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

Re: Nag Hammadi codexes

Expand Messages
  • incognito_lightbringer
    Where did I ask *what is a creator if
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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.