| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:51 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.
|
....
| Quote: | Yeah.... never heard of him, so Googled him - is he the "British
socialist-designer-fantasist-poet" guy I saw there...?
|
That's the one. 19th c. British utopianism. I'm not sure
about the odds.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | In case you forgot I've always claimed one God with duality.
|
You claimed one God by arguing against the division of God
from the Creator of this world, the demiurge. You also
claimed critical pictures of the demiurge are corruption of the
concept in Plato. Of course you're entitled to your own
opinions, but they clearly put you in conflict with the gnostic
perspective, since the gnostics -- even the Valentinians, a
relatively conservative school -- do exactly what you object to.
| Quote: | Thanks for proving the point.
|
I've proved your claim to be in line with the Valentinians
is repeatedly contradicted by the evidence in the historical
sources. Just for fun I've also showed you're in conflict with
Pagels' desciption of Valentinian thinking even though you
believe that you're in agreement with just about everything she
says.
So you're a liar and a fool. In this discussion alone you
recommended a set of highly unreliable web-pages on the
Valentinians -- ignoring a useful collection of source material
on the same site -- you attacked the strawman that Yahweh
always gives evil commandents, you falsely claimed I'm offering
"pagan gnosticism without duality" -- this after I had
reminded you about the dualities in Christian gnosticism -- and
followed up that piece of nonsense by insisting I hadn't
mentioned Christ, even though I'd referred to him about a dozen
times.
| Quote: | you are on the same page as Pagels eh?
|
Pagels plainly contradicts you despite your claim to agree
with "pretty much everything" she says. According to you
dividing the Creator from the true God is "pure speculation and
arrogance." If required to consider the concept of the
demiurge, you opt for the flattering portrait in Plato over the
critical one in gnosticism. Opinions you're welcome to.
Catch is that you wrongly claim the Valentinians agree with you:
an idea disputed both by the evidence in the sources -- as
I've already showed -- and by Pagels' account of their thinking.
In _The Gnostic Gospels_, e.g., she says, referring to
Valentinus, "What gnostics know is that the creator makes false
claims to power ('I am God, and there is no other') that
derive from his own ignorance." (Ch. two, "One God, One Bishop."
The quote is on page 37 in my copy.) There she plainly
describes Valentinus dividing God from the creator of the world
-- i.e., the demiurge -- who he accuses of falsehood and
ignorance. She also recognizes the Valentinians (Heracleon, in
particular) feel materiality "belongs to 'the devil'; it is
'his cosmos,' the totality of evil, 'the dwelling place of wild
beasts.'" (_The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis_, ch.
five, "Two Types of Conversion," p. 89.) She mentions that the
Valentinians identified "the demiurge and his archons" with
the enslaving elements in Gal. 4:3. (See _The Gnostic Paul_ ch.
four, "Galatians," p. 109 in my paperback.) Etc. The
Valentinians, in Pagels' description, separate the Creator from
God, reduce him to a very inferior demiurge, attack his
Creation, and so on, putting their perspective in conflict with
yours, contrary to your claim to have them lined up behind
you, but consistent with the evidence in the historical sources.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
shriven leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:51:38 -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.
...
Yeah.... never heard of him, so Googled him - is he the "British
socialist-designer-fantasist-poet" guy I saw there...?
That's the one. 19th c. British utopianism. I'm not sure
about the odds.
-- Catawumpus
|
At least he tried...
- sl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jul 1, 2:00 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
In case you forgot I've always claimed one God with duality.
You claimed one God by arguing against the division of God
from the Creator of this world, the demiurge. You also
claimed critical pictures of the demiurge are corruption of the
concept in Plato. Of course you're entitled to your own
opinions, but they clearly put you in conflict with the gnostic
perspective, since the gnostics -- even the Valentinians, a
relatively conservative school -- do exactly what you object to.
Thanks for proving the point.
I've proved your claim to be in line with the Valentinians
is repeatedly contradicted by the evidence in the historical
sources. Just for fun I've also showed you're in conflict with
Pagels' desciption of Valentinian thinking even though you
believe that you're in agreement with just about everything she
says.
