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

Re: Salvation

Expand Messages
  • pneumen_borealis
    ... other, between orthodox faith--blind and passive--to a faith that is more active and knowing. At least that s the way I perceive the difference. In
    Message 1 of 83 , Aug 28, 2004
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "annie" <annielu38@z...> wrote:
      > Hi Mary
      > My experience lies in coming from one end of the spectrum to the
      other, between orthodox faith--blind and passive--to a faith that is
      more active and knowing. At least that's the way I perceive the
      difference. In orthodoxy we are not encouraged to know or truly
      understand anything past what we are told, and any alternative
      interpretations or questions are seen as radical dissension, maybe
      not formally, but that attitude is a defining characteristic of it.

      There are many, many traditional Catholic orders that seek to know
      God directly. They also seek a mystical union. They does tend to be
      a tension between these orders and the Hierarchy, but they were
      always tolerated to varying degrees.

      "I don't think it's an issue of it being 'too easy'; at least not
      for the congregation, rather it is for the benefit of the heads of
      the church and ultimately the state, for controlling people in more
      of a political sense than a spiritual guidance."

      True. It's very easy to see when that is the case. Among traditional
      communities, though, religion can be more of a habit than anything
      else. It seems more a benign function of bland habit as opposed to
      direct political control.

      > Gnostic salvation is a threat to this controlling factor, and
      therefore is seen as a sinful view, by those who lead the orthodox
      believers, in that we might dare to seek to know that which we
      believe. If we believe in our own ability to understand what our
      Creator tells us, then we have no need for the control disguised as
      guidance that we receive from the church, often accompanied by some
      good stout guilt complex now and then. This view is what's behind
      the shocked response of 'heretic!' that you'd get if you walked up
      to Joe Christian on the street and said 'Jesus didn't save us with
      his death, he saved us with his life. It's an understanding of
      one's salvation that brings salvation, instead of blood shed.'

      I'm proud to be a heretic! I cannot see how any Christian (or anyone
      else for that matter) would NOT want to be one in this day and age.
      I was actually raised in a whole society of lapsed Catholics who
      wore it as a badge of honor.

      I don't think Gnosticism is a threat to anything these days.
      Gnosticism is actually rather conservative by todays standards. The
      real threats to public order are actually more fundamentalist and
      secular in origin.

      > In that respect, for me, then grace describes the feeling I get
      when I think about how it could have easily been just the opposite,
      and that I could have never felt enlightened of myself, and without
      the insecurities that can easily torment one's self when they are
      uncertain about the aspects of their physical mortality. I feel
      fortunate that I am somehow me, and I realize I am more blessed in
      not being trapped within my ego and it's fears, because the prison
      of now is not going to always be. Freedom is the same as grace, in
      my mind.

      The acknowledgement of that freedom, in my view, is a sort of
      Gnosis, and I'm convinced that the ancient Gnostics would agree with
    • pmcvflag
      Aleada ... and Elaine Pagels, Gnostic Gospel but mostly from experiencing personal Gnosis which I m sorry to say is being separated from this discussion or
      Message 83 of 83 , Jul 1, 2006

        >>>With this background and also having read Freke and Gandy's books
        and Elaine Pagels, Gnostic Gospel but mostly from experiencing
        personal Gnosis which I'm sorry to say is being separated from this
        discussion or seems to be discounted.<<<

        It isn't that your personal definition of the word "Gnosis" is
        discounted here, just that it isn't the definition of the
        word "Gnosis" that this forum uses.

        >>>Freke and Gandy explain the experience of Gnosis as more than can
        be written, it must be experienced, it is that knowledge or knowing
        beyond intellect that cannot contain the totality to Gnosis.<<<

        Freke and Gandy also claim that this definition of the word "Gnosis"
        is the one used by the traditional Gnostics... but I should point
        out that Freke and Gandy are mistaken. We are a bit more technical

        >>>You are all so intelligent but you miss the mark if you think you
        will "get it" from all your books and reading, get quiet and get in
        touch with the God with in and you may start to have Gnosis.<<<

        You misunderstand, Aleada, no body suggested that your idea
        of "Gnosis" is something that would be found in a book, but you need
        to also understand the historical meaning of the word "Gnosis" and
        not only the modern definition you get from people like Freke and

        >>>>Whatever the culture it's all the same God or Great Spirit,
        whatever; the experience of Gnosis is the same, look at the mystics
        and refer to Barbara's experience and you will see what it is to
        have Gnosis.<<<

        No, that is what it means to have a mystical experience..... not
        Gnosis. They are not the same thing.

        Why do you feel that we must use your definition of the
        word "Gnosis" rather than the one this forum was designed to deal
        with? It isn't that I disagree with the importance of the experience
        you are talking about, it is just that we don't call that
        experience "Gnosis" here.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.