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

Re: Nag Hammadi codexes

Expand Messages
  • Gerry
    Reply to Incognito s post #7373: In making some clarifications for you, let me start with my earlier assertion: The Gnostic outlook IS heterodox, and varied
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

       

      Reply to Incognito’s post #7373:

       

       

      In making some clarifications for you, let me start with my earlier assertion:

       

      The Gnostic outlook IS heterodox, and varied within itself, as you've pointed out, but it is NOT Orthodox.  [Gerry, #7369]

       

      As soon as Mike responded to that one, giving me a second chance to see my comments, I realized how poorly I had articulated that thought.  Even within the context of our discussions, “orthodox” can have a generic meaning (straight- or right-thinking), or a specific one (such as referring to the conventional, Pistic religion as characterized by its dogma).  In that particular instance, I intended to emphasize the Gnostic outlook’s dissimilarity to conventional Christianity.  I think there would have been agreement either way, but I wanted to be clear.

       

      Per your recent comments, it looks like we’ve been disagreeing over the articulation of many points upon which we actually agree.

       

      >>We can very well say things are gray, and the gnostic outlook is heterodox, but the exploration helps define those differences.<<

       

      Pardon me for not bothering to look back in the previous posts (I’m too pressed for time), but the only reason I mentioned the “varied” beliefs was that I honestly thought you had said something along those lines, and was trying to agree with you.  In the black, white and gray comment, however, the gray wasn’t mean to afford some wiggle room on middle-ground, but to demonstrate that black and white are, in fact, distinct—NOT blurred.  I sought to point out that as black is not white, neither might a mainstream definition be appropriately applied in a Gnostic context. 

       

      >>If sin isn't sin and faith isn't faith and creator isn't creator, than what is it?<<

       

      Guess I goofed again.  By including “damnation” (which you seemed to notice was out of place) in that string of redundancy, I was trying to show that if the mainstream definitions were the only ones available, then those groups sheltered under the umbrella of Gnosticism would be no different from the conventional orthodoxy.  Are these differences not what we’ve been pointing out during this discussion of “faith”?

       

      Pistic Christian:

      Sin = transgression;  we’re born with it, and can’t escape it without someone else dying for us.

      Creator = Loving, Supreme God, paradoxically also a jealous and selective god, but who cares—at least WE’re saved if we but believe in Him.

       

      Gnostic:

      Sin = ignorance of our divine origin;  a state akin to drunkenness from which we can be made sober.

      Creator = that which fashioned the physical world, imprisoning spirit in matter;  not the true representation of the Divine.

       

      As I said before, I see clear differences there.  I can tell you’re aware of them, too, when I see you make statements like this:

       

      >>Gnostics have a flawed Creator which is a big difference from most
      Pistic religions.<<  [#7366]

       

      This is where you confound me, though.  To verbalize understanding of the difference in one message, and elsewhere ask what is a creator if not a creator, I think it gives people the impression that the definitions you occasionally bring to the table are leftovers from your non-Gnostic upbringing.  To some extent, we all have such baggage, but all of us aren’t zealously defending faith (not, BTW, because we don’t give a damn if it gets pissed on, but because we genuinely don’t see it as under attack in the first place).

       

      >>There's debate between scholars on the definition of gnosis and what it includes. If gnosis includes pistis and sophia than it's not separate from faith.<<  [#7366]

       

      I’m not sure if this calls for an analogy of flowers or birds, so I’ll improvise.  My physical body includes a heart, circulatory system and the production of red corpuscles.  While there are certainly relationships between these four, not one of those is the same as the other.  Yes, they CAN be “separate” without there being any animosity between them.

       

      Gerry

       

    • lady_caritas
      ... heterodox, but the exploration helps define those differences.
      Message 2 of 28 , Mar 31, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Reply to Incognito's post #7373:
        >

        >
        > >>We can very well say things are gray, and the gnostic outlook is
        heterodox, but the exploration helps define those differences.<<
        >
        >
        >
        > Pardon me for not bothering to look back in the previous posts (I'm
        too pressed for time), but the only reason I mentioned the "varied"
        beliefs was that I honestly thought you had said something along
        those lines, and was trying to agree with you. In the black, white
        and gray comment, however, the gray wasn't mean to afford some wiggle
        room on middle-ground, but to demonstrate that black and white are,
        in fact, distinct-NOT blurred. I sought to point out that as black
        is not white, neither might a mainstream definition be appropriately
        applied in a Gnostic context.
        >


        One view of "black and white":

        "THE VISION OF CHRIST that thou dost see
        Is my vision's greatest enemy.
        Thine has a great hook nose like thine;
        Mine has a snub nose like to mine.
        Thine is the Friend of all Mankind;
        Mine speaks in parables to the blind.
        Thine loves the same world that mine hates;
        Thy heaven doors are my hell gates.
        Socrates taught what Meletus
        Loath'd as a nation's bitterest curse,
        And Caiaphas was in his own mind
        A benefactor to mankind.
        Both read the Bible day and night,
        But thou read'st black where I read white."

        ~~ excerpt from _The Everlasting Gospel_ by William Blake

        http://www.bartleby.com/236/58.html


        Cari
      • Gerry
        ... Ahhhh, one of my faves, Cari. Thanks! Gerry
        Message 3 of 28 , Mar 31, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
          wrote:
          >
          > One view of "black and white":
          >
          > "THE VISION OF CHRIST that thou dost see
          > Is my vision's greatest enemy.
          > Thine has a great hook nose like thine;
          > Mine has a snub nose like to mine.
          > Thine is the Friend of all Mankind;
          > Mine speaks in parables to the blind.
          > Thine loves the same world that mine hates;
          > Thy heaven doors are my hell gates.
          > Socrates taught what Meletus
          > Loath'd as a nation's bitterest curse,
          > And Caiaphas was in his own mind
          > A benefactor to mankind.
          > Both read the Bible day and night,
          > But thou read'st black where I read white."
          >
          > ~~ excerpt from _The Everlasting Gospel_ by William Blake
          >
          > http://www.bartleby.com/236/58.html
          >
          >
          > Cari



          Ahhhh, one of my faves, Cari. Thanks!

          Gerry
        • incognito_lightbringer
          Where did I ask *what is a creator if
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            <<To verbalize understanding of the difference in one message, and
            elsewhere ask what is a creator if not a creator,>>

            Where did I ask *what is a creator if not a creator*? Post # please

            << I sought to point out that as black is not white, neither might a
            mainstream definition be appropriately applied in a Gnostic context.
            >>
            <<To some extent, we all have such baggage, but all of us aren't
            zealously defending faith >>

            Gerry, what's wrong with the above you just wrote?

            <<Yes, they CAN be "separate" without there being any animosity
            between them.>>

            The human body functions as one body.
            Is gnosis "salvatory" in that it's something that leads/helps towards
            salvation, or is it the state of salvation itself, like Buddhist
            enlightenment?


            PS It really is a good idea to reread the posts in this particular
            thread in one go. I've just did that specifically because Carrie
            asked me a question and I was trying to recreate the train of thought
            and discussion to answer her, and noticed a few things I didn't
            address or didn't respond to correctly, and am working on some kind
            of reply to you and Carrie. But the board had been down when I tried
            to access it this weekend it's taking awhile.



