| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Heideana
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: Hello |
 |
|
Hi -- I realized that I should introduce myself to the group and thank
Catawampus and Zen Gnostic for their graciousness in answering my
questions. My name is Hopkins and I'm reviving my interest in the
Gnostic view after years of chasing the eastern dream from the
existential atheist position...or some variation of it. Heideana is
short for Heidegger's Analytic, which is a bit of an existential dream
more then anything else/that is a name I use for purposes of both
consulting and writing/philosophizing...or something like that.
I¡¦ve started to slowly work my way thru both the Nag Hammadi and Dead
Sea Scrolls using my old Jerusalem bible and the Gnostic Bible to help
navigate my reading. I¡¦ve also got a copy of the Idiot's guide to
Gnosticism which, at least academically, seems to provide a great
gestalt of the landscape. I'm also kinda/sorta grounded in Heidegger,
Kierkegaard, Levinas and a bit of Derrida for some basic
phenomenological investigation on good days; however my real education
and background is in quality healthcare stuff¡K
I just re-read Catawampus and Zen Gnostic's gracious responses to my
question as they were bantering and realize how naive I am and how
much there is to learn...Yesterday, I was reading about the Cathars,
which referred me back to the Manichaean Literature and came across
the notion of complete dualism and what it means to have complete
separation of good and evil as the final outcome and the problematic
of the completely good God and free-will¡Kyow! I¡¦d never thought of
that one and didn¡¦t see it coming¡Ksomehow it really helped inform me
about what C and ZG bantering about¡Kƒº
I also came across the various meanings of Jesus and Christ and admit
my head is spinning a bit¡KI came across the notion of the ¡§suffering
Christ¡¨ and think its¡¦ my handle/access to exploring them.
I have to own my initial attraction to Gnosticism when Elaine Pagel¡¦s
book first came out was the notion of the demiurge, which was over 20
years ago. I¡¦d been very uncomfortable with the Old Testament god
because he was mean and cruel and somehow not totally omnipotent if he
was playing dice with the devil using Job. The light went on when I
read about the ¡§demiurge¡¨, which I suspend with quo marks only because
it breaks up so much when you try to frame the meaning with so many of
the different viewpoints available.
Anyhow, that¡¦s a bit of who I am and what my philosophical groundings
are. Much thanks in advance for any help I can get from the group
time-to-time about questions I may have during my readings. Its¡¦ most
appreciated¡KHeideana |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: re:Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | My name is Hopkins and I'm reviving my interest in the
Gnostic view after years of chasing the eastern dream from the
existential atheist position...or some variation of it. Heideana is
short for Heidegger's Analytic, which is a bit of an existential dream
more then anything else/that is a name I use for purposes of both
consulting and writing/philosophizing...or something like that.
|
Ah, and there I was thinking of you as a Swiss orphan-girl.
http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/blo/3404.shtml
http://cdn.harpercollins.com/harperimages/isbn/large/4/9780688145194.jpg
| Quote: | I've started to slowly work my way thru both the Nag Hammadi and Dead
Sea Scrolls using my old Jerusalem bible and the Gnostic Bible to help
navigate my reading. I've also got a copy of the Idiot's guide to
Gnosticism which, at least academically, seems to provide a great
gestalt of the landscape. I'm also kinda/sorta grounded in Heidegger,
Kierkegaard, Levinas and a bit of Derrida for some basic
phenomenological investigation on good days; however my real education
and background is in quality healthcare stuff.
|
If you're looking for a good intro, I would recommend _The
Gnostic Religion_, by Hans Jonas, or else Kurt Rudolph's
_Gnosis: the Nature and History of Gnosticism_. Either of them
will do the job, but Jonas is my favorite and might be the
best choice for you, too. He studied with Heidegger and throws
in a very nice essay where he discusses existentialism in
relation to the gnostic perspective, or vice-versa. Rudolph is
more nuts-and-bolts.
I like all the folks you've listed, though I never got too
far with Levinas. Is "the Gnostic Bible" the Meyer and
Barnstone anthology? Lotta good stuff there, although M&B make
some questionable decisions.
| Quote: | Yesterday, I was reading about the Cathars,
which referred me back to the Manichaean Literature and came across
the notion of complete dualism and what it means to have complete
separation of good and evil as the final outcome and the problematic
of the completely good God and free-will...yow! I'd never thought of
that one and didn't see it coming...Ksomehow it really helped inform me
about what C and ZG bantering about...?
|
I don't remember that coming up. ZG is very unhappy with
the gnostics' world-rejecting, life-denying outlook and
replies by misrepresenting gnosticism, trying to make it match
his own point of view. He chose the Valentinians, in
particular: logical, since they're one of the more
conservative gnostic schools. But I showed where the evidence
in the ancient sources contradicts him.
| Quote: | I also came across the various meanings of Jesus and Christ and admit
my head is spinning a bit!
|
Understandable. Jesus and Christ are sometimes split into
two different people with multiple versions of each.
Especially confusing the first time through. Helps to focus on
individual myths or systems.
| Quote: | came across the notion of the suffering
Christ and think its my handle/access to exploring them.
|
In gnosticism, Christ is often unsuffering, either because
he escapes the flesh or because he was never fleshly in the
first place: one of the major differences between orthodox and
gnostic Christology.
| Quote: | I have to own my initial attraction to Gnosticism when Elaine Pagel's
book first came out was the notion of the demiurge, which was over 20
years ago. I'd been very uncomfortable with the Old Testament god
because he was mean and cruel and somehow not totally omnipotent if he
was playing dice with the devil using Job.
|
I agree about the Creator's cruelty. The dice thing seems
like less of a problem. Pagel's book -- assuming you mean
_The Gnostic Gospels_ -- does well at bringing out the politics
in early Christianity.
| Quote: | The light went on when I
read about the "demiurge", which I suspend with quo marks only because
it breaks up so much when you try to frame the meaning with so many of
the different viewpoints available.
|
I know what you mean. Sometimes you see just one demiurge
but others you find a whole bunch. Sometimes he's formed
within the pleroma but others he's never there. Sometimes he's
destroyed, others he survives. Etc. The way it is in
gnosticism: many different schools and writings, some equipped
with conflicts of their own.
-- Catawumpus
P.S. The type in your last post did some weird stuff when
it got here (I fixed it in my reply), so if you could stick
with whatever you were doing before, that would make follow-ups
easier, at least for me. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 8, 10:24 am, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi -- I realized that I should introduce myself to the group and thank
Catawampus and Zen Gnostic for their graciousness in answering my
questions. My name is Hopkins and I'm reviving my interest in the
Gnostic view after years of chasing the eastern dream from the
existential atheist position...or some variation of it. Heideana is
short for Heidegger's Analytic, which is a bit of an existential dream
more then anything else/that is a name I use for purposes of both
consulting and writing/philosophizing...or something like that.
|
Nice meeting you. My nick of Zen Gnostic comes from Dan Simmons
Hyperion and Endymion series. Nothing more complex than that although
I do like the fact that the title is so general as to be impossible to
pin down to any precise meaning.
| Quote: |
I¡¦ve started to slowly work my way thru both the Nag Hammadi and Dead
Sea Scrolls using my old Jerusalem bible and the Gnostic Bible to help
navigate my reading. I¡¦ve also got a copy of the Idiot's guide to
Gnosticism which, at least academically, seems to provide a great
gestalt of the landscape. I'm also kinda/sorta grounded in Heidegger,
Kierkegaard, Levinas and a bit of Derrida for some basic
phenomenological investigation on good days; however my real education
and background is in quality healthcare stuff¡K
|
Like you my real education has been healthcare for obvious reasons.
