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

dogmas in Gnosticism?

Expand Messages
  • martin12617
    I DID! Martin
    Message 1 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
      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 2 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
        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 3 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
          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 4 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
            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 5 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
              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 6 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                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 7 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                  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 8 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                    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 9 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                      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 10 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                        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 11 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                          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 12 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                            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 13 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                              --- 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 14 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                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 15 of 30 , Jul 5, 2003
                                  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 16 of 30 , Jul 6, 2003
                                    --- 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 17 of 30 , Jul 6, 2003
                                      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 18 of 30 , Jul 6, 2003
                                        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 19 of 30 , Jul 6, 2003
                                          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.