            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Reply to Incognito's post #7373:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > In making some clarifications for you, let me start with my earlier
            assertion:
            >
            >
            >
            > The Gnostic outlook IS heterodox, and varied within itself, as
            you've pointed out, but it is NOT Orthodox. [Gerry, #7369]
            >
            >
            >
            > As soon as Mike responded to that one, giving me a second chance to
            see my comments, I realized how poorly I had articulated that
            thought. Even within the context of our discussions, "orthodox" can
            have a generic meaning (straight- or right-thinking), or a specific
            one (such as referring to the conventional, Pistic religion as
            characterized by its dogma). In that particular instance, I intended
            to emphasize the Gnostic outlook's dissimilarity to conventional
            Christianity. I think there would have been agreement either way,
            but I wanted to be clear.
            >
            >
            >
            > Per your recent comments, it looks like we've been disagreeing over
            the articulation of many points upon which we actually agree.
            >
            >
            >
            > >>We can very well say things are gray, and the gnostic outlook is
            heterodox, but the exploration helps define those differences.<<
            >
            >
            >
            > Pardon me for not bothering to look back in the previous posts (I'm
            too pressed for time), but the only reason I mentioned the "varied"
            beliefs was that I honestly thought you had said something along
            those lines, and was trying to agree with you. In the black, white
            and gray comment, however, the gray wasn't mean to afford some wiggle
            room on middle-ground, but to demonstrate that black and white are,
            in fact, distinct-NOT blurred. I sought to point out that as black
            is not white, neither might a mainstream definition be appropriately
            applied in a Gnostic context.
            >
            >
            >
            > >>If sin isn't sin and faith isn't faith and creator isn't creator,
            than what is it?<<
            >
            >
            >
            > Guess I goofed again. By including "damnation" (which you seemed
            to notice was out of place) in that string of redundancy, I was
            trying to show that if the mainstream definitions were the only ones
            available, then those groups sheltered under the umbrella of
            Gnosticism would be no different from the conventional orthodoxy.
            Are these differences not what we've been pointing out during this
            discussion of "faith"?
            >
            >
            >
            > Pistic Christian:
            >
            > Sin = transgression; we're born with it, and can't escape it
            without someone else dying for us.
            >
            > Creator = Loving, Supreme God, paradoxically also a jealous and
            selective god, but who cares-at least WE're saved if we but believe
            in Him.
            >
            >
            >
            > Gnostic:
            >
            > Sin = ignorance of our divine origin; a state akin to drunkenness
            from which we can be made sober.
            >
            > Creator = that which fashioned the physical world, imprisoning
            spirit in matter; not the true representation of the Divine.
            >
            >
            >
            > As I said before, I see clear differences there. I can tell you're
            aware of them, too, when I see you make statements like this:
            >
            >
            >
            > >>Gnostics have a flawed Creator which is a big difference from
            most
            > Pistic religions.<< [#7366]
            >
            >
            >
            > This is where you confound me, though. To verbalize understanding
            of the difference in one message, and elsewhere ask what is a creator
            if not a creator, I think it gives people the impression that the
            definitions you occasionally bring to the table are leftovers from
            your non-Gnostic upbringing. To some extent, we all have such
            baggage, but all of us aren't zealously defending faith (not, BTW,
            because we don't give a damn if it gets pissed on, but because we
            genuinely don't see it as under attack in the first place).
            >
            >
            >
            > >>There's debate between scholars on the definition of gnosis and
            what it includes. If gnosis includes pistis and sophia than it's not
            separate from faith.<< [#7366]
            >
            >
            >
            > I'm not sure if this calls for an analogy of flowers or birds, so
            I'll improvise. My physical body includes a heart, circulatory
            system and the production of red corpuscles. While there are
            certainly relationships between these four, not one of those is the
            same as the other. Yes, they CAN be "separate" without there being
            any animosity between them.
            >
            >
            >
            > Gerry
          • incognito_lightbringer
            I forgot to add:
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              I forgot to add:

              <<Even within the context of our discussions, "orthodox" can
              have a generic meaning (straight- or right-thinking), or a specific
              one (such as referring to the conventional, Pistic religion as
              characterized by its dogma). In that particular instance, I intended
              to emphasize the Gnostic outlook's dissimilarity to conventional
              Christianity. I think there would have been agreement either way,
              but I wanted to be clear.>>

              I define orthodox as a uniform agreement on accepted myth,
              definitions, theological interpretations of the myths, and teachings.
              Thereby I agree with your "conventional"; it is conventional within
              each orthodox group. I thought dogma was the authoritative body of
              teaching and myth that the individual members of a religion accept as
              truth, and doctrines as the particular elements that make up the body
              of dogma.

              So I have to ask, and should have asked way back when the terms were
              first used, what do you mean by "heterodox" in reference to
              gnosticism?

              When applied to gnostics, do you mean the various gnostic groups,
              each which had differences in texts and myth, some differences
              subtle, other differences more pronounced? And that the label of
              heterodox is given to these various groups looked on as a whole? The
              whole which falls under the common name Gnosticism?

              Or do you mean that within each particular gnostic group, that the
              beliefs of individual members were heterodox, in that every member
              could define their own terms, create their own myth, interpret the
              present myths their own way?


              Is the following correct?

              Dan Merkur's Gnosis:
              <<The term gnostikos, "knower", was not used by the ancient
              practitioners of the religion currently termed Gnostic. Most called
              themselves Christians. They were called gnostikoi by their opponents
              or rivals within the Christian communities. Most of the uses of the
              term were probably contemptuous of a standard of spirituality that
              was ostensibly inferior to faith. The people in late antiquity who
              referred to themselves as gnostikoi were Platonists and Pythagoreans.
              St Clement of Alexandria and Origen described themselves as gnostikoi
              in a blend of New Testament and Platonic senses>>


              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Reply to Incognito's post #7373:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > In making some clarifications for you, let me start with my earlier
              assertion:
              >
              >
              >
              > The Gnostic outlook IS heterodox, and varied within itself, as
              you've pointed out, but it is NOT Orthodox. [Gerry, #7369]
              >
              >
              >
              > As soon as Mike responded to that one, giving me a second chance to
              see my comments, I realized how poorly I had articulated that
              thought. Even within the context of our discussions, "orthodox" can
              have a generic meaning (straight- or right-thinking), or a specific
              one (such as referring to the conventional, Pistic religion as
              characterized by its dogma). In that particular instance, I intended
              to emphasize the Gnostic outlook's dissimilarity to conventional
              Christianity. I think there would have been agreement either way,
              but I wanted to be clear.
              >
              >
              >
              > Per your recent comments, it looks like we've been disagreeing over
              the articulation of many points upon which we actually agree.
              >
              >
              >
              > >>We can very well say things are gray, and the gnostic outlook is
              heterodox, but the exploration helps define those differences.<<
              >
              >
              >
              > Pardon me for not bothering to look back in the previous posts (I'm
              too pressed for time), but the only reason I mentioned the "varied"
              beliefs was that I honestly thought you had said something along
              those lines, and was trying to agree with you. In the black, white
              and gray comment, however, the gray wasn't mean to afford some wiggle
              room on middle-ground, but to demonstrate that black and white are,
              in fact, distinct-NOT blurred. I sought to point out that as black
              is not white, neither might a mainstream definition be appropriately
              applied in a Gnostic context.
              >
              >
              >
              > >>If sin isn't sin and faith isn't faith and creator isn't creator,
              than what is it?<<
              >
              >
              >
              > Guess I goofed again. By including "damnation" (which you seemed
              to notice was out of place) in that string of redundancy, I was
              trying to show that if the mainstream definitions were the only ones
              available, then those groups sheltered under the umbrella of
              Gnosticism would be no different from the conventional orthodoxy.
              Are these differences not what we've been pointing out during this
              discussion of "faith"?
              >
              >
              >
              > Pistic Christian:
              >
              > Sin = transgression; we're born with it, and can't escape it
              without someone else dying for us.
              >
              > Creator = Loving, Supreme God, paradoxically also a jealous and
              selective god, but who cares-at least WE're saved if we but believe
              in Him.
              >
              >
              >
              > Gnostic:
              >
              > Sin = ignorance of our divine origin; a state akin to drunkenness
              from which we can be made sober.
              >
              > Creator = that which fashioned the physical world, imprisoning
              spirit in matter; not the true representation of the Divine.
              >
              >
              >
              > As I said before, I see clear differences there. I can tell you're
              aware of them, too, when I see you make statements like this:
              >
              >
              >
              > >>Gnostics have a flawed Creator which is a big difference from
              most
              > Pistic religions.<< [#7366]
              >
              >
              >
              > This is where you confound me, though. To verbalize understanding
              of the difference in one message, and elsewhere ask what is a creator
              if not a creator, I think it gives people the impression that the
              definitions you occasionally bring to the table are leftovers from
              your non-Gnostic upbringing. To some extent, we all have such
              baggage, but all of us aren't zealously defending faith (not, BTW,
              because we don't give a damn if it gets pissed on, but because we
              genuinely don't see it as under attack in the first place).
              >
              >
              >
              > >>There's debate between scholars on the definition of gnosis and
              what it includes. If gnosis includes pistis and sophia than it's not
              separate from faith.<< [#7366]
              >
              >
              >
              > I'm not sure if this calls for an analogy of flowers or birds, so
              I'll improvise. My physical body includes a heart, circulatory
              system and the production of red corpuscles. While there are
              certainly relationships between these four, not one of those is the
              same as the other. Yes, they CAN be "separate" without there being
              any animosity between them.
              >
              >
              >
              > Gerry
            • ernststrohregenmantelrad
              Hi sorry to butt in but... ... without someone else dying for us. ... and selective god, but who cares-at least WE re saved if we but believe in Him. ... I
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 3, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi sorry to butt in but...

