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

9763Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Aeons?/ Lynette 2

Expand Messages
  • Lynette
    Jul 18 10:31 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello PMCV,
       
      I certainly understand the "danger of misunderstanding". However, when it comes to online conversation, it happens all the time, as one cannot view body language and facial expressions, which are a vital part of communication. Also to mention the various meanings of words, phrases, and slang that also throw in confusion. Therefore, misunderstandings happen all the time, whether we walk on eggshells or not. I cannot be faulted, nor can you, when those misunderstandings happen. 
       
      I also understand your reference to glossing over similarities. And if I was attempting to teach a point in which the depth was important, and I was using a shallow comparison between two religions, then I would certainly be in error. But I am not a teacher, and the deeper meaning has not alluded me. My referring to the similarities between aeons and archeons and angels, and whatnot, was a simple reference, and as I stated in my reply to David and Gerry, those similarities also exist in buddhism and hinduism. To make a statement on the fly like I did, does not negate the deeper truths behind the myths.
       
      you said: Make referances to similarities all you wish, Lynette. Gnostics are
      not out to convert you, nor are they adverse to possible similarities
      (as long as they don't procede from false understandings). However,
      please, for the sake of the purpose of this group, don't do so
      without thought for learning HISTORICAL Gnostic meanings. This group
      is specifically meant to deal with traditional Gnosticism, let's not
      loose that since it is so rare a thing to find on the internet.
       
      I'm not at all opposed to the Historical gnostic meanings, nor any new ideas. But if this group is designed with the purpose of discussing Historical gnostic meanings, then that is fine. that is what I'll hear, but I cannot curb questions just because I'll be worried that it is out of context with this group. As I simply will not be aware that they are. Do you understand? That I do not in any way understand why my comment on angels and aeons and archeons have offended or caused such a stir.

      {you said}
      but whether you wish to truely understand it without
      trying to make it fit a preconcieved idea (Comparative mythology
       
       
      I did not come to this list with any preconceived idea of what gnosticism was, other than what I have already stated. Which was that it has a connection with Christianity with the Christ, and that I thought it was a religion. My questions have been asked to ascertain the general thought processes. Those questions were answered.
       
      My next comment would be in regards to "conversion", if you will. Technically there may not be a church to convert to, but there is a set of ideas. Those ideas are formed out of men's minds. There are all types of conversions, and a conversion of ideas is just as real as a conversion of religion.
       
      My point made that "no matter what I learn here will not change me in any way", was based, not upon some idea that you will attempt to convert me to gnosticism. But that the idea that surrounds us that we know something vital that has to be impressed upon someone that doesn't know it, is still a form of attempted conversion. And gnosticism, just as any other set of ideas on this planet, is just that, a set of ideas. Some based upon truth, some based upon myth. And my hope for being here, is to discover, whats truth and whats myth . That is for my own personal knowledge. And if I must refrain from making comparisons out loud, then I will. For your benefit, as I would not want to cause a shift in the planned format for this yahoogroups list.
       
      I would like to point out, PMCV, one personal thing though. Since your first reponse to my emails, you do like to take out bits and pieces of things I've said, without fully listening to the whole intent of the email. The first time, I didn't say anything, because misunderstandings happen. This time I will state it very clearly, my whole intention in any of my emails is very clear when you read it as a whole. If this had been done from the first, I think we would have clearly understood one another from the get go. 
       
      Please refrain from taking comments I make out of its full context in future posts, and I will make every effort to not make "off-handed" comparisons to the list.
       
      Thank you, PMCV.  
       
      Sincerely,
      Lynette
       
      "To find the solution is to discover there  is no problem."
       
       
      I think that is also something you would hear from anyone here.
      Gnostics don't care if you "convert", but I think that anyone here
      would be more concerned if you understand what they are REALLY trying
      to say. It is easy to simplyfy it to fit some post modernist idea of
      religion, but we all want to be understood on a deaper level I think,
      no matter what it is we express (unless we don't express anything
      deeper). You don't want to be misunderstood, and neither do I. I
      think the points made so far are not to ask whether you agree with
      Gnosticism, but whether you wish to truely understand it without
      trying to make it fit a preconcieved idea (Comparative mythology). I
      personally know that there are many here who outright disagree with
      Gnosticism, all I care is that they really want to understand it
      clearly.... just as you wish to be understood clearly.

      PMCV


    • Show all 4 messages in this topic