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

6466Re: Hi Flag

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    Aug 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Actually, as a footnote, Will, when "gnosticism" was coined, there
      was originally no "Big G" vs. "small g." Again, that has seemed to
      be a later development as an attempt to differentiate between
      historical gnosticism and a modern usage of the word to identify
      modern trends not specific to historical gnosticism.

      --- In gnosticism2@y..., lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > --- 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
      > ("Big G") Gnosticism was a modern term coined to identify a
      > Judeo/Hellenic syncretistic phenomenon in a fluid milieu of the
      > antiquities. Many members of various sects didn't even refer to
      > themselves as "Gnostic." For instance, if their theology involved
      > 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
      > 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.
      > what is "Gnostic" is of continuing interest to scholars and
      > 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
      > 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
      > that involves Gnosis. IOW, Gnosis ("Big G") finds its context
      > Gnosticism. And exploring historical Gnosticism (and related
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > myth
      > > 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,
      > albeit
      > > 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
      > however, in contrast to a modern tendency to literalize mythology,
      > would suggest that Gnostic myth is mostly viewed as allegorical.
      > 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
      > appropriation
      > > itself? Of course, the list itself could be suspect, in which
      > I
      > > am not lower case gnostic at all. I come in peace! ----willy
      > Hmmm, so, Will, is Gnosticism merely a form of depth psychology?
      > something different? :-)
      > Cari
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic