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

A question

Expand Messages
  • ignisapocryphon
    On the Demiurge... Is the demiurge a construct of the human mind as Jehovah , or is it a real metaphysical transcendent being? Also... I d like some feedback
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On the Demiurge...

      Is the demiurge a construct of the human mind as "Jehovah", or is it
      a
      real metaphysical transcendent being?

      Also...

      I'd like some feedback on archetypes and metaphysics... How is God
      viewed? As a transcendent, metaphysical being? Or an archetype? Or
      both? I've always thought that the metaphysical realm and the
      archetypal (sp?) realm coincide with each other to produce mystic
      experiences. (Can there be more than one "gnosis"?) Thoughts and
      comments are greatly appreciated.

      I'm going for the Valentinian POV if anyone wants to know.

      I know that's a mouthfull, but still.

      Also, while I'm at it, I might as well say that the Gnostic community
      is one I plan to stay with. I've seen that it is very, VERY friendly
      and open to new-comers. I've also seen the oppression we face by
      other
      Christians and non-Christians. I'm very proud to say I'm a Gnostic
      Christian and I hope to learn much and maybe have a mystic experience
      myself soon. It's been a great joy of mine to understand just what
      communication with and interaction with The Divine is all about...
      The
      Gnostics take it back to it's roots, when time with God was holy and
      unadulterated, no sound or anything... Wow, it's just overwhelming to
      even talk about. Anywho, I'm sure you guys are tired of me being a
      postwhore...

      Comments are appreciated. :D

      Christ is holy,
      IgnisApocryphOn
    • pmcvflag
      Hey IgnisApocryphon. In addition to Lady Cari s answer to you in post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/10084 I wanted to bring tis together
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey IgnisApocryphon.

        In addition to Lady Cari's answer to you in post
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/10084 I wanted to
        bring tis together with the conversation between Mike and Annie.

        Mike states to Annie

        >>>"Thank-you Marcion (sorry, couldn't resist). :-) Good point,
        BTW."<<<

        Whether or not Mike intended this (I assume he is aware of it) it
        does seem to be relavant to the post that Annie writes on a few
        levels. Annie wrote...

        >>>"Just my opinion, however. If you read the bible, next time you
        do, for an experiment, read it with the frame of mind that the OT
        YHVH and the NT "Father" are two different dieties."<<<

        You see, IgnisApocryphon, Marcion proposed a cosmological system that
        is essentially identical to what we find in Gnosticism, with the
        Demiurge, etc.. In fact, it is common for people to come to the club
        here and assume Marcion WAS Gnostic, based simply on the fact that
        his cosmology was the same. Care to guess why Marcion would not be
        considered "Gnostic"?

        It works like this; Marcion, unlike Gnostics, believed that salvation
        was gained by faith in the actual literal validity of his system (at
        least that is how it looks in the things we read from the
        heresiologists). The Gnostic model is not dependant on a literal
        belief of the cosmology. SOme may have believed it literally, others
        may not have.... but the Gnostic writings themselves make fairly
        clear that what is important is the underlying MEANING of the texts.

        We know this from many sources. First, as you can see from the
        passages that Cari gave you, Gnostics understood the problem of
        language in communicating these kinds of ideas... and is many
        passages they even tell us more specifically that the meanings are
        hidden. Two, the heresiologists tell us this about the Gnostics. Of
        course, we can't always believe this source but in this case it is
        held up by the evidence. Three, the very structure of many Gnostic
        sects, in which we know that part of the initiatory process was to
        learn the hidden meanings of the texts that other Christians took to
        be literal, makes very clear that part of the very essence of gaining
        Gnosis was about comming to understand these meanings.

        Now, let me be specific about something here. There has been a lot of
        talk here lately that seems to place Gnosticism in some sort
        of "Spiritual Anarchist" camp of free interperatation without any
        church structure. Historically, this is simply not true. It DOES seem
        to be true that Gnostic sects sometimes participated in a sort of
        creative interperative session, but this was still done under
        guidance and was done with the intent of adding richness to the
        intended goal (maybe something like modern music teachers do with
        thier classes when trying to drive home a principle of a specific
        point in music theory... there is creativity but there is ALSO a
        point that is not so individual).

