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

Re: Hi Flag

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Ok, I m here.... trying to catch up. ... the Flag, seeing as how that even if one looks only at the historical there is much argument as to what defines
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ok, I'm here.... trying to catch up.

      >What I was up to, even though I come in peace, was a bit of Flying
      the Flag, seeing as how that even if one looks only at the historical
      there is much argument as to what defines [G]nosticism, as you noted
      in #6465. In that light, I was musing on how the Flag would enforce
      his edict.<

      Hoeller's points don't really count as a debate in this instance.
      While that page is good for it's resources, his personal views
      include many things that we can readly regect.... for instance the
      belief that Jaque de Molay is a "Gnostic Saint". I should also add
      that any "edicts" that I post concerning the focus of this club are
      actually founder concensus.... not just my own arbitrary choices.

      There is scholastic disagreement on just who is Gnostic and who isn't
      (which BTW makes that list of Gnostic groups and thier supposed
      beliefs, can't remember who posted it, very questionable. Some of the
      groups listed are not generally considered "Gnostic", some of them
      are groups that we simply don't know enough about to say if they
      believed that or not. And, in some cases this list can make it's
      point based on a technicality, but if understood as a general denial
      of the whole statement then is creating a false impression. For
      instance #9 on the list and the Na'asenes. We could speculate on
      whether or not they would have believed that whole statement, but as
      Terje points out already, they definately had a notion
      of "Sophia")... there are also areas of general agreement on the
      soteriological and basic cosmogenic structure of Gnosticism, not to
      mention it's basic historical venue. So, if by "edict" you mean the
      focus of the club, that is easy. By "Gnosticism", in this club it is
      meant; the groups in the late antiquities that placed thier
      soteriological emphasis on "Gnosis", and conformed to the basic
      cosmoconception obtained via Platonic syncratism. This can be boiled
      down to simply say that the historical groups given the widest
      scholastic consensus within the category, as well as the most
      commonly debated ones, are a valid points of conversation.

      >I guess my question is this (for any and all who would care to
      answer): How do I upgrade my small g to a Big G?<

      Why would you want to?

      PMCV
    • pessy@chez.com
      ... The split is prior to the real existence of the world. It s irreconcilable from within the world. The worst manifestation of the split is in the existence
      Message 2 of 22 , Aug 15, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        wilbro99 writes:
        >
        > With your response to cari in #6475 in mind, "Depth psychology is a
        > tool for understanding religions like gnosticism, buddhism, taoism,
        > ...but those religions are not forms of depth psychology," in response
        > to #1, "The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to
        > be split into a plurality," you responded yes. Where and how do you
        > see that split occurring and does that where and how allow for an
        > experience of the split? In other words, how is it possible, if
        > possible, to look through the particular healing of the split to the
        > universal creation of the split? The question is awkward, but I think
        > the drift is there.

        The split is prior to the real existence of the world.
        It's irreconcilable from within the world.
        The worst manifestation of the split is in the existence of
        different genders, which made it possible for the homo sapiens
        (as opposed to the ideal anthropos) to exist.
        Thus I regard procreation and marriage as the work of Satan,
        one of the seven archons mentioned earlier.
        But there are many other polarities in nature and society,
        all having corrupting consequences.

        Klaus Schilling
      • blackfire_al
        ... sophia s role) Klaus, You may not believe in the sophia, but the sophia believes in you... with restictions and reservations, oh course. (I.e. the defining
        Message 3 of 22 , Aug 15, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > 3. no (I'm too abstract to need an anthropomorphization of
          sophia's role)

          Klaus,
          You may not believe in the sophia,
          but the sophia believes in you...

          with restictions and reservations, oh course.
          (I.e. the defining element which costitutes the "you")

          The "you" that is percieved by the sophia may not
          be the "you" that you take yourself for in your own perception of
          your fundemental being.

