| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
 |
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | You may want to try this link. http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/sitemap.html
|
Very bad advice. Maybe intentionally bad advice. Instead
of linking to the primary sources on Valentinus and his
followers, ZG's URL goes to the highly unreliable set of essays
about them he quoted before, articles that are directly
contradicted by the historical evidence. The author, a certain
David Brons, falsely contends Jesus' body is never an
apparition to the Valentinians, wrongly says that "the demiurge
certainly could not be considered evil," etc. Gnosis.org
_does_ have alot of useful stuff on-line, including most of the
Nag Hammadi texts (both gnostic and otherwise), some
miscellaneous gnostic writings, and info on gnosticism from the
Fathers, all of which ZG ignored.
| Quote: | If you want pagan gnosticism without duality though Catawumpus is your
guy.
|
More misinformation from ZG. He might have been sincerely
confused when he first arrived here but by now he's simply
lying. Instead of "pagan gnosticism without duality," I filled
him in on the dualities in Christian gnosticism -- the
Valentinian perspective, in specific -- for example God vs. the
demiurge, incorruptibility versus corruption, the divine realm
vs. the demiurge's Creation, spirit vs. matter, eternity
versus time, infinity vs. finitude, and reality versus illusion.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 29, 3:23 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
You may want to try this link.http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/sitemap.html
Very bad advice. Maybe intentionally bad advice. Instead
of linking to the primary sources on Valentinus and his
followers, ZG's URL goes to the highly unreliable set of essays
about them he quoted before, articles that are directly
contradicted by the historical evidence. The author, a certain
David Brons, falsely contends Jesus' body is never an
apparition to the Valentinians, wrongly says that "the demiurge
certainly could not be considered evil," etc. Gnosis.org
_does_ have alot of useful stuff on-line, including most of the
Nag Hammadi texts (both gnostic and otherwise), some
miscellaneous gnostic writings, and info on gnosticism from the
Fathers, all of which ZG ignored.
|
I've proved you false by posting the ten commandments. What "evil" god
would tell it's people to not kill,steal,etc. I suggest reading the
Letter to Flora for a better understanding on "Jehovah".
As for linking to primary sources he does that so why hell would I?
You're just mad because we have similar views with do not agree with
your OPINION.
| Quote: |
If you want pagan gnosticism without duality though Catawumpus is your
guy.
More misinformation from ZG. He might have been sincerely
confused when he first arrived here but by now he's simply
lying. Instead of "pagan gnosticism without duality," I filled
him in on the dualities in Christian gnosticism -- the
Valentinian perspective, in specific -- for example God vs. the
demiurge, incorruptibility versus corruption, the divine realm
vs. the demiurge's Creation, spirit vs. matter, eternity
versus time, infinity vs. finitude, and reality versus illusion.
-- Catawumpus
|
I find it amusing that you bring up Valentinian perspective without
mentioning Christ.
He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father. He did not, however,
destroy them because they ate of it. He rather caused those who ate of
it to be joyful because of this discovery. (Gospel of Truth) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 29, 1:04 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
I was just thinking of "the Alien
God" as "alien" to this universe. I agree that such an entity "can
never be _understood_ completely" - but nonetheless can be _known_
spiritually - if not intellectually. In fact, that's one of
Gnosticism's claims - that we can know our spiritual selves and know
the Gnostic True Father. Spiritually, not just intellectually.
Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net>:
What I hear you describing is Levinas' notion of the other and primacy
of the ethical relation as the basis of everything else. Kinda if I
don't you to share language with, then I don't have anything and can't
exist....I require conversation with the other to have any
understanding of "things" in the world. In truth, the other is
completely alien and can never be understood completely...