Google Clo2 for an interesting chemical making the rounds in
alternative care...very interesting! As to your work I see you take a
philosophical approach similar to our friend Catawumpus. Other than
Nietzsche I've not found much use for philosophy. Any gnosis received
from books generally come from mythologies. Everything from the Native
Americans to present day Clive Barker, Dan Simmons, Tom Robbins
(reading one by him now) type authors.
| Quote: |
I just re-read Catawampus and Zen Gnostic's gracious responses to my
question as they were bantering and realize how naive I am and how
much there is to learn...Yesterday, I was reading about the Cathars,
which referred me back to the Manichaean Literature and came across
the notion of complete dualism and what it means to have complete
separation of good and evil as the final outcome and the problematic
of the completely good God and free-will¡Kyow! I¡¦d never thought of
that one and didn¡¦t see it coming¡Ksomehow it really helped inform me
about what C and ZG bantering about¡Kƒº
I also came across the various meanings of Jesus and Christ and admit
my head is spinning a bit¡KI came across the notion of the ¡§suffering
Christ¡¨ and think its¡¦ my handle/access to exploring them.
|
In one of the books by Dan Simmons a creature called the Shrike is
used. He is from the AI god(s) and made of thorns of steel. Those who
get captured are implanted on the tree of thorns. There, the suffering
of thousands are accumulated to entice the human god of empathy (in
which they wish to kill). A good story if you get the time.
| Quote: |
I have to own my initial attraction to Gnosticism when Elaine Pagel¡¦s
book first came out was the notion of the demiurge, which was over 20
years ago. I¡¦d been very uncomfortable with the Old Testament god
because he was mean and cruel and somehow not totally omnipotent if he
was playing dice with the devil using Job.
|
You speak of the demiurge and the "mean and cruel" old testament G-d .
Perhaps they are one in the same...
In any case life was (and is) mean and cruel so we shouldn't be
surprised if G-d is described as such.
As for Job...I like the phrase "playing dice" as there does seam to be
some grand cosmic game at play and winner is decided not by G-d but by
the players such as Job. It wouldn't be as interesting if it were not
so would it?
| Quote: | The light went on when I
read about the ¡§demiurge¡¨, which I suspend with quo marks only because
it breaks up so much when you try to frame the meaning with so many of
the different viewpoints available.
|
Nice to see an open mind in the group about who and what the
"demiurge" is.
| Quote: |
Anyhow, that¡¦s a bit of who I am and what my philosophical groundings
are. Much thanks in advance for any help I can get from the group
time-to-time about questions I may have during my readings. Its¡¦ most
appreciated¡KHeideana
|
No thanks needed. I find your post most enjoyable. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 5:50 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | My nick of Zen Gnostic
|
Your nym is misleading, since you're fundamentally opposed
to the gnostic perspective, for example when you say, "To
state there are more than one god is arrogance. No one can know
such a thing. Pure speculation and arrogance." So the
gnostic division of the Creator of this world from the true God
is just arrogance and speculation to you. What's more, you
choose the flattering picture of the demiurge in Plato over the
critical one in gnosticism, which you call a corrupted
understanding, again showing that you firmly reject the gnostic
outlook.
Of course you're welcome to your opinions. Trouble is you
tend to confuse them with the gnostics' thinking and to
misrepresent gnosticism in order to make it conform to your own
notions. For example, you falsely say you're "in line with
and supported by the teachings of Valentinus." The evidence in
the historical sources clearly contradicts you, since
Valentinus and his followers lower the Creator from God Supreme
to inferior demiurge: precisely what you object to. They
also consider ordinary bodies corruption, contrary to your idea
the body is the temple of the soul, and describe Jesus as a
heavenly emmanation: very different from your position that he
was a mortal man.
Chapter and verse in my earlier posts, but I'll dig it all
up again if anyone asks.
| Quote: | I've not found much use for philosophy. Any gnosis received
from books generally come from mythologies. Everything from the Native
Americans to present day Clive Barker, Dan Simmons, Tom Robbins
(reading one by him now) type authors.
|
Lots of mythology in gnosticism, but no, not every myth is
gnostic.
| Quote: | You speak of the demiurge and the "mean and cruel" old testament G-d .
Perhaps they are one in the same...
|
Ain't no "perhaps" necessary. You really ought to do some
reading. The gnostic demiurge is clearly connected with the
OT deity in a number of gnostic systems and writings. Examples:
in Ptolemy he asserts, "It is I who am God; apart from me
there is no one." In the Apocryphon of John, Yaldabaoth states
"I am a jealous God and there is no other God beside me."
