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

9755Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Aeons?/ Gerry

Expand Messages
  • Lynette
    Jul 17, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Out of curiousity, is that what you feel I am doing Gerry?
       
      Even knowing that nothing that I will learn here will change me in any way?
      If I was looking for some spiritual guidance, or a spiritual cure for some ailment, then perhaps what you said would apply to me.
       
      But, I'm still curious if you feel that I'm whitewashing or perhaps taking it all too lightly? Perhaps if you knew me better you would understand how I came to be here asking you'all questions at all? If you like, I can go into some of that?
       
      Anyways, I know why people take their spirituality serious, but I sure don't want to be misunderstood here.
      Sincerely,
      Lynette
       
      "To find the solution is to discover there  is no problem."
       
       

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, David Gallardo <david@g...> wrote:
      > It's always dangerous to make comparisons between religions, since
      > polarity often changes, but I believe the Gnostic demiurge
      > corresponds to the Judeo/Christian biblical God. If I'm not
      > mistaken, that's the main reason Gnosticism is considered heretical
      > by Christian theologians...
      >
      > @D



      Thanks for reiterating that admonition, David.  That's what I had in
      mind when I said several days ago how ill-advised it is to simply
      substitute terminology between Gnostic and orthodox systems. 
      Whitewashing demiurgic beliefs does nothing to repair any rotten wood
      underneath, and putting our faith in one god rather than another does
      nothing to facilitate the personally transformative process of
      gnosis.  What strikes me as especially odd is how easy it often is to
      distance oneself from a literal interpretation of orthodox beliefs by
      jumping headlong into an exceptionally literal view of Gnostic
      concepts.  Between the two, it's almost as if the approaches are
      reversed from what one might expect.  I can even see evidence of
      those trends in my own perspective when I was first introduced to
      Gnosticism.  Very strange.

      Anyway, I almost think that Stephan Hoeller barely scratched the
      surface when he said in his preface to _Gnosticism_, "The subject is
      not one that lends itself to an all too elementary treatment; rather,
      it requires a certain subtlety of thinking and a proclivity for an
      intuitive perception."

      Indeed.  It's not at all something to be entered into lightly——by
      superficially putting a novel spin on established concepts.  That
      just gives us new wine in an aged wineskin.

      Gerry





    • Show all 4 messages in this topic