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

9767Re: Aeons?/ Lynette 2

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Jul 18, 2004
      Hey Lynette, you state.....

      "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."

      Sure, Lynette, all that is true of course.... however it is not the
      kind of misunderstanding I was talking about.

      "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."

      Well, of course Lynette, I think we understood your point and no one
      disagreed with it. The fact that some of us express caution
      concerning the methodology doesn't mean we disagree that there are
      similarities or even that the methodology is invalid. No one
      suggested you should not draw such comparisons, just that we should
      all be careful as we do so, which is not meant to imply that you are
      personally incautious in this department.

      You then continue....

      "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."

      Oh, of course not, Lynette. Once again, I mearly mean to point these
      things out so that we all know what page we are on

      "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."

      Gee, Lynette, where did you get the idea that anyone was offended, or
      that there was a stir here? Perhaps you are misreading the intent of
      some of the posts? At least I have not seen any kind of a stir
      here... but maybe it is I who missed it.

      "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."

      And they are perfecly fine questions you ask, Lynette, glad to hear
      they 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."

      Sure, there are all types of conversion I suppose. Of course, keep in
      mind that there are also philosohpies that include a notion that
      perhaps not all others are able to be a part of the group in
      question. For instance, consider a medieval craft guild that might
      disallow "conversion" by sombody it did not feel was up to the task
      of learning the secrets of the guild. Indeed, not all groups will
      even allow conversions, and that even applies to some religions.

      Also thought I would point out that according to Gnostics, the
      comprehension known as "Gnosis" is not an idea that originates with
      man, but instead is a remembering of divinity.

      "Some based upon truth, some based upon myth."

      Why can't myth be truth also?

      "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."

      Hmmmm, I was unaware there was any lack of understanding between us,
      until this post of yours in which you seem to express a feeling that
      there is. I believe perhaps you may have mistaken rhetorical points
      by me as personal ones in which you think I am implying a fault on
      your part.... and I believe you may have made the same assumptions
      concerning Gerry's and David's posts as well. Well, then let's lay
      that misconception aside. There is no offence that you have assailed
      us with, and neither has anyone implied to you there is.

      Also, it would not be logical to assume that just because I pick out
      a point from your post that I feel needs clarification that it means
      I did not understand the rest of your point. More on that subject
      with the next point I picked out ;)

      "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."

      Ah, that is one thing I am afraid we will probably all be unable to
      do for you, Lynette. You see, this group gets very detailed
      sometimes. Often the differences between the ideas of various groups
      in the subject we are studying can be profound, but also so subtle
      that they are easy to miss. For that reason, many of us here have
      become used to picking out those specific points for clarification,
      and the same thing happens in the discussion with others.

      Now, don't misunderstand me here... you are absolutely right that it
      would be wrong of me to take something you said out of context and
      then somehow twist the words to mean something else. If ever you
      think I have changed your meaning, please don't hesitate to correct
      me, it is never my intent. However, at this point I believe what you
      will find with a critical reading of my posts to you is that all I
      have really done with snippets of your posts is deal with specific
      points that I think brought out subjects for more conversation.

      In fact, if you step back for a moment and think about this, I think
      you will find that just as you are taking parts of posts people have
      made here and tried to focus the discussion to the parts that
      interest, confuse, inspire, or otherwise cause you to feel a need to
      deal with in greater depth in order to foster your curiousity of
      Gnosticism, I too am doing the same thing to your posts in order to
      better understand where you are coming from.

      Take, for instance, the place above in this post where I removed your
      statement "Some based upon truth, some based upon myth." from it's
      context and then make a quick observation of my own. You see, I
      simply did not feel that the rest of your point there needed any
      clarification but this statement could be critical for the
      implications it has on a wider conversation... and now you have the
      chance to give your perspective on that subject in greater detail for
      the edification or education of the rest of us as to what you think
      of that subject. Your words have not been twisted for the sake of any
      debate point, they have just caused in me a desire to have you add to
      your point. I notice something in your post that makes me want to
      express something, I may be curious to get you to further express
      your thoughts on it, or I may feel the need to express a need for
      caution in the conversation, or may feel the need to highlight what I
      feel was an excellent point that may be burried in other points, and
      so I cut and paste that part instead of your whole post.

      Once again though, if you ever feel that your words are being used
      unfairly, that is a different story... point it out and we will find
      a greater level of understanding.

    • Show all 4 messages in this topic