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

Re: Faith vs Experience

Expand Messages
  • the_passerby7777
    Phil, While in my personal experience I don t interpret the Adam/Eve story just as the Gnostic text, I still respect their perspective. I would not call any
    Message 1 of 111 , Jan 6, 2008

      While in my personal experience I don't interpret the Adam/Eve story
      just as the Gnostic text, I still respect their perspective. I would
      not call any version "truly" inaccurate as if "one" size fits all, if
      you know what I am saying. The scriptures are formed in a universal
      manner, where anyone who approaches them will see and can see their
      perspective out of it. It is the process of the mind of the individual
      effecting what is, the filters of ones beliefs will decide what they
      will see in conjunction to if they are "carnal" or "thinkers" or
      "spiritual." To me there is truth in all and every perspective, not
      too say that there isn't a absolute purpose of the mythology, but the
      fact that since the mind has different faculties one will see in
      different perspectives. I would not make a statement that it is
      inaccurate, rather I would seek to perceive why they came to the
      conclusions they did, I would seek to add their perspective to myself,
      so that I may lack nothing and understand them, as there is truth in
      all things.

      For instance, the average Christian will interpret the Adam/Eve story
      literally. It's not as if they aren't right, in that the literal words
      say exactly what they say, besides the Satan.

      To me there are central themes that a person must apply in their
      experience to call themselves a Gnostic today, just as if one would
      call themselves a Buddhist. Surely a person talking in a Christian
      tongue but saying they are a Buddhist would be strange. While I accept
      your perspective from the sense that "Gnostic" can be more of a
      mindset, that of one who seeks savlific knowledge that is beyond the
      mundane, Self Knowledge (which I would agree is equally true), at the
      same time the word "Gnostic" was probably more so used as a Heretical
      term where the early church fathers throw sects who held core concepts
      into one bunch. What is interesting is that many of the guys like
      Valentinus still considered themselves Orthodox, probably more so
      spiritual Christians, as I would say. Anyways not to care for the
      scriptures that were written by them is a bit out of touch, especially
      if you are calling yourself "Gnostic." It to the very least should
      invoke you to understand the ones who were called "Gnostics" POV. Like
      me for example, while I am not so drawn into the history, I still have
      taken their scriptures perceived them over and came to understand the
      POV, which I agree with most of it from what I have experienced in my
      life, which goes to say that I have a practical interpretation where
      said interpretation can be applied and perceived in all you do, say,
      and etc. I found Gnosticism when I was 20, well not Gnosticism
      wholly, but the Thomas Gospel, yes. Before then I had never read a
      scripture, or any spiritually inspired writing. So Thomas Gospel was
      officially the first "scripture" I ever read, didn't read into the
      other parts of the Nag Hammadi Library until I was 23, read the bible
      for the first time before the Nag Hammadi Library when I was 23. I'm
      25 now, and why I would call myself a Gnostic, is not just because of
      the "mindset" associated with what the term "Gnostic" means, but also
      because of what I found relevant in the scriptures from a spiritual
      sense, as I have seen the scripture in my own life as I had perceived
      such realities before I ever read any scripture, by applying the key
      to knowledge.

      In any case what is your interpretation on the Adam/Eve story? If you
      have already provided a interpretation, don't hesitate to show me, I
      would be interested to see your perspective of the break down of the
      Adam and Eve story.



      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, souldreamone@... wrote:
      > Do I seem to you like a guy who's 'put off' by nontraditional
      > interpretations?
      > The interpretation is self serving and innacurate, along with the
      > traditional Christian version. (IMHO)
      > Phil
      > In a message dated 1/6/2008 12:16:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
      > yahoogroups.com writes:
      > Phil.....
      > >>>>". . . The carnal woman said, â€Å"Not only did he say
      ‘Do not eat,’
      > but even ‘Do not touch it; for the day you eat from it, with
      death you
      > are going to die.’” And the snake, the instructor,
      said, â€Å"With death
      > you shall not die; for it was out of jealousy that he said this to
      you. Rather
      > your eyes shall open and you shall come to be like gods,
      recognizing evil
      > and good.” And the female instructing principle was taken
      away from the
      > snake, and she left it behind, merely a thing of the earth. And the
      carnal woman
      > took from the tree and ate; and she gave to her husband as well as
      > and these beings that possessed only a soul, ate. And their
      imperfection became
      > apparent in their lack of knowledge; and they recognized that they
      > naked of the spiritual element, and took fig leaves and bound them
      upon their
      > loins. "
      > (Translated by Bentley Layton)
      > So, what he means to say is that by acquiring the knowledge of good
      > evil, their lack of knowledge became apparent to them, and this
      knowledge is
      > equated with spiritual knowledge? Am I understanding that correctly?
      What a very
      > odd conclusion.<<<<
      > Just to give you some background on that (in case you are not aware
      of it)
      > this text is from the Nag Hammadi codices which is also where the
      Gospel of
      > Thomas that you recently quoted was found. There is some academic
      debate over
      > whether Thomas technically fits the historical category of
      "Gnosticism", but
      > the above text has elements of a specific subcategory of Gnosticism
      known as
      > "Sethian". Sethian texts certainly can seem very bizaar to people
      who are used
      > to the "Bible" version of these mythological stories. They make a
      little more
      > sense when we look at their intent in the historical context, but many
      > people are pretty put off by them all the same.
      > Sethians didn't respect common religious thought, and felt free to
      turn a
      > mythology on it's head to make a point. They generally portray the
      "God" of the
      > Old Testement as a bad guy, calling him "Saklas" (which means
      "fool"). Some
      > scholars have recently suggested that this methodology is a form of
      > kind of like a Saturday Night Live spoof of the president. However,
      as is true
      > of good satire the humor is biting. In any case, this mythology is
      > packaged with attacks on common religious notions of the era such as
      > sacrifice and strict patriarchal hierarchy. They are also packaged
      with what
      > the Gnostics of old held to be spiritual truths, such as the origin
      of human
      > spirit from an absolute infinite spiritual source that people need to
      > discover within themselves.
      > There are other forms of historical Gnosticism that may seem more
      > to the average reader. Valentinian thought may remind you a bit more
      of what
      > you see in Thomas.
      > PMCV
      > **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.

      > http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
    • Michael Leavitt
      SORRY. :)
      Message 111 of 111 , Jan 16, 2008
        SORRY. :)

        pmcvflag wrote:
        > Michael...
        >>>> Seemed like all your other posts to me. :)<<<
        > Doh! Just because you are right doesn't mean you are not a pain in the
        > ass! *lol*. If you can let a guy PRETEND his spelling is not ALWAYS
        > bad you let him keep his dignity.... if just a little. You know...
        > just for the sake of Chivalry. ;)
        > PMCV
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.