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

12470Re: It's in our DNA

Expand Messages
  • imdarkchylde
    Jun 11, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hey Darkchylde
      >
      > >>>When I am working with a horse I know the horse technically
      > doesn't do wrong- he (or she) is acting on instinct and impulse and
      > I inadvertantly triggered a response that is detrimental to the
      > training process. WHereas the horse would not be considered wrong,
      > I, as the human, being more enlightened and I AM
      > the one bothering him in the first place (they don't come in my
      > living room and run me off the couch on a whim to go for a run)I can
      > be wrong in that I would give into frustration and anger and
      > aggression and abuse an animal that wouldn't be doing anything but
      > grazing if it wasn't for me anyway.<<<
      >
      > I like that picture you paint. It allows for openness towards
      > other's beliefs without stating that we must throw out critical
      > perspective in the mix.
      >
      > >>>So much to reply to. I do not see it as an attack (although it
      > seems my opinion might have been taken as one.)<<<
      >
      > Don't worry, Darkchylde, most of us in this group actually respect
      > and enjoy a little bit of a friendly challenge ;) . Honestly, you
      > don't need to apologize. We test ideas and debate as friends here.
      > Not everyone is able to do that, and when they find this to be a
      > threat they write us off as "silly academics". You are welcome to
      > question my ideas, but expect me to question in return. Keep in
      mind
      > that this should always be brought back to the subject at hand....
      > not just our personal views (that rule applies to me as well).
      >
      > >>>As a gnostic I avoid anything that smacks of domination, and I
      > believe the only absolute truth is that we are all in this
      > together.<<<
      >
      > Very understandable, though I would question whether it is
      > indicative of being a Gnostic. Of course, the Gnostic was a rebel
      > against temporal authority, Yaldebaoth and maybe even the Roman
      > occupation, but on the other hand the Gnostic also believed in a
      > rightful cosmic order. Personally, I probably still have some of
      > that punk rock anarchism in me from my youth, but it would not be
      > right of me to foist that on to historical Gnostic thinking.
      >
      > >>>Have a problem with dissention? Quite the contrary, my point is
      > that we cannot judge anothers beliefs to be wrong. That hardly
      > sounds like there is no room for dissention. And I do believe(this
      > doesn't make it truth, albeit MY truth) that enlightment will not
      > come if there is not a tolerance for ALL beliefs and faiths.<<<
      >
      > I can certainly sympathize, but I am not so sure the Gnostics
      would.
      > Think about it another way, Yaldebaoth can be seen as an allegory
      > for the those very religions you say we should respect (and I
      > generally feel ambivalent for). In fact, that is actually partly
      > what his function is. It becomes very clear in the Gospel of Judas
      > that the Demiurge is intended as an attack on religious faith. This
      > is not what we can call tolerance of all beliefs and faiths, but
      > just the opposite... it is a rejection of blind faith and poorly
      > thought beliefs.
      >
      > Now, I am not saying the Gnostics must be right about this. Once
      > again, that is for people figure out on their own. What I AM saying
      > is that no one can say that the Gnostics were particularly
      > relativist.
      >
      > >>>I can only speak from my person experience, but I have searched
      > many faiths, and even put my name to a few of them, and my present
      > evolution has led me to gnostism.<<<
      >
      > I'm sure nearly everyone here can sympathise with the growth
      process.
      >
      > >>>And I might point out gnosis means knowledge, and that can take
      > many forms and have many names but you will know it to
      > be the truth when you FEEL it, as I do.<<<
      >
      > Well, actually that isn't really an accurate meaning for the
      > word "Gnosis" as the Gnostics used it. This is a subject this forum
      > does tend to revisit pretty often.
      >
      > >>>Christ never told anyone they were wrong, yet he imparted a
      > belief that I believe brought people around because of that fact.<<<
      >
      > I guess that depends on who's version we are reading. ;) In the
      > Bible the "Christ" is quite direct in calling people hypocrites,
      > etc.. However, we don't have to take the Bible seriously here if we
      > don't want. There is no assumption of scriptural validity here.
      >
      > >>>Perhaps you miss the point with so much polartization and
      > judgement on what is "wrong" and what is "right". I do not even
      > believe that you are wrong for casting judgement.<<<
      >
      > I didn't cast any judgement, Darkchylde. I am simply trying to
      > present a historically acurate understanding of the Gnostic belief
      > system so people can think and talk about about them in an informed
      > way. Please don't assume that I am some kind of missionary for that
      > position.
      >
      > >>>But I will remind that to dominate, to make oneslef superior for
      > what is believed or not is the very urges I seek to eliminate on my
      > effort to expand the Christ consciouness within me.<<<
      >
      > No one is trying to dominate here, Darkchylde. This forum deals
      with
      > historical forms of Gnosticism, and all we want to do is make sure
      > that it is understood.... not agreed with.
      >
      > >>>>I was unaware that Gnosis meant "right" anything. I was under
      the
      > impression it meant knowledge and didn't make such constrictive and
      > human confines on ideas that extend beyond the physical realm.<<<
      >
      > Like I mentioned above, we do try to stick with the historical
      > Gnostic meaning of the word "Gnosis" in this group.... for the sake
      > of communication. I think you will find that Gnostic ideas were
      very
      > open in many ways that many people find very interesting today, but
      > maybe not in the ways that many would LIKE them to be open.
      >
      > >>>Uncritical acceptance is not what I have for the traditions of
      > others, but rather a healthy respect and the true spirit of
      > compassion and acceptance for anyone - which cannot exist in my
      heart
      > while I harbor judgemnt and critism.<<<<
      >
      > Respect and tolerence is not the same as agreement. Glad you
      pointed
      > that out.
      >
      > >>>And to think that I excuse all behavior because I refuse to
      think
      > another is wrong shows you have made judgments on my rationallizing
      > that are incomplete, as you do not know me very well.<<<
      >
      > Hmmmmm, maybe you are right. However, on what grounds do you NOT
      > excuse a behavior? How can you say something is not ok if you can't
      > say it is wrong? What is the arbitrary difference you assign?
      >
      > >>>If as a gnostic I seek to elimiate cosmic ignorance then I would
      > do well to steer away from judgements or condemnations. My heart,
      > which I have learned to listen to, tells me that my head is
      right.<<<
      >
      > You needn't defend your heart here (the head may be something a bit
      > more testable), thit is your own. Honestly, it simply isn't the
      > point of this forum. What we are talking about is Gnosticism.
      >
      > >>>I do find it much more interesting with different points of view.
      > After all, aren't we just individual flames of a larger fire?<<<
      >
      > I find various views interesting as well. After all, without the
      > challenge I would not have been able to test my own views.
      Sometimes
      > I have been wrong (yes, I can say "wrong"), but I think the trick
      > has been to accept that with humility rather than saying nobody can
      > be wrong therefore I must be right (Thanks Mike.... I think *lol*).
      >
      > PMCV
      >