                > Pistic Christian:
                >
                > Sin = transgression; we're born with it, and can't escape it
                without someone else dying for us.
                >
                > Creator = Loving, Supreme God, paradoxically also a jealous
                and selective god, but who cares-at least WE're saved if we but
                believe in Him.
                >

                I don't think this is good definition.

                For "sin" if you say we are born with it it means you implied the
                "original sin" which didn't come into exsitance until Augestine of
                Hippo. As you know Augestine went against the thinking of norm
                in the church on many issues but some how this theology took
                over the church.

                For "creator" it becomes the problem if you take into account
                Marcion. So is Marcion "Gnostic" or "Pistic"?
              • ernststrohregenmantelrad
                ... Who s the heck is Carrie?
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, incognito_lightbringer <
                  no_reply@y...> wrote:

                  > PS It really is a good idea to reread the posts in this particular
                  > thread in one go. I've just did that specifically because Carrie
                  > asked me a question and I was trying to recreate the train of thought
                  > and discussion to answer her, and noticed a few things I didn't
                  > address or didn't respond to correctly, and am working on some kind
                  > of reply to you and Carrie. But the board had been down when I tried
                  > to access it this weekend it's taking awhile.
                  >
                  >


                  Who's the heck is Carrie?
                • lady_caritas
                  ... Hello, Ernst. If I may butt in, too... I think Gerry was offering definitions for what developed into a more dogmatic, pistic orthodox Christianity,
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 3, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                    <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                    > Hi sorry to butt in but...
                    >
                    > > Pistic Christian:
                    > >
                    > > Sin = transgression; we're born with it, and can't escape it
                    > without someone else dying for us.
                    > >
                    > > Creator = Loving, Supreme God, paradoxically also a jealous
                    > and selective god, but who cares-at least WE're saved if we but
                    > believe in Him.
                    > >
                    >
                    > I don't think this is good definition.
                    >
                    > For "sin" if you say we are born with it it means you implied the
                    > "original sin" which didn't come into exsitance until Augestine of
                    > Hippo. As you know Augestine went against the thinking of norm
                    > in the church on many issues but some how this theology took
                    > over the church.
                    >
                    > For "creator" it becomes the problem if you take into account
                    > Marcion. So is Marcion "Gnostic" or "Pistic"?



                    Hello, Ernst. If I may butt in, too...

                    I think Gerry was offering definitions for what developed into a more
                    dogmatic, pistic "orthodox" Christianity, which had been part of the
                    discussion of this particular thread. The concept of original sin
                    has been around for a long time and I wouldn't view Marcion as
                    orthodox.

                    Perhaps you'd like to offer a more general definition for "pistic"
                    Christianity that would consider the points you brought up?

                    Cari
                  • lady_caritas
                    ... particular ... thought ... kind ... tried ... Ah, so soon they forget... LOL Ernst, I think she was referring to me with an extra r and e . Cari P. S.
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 3, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                      <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, incognito_lightbringer <
                      > no_reply@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > PS It really is a good idea to reread the posts in this
                      particular
                      > > thread in one go. I've just did that specifically because Carrie
                      > > asked me a question and I was trying to recreate the train of
                      thought
                      > > and discussion to answer her, and noticed a few things I didn't
                      > > address or didn't respond to correctly, and am working on some
                      kind
                      > > of reply to you and Carrie. But the board had been down when I
                      tried
                      > > to access it this weekend it's taking awhile.
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      > Who's the heck is Carrie?



                      Ah, so soon they forget... LOL

                      Ernst, I think she was referring to me with an extra "r" and "e".


                      Cari

                      P. S. Apologies if this is posted twice. I think Yahoo ate up my
                      first attempt.
                    • pessy@chez.com
                      ... The original sin is a vulgarised version of the Gnosticistic topic of the fall of the soul into matter. Augustinus plaggiated it from Manicheus. Long
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 3, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ernststrohregenmantelrad writes:
                        > For "sin" if you say we are born with it it means you implied the
                        > "original sin" which didn't come into exsitance until Augestine of
                        > Hippo.

                        The original sin is a vulgarised version of the Gnosticistic topic
                        of the fall of the soul into matter.
                        Augustinus plaggiated it from Manicheus.
                        Long before the Manicheans it was Julius Cassianus
                        according to the Stromata of Clem. Al. who knew that
                        in paradise man existed not in the flesh,
                        but psychically or noetically.
                        By the affinity to the matter the soul becomes femalish and subject
                        to corruption and perversion. By understanding and encratism
                        the corruption is reversed.

                        Klaus Schilling
                      • Mike Leavitt
                        Hello lady_caritas ... Also, neither the Baptists (except perhaps for Faldwell), nor the Quakers nor the Unitarians believe in original sin. It is not
                        Message 11 of 28 , Apr 3, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hello lady_caritas

                          On 03-Apr-03, you wrote:

                          > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                          > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                          >> Hi sorry to butt in but...
                          >>
                          >>> Pistic Christian:
                          >>>
                          >>> Sin = transgression; we're born with it, and can't escape it
                          >> without someone else dying for us.
                          >>>
                          >>> Creator = Loving, Supreme God, paradoxically also a jealous
                          >> and selective god, but who cares-at least WE're saved if we but
                          >> believe in Him.
                          >>>
                          >>
                          >> I don't think this is good definition.
                          >>
                          >> For "sin" if you say we are born with it it means you implied the
                          >> "original sin" which didn't come into exsitance until Augestine of
                          >> Hippo. As you know Augestine went against the thinking of norm
                          >> in the church on many issues but some how this theology took
                          >> over the church.
                          >>
                          >> For "creator" it becomes the problem if you take into account
                          >> Marcion. So is Marcion "Gnostic" or "Pistic"?
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Hello, Ernst. If I may butt in, too...
                          >
                          > I think Gerry was offering definitions for what developed into a
                          > more dogmatic, pistic "orthodox" Christianity, which had been part
                          > of the discussion of this particular thread. The concept of original
                          > sin has been around for a long time and I wouldn't view Marcion as
                          > orthodox.
                          >
                          > Perhaps you'd like to offer a more general definition for "pistic"
                          > Christianity that would consider the points you brought up?
                          >
                          > Cari

                          Also, neither the Baptists (except perhaps for Faldwell), nor the
                          Quakers nor the Unitarians believe in original sin. It is not
                          automatically a belief of Pistic Christians. The Baptists, at least
                          prove that.

                          Regards
                          --
                          Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                        • lady_caritas
                          ... the ... of ... original ... for pistic ... Quite so, Mike! :-) Considering to whom Gerry was writing, I think it s possible he had Roman Catholicism in
                          Message 12 of 28 , Apr 4, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                            > Hello lady_caritas
                            >
                            > On 03-Apr-03, you wrote:
                            >
                            > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                            > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                            > >> Hi sorry to butt in but...
                            > >>
                            > >>> Pistic Christian:
                            > >>>
                            > >>> Sin = transgression; we're born with it, and can't escape it
                            > >> without someone else dying for us.
                            > >>>
                            > >>> Creator = Loving, Supreme God, paradoxically also a jealous
                            > >> and selective god, but who cares-at least WE're saved if we but
                            > >> believe in Him.
                            > >>>
                            > >>
                            > >> I don't think this is good definition.
                            > >>
                            > >> For "sin" if you say we are born with it it means you implied
                            the
                            > >> "original sin" which didn't come into exsitance until Augestine
                            of
                            > >> Hippo. As you know Augestine went against the thinking of norm
                            > >> in the church on many issues but some how this theology took
                            > >> over the church.
                            > >>
                            > >> For "creator" it becomes the problem if you take into account
                            > >> Marcion. So is Marcion "Gnostic" or "Pistic"?
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Hello, Ernst. If I may butt in, too...
                            > >
                            > > I think Gerry was offering definitions for what developed into a
                            > > more dogmatic, pistic "orthodox" Christianity, which had been part
                            > > of the discussion of this particular thread. The concept of
                            original
                            > > sin has been around for a long time and I wouldn't view Marcion as
                            > > orthodox.
                            > >
                            > > Perhaps you'd like to offer a more general definition
                            for "pistic"
                            > > Christianity that would consider the points you brought up?
                            > >
                            > > Cari
                            >
                            > Also, neither the Baptists (except perhaps for Faldwell), nor the
                            > Quakers nor the Unitarians believe in original sin. It is not
                            > automatically a belief of Pistic Christians. The Baptists, at least
                            > prove that.
                            >
                            > Regards
                            > --
                            > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...