I never got far enough with Levinas to find out how far he
goes with otherness, but the thought was around before
becoming a cliche of post-modernism. Barth, for example, talks
about a radically other God. Or he tries to. Nice enough
idea, but he's referring to the same old same old one, Mr. I Am
That I Am.
|
I think Levinas takes the other as foundational in the practices and
works really hard to get the understanding across that it is in the
everydayness where the primacy of the ethical relation plays out in a
way that can never be captured or assimulated accurately in a
theoretical sort of way. It strikes me that the creator can be
understood by thinking of theoretical/scientific framework/
methodologies' as flawed instruments for understanding how the flawed
world works (Statistical analysis is supposed to minimize the
flaws...which is why all the soft sciences have what is sometimes
referred to as "cartesian envy"...another tee-hee!!!). They've got
great points and potential for fixing the flaws in this world, but
also have problems and don't always work out well in the everyday. I
think this is where ZG seems to be stuck in not seeing the duality of
the creator god and the "God" god in the ten-comandment example. Even
though theory/science have got some goodness, sometimes even
extrodinarily goodness, they also have some "not so goodness" (some
gnostics would probably say "evil"), in it as well that contaminants
it so to speak, resulting in a flawed instrument. Unfortunately for
us, "flawed instruments" are all that we have for exploring and
manipulating the creators' world, including our flawed, physical
bodies; so its' what we use. In time, people tend to forget about the
"flawed" part and focus only on the "goodness". Most actual clinical
scientist will dance around this and finally use their "gut" (i.e.
"the suffering Christ" in my limited understanding of Gnosticism) to
make sense of the flawed data or something like that. I think that
basic duality is fundemental to the definition of Gnostic belief/faith
embedded in our Western cultural language, no????????? You can turn
it on its' had and redefine it, but then its' no longer Gnosticism.
It becomes something else...
Totally agree that Barth and all of them were chatting each other up
as they developed "french phenomenology" in the early 30's and 40's.
Levinas' claim to fame is that he was one of Heidegger's students
early on and brought his translations of Heide's early works into
french (along with his dissertation) to their attention...then
everyone got crazy with Nietzsche who had been bringing threads of
eastern thought into the Western Tradition (whatever that may be...tee-
hee!) under the guise of Orientalism or something like that. It makes
me think of Victorian parlors with hookahs' and smoking robes or
something like that. At least that's my understanding...I'll own that
its' a bit loose.
| Quote: | In gnosticism, as Shriven is explaining, the idea is taken
much more seriously. The otherness of God lies in his
relationship with the cosmos as a whole; in Leper's words, he's
alien to the universe. The "alien God" is first of all a
reference to Marcion's deity, but the phrase applies to gnostic
theology in general.
|
Thanks for the clarification about the "alien God's" source in
Marcion. I'll tune in as I move into that part of the Gnostic Bible.
| Quote: | Of course there's an epistemological aspect: God can't be
adequately described or categorized. Since he radically
transcends the world, he can't be captured in its understanding.
But just as importantly he isn't the God of this world.
Unlike certain other forms of negative theology which deify the
Creator, gnosticism puts the divine in opposition to the
cosmos. In Marcion's terms, the God of Creation is not the God
of Salvation.
Apologies in advance if I'm telling you things you already
know.
-- Catawumpus
This all gets me excited me and resonants with much of my |
understandings of the world...  Much thanks and apologies to all
from me for battling around with my scientific/philosophical
background. Its' currently the only understanding I have to access
Gnosticism...I'll pick more of who's who and had which notion as I
read more...
Heide --- perhaps with some blond hair... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 29, 1:18 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net>:
Something in me feels that we need to understand gnosticism if we want
to understand and intergrate ourselves fullly into the Western
Traditions hard wired into us by our "mother tongue"..
shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net>:
Well, I can see wanting to integrate ourselves into the Western
Traditions, as a matter of being historically informed. However,
Gnosticism's "unassimilability" makes it per se unintegratable into
most Western systems I know of. Catawumpus may have some more
detailed thinking on this.
There's some later things in the same line: Manichaeanism
followed by the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars (not to
mention the Frankists), but to me that's all the same tradition.
Heckler: "It all sounds the same!" Neil Young: "It's all
one song!" (_Year of the Horse_.) There are also some obvious
points of comparison (truth vs. reality in Plato and in
Nietzsche, world-rejection in Schopenhauer, alienation anywhere
you look, frex Heidegger), but nothing that occurs to me is
compatible on the whole -- definitely not the philosophies I've
listed.
-- Catawumpus
|
Oh do I agree with you on the "same old song" -- right on up thru
Hegel...we all rock around the clock. Then enter Henri Bergson stage
left I believe and he's question of what the "clock" was all about.
