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

Mani & The Manicheans this Sunday on Coffee, Cigs & Gnosis!!!

Expand Messages
  • miguelconner
    It s M-M-M-Mani and the Manicheans (played to Elton John s `Benny & The Jets ) Manichaeism was the only global Gnostic religion ever, extending from the
    Message 1 of 21 , Oct 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      It's M-M-M-Mani and the Manicheans (played to Elton John's `Benny &
      The Jets')

      Manichaeism was the only global Gnostic religion ever, extending from
      the Atlantic Ocean to central and southern Asia. Persian, Mongolian
      and Chinese kings even made it a state religion (one claimed Mani was
      the avatar of Lao-Tze). It lasted for a thousand years and survived
      until the 15th century, yet it is perhaps the least known variety of
      Gnosticism today. Manichaeism was also the biggest threat to the
      Catholic Church in its early history, as well as a competitor to
      several Eastern faiths in Asia. But the guys with swords tend to
      always win over the pacifists. We revisit the origins, history, and
      theology of this most unusual catholic Gnosticism.

      Jason BeDuhn, author of `The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and
      Ritual' & Associate Professor of Religious Studies
      Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
      Northern Arizona University joins `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis' this
      Sunday, October 29, at 3 PM PST/5 PM CST/6 PM EST at
      Freethoughtmedia.com. Just click the `ON AIR' button under the banner.

      Topics Discussed:

      --The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his passion
      and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the story ever
      change?)
      --The cosmology, tenets and rituals of Manichaeism, as well as how it
      was able to compete with so many different religions across the world.
      --How the Roman Catholic Church not only exterminated Manichaeism but
      also co-opted several of its traditions (confession, priesthood
      celibacy, and more).
      --Saint Augustine, the ex-Manichean, and his ability to interbreed
      Christian and Manichean theology that changed the Church forever.
      --Evidence that it was perhaps the Manicheans who absorbed the classic
      Gnostics and not the persecution of the early Church.
      --The reasons why there is so little known of Mani and his religion in
      these modern times.
      --Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics) were
      world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and wisdom.
      --Evidence for and against the Manicheans influencing the Bogomils and
      Cathars of the later Middle Ages.

      And much more.

      Next week we deal with the divine feminine in Judaism and one of the
      most important Kabbalist tomes—The Zohar. Our guest is Daniel C.
      Matt, best selling author of `God and The Big Bang', `The Essential
      Kabbalah: The Heart of Jewish Mysticism' & `The Zohar: annotated &
      explained'.

      This week's rebroadcast of `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis' is show
      #12—`The Matrix Revolution'. We deal with Gnostic-themed movies such
      as `Fight Club', `The Truman Show' and others, as well as some modern
      Gnostic writers like Carlos Castaneda and Philip K Dick. Show starts
      at 3 PM Eastern on Sunday.

      Abraxas
    • pmcvflag
      Because Dr BeDuhn was actually one of my big teachers on the historical front I am actually interested to hear this interview... and also what impression he
      Message 2 of 21 , Oct 27, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Because Dr BeDuhn was actually one of my big teachers on the
        historical front I am actually interested to hear this interview...
        and also what impression he makes on others here. Any report
        volunteers? Much of what he teaches directly is actually in
        opposition to the stance presented in the brief outline of this
        interview. Very curious!

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "miguelconner"
        <miguelconner@...> wrote:
        >
        > It's M-M-M-Mani and the Manicheans (played to Elton John's `Benny &
        > The Jets')
        >
        > Manichaeism was the only global Gnostic religion ever, extending
        from
        > the Atlantic Ocean to central and southern Asia. Persian,
        Mongolian
        > and Chinese kings even made it a state religion (one claimed Mani
        was
        > the avatar of Lao-Tze). It lasted for a thousand years and
        survived
        > until the 15th century, yet it is perhaps the least known variety
        of
        > Gnosticism today. Manichaeism was also the biggest threat to the
        > Catholic Church in its early history, as well as a competitor to
        > several Eastern faiths in Asia. But the guys with swords tend to
        > always win over the pacifists. We revisit the origins, history,
        and
        > theology of this most unusual catholic Gnosticism.
        >
        > Jason BeDuhn, author of `The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and
        > Ritual' & Associate Professor of Religious Studies
        > Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
        > Northern Arizona University joins `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis'
        this
        > Sunday, October 29, at 3 PM PST/5 PM CST/6 PM EST at
        > Freethoughtmedia.com. Just click the `ON AIR' button under the
        banner.
        >
        > Topics Discussed:
        >
        > --The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his passion
        > and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the story
        ever
        > change?)
        > --The cosmology, tenets and rituals of Manichaeism, as well as how
        it
        > was able to compete with so many different religions across the
        world.
        > --How the Roman Catholic Church not only exterminated Manichaeism
        but
        > also co-opted several of its traditions (confession, priesthood
        > celibacy, and more).
        > --Saint Augustine, the ex-Manichean, and his ability to interbreed
        > Christian and Manichean theology that changed the Church forever.
        > --Evidence that it was perhaps the Manicheans who absorbed the
        classic
        > Gnostics and not the persecution of the early Church.
        > --The reasons why there is so little known of Mani and his
        religion in
        > these modern times.
        > --Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics)
        were
        > world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and wisdom.
        > --Evidence for and against the Manicheans influencing the Bogomils
        and
        > Cathars of the later Middle Ages.
        >
        > And much more.
        >
        > Next week we deal with the divine feminine in Judaism and one of
        the
        > most important Kabbalist tomes—The Zohar. Our guest is Daniel C.
        > Matt, best selling author of `God and The Big Bang', `The Essential
        > Kabbalah: The Heart of Jewish Mysticism' & `The Zohar: annotated &
        > explained'.
        >
        > This week's rebroadcast of `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis' is show
        > #12—`The Matrix Revolution'. We deal with Gnostic-themed movies
        such
        > as `Fight Club', `The Truman Show' and others, as well as some
        modern
        > Gnostic writers like Carlos Castaneda and Philip K Dick. Show
        starts
        > at 3 PM Eastern on Sunday.
        >
        > Abraxas
        >
      • Miguel Conner
        Really? I would say that 70% of the promo was taken directly from the interview. He did say that new evidence in Egypt is changing many scholar s views on
        Message 3 of 21 , Oct 27, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Really?  I would say that 70% of the promo was taken directly from the interview.  He did say that new evidence in Egypt is changing many scholar's views on Manichaeism.

          Hope you catch it.  BeDuhn was a great interviewee.

          Miguel

          pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
          Because Dr BeDuhn was actually one of my big teachers on the
          historical front I am actually interested to hear this interview...
          and also what impression he makes on others here. Any report
          volunteers? Much of what he teaches directly is actually in
          opposition to the stance presented in the brief outline of this
          interview. Very curious!

          PMCV

          --- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, "miguelconner"
          <miguelconner@ ...> wrote:
          >
          > It's M-M-M-Mani and the Manicheans (played to Elton John's `Benny &
          > The Jets')
          >
          > Manichaeism was the only global Gnostic religion ever, extending
          from
          > the Atlantic Ocean to central and southern Asia. Persian,
          Mongolian
          > and Chinese kings even made it a state religion (one claimed Mani
          was
          > the avatar of Lao-Tze). It lasted for a thousand years and
          survived
          > until the 15th century, yet it is perhaps the least known variety
          of
          > Gnosticism today. Manichaeism was also the biggest threat to the
          > Catholic Church in its early history, as well as a competitor to
          > several Eastern faiths in Asia. But the guys with swords tend to
          > always win over the pacifists. We revisit the origins, history,
          and
          > theology of this most unusual catholic Gnosticism.
          >
          > Jason BeDuhn, author of `The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and
          > Ritual' & Associate Professor of Religious Studies
          > Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
          > Northern Arizona University joins `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis'
          this
          > Sunday, October 29, at 3 PM PST/5 PM CST/6 PM EST at
          > Freethoughtmedia. com. Just click the `ON AIR' button under the
          banner.
          >
          > Topics Discussed:
          >
          > --The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his passion
          > and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the story
          ever
          > change?)
          > --The cosmology, tenets and rituals of Manichaeism, as well as how
          it
          > was able to compete with so many different religions across the
          world.
          > --How the Roman Catholic Church not only exterminated Manichaeism
          but
          > also co-opted several of its traditions (confession, priesthood
          > celibacy, and more).
          > --Saint Augustine, the ex-Manichean, and his ability to interbreed
          > Christian and Manichean theology that changed the Church forever.
          > --Evidence that it was perhaps the Manicheans who absorbed the
          classic
          > Gnostics and not the persecution of the early Church.
          > --The reasons why there is so little known of Mani and his
          religion in
          > these modern times.
          > --Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics)
          were
          > world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and wisdom.
          > --Evidence for and against the Manicheans influencing the Bogomils
          and
          > Cathars of the later Middle Ages.
          >
          > And much more.
          >
          > Next week we deal with the divine feminine in Judaism and one of
          the
          > most important Kabbalist tomes—The Zohar. Our guest is Daniel C.
          > Matt, best selling author of `God and The Big Bang', `The Essential
          > Kabbalah: The Heart of Jewish Mysticism' & `The Zohar: annotated &
          > explained'.
          >
          > This week's rebroadcast of `Coffee, Cigarettes & Gnosis' is show
          > #12—`The Matrix Revolution'. We deal with Gnostic-themed movies
          such
          > as `Fight Club', `The Truman Show' and others, as well as some
          modern
          > Gnostic writers like Carlos Castaneda and Philip K Dick. Show
          starts
          > at 3 PM Eastern on Sunday.
          >
          > Abraxas
          >




          Visit http://thegodabovegod.com/ and become part of the new Renaissance of Gnosticism and Truthseeking.


          Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

        • pmcvflag
          Hey Miguel ... from the interview. He did say that new evidence in Egypt is changing many scholar s views on Manichaeism. Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Miguel

            >>>Really? I would say that 70% of the promo was taken directly
            from the interview. He did say that new evidence in Egypt is
            changing many scholar's views on Manichaeism.

            Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee.<<<

            I hope to catch it as well. It should be very interesting.

            As for the new evidence, I am guessing you mean the Kellis (aka
            Ismant el-Kharab) finds?

            Anyway, I wonder if perhaps Dr BeDuhn softened his explinations for
            the sake of accessibility. I understand there is a limit to what one
            can talk about in the short span of a radio show. Or heck, maybe he
            has changed his mind about some things. I will be curious to find
            out. Let me try to explain further what I meant when I stated that
            it seemed to me that much of the intro you presented didn't seem to
            reflect what he teaches in his class. Perhaps this could spark some
            conversation that would convince others to listen to the program as
            well, and read the book.

            >>>--The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his
            passion and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the
            story ever change?)<<<

            In his class Dr BeDuhn raised serious questions about the actuality
            of the execution account, favoring instead the account that has him
            passing away in prison.

            >>>--Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics)
            were world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and
            wisdom.<<<

            I once considered Manichaeans to be a form of "Gnosticism". It is Dr
            BeDuhn that convinced me otherwise. Actually, I was resistant to the
            recategorization, but I found Dr BeDuhn's arguments compelling...
            and in fact more recent scholars like Dr King seem to have similar
            views on the matter. I does point out some of the problems with the
            categorization in a vague way in the Manichaean Body, but in his
            class he was much more explicit.

            Well, those are just a couple of specific points. Of course, one
            does expect a greater level of caution to be presented in a
            university history class (and his class on Manichaeism was a higher
            level course) than in casual conversation, so I inderstand that part
            of what I may be pointing out could relate to that caution and a
            matter of technicalities that may seem less important in the
            interview setting. Questions like whether it is accurate to state
            that the Catholics "extermintated" the Manichaeans when they
            actually continued in the east for some time may essentially be a
            non-issue when the basic effect still stands.

            You all know by now that I am anal about such things *lol*.

            PMCV
          • Scott Hutton
            Jumping in to this delightful discussion, I decided to go see the other guys are saying.So I hit the Catholic Encyclopedia, where it is said with a straight
            Message 5 of 21 , Oct 28, 2006
            • 0 Attachment

              Jumping in to this delightful discussion, I decided to go see the other guys are saying.

              So I hit the Catholic Encyclopedia, where it is said with a straight face that once Mani's cosmology is known, there is little else to learn and that the Manichaeans are Gnostics in that the believe in liberation through knowledge.

              I don't know about the Manicheans but that is exactly what your garden variety gnostic is NOT into.� That person is into knowing, which is an event far diffferent from knowledge.

              Jeesh.� Trust that bunch to trot out a mangled description of another spiritual current and expect no one to notice

              Scott Hutton.






              --- On Sat 10/28, pmcvflag < no_reply@yahoogroups.com > wrote:
              From: pmcvflag [mailto: no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
              To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:29:18 -0000
              Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: Mani & The Manicheans this Sunday on Coffee, Cigs & Gnosis!!!














              Hey Miguel

              >>>Really? I would say that 70% of the promo was taken directly
              from the interview. He did say that new evidence in Egypt is
              changing many scholar's views on Manichaeism.

              Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee. <<<

              I hope to catch it as well. It should be very interesting.

              As for the new evidence, I am guessing you mean the Kellis (aka
              Ismant el-Kharab) finds?

              Anyway, I wonder if perhaps Dr BeDuhn softened his explinations for
              the sake of accessibility. I understand there is a limit to what one
              can talk about in the short span of a radio show. Or heck, maybe he
              has changed his mind about some things. I will be curious to find
              out. Let me try to explain further what I meant when I stated that
              it seemed to me that much of the intro you presented didn't seem to
              reflect what he teaches in his class. Perhaps this could spark some
              conversation that would convince others to listen to the program as
              well, and read the book.

              >>>--The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his
              passion and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the
              story ever change?)<<<

              In his class Dr BeDuhn raised serious questions about the actuality
              of the execution account, favoring instead the account that has him
              passing away in prison.

              >>>--Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics)
              were world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and
              wisdom.<<<

              I once considered Manichaeans to be a form of "Gnosticism" . It is Dr
              BeDuhn that convinced me otherwise. Actually, I was resistant to the
              recategorization, but I found Dr BeDuhn's arguments compelling.. .
              and in fact more recent scholars like Dr King seem to have similar
              views on the matter. I does point out some of the problems with the
              categorization in a vague way in the Manichaean Body, but in his
              class he was much more explicit.

              Well, those are just a couple of specific points. Of course, one
              does expect a greater level of caution to be presented in a
              university history class (and his class on Manichaeism was a higher
              level course) than in casual conversation, so I inderstand that part
              of what I may be pointing out could relate to that caution and a
              matter of technicalities that may seem less important in the
              interview setting. Questions like whether it is accurate to state
              that the Catholics "extermintated" the Manichaeans when they
              actually continued in the east for some time may essentially be a
              non-issue when the basic effect still stands.

              You all know by now that I am anal about such things *lol*.

              PMCV










              No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
              Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com

            • pmcvflag
              Hey Scott, welcome to the conversation. ... other guys are saying. So I hit the Catholic Encyclopedia, where it is said with a straight face that once Mani s
              Message 6 of 21 , Oct 28, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hey Scott, welcome to the conversation.

                >>>Jumping in to this delightful discussion, I decided to go see the
                other guys are saying. So I hit the Catholic Encyclopedia, where it is
                said with a straight face that once Mani's cosmology is known, there
                is little else to learn and that the Manichaeans are Gnostics in that
                the believe in liberation through knowledge.<<<

                Part of what would be at issue here is whether or not it is
                essentially "Gnosis" or "Praxis" that Manichaeans viewed as the
                primary soteriological force. According to Dr BeDuhn's book it is
                correct action, not "gnosis", that was the primary means of
                salvation/liberation, and "gnosis" served to help one come to
                understand this correct action. The difference with the Gnostics (as
                they are categorically imagined), then, was that they believed that
                Gnosis in and of itself was salvation, and correct action would be a
                sort of side effect.

                >>>I don't know about the Manicheans but that is exactly what your
                garden variety gnostic is NOT into. That person is into knowing,
                which is an event far diffferent from knowledge.<<<

                When we talk about the Gnostics as they are more technically defined,
                namely the Sethian or Valentinian forms, we see a number of attributes
                within the concept of "Gnosis". Some Sethian texts, for instance, talk
                about an understanding of cosmology as a central element of Gnosis.
                The Gospel of Thomas talks about hermeneutics as a key function. We
                can talk about knowing and knowledge in arbitrary terms, of course,
                but in the end we always must keep in mind the concept of Gnosis as we
                see it in historical Gnostic groups. The problem that is often debated
                (and validly debatable) is just how the Manichaean concept of gnosis
                relates or fails to relate to the Sethian or Valentinian notion of the
                word.

                On another front, there is no question that Manichaeans use some
                similar lingo and cosmology with the definitive Gnostic groups. One
                aspect of that cosmology, though, seems nearly opposite. Gnostic texts
                generally see the universal flaw as being caused by division and
                seperation from the spiritual source. In other words, duality is a bad
                thing. Manichaeans, on the other hand, describe a setting in which the
                flaw in the universe was caused not because of duality, but because of
                a mixing of the dual forces that should naturally be kept apart. In
                Manichaean thinking the world is a sort of machine for sorting out the
                dual elements back into their rightful opposites (the world having a
                positive function). Gnostics, on the other hand, present the world as
                a flawed creation by an ignorant Demiurge.

                My point is that on the surface they two movements do have many
                striking similarities, but careful reading of the text also presents
                some differences that are so core that they raise the issue of the
                very categorical attributes that define "Gnosticism". Debating one
                side of that or the other is often a matter of how far one wishes to
                stretch that term.

                PMCV
              • Miguel Conner
                Hi, Actually, mixing the interview I just noticed that BeDuhn does mention that Mani died in prison before any torture. I got ahead of myself while doing
                Message 7 of 21 , Oct 28, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi,

                  Actually, mixing the interview I just noticed that BeDuhn does mention that Mani died in prison before any torture.  I got ahead of myself while doing side-research.

                  And you're right-- we couldn't go too in depth in 45 minutes.  How Gnostic or Gnostic-at-all really wasn't touched upon.  I've still got a lot to cover on the show before I get into the deeper layers of Gnosticism or what is Gnosticism proper.   I know that Karen King will more than likely appear in the Spring, after she has recovered from surgery, so I'll tackle the issue then.

                  As far as any 'extermination', BeDuhn simply referred to it as 'The Catholic Church using the power of the State to compete with Manichaeism'.  Many ways one can read that but I think it points to the obvious.

                  Miguel


                  pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                  Hey Miguel

                  >>>Really? I would say that 70% of the promo was taken directly
                  from the interview. He did say that new evidence in Egypt is
                  changing many scholar's views on Manichaeism.

                  Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee. <<<

                  I hope to catch it as well. It should be very interesting.

