- I have only posted one other time, but this discussion has been fascinating to read. I think it is important to remember that our journey of enlightenmentMessage 1 of 83 , Jun 2, 2006View SourceI have only posted one other time, but this discussion has been
fascinating to read. I think it is important to remember that our
journey of enlightenment through knowledge is an evolution, so too
is that of our orthodox brethren... though lambs they may appear,
it is what they are able to experience at this time in their quest
of knowledge and for some it will develop no further.
The politics of religion will always exist, but to be scared for
another's level of understanding? Why? Gentle discussion is gift
enough and sees that discussion will have impact in ways you may not
understand at the time.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "annie" <annielu38@...> wrote:
> Hi Pneumen--
> Don't you think that, in regard to '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.' that the benign function of bland
habit is the slow and steady result of what was initially the direct
political control? By which I mainly mean with Constantine and the
early HRCC, since they were the start of most of today's branches of
Christianity. Another factor would be comfort and social
conformity, all in the times leading up until now, which now is
manifested as the tendency not to seek any knowledge further than
what has always been accepted. A lot of people that I talk to, who
are still more orthodox or fundamental, can really 'talk the talk'
all day to others who are unfamiliar with religion, but if I try to
pin them down and say "why do you believe this?" or otherwise ask
for specifics, I invariably get a circular discussion which reveals
rote recitation instead of knowledge.
> That's the only reason I press, is because it's that bland habit
that is scary, not for me, but for them. I get into a discussion
such as that for the sole purpose of maybe spurring them on to
original thinking. I don't talk with anyone, except the 2 people
I'm closest to, about the specifics of what I believe (and in this
type of group situation), because I don't want to impose my system
on another, but I want them to find their own for themselves.
> I have some hard feelings, I guess, against whatever it was that
evolved into the 'bland habit.' It's either got people so fixed
that they won't consider anything else might be true except what
they've held on to, or else they're soured on any kind of
spirituality at all. The last one is what is the worse, IMO.
> The thing is, if one believes in the validity and necessity of
some sort of 'salvation', it's got to come from inside, and not
borrowed from another. Gnosticism is the only 'denomination' (for
lack of better word) that I've seen that doesn't have a narrow
margin for expansion, if one at all.
> love from annie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pneumen_borealis
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 9:31 PM
> Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Salvation
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "annie" <annielu38@z...>
> > Hi Mary
> > My experience lies in coming from one end of the spectrum to
> other, between orthodox faith--blind and passive--to a faith
> 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,
> not formally, but that attitude is a defining characteristic of
> There are many, many traditional Catholic orders that seek to
> God directly. They also seek a mystical union. They does tend to
> 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
> for the congregation, rather it is for the benefit of the heads
> the church and ultimately the state, for controlling people in
> of a political sense than a spiritual guidance."
> True. It's very easy to see when that is the case. Among
> communities, though, religion can be more of a habit than
> else. It seems more a benign function of bland habit as opposed
> 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
> believers, in that we might dare to seek to know that which we
> believe. If we believe in our own ability to understand what
> Creator tells us, then we have no need for the control disguised
> guidance that we receive from the church, often accompanied by
> good stout guilt complex now and then. This view is what's
> the shocked response of 'heretic!' that you'd get if you walked
> to Joe Christian on the street and said 'Jesus didn't save us
> 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
> else for that matter) would NOT want to be one in this day and
> 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.
> real threats to public order are actually more fundamentalist
> secular in origin.
> > In that respect, for me, then grace describes the feeling I
> when I think about how it could have easily been just the
> and that I could have never felt enlightened of myself, and
> the insecurities that can easily torment one's self when they
> uncertain about the aspects of their physical mortality. I feel
> fortunate that I am somehow me, and I realize I am more blessed
> not being trapped within my ego and it's fears, because the
> of now is not going to always be. Freedom is the same as grace,
> 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
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
- Aleada ... and Elaine Pagels, Gnostic Gospel but mostly from experiencing personal Gnosis which I m sorry to say is being separated from this discussion orMessage 83 of 83 , Jul 1, 2006View SourceAleada
>>>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.