        Gnostics do have some specific beliefs that make the term "Gnostic"
        possible, and one set of those is the cosmology you mention, while
        the other is how that cosmology relates to an internal struggle.

        I hope that helps more than it confuses :)

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "ignisapocryphon" <jstatom@o...>
        wrote:
        > On the Demiurge...
        >
        > Is the demiurge a construct of the human mind as "Jehovah", or is it
        > a
        > real metaphysical transcendent being?
        >
        > Also...
        >
        > I'd like some feedback on archetypes and metaphysics... How is God
        > viewed? As a transcendent, metaphysical being? Or an archetype? Or
        > both? I've always thought that the metaphysical realm and the
        > archetypal (sp?) realm coincide with each other to produce mystic
        > experiences. (Can there be more than one "gnosis"?) Thoughts and
        > comments are greatly appreciated.
        >
        > I'm going for the Valentinian POV if anyone wants to know.
        >
        > I know that's a mouthfull, but still.
        >
        > Also, while I'm at it, I might as well say that the Gnostic
        community
        > is one I plan to stay with. I've seen that it is very, VERY
        friendly
        > and open to new-comers. I've also seen the oppression we face by
        > other
        > Christians and non-Christians. I'm very proud to say I'm a Gnostic
        > Christian and I hope to learn much and maybe have a mystic
        experience
        > myself soon. It's been a great joy of mine to understand just what
        > communication with and interaction with The Divine is all about...
        > The
        > Gnostics take it back to it's roots, when time with God was holy
        and
        > unadulterated, no sound or anything... Wow, it's just overwhelming
        to
        > even talk about. Anywho, I'm sure you guys are tired of me being a
        > postwhore...
        >
        > Comments are appreciated. :D
        >
        > Christ is holy,
        > IgnisApocryphOn
      • annie
        I do understand what you are saying, and there s a middle ground I find between totally being psychic or going all the way in Jung s direction of the opposite
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 31, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I do understand what you are saying, and there's a middle ground I find between totally being psychic or going all the way in Jung's direction of the opposite (what is that?  I want to say intellectualize it, or is that not the right term?)
          I think the bible is most useful, if it's read as if it were 'a parable of parables'. Even the all the details of Jesus's life in the gospels can be used as a symbol, and the numerology and astrology in the bible are the keys to the 'real' bible code.  The OT is useful, too, if given that treatment.  I never got so much out of the bible, until I quit taking it seriously!!!
          David and Saul are an allegory of Jesus and Satan, with Jonathan perhaps representing YHVH.  David reigned 71/2 years, then 40 as king of All Isreal, was born in bethlehem and died in jerusalem, was a sheep herder, killed a giant with 5 stones, and played the harp.  Bethsheba and Uriah are more of the gnostic theme of Sophia and the Jewish, or orthodox faith being the husband david had killed to have her.  She was given the 'aura' of a whorish or unfaithful wife, even if not directly.
          I see the 'church' of the NT, the bride, as being first the virgin, then the unfaithful wife progressing to prostitute, who at last returns to wear the white garment of pure redemption which was heroically acquired by the bridegroom, which would be the christ spirit.  But the one last thing she gets to do before beginning anew her life as the queen of heaven is to 'clothe herself in witless' wrath and correct the defect which resulted in the creation of matter, and so what should have never come about is now like it has never been, justified karmic account balancing on a higher level!  Of course, I actually don't believe that all that we've been is all a tragic and extinct mistake, it goes one further for me as being necessary for chaos to rise from the shadow of the light in order to be conquered by that light, in an endless sequence, and it's conceivable that each vast time span, such as the solar systems' life time, from beginning to halfway, is G-d exhalation, and then the second half is the inhalation.
          I know that I was probably digressing.  But that's the way I read the bible for real benefit.
          So what conceptions are found for salvation within the truest types of gnosticism, with respect to what you posted below?
          love from annie
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: pmcvflag
          Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 9:42 PM
          Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: A question

          Hey IgnisApocryphon.