                  As for the new evidence, I am guessing you mean the Kellis (aka
                  Ismant el-Kharab) finds?

                  Anyway, I wonder if perhaps Dr BeDuhn softened his explinations for
                  the sake of accessibility. I understand there is a limit to what one
                  can talk about in the short span of a radio show. Or heck, maybe he
                  has changed his mind about some things. I will be curious to find
                  out. Let me try to explain further what I meant when I stated that
                  it seemed to me that much of the intro you presented didn't seem to
                  reflect what he teaches in his class. Perhaps this could spark some
                  conversation that would convince others to listen to the program as
                  well, and read the book.

                  >>>--The extraordinary life of the Prophet Mani, including his
                  passion and execution because of an orthodox priesthood (does the
                  story ever change?)<<<

                  In his class Dr BeDuhn raised serious questions about the actuality
                  of the execution account, favoring instead the account that has him
                  passing away in prison.

                  >>>--Dispelling the fable that Manicheans (like all other Gnostics)
                  were world-haters by glancing at their sublime scriptures and
                  wisdom.<<<

                  I once considered Manichaeans to be a form of "Gnosticism" . It is Dr
                  BeDuhn that convinced me otherwise. Actually, I was resistant to the
                  recategorization, but I found Dr BeDuhn's arguments compelling.. .
                  and in fact more recent scholars like Dr King seem to have similar
                  views on the matter. I does point out some of the problems with the
                  categorization in a vague way in the Manichaean Body, but in his
                  class he was much more explicit.

                  Well, those are just a couple of specific points. Of course, one
                  does expect a greater level of caution to be presented in a
                  university history class (and his class on Manichaeism was a higher
                  level course) than in casual conversation, so I inderstand that part
                  of what I may be pointing out could relate to that caution and a
                  matter of technicalities that may seem less important in the
                  interview setting. Questions like whether it is accurate to state
                  that the Catholics "extermintated" the Manichaeans when they
                  actually continued in the east for some time may essentially be a
                  non-issue when the basic effect still stands.

                  You all know by now that I am anal about such things *lol*.

                  PMCV




                  Visit http://thegodabovegod.com/ and become part of the new Renaissance of Gnosticism and Truthseeking.


                  Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates.

                • pmcvflag
                  Hey Miguel ... still got a lot to cover on the show before I get into the deeper layers of Gnosticism or what is Gnosticism proper. I know that Karen King
                  Message 8 of 21 , Oct 29, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hey Miguel

                    >>>How Gnostic or Gnostic-at-all really wasn't touched upon. I've
                    still got a lot to cover on the show before I get into the deeper
                    layers of Gnosticism or what is Gnosticism proper. I know that
                    Karen King will more than likely appear in the Spring, after she has
                    recovered from surgery, so I'll tackle the issue then.<<<

                    That should be interesting as well. I have not had a chance to meet
                    or speak with Dr King, but our friend here Thomas L. was in her
                    class. She is one of the more hardline deconstructionists of the
                    Gnosticism category, and I think some of her textual criticism is
                    first rate.

                    Also, our mod, Gerry, attended a seminar with Dr Ehrman some time
                    ago and found it... er... interesting ;) Most of his previous
                    material hadn't been so much about Gnosticism, per se, but more and
                    more of it is. In one recent introduction to a book he mentions how
                    he had previously been an evangelical, and his study of history
                    totally turned his view on its head. Any thoughts of upcoming
                    interviews with him?

                    PMCV
                  • Miguel Conner
                    I talked briefly to Ehrman. He is going to be in Europe for the next two seasons, so I won t be able to get him on also in the spring. Happens to a scholar
                    Message 9 of 21 , Oct 29, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I talked briefly to Ehrman.  He is going to be in Europe for the next two seasons, so I won't be able to get him on also in the spring.  Happens to a scholar who scores a best seller.  They travel a lot!

                      Miguel


                      Visit http://thegodabovegod.com/ and become part of the new Renaissance of Gnosticism and Truthseeking.


                      Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited Try it today.
                    • pmcvflag
                      Miguel and all ... SO, I did catch it... did anyone else here do so? Anyone have thoughts or comments about the interview, or about the subject? Questions?
                      Message 10 of 21 , Oct 30, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Miguel and all

                        >>>Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee.<<<

                        SO, I did catch it... did anyone else here do so? Anyone have
                        thoughts or comments about the interview, or about the subject?
                        Questions? Criticisms? Debate points?

                        I did notice a few things about the interview. I noticed how Dr
                        BeDuhn seemed to concede the term "Gnosticism" for the sake of the
                        interview, but vascilated between drawing the line and trying to make
                        a concerted effort to use the term in a more popular way.

                        I was also aware of his considerably more diplomatic presentation of
                        various authors' method of popularizing Gnosticism, and the resulting
                        information as it really relates to subject at hand. The point about
                        accentuating certain popular attributes is a nice way of questioning
                        the validity of those attributes and reliability of the picture those
                        authors are presenting. If one wished to state that more simply they
                        could say that many popular efforts are unfortunately based on gloss
                        and spin.... but I am a bit more blunt than most ;)

                        I was a little disappointed that Dr BeDuhn danced past the issue of
                        the funtion of gnosis in Manichaean thought vs the function in
                        Gnostic thinking, since it is so core to the issue of what the
                        category of "Gnostic" is meant to communicate. I do, however,
                        understand that simply going with the flow may have been easier
                        considering the shortness of the interview and perhaps the fact that
                        the audience was likely to be new to the subject. Of course, in this
                        forum we try to go a bit deeper into this kind of issue. Even in this
                        forum it has sometimes been difficult to convey for some people that
                        the Gnostic concept of "Gnosis" is different from the Catholic
                        concept of "gnosis", because when people see the word they tend to
                        automatically assume a whole host of connections.

                        I have often argued that the Manichaean concept of "gnosis", is far
                        closer to the orthodox Christian (especially Catholic) usage than to
                        the Gnostic one. However, I leave that open to discussion and debate.

                        PMCV
                      • lady_caritas
                        ... make ... I m not sure he actually conceded, PMCV, because he did point out differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier Gnostics, allowing
                        Message 11 of 21 , Oct 31, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Miguel and all
                          >
                          > >>>Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee.<<<
                          >
                          > SO, I did catch it... did anyone else here do so? Anyone have
                          > thoughts or comments about the interview, or about the subject?
                          > Questions? Criticisms? Debate points?
                          >
                          > I did notice a few things about the interview. I noticed how Dr
                          > BeDuhn seemed to concede the term "Gnosticism" for the sake of the
                          > interview, but vascilated between drawing the line and trying to
                          make
                          > a concerted effort to use the term in a more popular way.



