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

11132Re: "accepting one's lot"

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    Jun 10, 2005
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I need you to help me here Gerry. The word "error" crops up all
      > over the place in Harris, but I don't recall reading of it as
      > a "concept" in itself. Could you please enlarge on your comments as
      > I don't understand the point your making. :-)


      Honestly, Gich, it is apparent that you haven't understood many of
      the points made since you got here. What is truly tragic about the
      whole thing is that your understanding of Gnosticism actually seems
      to have declined over recent months.

      If you understand the concept of the word "error," then you have a
      point of reference by which you might attempt to understand why the
      Gnostics might have depicted their creation myths in this way. You
      could say that it was the "opposite" of how the same story was
      portrayed by the orthodox. The latter maintained that God's creation
      was perfect from the start and that Man screwed it up, but the
      Gnostics posited that the physical creation was NOT the result
      of "God's" will——that it was, in fact, a mistake.

      Perhaps you can see how different these things are:

      • something done purposely and intentionally; a Divine plan.
      • something done accidentally——in error; an abomination.


      > I don't personally believe any of this Gerry. I've just been trying
      > to produce models that help me make sense of gnosticism.
      >
      > Gich



      I know you're trying to produce models, and you're looking at the
      entire phenomenon quite concretely while you do so. BTW, that is not
      a compliment. Of course, neither is it an attack; it is merely an
      observation of your tendencies to pick apart details in an extremely
      obsessive manner——to the point that you often miss the bigger picture.

      If you were able to step back far enough to actually see the subject
      of your focus, you might realize that there is probably a reason that
      those early Gnostics chose to represent the Creation story in the way
      that they did. If they believed that God had a purpose for Man and a
      place for us in this ostensibly perfect world (again, the belief of
      the orthodox already), then why would they have been at odds with
      those mainstream believers in the first place? Why create a story
      antithetical to theirs?

      While you may think you're trying to construct a model of Gnosticism,
      you are actually composing something that is at odds with the very
      system you are striving to represent.

      Gerry

      BTW, I'm well aware that you claim not to be an orthodox Christian,
      Gich. I heard you very plainly when you commented early on that you
      did NOT have a background in that tradition. And yet, you DO seem to
      have a propensity for viewing this material through the same
      mindset. Again, just an observation, but one that may have meaning
      to some.
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic