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

Re: Nag Hammadi codexes

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.