          Blackfire
        • lady_caritas
          ... would ... Thanks for responding, Klaus. Coming from a spiritual worldview, my perspective also would be that depth psychology, although maintaining an
          Message 4 of 22 , Aug 15, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@y..., pessy@c... wrote:
            > lady_caritas writes:
            > > We do have physical and psychological natures, and Gnostics
            would
            > > also include a pneumatic spark to the mix. How do you define
            > > this "spiritual-more deference"? Gnosticism is *only* a form of
            > > depth psychology? Or not?
            >
            > Depth psychology is a tool for understanding religions
            > like gnosticism, buddhism, taoism, ...
            > but those religions are not forms of depth psychology.
            >
            > Klaus Schilling

            Thanks for responding, Klaus. Coming from a spiritual worldview, my
            perspective also would be that depth psychology, although maintaining
            an association with is still not synonymous with Gnosticism.

            Cari
          • lady_caritas
            ... Hello, Blackfire. Since you bring up a feminine aspect in Gnosticism, you remind me that a friend of mine mentioned a new book out, _Mary, Called
            Message 5 of 22 , Aug 15, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnosticism2@y..., "blackfire_al" <blackfire_al@y...> wrote:
              >
              > > 3. no (I'm too abstract to need an anthropomorphization of
              > sophia's role)
              >
              > Klaus,
              > You may not believe in the sophia,
              > but the sophia believes in you...
              >
              > with restictions and reservations, oh course.
              > (I.e. the defining element which costitutes the "you")
              >
              > The "you" that is percieved by the sophia may not
              > be the "you" that you take yourself for in your own perception of
              > your fundemental being.
              >
              > Blackfire

              Hello, Blackfire. Since you bring up a feminine aspect in
              Gnosticism, you remind me that a friend of mine mentioned a new book
              out, _Mary, Called Magdalene_, by Margaret George. Apparently,
              although a novel, this fictionalized account does portray Mary
              Magdalene in a more favorable light as an apostle instead of with the
              woman of ill repute image she has endured in the orthodox Christian
              setting.

              Here's a quote from a review by Maureen Dowd in the July 9, 2002
              issue of _The New York Times_:

              Meet Mary Magdalene, good girl.

              She was renowned as the sensual half of the madonna-whore
              equation, ''the Jessica Rabbit of the Gospels, the gold-hearted town
              tramp,'' as one admiring writer called her. There was the Virgin Mary
              and the wanton Mary; the Mary in blue and the Mary in red.

              The comely harlot who rubbed Jesus' feet with perfumed oil and tears
              and dried them with her hair inspired great art with her jar of
              ointment, haunting eyes and naked breasts. She inspired the spread of
              refuges for prostitutes around the world called Magdalene houses. And
              she inspired Barbara Hershey to become a notorious pioneer in lip-
              plumping to play the sultry sinner Jesus saves from being stoned in
              Martin Scorsese's ''Last Temptation of Christ.''

              But for some time a cadre of female historians have been making the
              case that Mary Magdalene was framed and defamed. They point out that
              there is no scriptural evidence that she was a prostitute. They say
              the Gnostic ''Gospel of Mary,'' supposedly written by Mary Magdalene
              and discovered in Egypt half a century ago, portrays her as a rival
              to Peter, as a female apostle who stayed faithful at the end, unlike
              some of the skittish males.

              The revisionists argue that, wittingly or unwittingly, the men who
              run Christianity obliterated Mary Magdalene's role as an influential
              apostle and reduced her to a metaphor for sexual guilt.

              The main confusion was sown in the sixth century, when Pope Gregory
              the Great conflated Mary of Magdala -- a friend of Jesus who was
              present at the Crucifixion, who anointed his body for burial and who
              was the first to see the risen Christ -- with Mary of Bethany (Martha
              and Lazarus's sister) and an unnamed sinful woman in the Gospel of
              Luke who bathed Jesus' feet.

              The question is not merely academic, given the roiling state of the
              Roman Catholic Church. The church refuses to allow women to be
              ordained as priests because there were no female apostles. If Mary
              Magdalene was a woman of hard virtue rather than easy virtue, then
              the church loses its flimsy justification.

