Re: dogma and gnostic are antagonistic
- 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
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Martin Khoury <martin12617@y...>
> Pmcvflag, very gladly. Neognostic I don;t know exactly as to makeof it.
> I am looking forward to your email. Martinby
> pmcvflag <email@example.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
> some sources Valintinus was almost a Pope. Also, severaltraditional
> Gnostic texts proclaim thier own "orthodoxy"). On thetechinical,
> 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
> Martin, you are not a practitioner of "Gnosticism", but instead a<martin12617@y...>
> 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.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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 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
> dogma, there is no Gnosticism; where there is Gnosticism no dogmacan
> be fined. Both terms are actually antagonistic. If one day agnostic
> (fundamental principle, makes the claim to be for all, allinclusive
> and only truthful, it becomes dogmatic, while it ceases to beto
> Gnostic. I am really against Dogmas, they tell you what to do, how
> judge, they are the real evil when one pursues the gnostic path.Service.
> 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:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!