Re: Question re: Inspiration
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Unknown" <hey_market@y...> wrote:
> Gee, I've never heard and infant ask a question quite like that,Roy
> you know, with quite the same phrasing, and so I'd say your
> question about the origins or root of knowledge, and belief, is
> downright sophisticated.
> Then again, maybe this is what babies are crying about when
> they seem to be screaming at us for answers.
ROFLOL. I just love this metaphor! At least I hope it to be a
metaphor, something less than an idictment anyway.
I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, departed the religion 25 years ago
after studying the labyrinth of what was presented to be "orthodoxy",
including koine/attic greek, formal exegesis and hermeneutics,
logic/linguistics and philosophy. In time I found there to be no
such thing as "orthodoxy", today at least, and no answers in the
external world of the sort that the ill-defined term "truth" seems to
So perhaps, in some small way, what "truth" I have seemed to come to
know over the past many years, upon which I have grown to rely and
express to my conscious self as the meaning of my existence, to
myself and to what is, might be something akin to gnostic. The
term "closet" gnostic comes to mind, but that would not be accurate
either, since I cannot conceive of such a relation to myself. More a
joke that might be winked at orthodoxy as it pronounces its
propositional sets upon the heretics, I suppose.
At any rate, this was enlightening, and I very much appreciate the
responses from you, David and Gale. I shall refer to the website
referred by Gale, thank you again.
> I imagine them thinking, it's cold and I'm hungry, and it stinks in
> here, but I can barely see, and I can't eat or drink, much less get
> around on my own--hell, I can't control my own damn bowels or
> even clean up the damn mess--and for that matter, I can't even
> express what I'm thinking right now but have to learn aa whole
> language and grow up to give voice to it, so exactly whose idea
> was this? I want answers!
> And baby, let me tell ya', some answers come from within at an
> early age. Others look to someone outside of themselves to get
> a straight answer, such as from an orthodox source, such as a
> church. The word "orthodox " means "straight teaching," and so
> it's a good source for a straight answer.
> Thing is, it might not be the right answer, or at least the right
> answer for you, but at the very least you can rest assured, it
> be YOUR answer. Basically, you'll be placing your faith in
> someone else's faith that they, in turn, have gotten a straight
> answer from an original source.
> Gnostics, as you may have discerned, like to great straight for
> the source--seeking answers within--go straight to God, who is
> within you (though be careful, this is a far cry from saying that
> your'e God).
> So, while it is said that the shortest distance between two points
> is a straight line, that woudn't be the case if those two points
> overlapped? Spare yourself the trip and stay at home, Gnostics
> might advise. It's the best way to get from here to there.
> O.k., this can be abused--there is a world around you, and to
> continue a theme that has been running in my last few posts,
> anything can act as a source of knowledge.
> But in any case, and whatever the source, at least from a Gnostic
> perspective, it is knowledge that you're after, and not faith. You
> might say that faith is nothing more than an opinion--a belief.
> And beliefs are nothing more than shards of ignor... well, I repeat
> --- In email@example.com, "parkrome"
> <parkrome@y...> wrote:
> > Hello all.
> > My name is Roy Parkes, and I am new here.
> > I was raised in a somewhat orthodox tradition (not that there is
> > a unified identifiable thing) and have little knowledge of gnostic
> > thinking.
> > I have a question, if anyone would care to share their
> > What is the essential nature of the God-person relationship
> that is
> > called "inspiration" somewhat ambiguously by orthodoxy?
> > Most of orthodoxy construes "knowledge" to be essentially
> > propositional, from one or two sources. Either knowledge
> obtains from
> > some authority appointed by God to interpret/explain God
> > interpreting scripture or explicating *truth* directly, from some
> > kind of direct *impressioning* from God, variously defined in
> > occasionalist or psycho-physical terms, however ambiguously
> > vaguely so. Or else God acts 'directly' upon the individual by
> > witness within of HS to cause that person to know the meaning
> > words of scripture otherwise unobtainable, although,
> > they insist upon arguing the "simple clarity" of scriptural
> > propositions as though understandable for that alone without
> > assistance of HS. This is variously described forms of sola
> > scripture, of course, which stands in philosophic opposition to
> > authority of some church, such as Catholic or certain
> > heirarchies.
> > I apologize for the seeming infantile level of this question to
> > given the level of your own knowledge of gnosticism. Any
> articles on
> > the net explaining this would be appreciated as well.
> > Thanks again.
> > Roy