- --- In email@example.com, "annie" <annielu38@z...> wrote:
> Hi Maryother, between orthodox faith--blind and passive--to a faith that is
> My experience lies in coming from one end of the spectrum to the
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, andtherefore 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.
>when I think about how it could have easily been just the opposite,
> In that respect, for me, then grace describes the feeling I get
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
The acknowledgement of that freedom, in my view, is a sort of
Gnosis, and I'm convinced that the ancient Gnostics would agree with
>>>With this background and also having read Freke and Gandy's booksand 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 canbe 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 youwill "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
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.