| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
 |
|
shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
|
....
| Quote: | Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen. Maybe if he changed
his nym he would become more open to the truth you've been patiently
spooning him. Doubtul, though.
|
Agreed about ZG. I can't claim patience (I never have too
much of it) or diplomacy (ditto), but ZG's tendency to
pronounce on things he's clueless about was obvious practically
from the time that he showed up here, and he can't seem to
correct himself even when given detailed evidence. He's a type
that appears in ARG periodically: a person, usually a
New-Ager, in basic opposition to the gnostics' perspective, who
distorts gnosticism in order to make it conform to a very
different outlook. In fact this is ZG's second go-round in the
role.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | He is a mortal man with mortal desires. When baptized into the holy
spirit he became much more...UNDERSTAND YET?
|
I understand you're in the habit of confusing your opinion
about this, that, and the other with gnosticism: the
Valentinian school in specific. You reject the division of God
from the Creator of this world -- but according to the
evidence in the ancient sources, the Valentinians did precisely
what you deny, reducing the Creator from supreme being to a
mere demiurge. You prefer the positive picture of the demiurge
in Platonism to the gnostics' critical view -- but the
Valentinians describe him as unspiritual, incompetent, given to
falsehood, arrogant and ignorant, disgusting, etc. You say the
body is the temple of the soul and you object to negative
comments on the material world -- but the Valentinians call the
ordinary body corruption, refer to material existence as a
mountain of evil, claim that it's made from suffering, and look
forward to its destruction.
Your retreat to argument-from-authority isn't any help and
not merely because of the logical fallacy: Pagels'
description of the Valentinians includes everything I've listed.
Their thinking stands in opposition to yours both in the
historical source material _and_ in the account that she offers.
Quotes, details, and citations my earlier posts, where you
skipped right over them.
Same thing with christology. You call Jesus "a mortal man
with mortal desires" -- but to the Valentinians he's a
spiritual being, not a material one, an emmanation of the aeons.
You're right, for once, when you say that the Valentinians
distinguish between a divine Jesus and a human one. In
Ptolemy, for example, there are two different figures who go by
the name Jesus: the unmaterial heavenly emmanation on one
hand and on the other hand "the animal Christ" who's created by
the demiurge. As Pagels could have taught you, if you
bothered to read her, the spiritual Jesus takes on the likeness
of man without becoming fleshly. Again, the details and
citations are in my previous posts, where you were happy enough
to ignore them.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:51 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
| Quote: | Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
|
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | don't think that I haven't noticed his ability to avoid my questions
|
I notice that you make false claims about the gnostics and
gnosticism when you ought to be asking questions or else
finding the answers on your own. You're interested in reciting
your dogma rather than in learning, and certainly not in
fixing your mistakes, which you're now repeating for the second
or third time.
| Quote: | while repeating the same ol demiurg fetish.
|
I'm repeatedly pointing out the evidence you avoid showing
the gnostics -- with the Valentinians very much included --
reject Creator and Creator, despite your claims to have the V's
lined up behind you. I've also showed that Pagels gives a
similar description of the Valentinians, despite your attempted
retreat to argument-from-authority.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 27, 3:48 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
He is a mortal man with mortal desires. When baptized into the holy
spirit he became much more...UNDERSTAND YET?
I understand you're in the habit of confusing your opinion
about this, that, and the other with gnosticism: the
Valentinian school in specific. You reject the division of God
from the Creator of this world -- but according to the
evidence in the ancient sources, the Valentinians did precisely
what you deny, reducing the Creator from supreme being to a
mere demiurge. You prefer the positive picture of the demiurge
in Platonism to the gnostics' critical view -- but the
Valentinians describe him as unspiritual, incompetent, given to
falsehood, arrogant and ignorant, disgusting, etc. You say the
body is the temple of the soul and you object to negative
comments on the material world -- but the Valentinians call the
ordinary body corruption, refer to material existence as a
mountain of evil, claim that it's made from suffering, and look
forward to its destruction.
Your retreat to argument-from-authority isn't any help and
not merely because of the logical fallacy: Pagels'
description of the Valentinians includes everything I've listed.
Their thinking stands in opposition to yours both in the
historical source material _and_ in the account that she offers.
Quotes, details, and citations my earlier posts, where you
skipped right over them.
Same thing with christology. You call Jesus "a mortal man
with mortal desires" -- but to the Valentinians he's a
spiritual being, not a material one, an emmanation of the aeons.
You're right, for once, when you say that the Valentinians
distinguish between a divine Jesus and a human one. In
Ptolemy, for example, there are two different figures who go by
the name Jesus: the unmaterial heavenly emmanation on one
hand and on the other hand "the animal Christ" who's created by
the demiurge. As Pagels could have taught you, if you
bothered to read her, the spiritual Jesus takes on the likeness
of man without becoming fleshly. Again, the details and
citations are in my previous posts, where you were happy enough
to ignore them.