          In addition to Lady Cari's answer to you in post
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/10084 I wanted to
          bring tis together with the conversation between Mike and Annie.

          Mike states to Annie

          >>>"Thank-you Marcion (sorry, couldn't resist). :-) Good point,
          BTW."<<<

          Whether or not Mike intended this (I assume he is aware of it) it
          does seem to be relavant to the post that Annie writes on a few
          levels. Annie wrote...

          >>>"Just my opinion, however. If you read the bible, next time you
          do, for an experiment, read it with the frame of mind that the OT
          YHVH and the NT "Father" are two different dieties."<<<

          You see, IgnisApocryphon, Marcion proposed a cosmological system that
          is essentially identical to what we find in Gnosticism, with the
          Demiurge, etc.. In fact, it is common for people to come to the club
          here and assume Marcion WAS Gnostic, based simply on the fact that
          his cosmology was the same. Care to guess why Marcion would not be
          considered "Gnostic"?

          It works like this; Marcion, unlike Gnostics, believed that salvation
          was gained by faith in the actual literal validity of his system (at
          least that is how it looks in the things we read from the
          heresiologists). The Gnostic model is not dependant on a literal
          belief of the cosmology. SOme may have believed it literally, others
          may not have.... but the Gnostic writings themselves make fairly
          clear that what is important is the underlying MEANING of the texts.

          We know this from many sources. First, as you can see from the
          passages that Cari gave you, Gnostics understood the problem of
          language in communicating these kinds of ideas... and is many
          passages they even tell us more specifically that the meanings are
          hidden. Two, the heresiologists tell us this about the Gnostics. Of
          course, we can't always believe this source but in this case it is
          held up by the evidence. Three, the very structure of many Gnostic
          sects, in which we know that part of the initiatory process was to
          learn the hidden meanings of the texts that other Christians took to
          be literal, makes very clear that part of the very essence of gaining
          Gnosis was about comming to understand these meanings.

          Now, let me be specific about something here. There has been a lot of
          talk here lately that seems to place Gnosticism in some sort
          of "Spiritual Anarchist" camp of free interperatation without any
          church structure. Historically, this is simply not true. It DOES seem
          to be true that Gnostic sects sometimes participated in a sort of
          creative interperative session, but this was still done under
          guidance and was done with the intent of adding richness to the
          intended goal (maybe something like modern music teachers do with
          thier classes when trying to drive home a principle of a specific
          point in music theory... there is creativity but there is ALSO a
          point that is not so individual).

          Gnostics do have some specific beliefs that make the term "Gnostic"
          possible, and one set of those is the cosmology you mention, while
          the other is how that cosmology relates to an internal struggle.

          I hope that helps more than it confuses :)

          PMCV

          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "ignisapocryphon" <jstatom@o...>
          wrote:
          > On the Demiurge...
          >
          > Is the demiurge a construct of the human mind as "Jehovah", or is it
          > a
          > real metaphysical transcendent being?
          >
          > Also...
          >
          > I'd like some feedback on archetypes and metaphysics... How is God
          > viewed? As a transcendent, metaphysical being? Or an archetype? Or
          > both? I've always thought that the metaphysical realm and the
          > archetypal (sp?) realm coincide with each other to produce mystic
          > experiences. (Can there be more than one "gnosis"?) Thoughts and
          > comments are greatly appreciated.
          >
          > I'm going for the Valentinian POV if anyone wants to know.
          >
          > I know that's a mouthfull, but still.
          >
          > Also, while I'm at it, I might as well say that the Gnostic
          community
          > is one I plan to stay with. I've seen that it is very, VERY
          friendly
          > and open to new-comers. I've also seen the oppression we face by
          > other
          > Christians and non-Christians. I'm very proud to say I'm a Gnostic
          > Christian and I hope to learn much and maybe have a mystic
          experience
          > myself soon. It's been a great joy of mine to understand just what
          > communication with and interaction with The Divine is all about...
          > The
          > Gnostics take it back to it's roots, when time with God was holy
          and
          > unadulterated, no sound or anything... Wow, it's just overwhelming
          to
          > even talk about. Anywho, I'm sure you guys are tired of me being a
          > postwhore...
          >
          > Comments are appreciated. :D
          >
          > Christ is holy,
          >      IgnisApocryphOn