So
So you're a liar and a fool. In this discussion alone you
recommended a set of highly unreliable web-pages on the
Valentinians -- ignoring a useful collection of source material
on the same site -- you attacked the strawman that Yahweh
always gives evil commandents, you falsely claimed I'm offering
"pagan gnosticism without duality" -- this after I had
reminded you about the dualities in Christian gnosticism -- and
followed up that piece of nonsense by insisting I hadn't
mentioned Christ, even though I'd referred to him about a dozen
times.
you are on the same page as Pagels eh?
Pagels plainly contradicts you despite your claim to agree
with "pretty much everything" she says. According to you
dividing the Creator from the true God is "pure speculation and
arrogance." If required to consider the concept of the
demiurge, you opt for the flattering portrait in Plato over the
critical one in gnosticism. Opinions you're welcome to.
Catch is that you wrongly claim the Valentinians agree with you:
an idea disputed both by the evidence in the sources -- as
I've already showed -- and by Pagels' account of their thinking.
In _The Gnostic Gospels_, e.g., she says, referring to
Valentinus, "What gnostics know is that the creator makes false
claims to power ('I am God, and there is no other') that
derive from his own ignorance." (Ch. two, "One God, One Bishop."
The quote is on page 37 in my copy.) There she plainly
describes Valentinus dividing God from the creator of the world
-- i.e., the demiurge -- who he accuses of falsehood and
ignorance. She also recognizes the Valentinians (Heracleon, in
particular) feel materiality "belongs to 'the devil'; it is
'his cosmos,' the totality of evil, 'the dwelling place of wild
beasts.'" (_The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis_, ch.
five, "Two Types of Conversion," p. 89.) She mentions that the
Valentinians identified "the demiurge and his archons" with
the enslaving elements in Gal. 4:3. (See _The Gnostic Paul_ ch.
four, "Galatians," p. 109 in my paperback.) Etc. The
Valentinians, in Pagels' description, separate the Creator from
God, reduce him to a very inferior demiurge, attack his
Creation, and so on, putting their perspective in conflict with
yours, contrary to your claim to have them lined up behind
you, but consistent with the evidence in the historical sources.
-- Catawumpus
|
checkmate |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
If you mean you checkmated yourself, then yes: but that's
condition you've been in since you arrived, when you
mistakenly claimed gnosticism referred to some undifferentiated
kind of spirituality rather than to a particular religious
perspective and just as wrongly insisted Pagels agreed with you.
Since then you've moved on to falsely claiming the
Valentinians share your particular perspective, an idea at odds
with both the historical evidence, as I demonstrated, and
counter to Pagels' interpretation, since she notes the features
of the Valentinian outlook directly opposed to yours, e.g.
their separation of God from the Creator of the cosmos, reduced
to a mere demiurge, their critical attitude toward the
demiurge, and their correspondingly negative view of this world.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jul 4, 1:22 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
checkmate
If you mean you checkmated yourself, then yes: but that's
condition you've been in since you arrived, when you
mistakenly claimed gnosticism referred to some undifferentiated
kind of spirituality rather than to a particular religious
perspective and just as wrongly insisted Pagels agreed with you.
Since then you've moved on to falsely claiming the
Valentinians share your particular perspective, an idea at odds
with both the historical evidence, as I demonstrated, and
counter to Pagels' interpretation, since she notes the features
of the Valentinian outlook directly opposed to yours, e.g.
their separation of God from the Creator of the cosmos, reduced
to a mere demiurge, their critical attitude toward the
demiurge, and their correspondingly negative view of this world.
-- Catawumpus
|
C's got a point...if you're deconstructing a notion, you still have to
honor its' interpretive guardrails (or something like that).
Otherwise you turned it (the text) into something other what it was
when you started and it sort of desolves at your feet as one Professor
once told me. Whatever you interpret out of it is no longer in sync
(or resonants with it) and is not valid for interpreting the text or
something like that. I believe its' whats' sometimes referred to as
"the Hermeneutics of Suspicion"....Heide with the blond hair |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Catawumpus <kimmerian@fastmail.fm>:
[to ZG]
| Quote: | ... You
mistakenly claimed gnosticism referred to some undifferentiated
kind of spirituality rather than to a particular religious
perspective and just as wrongly insisted Pagels agreed with you.