                          I'm not sure he actually conceded, PMCV, because he did point out
                          differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier
                          Gnostics, allowing the listener to at least begin a process of
                          examining this subject of categorization. Possibly his primary focus
                          of the interview could have been to give general information about
                          Mani and the Manichaeans for an audience of varied backgrounds, as
                          you point out, and not get too specific in an academic way about
                          categorization. In fact I don't remember the actual
                          word "Gnosticism" being used all that much in the interview. Yet use
                          of terms like "gnostic movement" or "gnostics" or "antecedent
                          gnostic" would seem to show a predilection for a specific category
                          for comparison in his view.

                          And Dr. BeDuhn (pronounced, if I understand correctly: "beh-doon")
                          did say early on in the interview that how Manichaeism is related to
                          the broader Gnostic movement is debatable. Even though he didn't get
                          into depth about the actual function of gnosis, he did bring out the
                          importance of this type of knowledge for both Manichaeans and earlier
                          Gnostics, involving the true nature of god and soul. Even though we
                          see syncretism, a few differences he pointed out included how in
                          Manichaeism a good god created the world, which distinctly varied
                          from the antecedent Gnostic world-maligned creation, and also the
                          Manichaeans' belief that non-humans, i.e., plants and animals have
                          souls, which is broader than most gnostic systems. We also see a
                          pantheism in Manichaeism in that everything has god in it; everything
                          is a mixture of good and evil, and there is a real affirmation of the
                          natural world, quite different from other gnostic systems. PMCV, in
                          this regard you also pointed out in a previous post (#12810) an
                          important difference concerning cosmology:

                          "Gnostic texts generally see the universal flaw as being caused by
                          division and
                          seperation from the spiritual source. In other words, duality is a bad
                          thing. Manichaeans, on the other hand, describe a setting in which the
                          flaw in the universe was caused not because of duality, but because of
                          a mixing of the dual forces that should naturally be kept apart. In
                          Manichaean thinking the world is a sort of machine for sorting out the
                          dual elements back into their rightful opposites (the world having a
                          positive function). Gnostics, on the other hand, present the world as
                          a flawed creation by an ignorant Demiurge."

                          All this said, there is still the issue of the function of Gnosis in
                          the system, as you also mentioned. And one could examine whether
                          Gnosis or rather Praxis is emphasized as the main soteriological
                          force.



                          > I was also aware of his considerably more diplomatic presentation
                          of
                          > various authors' method of popularizing Gnosticism, and the
                          resulting
                          > information as it really relates to subject at hand. The point
                          about
                          > accentuating certain popular attributes is a nice way of
                          questioning
                          > the validity of those attributes and reliability of the picture
                          those
                          > authors are presenting. If one wished to state that more simply
                          they
                          > could say that many popular efforts are unfortunately based on
                          gloss
                          > and spin.... but I am a bit more blunt than most ;)
                          >
                          > I was a little disappointed that Dr BeDuhn danced past the issue of
                          > the funtion of gnosis in Manichaean thought vs the function in
                          > Gnostic thinking, since it is so core to the issue of what the
                          > category of "Gnostic" is meant to communicate. I do, however,
                          > understand that simply going with the flow may have been easier
                          > considering the shortness of the interview and perhaps the fact
                          that
                          > the audience was likely to be new to the subject. Of course, in
                          this
                          > forum we try to go a bit deeper into this kind of issue. Even in
                          this
                          > forum it has sometimes been difficult to convey for some people
                          that
                          > the Gnostic concept of "Gnosis" is different from the Catholic
                          > concept of "gnosis", because when people see the word they tend to
                          > automatically assume a whole host of connections.
                          >
                          > I have often argued that the Manichaean concept of "gnosis", is far
                          > closer to the orthodox Christian (especially Catholic) usage than
                          to
                          > the Gnostic one. However, I leave that open to discussion and
                          debate.
                          >
                          > PMCV
                          >


                          Would you care to share your views further on this subject, PMCV?

                          One also could posit whether orthodox Christianity most likely
                          derived its concept of gnosis at least in part from Manichaeism, due
                          to the influence of Augustine. Apparently, Dr. BeDuhn currently is
                          working on the figure of Augustine regarding his use of Manichaeism
                          in Catholic material. Should be interesting.

                          BTW, I know it's Halloween, but perhaps some more spirited members
                          lurking in the shadows might want to question or comment more on the
                          interview or Manichaeism in general?

                          It appeared to me that Dr. BeDuhn really enjoyed this subject. He
                          particularly seemed to light up when discussing the Manichaean
                          positive view of world beauty (countering a reputation as "world
                          haters") and part of their affirmation of beauty as manifested in the
                          high value that Manichaeans placed on human art.


                          Cari
                        • pmcvflag
                          Hey Lady Cari ... differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier Gnostics, allowing the listener to at least begin a process of examining this
                          Message 12 of 21 , Oct 31, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hey Lady Cari

                            >>>I'm not sure he actually conceded, PMCV, because he did point out
                            differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier
                            Gnostics, allowing the listener to at least begin a process of
                            examining this subject of categorization. Possibly his primary focus
                            of the interview could have been to give general information about
                            Mani and the Manichaeans for an audience of varied backgrounds, as
                            you point out, and not get too specific in an academic way about
                            categorization. In fact I don't remember the actual
                            word "Gnosticism" being used all that much in the interview. Yet use
                            of terms like "gnostic movement" or "gnostics" or "antecedent
                            gnostic" would seem to show a predilection for a specific category
                            for comparison in his view.<<<

                            Well, what I meant by "concede" is that he was willing to use terms
                            like "other gnostics" when it was clear, as you point out, that he
                            was often drawing a destinction. I noticed that in most instances
                            when he mentioned the Gnostics first he clearly did not define
                            Manichaeans as part of this movement. He even went so far as to
                            explain how Manichaeans probably conciously borrowed Gnostic lingo
                            at a later date in the same way they borrowed Buddhist lingo.
                            However, when mentioning the Manichaeans first he sometimes talked
                            about their relation to "other gnostics" with what sounded to me
                            like a hint of hesitation. Perhaps that stood out to me because I
                            got the unabridged version *lol*, but I can say that in his lectures
                            it was not a matter of "other Gnostics".

