Re: Who (or what) is "THE DEVIL"?/Great Fall of the Spirits
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Is that rigorous enough for you?Well, actually, no. Take for example:
> The term "Dualist" has rather overstated connotations of extremismthat even academicians fall victim too.
What extremists are you talking about?
> Depending on just how literal we wish to be, about any philosophythat recognizes any contrast is "dualist" but when we point it out it
holds that philosophy up as something a bit out of the ordinary.
I am not sure what this sentence means, it seems a little vague to me.
> The term "Dualism" is so easily used as rhetoric that unless it isan explicit case like that we see in Manichaean belief, or
Zoroastrian, it is something that I am well justified in waffling on
Used as rhetoric by whom?
> and in the case of Plato and Gnosticism it is up to debate, as Iwill explain. As I previously mentioned, Williams brings this subject
up, and fairly well presents that the dichotomy between matter and
spirit may not be so severely stated in all forms of Gnosticism, just
as it is not in Plato (comparitively speaking, of course).
Let me also point out that we have not even gone into the debate over
whether Plato continued to maintain the doctrin of "Forms", which is
bitter in the academic community and has relevence to his "dualism"
it often boils down to just when the Timeaus is dated, and that has
not been resolved as far as I know)... if you say "Plato was a
dualist" one could say back to you "at which period in his works are
you refering to?" Then we would get into a very complex debate that
has no place here.
Just as you pointed out that there are different TYPES of dualism,
there are also different LEVELS. You may choose to quibble that it is
still dualist, technically, but then so is nearly everyone but severe
pantheists and solipsists, and the like. (This, BTW is a good
arguement against the belief that Gnostics were pantheists... they
OK, I won't debate Plato with you here, but I wasn't claiming that
the Gnostics were pantheists.
> I will remain uncomfortable using that word unless it is to veryexplicit examples, unless you concede to a qualifier that we don't
necessarily mean anything so severe as what is likely to be jumping
into the head of the readers here (considering it is exactly the
extreme connotations that so many polemicists are trying to
capitalize on by calling Gnostics "Dualists").
Well, what is it that you are afraid will jump into the heads of our
readers. And again, who are these polemicists you keep talking about
and what are they polemicizing?
- --- In email@example.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
> Hello Georgea
> On 06/16/04, you wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> > Someone on my list said modern Gnostic churches do not allow women
> > to be priests. Is that true of your church?
> > George
> Stephan ordained Rosa Miller to the priesthood, and consecrated her
> bishop. We currently have two active women priests, and an activeGnostic
> woman deacon or three, I can't keep up with it. The short answer is
> no it is not true of our church, nor is it true of the French
> Church, our confederate. It may be true of some more traditionallyHi Mike,
> Catholic Gnostic churches, milage may vary. Years ago I asked an
> old Liberal Catholic Priest (they have no women in orders to this
> day), "how can you deny one of the sacraments to half the human
> race." He was stunned by the question, and said that was the only
> thing anyone had said to him that gave him doubts about the all male
> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
Thank you. I suspected she was wrong but didn't know for sure.