Since then you've moved on to falsely claiming the
Valentinians share your particular perspective, an idea at odds
with both the historical evidence, as I demonstrated, and
counter to Pagels' interpretation, since she notes the features
of the Valentinian outlook directly opposed to yours, e.g.
their separation of God from the Creator of the cosmos, reduced
to a mere demiurge, their critical attitude toward the
demiurge, and their correspondingly negative view of this world.
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | C's got a point...if you're deconstructing a notion, you still have to
honor its' interpretive guardrails (or something like that).
Otherwise you turned it (the text) into something other what it was
when you started and it sort of desolves at your feet as one Professor
once told me. Whatever you interpret out of it is no longer in sync
(or resonants with it) and is not valid for interpreting the text or
something like that.
|
I don't notice anybody doing any deconstructing around here.
ZG has been trying to co-opt the gnostics, i.e., to
appropriate the gnostic perspective by insisting it matches his
own view of things, but he's contradicted both by the
historical evidence and by Pagels, who he claimed to agree with.
| Quote: | I believe its' whats' sometimes referred to as "the Hermeneutics of Suspicion"
|
What is? If you mean "hermeneutics of suspicion" includes
deconstruction, then I agree.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jul 4, 11:40 am, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jul 4, 1:22 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
checkmate
If you mean you checkmated yourself, then yes: but that's
condition you've been in since you arrived, when you
mistakenly claimed gnosticism referred to some undifferentiated
kind of spirituality rather than to a particular religious
perspective and just as wrongly insisted Pagels agreed with you.
Since then you've moved on to falsely claiming the
Valentinians share your particular perspective, an idea at odds
with both the historical evidence, as I demonstrated, and
counter to Pagels' interpretation, since she notes the features
of the Valentinian outlook directly opposed to yours, e.g.
their separation of God from the Creator of the cosmos, reduced
to a mere demiurge, their critical attitude toward the
demiurge, and their correspondingly negative view of this world.
-- Catawumpus
C's got a point...if you're deconstructing a notion, you still have to
honor its' interpretive guardrails (or something like that).
Otherwise you turned it (the text) into something other what it was
when you started and it sort of desolves at your feet as one Professor
once told me. Whatever you interpret out of it is no longer in sync
(or resonants with it) and is not valid for interpreting the text or
something like that. I believe its' whats' sometimes referred to as
"the Hermeneutics of Suspicion"....Heide with the blond hair
|
Then why did he snip out everything concerning Pagel's book cover?
Something about what Christos brings to the table horrifies the poor
soul. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:30 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | Then why did he snip out everything concerning Pagel's book cover?
|
When are you going to stop dodging the evidence disproving
your claims to be lined up with the Valentinians and with
Pagels' interpretation? In your opinion it's wrong to separate
God from the Creator of this world, wrong to criticize the
Creator, and wrong to take a negative view of the Creation. By
contrast, Valentinian thinking, as its described in the
historical source materials, divides God from the Maker of this
world, reduces the latter to an inferior demiurge --
variously depicted as arrogant, ignorant, evil, disgusting, etc.
-- and describes the cosmos as a "mountain of evil," a
nightmare, a place made of suffering, and so on: precisely the
opposite of your opinions.
Same in Pagels. Although she tones things down, she notes
the features in Valentinian thinking contrary to your own
outlook: their division of the demiurge from God, the critical
attitude they take to the demiurge, and their similarly
negative view of the world he shaped: again the exact opposite
of your own feelings.
Quotes and cites in my earlier posts, where you completely
ignored them. As I said, you're free to reject gnostic
theology and to dispute the gnostics' devaluation of this world.
Nobody here is demanding that you to accept the gnostic
perspective, or even asking you to. But it would be kinda nice
if you stopped misrepresenting gnosticism while trying to
pretend the gnostics are lined up behind your preferred beliefs.
| Quote: | Something about what Christos brings to the table horrifies the poor
soul.
|
Since you lie about the gnostics and about Pagels, it's no
surprise you also lie about me, in this instance falsely
insisting that I left Christ out of Valentinianism, even though
I mentioned him about a dozen times. You also claimed I
offered "pagan gnosticism without duality" after I had reminded
you about the dualities in Christian gnosticism (the
Valentinian version in particular), again showing you're unable
to defend your position honestly.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jul 6, 6:30 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
Then why did he snip out everything concerning Pagel's book cover?