Heidegger used his work as an underlying (and not very mentioned as
Derrida points out) theme of his work up thru "Being and Time". At
that point he realized the "Flaw" in our understanding of the world if
you will and stopped dead in his tracks, had his moment of "the
turning", and began writing about language and humans as being the
shepards of it while interpreting poetry and greek
philosophy...everyone thought he was a little off by that point and
there are those concerns about nazism, but Derrida did a lot to "fix
the flaws" if such a thing is possible.
I think Levinas and Maurice Blanchot are probably compatible, as are
possible some of the other French phenomenologists like Lyotard and
Merlou-Ponty with his really radical notions of phenomenology, however
they are very late in the game and have some real serious concerns in
reaction to the holocaust. Levinas was in a concentration camp at one
point and was really into radical "otherness", as were a lot of the
other early French phenomenologist.
As I think about it, Kierkegaard might be a good candidate to include
in the group...even though he was overly religious and zealous, "Fear
and Trembling" and "Repetition" come to mind as having this weird
effect of side-stepping the whole issue and turning it upside down...I
think in my reading of Kierkegaard, I also remember getting this
excited resonance that he was also on to the creator god vs. the alien
god. It was reminescent of a Zen Koan example where the light went on
in my head...
Thanks again for all the conversation...Hopkins |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:47 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:22:54 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
| Quote: | shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
Gnosticism's unassimilability is one of its primary
features. It indeed represents "a raft from the other shore"... to
borrow a Buddhistic, but hopefully not a New Agey, phrase...
How about "the news from nowhere"? The title of a William
Morris novel I've never read.
-- Catawumpus
|
Hey, that's a really good one.
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
| Quote: | Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Gnosticism's unassimilability is one of its primary
features. It indeed represents "a raft from the other shore"... to
borrow a Buddhistic, but hopefully not a New Agey, phrase...
How about "the news from nowhere"? The title of a William
Morris novel I've never read.
Hey, that's a really good one.
|
Cool, huh? I'm worried the book might not be half as good.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | Oh do I agree with you on the "same old song" -- right on up thru
Hegel...we all rock around the clock. Then enter Henri Bergson stage
left I believe and he's question of what the "clock" was all about.
|
I know this game: date the epistemological break. Always
fun. Can't be later than Nietzsche, though I'd say it's
periodic ("all you gotta do to join is to sing it the next time
it comes around on the guitar").
| Quote: | Heidegger used his work as an underlying (and not very mentioned as
Derrida points out) theme of his work up thru "Being and Time". At
that point he realized the "Flaw" in our understanding of the world if
you will and stopped dead in his tracks, had his moment of "the
turning", and began writing about language and humans as being the
shepards of it while interpreting poetry and greek
philosophy...everyone thought he was a little off by that point and
there are those concerns about nazism, but Derrida did a lot to "fix
the flaws" if such a thing is possible.
|
Better: Derrida discusses the significance of Heidegger's
fascism instead of just condemning his politics or making
excuses for him. de Man is also very good, especially after he
gets over phenomenology.
| Quote: | I think Levinas and Maurice Blanchot are probably compatible, as are
possible some of the other French phenomenologists like Lyotard and
Merlou-Ponty with his really radical notions of phenomenology, however
they are very late in the game and have some real serious concerns in
reaction to the holocaust. Levinas was in a concentration camp at one
point and was really into radical "otherness", as were a lot of the
other early French phenomenologist.
|
The question for me is still about the radicality of those
proposed othernesses. Like I said, I haven't read much
Levinas, but Barth's "radically other" God is just the same one
again, so I have my doubts. It's also unclear how radical
claims for otherness can actually be. _Pas d'au-dela_, to coin
a phrase.
| Quote: | As I think about it, Kierkegaard might be a good candidate to include
in the group...even though he was overly religious and zealous, "Fear
and Trembling" and "Repetition" come to mind as having this weird
effect of side-stepping the whole issue and turning it upside down...I
think in my reading of Kierkegaard, I also remember getting this
excited resonance that he was also on to the creator god vs. the alien
god. It was reminescent of a Zen Koan example where the light went on
in my head...
|
If your periodizing begins with "on up through Hegel" then
Kierkegaard is unavoidable: his critique of the System is
aimed right at you-know-who. Calling him "overly religious" is
hard for me to understand. "Because thou art lukewarm, and
neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Catch
is that is he's committed to the same old God. If there's
somewhere he denies Yahweh, I'd love to see. Doesn't seem very
likely, but I'm interested.