              So the premise of Ms. George's novel is intriguing. Loaves-and-fishes
              style, she takes a few mentions in the Gospels and spins them into a
              625-page ''diary of a soul.''
            • alexis johnson
              lady_caritas wrote: Sounds like a good read. Thank you Blackfire ... Hello, Blackfire. Since you bring up a feminine aspect in Gnosticism, you remind me that
              Message 6 of 22 , Aug 16, 2002
              • 0 Attachment

                 

                 lady_caritas wrote:

                 Sounds like a good read.

                Thank you

                Blackfire

                -- In gnosticism2@y..., "blackfire_al" <blackfire_al@y...> wrote:

                > > 3. no  (I'm too abstract to need an anthropomorphization of
                > sophia's role)
                >
                >  Klaus,
                > You may not believe in the sophia,
                > but the sophia believes in you...
                >
                > with restictions and reservations, oh course.
                > (I.e. the defining element which costitutes the "you")
                >
                > The "you" that is percieved by the sophia may not
                > be the "you" that you take yourself for in your own perception of
                > your fundemental being.
                >
                > Blackfire

                Hello, Blackfire.  Since you bring up a feminine aspect in
                Gnosticism, you remind me that a friend of mine mentioned a new book
                out, _Mary, Called Magdalene_, by Margaret George.  Apparently,
                although a novel, this fictionalized account does portray Mary
                Magdalene in a more favorable light as an apostle instead of with the
                woman of ill repute image she has endured in the orthodox Christian
                setting. 

                Here's a quote from a review by Maureen Dowd in the July 9, 2002
                issue of _The New York Times_:

                Meet Mary Magdalene, good girl.

                She was renowned as the sensual half of the madonna-whore
                equation, ''the Jessica Rabbit of the Gospels, the gold-hearted town
                tramp,'' as one admiring writer called her. There was the Virgin Mary
                and the wanton Mary; the Mary in blue and the Mary in red.

                The comely harlot who rubbed Jesus' feet with perfumed oil and tears
                and dried them with her hair inspired great art with her jar of
                ointment, haunting eyes and naked breasts. She inspired the spread of
                refuges for prostitutes around the world called Magdalene houses. And
                she inspired Barbara Hershey to become a notorious pioneer in lip-
                plumping to play the sultry sinner Jesus saves from being stoned in
                Martin Scorsese's ''Last Temptation of Christ.''

                But for some time a cadre of female historians have been making the
                case that Mary Magdalene was framed and defamed. They point out that
                there is no scriptural evidence that she was a prostitute. They say
                the Gnostic ''Gospel of Mary,'' supposedly written by Mary Magdalene
                and discovered in Egypt half a century ago, portrays her as a rival
                to Peter, as a female apostle who stayed faithful at the end, unlike
                some of the skittish males.

                The revisionists argue that, wittingly or unwittingly, the men who
                run Christianity obliterated Mary Magdalene's role as an influential
                apostle and reduced her to a metaphor for sexual guilt.

                The main confusion was sown in the sixth century, when Pope Gregory
                the Great conflated Mary of Magdala -- a friend of Jesus who was
                present at the Crucifixion, who anointed his body for burial and who
                was the first to see the risen Christ -- with Mary of Bethany (Martha
                and Lazarus's sister) and an unnamed sinful woman in the Gospel of
                Luke who bathed Jesus' feet.

                The question is not merely academic, given the roiling state of the
                Roman Catholic Church. The church refuses to allow women to be
                ordained as priests because there were no female apostles. If Mary
                Magdalene was a woman of hard virtue rather than easy virtue, then
                the church loses its flimsy justification.

                So the premise of Ms. George's novel is intriguing. Loaves-and-fishes
                style, she takes a few mentions in the Gospels and spins them into a
                625-page ''diary of a soul.''





                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                Do You Yahoo!?
                HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs

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