                            I do like the term "antecedent gnostics" because it can imply a
                            connection without having to imply a cohesion. It allows for the
                            possibility that Manichaeans are related to the Gnostics without
                            actually BEING Gnostic.

                            >>>And Dr. BeDuhn (pronounced, if I understand correctly: "beh-doon")
                            did say early on in the interview that how Manichaeism is related to
                            the broader Gnostic movement is debatable.<<<

                            True, he did. And yes... Miguel, just for the record you pronounced
                            his name wrong (I have to rib you on that one *lol*).

                            >>>Even though he didn't get into depth about the actual function of
                            gnosis, he did bring out the importance of this type of knowledge
                            for both Manichaeans and earlier Gnostics, involving the true nature
                            of god and soul.<<<

                            Which was interesting because even in his book he talks about how
                            the importance and function of this type of knowledge in the
                            Manichaean system is often based on a questionable reading of the
                            text (Body, pg 98, last section).

                            >>>All this said, there is still the issue of the function of Gnosis
                            in the system, as you also mentioned. And one could examine whether
                            Gnosis or rather Praxis is emphasized as the main soteriological
                            force.<<<

                            Yes, exactly. I know it is a big debate, but a very important one
                            when considering what it is that makes something "Gnostic".

                            >>>Would you care to share your views further on this subject, PMCV?
                            <<<

                            Well, yes I would *lol*. However, I would like to see others offer
                            some views first so that it is open to wider conversation.

                            >>>BTW, I know it's Halloween, but perhaps some more spirited members
                            lurking in the shadows might want to question or comment more on the
                            interview or Manichaeism in general?<<<

                            Oh yeah! I forgot it is Halloween. I guess I should get back to
                            errands before people start knocking on the door! I do hope others
                            chime in on this conversation though.

                            >>>It appeared to me that Dr. BeDuhn really enjoyed this subject. He
                            particularly seemed to light up when discussing the Manichaean
                            positive view of world beauty (countering a reputation as "world
                            haters") and part of their affirmation of beauty as manifested in the
                            high value that Manichaeans placed on human art.<<<

                            Indeed. In fact, I always had the impression the Gnosticism wasn't
                            quite so interesting to him. Manichaeans seem to be his passion, and
                            he proudly claims to be a "Mani maniac" *lol*.

                            PMCV
                          • Melissa McIntyre
                            Since I am a new member to the group, I don t know what interview or discussion you are pertaining too, but I would be interested in knowing more about it, so
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Since I am a new member to the group, I don't know what interview or discussion you are pertaining too, but I would be interested in knowing more about it, so that I can comment on it. 
                              Melissa
                              lady_caritas <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                              --- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, pmcvflag <no_reply@.. .> wrote:
                              >
                              > Miguel and all
                              >
                              > >>>Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee. <<<
                              >
                              > SO, I did catch it... did anyone else here do so? Anyone have
                              > thoughts or comments about the interview, or about the subject?
                              > Questions? Criticisms? Debate points?
                              >
                              > I did notice a few things about the interview. I noticed how Dr
                              > BeDuhn seemed to concede the term "Gnosticism" for the sake of the
                              > interview, but vascilated between drawing the line and trying to
                              make
                              > a concerted effort to use the term in a more popular way.

                              I'm not sure he actually conceded, PMCV, because he did point out
                              differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier
                              Gnostics, allowing the listener to at least begin a process of
                              examining this subject of categorization. Possibly his primary focus
                              of the interview could have been to give general information about
                              Mani and the Manichaeans for an audience of varied backgrounds, as
                              you point out, and not get too specific in an academic way about
                              categorization. In fact I don't remember the actual
                              word "Gnosticism" being used all that much in the interview. Yet use
                              of terms like "gnostic movement" or "gnostics" or "antecedent
                              gnostic" would seem to show a predilection for a specific category
                              for comparison in his view.

                              And Dr. BeDuhn (pronounced, if I understand correctly: "beh-doon")
                              did say early on in the interview that how Manichaeism is related to
                              the broader Gnostic movement is debatable. Even though he didn't get
                              into depth about the actual function of gnosis, he did bring out the
                              importance of this type of knowledge for both Manichaeans and earlier
                              Gnostics, involving the true nature of god and soul. Even though we
                              see syncretism, a few differences he pointed out included how in
                              Manichaeism a good god created the world, which distinctly varied
                              from the antecedent Gnostic world-maligned creation, and also the
                              Manichaeans' belief that non-humans, i.e., plants and animals have
                              souls, which is broader than most gnostic systems. We also see a
                              pantheism in Manichaeism in that everything has god in it; everything
                              is a mixture of good and evil, and there is a real affirmation of the
                              natural world, quite different from other gnostic systems. PMCV, in
                              this regard you also pointed out in a previous post (#12810) an
                              important difference concerning cosmology:

                              "Gnostic texts generally see the universal flaw as being caused by
                              division and
                              seperation from the spiritual source. In other words, duality is a bad
                              thing. Manichaeans, on the other hand, describe a setting in which the
                              flaw in the universe was caused not because of duality, but because of
                              a mixing of the dual forces that should naturally be kept apart. In
                              Manichaean thinking the world is a sort of machine for sorting out the
                              dual elements back into their rightful opposites (the world having a
                              positive function). Gnostics, on the other hand, present the world as
                              a flawed creation by an ignorant Demiurge."

                              All this said, there is still the issue of the function of Gnosis in
                              the system, as you also mentioned. And one could examine whether
                              Gnosis or rather Praxis is emphasized as the main soteriological
                              force.

