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

12465Re: It's in our DNA

Expand Messages
  • bkimbell98
    Jun 11, 2006

      I agree that it is facinating to try to understand what the Gnostics
      of old thought - but understanding at the same time, that this was
      not a homgeneous group, by any stretch. I do think it's very
      curious that there were so many different groups of Christian
      communities in the first few hundred years with so many disparate
      views. There was much controversy. How could it be that Jesus left
      so many different impressions among his followers? Surely what he
      was teaching had a hidden meaning - some 'got it' or thought they
      did and others took his teachings literally, interpreting it as best
      they could... on and on throughout the millennia.

      My whole point is this - it can only be informed speculation on our
      part. Somewhere else in this website, someone made the comment that
      personal experience is also necessary - not just special knoweldge
      or understanding. That is the point I am trying to make (although
      not clearly, as you point out). The only thing about which we can
      be sure is our own personal experience. We can then interpret the
      books in that light.


      In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
      > Barbara
      > >>>What makes you think the ancient Gnostics had absoulte truth?
      > seems that if they had, they would have been the victors instead
      > the orthodox Christian group and the world would be an entirely
      > different place!<<<
      > It is not my intent to state whether the Gnostics HAD the absolute
      > truth. You misunderstand my point there, Barbara. My point is that
      > the Gnostics of old BELIEVED there is an absolute truth (even if
      > sometimes they admitted that they didn't completely have it, they
      > believed it was there all the same). How do I know they believed
      > that? Because they tell us over and over that it is core to the
      > function of thier system.
      > No one here can completely refute the notion of absolute
      > nor can they refute the notion of absolute truth. It is not my
      > or intent to convince you either way, I am not here to be a
      > spiritual guru. That is a question you have to answer for
      > and let others answer for themselves. Instead we are simply here
      > try and see how the Gnostics looked at the situation so that we
      > understand what they believed accurately before we either agree or
      > disagree with them. After that it is your own business. And heck,
      > the process of understanding them, they may even make us think
      > it and help us define our own thinking a bit better.... even if we
      > disagree with them.
      > Now, if you wish to talk about it on a more philosophical level,
      > then we need not even drag the Gnostics into it... but then we
      > wouldn't really be talking about the focus of this group (which is
      > Gnosticism). However, talking about it that way would require some
      > smoothing out of what appears to be some serious core
      > inconsistancies in your points (or at least the way you
      > those points). Not to say you are right or wrong, just that you
      > to be hopping over the fence and making points for both sides
      > without seeming to realize it. Or maybe you do realize and you are
      > just trying to confuse poor ol' befuddled minds like mine ;)
      > PMCV
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic