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

Re: [Gnosticism2] highest achievable/Unconditional Love

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Powell-Frederickson
    Wow... Okay, here goes... I would say the greatest attainment here on this earth is to MASTER UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. That s the greatest... but the question is,
    Message 1 of 30 , Jul 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

       Wow... Okay, here goes...
      I would say the greatest attainment here on this earth is to MASTER UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.
      That's the greatest... but the question is, how many of us actually reach that state? And I suppose the bigger question is HOW to reach it, what to do in order to master Unconditional Love....
      As far as being married/single or having children/not having children.... I think that the people we know, our spouses, and our children all play a role in helping us to master Unconditional Love... not necessarily "making it easier" role either... rather a "lesson learning" role...  For example, I though I was getting near to mastering it, but then I got married.... you really learn a lot from marriage.... I have learned so much about love from TRYING to love my husband unconditionally. ...I don't eat meat; my husband lives for a big steak.......I am gentle, quiet, and calm; my husband is rough, loud, boisterous.........My heart actually swells with joy when I take my overflowing recycling bins to the curb each Wednesday; my husband couldn't care less.........I use all natural toothpaste and deodorant; my husband uses smokeless tobbacco and won't touch my toothpaste or deo.......Our parenting styles are completely opposite..... Anyway, sorry about that, but my point is that I love and have no judgement against OTHER people who may be the exact same as my husband.... but these qualities in my husband can drive me up the wall....
      So, there are days I say to myself that being married is hindering my ability to attain Unconditional Love..... but that, of course, is incorrect.... BECAUSE OF this marriage I am getting more chance to learn and practice Unconditional Love.
      BTW, I used to think the greatest attainment here was to "know everything"... you know, to master knowledge.... now I believe that knowledge and wisom mastery are helping blocks on the way to mastering Love.
      Okay... sorry I made that so long.... It sounds as if it should be on a list about Course in Miracles or something.....
      Was this ok for this list??
      Love,
      Gloria
      -------Original Message-------
       
      Date: Thursday, July 03, 2003 21:04:34
      Subject: [Gnosticism2] highest achievable
       
      Gloria you are married and have children. Tell me in your opinion what is the greatest attainment while here on earth?

      Gloria Powell-Frederickson <gloria@...> wrote:
      Good morning Martin and all......
      I am not sure why he "picked" me..... My guess is that there are things this soul needs to accomplish in his next life, and for some reason I am benecial to his reaching that accomplishment .... and so I thought perhaps that this soul chose still to incarnate in my family (as in my nephew, Isaac, who was born in January)... and that he can get what he needs from me that way.......The only thing about that is that they live a good distance from me, and I see them about twice a year for a week or so. (I am quite excited, as I will be seeing him for the first time next month for a visit!!)
      ...Of course, my husband says that this sweet soul was just trying to land himself a great mommy!
      I do hope to have a son one day... I am so extremely busy with my 3 girls right now ... and I would love a few quite years to start writing .... but I am only 29 .... so, I have plenty of time left...
      I hear my little ones having a dispute upstairs, so I must go.....
      Have a beautiful day....
      Love,
      Gloria
       
       
       
       
       
      -------Original Message-------
       
      Date: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 18:35:34
      Subject: [Gnosticism2] a stream from the unconsciousness
       
      You are very psychic, Gloria. There is a lot of immediate, unhindered, uncensored pass-through, a flow from your Unconsciousness. Since you seem to be down to earth, you can well handle these insights. I am glad you shared them with me, with us. They are extraordinary indeed. You have done the right thing with the male spirit. Why did he pick exactly you? We all should be more attentive to messages from within rather then be based on visual, external historical and seemingly unconnected events.
      Martin


       


      Do you Yahoo!?
      SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
       


      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      Do you Yahoo!?
      SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
       
      ____________________________________________________
        IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
    • martin12617
      Truly, love casts out all fears and makes all things new, Gloria. I came to understand that forgetting about oneself and dedicating one s person, life to
      Message 2 of 30 , Jul 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Truly, love casts out all fears and makes all things new, Gloria.
        I came to understand that forgetting about oneself and dedicating
        one's person, life to something higher or to someone, is a rewarding
        undertaking. Psychologically, anything, which makes us forget about
        the Ego persona is healing and liberating. It is close to what I
        experienced when I came to know that I am not even here. So again,
        when we love and dedicate ourselves to someone, we enter a different
        realm, where the ego persona is suppressed or passive. We are not
        here (with the ego persona), but there. It is beneficial. I suspect
        there is an archetypal, spiritual reality behind this phenomenon,
        which we only imitate however.

        You wrote, Gloria that once you believed acquiring knowledge is the
        highest achievement. Many think so too. I myself never thought that.
        Indeed, I think intellectual knowledge is useless for gnosis;
        perverted as this world is, one of the greatest rude things is that
        in a country like the United States of America for instance, they
        even make us pay for this type of knowledge. The process of learning
        is however a stimulant for the soul, psyche: as she is based on two
        principles, the happiness and meaningfulness principles, it grows, it
        is nurtured and happy, when in pursuit of happiness or when things we
        do, make suddenly sense to us. We feel useful and righteous. Not
        necessarily intellectually. So people who learn and acquire
        intellectual knowledge, nurture the soul, but deceive themselves that
        it is all making big sense. Which it doesn't have to necessarily.

        Marriage could be yet an obstacle to gnosis. I would say that too
        many people are not aware of the higher meaning of marriage, don;t
        see the necessity for union in a split being, but rather look for the
        material, physical union. Where is there then Gnosis?
        Reproduction, I believe is also rooted in ignorance of the matter.
        Believing that only itself exists, ignorant of the spiritual
        realities, it is aspired to preserve itself materially. It fights for
        its life, it fights to precreate itself. The thought prevails, if I
        dont make it today, maybe tomorrow wont be time for it. The demiurge
        planted this knowingly or unknowingly into us: for he himself is
        ignorant and doesn't know when his time will come, when his reign
        will be over. Gnosticism teaches that his time is too limited.
        Another reason for doubts, are so many postulates Jesus himself made:
        leave your mother, and father, brother and sister, leave everything
        behind; you have to love me only, and many other statements, which
        all say that if we don't follow these we will not inherit the kingdom
        of God, or attain Gnosis, eventhough we might be very successful in
        this life and experience very happy lives.
        Saying these things are earthly and therefore ultimately a creation
        of the demiurge. A trap for the souls.
        Martin
      • pessy@chez.com
        ... Marriage and Procreation are utterly evil. Thus it was Saturninus of Antiochia who knew that they are the work of Satanael. Already Marcion refused to
        Message 3 of 30 , Jul 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          martin12617 writes:
          > Marriage could be yet an obstacle to gnosis.

          Marriage and Procreation are utterly evil.
          Thus it was Saturninus of Antiochia
          who knew that they are the work of Satanael.
          Already Marcion refused to initiate regularly married people
          fully into his community.
          Julius Cassianus correctly wrote that as long as women bear kids,
          death , decay, and corruption will rule among mankind.
          Already Plato had a dislike for that lowly mtrimonial life,
          even if not stating it.
          Before Plato already Empedocles refused to encourage procreation.

          Klaus Schilling
        • lady_caritas
          ... This, of course, is one point of view, Klaus, which you have expressed many times. A negative perspective of marriage and procreation was not a universally
          Message 4 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pessy@c... wrote:
            > martin12617 writes:
            > > Marriage could be yet an obstacle to gnosis.
            >
            > Marriage and Procreation are utterly evil.
            > Thus it was Saturninus of Antiochia
            > who knew that they are the work of Satanael.
            > Already Marcion refused to initiate regularly married people
            > fully into his community.
            > Julius Cassianus correctly wrote that as long as women bear kids,
            > death , decay, and corruption will rule among mankind.
            > Already Plato had a dislike for that lowly mtrimonial life,
            > even if not stating it.
            > Before Plato already Empedocles refused to encourage procreation.
            >
            > Klaus Schilling



            This, of course, is one point of view, Klaus, which you have
            expressed many times.

            A negative perspective of marriage and procreation was not a
            universally accepted Gnostic view, however.

            For comparison purposes, the following essay by David Brons, "The
            Valentinian View of the Creation," which I referred to in a previous
            post, discusses the Valentinian view of marriage, which differs from
            your position, Klaus:

            http://www.johannite.org/valentinus/The%20Valentinian%20View%20of%
            20the%20Creation.htm

            (You might need to copy and paste the link to your browser if it is
            too long for the Yahoo post.)

            From "Consequences" near the end of the article:

            >>This view of the world is not without ethical consequences.
            Entering the world is viewed positively in Valentinianism. It was
            seen as a necessary step towards receiving gnosis and returning to
            the pleroma. With this in mind, Valentinian teachers vigorously
            defended marriage and raising children. Ptolemy, an important teacher
            of the Valentinian school at Rome says of marriage: "Whoever has been
            in the world and has not loved a woman in such a way as to unite
            himself with her (i.e. marry her) is not from the Truth and will not
            attain to the Truth"! (Against Heresies 1:6:4). Similarly, the
            teacher Theodotus argues that marriage and rearing children "is
            indispensable for the salvation of those who believe - for this child-
            bearing is essential until the previously reckoned seed is brought
            forth" (Excerpts of Theodotus 67:2-3). It is quite easy to see that
            the Valentinian view on marriage is a logical consequence of their
            teaching on the creation. If entering the world is the path to
            salvation for the spiritual element then the means by which this
            occurs (i.e marriage and child-bearing) must be viewed positively.
            For this reason Clement of Alexandria saw the Valentinians as allies
            against those who reject marriage (Stromata 3:1) despite his
            opposition to other aspects of their theology.

            Such an attitude towards marriage and childbirth sharply contrasts
            with other Gnostics who condemned marriage and child-bearing. Those
            Gnostics who rejected marriage and reproduction saw the created world
            in purely negative terms as the end results of the fall. Valentinians
            in contrast saw the creation of the world as part of the process of
            redemption and consequently had a less negative view towards it.
            Rather than being the nadir of the fall into ignorance, the creation
            is the way back from the fall. It is created specifically as a place
            for the spiritual seeds to attain to gnosis. The attainment of gnosis
            also corresponds to the destruction of ignorance and lack as well as
            their concrete manifestation i.e. matter. Thus the world is also a
            mechanism for the destruction of ignorance and matter.

            Valentinians agreed with Plato that the form of the created world
            preserved the image of the ideal realm (the pleroma). For this reason
            they rarely criticisize the form of the world. Instead most of their
            criticism is focused on the world's material substance. In their
            view, the matter of which the world is formed is condensed or
            solidified deficiency and suffering. Thus while the world preserves
            the image of the pleroma, it is inevitably deficient on account of
            its substance. Valentinians could therefore appreciate that which was
            beautiful about the world while criticisizing that which was ugly.<<
          • Martin Khoury
            I am not different then than them, Klaus. I didn;t even know of these sources. My doubts with regards procreation and matrimony are there, because I am very
            Message 5 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              I am not different then than them, Klaus. I didn;t even know of these sources.
              My doubts with regards procreation and matrimony are there, because I am very careful about pleasant moments, because I don;t know about their origins. I am not schizophrenic, but I feel betrayed somehow. I also pondered, giving life to a child is certainly also another trapped soul, or do I see it wrong? So the reason is obscure in making children. Unless, we actually help the demiurge in imprisoning the light.
              From such activity then I want to abstain. Martin

              pessy@... wrote:
              martin12617 writes:
              > Marriage could be yet an obstacle to gnosis.

              Marriage and Procreation are utterly evil.
              Thus it was Saturninus of Antiochia
              who knew that they are the work of Satanael.
              Already Marcion refused to initiate regularly married people
              fully into his community.
              Julius Cassianus correctly wrote that as long as women bear kids,
              death , decay, and corruption will rule among mankind.
              Already Plato had a dislike for that lowly mtrimonial life,
              even if not stating it.
              Before Plato already Empedocles refused to encourage procreation.

              Klaus Schilling


              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              Do you Yahoo!?
              SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
            • Steve
              ... Dear Klaus: I believe that it is a mistake to say that Plato and Empedocles shared your loathing of marriage and reproduction. Their attitude toward
              Message 6 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pessy@c... wrote:
                > martin12617 writes:
                > > Marriage could be yet an obstacle to gnosis.
                >
                > Marriage and Procreation are utterly evil.
                > Thus it was Saturninus of Antiochia
                > who knew that they are the work of Satanael.
                > Already Marcion refused to initiate regularly married people
                > fully into his community.
                > Julius Cassianus correctly wrote that as long as women bear kids,
                > death , decay, and corruption will rule among mankind.
                > Already Plato had a dislike for that lowly mtrimonial life,
                > even if not stating it.
                > Before Plato already Empedocles refused to encourage procreation.
                >
                > Klaus Schilling

                Dear Klaus: I believe that it is a mistake to say that Plato and
                Empedocles shared your loathing of marriage and reproduction. Their
                attitude toward marriage was, in fact, not greatly different in
                principle from that of celibate Catholic monks. Marriage and family
                were a distraction from focusing single-mindedly on the spiritual
                life, but not evil in themselves. Yours, Steve
              • walkinginclogs@aol.com
                I m not for or against clergy getting married. The only thing is, we always hear the comment, if only we would allow priests to get married, all of this
                Message 7 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm not for or against clergy getting married. The only thing is, we always
                  hear the comment, "if only we would allow priests to get married, all of this
                  child abuse have been prevented"

                  The series, "Seventh Heaven" portrays real-life situations in which the
                  preacher has many problems because of the fact that he is married and has children.
                  Where I used to live, people were always gossiping about the preacher's son.
                  He had long hair, so they said that he must be into dope (which wasn't
                  true). They gossiped about another preacher who was a work-aholic. They said that
                  he worked so much to avoid his wife. Another married preacher left town with
                  the church secretary, and the Sunday's collections. So what I'm saying is
                  that allowing preachers to marry and have children won't solve any problems, I
                  don't think.
                • martin12617
                  I think in Gnosticism there is no issue whether a Gnostic priest, bishop can get married or not. Luckily, we don t have dogmas. Regarding child abuse: I don t
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I think in Gnosticism there is no issue whether a Gnostic priest,
                    bishop can get married or not. Luckily, we don't have dogmas.

                    Regarding child abuse: I don't think that by letting catholic priests
                    marry women, their pedophilia will be suppressed or even cured.
                    Adolf Hitler tried this kind of treatment for homosexuals during his
                    reign. Gay men received sex treatment from willing nurses. It did not
                    cure homosexuality of the patients away. The public at large is again
                    does not know.

                    Priests, who are married, have problems at least in the Catholic
                    Chuch, where it's forbidden.

                    People always gossip, this is how we make ourselves look better.
                    And work on our psychological "shadows", not always with good
                    results. Besides people are social animals.

                    Steve, I agree, allowing marriage won't solve anything. Actually, if
                    we assume that quite a number of the priests are anyway homosexual or
                    pedophiliac ( or who knows what), we would contribute to divorces and
                    broken families. Martin

                    PS. Steve, what do you make of the Pope? Is he the holder of the
                    Gnosis and the Pontifex Maximus?
                  • Mike Leavitt
                    Hello lady_caritas ... Of course most of us, at least, know what Klaus thinks of Valentinus. ... Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello lady_caritas

                      On 05-Jul-03, you wrote:

                      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pessy@c... wrote:
                      >> martin12617 writes:
                      >> > Marriage could be yet an obstacle to gnosis.
                      >>
                      >> Marriage and Procreation are utterly evil.
                      >> Thus it was Saturninus of Antiochia
                      >> who knew that they are the work of Satanael.
                      >> Already Marcion refused to initiate regularly married people
                      >> fully into his community.
                      >> Julius Cassianus correctly wrote that as long as women bear kids,
                      >> death , decay, and corruption will rule among mankind.
                      >> Already Plato had a dislike for that lowly mtrimonial life,
                      >> even if not stating it.
                      >> Before Plato already Empedocles refused to encourage procreation.
                      >>
                      >> Klaus Schilling
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > This, of course, is one point of view, Klaus, which you have
                      > expressed many times.
                      >
                      > A negative perspective of marriage and procreation was not a
                      > universally accepted Gnostic view, however.
                      >
                      > For comparison purposes, the following essay by David Brons, "The
                      > Valentinian View of the Creation," which I referred to in a previous
                      > post, discusses the Valentinian view of marriage, which differs from
                      > your position, Klaus:
                      >
                      > http://www.johannite.org/valentinus/The%20Valentinian%20View%20of%
                      > 20the%20Creation.htm

                      Of course most of us, at least, know what Klaus thinks of Valentinus.
                      :-)

                      Regards
                      --
                      Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                    • pmcvflag
                      ... even if not stating it.
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >>>Already Plato had a dislike for that lowly mtrimonial life,
                        even if not stating it.<<<

                        Plato on the subject....

                        "Then if this be the nature of love, can you tell me further," she
                        said, "what is the manner of the pursuit? what are they doing who
                        show all this eagerness and heat which is called love? and what is
                        the object which they have in view? Answer me." "Nay, Diotima," I
                        replied, "if I had known, I should not have wondered at your wisdom,
                        neither should I have come to learn from you about this very
                        matter." "Well," she said, "I will teach you: -- The object which
                        they have in view is birth in beauty, whether of body or soul." "I do
                        not understand you," I said; "the oracle requires an explanation." "I
                        will make my meaning clearer," she replied. "I mean to say, that all
                        men are bringing to the birth in their bodies and in their souls.
                        There is a certain age at which human nature is desirous of
                        procreation -- procreation which must be in beauty and not in
                        deformity; and this procreation is the union of man and woman, and is
                        a divine thing; for conception and generation are an immortal
                        principle in the mortal creature, and in the inharmonious they can
                        never be.

                        Klause... if Plato did not say something, don't use him as if he did.
                        Plato does, in some places, question the motives and spiritual value
                        of procreation, but he also is careful to state that it is not the
                        same when the soul and the body of a wise person are brought in
                        accord.

                        I have already pointed out several times your misquoting and
                        misrepresentation of historical figures (such as your critique of
                        Beethoven using a lebretto he didn't even write). You are welcome to
                        have your own opinion on these things, but you are not welcome to
                        falsely use historical figures in an attempt to back your personal
                        agenda. It has become boorish.

                        PMCV
                      • pmcvflag
                        In some forms of Gnosticism, homosexuality may have been used as a means of avoiding procreation. Manichaeans used birth control while still allowing sexual
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In some forms of Gnosticism, homosexuality may have been used as a
                          means of avoiding procreation. Manichaeans used birth control while
                          still allowing sexual interaction.

                          And who said that historical Gnostics had no dogma?

                          PMCV

                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "martin12617" <martin12617@y...>
                          wrote:
                          > I think in Gnosticism there is no issue whether a Gnostic priest,
                          > bishop can get married or not. Luckily, we don't have dogmas.
                          >
                          > Regarding child abuse: I don't think that by letting catholic
                          priests
                          > marry women, their pedophilia will be suppressed or even cured.
                          > Adolf Hitler tried this kind of treatment for homosexuals during
                          his
                          > reign. Gay men received sex treatment from willing nurses. It did
                          not
                          > cure homosexuality of the patients away. The public at large is
                          again
                          > does not know.
                          >
                          > Priests, who are married, have problems at least in the Catholic
                          > Chuch, where it's forbidden.
                          >
                          > People always gossip, this is how we make ourselves look better.
                          > And work on our psychological "shadows", not always with good
                          > results. Besides people are social animals.
                          >
                          > Steve, I agree, allowing marriage won't solve anything. Actually,
                          if
                          > we assume that quite a number of the priests are anyway homosexual
                          or
                          > pedophiliac ( or who knows what), we would contribute to divorces
                          and
                          > broken families. Martin
                          >
                          > PS. Steve, what do you make of the Pope? Is he the holder of the
                          > Gnosis and the Pontifex Maximus?
                        • martin12617
                          I DID! Martin
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I DID! Martin
                          • pmcvflag
                            I understand you did, who ELSE did? Back up your assurtion with some kind of historical example, demonstrate the validity of your point... otherwise it is
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I understand you did, who ELSE did? Back up your assurtion with some
                              kind of historical example, demonstrate the validity of your point...
                              otherwise it is worthless. YOu can SAY whatever you want, it doesn't
                              make it true. I am not saying you must be wrong, but you must make
                              your case.

                              The word "Dogma" simply literally means "opinion". Are you saying
                              that Gnostics had no official opinion about things like... cosmology,
                              anthropogeny etc.?

                              PMCV

                              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "martin12617" <martin12617@y...>
                              wrote:
                              > I DID! Martin
                            • Mike Leavitt
                              Hello martin12617 ... Not those problems, but it could bring litterally hundreds of married ex-priests back into the ministry, and give them a larger pool of
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hello martin12617

                                On 05-Jul-03, you wrote:


                                > Steve, I agree, allowing marriage won't solve anything. Actually, if
                                > we assume that quite a number of the priests are anyway homosexual
                                > or pedophiliac ( or who knows what), we would contribute to divorces
                                > and broken families. Martin

                                Not those problems, but it could bring litterally hundreds of married
                                ex-priests back into the ministry, and give them a larger pool of
                                candidates to recruit priests from. The shortage of priests is the
                                main reason these pedofiles were protected. With a larger number of
                                priests, this would be less likely to happen, so even there it could
                                help the church to cleanse its ranks. Frankly I almost hope they
                                don't change, and you wind up with one mass a week, given by one
                                priest or bishop on national TV in each country. :-)

                                Regards
                                --
                                Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                              • pmcvflag
                                The DSM for crime categorization recognizes two forms of pedephilia; preferential and opportunistic . Sexual opportunity with a consenting adult will not
                                Message 15 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  The DSM for crime categorization recognizes two forms of
                                  pedephilia; "preferential" and "opportunistic". Sexual opportunity
                                  with a consenting adult will not prevent abuse amongst preferential
                                  pedophilia, but will prevent it in the opportunistic category (which
                                  may be the case for most priests).

                                  I would also point out that almost ZERO pedephiles are homosexual in
                                  spite of the fact that many victims are boys. Preferential pedephiles
                                  usually have a love hate/fear desire for the opposite sex which they
                                  foist on someone non-threatening (children). They often feel they
                                  have a genuine relatinship that is consenting, and vew the child as
                                  feminine even if the child is a boy.

                                  Many times the opportunistic pedophile is the most anti-sex, and
                                  comes to thier action via thier inability to reconcile thier disire
                                  to stifle the needs that they can't control. Klaus' preoccupation
                                  with sex is a perfect example (which is not to say he is a pedephile,
                                  or to attack him, but simply demonstrate that negative attitudes
                                  often fosters a preoccupation. Notice how nearly ALL of Klaus' posts
                                  are about sex)

                                  PMCV

                                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                  > Hello martin12617
                                  >
                                  > On 05-Jul-03, you wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > Steve, I agree, allowing marriage won't solve anything. Actually,
                                  if
                                  > > we assume that quite a number of the priests are anyway homosexual
                                  > > or pedophiliac ( or who knows what), we would contribute to
                                  divorces
                                  > > and broken families. Martin
                                  >
                                  > Not those problems, but it could bring litterally hundreds of
                                  married
                                  > ex-priests back into the ministry, and give them a larger pool of
                                  > candidates to recruit priests from. The shortage of priests is the
                                  > main reason these pedofiles were protected. With a larger number of
                                  > priests, this would be less likely to happen, so even there it could
                                  > help the church to cleanse its ranks. Frankly I almost hope they
                                  > don't change, and you wind up with one mass a week, given by one
                                  > priest or bishop on national TV in each country. :-)
                                  >
                                  > Regards
                                  > --
                                  > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                                • walkinginclogs@aol.com
                                  They could program a robot to perform the mass.
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    They could program a robot to perform the mass.
                                  • martin12617
                                    PMCv I can t believe what you wrote about Klaus. We don t know anything about his sexual preferrences. There is a good reason to be preoccupied with something.
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      PMCv I can't believe what you wrote about Klaus. We don't know
                                      anything about his sexual preferrences. There is a good reason to be
                                      preoccupied with something. Being anti-sex may be the only way to
                                      attain Gnosis and to become whole, because anything else is another
                                      luring into a new game, a showing of the wrong path. I respect his
                                      decision. Martin
                                    • pmcvflag
                                      Read my post again Martin... I very specifically state that I am NOT making any assumptions about his sexual practices. What I AM observing is that nearly
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Read my post again Martin... I very specifically state that I am NOT
                                        making any assumptions about his sexual practices. What I AM
                                        observing is that nearly every post he has typed has been about sex,
                                        which means preoccupation. This is a classic example of the
                                        difference between repression and sublimation.

                                        There is also a reason that Paul talks about celebacy as a "gift" for
                                        a few, and not for everyone. Any kind of social interactin could be
                                        seen as something that devides the attention, and this is one of the
                                        main reasons that Paul gives against marriage... that it divides the
                                        attantion. However, this does NOT in any way imply that a person with
                                        a divided attention cannot gain that philosophical perspective known
                                        as "Gnosis".

                                        It is also worth noting that some Gnostics were accused of exactly
                                        the opposite perspective, which is that romantic and sexual
                                        relationships were even valuable in the attainment of Gnosis. We
                                        could of course debate whether these Gnostics were wrong or right,
                                        but our opinions on that subject are entirely subjective once again.
                                        There are also scholors who have argued that this more sexually open
                                        form of Gnosticism is the oldest form (Dr Smith, for one instance).
                                        And, Dr Wilson convincingly that the sexually negative stance
                                        attributed to some Gnostics is false.

                                        My point with all this is that we are on shakey ground with this
                                        subject both from the historical side as well as the psychological
                                        side. To make a single unalterable point of dogma out of it is a
                                        questionable thing to do.

                                        PMCV

                                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "martin12617" <martin12617@y...>
                                        wrote:
                                        > PMCv I can't believe what you wrote about Klaus. We don't know
                                        > anything about his sexual preferrences. There is a good reason to
                                        be
                                        > preoccupied with something. Being anti-sex may be the only way to
                                        > attain Gnosis and to become whole, because anything else is another
                                        > luring into a new game, a showing of the wrong path. I respect his
                                        > decision. Martin
                                      • pmcvflag
                                        I like your idea Walkingclogs *lol* PMCV
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I like your idea Walkingclogs *lol*

                                          PMCV

                                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, walkinginclogs@a... wrote:
                                          > They could program a robot to perform the mass.
                                        • pmcvflag
                                          Let me state all of this a different way, just so there is no confusion. Pre-occupation with anything can prevent critical perspective on the subject. There is
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Let me state all of this a different way, just so there is no
                                            confusion. Pre-occupation with anything can prevent critical
                                            perspective on the subject. There is really no difference in having a
                                            preoccupation with having sex than there is in having a preoccupation
                                            against sex.... it is still a division of ones attention away from
                                            that critical thought process equated with the Logos.

                                            If celebacy doesn't come relatively easily for a person, then it
                                            isn't that spiritual gift of non-attatchment

                                            PMCV

                                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                            > Read my post again Martin... I very specifically state that I am
                                            NOT
                                            > making any assumptions about his sexual practices. What I AM
                                            > observing is that nearly every post he has typed has been about
                                            sex,
                                            > which means preoccupation. This is a classic example of the
                                            > difference between repression and sublimation.
                                            >
                                            > There is also a reason that Paul talks about celebacy as a "gift"
                                            for
                                            > a few, and not for everyone. Any kind of social interactin could be
                                            > seen as something that devides the attention, and this is one of
                                            the
                                            > main reasons that Paul gives against marriage... that it divides
                                            the
                                            > attantion. However, this does NOT in any way imply that a person
                                            with
                                            > a divided attention cannot gain that philosophical perspective
                                            known
                                            > as "Gnosis".
                                            >
                                            > It is also worth noting that some Gnostics were accused of exactly
                                            > the opposite perspective, which is that romantic and sexual
                                            > relationships were even valuable in the attainment of Gnosis. We
                                            > could of course debate whether these Gnostics were wrong or right,
                                            > but our opinions on that subject are entirely subjective once
                                            again.
                                            > There are also scholors who have argued that this more sexually
                                            open
                                            > form of Gnosticism is the oldest form (Dr Smith, for one instance).
                                            > And, Dr Wilson convincingly that the sexually negative stance
                                            > attributed to some Gnostics is false.
                                            >
                                            > My point with all this is that we are on shakey ground with this
                                            > subject both from the historical side as well as the psychological
                                            > side. To make a single unalterable point of dogma out of it is a
                                            > questionable thing to do.
                                            >
                                            > PMCV
                                            >
                                            > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "martin12617"
                                            <martin12617@y...>
                                            > wrote:
                                            > > PMCv I can't believe what you wrote about Klaus. We don't know
                                            > > anything about his sexual preferrences. There is a good reason to
                                            > be
                                            > > preoccupied with something. Being anti-sex may be the only way to
                                            > > attain Gnosis and to become whole, because anything else is
                                            another
                                            > > luring into a new game, a showing of the wrong path. I respect
                                            his
                                            > > decision. Martin
                                          • Martin Khoury
                                            There are no dogmas in gnosticism: Dogmas are typical however for orthodox beliefs. A dogma is a belief, rather than knowledge. A dogma is a written law for
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              There are no dogmas in gnosticism:
                                               
                                              Dogmas are typical however for orthodox beliefs. A dogma is a belief, rather than knowledge. A dogma is a written law for all to obey. Gnostics never had this imperative. Making dogmas requires a political body. Gnostics are free from this neurosis.
                                              All in all, dogma and gnosticism cancel each other out: if there is dogma, there is no Gnosticism; where there is Gnosticism no dogma can be fined. Both terms are actually antagonistic. If one day a gnostic (fundamental principle,  makes the claim to be for all, all inclusive and only truthful, it becomes dogmatic, while it ceases to be Gnostic. I am really against Dogmas, they tell you what to do, how to judge, they are the real evil when one pursues the gnostic path. Let's be careful about any dogmas. Martin


                                              Do you Yahoo!?
                                              SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
                                            • Martin Khoury
                                              Klaus Schilling, from your own experience: what role does sexuality play within the Gnostic framework for you? Martin ... Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Klaus Schilling, from your own experience: what role does sexuality play within the Gnostic framework for you? Martin


                                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                                SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
                                              • pmcvflag
                                                Orthodoxy and Gnosticism are not as opposed and seperate as modern New Agers like to romanticize (many gnostic sects were actually segments of the church that
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Orthodoxy and Gnosticism are not as opposed and seperate as modern
                                                  New Agers like to romanticize (many gnostic sects were actually
                                                  segments of the church that was to one day become Catholocism, and by
                                                  some sources Valintinus was almost a Pope. Also, several traditional
                                                  Gnostic texts proclaim thier own "orthodoxy"). On the
                                                  contrary, "orthodoxy' was simply an assumption on the parts of most
                                                  sects in opposition to other sects.

                                                  When you (and Klaus) post that you are correct and some one else
                                                  (such as the Theosophists) are wrong, you are proclaiming your
                                                  own "orthodoxy" AND dogma.

                                                  I would also point out at this time that to be absolutely techinical,
                                                  Martin, you are not a practitioner of "Gnosticism", but instead a
                                                  Neognostic. We could talk about why that is, if you have any
                                                  interest, as well as why your personal beliefs are really not very
                                                  close to those of the historical Gnostics.

                                                  PMCV

                                                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Martin Khoury <martin12617@y...>
                                                  wrote:
                                                  > There are no dogmas in gnosticism:
                                                  >
                                                  > Dogmas are typical however for orthodox beliefs. A dogma is a
                                                  belief, rather than knowledge. A dogma is a written law for all to
                                                  obey. Gnostics never had this imperative. Making dogmas requires a
                                                  political body. Gnostics are free from this neurosis.
                                                  > All in all, dogma and gnosticism cancel each other out: if there is
                                                  dogma, there is no Gnosticism; where there is Gnosticism no dogma can
                                                  be fined. Both terms are actually antagonistic. If one day a gnostic
                                                  (fundamental principle, makes the claim to be for all, all inclusive
                                                  and only truthful, it becomes dogmatic, while it ceases to be
                                                  Gnostic. I am really against Dogmas, they tell you what to do, how to
                                                  judge, they are the real evil when one pursues the gnostic path.
                                                  Let's be careful about any dogmas. Martin
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ---------------------------------
                                                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                                                  > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
                                                • Gerry
                                                  ... if ... divorces ... married ... Mike, I don t know if you or others had ever heard of this, but I recall an old NPR segment in which they discussed
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                                    > Hello martin12617
                                                    >
                                                    > On 05-Jul-03, you wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > > Steve, I agree, allowing marriage won't solve anything. Actually,
                                                    if
                                                    > > we assume that quite a number of the priests are anyway homosexual
                                                    > > or pedophiliac ( or who knows what), we would contribute to
                                                    divorces
                                                    > > and broken families. Martin
                                                    >
                                                    > Not those problems, but it could bring litterally hundreds of
                                                    married
                                                    > ex-priests back into the ministry, and give them a larger pool of
                                                    > candidates to recruit priests from. The shortage of priests is the
                                                    > main reason these pedofiles were protected. With a larger number of
                                                    > priests, this would be less likely to happen, so even there it could
                                                    > help the church to cleanse its ranks. Frankly I almost hope they
                                                    > don't change, and you wind up with one mass a week, given by one
                                                    > priest or bishop on national TV in each country. :-)
                                                    >
                                                    > Regards
                                                    > --
                                                    > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...



                                                    Mike, I don't know if you or others had ever heard of this, but I
                                                    recall an old NPR segment in which they discussed celibacy in the RC
                                                    Church.

                                                    Apparently, sometime after WWII and throughout the Cold War, the
                                                    proscription against marriage for priests was overlooked in parts of
                                                    Eastern Europe. Basically, the Church had been run "underground,"
                                                    but a man having to remain celibate might have called attention to
                                                    himself by Big Brother, so exceptions were made to preserve the
                                                    faith. Supposedly, John Paul II was very familiar with this (and
                                                    perhaps had been instrumental in the policy's implementation), being
                                                    from the region himself.

                                                    Again, my memory is a bit foggy on the subject, and I never looked it
                                                    up elsewhere to corroborate what I heard, but it's curious (if true)
                                                    that the Church could respond to one crisis in such a way, while in
                                                    other situations, they staunchly toe the line.

                                                    Gerry
                                                  • Martin Khoury
                                                    Pmcvflag, very gladly. Neognostic I don;t know exactly as to make of it. I am looking forward to your email. Martin pmcvflag wrote:
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Pmcvflag, very gladly. Neognostic I don;t know exactly as to make of it.
                                                      I am looking forward to your email. Martin

                                                      pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                                      Orthodoxy and Gnosticism are not as opposed and seperate as modern
                                                      New Agers like to romanticize (many gnostic sects were actually
                                                      segments of the church that was to one day become Catholocism, and by
                                                      some sources Valintinus was almost a Pope. Also, several traditional
                                                      Gnostic texts proclaim thier own "orthodoxy"). On the
                                                      contrary, "orthodoxy' was simply an assumption on the parts of most
                                                      sects in opposition to other sects.

                                                      When you (and Klaus) post that you are correct and some one else
                                                      (such as the Theosophists) are wrong, you are proclaiming your
                                                      own "orthodoxy" AND dogma.

                                                      I would also point out at this time that to be absolutely techinical,
                                                      Martin, you are not a practitioner of "Gnosticism", but instead a
                                                      Neognostic. We could talk about why that is, if you have any
                                                      interest, as well as why your personal beliefs are really not very
                                                      close to those of the historical Gnostics.

                                                      PMCV

                                                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Martin Khoury <martin12617@y...>
                                                      wrote:
                                                      > There are no dogmas in gnosticism:

                                                      > Dogmas are typical however for orthodox beliefs. A dogma is a
                                                      belief, rather than knowledge. A dogma is a written law for all to
                                                      obey. Gnostics never had this imperative. Making dogmas requires a
                                                      political body. Gnostics are free from this neurosis.
                                                      > All in all, dogma and gnosticism cancel each other out: if there is
                                                      dogma, there is no Gnosticism; where there is Gnosticism no dogma can
                                                      be fined. Both terms are actually antagonistic. If one day a gnostic
                                                      (fundamental principle,  makes the claim to be for all, all inclusive
                                                      and only truthful, it becomes dogmatic, while it ceases to be
                                                      Gnostic. I am really against Dogmas, they tell you what to do, how to
                                                      judge, they are the real evil when one pursues the gnostic path.
                                                      Let's be careful about any dogmas. Martin
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > ---------------------------------
                                                      > Do you Yahoo!?
                                                      > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!



                                                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                      gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                                      Do you Yahoo!?
                                                      SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
                                                    • Mike Leavitt
                                                      Hello Gerry ... I haven t heard of this, but who knows. In Poland, the Marivite Catholic (independent) church has married and women clergy. In this country
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Hello Gerry

                                                        On 05-Jul-03, you wrote:

                                                        > Mike, I don't know if you or others had ever heard of this, but I
                                                        > recall an old NPR segment in which they discussed celibacy in the RC
                                                        > Church.
                                                        >
                                                        > Apparently, sometime after WWII and throughout the Cold War, the
                                                        > proscription against marriage for priests was overlooked in parts of
                                                        > Eastern Europe. Basically, the Church had been run "underground,"
                                                        > but a man having to remain celibate might have called attention to
                                                        > himself by Big Brother, so exceptions were made to preserve the
                                                        > faith. Supposedly, John Paul II was very familiar with this (and
                                                        > perhaps had been instrumental in the policy's implementation), being
                                                        > from the region himself.
                                                        >
                                                        > Again, my memory is a bit foggy on the subject, and I never looked
                                                        > it up elsewhere to corroborate what I heard, but it's curious (if
                                                        > true) that the Church could respond to one crisis in such a way,
                                                        > while in other situations, they staunchly toe the line.

                                                        I haven't heard of this, but who knows. In Poland, the Marivite
                                                        Catholic (independent) church has married and women clergy. In this
                                                        country about all they allow is for married clergy from among the
                                                        protestants, to remain married as Priests.

                                                        You should be aware that most Eastern Rite Uniate churches have
                                                        married clergy. This does not allow Priests to marry, but allows the
                                                        ordination of married men, as in the Eastern Orthodox Church. These
                                                        Uniate Churches are watched very closely in the US, but in Canada, I
                                                        know of several American priests who married, who were admitted as
                                                        priests in them.

                                                        Only the Anglicans, among the Orthodox churches actually allow Priests
                                                        to marry, and they are the only ones of the lot with married Bishops.

                                                        A widower can be consecrated as a Bishop in Eastern Churches, but not
                                                        a currently married Priest. These concessions to Eastern Rite Uniate
                                                        churches were made in the 19th century or earlier, BTW, and so remain
                                                        in place. They are based on Eastern Orthodox cannon.

                                                        For what is is worth, an early cannon of the church, was that no man
                                                        could be consecrated a Bishop without his wife's permission.
                                                        Clerical celibacy strictly enforced, starts about with Gregory the
                                                        Great, and his clerical reforms. Prior to that, marriage was open to
                                                        the clergy, at least unofficially, and if you go back far enough,
                                                        officially. Clerical celibacy is most certainly not apostolic in
                                                        origin.

                                                        Regards
                                                        --
                                                        Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                                      • Gerry
                                                        ... RC ... of ... being ... the ... Priests ... Bishops. ... not ... Uniate ... remain ... to ... Very interesting, Mike. Perhaps I ll find time to explore
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Jul 6, 2003
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                                                          > Hello Gerry
                                                          >
                                                          > On 05-Jul-03, you wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > > Mike, I don't know if you or others had ever heard of this, but I
                                                          > > recall an old NPR segment in which they discussed celibacy in the
                                                          RC
                                                          > > Church.
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Apparently, sometime after WWII and throughout the Cold War, the
                                                          > > proscription against marriage for priests was overlooked in parts
                                                          of
                                                          > > Eastern Europe. Basically, the Church had been run "underground,"
                                                          > > but a man having to remain celibate might have called attention to
                                                          > > himself by Big Brother, so exceptions were made to preserve the
                                                          > > faith. Supposedly, John Paul II was very familiar with this (and
                                                          > > perhaps had been instrumental in the policy's implementation),
                                                          being
                                                          > > from the region himself.
                                                          > >
                                                          > > Again, my memory is a bit foggy on the subject, and I never looked
                                                          > > it up elsewhere to corroborate what I heard, but it's curious (if
                                                          > > true) that the Church could respond to one crisis in such a way,
                                                          > > while in other situations, they staunchly toe the line.
                                                          >
                                                          > I haven't heard of this, but who knows. In Poland, the Marivite
                                                          > Catholic (independent) church has married and women clergy. In this
                                                          > country about all they allow is for married clergy from among the
                                                          > protestants, to remain married as Priests.
                                                          >
                                                          > You should be aware that most Eastern Rite Uniate churches have
                                                          > married clergy. This does not allow Priests to marry, but allows
                                                          the
                                                          > ordination of married men, as in the Eastern Orthodox Church. These
                                                          > Uniate Churches are watched very closely in the US, but in Canada, I
                                                          > know of several American priests who married, who were admitted as
                                                          > priests in them.
                                                          >
                                                          > Only the Anglicans, among the Orthodox churches actually allow
                                                          Priests
                                                          > to marry, and they are the only ones of the lot with married
                                                          Bishops.
                                                          >
                                                          > A widower can be consecrated as a Bishop in Eastern Churches, but
                                                          not
                                                          > a currently married Priest. These concessions to Eastern Rite
                                                          Uniate
                                                          > churches were made in the 19th century or earlier, BTW, and so
                                                          remain
                                                          > in place. They are based on Eastern Orthodox cannon.
                                                          >
                                                          > For what is is worth, an early cannon of the church, was that no man
                                                          > could be consecrated a Bishop without his wife's permission.
                                                          > Clerical celibacy strictly enforced, starts about with Gregory the
                                                          > Great, and his clerical reforms. Prior to that, marriage was open
                                                          to
                                                          > the clergy, at least unofficially, and if you go back far enough,
                                                          > officially. Clerical celibacy is most certainly not apostolic in
                                                          > origin.
                                                          >
                                                          > Regards
                                                          > --
                                                          > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


                                                          Very interesting, Mike. Perhaps I'll find time to explore the
                                                          Marivites one day and see if they were the subject of the program I
                                                          listened to (and if their independence was the result of this
                                                          problem). I remember that the whole concern came about because once
                                                          the allowance had been made, and then the Communist oppression was no
                                                          longer a threat, the question arose of what does a Church do with its
                                                          married clergy? They wouldn't want other priests wondering why they
                                                          couldn't get in on the marital action, but the Vatican couldn't
                                                          exactly ask those who were already wedded to divorce, either.

                                                          It all reminds me of Papal Infallibility. Wasn't that also a fairly
                                                          recent (in terms of centuries) adoption? And yet, many take it as if
                                                          it all started with Peter and Paul.

                                                          BTW, anyone interested in a movie-version of some of the recently
                                                          discussed topics may enjoy _Priest_. It's a fantastic film dealing
                                                          with two clerics' struggles . . . one with his homosexuality and the
                                                          other with his inability to remain celibate (though he is faithfully
                                                          monogamous). The questions they ask one another as they get to
                                                          discussing their problems reveals the difficulites in following the
                                                          commandment to "love one another" when WE have placed all sorts of
                                                          conditions on that unconditional love. It makes one wonder why they
                                                          don't chuck it all and just find a nice Gnostic Church!

                                                          While we may eventually find a robot that could perform mass, the
                                                          final scene in that flick really captures the human dichotomy, in all
                                                          its glorious beauty and lamentable ugliness, in a way that no machine
                                                          could ever do.

                                                          Gerry
                                                        • incognito_lightbringer
                                                          Klaus, I can understand your claims on procreation but not on marriage. Marriage as a religious ritual is supposed to unite opposites and symbolize the
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Jul 6, 2003
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Klaus, I can understand your claims on procreation but not on
                                                            marriage. Marriage as a religious ritual is supposed to unite
                                                            opposites and symbolize the reunification of the separated masculine
                                                            Adam/feminine Eve (who are mythologically separated by the demiurge),
                                                            or a symbol of the union of the Father and the Mother. The two become
                                                            one and are somehow spiritually stronger for it. This may be more a
                                                            case of the practice of marriage being evil if it's priority is
                                                            geared towards "this world" but sacred if approached on a spiritual
                                                            level. Thus itself, it's dualistic. This may also be a valid argument
                                                            pro-procreation. Not to trap souls in this world but that those who
                                                            enter it attempt some kind of fix, like a Kabbalistic raising of the
                                                            sparks, or the Buddhist prayer that the enlightened remain in the
                                                            world to help those who are struggling to escape it. Just my 2c.

