ill of the real group. I alone am the nasty one.<<
Nonsense, Will! There’s no crime in paying attention to detail with regards to posts of your personal quest or any other discussion, especially as you’ve done so in civil and entertaining fashion since we’ve been acquainted. I’ve yet to see you peddling inappropriate agenda anywhere.
Speaking of “nastiness” though—during the recent barrage from SG and his sundry other personalities, I regret that your name ended up being confused with any personal information from my Yahoo profile.
Yes, I am indeed form North Carolina, and to the best of my recollection, the Landover Baptist site has been listed as a “Cool Link” on my ID since I created this account. Oddly enough, during those few years, this is the first time EVER that someone has noticed that link and revealed that they associated it with clearly indicating that I am a Southern Baptist. [I see a disclaimer coming on…]
For the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a Southern Baptist (or any kind of Baptist for that matter); neither have my family and forebears been thus affiliated.
Lutherans (on my mom’s side)—yes.
Can you just picture a bona fide Southern Baptist driving back from the mountains with a case of wine in the trunk?—heretical wine produced in the centuries-old tradition of Waldensian vintners, at that! I really don’t think the SB convention would have me. ;-)
Truth is, I always thought that said Cool Link was a fun way to introduce my sarcastic nature to others who might happen to review my personal data. Ironically, I anticipated having to further engage SG on the inaccuracies of his assumptions upon returning from my trip, but he seemed to make my case without help from anyone. When someone interprets a well-composed parody site like Landover Baptist as literal gospel——well, I don’t think any amount of “meditation” is really going to help such an individual. Sadly, it goes back to Cari’s observation of the rise of fundamentalism—and the real danger that it presents—especially to those of us trying to live in this world as “passersby.”
P.S. BTW, this is one of my favorite pages I encountered through Landover. Being a “recipe” for Easter cookies, it’s not exactly timely for Halloween, but the trick or treat theme is definitely present:
Gerry, from #6777: Nonsense, Will! There s no crime in paying attention to detail with regards to posts of your personal quest or any other discussion,Message 1 of 2 , Oct 20, 2002View SourceGerry, from #6777: Nonsense, Will! There's no crime in paying
attention to detail with regards to posts of your personal quest or
any other discussion, especially as you've done so in civil and
entertaining fashion since we've been acquainted. I've yet to see you
peddling inappropriate agenda anywhere.
Heavens to Betsy there Gerry, let me show you my nasty side. I have
been thinking about what bothers me about Gnosticism and have made
many attempts to put it into words. It has to do with the line drawn
between the spiritual and the material and how that line came to be
drawn in the first place. Here is one of my attempts. I wasn't
planning to release it, but since I have been accused of not being
nasty, nor inappropriate, you asked for it. Grrrr and all that! Rating
@ 100,000 Scoville Units!
What follows is my view of Gnostic system. I am sure you will disabuse
of any errors in my view of your system. The error to be transcended
is defined as the world we live, think, imagine, and experience in.
That means that we are part and parcel of the error. The truth to be
found is the other world, the spiritual world. Unless there were some
sort of bridge between the two, there would be no way of getting from
one to the other, much less an inkling of it. That bridge is defined
as an inner spark such that when we contact it we are in contact with
that other world. Without such a bridge, and the contact with it, the
system would not be self-consistent.
Basically, there is a posit of two separate worlds, one
incommensurable with the other, in which one of them is really fouled
up and the other not. This is to be determined as fact from the fouled
up world through an experience of the not fouled up world. Since those
two worlds are incommensurable one with the other, there needs be a
factor within the fouled up world to allow for an experience of the
not fouled up world. If that is taken metaphorically, it fits many
schemes of salvation through self-knowing, where the fouling-up factor
is self-ignorance, or an incorrect grasp of oneself as oneself, and
the error is revealed through experience. If it is not taken as
metaphor, where in fact there is a material world separate from a
spiritual world, that bridge, or inner spark, is a necessary item, and
the experience of that inner spark is necessary to reveal the fact of
the two incommensurable worlds. I do not see how it is possible for
one to be a Gnostic and not take that separation as gospel, and this
may be the flaw in my reasoning, but without that division, Gnosticism
would not be Gnosticism.
It is obviously possible to imagine another world, the spiritual
world, a world absolutely separate from the material world, and if we
are capable of imagining such a world we are also capable of imagining
a given experience as representing a bridge experience. If there were,
within the experiences capable of being experienced, a category of
self-referential experiences that were capable of being sensed as
experiences of a different nature, these self-referential experiences
could not only be capable of being interpreted as bridge experiences,
but could also engender the notion of having experienced another
world, fostering the imagining of an other world. In other words, any
experience taken as an experience of that inner spark is still open to
being taken as only taken that way; and if such a choice of takes is
possible, no certainty is possible in the matter.
My conclusion is that Gnosticism, for all its assertions to the
contrary, is a system that requires faith for any who adhere to it.
That faith being that the experiences that authenticate it are what
they seem to be. Given that the material world itself, the one we
inhabit, is placed within the system as not being what it seems to be,
an article of faith seems necessary to take any experience as a world