        • Gerry
          ... I have to say that my favorite comment on Marcion can be found in ... Marcion as a violin with one string. He was, Quispel comments, a religious genius
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            >
            > [...]
            > It works like this; Marcion, unlike Gnostics, believed that
            > salvation was gained by faith in the actual literal validity of his
            > system (at least that is how it looks in the things we read from
            > the heresiologists). The Gnostic model is not dependant on a
            > literal belief of the cosmology. SOme may have believed it
            > literally, others may not have.... but the Gnostic writings
            > themselves make fairly clear that what is important is the
            > underlying MEANING of the texts.



            I have to say that my favorite comment on Marcion can be found in
            Michael Williams' _Rethinking Gnosticism_:

            >>Gilles Quispel has offered the memorable characterization of
            Marcion as "a violin with one string." He was, Quispel comments, "a
            religious genius with one overpowering idea: God, the Father of
            Jesus, was not the Hebrew YHVH."<< (pg. 23)

            Truly, no matter how well one might play that ONE string, it's going
            to fall short of satisfying those who prefer to read scriptures with
            various levels of interpretation.

            Besides, just how different is this kind of literalism from that
            which the patristic sources saw as a shortcoming in the Jewish faith?

            Gerry
          • annie
            I have a question for any one who has an answer, because this one probably has more than just a one sentence answer. It s related to these two paragraphs
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I have a question for any one who has an answer, because this one probably has more than just a one sentence answer.  It's related to these two paragraphs posted a day or two ago:
               
              'It works like this; Marcion, unlike Gnostics, believed that salvation
              was gained by faith in the actual literal validity of his system (at
              least that is how it looks in the things we read from the
              heresiologists). The Gnostic model is not dependant on a literal
              belief of the cosmology. SOme may have believed it literally, others
              may not have.... but the Gnostic writings themselves make fairly
              clear that what is important is the underlying MEANING of the texts.'

              'Gnostics do have some specific beliefs that make the term "Gnostic"
              possible, and one set of those is the cosmology you mention, while
              the other is how that cosmology relates to an internal struggle.'

              PMCV
               
               
              I've always assumed that salvation is the basic goal in all forms of spirituality (or religion), otherwise why go by any sort of rules at all? -- there must have been the initial promise of reward even for the most disciplined and wise individual, who is still just human.
               
              As to the nature of salvation, it's called by many names, but it's definitely not the mere dead end of a state of zero consciousness and memory.  I never thought about the many nuances which most likely do exist in this concept for other individuals and groups, because I have been such a spiritual renegade as far as any one else I've ever talked to, that there was no desire or need to explore this.
               
              I know what my idea is, and it's not a concrete image of what I can expect, because I don't know, I just know its nature.  I don't think it's a revisable concept, however vague it may be to me, so this question is more in the way of understanding how my own path differs or is similar to the path of traditional gnosticism the way it's discussed in this group.  I see many similarities, some differences, but I'm not sure what exactly is the concept of the final goal in classic, or traditional, gnosticism.  Not in the sense of Marcion, I think I understand that one.  I'm talking about in the purest sense in relation to just gnosticism.
               
              I hope you can understand what I mean, that was a hard question to articulate.

              love from annie
            • pmcvflag
              Gerry.... ... Marcion as a violin with one string. He was, Quispel comments, a religious genius with one overpowering idea: God, the Father of Jesus, was
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Gerry....

