Reply to message #7240:
Klaus Schilling wrote:
>>the term fits well to Valentinus and Heracleion, because they are not promoting encratism.<<
Klaus, there’s something you really need to understand here, and I’ll try to tell you from a sort of reverse perspective of an observation that Ernst just made (I’m hoping at least ONE approach will drive the point home):
Neither are YOU “promoting” encratism.
THAT, by your own twisted application of the epithet you keep tossing about, makes you as much a part of this quackery as anyone else you may choose to so label (libel). In fact, if the bitterness and negativity of your posts should be any measure of what an ascetic life has to offer, I can just imagine readers running as fast as they can in the libertine direction to avoid it.
Is that the point? Are you in actuality a closet-bohemian trying to clandestinely peddle your agenda through reverse psychology?
Either way, Klaus, your antics are tiresome. I find the gloom and doom of your posts to be equally as repellent as the occasional New Age proponents we get trying to put a deluded spin of rosy sunshine on this imperfect world around us. I don’t think it is as simple as either extreme view makes it out to be. Of course, that’s merely my intuitive opinion, and you’ve clearly interpreted a different stance.
While our group’s new “Search” feature has never served me as well as it does Cari, I did manage to find this gem in the recent archives:
>>Klaus, as I've said before, I respect the right of anyone to follow the lifestyle of their choosing, as long as it doesn't significantly, deleteriously infringe on someone else's choice.<< [Lady C, #6561]
While I, too, can accept the validity of your chosen path (with similar reservations), I get the unmistakable impression through your writing that you are condemning anyone else who falls short of your ideals, and as you espouse such an apparent extreme, I gather that everyone else will fall short. Since you have been afforded this respect here, I strongly urge that you learn to reciprocate.
>>BTW, one very important similarity between Gnosticism and Mahayana is that of a central role in compassion. You know... "agape". You can decry the world all you wish Klaus, but without Agape it means nothing.
Do you think your answer was compassionate Klaus? There are times for heartless academics (and even tactless criticism) there are also times when your dogma must take a back seat to the human element.<< [PMCV, #7117]
“Dogma” . . . exactly! Your opinions, Klaus, come across as little different from the worst tirades of fundamentalist orthodoxy. What’s really strange is that there are many ways in which I agree with your leaning toward a life that eschews things of this world. I think it may even be my “natural” tendency. The danger I see, though, is that if one is so completely and vehemently closed off to the world of living, then one is probably already dead on the inside. Why bother sticking around? While you’ve actually commented on why suicide is NOT the answer, I still don’t see how it even comes close to making sense, given your views of the world. From your perspective, I fail to see how a quick trip in front of a passing truck would be anything other than a blessing.
Frankly, in spite of your bold implications otherwise, I’ve yet to see where Gnostic = Encratite. After Terje’s lengthy and very thoughtful reply to you, I would hope that you would question such an overly simplistic assertion as well, but based on your past history here, I have serious doubts that you will ever come to think, or at the very least, act, any differently than you do now. If that should prove to be the case, I’ll wish you well, Klaus, as you explore your options of perpetuating an authoritatively abysmal outlook outside of this Yahoo group.
We’re not asking for much here . . . really.