-- Catawumpus
|
From the post I can see you either clearly do not understand the
basics of Valentinus theology or wish to obfuscate his meanings. For
a full understanding may I suggest..
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Jesus_Valentinianism.htm
Valentinian Christology emphasizes that the human Jesus is redeemed by
being joined with the Savior at his baptism. The Son is "the Name
which came down upon Jesus in the dove and redeemed him" (Excerpts of
Theodotus 22:6). The redemption of the human Jesus is seen by the
Valentinians as applying to all who form part of the "church of the
superior seed". The human Jesus is joined to the Savior. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 27, 11:47 am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl -
|
That problematic of evil just keeps rearing its' ugly
head...seriously, the question of evil does need to be dealt with or
sorted out if you desire true knowledge. At least that is my
"gut"...people don't like to be reminded of it, I totally agree. On
the other hand, lots of folks are spell bound by it in the
media...its' a funny problematic... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
| Quote: | shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
|
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:33 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:03:27 -0700 (PDT), Heideana
<heideana@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 27, 11:47 am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl -
That problematic of evil just keeps rearing its' ugly
head...seriously, the question of evil does need to be dealt with or
sorted out if you desire true knowledge.
|
Yes, seems the Gnostics traced the world's evil back to an evil or at
least an inadequate Creator. For me, it's easier to just toss the
idea of a Creator itself. I do believe in god, but that god is not
responsible for the universe because that god is not a creator.
| Quote: | At least that is my
"gut"...people don't like to be reminded of it, I totally agree. On
the other hand, lots of folks are spell bound by it in the
media...its' a funny problematic...
|
Yeah, isn't that weird. The media especially pump up bad news, except
when it's in their interests to downplay it. Then as you hint, take
the phenomenon of horror entertainment, books, etc... very popular
stuff. Not only slasher and supernatural horror, but documentary
stuff about serial killers, etc...
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>:
| Quote: | You're in the habit of confusing your opinion
about this, that, and the other with gnosticism: the
Valentinian school in specific. You reject the division of God
from the Creator of this world -- but according to the
evidence in the ancient sources, the Valentinians did precisely
what you deny, reducing the Creator from supreme being to a
mere demiurge. You prefer the positive picture of the demiurge
in Platonism to the gnostics' critical view -- but the
Valentinians describe him as unspiritual, incompetent, given to
falsehood, arrogant and ignorant, disgusting, etc. You say the
body is the temple of the soul and you object to negative
comments on the material world -- but the Valentinians call the
ordinary body corruption, refer to material existence as a
mountain of evil, claim that it's made from suffering, and look
forward to its destruction. ...
Quotes, details, and citations my earlier posts, where you
skipped right over them.
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | From the post I can see you either clearly do not understand the
basics of Valentinus theology or wish to obfuscate his meanings.
|
From your answer I can see that you're tossing unsupported
accusations and continuing to duck the evidence that I've
offered from the ancient source materials: a logical follow-up
to the bullshit you've already posted, e.g. your falsehoods
that you're in line with the Valentinians and that Pagels backs
up your claim.
| Quote: | For a full understanding may I suggest..
|
You're not interested in a full understanding. All you're
concerned with is reciting your dogma and pretending the
Valentinians have lined up behind you. So happens the opposite
is true. You're strongly against dividing God from the
Creator of this world, but the Valentinians distinguish between
the true God and the Creator, lowered from supreme being to
mere demiurge. If required to consider the demiurge you choose
the positive evaluation found in Plato over the gnostics'
criticism, but to the Valentinians the demiurge is arrogant and
ignorant, unspiritual, incompetent, evil, even disgusting.
You dislike attacks on the material world, but the Valentinians
call it a mountain of evil, describe it as a place made from
suffering, and predict its complete destruction. You claim the
earthly body is "the temple of the soul," but to the
Valentinians it's corruption. Etc. The Valentinians' thinking
contradicts yours time after time.
| Quote: | http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Jesus_Valentinianism.htm
|
Heh. Still hasn't dawned on you that random web-pages are
not evidence. The guy who you're quoting is especially
unreliable. Example: he denies the Valentinians are docetists
and says they "never claimed that Jesus only appeared to
suffer or that his body was an apparition." Not so. I already
showed the contrary in Ptolemy's system, where Jesus is a
purely spiritual being, an emmanation of the aeons, who took on
human shape but remained non-material. Irenaeus AH 1.6.1:
"He did not take anything material ... for the material essense
is incapable of salvation."