                            Quite so, Mike! :-)

                            Considering to whom Gerry was writing, I think it's possible he had
                            Roman Catholicism in mind, a religion well known to Incognita, and
                            perhaps he had no intention of offering this as a technical
                            definition, but one to which Incognita could relate. He might have
                            been oversimplifying to show conceptual differences between Gnostic
                            and mainstream usage of terms. Just a guess.

                            Cari
                          • Gerry
                            ... A VERY good guess, I might add, but it was a strategy that nonetheless backfired. Given that the thread had already dragged on to inordinate length, and
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 4, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Quite so, Mike! :-)
                              >
                              > Considering to whom Gerry was writing, I think it's possible he had
                              > Roman Catholicism in mind, a religion well known to Incognita, and
                              > perhaps he had no intention of offering this as a technical
                              > definition, but one to which Incognita could relate. He might have
                              > been oversimplifying to show conceptual differences between Gnostic
                              > and mainstream usage of terms. Just a guess.
                              >
                              > Cari



                              A VERY good guess, I might add, but it was a strategy that
                              nonetheless backfired. Given that the thread had already dragged on
                              to inordinate length, and probably shouldn't have needed
                              clarification at a Gnostic site in the first place, I really
                              shouldn't be surprised that my comments should be even further
                              misinterpreted.

                              Perhaps next time I'll use even more sarcasm than I did to better
                              demonstrate that such a contrast is NOT a technical definition . . .
                              but I figured I had worn out my "bloody savior" motif already. It
                              would seem that whether my posts are too dry, or super saturated,
                              there's no pleasing everyone.

                              Gerry
                            • ernststrohregenmantelrad
                              ... more ... the ... thank you for butting in. We can now do the bumps. I see that this all got started from a post by New Age pseudo- gnostic wannabee again
                              Message 14 of 28 , Apr 4, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <
                                no_reply@y...> wrote:

                                > > >
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                > Hello, Ernst. If I may butt in, too...
                                >
                                > I think Gerry was offering definitions for what developed into a
                                more
                                > dogmatic, pistic "orthodox" Christianity, which had been part of
                                the
                                > discussion of this particular thread.

                                thank you for butting in. We can now do the bumps.

                                I see that this all got started from a post by New Age pseudo-
                                gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age "evolution of
                                conscieous" crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then
                                that turned into bickering on the definition of "pistis" (BTW,
                                looking back at posts, I felt like reading Irenaeus because the
                                posts were erased yet some quotes were cited to refute.)

                                Anyway, as stated in posts "Gnostic" Christians have varients
                                and so one must also realize that so called "pistic" Christians
                                have varients too. (BTW, I hate using that term for this particular
                                group, more on that later) Including those of so called dogmatic,
                                pistic, orthodox etc... (and you can put as many adjective as you
                                want it won't make difference). I understand that what he meant
                                by the term "pistic" or "orthodox" but my point here is his
                                definition of "sin" for supposed "orthodox". As I stated it is only
                                after Augestine that the original sin concept was adoptied by the
                                "orthodox" church so "Sin = transgression; we're born with it,
                                and can't escape it without someone else dying for us." needs
                                revision. Also the statement, "Sin = ignorance of our divine origin;
                                a state akin to drunkenness from which we can be made sober."
                                is much to be of misunderstanding. I don't know where but I think
                                we got somewhere stuck in our heads that for Gnostics sin=
                                ignorence. Maybe it was from the TV serie "Gnostics" or from
                                Pagels' book "Gnostic Gospels". Well, I look back at the Pagels
                                book and it doesn't say sin=ingorence. What it says is that for
                                orthodox Christians suffering is the result of sin but for Gnostics
                                suffering is the result of ignorence. (p.148-150) Then as such
                                word "sin" is defined same for orthodox and Gnostics. For "sin'
                                means as Pagels states on page 148-149, "the New Testement
                                term for sin, _hamartia_, comes from the sport of archery;
                                literally, it means "missing the mark" So the original meaning of
                                "hamartia" didn't necessary mean "transgresion" per se.




                                The concept of original sin
                                > has been around for a long time and I wouldn't view Marcion as
                                > orthodox.

                                I hope that sentense has two ideas not one jointed ideas.
                                If you consider since around the 4th century it is long time;
                                however, that is not the beginning of so called Chrsitianity
                                (although Augestine imo did begin something new) Original sin,
                                predestination are all foreign to Christianity til Augestine.

                                Marcion is not orthodox yet some would say he isn't Gnostics
                                either yet he has the cosmology of Gnostics. yet in actuallity his
                                soteriology is pistic. So what's is his case? That was my
                                question.

                                >
                                > Perhaps you'd like to offer a more general definition for "pistic"
                                > Christianity that would consider the points you brought up?
                                >
                                > Cari


                                Now to why I don't like the term "pistic" for orthodox. Actually I
                                don't like the term orthodox either as it implies that those
                                Christians saw themselves as the "right, straight" path and
                                others as not. The term is so condisending to others and self
                                rightiousness and arrogant.. Anyway, for all we could know,
                                Gnostics might call themselves as orthodox. They indeed
                                consider their path as the right path. Well, Gerry states there are
                                different difinition for "orthodox"

                                >>>Even within the context of our discussions, "orthodox" can
                                have a generic meaning (straight- or right-thinking), or a specific
                                one (such as referring to the conventional, Pistic religion as
                                characterized by its dogma).<<< #7390

                                Actually more specific one is Orthodox as in Eastern Orthodox.
                                But for one to be called orthodox I think there needs to be more
                                then "pistic" to be one. So in the definition Gerry includes
                                "conventional" so what's that entail? Surely for Christians, it must
                                included Christology and perhaps etchatology and yes
                                characterized by dogma (but then everyone had dogma). But
                                then who will define the boundry?

                                I don't like the term pistic Christians because of the same
                                reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or
                                group that identified each other as "pistic". And as I stated there
                                was no uniform "pistic" theology just as there was no uniform
                                "Gnostic" theology. It is a misnormer to state that historically
                                there were two kinds of Christians, pistic and gnostic, like one
                                internet web sites falsely speading as the matter of fact.
                              • ernststrohregenmantelrad
                                ... ernststrohregenmantelrad ...
                                Message 15 of 28 , Apr 4, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <
                                  no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                  > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com,
                                  ernststrohregenmantelrad
                                  > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                  > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, incognito_lightbringer
                                  <
                                  > > no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > > PS It really is a good idea to reread the posts in this
                                  > particular
                                  > > > thread in one go. I've just did that specifically because
                                  Carrie
                                  > > > asked me a question and I was trying to recreate the train
                                  of
                                  > thought
                                  > > > and discussion to answer her, and noticed a few things I
                                  didn't
                                  > > > address or didn't respond to correctly, and am working on
                                  some
                                  > kind
                                  > > > of reply to you and Carrie. But the board had been down
                                  when I
                                  > tried
                                  > > > to access it this weekend it's taking awhile.
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Who's the heck is Carrie?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Ah, so soon they forget... LOL
                                  >
                                  > Ernst, I think she was referring to me with an extra "r" and "e".
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Cari
                                  >
                                  > P. S. Apologies if this is posted twice. I think Yahoo ate up my
                                  > first attempt.

                                  then someone is indeed disfiguering words!
                                • Gerry
                                  ... gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age evolution of conscieous crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then that turned into bickering on the
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Apr 5, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                                    <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >>I see that this all got started from a post by New Age pseudo-
                                    gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age "evolution of
                                    conscieous" crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then
                                    that turned into bickering on the definition of "pistis" (BTW,
                                    looking back at posts, I felt like reading Irenaeus because the
                                    posts were erased yet some quotes were cited to refute.)<<


                                    The only posts that were deleted had no purpose here. They were
                                    spam. There's actually another recent one I'm considering
                                    eliminating from the archives, but from now on, I'll be sure to
                                    forward all spam directly to your mailbox prior to deletion so you
                                    can lord over it as you please.