| Quote: | Thanks again for all the conversation...
|
Ditto.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | Thanks for the clarification about the "alien God's" source in
Marcion. I'll tune in as I move into that part of the Gnostic Bible.
|
The Meyer and Barnstone anthology? Not there. Like I was
saying, they make some questionable choices. It's a real
doorstop, so they had lots of room, but they give big chunks to
stuff that either isn't gnosticism -- Islamic mystical
writings -- or may not be (Thomas stuff, Hermeticism), using up
space they could've offered to Marcion or other gnostics.
Still a good collection, but it could've been a much better one.
| Quote: | This all gets me excited me and resonants with much of my
understandings of the world... Much thanks and apologies to all
from me for battling around with my scientific/philosophical
background. Its' currently the only understanding I have to access
Gnosticism...I'll pick more of who's who and had which notion as I
read more...
|
Not a problem. Sorry that I can't talk more about Levinas
with you, but we can chat about those other folks with
gnosticism in view. Too bad they don't address it directly (so
far as I know). Derrida takes an interest in negative
theology, but he picks out the canonical example, Dionysius the
Areopagite, not the gnostic ones.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:46 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
You've proved that you peddle misinformation by suggesting
flagrantly unreliable articles make a good place to learn
about the Valentinians. Again, the essays that you recommended
at gnosis.org offer claims directly contradicted by the
evidence in the sources. For instance, they deny that docetism
is part of Valentinian thinking, but it appears in several
places including Ptolemy (Jesus "did not take anything material"
according to the account in Irenaeus, AH 1.6.1) and "the
Orientals," the eastern wing, who thought that "the body of the
Saviour was spiritual" in opposition to their western
counterparts, who said "the body of Jesus was animal" (quoting
Hippolytus, RG 6.30). Another example: the web-pages you
linked to argue "the demiurge certainly could not be considered
evil" in Valentinian myth. Obvious nonsense, since the
Gospel of Truth pictures him (or her) "preparing with power and
beauty the substitute for the truth" -- i.e., the Creation --
and "preparing works and oblivions and terrors" (see the Gospel
of Truth 17:18-20 and 17:31-35).
| Quote: | you false by posting the ten commandments.
|
The falsehood is yours, as always. You posted a carefully
selected set of the Ten Commandments, leaving out e.g. the
Creator's statmement that he punishes the children for the sins
of the fathers "unto the third and fourth generation."
Reminded what you'd removed, you claimed you were debating with
the proposition the Creator is "all evil." Nothing but a
strawman, since nobody was making that claim. In fact I'd said
to Heidi that the Creator and his Creation don't have to be
all bad to be bad enough to merit the label. As I've explained
to you before, the picture of him given in the Bible, the
specifics of his law very much included, is good reason to call
him evil even though the law has some better commandments
along with the worse ones you're ignoring, like for example the
items concerning blood-sacrifice or death by stoning (the
punishment for dissent from his theocracy). Not to mention the
evils he inflicts on Job, a blameless and upright man, the
massacres that he orders, his willingness to harm the righteous
along with the wicked, etc.
Even the commands you quoted have some problems. Honoring
father and mother, for example. Why? What did they do to
deserve it? What if they beat and starve you? They definitely
brought a child into this world, which hardly seems like an
honorable thing to do. Evidently one is supposed to honor them
merely because of their status as parents, the way one is
forced to follow the commandment just because it comes from the
Lord and Creator: a very _worldly_ system of values, in
contrast with your notion the decalogue concerns a higher plane
of existence.
Also notice the contrast to Jesus' teachings in opposition
to the family in the Gospels. Examples include "Call no man
your father upon the earth" (Matthew 23:9), "If any man come to
me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also
he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26), "Who is my mother?
and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48, where Jesus refuses his
natural family), "Let the dead bury their dead," Jesus
commanding a follower to skip his father's burial (Matthew 8:22
and Luke 9:60), and "I came not to send peace, but a sword"
-- Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51 -- where he goes on "For I am come
to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother," etc. Exactly the opposite of the
Creator's law.
