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

Re: The Old & New Inquisition against the Gnostics this Sun on CCG!!!

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Miguel ... the beginning, anything mainstream they don t like will be called Gnostic. In Arthur s book he points out authors who have humorously accused
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 19, 2007
      Hey Miguel

      >>You expressed this better than I could have. In the end, as in
      the beginning, anything mainstream they don't like will be called
      Gnostic. In Arthur's book he points out authors who have humorously
      accused Oprah Winfrey, Gloria Steimen, and even Louis Farrakan of
      being 'gnostic'. And the list doesn't end there!<<<

      Then again, this would be expected on the part of the polemicists.
      Critical perspective is not in their agenda. What I find even more
      strange is that the same thing is going on with many people who
      label THEMSELVES "Gnostic". Just as it was with the polemicists
      trying to connect heresies together, some modern self professed
      Gnostics often reduce the category to a specific attribute and
      extend the label accordingly. Things like egalitarianism, mysticism,
      some sort of spiritual anarchy or counterculture individualism, or
      simply not being "orthodox" becomes the idenity of "Gnostic".

      No wonder people often join the forum confused about what the
      heck "Gnosticism" actually is *lol*.

      PMCV
    • pmcvflag
      BTW Lady Cari, when you talked about Couliano being mentioned in the interview I meant to post this as the probable quote... Once I believed that Gnosticism
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 20, 2007
        BTW Lady Cari, when you talked about Couliano being mentioned in the
        interview I meant to post this as the probable quote...

        "Once I believed that Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon
        belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Of course, I
        was ready to accept the idea of different prolongations of ancient
        Gnosis, and even that of spontaneous generation of views of the
        world in which, at different times, the distinctive features of
        Gnosticism occur again.

        I was soon to learn however, that I was a naïf indeed. Not only
        Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic authors were gnostic, the
        Neoplatonic too, Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic,
        Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis
        were gnostic too, modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka
        were gnostic…. I learned further that science is gnostic and
        superstition is gnostic…Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; all
        things and their opposite are equally gnostic."

        The funny part is, I have had people actually use this quote to
        counter something I have said thinking that Couliano was being
        serious. They thought he was advocating an uncritical usage
        of "Gnosticism" and saying it really WAS all these things. I would
        like to dream that people don't abuse our words this way... but...
        *sigh*.

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hey Lady Cari
        >
        > >>>PMCV, I think you have hit on a major reason why what eventually
        > developed into mainstream, exoteric Christian orthodoxy was used
        as a
        > weapon instead of more otherworldly, abstruse systems...<snip>....
        > It's very possible that not only the exoteric church and its
        > polemics, but also its emphasis on Biblical religious figures as
        > historical figures would more readily relate to mainstream groups
        > and the worldly political arena than an otherworldly, metaphorical
        > and mythological approach. Worldly political powers targeted
        > heretics as enemies by which to define their ideologies.<<<
        >
        > Exactly. The literalism and simple pistic soteriology is a double
        > whammy in that it is easy to understand, but also plays well into
        > political agendas since it lends itself readily to a sort of civil
        > codification.
        >
        > The perfect tool for the power hungry.
        >
        > >>>Regarding the term "gnostic," Dr. Versluis also noted how
        > gradually the expression no longer always had historical meaning,
        > and often became synonymous with "People that I don't like." The
        > professor also mentioned Couliano's essay from the 1980s in which
        he
        > made fun of everything being "gnostic" nowadays. "Gnostic" often
        > became pejorative, where things were seen to be diminished if this
        > word were used. He sees that as a throwback to ancient antiheresy
        > rhetoric.<<<
        >
        > It is always nice to hear somebody else point this out besides us,
        > eh? *lol*
        >
        > PMCV
        >
      • lady_caritas
        ... the ... PMCV, I guess we need to utilize all those emoticons more, like winky faces, or something. ;-) Not only Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 20, 2007
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          > BTW Lady Cari, when you talked about Couliano being mentioned in
          the
          > interview I meant to post this as the probable quote...
          >
          > "Once I believed that Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon
          > belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Of course, I
          > was ready to accept the idea of different prolongations of ancient
          > Gnosis, and even that of spontaneous generation of views of the
          > world in which, at different times, the distinctive features of
          > Gnosticism occur again.
          >
          > I was soon to learn however, that I was a naïf indeed. Not only
          > Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic authors were gnostic, the
          > Neoplatonic too, Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic,
          > Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis
          > were gnostic too, modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka
          > were gnostic…. I learned further that science is gnostic and
          > superstition is gnostic…Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; all
          > things and their opposite are equally gnostic."
          >
          > The funny part is, I have had people actually use this quote to
          > counter something I have said thinking that Couliano was being
          > serious. They thought he was advocating an uncritical usage
          > of "Gnosticism" and saying it really WAS all these things. I would
          > like to dream that people don't abuse our words this way... but...
          > *sigh*.
          >
          > PMCV
          >


          PMCV, I guess we need to utilize all those emoticons more, like winky
          faces, or something. ;-)


          "Not only Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic authors were gnostic
          [ :-0 ], the Neoplatonic too [ ;-> ], Reformation was gnostic
          [ :-S ], Communism was gnostic [ :-( ],"... etc.

          Cari
        • Michael Leavitt
          ... Cutsipoo gnosis, no less. :-)
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 20, 2007
            > PMCV, I guess we need to utilize all those emoticons more, like winky
            > faces, or something. ;-)
            >
            >
            Cutsipoo gnosis, no less. :-)
            >
            >
          • Gerry
            ... Yes, naïf indeed! Ya know, before our initial venturing into the Internet all those years ago, I m sure that I would NEVER have believed that people
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 1, 2007


              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:

              >
              > BTW Lady Cari, when you talked about Couliano being mentioned in the
              > interview I meant to post this as the probable quote...
              >
              > "Once I believed that Gnosticism was a well-defined phenomenon
              > belonging to the religious history of Late Antiquity. Of course, I
              > was ready to accept the idea of different prolongations of ancient
              > Gnosis, and even that of spontaneous generation of views of the
              > world in which, at different times, the distinctive features of
              > Gnosticism occur again.
              >
              > I was soon to learn however, that I was a naïf indeed. Not only
              > Gnosis was gnostic, but the Catholic authors were gnostic, the
              > Neoplatonic too, Reformation was gnostic, Communism was gnostic,
              > Nazism was gnostic, liberalism, existentialism and psychoanalysis
              > were gnostic too, modern biology was gnostic, Blake, Yeats, Kafka
              > were gnostic…. I learned further that science is gnostic and
              > superstition is gnostic…Hegel is gnostic and Marx is gnostic; all
              > things and their opposite are equally gnostic."
              >
              > The funny part is, I have had people actually use this quote to
              > counter something I have said thinking that Couliano was being
              > serious. They thought he was advocating an uncritical usage
              > of "Gnosticism" and saying it really WAS all these things. I would
              > like to dream that people don't abuse our words this way... but...
              > *sigh*.
              >
              > PMCV
              >

               

              Yes, naïf indeed!  Ya know, before our initial venturing into the Internet all those years ago, I'm sure that I would NEVER have believed that people could actually understand such a clear and reasonable statement as advocating the very opposite of what the author intended.  Unfortunately, we've seen it happen too many times.

              Gerry

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.