                              > I was also aware of his considerably more diplomatic presentation
                              of
                              > various authors' method of popularizing Gnosticism, and the
                              resulting
                              > information as it really relates to subject at hand. The point
                              about
                              > accentuating certain popular attributes is a nice way of
                              questioning
                              > the validity of those attributes and reliability of the picture
                              those
                              > authors are presenting. If one wished to state that more simply
                              they
                              > could say that many popular efforts are unfortunately based on
                              gloss
                              > and spin.... but I am a bit more blunt than most ;)
                              >
                              > I was a little disappointed that Dr BeDuhn danced past the issue of
                              > the funtion of gnosis in Manichaean thought vs the function in
                              > Gnostic thinking, since it is so core to the issue of what the
                              > category of "Gnostic" is meant to communicate. I do, however,
                              > understand that simply going with the flow may have been easier
                              > considering the shortness of the interview and perhaps the fact
                              that
                              > the audience was likely to be new to the subject. Of course, in
                              this
                              > forum we try to go a bit deeper into this kind of issue. Even in
                              this
                              > forum it has sometimes been difficult to convey for some people
                              that
                              > the Gnostic concept of "Gnosis" is different from the Catholic
                              > concept of "gnosis", because when people see the word they tend to
                              > automatically assume a whole host of connections.
                              >
                              > I have often argued that the Manichaean concept of "gnosis", is far
                              > closer to the orthodox Christian (especially Catholic) usage than
                              to
                              > the Gnostic one. However, I leave that open to discussion and
                              debate.
                              >
                              > PMCV
                              >

                              Would you care to share your views further on this subject, PMCV?

                              One also could posit whether orthodox Christianity most likely
                              derived its concept of gnosis at least in part from Manichaeism, due
                              to the influence of Augustine. Apparently, Dr. BeDuhn currently is
                              working on the figure of Augustine regarding his use of Manichaeism
                              in Catholic material. Should be interesting.

                              BTW, I know it's Halloween, but perhaps some more spirited members
                              lurking in the shadows might want to question or comment more on the
                              interview or Manichaeism in general?

                              It appeared to me that Dr. BeDuhn really enjoyed this subject. He
                              particularly seemed to light up when discussing the Manichaean
                              positive view of world beauty (countering a reputation as "world
                              haters") and part of their affirmation of beauty as manifested in the
                              high value that Manichaeans placed on human art.

                              Cari




                              The Dragon Speaks......Listen.


                              Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

                            • lady_caritas
                              ... or discussion you are pertaining too, but I would be interested in knowing more about it, so that I can comment on it. ... Welcome, Melissa! The
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Melissa McIntyre <oakraven71@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > Since I am a new member to the group, I don't know what interview
                                or discussion you are pertaining too, but I would be interested in
                                knowing more about it, so that I can comment on it.
                                >
                                > Melissa


                                Welcome, Melissa! The discussion thread begins here, if you'd like
                                to catch up at our website:
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/message/12805

                                The interview with Dr. BeDuhn was about Mani and the Manichaeans and
                                aired this past Sunday at Free Thought Media. I don't know if Miguel
                                is planning on a rebroadcast of the interview, but purchases of
                                interviews are available for a small fee at that website (*not*
                                affiliated with Gnosticism2 group, BTW), usually around a dollar,
                                only if you're interested.
                                http://www.freethoughtmedia.com/

                                Feel free to just ask questions or comment on Mani or Manichaeans in
                                general, too, if you'd like.

                                Cari
                              • Miguel Conner
                                Hi, Well, I think it s safe to say that there is always going to be some cross-pollination between competing religions. And the fact the father of Christian
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi,

                                  Well, I think it's safe to say that there is always going to be some cross-pollination between competing religions.  And the fact the father of Christian theology, Saint Augustine, was, in a sense, playing both sides of the field.  Hopefully, Professor BeDuhn will come out with his new work on Augustine in the near future.

                                  Miguel

                                  pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                  Miguel and all

                                  >>>Hope you catch it. BeDuhn was a great interviewee. <<<

                                  SO, I did catch it... did anyone else here do so? Anyone have
                                  thoughts or comments about the interview, or about the subject?
                                  Questions? Criticisms? Debate points?

                                  I did notice a few things about the interview. I noticed how Dr
                                  BeDuhn seemed to concede the term "Gnosticism" for the sake of the
                                  interview, but vascilated between drawing the line and trying to make
                                  a concerted effort to use the term in a more popular way.

                                  I was also aware of his considerably more diplomatic presentation of
                                  various authors' method of popularizing Gnosticism, and the resulting
                                  information as it really relates to subject at hand. The point about
                                  accentuating certain popular attributes is a nice way of questioning
                                  the validity of those attributes and reliability of the picture those
                                  authors are presenting. If one wished to state that more simply they
                                  could say that many popular efforts are unfortunately based on gloss
                                  and spin.... but I am a bit more blunt than most ;)

                                  I was a little disappointed that Dr BeDuhn danced past the issue of
                                  the funtion of gnosis in Manichaean thought vs the function in
                                  Gnostic thinking, since it is so core to the issue of what the
                                  category of "Gnostic" is meant to communicate. I do, however,
                                  understand that simply going with the flow may have been easier
                                  considering the shortness of the interview and perhaps the fact that
                                  the audience was likely to be new to the subject. Of course, in this
                                  forum we try to go a bit deeper into this kind of issue. Even in this
                                  forum it has sometimes been difficult to convey for some people that
                                  the Gnostic concept of "Gnosis" is different from the Catholic
                                  concept of "gnosis", because when people see the word they tend to
                                  automatically assume a whole host of connections.

                                  I have often argued that the Manichaean concept of "gnosis", is far
                                  closer to the orthodox Christian (especially Catholic) usage than to
                                  the Gnostic one. However, I leave that open to discussion and debate.

                                  PMCV




                                  Visit http://thegodabovegod.com/ and become part of the new Renaissance of Gnosticism and Truthseeking.


                                  Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

                                • Miguel Conner
                                  Doh! I should have asked him how to pronounce his name since I m the eternal autodidact! Oh well, you d be surprised at how many guest mispronounce Miguel
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Doh!  I should have asked him how to pronounce his name since I'm the eternal autodidact!  Oh well, you'd be surprised at how many guest mispronounce 'Miguel' during interviews.