When are you going to stop dodging the evidence disproving
your claims to be lined up with the Valentinians and with
Pagels' interpretation? In your opinion it's wrong to separate
God from the Creator of this world, wrong to criticize the
Creator, and wrong to take a negative view of the Creation. By
contrast, Valentinian thinking, as its described in the
historical source materials, divides God from the Maker of this
world, reduces the latter to an inferior demiurge --
variously depicted as arrogant, ignorant, evil, disgusting, etc.
-- and describes the cosmos as a "mountain of evil," a
nightmare, a place made of suffering, and so on: precisely the
opposite of your opinions.
Same in Pagels. Although she tones things down, she notes
the features in Valentinian thinking contrary to your own
outlook: their division of the demiurge from God, the critical
attitude they take to the demiurge, and their similarly
negative view of the world he shaped: again the exact opposite
of your own feelings.
Quotes and cites in my earlier posts, where you completely
ignored them. As I said, you're free to reject gnostic
theology and to dispute the gnostics' devaluation of this world.
Nobody here is demanding that you to accept the gnostic
perspective, or even asking you to. But it would be kinda nice
if you stopped misrepresenting gnosticism while trying to
pretend the gnostics are lined up behind your preferred beliefs.
|
Not all of them. You are free to stick to many of the gnostic schools
but you can't have Valentinus. He was going to be Pope due to his
"faith" in Jesus not some demiurge concept which did not matter to
Jesus or myself. Two gods or one with duality...To those suffering in
this world it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. (like your
argument)
| Quote: |
Something about what Christos brings to the table horrifies the poor
soul.
Since you lie about the gnostics and about Pagels, it's no
surprise you also lie about me, in this instance falsely
insisting that I left Christ out of Valentinianism, even though
I mentioned him about a dozen times.
|
You mentioned him heh? For Pagels and myself he is the leading
character (not the demiurge). Understand Christ and one has attained
gnosis.
| Quote: | You also claimed I
offered "pagan gnosticism without duality" after I had reminded
you about the dualities in Christian gnosticism (the
Valentinian version in particular), again showing you're unable
to defend your position honestly.
-- Catawumpus
|
Well here is her book cover again as she informs us how all rivers of
faith flow to the same ocean. Agree or disagree?
"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." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
I'm free to show that you're talking crap when you pretend
to be aligned with the Valentinians, and so I've done, both
with evidence from the sources and, just for kicks, with regard
to Pagels, who you claim to agree with.
| Quote: | stick to many of the gnostic schools but you can't have Valentinus.
|
Too late: I already do. As I already showed -- I'll give
the details again below -- Valentinus and his followers
divide God from the Creator of this world, who they lower to an
inferior demiurge, and strongly criticize the Creation:
exactly the things you condemn, contrary to your idea you're in
line with their thinking.
| Quote: | He was going to be Pope due to his
"faith" in Jesus not some demiurge concept which did not matter to
Jesus or myself.
|
The same falsehood you already tried to peddle. According
to the evidence in the sources, Valentinus and his various
fallowers clearly divided the true God from the Creator of this
world, reducing the latter to an inferior demiurge. He
distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the demiurge, a being
created by Sophia while she's "deprived of her spiritual
substance" (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1). Ditto other Valentinians like
Ptolemy, who separates Bythos, located "in the invisible and
ineffable heights above," from the demiurge, i.e., the
"creator of all animal and material substances," once again the
product of Sophia's fall from the pleroma ( AH 1.1.1. and
1.5.2); Heracleon, who explains pneumatics "worship neither the
creation nor the Demiurge, but the Father of truth" (I'm
quoting from Frag. 20), and Marcus, who similarly separates God
the Father from the demiurge, the maker of this world, who
"followed that which was false." See Irenaeus AH 1.16.3-1-17.2.
If you're required to consider the idea of a demiurge, you
choose the flattering portrait in Plato over the gnostics'
critical picture, and again once the Valentinians clearly argue
against you. Granted they don't attack the demiurge as
sharply as some other gnostic schools. Nonetheless they demote
him from his traditional position as supreme being and
describe him as unspiritual (Valentinus), depict him doing evil
-- Gospel of Truth 16:15-20, 16:30-36 -- picture him as
arrogant and ignorant (Ptolemy), call him disgusting (Theodotus
in _Excerpta_ 33.4), and accuse him of incompetence and
falsehood (Marcus), contradicting your claim that you have them
on your side.
