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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Oct 29, 2006
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 21 , Oct 29, 2006
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 21 , Oct 30, 2006
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 21 , Oct 31, 2006
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 21 , Oct 31, 2006
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 21 , Nov 1, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 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 10 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                      View Source
                      • 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 11 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                        View Source
                        • 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 12 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                          View Source
                          • 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 13 of 21 , Nov 2, 2006
                            View Source
                            • 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 14 of 21 , Nov 3, 2006
                              View Source
                              • 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.