Take your own advice. Sit down, shut up, and try to learn
about gnosticism -- I already suggested some good books --
instead of repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance on the topic.
| Quote: | the Letter to Flora for a better understanding on "Jehovah".
|
Even Ptolemy's very diplomatic Letter to Flora (written to
an uninitiated Christian woman and breaking off before the
teachings she'll receive if and when "deemed worthy") expressly
denies the demiurge's goodness (Pan. 33.7.5), and in the
full-size system he can never be completely saved. Although he
eventually accepts Jesus he's nonetheless eternally barred
from the pleroma, consigned to the place Sophia occupied during
her fall. Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1.
| Quote: | As for linking to primary sources he does that so
|
The joker you recommended doesn't provide any links in his
articles. I'm not holding that against him, but it's very
revealing that you pasted in the URL for a false interpretation
of the Valentinians while ignoring the archive of primary
source material on-line at the same site. Pretty much sums you
up right there.
My point exactly. The evidence in the sources clearly and
repeatedly contradicts your claims about the Valentinians --
something I've showed over and over again -- so you'd naturally
ignore it whenever you could.
| Quote: | You're just mad because we have similar views with do not agree with
your OPINION.
|
I've given chapter and verse demonstrating the evidence in
the historical sources repeatedly contradicts the claims
you've made about the Valentinians as well as assertions on the
same topic in the web-pages you linked.
While I was at it, I also showed you're also badly at odds
with Pagels, who disputes you on all the same points even
though you claimed to "share her view on pretty much everything."
Now you've thrown her overboard.
You find whatever suits your preconceptions and you ignore
anything that threatens them.
| Quote: | it amusing that you bring up Valentinian perspective without
mentioning Christ.
|
You're piling lies on top of lies. Especially stupid ones
since they're about a public conversation. You claimed I
offered "pagan gnosticism without duality" after I had reminded
you about the dualities in Christian gnosticism. Now you
insist I didn't mention Christ even though I've referred to him
about a dozen times.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 30, 1:46 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
I've proved
You've proved that you peddle misinformation by suggesting
flagrantly unreliable articles make a good place to learn
about the Valentinians. Again, the essays that you recommended
at gnosis.org offer claims directly contradicted by the
evidence in the sources. For instance, they deny that docetism
is part of Valentinian thinking, but it appears in several
places including Ptolemy (Jesus "did not take anything material"
according to the account in Irenaeus, AH 1.6.1) and "the
Orientals," the eastern wing, who thought that "the body of the
Saviour was spiritual" in opposition to their western
counterparts, who said "the body of Jesus was animal" (quoting
Hippolytus, RG 6.30). Another example: the web-pages you
linked to argue "the demiurge certainly could not be considered
evil" in Valentinian myth. Obvious nonsense, since the
Gospel of Truth pictures him (or her) "preparing with power and
beauty the substitute for the truth" -- i.e., the Creation --
and "preparing works and oblivions and terrors" (see the Gospel
of Truth 17:18-20 and 17:31-35).
you false by posting the ten commandments.
The falsehood is yours, as always. You posted a carefully
selected set of the Ten Commandments, leaving out e.g. the
Creator's statmement that he punishes the children for the sins
of the fathers "unto the third and fourth generation."
Reminded what you'd removed, you claimed you were debating with
the proposition the Creator is "all evil." Nothing but a
strawman, since nobody was making that claim. In fact I'd said
to Heidi that the Creator and his Creation don't have to be
all bad to be bad enough to merit the label. As I've explained
to you before, the picture of him given in the Bible, the
specifics of his law very much included, is good reason to call
him evil even though the law has some better commandments
along with the worse ones you're ignoring, like for example the
items concerning blood-sacrifice or death by stoning (the
punishment for dissent from his theocracy). Not to mention the
evils he inflicts on Job, a blameless and upright man, the
massacres that he orders, his willingness to harm the righteous
along with the wicked, etc.
Even the commands you quoted have some problems. Honoring
father and mother, for example. Why? What did they do to
deserve it? What if they beat and starve you? They definitely
brought a child into this world, which hardly seems like an
honorable thing to do. Evidently one is supposed to honor them
merely because of their status as parents, the way one is
forced to follow the commandment just because it comes from the
Lord and Creator: a very _worldly_ system of values, in
contrast with your notion the decalogue concerns a higher plane
of existence.