                >>>"I have to say that my favorite comment on Marcion can be found in
                Michael Williams' _Rethinking Gnosticism_:

                >>Gilles Quispel has offered the memorable characterization of
                Marcion as "a violin with one string." He was, Quispel comments, "a
                religious genius with one overpowering idea: God, the Father of
                Jesus, was not the Hebrew YHVH."<< (pg. 23)

                Truly, no matter how well one might play that ONE string, it's going
                to fall short of satisfying those who prefer to read scriptures with
                various levels of interpretation.

                Besides, just how different is this kind of literalism from that
                which the patristic sources saw as a shortcoming in the Jewish
                faith?"<<<<

                *lol*, I didn't remember that one, or I would have added it myself.

                Karl
              • pmcvflag
                Say Annie, I think perhaps I made my point a little unclear. You state.... ... I find between totally being psychic or going all the way in Jung s direction of
                Message 7 of 11 , Sep 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Say Annie, I think perhaps I made my point a little unclear. You
                  state....

                  >>>"I do understand what you are saying, and there's a middle ground
                  I find between totally being psychic or going all the way in Jung's
                  direction of the opposite (what is that? I want to say
                  intellectualize it, or is that not the right term?)"<<<

                  Well, we should take a look at this for a second. Now, there would be
                  some debate here about just how Jung himself may have intended
                  certain things, but the common reading that has spawned a rendering
                  of myths to be representative of psychological, or personal,
                  principles. It is this understanding in which the basic field of
                  comparative mythology works, and which is made most popular by
                  writers like Joe Campbell. This is "psychologicising" the religions.

                  Look at these two words a bit more closely... "psychologicising"
                  and "psychic". As you will quickly see, this "Jungian" method is not
                  the opposite of psychic, it IS psychic.... one form of it anyway.

                  One thing you said I found interesting.....

                  >>>"Of course, I actually don't believe that all that we've been is
                  all a tragic and extinct mistake, it goes one further for me as being
                  necessary for chaos to rise from the shadow of the light in order to
                  be conquered by that light, in an endless sequence, and it's
                  conceivable that each vast time span, such as the solar systems' life
                  time, from beginning to halfway, is G-d exhalation, and then the
                  second half is the inhalation."<<<

                  I am thinking that you may be far more interested in Kabbalah than in
                  Gnosticism. It really sounds a bit closer to your theological
                  thinking as well as to your method of interperatation. Ever study it?
                  If so, what did you think?

                  Lastly, you ask....

                  >>>"So what conceptions are found for salvation within the truest
                  types of gnosticism, with respect to what you posted below?"<<<

                  I am not sure if you mean to ask how salvation is achieved in
                  Gnosticism, or what that salvation is. Could you restate your
                  question for me to remove my confusion?

                  PMCV
                • pmcvflag
                  Again, Annie, you raise some interesting questions. May I ask, for the record, which books about Gnosticism you are familiar with? This will help me to
                  Message 8 of 11 , Sep 2, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Again, Annie, you raise some interesting questions. May I ask, for
                    the record, which books about Gnosticism you are familiar with? This
                    will help me to anticipate your line of questioning in such a was as
                    to perhaps suggest helpful readings in addition to our conversation.

                    On to your points...

                    >>>"I've always assumed that salvation is the basic goal in all forms
                    of spirituality (or religion), otherwise why go by any sort of rules
                    at all? -- there must have been the initial promise of reward even
                    for the most disciplined and wise individual, who is still just
                    human."<<<

                    I would say, Annie, yes and no. I mean, we should not reduce the
                    notion of "reward" to something Pavlovian. I mean, not all forms of
                    spirituality believe in some kind of heaven where we float around and
                    be happy. Sometimes the reward is subtle, such as the simple
                    satisfaction of knowing something (such as in the religion of
                    atheism) or, sometimes the "reward" is difficult to explain, and far
                    from obvious to the pistic relgious observer.

                    In that same line.....

