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

7404Re: Nag Hammadi codexes

Expand Messages
  • incognito_lightbringer
    Apr 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      <<To verbalize understanding of the difference in one message, and
      elsewhere ask what is a creator if not a creator,>>

      Where did I ask *what is a creator if not a creator*? Post # please

      << I sought to point out that as black is not white, neither might a
      mainstream definition be appropriately applied in a Gnostic context.
      >>
      <<To some extent, we all have such baggage, but all of us aren't
      zealously defending faith >>

      Gerry, what's wrong with the above you just wrote?

      <<Yes, they CAN be "separate" without there being any animosity
      between them.>>

      The human body functions as one body.
      Is gnosis "salvatory" in that it's something that leads/helps towards
      salvation, or is it the state of salvation itself, like Buddhist
      enlightenment?


      PS It really is a good idea to reread the posts in this particular
      thread in one go. I've just did that specifically because Carrie
      asked me a question and I was trying to recreate the train of thought
      and discussion to answer her, and noticed a few things I didn't
      address or didn't respond to correctly, and am working on some kind
      of reply to you and Carrie. But the board had been down when I tried
      to access it this weekend it's taking awhile.



      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Reply to Incognito's post #7373:
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > In making some clarifications for you, let me start with my earlier
      assertion:
      >
      >
      >
      > The Gnostic outlook IS heterodox, and varied within itself, as
      you've pointed out, but it is NOT Orthodox. [Gerry, #7369]
      >
      >
      >
      > As soon as Mike responded to that one, giving me a second chance to
      see my comments, I realized how poorly I had articulated that
      thought. Even within the context of our discussions, "orthodox" can
      have a generic meaning (straight- or right-thinking), or a specific
      one (such as referring to the conventional, Pistic religion as
      characterized by its dogma). In that particular instance, I intended
      to emphasize the Gnostic outlook's dissimilarity to conventional
      Christianity. I think there would have been agreement either way,
      but I wanted to be clear.
      >
      >
      >
      > Per your recent comments, it looks like we've been disagreeing over
      the articulation of many points upon which we actually agree.
      >
      >
      >
      > >>We can very well say things are gray, and the gnostic outlook is
      heterodox, but the exploration helps define those differences.<<
      >
      >
      >
      > Pardon me for not bothering to look back in the previous posts (I'm
      too pressed for time), but the only reason I mentioned the "varied"
      beliefs was that I honestly thought you had said something along
      those lines, and was trying to agree with you. In the black, white
      and gray comment, however, the gray wasn't mean to afford some wiggle
      room on middle-ground, but to demonstrate that black and white are,
      in fact, distinct-NOT blurred. I sought to point out that as black
      is not white, neither might a mainstream definition be appropriately
      applied in a Gnostic context.
      >
      >
      >
      > >>If sin isn't sin and faith isn't faith and creator isn't creator,
      than what is it?<<
      >
      >
      >
      > Guess I goofed again. By including "damnation" (which you seemed
      to notice was out of place) in that string of redundancy, I was
      trying to show that if the mainstream definitions were the only ones
      available, then those groups sheltered under the umbrella of
      Gnosticism would be no different from the conventional orthodoxy.
      Are these differences not what we've been pointing out during this
      discussion of "faith"?
      >
      >
      >
      > Pistic Christian:
      >
      > Sin = transgression; we're born with it, and can't escape it
      without someone else dying for us.
      >
      > Creator = Loving, Supreme God, paradoxically also a jealous and
      selective god, but who cares-at least WE're saved if we but believe
      in Him.
      >
      >
      >
      > Gnostic:
      >
      > Sin = ignorance of our divine origin; a state akin to drunkenness
      from which we can be made sober.
      >
      > Creator = that which fashioned the physical world, imprisoning
      spirit in matter; not the true representation of the Divine.
      >
      >
      >
      > As I said before, I see clear differences there. I can tell you're
      aware of them, too, when I see you make statements like this:
      >
      >
      >
      > >>Gnostics have a flawed Creator which is a big difference from
      most
      > Pistic religions.<< [#7366]
      >
      >
      >
      > This is where you confound me, though. To verbalize understanding
      of the difference in one message, and elsewhere ask what is a creator
      if not a creator, I think it gives people the impression that the
      definitions you occasionally bring to the table are leftovers from
      your non-Gnostic upbringing. To some extent, we all have such
      baggage, but all of us aren't zealously defending faith (not, BTW,
      because we don't give a damn if it gets pissed on, but because we
      genuinely don't see it as under attack in the first place).
      >
      >
      >
      > >>There's debate between scholars on the definition of gnosis and
      what it includes. If gnosis includes pistis and sophia than it's not
      separate from faith.<< [#7366]
      >
      >
      >
      > I'm not sure if this calls for an analogy of flowers or birds, so
      I'll improvise. My physical body includes a heart, circulatory
      system and the production of red corpuscles. While there are
      certainly relationships between these four, not one of those is the
      same as the other. Yes, they CAN be "separate" without there being
      any animosity between them.
      >
      >
      >
      > Gerry
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic