- I am throwing out a few ideas here so a few conversations can go on
In MANY groups the question as to the allegorical vs literal
interperatations of Gnostic texts have been a bit of a debate. While
latter method leaves no difficult strings to tie, the former really
seems to be the wider assumption in spite of the fact that it is the
more difficult to demonstrate.
Strangely enough, a fairly wide majority of people seem to ascribe
to the sort of "sola scriptura" notion of interpretive method that
came very late to Christian thought, which is to say they feel that
interpretation of these scriptures is a personal affair.
As most of you know, I have stated many times, for the record, that
I doubt that the intent of these authors was simply to throw out
scripture for personal interpretive methodologies. However, I have
had people counter from the assumption that the texts are a sort of
revelation, and have even been asked how we can know if these
authors even understood the texts themselves.
I would like to have a conversation with the assumption that these
are allegory, and ask how you feel they should be dealt with. Do you
think they used a sort of lingo meant to be understood in specific
ways? Do you believe you understand what the Logos and Sophia is? Or
the difference between the "First Father" and the "Second Father"?
Or, you think they were intended to be personal images? And why?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>Damn it, I didn't want to be recognised... LOL
> Ok, I am back from my trip. I need to point out some confusion here,
> Hermetic_Star. I finally got a chance to look at your profile, and
> now I know which clubs and so forth I know you from. "Philo Sophia",
> btw, was accidentally erased by Yahoo... I may remake it again
> someday. Remember, you went by another name in those other clubs so
> I had to piece a few things together, including your writing style
> and your interests and pages.
> Gnosis is not found in an internet club. Any Yahoo group that thinksAgreed. Just because a group attempts to point the way isn't
> it is passing on Gnosis to it's members is selling a fantasy.
necessarily a bad thing though. If the goal is understood to be
un-attainable, and the group doesn't take itself too seriously in this
respect, I think it's still a noble goal/attitude.
> If you were born outside human society, say you were raised byMaybe to that extreme, yes... But I offer you the example of Joan of
> animals, you would learn a different way of being that would be
> based on that animal existance. You may have the mind of a genius,
> but it will never fully develope. You may go a bit further
> linguistically somehow, you may invent tools, but no matter how
> intelligent you are you would never come up with Quantum
> Electrodynamic Thoery, you will not invent a steam engine, you will
> not even come up with something so natural to humans as a fully
> developed language.
Arc. A peasant girl who has a spiritual experience, and saves her
country against a foreign super-power. Unlikely, but it does happen.
It *IS* possable. Now what if we could take a good thing and mass
produce it? Think of what we would be like THEN. *Grinz*