Also notice the contrast to Jesus' teachings in opposition
to the family in the Gospels. Examples include "Call no man
your father upon the earth" (Matthew 23:9), "If any man come to
me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also
he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26), "Who is my mother?
and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48, where Jesus refuses his
natural family), "Let the dead bury their dead," Jesus
commanding a follower to skip his father's burial (Matthew 8:22
and Luke 9:60), and "I came not to send peace, but a sword"
-- Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51 -- where he goes on "For I am come
to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother," etc. Exactly the opposite of the
Creator's law.
|
In case you forgot I've always claimed one God with duality. Thanks
for proving the point.
| Quote: |
I suggest reading
Take your own advice. Sit down, shut up, and try to learn
about gnosticism -- I already suggested some good books --
instead of repeatedly demonstrating your ignorance on the topic.
the Letter to Flora for a better understanding on "Jehovah".
Even Ptolemy's very diplomatic Letter to Flora (written to
an uninitiated Christian woman and breaking off before the
teachings she'll receive if and when "deemed worthy") expressly
denies the demiurge's goodness (Pan. 33.7.5), and in the
full-size system he can never be completely saved. Although he
eventually accepts Jesus he's nonetheless eternally barred
from the pleroma, consigned to the place Sophia occupied during
her fall. Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1.
|
And if the perfect God is good by nature, in fact he is, for our
Savior declared that there is only a single good God, his Father whom
he manifested; and if the one who is the opposite nature is evil and
wicked, characterized by injustice; then the one situated between the
two is neither good nor evil or unjust, but can properly be called
just, since he is the arbitrator of the justice which is his.
| Quote: |
As for linking to primary sources he does that so
The joker you recommended doesn't provide any links in his
articles. I'm not holding that against him, but it's very
revealing that you pasted in the URL for a false interpretation
of the Valentinians while ignoring the archive of primary
source material on-line at the same site. Pretty much sums you
up right there.
why hell would I?
My point exactly. The evidence in the sources clearly and
repeatedly contradicts your claims about the Valentinians --
something I've showed over and over again -- so you'd naturally
ignore it whenever you could.
You're just mad because we have similar views with do not agree with
your OPINION.
I've given chapter and verse demonstrating the evidence in
the historical sources repeatedly contradicts the claims
you've made about the Valentinians as well as assertions on the
same topic in the web-pages you linked.
While I was at it, I also showed you're also badly at odds
with Pagels, who disputes you on all the same points even
though you claimed to "share her view on pretty much everything."
Now you've thrown her overboard.
I find
You find whatever suits your preconceptions and you ignore
anything that threatens them.
it amusing that you bring up Valentinian perspective without
mentioning Christ.
You're piling lies on top of lies. Especially stupid ones
since they're about a public conversation. You claimed I
offered "pagan gnosticism without duality" after I had reminded
you about the dualities in Christian gnosticism. Now you
insist I didn't mention Christ even though I've referred to him
about a dozen times.
-- Catawumpus
|
So you are on the same page as Pagels eh? This is on her book cover of
Beyond faith (which I'm enthusiastically reading) "Drawing on new
scholarship - her own, and that of an international group of scholars
- Pagels shows that what matters about Christianity involves much more
than any one set of beliefs. Traditions embodied in Judaism and
Christianity can powerfully affect us in heart, mind, and spirit,
inspire visions of a new society based on practicing justice and love,
even heal and transform us."
Wow...sounds like all rivers flow to the same Ocean. Now why does this
sound familiar?
A good summary from herself can be found here.
http://southerncrossreview.org/29/pagels.htm
Sometimes the person who receives baptism “receives the holy spirit…
this is what happens when one experiences a mystery.” Divine grace,
this implies, isn’t sufficient; the initiate’s capacity for spiritual
understanding is also a factor. “Faith is our earth, in which we take
root; hope is the water through which we are nourished; love is the
air through which we grow; gnosis is the light through which we become
fully grown.
Exactly what I've been saying all along. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
| Quote: | Better: Derrida discusses the significance of Heidegger's
fascism instead of just condemning his politics or making
excuses for him. de Man is also very good, especially after he
gets over phenomenology.
|
I suspect that my "whole" understanding of things is grounded in
Derrida "front and center"...he's essentially the "lens" I've used to
read back through Levinas, Heidegger, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. On
the other hand, he's confusing or alienating to most folks I know, so
its' been easier to go back to the sources. I think he makes it a lot
easier to start connecting the dots about what the Western Tradition
is actually about if you know what your listening for in his readings
and writings.