Same idea is in AH 1.7.2. "It is impossible that material
substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they
maintain that it is incapable of receiving it)": the principle
on which Jesus has no material body.
As I mentioned before, the same discussion _also_ includes
an earthly Jesus made by the demiurge. (I assigned him to
Ptolemy, but he seems to belong to other Valentinians, since he
comes up after the preface "Some say...") Result: two
different beings named "Jesus," one of them earthly, one divine.
The one made by the demiurge has a material body but the
divine Jesus is explicitly _non-material_, disproving the claim
on the webpage you linked to. Instead of a "full
understanding" it gives a false one by wrongly denying docetism
is part of Valentinian christology.
Another example: according to Hippolytus the Valentinians
disagreed among themselves about whether or not Jesus was
fleshly, with the Italian school saying that "the body of Jesus
was animal," but the Oriental school, by contrast, stating
that "the body of the Saviour was spiritual." (See _Refutation
of All Heresies_ 6.30.)
Instead of the "research" you claimed, you're quoting from
whatever you happen to see on the web, and according to the
webpage you grabbed onto the Valentinians _never_ contend Jesus
was a non-material being: a notion disproved by the
historical evidence, which shows them making the very assertion
your latest authority denies.
So your own claims are contradicted by the evidence, which
shows the Valentinians rejecting Creator and Creation, and
your appeal to Pagels' authority failed twice-over: not merely
because of the logical fallacy but also because she talks
about the themes in Valentinian thinking you're trying to avoid.
And the web-page that you're now claiming gives a "full
understanding" makes statements directly opposed to the info in
the sources.
| Quote: | "Valentinian Christology emphasizes that the human Jesus is redeemed by
being joined with the Savior at his baptism."
|
True of the "animal Christ" made by the demiurge (Irenaeus
AH 1.7.2), false about the Jesus created by the aeons in
Irenaeus AH 1.2.6, the "perfect beauty and star" of the pleroma.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
[New Agers]
| Quote: | exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
|
Exactly. Of course gnosticism sometimes has the same kind
of trouble from the opposite side. When gnostic theology
either fails to distance itself sufficiently from power-worship
or slides back by insisting on God's omnipotence then the
problem of evil immediately re-appears. Something we've agreed
about before.
Another difficulty for New Agers is that gnosticism screws
with their "all rivers flowing to the same ocean" dogma (a
direct quote from ZG). Even if they can negotiate a Merton-ish
rapprochement between, let's say, Catholicism and Zen, the
gnostic outlook remains unassimilable, the exception disproving
their desired rule.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 27, 4:03 pm, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 27, 11:47 am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl -
That problematic of evil just keeps rearing its' ugly
head...seriously, the question of evil does need to be dealt with or
sorted out if you desire true knowledge. At least that is my
"gut"...people don't like to be reminded of it, I totally agree. On
the other hand, lots of folks are spell bound by it in the
media...its' a funny problematic...
|
That's very true. As in the star wars episode(sorry bout the sci-fi)
the hero must go into the darkness to conquer that which is inside
him. The "demiurge" is not only out in the world but inside our selves
as well. For true gnosis this part of us must be explored. (ie dealt
with). Of course this then destroys the illusion of two gods. Are
there little tiny demiurges in us? The idea is as absurd as a
Catawumpus argument. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 27, 11:44 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
[New Agers]
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
Exactly. Of course gnosticism sometimes has the same kind
of trouble from the opposite side. When gnostic theology
either fails to distance itself sufficiently from power-worship
or slides back by insisting on God's omnipotence then the
problem of evil immediately re-appears. Something we've agreed
about before.
Another difficulty for New Agers is that gnosticism screws
with their "all rivers flowing to the same ocean" dogma (a
direct quote from ZG). Even if they can negotiate a Merton-ish
rapprochement between, let's say, Catholicism and Zen, the
gnostic outlook remains unassimilable, the exception disproving
their desired rule.
-- Catawumpus
|
C-wumpus or SL, could talk more about the problematic of evil and free-
choice vs. "fated" predeterminism and inability of the good to ever
make a choice of evil? When all of the good and evil are separated at
the end-of-time, I'm assuming that all of fragments of the "suffering
Christ" will have had enough time on the Karma Wheel here in the world
to decide if the want to choose the Transcedental God's path or not.
That's the only solution I see to the problematic? Any insight
greatly appreciated...Hopkins |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 28, 8:55 am, zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 27, 4:03 pm, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:47 am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl -
That problematic of evil just keeps rearing its' ugly
head...seriously, the question of evil does need to be dealt with or
sorted out if you desire true knowledge. At least that is my
"gut"...people don't like to be reminded of it, I totally agree. On
the other hand, lots of folks are spell bound by it in the
media...its' a funny problematic...