In the Gospel of the Egyptians, Sakla says, "I am a jealous
god, and apart from me nothing has come into being," and in the
2nd Treatise of the Great Seth, the Archon declares, "I am a
jealous God, who brings the sins of the fathers upon the
children for three and four generations." The sorta God in the
Testimony of Truth ("What sort of God is this?") says "I am
the jealous God. I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the
children until three and four generations."
In case you don't recognize those remarks, Yahweh explains
that he's a jealous God in Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:14, and
Deuteronomy 5:9; others say the same of him in Deuteronomy 6:15
and Joshua 24:19. In Exodus 20:5 and 34:7 he describes
himself "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the
fourth generation." The same thought appears in Num. 14:18 and
Deuteronomy 5:9. And he repeatedly insists that there's no
other God beside him (Isaiah 44:6-8, 45:5-6 and 45:21). So the
demiurge-Yahweh link is obvious.
| Quote: | As for Job...I like the phrase "playing dice" as there does seam to be
some grand cosmic game at play and winner is decided not by G-d but by
the players such as Job.
|
No, Heideana had it right the first time: the players are
the Creator and Satan, who turn Job into the dice they're
rolling. Or Yahweh and Satan are lab-coated scientists and Job
is the rat they shock.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 15, 7:50 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
My nick of Zen Gnostic
Your nym is misleading, since you're fundamentally opposed
to the gnostic perspective, for example when you say, "To
state there are more than one god is arrogance. No one can know
such a thing. Pure speculation and arrogance." So the
gnostic division of the Creator of this world from the true God
is just arrogance and speculation to you. What's more, you
choose the flattering picture of the demiurge in Plato over the
critical one in gnosticism, which you call a corrupted
understanding, again showing that you firmly reject the gnostic
outlook.
Of course you're welcome to your opinions. Trouble is you
tend to confuse them with the gnostics' thinking and to
misrepresent gnosticism in order to make it conform to your own
notions. For example, you falsely say you're "in line with
and supported by the teachings of Valentinus." The evidence in
the historical sources clearly contradicts you, since
Valentinus and his followers lower the Creator from God Supreme
to inferior demiurge: precisely what you object to. They
also consider ordinary bodies corruption, contrary to your idea
the body is the temple of the soul, and describe Jesus as a
heavenly emmanation: very different from your position that he
was a mortal man.
|
"the entirety was inside of him--the inconceivable, uncontained, who
is superior to all thought." Valentinus (Gospel of Truth 17:5-9)
| Quote: |
Chapter and verse in my earlier posts, but I'll dig it all
up again if anyone asks.
I've not found much use for philosophy. Any gnosis received
from books generally come from mythologies. Everything from the Native
Americans to present day Clive Barker, Dan Simmons, Tom Robbins
(reading one by him now) type authors.
Lots of mythology in gnosticism, but no, not every myth is
gnostic.
|
A story which contains gnosis (eternal truths) is a myth, otherwise,
it is only a story.
| Quote: |
You speak of the demiurge and the "mean and cruel" old testament G-d .
Perhaps they are one in the same...
Ain't no "perhaps" necessary. You really ought to do some
reading. The gnostic demiurge is clearly connected with the
OT deity in a number of gnostic systems and writings. Examples:
in Ptolemy he asserts, "It is I who am God; apart from me
there is no one." In the Apocryphon of John, Yaldabaoth states
"I am a jealous God and there is no other God beside me."
In the Gospel of the Egyptians, Sakla says, "I am a jealous
god, and apart from me nothing has come into being," and in the
2nd Treatise of the Great Seth, the Archon declares, "I am a
jealous God, who brings the sins of the fathers upon the
children for three and four generations." The sorta God in the
Testimony of Truth ("What sort of God is this?") says "I am
the jealous God. I will bring the sins of the fathers upon the
children until three and four generations."
