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

Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Mani & The Manicheans this Sunday on Coffee, Cigs & Gnosis!!!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.