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

Re: Trichotomy

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Hyperborean, welcome to the club. (BTW, no one here knows Fuzzywurm lol) This is actually a good topic for discussion (debate). I think I have to be
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 29 6:39 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Hyperborean, welcome to the club. (BTW, no
      one here knows Fuzzywurm lol)<br><br>This is actually
      a good topic for discussion (debate). I think I
      have to be a little harder on Mr Bloom than Hey Market
      is. I have read parts of his book, and often found
      myself chuckling more than anything (some of the points
      he uses to destinguish "Gnosticism" would not hold
      up in any academic circle at least, and have little
      to do with classical Gnostic outlines, whatever
      others may also arbitrarily define as
      "Gnosticism")<br><br>Let me instead comment on this article by Ms Kim
      Riddlebarger. I will avoid the scriptural arguements for thier
      lack of necessity and questionable historical
      understanding, and deal instead with point by point
      misconceptions of Gnosticism.<br><br>1) Tripartite soul is a
      "Gnostic" beleif. It is true that Gnostics believe in a
      tripartite being, but tripartite being does not eequate with
      Gnosticism. The idea is Platonic, and as such is common to
      Platonic offshoots including Gnosticism, Kabbalah,
      Classical Hermeticism, Manichaeans, The Academies, and even
      many early church fathers who are not considered
      heretics at all.<br><br>2) "If the Gnostic impulse is
      defined as a quest for secret knowledge (gnosis), and a
      disparaging of matter, including an aversion to things
      physical and intellectual" Couple of problems here. One is
      the impulse for a "secret knowledge". The author has
      just essentially defined *all* esotericism as
      "Gnostic". The second problem with this passage is that the
      anti-matter ideal is questionable. There were in fact forms
      of Gnosticism that were not against the body, and we
      even see the anti-body ideal that was common in
      "Orthodoxy" disparaged in Gnostic texts. To add to this, the
      idea of Gnosticism as anti-intellectual is downright
      false. On the contrary, intellectualism was one of the
      accusations most often leveled against Gnosticism by the
      polemicists. Since the intellect is one of the three parts of
      the human being, one who failed to work with it would
      fail Gnosis. The question that I think confuses
      authors like this is the idea of becoming *stuck* in the
      intellect.... all the same, Sophia *AND* Logos are integrated
      into the divine androgyn mind.<br><br>3)"Evangelicals
      work feverishly to oppose the New Age Movement" The
      question of Gnosticism vs New Age is one that has been
      heated here, since Gnosticism and the New Age movement
      are irreconcileable. The author here makes a very
      common error, which is the lack of understanding
      concerning the difference between ecclecticism (New Age) and
      syncratism (Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Manichaeans, Hermeticism,
      etc.) The most obvious differences though are, for
      Gnosticism eschatology is generally personal so there is no
      comming "New Age", there is an absolute truth as opposed
      to the solipsism of the New Age movement, nature is
      not good or loving, there are no deities and
      Pharmakeia (material effects) is repulsive. Just to name a
      small few of the many incompatible points. BTW,
      Traditionalism has been compared to "New Age" by some of these
      same authors.<br><br>Sorry, this is getting long...
      I'll have to start another post.<br><br>continued.....
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.