Another thing I think that light things up for me was realizing that
Dilthey was essentially using "biblical exegesis" to found the
interpretive sciences...that was an eye-opener. I'm pretty sure that
the practice of exegesis is a big concern of both Gnostic and
Orthodoxy Christianity and its' sometimes pretty easy for me to start
seeing how things link-up in their relationships, even though say
someone like Heidegger doesn't actually come out and talk about the
primacy of the other, but in his works after the turning you can
almost hear it on the tip of his tongue...almost like a grasping for
the language to describe it.
| Quote: | I think Levinas and Maurice Blanchot are probably compatible, as are
possible some of the other French phenomenologists like Lyotard and
Merlou-Ponty with his really radical notions of phenomenology, however
they are very late in the game and have some real serious concerns in
reaction to the holocaust. Levinas was in a concentration camp at one
point and was really into radical "otherness", as were a lot of the
other early French phenomenologist.
The question for me is still about the radicality of those
proposed othernesses. Like I said, I haven't read much
Levinas, but Barth's "radically other" God is just the same one
again, so I have my doubts. It's also unclear how radical
claims for otherness can actually be. _Pas d'au-dela_, to coin
a phrase.
As I think about it, Kierkegaard might be a good candidate to include
in the group...even though he was overly religious and zealous, "Fear
and Trembling" and "Repetition" come to mind as having this weird
effect of side-stepping the whole issue and turning it upside down...I
think in my reading of Kierkegaard, I also remember getting this
excited resonance that he was also on to the creator god vs. the alien
god. It was reminescent of a Zen Koan example where the light went on
in my head...
If your periodizing begins with "on up through Hegel" then
Kierkegaard is unavoidable: his critique of the System is
aimed right at you-know-who. Calling him "overly religious" is
hard for me to understand. "Because thou art lukewarm, and
neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Catch
is that is he's committed to the same old God. If there's
somewhere he denies Yahweh, I'd love to see. Doesn't seem very
likely, but I'm interested.
|
The place that comes to mind is in Derrida's reading of "Fear and
Trembling" in "The Gift of Death"...in that way of showing Abraham and
his family as being essentially dysfunctional in that all know what's
going on but can't talk about and the notions' of what an asshole of a
god would require such a thing...or at least that's my memory. But
again it could be contaiminated by my background in Gnosticism...
--- Heidiana... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
| Quote: |
you false by posting the ten commandments.
The falsehood is yours, as always. You posted a carefully
selected set of the Ten Commandments, leaving out e.g. the
Creator's statmement that he punishes the children for the sins
of the fathers "unto the third and fourth generation."
Reminded what you'd removed, you claimed you were debating with
the proposition the Creator is "all evil." Nothing but a
strawman, since nobody was making that claim. In fact I'd said
to Heidi that the Creator and his Creation don't have to be
all bad to be bad enough to merit the label. As I've explained
to you before, the picture of him given in the Bible, the
specifics of his law very much included, is good reason to call
him evil even though the law has some better commandments
along with the worse ones you're ignoring, like for example the
items concerning blood-sacrifice or death by stoning (the
punishment for dissent from his theocracy). Not to mention the
evils he inflicts on Job, a blameless and upright man, the
massacres that he orders, his willingness to harm the righteous
along with the wicked, etc.
Even the commands you quoted have some problems. Honoring
father and mother, for example. Why? What did they do to
deserve it? What if they beat and starve you? They definitely
brought a child into this world, which hardly seems like an
honorable thing to do. Evidently one is supposed to honor them
merely because of their status as parents, the way one is
forced to follow the commandment just because it comes from the
Lord and Creator: a very _worldly_ system of values, in
contrast with your notion the decalogue concerns a higher plane
of existence.