You say that the body is the temple of the soul and you're
unhappy with judgments against the Creation: you even
rejected Jesus' relatively mild teaching "Be passers-by" in the
Gospel of Thomas. But the Valentinians look forward to
ascending to the pleroma leaving body and soul behind, and they
prophesy the destruction of material existence (example:
Ptolemy in Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1). Heracleon refers to this world
as "a total mountain of evil," (Fragment 20), Valentinus
labels the ordinary body "corruption" (Clement of Alexandria in
Strom. 3.59.3) and teaches the nullification of this world
(Strom. 4.89:1-3), yet again showing your opinions are contrary
to the Valentinians.'
You like to think about Jesus as a "mortal man with mortal
desires." But the Valentinians see him as a heavenly
emmanation (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1, AH 1.2.6): "perfect beauty and
star of the fullness." Time and again the Valentinians
plainly stand opposed to your own beliefs despite your pretence
to agree with them.
| Quote: | Two gods or one with duality...To those suffering in
this world it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
|
Makes a big difference to the gnostics -- the Valentinians
very much included -- who divide the Creator of this world
from the true God. Of course you're fully entitled to your own
opinions about theology, but it's no use pretending the
gnostic perspective fits yours or lying about what the evidence
says.
| Quote: | (like your argument)
|
My argument is based on the historical evidence. Yours is
missing.
| Quote: | You mentioned him heh?
|
I mentioned Christ a dozen times or so when discussing the
Valentinians, contrary to your claim I left him out of my
description. I also listed about a half-dozen of the dualities
in their thinking, despite your assertion I was offering
"pagan gnosticism without duality." Obviously you can't defend
your position honestly.
| Quote: | For Pagels and myself he is the leading
character (not the demiurge). Understand Christ and one has attained
gnosis.
|
Pagels slaps you in the face by describing the
Valentinians as Christian gnostics who divide the true God from
the Creator of this world, reducing the latter to a badly
flawed demiurge and holding a similarly negative opinion of his
Creation.
| Quote: | Well here is her book cover again as she informs us how all rivers of
|
Um, no. You still haven't figured out that you're quoting
the publisher's blurb. Pagels very clearly identifies the
gnostics with a particular religious perspective, contradicting
your earlier notion that she agrees with you in thinking
gnosticism is merely a generic term for spirituality in any and
every tradition.
| Quote: | faith flow to the same ocean. Agree or disagree?
|
Pagels disputes your b.s. about the Valentinians, even tho
you claim to agree with her on practically everything. In
_The Gnostic Gospels_, for example, she says, referring to
Valentinus, "What gnostics know is that the creator makes false
claims to power ('I am God, and there is no other') that
derive from his own ignorance." (Ch. two, "One God, One Bishop."
The quote is on page 37 in my copy.) There she plainly
describes Valentinus dividing God from the creator of the world
-- i.e., the demiurge -- who he accuses of falsehood and
ignorance. She also recognizes the Valentinians (Heracleon, in
particular) feel materiality "belongs to 'the devil'; it is
'his cosmos,' the totality of evil, 'the dwelling place of wild
beasts.'" (_The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis_, ch.
five, "Two Types of Conversion," p. 89.) She mentions that the
Valentinians identified "the demiurge and his archons" with
the enslaving elements in Gal. 4:3. (See _The Gnostic Paul_ ch.
four, "Galatians," p. 109 in my paperback.) Etc. The
Valentinians, in Pagels' description, separate the Creator from
God, reduce him to a highly inferior demiurge, attack his
Creation, and so on, putting their perspective in conflict with
yours, contrary to your claim to have them lined up behind
you but consistent with the historical evidence, as I've showed.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jul 8, 1:24 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
You are free to
I'm free to show that you're talking crap when you pretend
to be aligned with the Valentinians, and so I've done, both
with evidence from the sources and, just for kicks, with regard
to Pagels, who you claim to agree with.
stick to many of the gnostic schools but you can't have Valentinus.
Too late: I already do. As I already showed -- I'll give
the details again below -- Valentinus and his followers
divide God from the Creator of this world, who they lower to an
inferior demiurge, and strongly criticize the Creation:
exactly the things you condemn, contrary to your idea you're in
line with their thinking.
He was going to be Pope due to his
"faith" in Jesus not some demiurge concept which did not matter to
Jesus or myself.