                                                            --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pessy@c... wrote:
                                                            > martin12617 writes:
                                                            > > Marriage could be yet an obstacle to gnosis.
                                                            >
                                                            > Marriage and Procreation are utterly evil.
                                                            > Thus it was Saturninus of Antiochia
                                                            > who knew that they are the work of Satanael.
                                                            > Already Marcion refused to initiate regularly married people
                                                            > fully into his community.
                                                            > Julius Cassianus correctly wrote that as long as women bear kids,
                                                            > death , decay, and corruption will rule among mankind.
                                                            > Already Plato had a dislike for that lowly mtrimonial life,
                                                            > even if not stating it.
                                                            > Before Plato already Empedocles refused to encourage procreation.
                                                            >
                                                            > Klaus Schilling
                                                          • Mike Leavitt
                                                            Hello Gerry ... A little more church history, sorry for the OT. It was Vatican One, in the 19th century that adopted Papal Infallibility, so it is very
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Jul 6, 2003
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              Hello Gerry

                                                              On 06-Jul-03, you wrote:

                                                              > It all reminds me of Papal Infallibility. Wasn't that also a fairly
                                                              > recent (in terms of centuries) adoption? And yet, many take it as if
                                                              > it all started with Peter and Paul.

                                                              A little more church history, sorry for the OT. It was Vatican One,
                                                              in the 19th century that adopted Papal Infallibility, so it is very
                                                              recent. In fact it spawned the growth of the Old Catholic movement,
                                                              already several hundred years old, outside of Holland, in opposition.
                                                              This movement is the source for a lot of Gnostic Churches' Apostolic
                                                              Successions, BTW, either directly or indirectly (back on topic?).
                                                              The Old Catholic Church at Utrect in Holland split much earlier over
                                                              different issues, but supported the 19th century Old Catholic
                                                              movement, as they too opposed Papal Infallibility. It simply did not
                                                              exist prior to Vatican I, and is not a part of pre Vatican I Roman
                                                              Catholic theology.

                                                              Regards
                                                              --
                                                              Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                                                            • pmcvflag
                                                              Well, Martin, the reason for the term Neognostic is multifold. For one, no one alive today is techinically practicing Gnosticism because the word
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Jul 6, 2003
                                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                                Well, Martin, the reason for the term "Neognostic" is multifold. For
                                                                one, no one alive today is techinically practicing "Gnosticism"
                                                                because the word "Gnosticism" was invented by scholors to refer to a
                                                                number of specific sects which are now dead. These sects were
                                                                initiatory, which means that no one alive today can fully reinvent
                                                                them. Your connection with "Gnosticism" then is a modern
                                                                reinvention... as it is with any of us here who call
                                                                ourselves "Gnostics". Granted, some of us have an affinity that more
                                                                closey represents what these genuine historical Gnostics practiced
                                                                than other, and some of us here who call ourselves "Gnostics" have
                                                                almost nothing in common with anything that is
                                                                technically "Gnosticism". At any rate, this is why you are
                                                                a "Neognostic".

                                                                PMCV


                                                                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Martin Khoury <martin12617@y...>
                                                                wrote:
                                                                > Pmcvflag, very gladly. Neognostic I don;t know exactly as to make
                                                                of it.
                                                                > I am looking forward to your email. Martin
                                                                >
                                                                > pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                                                > Orthodoxy and Gnosticism are not as opposed and seperate as modern
                                                                > New Agers like to romanticize (many gnostic sects were actually
                                                                > segments of the church that was to one day become Catholocism, and
                                                                by
                                                                > some sources Valintinus was almost a Pope. Also, several
                                                                traditional
                                                                > Gnostic texts proclaim thier own "orthodoxy"). On the
                                                                > contrary, "orthodoxy' was simply an assumption on the parts of most
                                                                > sects in opposition to other sects.
                                                                >
                                                                > When you (and Klaus) post that you are correct and some one else
                                                                > (such as the Theosophists) are wrong, you are proclaiming your
                                                                > own "orthodoxy" AND dogma.
                                                                >
                                                                > I would also point out at this time that to be absolutely
                                                                techinical,
                                                                > Martin, you are not a practitioner of "Gnosticism", but instead a
                                                                > Neognostic. We could talk about why that is, if you have any
                                                                > interest, as well as why your personal beliefs are really not very
                                                                > close to those of the historical Gnostics.
                                                                >
                                                                > PMCV
                                                                >
                                                                > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Martin Khoury
                                                                <martin12617@y...>
                                                                > wrote:
                                                                > > There are no dogmas in gnosticism:
                                                                > >
                                                                > > Dogmas are typical however for orthodox beliefs. A dogma is a
                                                                > belief, rather than knowledge. A dogma is a written law for all to
                                                                > obey. Gnostics never had this imperative. Making dogmas requires a
                                                                > political body. Gnostics are free from this neurosis.
                                                                > > All in all, dogma and gnosticism cancel each other out: if there
                                                                is
                                                                > dogma, there is no Gnosticism; where there is Gnosticism no dogma
                                                                can
                                                                > be fined. Both terms are actually antagonistic. If one day a
                                                                gnostic
                                                                > (fundamental principle, makes the claim to be for all, all
                                                                inclusive
                                                                > and only truthful, it becomes dogmatic, while it ceases to be
                                                                > Gnostic. I am really against Dogmas, they tell you what to do, how
                                                                to
                                                                > judge, they are the real evil when one pursues the gnostic path.
                                                                > Let's be careful about any dogmas. Martin
                                                                > >
                                                                > >
                                                                > >
                                                                > >
                                                                > > ---------------------------------
                                                                > > Do you Yahoo!?
                                                                > > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
                                                                >
                                                                >
                                                                > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
                                                                >
                                                                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                                > gnosticism2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                                >
                                                                >
                                                                >
                                                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                                                Service.
                                                                >
                                                                >
                                                                >
                                                                > ---------------------------------
                                                                > Do you Yahoo!?
                                                                > SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.