Also notice the contrast to Jesus' teachings in opposition
to the family in the Gospels. Examples include "Call no man
your father upon the earth" (Matthew 23:9), "If any man come to
me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also
he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26), "Who is my mother?
and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48, where Jesus refuses his
natural family), "Let the dead bury their dead," Jesus
commanding a follower to skip his father's burial (Matthew 8:22
and Luke 9:60), and "I came not to send peace, but a sword"
-- Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51 -- where he goes on "For I am come
to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother," etc. Exactly the opposite of the
Creator's law.
|
I'm pretty sure I came across references that some Gnostics thought of
children/offsprings as being they're "sins". Maybee by diluting the
spark of Christ in the individual and/or having an obligation to keep
the individual in this world??? It sounds like Jesus's advice is
aimed at liberating the individual from the natural family and at
least from the obligation aspect?
I may have this all wrong since I'm still in that overview of learning
something new and have lots to re-read...Heide |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:08:15 -0400, Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
| Quote: | shriven leper <bastasch8647@comcast.net>:
Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Gnosticism's unassimilability is one of its primary
features. It indeed represents "a raft from the other shore"... to
borrow a Buddhistic, but hopefully not a New Agey, phrase...
How about "the news from nowhere"? The title of a William
Morris novel I've never read.
Hey, that's a really good one.
Cool, huh? I'm worried the book might not be half as good.
-- Catawumpus
|
Yeah.... never heard of him, so Googled him - is he the "British
socialist-designer-fantasist-poet" guy I saw there...?
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:48 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | I'm pretty sure I came across references that some Gnostics thought of
children/offsprings as being they're "sins". Maybee by diluting the
spark of Christ in the individual and/or having an obligation to keep
the individual in this world???
|
Dunno what you were reading, but I can give you an example
or two of the theme.
The lord revealed unto me what the soul must say when it
is ascending into heaven and how it must reply to each
of the higher powers: 'I have come to be acquainted with
myself' - it says; 'I have collected myself from
everywhere; I have not sown children for the ruler, but
have eradicated its roots and collected the scattered
members. And I know who you [singular] are. For it is I'
- it says - 'who belong to those from the above.' And
so - it says - the soul departs. But if - it says - it
is found to have produced a child, it is restrained
below until it can get back its own offspring and return
to itself.
Gospel of Philip (the still-missing one). Epiphanius, Pan.
26.13.2.
... By the Marcionites nature is regarded as evil because
it was created out of evil matter and by a just Creator.
On this ground, that they do not wish to fill the world
made by the Creator-God, they decide to abstain from
marriage. Thus they are in opposition to their Maker and
hasten towards him who is called the good God, but not to
the God, as they say, of the other kind. As they wish to
leave nothing of their own behind them on this earth,
they are continent, not of their own free choice, but
from hatred of the Creator, being unwilling to use what
he has made.
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.3.12. Notice the parallel
between "they wish to leave nothing of their own behind
them on this earth" -- the Marcionites -- and "I have collected
myself from everywhere; I have not sown children for the
ruler" in the Gospel of Philip. Same principle, but associated
with opposite practices.
| Quote: | It sounds like Jesus's advice is
aimed at liberating the individual from the natural family and at
least from the obligation aspect?
|
Liberation from the natural family and more generally from
life in the natural world. Of course the scriptures are
anything but consistent, so you can easily find verses teaching
the contrary -- I'm talking about the canonical NT -- but in
many places Jesus' ideas have what sounds to me like a strongly
gnostic ring.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | I suspect that my "whole" understanding of things is grounded in
Derrida "front and center"...he's essentially the "lens" I've used to
read back through Levinas, Heidegger, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
|
I know what you mean. I came to Nietzsche, Heidegger, and
Kierkegaard on my own, but there are others (Bataille and
Blanchot are both examples) who I discovered by reading Derrida.
| Quote: | The place that comes to mind is in Derrida's reading of "Fear and
Trembling" in "The Gift of Death"...in that way of showing Abraham and
his family as being essentially dysfunctional in that all know what's
going on but can't talk about and the notions' of what an asshole of a
god would require such a thing...or at least that's my memory.
|
Been awhile since I've read _Fear and Trembling_, but it's
a good bet that Kierkegaard sticks with Yahweh rather than
arguing on behalf of any alien gods. Point of the thing is the
unqualified submission necessary in response to God's
unconditional command (Yahweh ordering Abraham to sacrifice his
son Isaac), which makes a total call and requires the same
kind of reply: "absolute duty to God," in K's phrase, over all
other values and considerations.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