                    >>>"As to the nature of salvation, it's called by many names, but
                    it's definitely not the mere dead end of a state of zero
                    consciousness and memory."<<<<

                    In fact, that is exactly what some religions believe... such as in
                    some forms of Buddhism where salvation is zero consciousness and
                    memory. One is released from identity into the absolute.

                    >>>"I never thought about the many nuances which most likely do exist
                    in this concept for other individuals and groups, because I have been
                    such a spiritual renegade as far as any one else I've ever talked to,
                    that there was no desire or need to explore this."<<<

                    Now is definately the time to explore this Annie. What I mean is,
                    Gnosticism was simply not another expression of the commonly
                    understood Christian salvational paradigm. Even in the Christian
                    forms of Gnosticism, Jesus is not an external bringer of salvation in
                    the way any modern Christian would view it. Jesus is just a
                    convenient name. One cannot understand Gnosticism without completely
                    letting go of the monkey trap that is contained in previously studied
                    systems.

                    >>>"I see many similarities, some differences, but I'm not sure what
                    exactly is the concept of the final goal in classic, or traditional,
                    gnosticism. Not in the sense of Marcion, I think I understand that
                    one. I'm talking about in the purest sense in relation to just
                    gnosticism."<<<<

                    It is absolute rejoining with the non-anthropomorphic, unthinking,
                    unfeeling, unbeing. The First Father.... which is not a "God".

                    PMCV
                  • annie
                    When you ask about which books about Gnosticism I ve read, I m assuming you mean modern authors on the subject of gnosticism? If so, then really nothing which
                    Message 9 of 11 , Sep 3, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      When you ask about which books about Gnosticism I've read, I'm assuming you mean modern authors on the subject of gnosticism? If so, then really nothing which has been noted as such so that I would know.  I have read a few articles and sermons on line, but nothing of any significance.  That is why I seem so out of step with your thoughts, and vocabulary, because I haven't addressed gnosticism as far as the philosophy surrounding it.  That's why so many questions, also.
                       
                      I have read pretty much all the Nag Hammadi, and that is how I was introduced to the concept of gnosis. Not actually the concept, but the defining of it, as such.  I immediately understood it's character of which it is not just intellectual or emotional knowledge, as it is defined in the lexicon on the groups file page.  That is the primary connection for me, is that way of thinking, because that's been the way I've thought, not the things I've thought about, but the way my head works.  When you talk about initiation, I'm of the understanding that it is maybe the 'crossing of the threshold' into that mode of thinking, but I'm not quite clear on that.  I knew before I joined this group that there are organized gnostic churches, and I read about the some of the practices of a few early gnostic sects, but I was more of the understanding it was more of the method than the subject.
                       
                      These likely are not what you meant in your question, I'm sure, but they might give you an idea of the nature of my thinking.  I've read sacred texts of many cultures and religions, throughout history, not in depth, but more to get an idea of the world view.  I've read a lot of what's online at the Gnostic Society Library, besides the Nag Hammadi.  Any aprocryphal texts I find, I do read.  I've also read the Manichean Mythos and related.  I've read a some of Hippolytus and Iraneaus against heresy, and eastern philosophy, mainly in the way of Buddhism.  I have read some of the theosophical society writings, but didn't really feel comfortable with the feeling I got from reading Madame Blavatsky, and there is some by Annie Besant that I liked, but on an intellectual level.  There's something contained in theosophy that I just don't feel comfortable with, more of a feeling than a specific view or belief.  I have read a great deal of Roscrucian literature, also. 
                       
                      I'm familiar with Kabbalah, as well, which I first encountered while exploring the sacred tree in relation to numerous cosmologies of various cultures, and there is a lot of it I can identify with.  It's main interest to me lies in the Hebrew alphabet and gematria, and I can see where the in and out breath of creation is of that tone, but that's something I mainly conceived of from an astronomical perspective.
                       
                      love from annie
                       
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: pmcvflag
                      Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:19 PM
                      Subject: [Gnosticism2] Annie and Jung

                      Say Annie, I think perhaps I made my point a little unclear. You
                      state....