                                    >>Anyway, as stated in posts "Gnostic" Christians have varients
                                    and so one must also realize that so called "pistic" Christians
                                    have varients too. (BTW, I hate using that term for this particular
                                    group, more on that later) Including those of so called dogmatic,
                                    pistic, orthodox etc... (and you can put as many adjective as you
                                    want it won't make difference). I understand that what he meant
                                    by the term "pistic" or "orthodox" but my point here is his
                                    definition of "sin" for supposed "orthodox". As I stated it is only
                                    after Augestine that the original sin concept was adoptied by the
                                    "orthodox" church so "Sin = transgression; we're born with it,
                                    and can't escape it without someone else dying for us." needs
                                    revision. Also the statement, "Sin = ignorance of our divine origin;
                                    a state akin to drunkenness from which we can be made sober."
                                    is much to be of misunderstanding. I don't know where but I think
                                    we got somewhere stuck in our heads that for Gnostics sin=
                                    ignorence. Maybe it was from the TV serie "Gnostics" or from
                                    Pagels' book "Gnostic Gospels". Well, I look back at the Pagels
                                    book and it doesn't say sin=ingorence. What it says is that for
                                    orthodox Christians suffering is the result of sin but for Gnostics
                                    suffering is the result of ignorence. (p.148-150) Then as such
                                    word "sin" is defined same for orthodox and Gnostics. For "sin'
                                    means as Pagels states on page 148-149, "the New Testement
                                    term for sin, _hamartia_, comes from the sport of archery;
                                    literally, it means "missing the mark" So the original meaning of
                                    "hamartia" didn't necessary mean "transgresion" per se.<<


                                    Thank you for your "clarification," but are you still somehow unaware
                                    that my conceptual distinction was never intended to be a technical
                                    definition, even after two people have pointed that out? BTW, if we
                                    stick to your literalist interpretation of "sin," then the only valid
                                    context we can allow for its discussion is on the field while taking
                                    aim at a bull's-eye. Furthermore, if you think I pulled the
                                    understanding of "sin" as "ignorance" out of a hat, you're again
                                    mistaken.


                                    >>I don't like the term pistic Christians because of the same
                                    reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or
                                    group that identified each other as "pistic". And as I stated there
                                    was no uniform "pistic" theology just as there was no uniform
                                    "Gnostic" theology. It is a misnormer to state that historically
                                    there were two kinds of Christians, pistic and gnostic, like one
                                    internet web sites falsely speading as the matter of fact.<<


                                    If you don't like the term, Ernst, you're free to leave anytime.
                                    There's really no point in you remaining to discuss Gnosticism if you
                                    truly see no difference between those groups and the rest of
                                    Christianity. On the other hand, if you can remove your head from
                                    your definitions long enough to realize that certain generalizations
                                    can indeed be recognized, then the whole point of having
                                    a "Gnosticism" category at Yahoo might just be validated.

                                    Gerry
                                  • Gerry
                                    ... Yes, I d say that SOMEONE is, indeed. Don t worry, though . . . your title is far from being challenged. Gerry
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Apr 5, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                                      <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >>then someone is indeed disfiguering words!<< [sic]



                                      Yes, I'd say that SOMEONE is, indeed.

                                      Don't worry, though . . . your title is far from being challenged.

                                      Gerry
                                    • incognito_lightbringer
                                      Ernst I don t like the term pistic Christians because of the same reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or group that identified each other
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Apr 5, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Ernst<<>>I don't like the term pistic Christians because of the same
                                        reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or
                                        group that identified each other as "pistic". And as I stated there
                                        was no uniform "pistic" theology just as there was no uniform
                                        "Gnostic" theology. It is a misnormer to state that historically
                                        there were two kinds of Christians, pistic and gnostic, like one
                                        internet web sites falsely speading as the matter of fact.<<


                                        Gerry<<If you don't like the term, Ernst, you're free to leave
                                        anytime.
                                        There's really no point in you remaining to discuss Gnosticism if you
                                        truly see no difference between those groups and the rest of
                                        Christianity>>


                                        I agree with Ernst. This whole pistic gnostic heterodox orthodox
                                        thread made me understand what exactly he's trying to say now. No
                                        matter what neat box you try to fit things into you can still find
                                        examples that contradict it. That's why, Gerry, I asked you what is
                                        meant by heterodox versus orthodox when applied to gnosticism in post
                                        7405.

                                        Because then I could claim that those labeled Orthodox or Pistics
                                        have various subgroups which have differences in texts and myth, some
                                        subtle, others more pronounced, and that as a whole they are
                                        heterodox. (thank you Ernst!).

                                        If heterodox applies to beliefs of members within the specific
                                        gnostic group, in that the group allowed a wide difference in
                                        personal interpretation, that's another matter. But I see common
                                        myths, common rituals, common teachings within each group.
                                        You agree by your "if you see no difference". And it's also implied
                                        by the overall tone of response here whenever someone strays off the
                                        historical gnostic beaten path into personal interpretation that
                                        isn't based on historical gnosticism.

                                        You wrote <<I sought to point out that as black is not white, neither
                                        might a mainstream definition be appropriately applied in a Gnostic
                                        context.>> What does that mean? That any definition "they" used
                                        automatically can't be what "we" use? I don't think you believe that,
                                        but that's what the statement implies. And it may the case in some
                                        points, it may also not be the case in others. What importance a
                                        definition is attributed to *any religious system*, how it's defined
                                        by that system, is examined by examining the specific religion
                                        itself. That is, I believe, critical analysis. Not by examination of
                                        another group and defining based on what they think
                                        the "enemy" is. If that's not the case, then why don't we start
                                        comparing Gnosticism to Hinduism?

                                        The entire discussion should not have been about bickering. It should
                                        have been about how do historical gnostic groups define faith based
                                        on the evidence they left and deductions *based on that evidence*.
                                        Has that been done in any depth? A claim was made here that faith was
                                        viewed as negative by gnostics. I asked for evidence, where is it? My
                                        reading of texts is that faith was high up in the hierarchy
                                        importance to gnostics. Why not examine the written material and use
                                        that to agree or disagree?

                                        If "suposedly different historical definitions are not very
                                        different at all, they are variations on a single theme." then what
                                        is that definition and context for faith in historical gnosticism,
                                        based on the evidence they left? Also written, "this club
                                        is about historical Gnostic movements and that is non-negotiable".
                                        Now we have a suggestion that the word faith be replaced by another
                                        word, whereas historical gnostics did use it, and everyone's offering
                                        a different definition "important to me". That indicates that there
                                        *is* confusion on this point. And whereas personal interpretation is
                                        important in gnosticism, IMHO, you can't have your cake and eat it
                                        too. You can't claim that there's some objective analysis going on of
                                        historical gnosticism, and then fall back into personal definition
                                        with cries of heterodox whenever the literature doesn't agree with
                                        personal view. Gnosticism is not "anyone's "personal path" of
                                        psychological "spirituality", another comment posted here.

                                        Cari asked me why, if I didn't believe in contrasting gnostics to
                                        pistics to define aspects of gnosticism, then why did I do that? I
                                        was actually shocked because I had no intention of doing that, and
                                        realized I fell into it. The simple answer was that I was asked to
                                        and the question intrigued me. I now realize it was a HUGE mistake
                                        and why. I should have never diverted into that tangent. I'm still
                                        holding to, now more than ever, that you do not define gnostic terms
                                        as some kind of polar opposite to pistics, or in contrast to any
                                        other religion. You define it based on itself.

                                        Here's another irony. Why is the attempt to analyze faith is met with
                                        suspicion? Is it a dirty word? The pistics are immediately dragged up
                                        for comparison (see, lookee here what faith results in). The
                                        term "critical reasoning" is bandied about as if it's contrary to
                                        faith or mysticism. Mysticism is now not part of gnosis. No matter
                                        that gnosticism is a _religion_ and not just merely a philosophy and
                                        those elements are blatantly there in the literature. Pursuit of a
                                        definition it is met with implied accusations of an orthodox
                                        approach, and "gnostics aren't orthodox". Eventually, dead martyrs
                                        are dug up, as I knew they'd be, as if to say "see what happens"!
                                        What this has to do with pistics I don't know because had
                                        the "faithful" been true to their own dogmatic doctrines than there
                                        wouldn't have been any slaughter, instead much giving away of coats
                                        and shirts, turning of cheeks, and loving the enemy, and avoidance of
                                        judgement on others.
                                        Conversely, "historical definitions are the important ones for you to
                                        know in order to be a part of conversation here" is also brought up
                                        the minute someone strays into new age lala land. So which is it?

