11132Re: "accepting one's lot"
- Jun 10, 2005--- In email@example.com, "gich morgan" <gich2@b...> wrote:
>Honestly, Gich, it is apparent that you haven't understood many of
> 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. :-)
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" willthat 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 accidentallyin error; an abomination.
> I don't personally believe any of this Gerry. I've just been tryingI know you're trying to produce models, and you're looking at the
> to produce models that help me make sense of gnosticism.
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 mannerto 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.
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
- << Previous post in topic