                      >>>"I do understand what you are saying, and there's a middle ground
                      I find between totally being psychic or going all the way in Jung's
                      direction of the opposite (what is that?  I want to say
                      intellectualize it, or is that not the right term?)"<<<

                      Well, we should take a look at this for a second. Now, there would be
                      some debate here about just how Jung himself may have intended
                      certain things, but the common reading that has spawned a rendering
                      of myths to be representative of psychological, or personal,
                      principles. It is this understanding in which the basic field of
                      comparative mythology works, and which is made most popular by
                      writers like Joe Campbell. This is "psychologicising" the religions.

                      Look at these two words a bit more closely... "psychologicising"
                      and "psychic". As you will quickly see, this "Jungian" method is not
                      the opposite of psychic, it IS psychic.... one form of it anyway.

                      One thing you said I found interesting.....

                      >>>"Of course, I actually don't believe that all that we've been is
                      all a tragic and extinct mistake, it goes one further for me as being
                      necessary for chaos to rise from the shadow of the light in order to
                      be conquered by that light, in an endless sequence, and it's
                      conceivable that each vast time span, such as the solar systems' life
                      time, from beginning to halfway, is G-d exhalation, and then the
                      second half is the inhalation."<<<

                      I am thinking that you may be far more interested in Kabbalah than in
                      Gnosticism. It really sounds a bit closer to your theological
                      thinking as well as to your method of interperatation. Ever study it?
                      If so, what did you think?

                      Lastly, you ask....

                      >>>"So what conceptions are found for salvation within the truest
                      types of gnosticism, with respect to what you posted below?"<<<

                      I am not sure if you mean to ask how salvation is achieved in
                      Gnosticism, or what that salvation is. Could you restate your
                      question for me to remove my confusion?

                      PMCV


                    • pneumen_borealis
                      Nice explanation, with a concrete example to boot. You really should archive posts like this under an FAQ that people can link to. pneumen ... that ... club
                      Message 10 of 11 , Sep 5, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Nice explanation, with a concrete example to boot.

                        You really should archive posts like this under an "FAQ" that people
                        can link to.