                                        So my "intent" has been questioned, and suspicions of orthodox
                                        influence, or rather "baggage", for "zealously defending faith".
                                        Now it's what could possibly be my religious influence. (if you're
                                        getting p'ed at this too bad, you're not half as mad as I was when I
                                        read all this, and you have no idea how I've restrained myself).
                                        Snide accusations of past posting history, while at the
                                        same time contradictorily stating that bringing up past posts is a no
                                        no in debate. Now you write "thread had already dragged on to
                                        inordinate length, and probably shouldn't have needed clarification
                                        at a Gnostic site in the first place". Thanks a lot, here I thought
                                        critical analysis was the point. Except nothings clear as far as the
                                        posts go, everyone's falling back is individual interpretation, and
                                        what word are we substituting for faith. Oh by the way, I've seen FAR
                                        longer threads on this board.
                                        This is the most depressing disillusioning experience because it's
                                        exactly the kind of thing I experienced in my "orthodox" influence. I
                                        know it when I see it.






                                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
                                        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad
                                        > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > >>I see that this all got started from a post by New Age pseudo-
                                        > gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age "evolution of
                                        > conscieous" crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then
                                        > that turned into bickering on the definition of "pistis" (BTW,
                                        > looking back at posts, I felt like reading Irenaeus because the
                                        > posts were erased yet some quotes were cited to refute.)<<
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > The only posts that were deleted had no purpose here. They were
                                        > spam. There's actually another recent one I'm considering
                                        > eliminating from the archives, but from now on, I'll be sure to
                                        > forward all spam directly to your mailbox prior to deletion so you
                                        > can lord over it as you please.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > >>Anyway, as stated in posts "Gnostic" Christians have varients
                                        > and so one must also realize that so called "pistic" Christians
                                        > have varients too. (BTW, I hate using that term for this particular
                                        > group, more on that later) Including those of so called dogmatic,
                                        > pistic, orthodox etc... (and you can put as many adjective as you
                                        > want it won't make difference). I understand that what he meant
                                        > by the term "pistic" or "orthodox" but my point here is his
                                        > definition of "sin" for supposed "orthodox". As I stated it is only
                                        > after Augestine that the original sin concept was adoptied by the
                                        > "orthodox" church so "Sin = transgression; we're born with it,
                                        > and can't escape it without someone else dying for us." needs
                                        > revision. Also the statement, "Sin = ignorance of our divine
                                        origin;
                                        > a state akin to drunkenness from which we can be made sober."
                                        > is much to be of misunderstanding. I don't know where but I think
                                        > we got somewhere stuck in our heads that for Gnostics sin=
                                        > ignorence. Maybe it was from the TV serie "Gnostics" or from
                                        > Pagels' book "Gnostic Gospels". Well, I look back at the Pagels
                                        > book and it doesn't say sin=ingorence. What it says is that for
                                        > orthodox Christians suffering is the result of sin but for Gnostics
                                        > suffering is the result of ignorence. (p.148-150) Then as such
                                        > word "sin" is defined same for orthodox and Gnostics. For "sin'
                                        > means as Pagels states on page 148-149, "the New Testement
                                        > term for sin, _hamartia_, comes from the sport of archery;
                                        > literally, it means "missing the mark" So the original meaning of
                                        > "hamartia" didn't necessary mean "transgresion" per se.<<
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Thank you for your "clarification," but are you still somehow
                                        unaware
                                        > that my conceptual distinction was never intended to be a technical
                                        > definition, even after two people have pointed that out? BTW, if
                                        we
                                        > stick to your literalist interpretation of "sin," then the only
                                        valid
                                        > context we can allow for its discussion is on the field while
                                        taking
                                        > aim at a bull's-eye. Furthermore, if you think I pulled the
                                        > understanding of "sin" as "ignorance" out of a hat, you're again
                                        > mistaken.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > >>I don't like the term pistic Christians because of the same
                                        > reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or
                                        > group that identified each other as "pistic". And as I stated there
                                        > was no uniform "pistic" theology just as there was no uniform
                                        > "Gnostic" theology. It is a misnormer to state that historically
                                        > there were two kinds of Christians, pistic and gnostic, like one
                                        > internet web sites falsely speading as the matter of fact.<<
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > If you don't like the term, Ernst, you're free to leave anytime.
                                        > There's really no point in you remaining to discuss Gnosticism if
                                        you
                                        > truly see no difference between those groups and the rest of
                                        > Christianity. On the other hand, if you can remove your head from
                                        > your definitions long enough to realize that certain
                                        generalizations
                                        > can indeed be recognized, then the whole point of having
                                        > a "Gnosticism" category at Yahoo might just be validated.
                                        >
                                        > Gerry
                                      • Mike Leavitt
                                        Hello ernststrohregenmantelrad On 04-Apr-03, you wrote: . For sin means as Pagels states on ... THIS POINT NEEDS EMPHASIZING, THIS IS THE TRUE MEANING OF
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Apr 5, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hello ernststrohregenmantelrad

                                          On 04-Apr-03, you wrote:
                                          . For "sin' means as Pagels states on
                                          > page 148-149, "the New Testement term for sin, _hamartia_, comes
                                          > from the sport of archery; literally, it means "missing the mark" So
                                          > the original meaning of "hamartia" didn't necessary mean
                                          > "transgresion" per se.

                                          THIS POINT NEEDS EMPHASIZING, THIS IS THE TRUE MEANING OF SIN.

                                          > I don't like the term pistic Christians because of the same
                                          > reason for the word Gnosticism. There was no movement or
                                          > group that identified each other as "pistic". And as I stated there
                                          > was no uniform "pistic" theology just as there was no uniform
                                          > "Gnostic" theology. It is a misnormer to state that historically
                                          > there were two kinds of Christians, pistic and gnostic, like one
                                          > internet web sites falsely speading as the matter of fact.

                                          Yes, Marcion comes to mind, a little bit of each. :-) Origin and
                                          Clement too, for that matter.

                                          Regards
                                          --
                                          Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                        • Mike Leavitt
                                          Hello incognito_lightbringer ... Just to clarify, I agree with your point about the role of faith in Gnosticism, Pistis is ahead of Sophia in the title after
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Apr 5, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hello incognito_lightbringer

                                            On 05-Apr-03, you wrote:

                                            > So my "intent" has been questioned, and suspicions of orthodox
                                            > influence, or rather "baggage", for "zealously defending faith". Now
                                            > it's what could possibly be my religious influence. (if you're
                                            > getting p'ed at this too bad, you're not half as mad as I was when I
                                            > read all this, and you have no idea how I've restrained myself).
                                            > Snide accusations of past posting history, while at the same time
                                            > contradictorily stating that bringing up past posts is a no no in
                                            > debate. Now you write "thread had already dragged on to inordinate
                                            > length, and probably shouldn't have needed clarification at a
                                            > Gnostic site in the first place". Thanks a lot, here I thought
                                            > critical analysis was the point. Except nothings clear as far as the
                                            > posts go, everyone's falling back is individual interpretation, and
                                            > what word are we substituting for faith. Oh by the way, I've seen
                                            > FAR longer threads on this board. This is the most depressing
                                            > disillusioning experience because it's exactly the kind of thing I
                                            > experienced in my "orthodox" influence. I know it when I see it.

                                            Just to clarify, I agree with your point about the role of faith in
                                            Gnosticism, Pistis is ahead of Sophia in the title after all. Also I
                                            have enjoyed your posts, and learned from them. I guess I'm an old
                                            jaded gnostic, as nothing in this thread has upset me, only
                                            enlightened me as different points of view were put forth. It is, of
                                            course, the best form to leave out personal references, but
                                            cultivating a thick skin helps as it will happen. :-)

                                            Regards
                                            --
                                            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                          • incognito_lightbringer
                                            Thanks Mike This is having a thick skin, for me LOL :O If there s debate among scholars defining gnosis and gnosticism, I don t suppose faith should have been
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Thanks Mike
                                              This is having a thick skin, for me LOL :O
                                              If there's debate among scholars defining gnosis and gnosticism, I
                                              don't suppose faith should have been any different.
                                              And it's not so much faith as it is taking the mystical or
                                              transcendent out of gnosis and gnosticism that bothered me; takes all
                                              the flavor out of it, like salt without food (to quote from my
                                              orthodox upbringing). And the transcendent is the starting point in
                                              gnostic texts that describe the Father and the series of emanations.
                                              I don't see how that can be broached without some element of faith
                                              working.