                                    Miguel

                                    pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                    Hey Lady Cari

                                    >>>I'm not sure he actually conceded, PMCV, because he did point out
                                    differences and similarities between Manichaeans and earlier
                                    Gnostics, allowing the listener to at least begin a process of
                                    examining this subject of categorization. Possibly his primary focus
                                    of the interview could have been to give general information about
                                    Mani and the Manichaeans for an audience of varied backgrounds, as
                                    you point out, and not get too specific in an academic way about
                                    categorization. In fact I don't remember the actual
                                    word "Gnosticism" being used all that much in the interview. Yet use
                                    of terms like "gnostic movement" or "gnostics" or "antecedent
                                    gnostic" would seem to show a predilection for a specific category
                                    for comparison in his view.<<<

                                    Well, what I meant by "concede" is that he was willing to use terms
                                    like "other gnostics" when it was clear, as you point out, that he
                                    was often drawing a destinction. I noticed that in most instances
                                    when he mentioned the Gnostics first he clearly did not define
                                    Manichaeans as part of this movement. He even went so far as to
                                    explain how Manichaeans probably conciously borrowed Gnostic lingo
                                    at a later date in the same way they borrowed Buddhist lingo.
                                    However, when mentioning the Manichaeans first he sometimes talked
                                    about their relation to "other gnostics" with what sounded to me
                                    like a hint of hesitation. Perhaps that stood out to me because I
                                    got the unabridged version *lol*, but I can say that in his lectures
                                    it was not a matter of "other Gnostics".

                                    I do like the term "antecedent gnostics" because it can imply a
                                    connection without having to imply a cohesion. It allows for the
                                    possibility that Manichaeans are related to the Gnostics without
                                    actually BEING Gnostic.

                                    >>>And Dr. BeDuhn (pronounced, if I understand correctly: "beh-doon")
                                    did say early on in the interview that how Manichaeism is related to
                                    the broader Gnostic movement is debatable.<< <

                                    True, he did. And yes... Miguel, just for the record you pronounced
                                    his name wrong (I have to rib you on that one *lol*).

                                    >>>Even though he didn't get into depth about the actual function of
                                    gnosis, he did bring out the importance of this type of knowledge
                                    for both Manichaeans and earlier Gnostics, involving the true nature
                                    of god and soul.<<<

                                    Which was interesting because even in his book he talks about how
                                    the importance and function of this type of knowledge in the
                                    Manichaean system is often based on a questionable reading of the
                                    text (Body, pg 98, last section).

                                    >>>All this said, there is still the issue of the function of Gnosis
                                    in the system, as you also mentioned. And one could examine whether
                                    Gnosis or rather Praxis is emphasized as the main soteriological
                                    force.<<<

                                    Yes, exactly. I know it is a big debate, but a very important one
                                    when considering what it is that makes something "Gnostic".

                                    >>>Would you care to share your views further on this subject, PMCV?
                                    <<<

                                    Well, yes I would *lol*. However, I would like to see others offer
                                    some views first so that it is open to wider conversation.

                                    >>>BTW, I know it's Halloween, but perhaps some more spirited members
                                    lurking in the shadows might want to question or comment more on the
                                    interview or Manichaeism in general?<<<

                                    Oh yeah! I forgot it is Halloween. I guess I should get back to
                                    errands before people start knocking on the door! I do hope others
                                    chime in on this conversation though.

                                    >>>It appeared to me that Dr. BeDuhn really enjoyed this subject. He
                                    particularly seemed to light up when discussing the Manichaean
                                    positive view of world beauty (countering a reputation as "world
                                    haters") and part of their affirmation of beauty as manifested in the
                                    high value that Manichaeans placed on human art.<<<

                                    Indeed. In fact, I always had the impression the Gnosticism wasn't
                                    quite so interesting to him. Manichaeans seem to be his passion, and
                                    he proudly claims to be a "Mani maniac" *lol*.

                                    PMCV




                                    Visit http://thegodabovegod.com/ and become part of the new Renaissance of Gnosticism and Truthseeking.


                                    We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.

                                  • pmcvflag
                                    ... the eternal autodidact! Oh well, you d be surprised at how many guest mispronounce Miguel during interviews.
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      >>>Doh! I should have asked him how to pronounce his name since I'm
                                      the eternal autodidact! Oh well, you'd be surprised at how many guest
                                      mispronounce 'Miguel' during interviews.<<<

                                      LOL, yeah, but I bet I have it worse. My last name is Nygren... and I
                                      am trying to remember the last time somebody actually said it right.

                                      PMCV
                                    • pmcvflag
                                      Hey Miguel ... some cross-pollination between competing religions.
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hey Miguel

                                        >>>Well, I think it's safe to say that there is always going to be
                                        some cross-pollination between competing religions.<<<

                                        Very true. Especially when the religions in question are already a
                                        bit syncratic (or ecclectic, as the case may be). Still, it is even
                                        true of the "orthodox" religions, though many practitioners would
                                        like to believe otherwise.

                                        >>>Hopefully, Professor BeDuhn will come out with his new work on
                                        Augustine in the near future.<<<

                                        Yes. BTW, for those who may be interested Dr BeDuhn also wrote a book
                                        on New Testement translation called "Truth in Translation", you can
                                        get it on Amazon (plug). It may sound off topic, but I have some of
                                        Dr BeDuhn's own translations of New Testement texts, and it would
                                        shock many people how much more Valentinian Paul sounds (or maybe I
                                        should say how like Paul some Valentinian texts sound) when he is
                                        translated in a way that maintains words like "pleroma" the way they
                                        did with the Nag Hammadi texts in English.

                                        PMCV
                                      • Michael Leavitt
                                        Gee, I didn t know you were Vietnamese, common name there.
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Gee, I didn't know you were Vietnamese, common name there.

                                          pmcvflag wrote:
                                          >>>> Doh! I should have asked him how to pronounce his name since I'm
                                          >>>>
                                          > the eternal autodidact! Oh well, you'd be surprised at how many guest
                                          > mispronounce 'Miguel' during interviews.<<<
                                          >
                                          > LOL, yeah, but I bet I have it worse. My last name is Nygren... and I
                                          > am trying to remember the last time somebody actually said it right.
                                          >
                                          > PMCV
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • pmcvflag
                                          Hey Mike ... Unless I am mistaken, I believe the name you may be thinking of is Nguyen. My name, Nygren, is Swedish. PMCV
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hey Mike

                                            >>Gee, I didn't know you were Vietnamese, common name there.<<

                                            Unless I am mistaken, I believe the name you may be thinking of is
                                            Nguyen. My name, Nygren, is Swedish.

                                            PMCV
                                          • Michael Leavitt
                                            Forgot the :-) again.
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Nov 3, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Forgot the :-) again.

                                              pmcvflag wrote:
                                              > Hey Mike
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >>> Gee, I didn't know you were Vietnamese, common name there.<<
                                              >>>
                                              >
                                              > Unless I am mistaken, I believe the name you may be thinking of is
                                              > Nguyen. My name, Nygren, is Swedish.
                                              >
                                              > PMCV
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.