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

Re: [Gnosticism] Hi Flag

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.