                                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                              > Hello incognito_lightbringer
                                              >
                                              > On 05-Apr-03, you wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > So my "intent" has been questioned, and suspicions of orthodox
                                              > > influence, or rather "baggage", for "zealously defending faith".
                                              Now
                                              > > it's what could possibly be my religious influence. (if you're
                                              > > getting p'ed at this too bad, you're not half as mad as I was
                                              when I
                                              > > read all this, and you have no idea how I've restrained myself).
                                              > > Snide accusations of past posting history, while at the same time
                                              > > contradictorily stating that bringing up past posts is a no no in
                                              > > debate. Now you write "thread had already dragged on to inordinate
                                              > > length, and probably shouldn't have needed clarification at a
                                              > > Gnostic site in the first place". Thanks a lot, here I thought
                                              > > critical analysis was the point. Except nothings clear as far as
                                              the
                                              > > posts go, everyone's falling back is individual interpretation,
                                              and
                                              > > what word are we substituting for faith. Oh by the way, I've seen
                                              > > FAR longer threads on this board. This is the most depressing
                                              > > disillusioning experience because it's exactly the kind of thing I
                                              > > experienced in my "orthodox" influence. I know it when I see it.
                                              >
                                              > Just to clarify, I agree with your point about the role of faith in
                                              > Gnosticism, Pistis is ahead of Sophia in the title after all. Also
                                              I
                                              > have enjoyed your posts, and learned from them. I guess I'm an old
                                              > jaded gnostic, as nothing in this thread has upset me, only
                                              > enlightened me as different points of view were put forth. It is,
                                              of
                                              > course, the best form to leave out personal references, but
                                              > cultivating a thick skin helps as it will happen. :-)
                                              >
                                              > Regards
                                              > --
                                              > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                                            • Gerry
                                              ... all ... emanations. ... Micren, before I even come close to having the time required in a day to address your previous questions and allegations of the
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, incognito_lightbringer
                                                <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                                > Thanks Mike
                                                > This is having a thick skin, for me LOL :O
                                                > If there's debate among scholars defining gnosis and gnosticism, I
                                                > don't suppose faith should have been any different.
                                                > And it's not so much faith as it is taking the mystical or
                                                > transcendent out of gnosis and gnosticism that bothered me; takes
                                                all
                                                > the flavor out of it, like salt without food (to quote from my
                                                > orthodox upbringing). And the transcendent is the starting point in
                                                > gnostic texts that describe the Father and the series of
                                                emanations.
                                                > I don't see how that can be broached without some element of faith
                                                > working.
                                                >



                                                Micren, before I even come close to having the time required in a day
                                                to address your previous questions and allegations of the horrible
                                                mistreatment you've gotten here, I'd like to ask one simple question:

                                                You close that paragraph with the unmistakable implication that
                                                people are continuing to "piss" on Pistis——as if they genuinely felt
                                                that it had NO place in Gnosticism. I'm just really curious if you
                                                never noticed the repeated attempts by your "opponents" in
                                                this "debate" to inform you that such was never an issue in our eyes?

                                                From my standpoint, I have merely wanted to point out that there is a
                                                difference in application of the terms between a Gnostic setting and
                                                one of a conventional faith.

                                                Mike and Ernst are right about the etymological origin of "sin," a
                                                fact which was NOT disputed here. In fact, the same definition had
                                                been offered here before (probably on numerous occasions prior to the
                                                botched archive re-shuffling). Again, I love to see that we have
                                                another area of agreement, but the fact remains that the notion
                                                of "missing the mark" is different in the eyes of a purely Pistic
                                                individual than for a Gnostic.

                                                Gerry
                                              • Gerry
                                                ... I ... of ... Mike, I have one question for you as well (just to see if we ve all been on the same page all along). Since this relates to a matter of a
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Just to clarify, I agree with your point about the role of faith in
                                                  > Gnosticism, Pistis is ahead of Sophia in the title after all. Also
                                                  I
                                                  > have enjoyed your posts, and learned from them. I guess I'm an old
                                                  > jaded gnostic, as nothing in this thread has upset me, only
                                                  > enlightened me as different points of view were put forth. It is,
                                                  of
                                                  > course, the best form to leave out personal references, but
                                                  > cultivating a thick skin helps as it will happen. :-)
                                                  >
                                                  > Regards
                                                  > --
                                                  > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...



                                                  Mike, I have one question for you as well (just to see if we've all
                                                  been on the same page all along). Since this relates to a matter of
                                                  a personal nature, you may choose to treat it as a rhetorical
                                                  question, but I'll ask nonetheless:

                                                  Realizing that you preside over a Gnostic church, I'm curious why you
                                                  made that choice, rather than . . . say . . . a Methodist church?

                                                  I'm hoping you won't tell me something like, "It's a shorter
                                                  commute," although I wouldn't put it past you. LOL In spite of the
                                                  dangers of "assuming" anything, I'd wager that there was "something"
                                                  about the Gnostic viewpoint that resonated differently for you than
                                                  within the mainstream.

                                                  Again, this is the gist of the case I've tried to present here——that
                                                  there IS a difference, otherwise, none of us would be at a Gnostic
                                                  site, there would be no Gnosticism category, and any of us of a
                                                  religious persuasion would be attending the VERY SAME Church since
                                                  such terms as heterodox and orthodox have been defenestrated for
                                                  utter lack of interest.

                                                  Gerry
                                                • Mike Leavitt
                                                  Hello incognito_lightbringer ... You haven t said anything there I disagree with either. Good points. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Hello incognito_lightbringer

                                                    On 06-Apr-03, you wrote:

                                                    > Thanks Mike
                                                    > This is having a thick skin, for me LOL :O If there's debate among
                                                    > scholars defining gnosis and gnosticism, I don't suppose faith
                                                    > should have been any different. And it's not so much faith as it is
                                                    > taking the mystical or transcendent out of gnosis and gnosticism
                                                    > that bothered me; takes all the flavor out of it, like salt without
                                                    > food (to quote from my orthodox upbringing). And the transcendent is
                                                    > the starting point in gnostic texts that describe the Father and the
                                                    > series of emanations. I don't see how that can be broached without
                                                    > some element of faith working.

                                                    You haven't said anything there I disagree with either. Good points.

                                                    Regards
                                                    --
                                                    Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                                  • Mike Leavitt
                                                    Hello Gerry ... I hate one word replies, but this calls for one, _absolutely_! Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Hello Gerry

                                                      On 06-Apr-03, you wrote:

                                                      > Mike and Ernst are right about the etymological origin of "sin," a
                                                      > fact which was NOT disputed here. In fact, the same definition had
                                                      > been offered here before (probably on numerous occasions prior to
                                                      > the botched archive re-shuffling). Again, I love to see that we have
                                                      > another area of agreement, but the fact remains that the notion of
                                                      > "missing the mark" is different in the eyes of a purely Pistic
                                                      > individual than for a Gnostic.

                                                      I hate one word replies, but this calls for one, _absolutely_!

                                                      Regards
                                                      --
                                                      Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                                    • Mike Leavitt
                                                      Hello Gerry ... Well Bishop Stephan presides over the church, I m just the senior priest by date of ordination (1975). Actually it is a longer commute. :-) Yes
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Apr 6, 2003
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Hello Gerry

                                                        On 06-Apr-03, you wrote:

                                                        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                                        >>
                                                        >>
                                                        >> Just to clarify, I agree with your point about the role of faith in
                                                        >> Gnosticism, Pistis is ahead of Sophia in the title after all. Also
                                                        > I
                                                        >> have enjoyed your posts, and learned from them. I guess I'm an old
                                                        >> jaded gnostic, as nothing in this thread has upset me, only
                                                        >> enlightened me as different points of view were put forth. It is,
                                                        > of
                                                        >> course, the best form to leave out personal references, but
                                                        >> cultivating a thick skin helps as it will happen. :-)
                                                        >>
                                                        >> Regards
                                                        >> --
                                                        >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Mike, I have one question for you as well (just to see if we've all
                                                        > been on the same page all along). Since this relates to a matter of
                                                        > a personal nature, you may choose to treat it as a rhetorical
                                                        > question, but I'll ask nonetheless:
                                                        >
                                                        > Realizing that you preside over a Gnostic church, I'm curious why
                                                        > you made that choice, rather than . . . say . . . a Methodist
                                                        > church?
                                                        >
                                                        > I'm hoping you won't tell me something like, "It's a shorter
                                                        > commute," although I wouldn't put it past you. LOL In spite of the
                                                        > dangers of "assuming" anything, I'd wager that there was "something"
                                                        > about the Gnostic viewpoint that resonated differently for you than
                                                        > within the mainstream.
                                                        >
                                                        > Again, this is the gist of the case I've tried to present here

                                                        Well Bishop Stephan presides over the church, I'm just the senior
                                                        priest by date of ordination (1975).