The same falsehood you already tried to peddle. According
to the evidence in the sources, Valentinus and his various
fallowers clearly divided the true God from the Creator of this
world, reducing the latter to an inferior demiurge. He
distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the demiurge, a being
created by Sophia while she's "deprived of her spiritual
substance" (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1). Ditto other Valentinians like
Ptolemy, who separates Bythos, located "in the invisible and
ineffable heights above," from the demiurge, i.e., the
"creator of all animal and material substances," once again the
product of Sophia's fall from the pleroma ( AH 1.1.1. and
1.5.2); Heracleon, who explains pneumatics "worship neither the
creation nor the Demiurge, but the Father of truth" (I'm
quoting from Frag. 20), and Marcus, who similarly separates God
the Father from the demiurge, the maker of this world, who
"followed that which was false." See Irenaeus AH 1.16.3-1-17.2.
If you're required to consider the idea of a demiurge, you
choose the flattering portrait in Plato over the gnostics'
critical picture, and again once the Valentinians clearly argue
against you. Granted they don't attack the demiurge as
sharply as some other gnostic schools. Nonetheless they demote
him from his traditional position as supreme being and
describe him as unspiritual (Valentinus), depict him doing evil
-- Gospel of Truth 16:15-20, 16:30-36 -- picture him as
arrogant and ignorant (Ptolemy), call him disgusting (Theodotus
in _Excerpta_ 33.4), and accuse him of incompetence and
falsehood (Marcus), contradicting your claim that you have them
on your side.
You say that the body is the temple of the soul and you're
unhappy with judgments against the Creation: you even
rejected Jesus' relatively mild teaching "Be passers-by" in the
Gospel of Thomas. But the Valentinians look forward to
ascending to the pleroma leaving body and soul behind, and they
prophesy the destruction of material existence (example:
Ptolemy in Irenaeus, AH 1.7.1). Heracleon refers to this world
as "a total mountain of evil," (Fragment 20), Valentinus
labels the ordinary body "corruption" (Clement of Alexandria in
Strom. 3.59.3) and teaches the nullification of this world
(Strom. 4.89:1-3), yet again showing your opinions are contrary
to the Valentinians.'
You like to think about Jesus as a "mortal man with mortal
desires." But the Valentinians see him as a heavenly
emmanation (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1, AH 1.2.6): "perfect beauty and
star of the fullness." Time and again the Valentinians
plainly stand opposed to your own beliefs despite your pretence
to agree with them.
Two gods or one with duality...To those suffering in
this world it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
Makes a big difference to the gnostics -- the Valentinians
very much included -- who divide the Creator of this world
from the true God. Of course you're fully entitled to your own
opinions about theology, but it's no use pretending the
gnostic perspective fits yours or lying about what the evidence
says.
(like your argument)
My argument is based on the historical evidence. Yours is
missing.
You mentioned him heh?
I mentioned Christ a dozen times or so when discussing the
Valentinians, contrary to your claim I left him out of my
description. I also listed about a half-dozen of the dualities
in their thinking, despite your assertion I was offering
"pagan gnosticism without duality." Obviously you can't defend
your position honestly.
For Pagels and myself he is the leading
character (not the demiurge). Understand Christ and one has attained
gnosis.
Pagels slaps you in the face by describing the
Valentinians as Christian gnostics who divide the true God from
the Creator of this world, reducing the latter to a badly
flawed demiurge and holding a similarly negative opinion of his
Creation.
Well here is her book cover again as she informs us how all rivers of
Um, no. You still haven't figured out that you're quoting
the publisher's blurb. Pagels very clearly identifies the
gnostics with a particular religious perspective, contradicting
your earlier notion that she agrees with you in thinking
gnosticism is merely a generic term for spirituality in any and
every tradition.
faith flow to the same ocean. Agree or disagree?
Pagels disputes your b.s. about the Valentinians, even tho
you claim to agree with her on practically everything. In
_The Gnostic Gospels_, for example, she says, referring to
Valentinus, "What gnostics know is that the creator makes false
claims to power ('I am God, and there is no other') that
derive from his own ignorance." (Ch. two, "One God, One Bishop."