That's very true. As in the star wars episode(sorry bout the sci-fi)
the hero must go into the darkness to conquer that which is inside
him. The "demiurge" is not only out in the world but inside our selves
as well. For true gnosis this part of us must be explored. (ie dealt
with). Of course this then destroys the illusion of two gods. Are
there little tiny demiurges in us? The idea is as absurd as a
Catawumpus argument.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
ZG - You might want to check out "The Complete Idiot's guide to the
Gnostic Gospels" by Matkin ( http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Gnostic-Gospels/dp/1592573886
) for a birds' eyeview of all the different gnostic schools,
arguments, etc...that Catawampus and SL are getting at to help you
understand the "facts" about what Christian Gnosticism is about. It
was really helpful for me....
I see there's also an Idiots' guide to Mary Magdeline that looks
interesting! http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Mary-Magdalene/dp/1592573452
Hopkins |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 27, 1:47 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized.
|
Nature is survival of the fittest where animals eat others to survive.
No...I don't think I've ever "exalted" such a thing.
| Quote: | They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God).
|
We've discussed free will and the fact that as of today the "demiurge"
is hard at work. Genocide, depleted uranium poisoning, torture to name
a few.
| Quote: | They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl -
|
It's anything but a few shadows. We are at a crossroads in which we
either slide into a NWO of tyranny or turn it around by following a
thing called the constitution. The battle continues...Point is what
are you going to do about it? Whose side are you going to join? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 28, 11:11 am, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 28, 8:55 am, zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:03 pm, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:47 am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl -
That problematic of evil just keeps rearing its' ugly
head...seriously, the question of evil does need to be dealt with or
sorted out if you desire true knowledge. At least that is my
"gut"...people don't like to be reminded of it, I totally agree. On
the other hand, lots of folks are spell bound by it in the
media...its' a funny problematic...
That's very true. As in the star wars episode(sorry bout the sci-fi)
the hero must go into the darkness to conquer that which is inside
him. The "demiurge" is not only out in the world but inside our selves
as well. For true gnosis this part of us must be explored. (ie dealt
with). Of course this then destroys the illusion of two gods. Are
there little tiny demiurges in us? The idea is as absurd as a
Catawumpus argument.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ZG - You might want to check out "The Complete Idiot's guide to the
Gnostic Gospels" by Matkin (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Gnostic-Gospels/dp/159257...
) for a birds' eyeview of all the different gnostic schools,
arguments, etc...that Catawampus and SL are getting at to help you
understand the "facts" about what Christian Gnosticism is about. It
was really helpful for me....
|
In what way? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 28, 11:11 am, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 28, 8:55 am, zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:03 pm, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:47 am, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 04:51:20 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm
wrote:
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
Yeah, this guy seems neither gnostic nor zen.
Agreed. He _might_ be able to work Zen into his New-Agery.
But gnosticism is a big problem for him.
snipped
Probably because of the psychology of many New Agers - they tend to
exalt nature, the body, the material world - "Creation" generally - to
the point that materiality's inherent evils are (so they say)
neutralized. They tend to exonerate the Creator for incorporating
evil into creation, for not acting to remove evil from the world (as
you've pointed out, this problem disappears if they'll admit that God
the Creator is not all-powerful, but they can't let go of omnipotence
as an essential quality of of God). They don't like having it pointed
out to them that the problem of evil is still a problem. All is
bright, except for a few shadows that are either illusory or in some
other way irrelevant...
- sl -
That problematic of evil just keeps rearing its' ugly
head...seriously, the question of evil does need to be dealt with or
sorted out if you desire true knowledge. At least that is my
"gut"...people don't like to be reminded of it, I totally agree. On
the other hand, lots of folks are spell bound by it in the
media...its' a funny problematic...
That's very true. As in the star wars episode(sorry bout the sci-fi)
the hero must go into the darkness to conquer that which is inside
him. The "demiurge" is not only out in the world but inside our selves
as well. For true gnosis this part of us must be explored. (ie dealt
with). Of course this then destroys the illusion of two gods. Are
there little tiny demiurges in us? The idea is as absurd as a
Catawumpus argument.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ZG - You might want to check out "The Complete Idiot's guide to the
Gnostic Gospels" by Matkin (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Gnostic-Gospels/dp/159257...
) for a birds' eyeview of all the different gnostic schools,
arguments, etc...that Catawampus and SL are getting at to help you
understand the "facts" about what Christian Gnosticism is about. It
was really helpful for me....
I see there's also an Idiots' guide to Mary Magdeline that looks
interesting! http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Mary-Magdalene/dp/1592573452
Hopkins
|
You may want to try this
http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinian_Monism.htm
If you want pagan gnosticism without duality...by all means listen to
catawumpus. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