                        pneumen

                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                        > Hey IgnisApocryphon.
                        >
                        > In addition to Lady Cari's answer to you in post
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/10084 I wanted to
                        > bring tis together with the conversation between Mike and Annie.
                        >
                        > Mike states to Annie
                        >
                        > >>>"Thank-you Marcion (sorry, couldn't resist). :-) Good point,
                        > BTW."<<<
                        >
                        > Whether or not Mike intended this (I assume he is aware of it) it
                        > does seem to be relavant to the post that Annie writes on a few
                        > levels. Annie wrote...
                        >
                        > >>>"Just my opinion, however. If you read the bible, next time you
                        > do, for an experiment, read it with the frame of mind that the OT
                        > YHVH and the NT "Father" are two different dieties."<<<
                        >
                        > You see, IgnisApocryphon, Marcion proposed a cosmological system
                        that
                        > is essentially identical to what we find in Gnosticism, with the
                        > Demiurge, etc.. In fact, it is common for people to come to the
                        club
                        > here and assume Marcion WAS Gnostic, based simply on the fact that
                        > his cosmology was the same. Care to guess why Marcion would not be
                        > considered "Gnostic"?
                        >
                        > It works like this; Marcion, unlike Gnostics, believed that
                        salvation
                        > was gained by faith in the actual literal validity of his system
                        (at
                        > least that is how it looks in the things we read from the
                        > heresiologists). The Gnostic model is not dependant on a literal
                        > belief of the cosmology. SOme may have believed it literally,
                        others
                        > may not have.... but the Gnostic writings themselves make fairly
                        > clear that what is important is the underlying MEANING of the texts.
                        >
                        > We know this from many sources. First, as you can see from the
                        > passages that Cari gave you, Gnostics understood the problem of
                        > language in communicating these kinds of ideas... and is many
                        > passages they even tell us more specifically that the meanings are
                        > hidden. Two, the heresiologists tell us this about the Gnostics. Of
                        > course, we can't always believe this source but in this case it is
                        > held up by the evidence. Three, the very structure of many Gnostic
                        > sects, in which we know that part of the initiatory process was to
                        > learn the hidden meanings of the texts that other Christians took
                        to
                        > be literal, makes very clear that part of the very essence of
                        gaining
                        > Gnosis was about comming to understand these meanings.
                        >
                        > Now, let me be specific about something here. There has been a lot
                        of
                        > talk here lately that seems to place Gnosticism in some sort
                        > of "Spiritual Anarchist" camp of free interperatation without any
                        > church structure. Historically, this is simply not true. It DOES
                        seem
                        > to be true that Gnostic sects sometimes participated in a sort of
                        > creative interperative session, but this was still done under
                        > guidance and was done with the intent of adding richness to the
                        > intended goal (maybe something like modern music teachers do with
                        > thier classes when trying to drive home a principle of a specific
                        > point in music theory... there is creativity but there is ALSO a
                        > point that is not so individual).
                        >
                        > Gnostics do have some specific beliefs that make the term "Gnostic"
                        > possible, and one set of those is the cosmology you mention, while
                        > the other is how that cosmology relates to an internal struggle.
                        >
                        > I hope that helps more than it confuses :)
                        >
                        > PMCV
                        >
                        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "ignisapocryphon"
                        <jstatom@o...>
                        > wrote:
                        > > On the Demiurge...
                        > >
                        > > Is the demiurge a construct of the human mind as "Jehovah", or is
                        it
                        > > a
                        > > real metaphysical transcendent being?
                        > >
                        > > Also...
                        > >
                        > > I'd like some feedback on archetypes and metaphysics... How is
                        God
                        > > viewed? As a transcendent, metaphysical being? Or an archetype?
                        Or
                        > > both? I've always thought that the metaphysical realm and the
                        > > archetypal (sp?) realm coincide with each other to produce mystic
                        > > experiences. (Can there be more than one "gnosis"?) Thoughts and
                        > > comments are greatly appreciated.
                        > >
                        > > I'm going for the Valentinian POV if anyone wants to know.
                        > >
                        > > I know that's a mouthfull, but still.
                        > >
                        > > Also, while I'm at it, I might as well say that the Gnostic
                        > community
                        > > is one I plan to stay with. I've seen that it is very, VERY
                        > friendly
                        > > and open to new-comers. I've also seen the oppression we face by
                        > > other
                        > > Christians and non-Christians. I'm very proud to say I'm a
                        Gnostic
                        > > Christian and I hope to learn much and maybe have a mystic
                        > experience
                        > > myself soon. It's been a great joy of mine to understand just
                        what
                        > > communication with and interaction with The Divine is all about...
                        > > The
                        > > Gnostics take it back to it's roots, when time with God was holy
                        > and
                        > > unadulterated, no sound or anything... Wow, it's just
                        overwhelming
                        > to
                        > > even talk about. Anywho, I'm sure you guys are tired of me being
                        a
                        > > postwhore...
                        > >
                        > > Comments are appreciated. :D
                        > >
                        > > Christ is holy,
                        > > IgnisApocryphOn
                      • pneumen_borealis
                        ... then the unfaithful wife progressing to prostitute, who at last returns to wear the white garment of pure redemption which was heroically acquired by the
                        Message 11 of 11 , Sep 5, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > I see the 'church' of the NT, the bride, as being first the virgin,
                          then the unfaithful wife progressing to prostitute, who at last
                          returns to wear the white garment of pure redemption which was
                          heroically acquired by the bridegroom, which would be the christ
                          spirit. But the one last thing she gets to do before beginning anew
                          her life as the queen of heaven is to 'clothe herself in witless'
                          wrath and correct the defect which resulted in the creation of
                          matter, and so what should have never come about is now like it has
                          never been, justified karmic account balancing on a higher level!

                          Interesting. It rings true in ways I don't quite understand.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.