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

Re: Ghosts

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    ... You used two words there that I meant to include in my last post, but from a different slant. Thanks for reminding me! I was perplexed from the beginning
    Message 1 of 61 , Aug 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      >
      > [...]
      > The seperation from the spirit, the hylic notion of the world from
      > only a subjective and perceptual basis, is something that is the
      > core idea that Gnosticism is meant to fight against. Waking up from
      > the mere subjectivity into a larger objective perspective is a
      > constant theme. Yes, it is true that there is also the admonition
      > to look inward, but that look inside is meant to be a search for
      > the connection to something beyond the self.
      >



      You used two words there that I meant to include in my last post, but
      from a different slant. Thanks for reminding me!

      I was perplexed from the beginning when Felix brought up his musings
      about Protestantism. As I tried to point out with the film example,
      both Catholicism and Protestantism are still pistic religions, so,
      regardless of the differences we note between them, what kind of
      pertinent "connection" are we drawing with regards to Gnosticism?
      Even allowing for the trends that Bloom observes in Southern
      religious movements, we are still talking about beliefs that involve
      faith and a personal god, so I still don't see how it was relevant to
      this group's interests. In addition, concerning the issue of
      Docetism, I mentioned how certain self-proclaimed Gnostics embrace
      this viewpoint while still treating such a savior as an
      anthropomorphized, limited, personal god. Again (to be more blunt
      this time, in hopes of avoiding anyone thinking that I've implied
      something other than what I intended!), I should simply say, "WTF."
      At such a group's very best, it's probably just another case of
      Gnosis Envy. I think you had the same individuals in mind when you
      reiterated the point with your reference to Marcionites.

      Going back to Bloom's book, I was struck by the comments of one
      critic in particular. I believe he was a cleric, and he noted that
      his biggest concern was that the "objective" God (envisioned by the
      Church) was being ignored among the highly "subjective" movements
      associated with the phenomenon that Bloom was describing. As he
      critiqued the inevitable drawback of such personalized religion
      (paraphrasing), "We are all Popes . . . but only unto ourselves." I
      thought the imagery there was quite appropriate: a great deal of
      people authoritatively pontificating and proselytizing, but with no
      one having any true believers of their message save themselves.

      Well, whether talking about Catholics, or Protestants, or some kind
      of newfangled Protestants, or even some sort of wannabe pneumatics
      who have hijacked the Gnostic myths and perverted them to suit their
      own fundamentalist faith, I think I would have difficulty with anyone
      who questioned whether I saw a "connection" between those groups and
      Gnosticism. It would be as if I had been asked, "Do you prefer an
      objective or subjective Demiurge? . . . How about a literalist or
      solipsist approach to the Divine"

      Geez, if those were my only choices, I suppose I would have to pass
      altogether.

      Gerry
    • Mike Leavitt
      Hello lady_caritas ... I can t give you citations, but some of the writings specifically say if you don t make it you are turned back to earth. I read such a
      Message 61 of 61 , Aug 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello lady_caritas

        On 08/12/05, you wrote:

        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "janahooks" <janahooks@y...>
        > wrote:
        >> Hello, Mike.
        >>
        >>> Well the theosophists would say (recasting their termanalogy into
        >>> gnostic) that at death only the portion of soul useful to the
        > spirit
        >>> is saved, the rest is left to decay.
        >>
        >> Now, that's something to think about: what part of my soul is
        > *useful*
        >> to my spirit? I might not sleep if I think about that. ;)
        >>
        >> jana
        >
        >
        > Say, Mike, to tie in Plotinus and the Enneads that Steve brought up,
        > I didn't know that Plotinus was a "Great Theosophist." ;-) lol Per:
        > http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/plotinus.html
        >
        > Anyway, if you scroll about halfway down the page linked above,
        > Plotinus and Porphyry, have a dialogue about the soul.
        >
        > Plotinus: "Every soul has a lower part turned toward the body, and a
        > higher part turned toward the divine intelligence."
        >
        >
        > Anyone want to comment about how the Gnostics viewed "soul" and its
        > relation to death? (Are we just talking about physical death here?)
        > The Gnostics seemed to be more preoccupied with cosmogony,...
        > beginnings, origins, reunification, as I believe Gerry pointed out
        > earlier. Do the Gnostics have anything to specifically say about
        > reincarnation, or not?
        >
        > Cari

        I can't give you citations, but some of the writings specifically say
        if you don't make it you are turned back to earth. I read such a
        passage here just a few weeks ago. May have been Phillip, but I
        can't remember. No idea of karma there though.

        Regards
        --
        Mike Leavitt ac998_@_lafn._org remove -'s
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.