                                                        Actually it is a longer commute. :-)

                                                        Yes it was something different, in my case from the Rosicrucian
                                                        (Heindel/Steiner not AMORC)/Manley Hall (still good)/New Age religious
                                                        upbringing I had (actually it was not pushed on me, I took it up on
                                                        my own). But I never had any Orthodox religious junk to deal with in
                                                        my upbringing. I attended Episcopal services in Vietnam, but that
                                                        was for the liturgy, because I was already hooked on that from
                                                        Stephan's church, though I was more into Qabalah theologically than
                                                        anything else at the time. It made a logical transition to Gnosis
                                                        (especially Luria), and I never gave it up either. As you may have
                                                        guessed, the liturgy drew me in, then came Gnosis.

                                                        Regards
                                                        --
                                                        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                                      • ernststrohregenmantelrad2000
                                                        Hi, please bear with me because this is a long post. In post #7463 ... pseudo- gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age evolution of conscieous crap as a
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Apr 15, 2003
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Hi, please bear with me because this is a long post.

                                                          In post #7463

                                                          >>>>Me: I see that this all got started from a post by New Age
                                                          pseudo-
                                                          gnostic wannabee again confusing his new age "evolution of
                                                          conscieous" crap as a pale rendering of Gnosticism. And then
                                                          that turned into bickering on the definition of "pistis" (BTW,
                                                          looking back at posts, I felt like reading Irenaeus because the
                                                          posts were erased yet some quotes were cited to refute.)<<

                                                          Gerry:
                                                          The only posts that were deleted had no purpose here. They
                                                          were
                                                          spam. There's actually another recent one I'm considering
                                                          eliminating from the archives, but from now on, I'll be sure to
                                                          forward all spam directly to your mailbox prior to deletion so you
                                                          can lord over it as you please.<<<<

                                                          I was just commenting on the how reading posts which were
                                                          replies to the delated post reminded me of reading polmetical
                                                          works of heresiologists. I was not commenting on the validity of
                                                          erased posts or their relevence (as you see them) in this egroup.
                                                          In fact if you are so concerned about spams why don't you erase
                                                          #7361. (As of the time of this writing it is not erased.). This post
                                                          is a spam as much as those that were posted by the delated ex-
                                                          member Weyne. As for the posts in question they were Gerry's
                                                          post #7304 which was a reply to #7298 and PMCV's post #7300
                                                          which was reply to #7299. Now one post by Weyne was purely a
                                                          post with just a link to a web site of a book (which he was so
                                                          enthuse about or pushing everyone to buy it. It depeses on one's
                                                          perspective) but IMO #7298 and #7299 included some
                                                          information besides the link to the aforementioned web site.
                                                          Granted that information might have been a rationalization to the
                                                          web site but still it gave, as far as I can see from archives inspite
                                                          of delated posts, some sort of discussion over the term
                                                          "Gnosticism". But I really can not tell because the
                                                          aforementioned posts were erased and judging from the replies
                                                          on what really did Weyne post lead me to guessing because in
                                                          replies his quotes are not in entirely and they may be quotted out
                                                          of context. AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I COMMENTED AS
                                                          SUCH. JUST COMMENTING THAT THIS INTERACTION
                                                          REMINDED ME OF IRENAEUS NOT I WANT TO READ SPAM AS
                                                          YOU SARCASTICALLY STATED.

                                                          Gerry #7463

                                                          >>Thank you for your "clarification," but are you still somehow
                                                          unaware
                                                          that my conceptual distinction was never intended to be a
                                                          technical
                                                          definition, even after two people have pointed that out?<<<

                                                          Is it right to make the distingtion between technical and non-
                                                          technical term when you are discussing something historical
                                                          and needs to be explained with definiton as you are doing with
                                                          Incognito? This I find to be confusing. This is what you wrote in
                                                          #7390 before your "sarcastic, non-technical" definition.

                                                          > >>If sin isn't sin and faith isn't faith and creator isn't creator,
                                                          than what is it?<<(Incognito)
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > Guess I goofed again. By including "damnation" (which you
                                                          seemed to notice was out of place) in that string of redundancy, I
                                                          was trying to show that if the mainstream definitions were the
                                                          only ones available, then those groups sheltered under the
                                                          umbrella of Gnosticism would be no different from the
                                                          conventional orthodoxy. Are these differences not what we've
                                                          been pointing out during this discussion of "faith"?
                                                          >

                                                          From this you draw up the supposed "sarcastic, non-technical"
                                                          i.e. caricature definitions to show Incognito that these terms
                                                          were different between Gnostics and so called pistics. I have no
                                                          problem with that and I also see your point; however, what I
                                                          pointing out is that (and I think this was what Incognito also was
                                                          asserting -tell me if I'm wrong) that the difference between
                                                          Gnostics and so called pistics came NOT as the result of
                                                          different differnition of terms that you discussed (faith, sin,
                                                          creator and damnation(!)) but as consequence resulting from
                                                          their respective cosmology. So if you mean definition those
                                                          terms are same for both Gnostics and Orthodox but the
                                                          consequese is different. I feel you are confusing those two.



                                                          >> BTW, if we
                                                          stick to your literalist interpretation of "sin," then the only valid
                                                          context we can allow for its discussion is on the field while taking
                                                          aim at a bull's-eye.<<

                                                          Again the term "sin" is same for both Gnostics and Orthodox.
                                                          And thank you for your sarcastic comment but you know full well
                                                          what I'm aiming at here (a pun intended). For both groups "sin",
                                                          no matter what, means "missing the target set by God". Humans
                                                          fell grory of "God" (or Pleroma in case of Gnostics) no matter
                                                          what. That is the sin. The difference comes when ones goes
                                                          from there-what to do with "sin". What is the consequese of "sin",
                                                          How "sin" came about" and What is the remedty. In fact besides
                                                          Pagels, I heard the defintion of "sin" as "missing the target" from
                                                          two people. One is Stephan Hoeller in one of his talk and
                                                          another is a Luteran paster in a church I used to attend. Now as
                                                          you say those two are typical resprentive of your "Gnostics" and
                                                          so called "pistic" yet they used the same definition of "sin as
                                                          missing the target" And to tie with your discussion with Incognito
                                                          on other terms, faith, etc... is also same in definition.


                                                          >>Furthermore, if you think I pulled the
                                                          understanding of "sin" as "ignorance" out of a hat, you're again
                                                          mistaken.<<

                                                          No, I didn't. Did I say that? Look again. I specially stated that it
                                                          might be floating around the general discussion and perhasp
                                                          from the TV documentary "Gnostics" in the post.



                                                          >>If you don't like the term, Ernst, you're free to leave anytime.
                                                          There's really no point in you remaining to discuss Gnosticism if
                                                          you
                                                          truly see no difference between those groups and the rest of
                                                          Christianity. On the other hand, if you can remove your head
                                                          from
                                                          your definitions long enough to realize that certain
                                                          generalizations
                                                          can indeed be recognized, then the whole point of having
                                                          a "Gnosticism" category at Yahoo might just be validated.<<

                                                          Why not liking the term "pistic" warrent my departure from the
                                                          group? The term like Gnosticism is not really cleary concensus
                                                          term. There are differences of opinion on the term and what it
                                                          entails (for example like I said how about Marcion?) plus it was
                                                          the term not by used by those in question. If one goes by what
                                                          you saying then a person should also leave because one is not
                                                          happy with the definition of "Gnosticism". You are putting words
                                                          in my mouth if I think there are no difference between Gnosticism
                                                          and what became of Orthodox. What I was saying there is that
                                                          the term pistic is a misnormer and shouldn't used at all (that's
                                                          why I don't used it) and my feeling is that it shouldn't be used at
                                                          all because it will create the confusion of equating what became
                                                          as Orthodox with 'pistic' as some group. That is not seeing
                                                          orthodox and gnostics and the same entities.

                                                          BTW, when I created the club there was no yahoo category
                                                          "Gnosticism". So basing that as one one the rationalization is not
                                                          good.
                                                        • George Harvey
                                                          ... Hi, I wanted to ask you this off list as this is off topic, but you seem to have your address hidden so: What club are you talking about? And to everyone
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Apr 16, 2003
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, ernststrohregenmantelrad2000
                                                            <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            > BTW, when I created the club there was no yahoo category
                                                            > "Gnosticism". So basing that as one one the rationalization is not
                                                            > good.

                                                            Hi,
                                                            I wanted to ask you this off list as this is off topic, but you seem
                                                            to have your address hidden so:

                                                            What club are you talking about?

                                                            And to everyone else: I apologize for the off topic post.

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