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

Re: Relevance

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey George.... ... accept it if you did?
    Message 1 of 46 , May 25, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey George....

      >>Do you call the Protestants neo Christians? Do you think they would
      accept it if you did?<<<

      *LOL*... that is absolutely great!!!! That was not only a wonderful
      observation, George, it gave me a good laugh as well. Truth be known,
      I had not ever thought of it. Now that you mention it though, "Neo
      Christian" is actually a far more accurate term for Protestants
      than "Christian". I think I may use that term from now on ;) . As to
      the question of whether they would like it, well, it doesn't matter
      to me. I Will call them what they want when we are using thier emic
      definition, and I will call them what term is the most accurate when
      trying to convey something about them on an emic level. After all,
      they have parted from the traditional beliefs and practice of
      Christianity, and many of them have no direct lineage... so yes...
      they are "New Christians".

      >>>I don't draw a line. I already had made contact and already knew
      how to continue to do so before I started studying the ancient
      Gnostics, so I just don't need to try to recreate their system.<<<

      Ah, understood. Of course, part of what started this conversation was
      to ask whether what many people today call "Gnosis" has any relation
      whatsoever to what they called "Gnosis". IF!!! we are assuming the
      term "Gnosis" as it was used by them to be the "technically accurate"
      meaning, and some of us use the term to mean something completely
      different than they meant the term, then we would still could be Neo
      Gnostics (or Psuedo Gnostics if we were very strict in our
      categorizations) simply because our usage of the term "Gnosis" is
      completely new.

      My point, George, is not so much to ask if you are Gnostic or
      Neognostic, but to ask everyone how similar they believe they are
      using the term to the way the ancients did.

      This takes me to the question that Mike brought up.....

      >>>Was gnosis the same to Carpocrates as to Valentinus as to Clement?
      Even that is hard to say, because gnosis can only be experienced, not
      put into words, at least not by me. Maybe you could start with a
      definition of the word itself, it had a specific meaning in Greek, it
      was a specific type of knowing or knowledge.<<<

      You are asking the same question I meant to ask the club, Mike. I
      think you make a good point in wondering if we really know if all
      these individuals used the term in the same way. I guess in some
      cases we just cant know... we don't know enough about Carpocrates,
      for instance, and some of the "Gnostic" texts really don't deal with
      the meaning of the word at all, or can be very vague as if the
      meanings of such words were assumed to be known to the audience at

      Of course, in some cases the word was just the general Greek word,
      and it had no special connotation, but I also think that there was an
      agreement to some extent on that special spiritual usage that we who
      are interested in Gnosticism have grown a bit more used to. I
      actually think there is a way we can know, at least in part, what
      they really meant by that word "Gnosis" and if what we are talking
      about is the same thing.

      However, I have brought this up in the past, and I am bringing it up
      again partly because I never felt it was resolved, and also for our
      many new people to get a chance to talk about it.

      Part of my concern is this... I feel many modern people
      mistake "Gnosis" with the Mystical Experience, and I don't feel that
      this is actually what the ancient Gnostics used the word to mean. SO,
      I ask to the club again; if you intend to use the word "Gnosis" to
      mean the same thing that the Gnostics used the word to mean, how sure
      are you that you are doing that? What do you know about those ancient
      Gnostics that causes you to use the word "Gnosis" in your own life?
      What would you do if you found out that your meaning of the
      word "Gnosis" was completely different form thier usage? WOuld that
      make a difference in how you use the word? OR in how you define

    • pmcvflag
      You are so patient, Cari, but my post was so explicetly about the afterlife in Gnosticism and the lack of continuation of the self identity with the
      Message 46 of 46 , Jun 9, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        You are so patient, Cari, but my post was so explicetly about
        the "afterlife" in Gnosticism and the lack of continuation of the
        self identity with the rejoining into the Source, that I don't think
        Fred really missed my point so badly as to think I was talking about
        some form of Buddhist monastic ego death. I think instead he is
        purposfully taking my words out of context to be trite (something he
        has already been reprimanded for). *sigh* He will be able to post
        again when he is ready for serious conversation.


        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...>
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
        > >
        > > ... I know that this concept is very scary to a lot of
        > > people who can't deal with the notion of loss of the self ...
        > >
        > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag also wrote:
        > >
        > > ... I do know ...
        > > ... I think if ...
        > > ... I have known ...
        > > ... I know that ...
        > >
        > > PMCV
        > Fred, I don't understand your point. I don't see PMCV as saying
        > we "presently" lose our sense of self. The sentence before your
        > first quote reads, "You see, the "spirit", according to Gnostic
        > thought, is not part of what we call "us". It is not part of one's
        > personal identity, but instead it is a little reflective shard of
        > source of all spirit. That is to say, it is a little piece that
        > rejoin with a larger whole EVENTUALLY." [emphasis added]
        > Personally, I view ego "death" as an oxymoron in this present
        > existence. We all have egos. We need a sense of self to function
        > this world. That is not the same as saying that we all are
        > egotistical though.
        > Cari
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.