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

Re: A Personal Statement

Expand Messages
  • Verna Leigh Johnson
    A beautiful and excellent post, Chesterelder. And my agreeance on all points. Except one. The concept of sin . Now that is truly an orthodox concept, and not
    Message 1 of 3 , Oct 5, 2007
      A beautiful and excellent post, Chesterelder.
      And my agreeance on all points. Except one. The concept of 'sin'.
      Now that is truly an orthodox concept, and not one held by gnostics.
      Either historical or 'new age' or whatever. WE didn't 'fall'. WE
      are born into a world that facilitates us not remembering who we are
      and where we came from. We are not into salvation, as there is
      none, According to the Cathars, we 'chose' to manifest ourselves on
      this plane, for some reason. But the 'fall' and 'sin' are concepts
      of the orthodox.
      Just my two coins! A refreshing post, thank you.
      Gosh it is good to see a gnostic of your caliber here!
      whirled and inner peas,

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "chesterelders"
      <chesterelders@...> wrote:
      > Hello:
      > I think anyone who studies ancient gnosticism does so in
      > to peek into the shadows. The Christian message has been refined
      > polished by centuries of apologetics and street-level thuggery.
      > we now take to be orthodoxy is the product of the intrigues and
      > passions of men who often resorted to such thuggery to do God's
      > The various plots and counter-plots following the great Council of
      > Nicaea in 325 are an excellent example.
      > I'm not claiming that religion can be reduced to politics;
      > I am claiming is that the two are inextricably linked. The winners
      > get to say what is and what isn't orthodoxy. There's this visceral
      > belief in our bellies, though which just can't accept that truth
      > power are the same thing. Christianity has entered a phase of it's
      > history where hard questions can no longer be avoided. Those hard
      > questions want to peek into the tenebrous heresies which the early
      > church tried so hard to supress.
      > It's really quite amazing how the early church fathers
      > squabbled over seemingly arcane points of theology. Even among the
      > gnostics, themselves questions of exactly how the ineffable god
      > managed to create the world stained their writings. Various schools
      > of thought held that defferent archons rebelled against their
      > appointed nature and thereby sinned. Those sins resulted in an
      > aborted creation. It seems the message is clear enough: the atoms
      > the world are made of sin. What does it matter the exact means by
      > which those sins occured?
      > The shadows into which the gnostics were consigned are
      > certainly not pristine. I doubt that we'll find truth in the gloom.
      > Stripped to the bare essentuals, Christianity offers an explanation
      > of sin which isn't so different from what the gnostics offered. The
      > world is broken because of hubris. I think the gnostics are
      > important, not because they knew a forgotten truth, but rather
      > because they knew that truth is basically a drama. By that I mean
      > truth can only properly be understood as it unfolds in the same way
      > that a drama unfolds. The dramatis personae of the gnostic tales
      > reveal the same truth which the church has proclaimed for two
      > thousand years: the world is broken. The question becomes "Who has
      > the remedy?". As with all great question, I believe that the asking
      > is more important that the knowing. The real reason everyone fought
      > over the truth is that the snake oil of salvation appeals to those
      > who want comfort; they can't handle the hardness and lonliness of
      > question in all it's starkness.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.