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

6465Re: Hi Flag

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    Aug 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:

      > I guess my question is this (for any and all who would care to
      > answer): How do I upgrade my small g to a Big G?

      Willy, I might also ask what constitutes a "Big G." We do know that
      ("Big G") Gnosticism was a modern term coined to identify a
      Judeo/Hellenic syncretistic phenomenon in a fluid milieu of the late
      antiquities. Many members of various sects didn't even refer to
      themselves as "Gnostic." For instance, if their theology involved a
      Christology, they might have just called themselves "Christians."
      Ah, so we see how many winding paths that particular label has
      traveled. Even though I am not fond of labels, they are necessary at
      times. Calling myself a Gnostic basically means that I feel
      simpatico with the worldview of many so-called Gnostics of the past
      even though Ernst would assuredly remind me of differentiating
      between etic and emic viewpoints. ;-)

      >Do I have to accept
      > the points I reject as gospel?

      No, of course not. Hoeller has just outlined a guideline. Defining
      what is "Gnostic" is of continuing interest to scholars and laypeople
      alike. There is no "gospel truth" or rigid dogma such as found in
      orthodoxy, but OTOH Gnosis doesn't operate in a vacuum. This is not
      a historical phenomenon of "anything goes." That is what is
      particularly appealing to me personally. Most people accept
      that "Big G" Gnostic sects of the late antiquities had a soteriology
      that involves Gnosis. IOW, Gnosis ("Big G") finds its context within
      Gnosticism. And exploring historical Gnosticism (and related trends)
      and its modern-day relevance and applications is what we like to do
      in this group. We all have some strong opinions to be sure, but we
      realize that this is an esoteric, inner, intuitive individual journey
      even within the context of Gnosticism, a path that also requires
      critical thinking, but not an outside, authoritative doctrine
      of "gospel" laws and superimposed "beliefs" of others that should be
      blindly accepted.

      Klaus Schilling (Post #6463) has made a list of Gnostics who didn't
      support all 12 points from Hoeller's article. Does that make them
      wrong or not Gnostic? Not necessarily. However, there might be
      others who might not agree with Klaus' evaluation, let alone the
      groups he includes in his list. For instance, many scholars and
      laypersons alike don't agree that Marcion was Gnostic. He appears in
      Klaus' list as not agreeing with several points, a few that you in
      fact do find to be agreeable, Will. Yes, he lived within the time
      period in question. Yes, he shared a similar cosmology with other
      groups. But, there remains a question as to whether he accepted the
      function of Gnosis in his soteriology.

      >What intrigued me about the "Lost
      > Sheep" sight was the layout of the myth itself. Am I to take the
      > at face value or is it only allegory? If I take the myth at face
      > value, must I not take the Judeo-Christian God at face value,
      > not as they take it?

      Well, first of all, this sermon you provided should not be fully
      accepted at face value or allegorically due to inaccuracies and
      superficial treatment by the author. There is in fact not just one
      Gnostic myth. To be sure, some might believe in a literal Demiurge;
      however, in contrast to a modern tendency to literalize mythology, I
      would suggest that Gnostic myth is mostly viewed as allegorical. As
      you read further about Gnosticism and delve into some actual
      scripture, you will see the necessity to try to set aside
      preconceptions regarding particular vocabulary, etc. (such as
      the "good," "evil" discussion we've been having).

      >To return to the above quote about Jung, and my
      > enquiry boils down to this question: What distinguishes
      > "interpolation" from "appropriation," and why isn't #10
      > itself? Of course, the list itself could be suspect, in which case,
      > am not lower case gnostic at all. I come in peace! ----willy

      Hmmm, so, Will, is Gnosticism merely a form of depth psychology? Or
      something different? :-)

    • Show all 22 messages in this topic