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

Re: definition

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    Hello, Mangum. I think there might be a misunderstanding regarding the nature and focus of our list. Our membership comprises not just people who consider
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
      Hello, Mangum. I think there might be a misunderstanding regarding
      the nature and focus of our list. Our membership comprises not just
      people who consider themselves "neognostics," but also anyone who has
      an interest in discussion of gnosis and the ancient Gnostics and
      related groups (which would include Cathars, etc.), as described on
      our homepage, and their relation to us in modern times.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/

      We are *not* a restricted club of self-designated gnostics with a
      specific agenda of excluding people who differ in beliefs. There are
      many other groups that choose to have a broader interpretation of the
      term, Gnosticism. But we *do* want to keep a focus of Gnosticism
      based on a broad categorical use of this word that was coined by
      scholars in the eighteenth century for the specific purpose of
      referring to this Late Antiquities phenomenon as described by PMCV in
      his recent post #8365. You may choose to disagree with others
      regarding what sects were or were not Gnostic. That's cool. There
      is a healthy divergence of opinion here although we won't accept
      proselytizing. We encourage civil discussion and debate. We are not
      inflexible. And we do invite critical thinking.

      Cari


      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
      <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
      > If I understand you correctly this 'club' has established certain
      definitions of gnosticism and corresponding historical sects for
      discussion. In otherwords there are heretics among potential
      subscribers. I understand. Please accept my apologies for seeking
      information from the wrong group.
      >
      > Mangum
      >
      > pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      > Hello Magnum... let me jump in on this one.
      >
      > As a scientific minded person, I am betting you will find the
      club's
      > definition of the term "Gnosticism" to be quite concice. It is true
      > that there are a lot of definitions floating around out there, but
      > few of them have much to do with academic usages.... this club uses
      a
      > slightly softened version of the Messina colloquium's springboard.
      >
      > Gnosticism being one of a number of late antiquities groups who's
      > cosmogeny (emanationist/biblical demiurgy), anthropogeny (with the
      > entrapment of the spirit), and soteriology (internal recognition of
      > the connection to the "Bythos" or apophatic source) are related, as
      > well as thier cultural/philosophical backdrop (neoplatonism in the
      > semitic or biblical syncratic venue)
      >
      > In this club then, when we say "Gnosticism" we are talking about a
      > number of historical sects from the late antiquities, but we do
      > extend that also (for the sake of the club's purpose) to the modern
      > Neognostics who feel themselves drawn by these
      traditional "Gnostics".
      >
      > I would point out that it is generally scholastic concensus that
      the
      > Cathars are not Gnostic because thier soteriology is divergent
      (which
      > is the same reason many academicians also now exclude Manichaeans
      and
      > Marcionism, etc..). I know there are modern writers who repeat the
      > equation still with the Cathars (such as T. Churton recently in his
      > companion to the BPS series on Gnosticism, and the medievalist that
      > magusadeptus recently mentioned, William Eamon, niether of which
      are
      > specialists in the field), but most of them are simply not up to
      date
      > on the critical evaluation of the movement.
      >
      > PMCV
      >
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
      > <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
      > > Hi all,
      > > It appears that we have a slightly different opinion on the
      > definition of Gnosticism probably based on the multitude of
      > historians/writers who define these various religious sects. I am a
      > science oriented person so in order to gain information from you
      > folks I need to know the most simplist definition of Gnosticism you
      > have. The following is mine subject to change....
      > >
      > > "the personal revelation that leads the soul to perfection
      through
      > the knowledge of God"
      > >
      > > Mangum
      > >
      > >
      > > ---------------------------------
      > > Do you Yahoo!?
      > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
      >
      >
      > 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!?
      > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
    • pmcvflag
      I don t understand how you came by the notion of potential heretics from what I said Mangum.... but Lady Cari is right, I think you have misunderstood my
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
        I don't understand how you came by the notion of "potential heretics"
        from what I said Mangum.... but Lady Cari is right, I think you have
        misunderstood my meaning. You asked what our definition
        of "Gnosticism" was. Maybe I can boil it down a little to remove the
        confusion....

        We essentially use the general academic definition of the word, the
        one scholors use.

        PMCV

        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
        <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
        > If I understand you correctly this 'club' has established certain
        definitions of gnosticism and corresponding historical sects for
        discussion. In otherwords there are heretics among potential
        subscribers. I understand. Please accept my apologies for seeking
        information from the wrong group.
        >
        > Mangum
        >
        > pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
        > Hello Magnum... let me jump in on this one.
        >
        > As a scientific minded person, I am betting you will find the
        club's
        > definition of the term "Gnosticism" to be quite concice. It is true
        > that there are a lot of definitions floating around out there, but
        > few of them have much to do with academic usages.... this club uses
        a
        > slightly softened version of the Messina colloquium's springboard.
        >
        > Gnosticism being one of a number of late antiquities groups who's
        > cosmogeny (emanationist/biblical demiurgy), anthropogeny (with the
        > entrapment of the spirit), and soteriology (internal recognition of
        > the connection to the "Bythos" or apophatic source) are related, as
        > well as thier cultural/philosophical backdrop (neoplatonism in the
        > semitic or biblical syncratic venue)
        >
        > In this club then, when we say "Gnosticism" we are talking about a
        > number of historical sects from the late antiquities, but we do
        > extend that also (for the sake of the club's purpose) to the modern
        > Neognostics who feel themselves drawn by these
        traditional "Gnostics".
        >
        > I would point out that it is generally scholastic concensus that
        the
        > Cathars are not Gnostic because thier soteriology is divergent
        (which
        > is the same reason many academicians also now exclude Manichaeans
        and
        > Marcionism, etc..). I know there are modern writers who repeat the
        > equation still with the Cathars (such as T. Churton recently in his
        > companion to the BPS series on Gnosticism, and the medievalist that
        > magusadeptus recently mentioned, William Eamon, niether of which
        are
        > specialists in the field), but most of them are simply not up to
        date
        > on the critical evaluation of the movement.
        >
        > PMCV
        >
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mangum Murdock
        > <mangummurdock@y...> wrote:
        > > Hi all,
        > > It appears that we have a slightly different opinion on the
        > definition of Gnosticism probably based on the multitude of
        > historians/writers who define these various religious sects. I am a
        > science oriented person so in order to gain information from you
        > folks I need to know the most simplist definition of Gnosticism you
        > have. The following is mine subject to change....
        > >
        > > "the personal revelation that leads the soul to perfection
        through
        > the knowledge of God"
        > >
        > > Mangum
        > >
        > >
        > > ---------------------------------
        > > Do you Yahoo!?
        > > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
        >
        >
        > 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!?
        > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
      • Mike Leavitt
        Hello lady_caritas ... Would you believe I hadn t ever visited the home page before, thanks for bringing it to my attention again. Regards -- Mike Leavitt
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 1, 2003
          Hello lady_caritas

          On 01-Oct-03, you wrote:

          > Hello, Mangum. I think there might be a misunderstanding regarding
          > the nature and focus of our list. Our membership comprises not just
          > people who consider themselves "neognostics," but also anyone who
          > has an interest in discussion of gnosis and the ancient Gnostics and
          > related groups (which would include Cathars, etc.), as described on
          > our homepage, and their relation to us in modern times.
          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gnosticism2/

          Would you believe I hadn't ever visited the home page before, thanks
          for bringing it to my attention again.

          Regards
          --
          Mike Leavitt ac998@...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.