The quote is on page 37 in my copy.) There she plainly
describes Valentinus dividing God from the creator of the world
-- i.e., the demiurge -- who he accuses of falsehood and
ignorance. She also recognizes the Valentinians (Heracleon, in
particular) feel materiality "belongs to 'the devil'; it is
'his cosmos,' the totality of evil, 'the dwelling place of wild
beasts.'" (_The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis_, ch.
five, "Two Types of Conversion," p. 89.) She mentions that the
Valentinians identified "the demiurge and his archons" with
the enslaving elements in Gal. 4:3. (See _The Gnostic Paul_ ch.
four, "Galatians," p. 109 in my paperback.) Etc. The
Valentinians, in Pagels' description, separate the Creator from
God, reduce him to a highly inferior demiurge, attack his
Creation, and so on, putting their perspective in conflict with
yours, contrary to your claim to have them lined up behind
you but consistent with the historical evidence, as I've showed.
-- Catawumpus
|
So the publisher's blurb does not describe what her book is about and
Valentinus was never considered for the pope position...OK, whatever. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
So your claims are contrary to the evidence, which clearly
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.
| Quote: | the publisher's blurb does not describe what her book is about and
|
You didn't claim that the blurb describes what the book is
about; you said that you were quoting Pagels when you were
merely cut-and-pasting the jacket copy. The second time you've
confused Pagels with advertising. In your own words, you
really are "that @#$%ing stupid." Hard though it is to believe.
Valentinus isn't behind you, since the historical evidence
indicates he and his followers do what you condemn: they
divide God from the Creator of this world; reduce the latter to
a highly inferior demiurge; take a critical view of the
material world, including the body; and so forth: the opposite
of your point of view.
| Quote: | was never considered for the pope position...
|
The story is that Valentinus was rejected for Pope because
he didn't accept orthodoxy: another guy got the job "by
reason of a claim which confessorship had given him." (Quoting
Tertullian's _Against the Valentinians_ 4.) Not very
surprising, since Valentinus divides God from the Maker of this
world. Irenaeus AH 1.11.1.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jul 11, 3:02 am, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
So
So your claims are contrary to the evidence, which clearly
shows the Valentinians rejecting Creator and Creation, and
your appeal to Pagels' authority failed twice-over: not merely
because of the logical fallacy but also because she talks
about the themes in Valentinian thinking you're trying to avoid.
the publisher's blurb does not describe what her book is about and
You didn't claim that the blurb describes what the book is
about; you said that you were quoting Pagels when you were
merely cut-and-pasting the jacket copy. The second time you've
confused Pagels with advertising. In your own words, you
really are "that @#$%ing stupid." Hard though it is to believe.
|
So the fucking blurb does not describe whats in the GD book?!? This
childish bullshit has officially ended.
| Quote: |
Valentinus
Valentinus isn't behind you, since the historical evidence
indicates he and his followers do what you condemn: they
divide God from the Creator of this world; reduce the latter to
a highly inferior demiurge; take a critical view of the
material world, including the body; and so forth: the opposite
of your point of view.
was never considered for the pope position...
The story is that Valentinus was rejected for Pope because
he didn't accept orthodoxy: another guy got the job "by
reason of a claim which confessorship had given him." (Quoting
Tertullian's _Against the Valentinians_ 4.) Not very
surprising, since Valentinus divides God from the Maker of this
world. Irenaeus AH 1.11.1.
-- Catawumpus
|
or that maybe because he professed the kingdom in which Jesus spoke is
available to everyone. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
So your claims are contrary to the evidence, which clearly
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.
| Quote: | the fucking blurb does not describe whats in the GD book?!?
|
You didn't claim that the blurb describes what the book is
about; you said that you were quoting Pagels when you were
merely cut-and-pasting the jacket copy. The second time you've
confused Pagels with advertising. In your own words, you
really are "that @#$%ing stupid." Hard though it is to believe.
| Quote: | This childish bullshit has officially ended.
|
Thus far your childish bullshit shows no signs of stopping.
| Quote: | or that maybe because he professed the kingdom in which Jesus spoke is
available to everyone.
|
No evidence for your blathering, but considerable evidence
to the contrary. The Valentinians divide mankind in three
classes. Only pneumatics can be fully saved; psychics can gain
at most partial salvation, since they can never enter the
pleroma (Irenaeus AH 1.7.1), while hylics can't be saved at all.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
