Re: Nag Hammadi codexes :pmcvflag
- <<The Gnostic outlook IS heterodox, and varied within itself, as
pointed out, but it is NOT Orthodox. One should expect to find
differences in definitions, otherwise, sin is sin, faith is faith,
creator is creator, and damnation is damnation.>>
It's not supposed to be orthodox in theory, in practice is another
matter. I'm speaking of historical gnostic groups. Like the ones who
turned into the Orthodox.
Definition is crucial to effective communication and it's good that
we examine ours. The debate here was how sin and faith and creator
(damnation?) is used in the gnostic/Gnostic context. We can very well
say things are gray, and the gnostic outlook is heterodox, but the
exploration helps define those differences. If sin isn't sin and
faith isn't faith and creator isn't creator, than what is it?
<<What in the world is wrong with PMCV's inclusion of "as long
Who said there was anything wrong with it? When I wrote <<I'm
certainly not agreeing with you>> I meant I disagree with his idea of
how faith is used in a gnostic context. Therefore if pissing is
justified based on the gnostic context there's a problem because
pissing will occur. *Not* that I'm disagreeing with the "as long as"
he included. Sorry for the confusion, I wrote that badly.
<<We're not at the Vatican website>>
I agree, no one's pope here, much less demiurge.
<<but this bickering is honestly getting on my last
It's getting on mine too. Hope you tell him to cut it out.
--- In email@example.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, incognito_lightbringer
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > [...]
> > <<No one here
> > is "pissing on faith" as long as faith is understood in the
> > context. >>
> > You're qualifying this with a "as long", and how faith works in
> > gnostic context seems to be a matter of debate. I'm certainly not
> > agreeing with you. That's why I wrote my initial post.
> And I'm once again disagreeing with you (which you said would be
> acceptable, but this bickering is honestly getting on my last
> nerve). What in the world is wrong with PMCV's inclusion of "as
> as . . . ." in that statement? Should we interpret it in the
> Browne context, instead?Southern Baptist?Raelian,
> We're not at the Vatican website. Let it go.
- Hello pmcvflag
On 28-Mar-03, you wrote:
> Mike and Blackfire, do you really feel that it is genuine debate
> that is being displayed? If so, then I would not feel so badly about
> the situation. If you actually feel like there is something to be
> learned from this communication style, then it is of value and I
> could rethink the conversation. Perhaps I could even gain some
> patience with Ms Micren. I wonder though if there may be something
> you have not understood about this exchange.
> So, if you two would give me permission, I would like to try a
> little experiment on you.
The result as interesting, as to the motivations, I won't speculate,
but I see your point.
Mike Leavitt ac998@...