      First I would like to respond to our earlier exchange where the
      statement was made about why to get into gnostism. Well, I didn't
      get into it for entertainment but I didn't get into it so I could be
      right and everyone else be wrong. I could have stuck with most
      orthodox beliefs had that been my motivation. I also feel that since
      my beliefs are considered heresy by many in mainstream Christianity,
      that to be intolerate towards another's beliefs is to go against one
      of the main attractions that gnostism had for me, which is the
      freedom to interpret as I wish. And do not get hung up on the fact
      that I do not see a difference in what is good and what is evil. But
      to judge and condemn and critize, reguardless of justification, would
      I think expose one's cosmic ignorance, and align one to dark forces.
      You made an excellent point about Yeshua pointing out to the
      Pharisees and their hypocrisy, or his reaction to the temple
      merchants. Still, this showed thier ignorance, and Christ didn't
      tell the woman caught in adultry she was wrong. He also never told
      anyone that they were wrong that I could find, and he kept a careful
      balance of severity and mercy, the Middle Pillar concept of the
      Kabala if you will, and rather than telling people they were wrong he
      told them how to be right. As far as historical accuracy goes, we
      seem to rewrite history on a daily basis as new evidence come to
      light so I would warn against being to ridgid in what is believed to
      be accurate, because what is seen as historically accurate now may be
      seen to be inaccurate in the light of some future evidence. I
      believe the gnostic perspective to be a bit more far reaching, even
      with the ancients, as there were many factions then with differing
      views and opinions that perhaps didn't jive on one plae but when all
      are boiled down they come to the some conclusions. I am a Valentinian
      myself, but there is much diversity out there and I for one
      wholeheartedly embrace that. And I do not defend my heart or head,
      and as you pointed out the forum is on Gnostism and my heart and my
      head are gnostic so I believe I can include them in my discussion.
      You ask how I can say something is not okay if I can't say it is
      wrong. I do feel there are many things that are not "okay", such as
      killing, domination, and the like but I assign no difference,
      arbitrary or otherwise, that would make me jugde another because they
      do not think as I do. The Cathars were quite tolerant and were wiped
      out by a dominating presence that was not tolerant. When you truly
      are superior in your thinking, then like Christ you won't need to
      feel as you are superior and you would not communicate this
      superiority to others. The need to feel superior dissentegrates when
      your reasoning rises above it. Perhaps there are others who have
      differnet ideas on what should be expressed in this forum. And what
      you consider to be historically accurate might not be considered
      historically accurate and it not be, hmm, wrong.

      Love and peas
      Darkchylde
    • Show all 27 messages in this topic