In case you don't recognize those remarks, Yahweh explains
that he's a jealous God in Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:14, and
Deuteronomy 5:9; others say the same of him in Deuteronomy 6:15
and Joshua 24:19. In Exodus 20:5 and 34:7 he describes
himself "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the
fourth generation." The same thought appears in Num. 14:18 and
Deuteronomy 5:9. And he repeatedly insists that there's no
other God beside him (Isaiah 44:6-8, 45:5-6 and 45:21). So the
demiurge-Yahweh link is obvious.
|
So...it appears the author of the ten commandments is the demiurge.
You're a funny guy.
| Quote: |
As for Job...I like the phrase "playing dice" as there does seam to be
some grand cosmic game at play and winner is decided not by G-d but by
the players such as Job.
No, Heideana had it right the first time: the players are
the Creator and Satan, who turn Job into the dice they're
rolling. Or Yahweh and Satan are lab-coated scientists and Job
is the rat they shock.
-- Catawumpus
|
So Job had no free will at all huh. That was/is the freaking point of
the story! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:04 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | "the entirety was inside of him--the inconceivable, uncontained, who
is superior to all thought." Valentinus (Gospel of Truth 17:5-9)
|
Yep, that's what it says. Doesn't remove the falsehood in
your claim to be aligned with Valentinus. You contend
separating the Creator of this world from the true God is "pure
speculation and arrogance" -- but Valentinus and his
followers do precisely what you denounce, as I showed. You say
reducing the Creator to an inferior demiurge is a corrupted
understanding of Plato -- but again the Valentinians do exactly
what you condemn. You say the body is "the temple of the
soul" -- but the Valentinians reject the material world and say
the ordinary body is corruption. You describe Jesus as a
mortal man with mortal desires -- but the Valentinians view him
as a heavenly emmanation.
Again, you're welcome to your opinions. Problem is you've
got a habit of distorting gnosticism to make the gnostics
accept them. For example, you falsely claim Valentinus rejects
the concept of the demiurge. Dead wrong according to the
historical evidence, as I demonstrated before: Valentinus very
clearly distinguishes "the uncreated Father" from the
demiurge, a being who's created by Sophia while she's "deprived
of her spiritual substance." (Irenaeus AH 1.11.1.) Ditto
other Valentinians like Ptolemy, who divides Bythos, located up
"in the invisible and ineffable heights above," from the
demiurge, "creator of all animal and material substances," once
again the product of Sophia's fall. (AH 1.1.1. and 1.5.2.)
You want argue against gnosticism, go right ahead. Want to lie
about it? Not so good.
By the way, "the entirety" -- sometimes translated as "the
all" or "the totality" -- is a gnostic term of art denoting
the aeons as a group, leading to the idea that the all contains
an absence or a lack.
| Quote: | A story which contains gnosis (eternal truths) is a myth, otherwise,
it is only a story.
|
Not so. Gnosis is the spiritual knowledge asserted by the
gnostics (the Sethians, the Marcionites, the Naasenes, the
Valentinians, and so forth), for example the knowledge that the
Creator of this world is not the true God and the knowledge
his Creation is a prison, exile, or labyrinth. (It can also be
a synonym for gnosticism.)
| Quote: | So...it appears the author of the ten commandments is the demiurge.
|
Exactly. As I've said before, gnosticism reduces the Lord
and Creator of this world from supreme deity to highly
inferior demiurge, an approach that you label "pure speculation
and arrogance."
| Quote: | So Job had no free will at all huh.
|
So you read me as badly as you do the Bible. I'm pointing
out Heideana is right to say the Almighty "is playing dice
with the devil using Job." You confused yourself into thinking
he's one of the players rather than the dice that they're
playing with. Of course the dice can roll freely. Wouldn't be
much of a game otherwise.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
So...it appears the author of the ten commandments is the demiurge.
Exactly. As I've said before, gnosticism reduces the Lord
and Creator of this world from supreme deity to highly
inferior demiurge, an approach that you label "pure speculation
and arrogance."
|
Some of the commandments from the "evil demiurge."
'Honor your father and your mother.'
'You shall not murder.'
'You shall not commit adultery.'
'You shall not steal.'
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
They don't appear to be malicious. A slip in his morality?
btw, the entirety means exactly that...or put another way God is "him
who surrounds every way while nothing surrounds him" (Gospel of Truth
22:22-26) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 18, 8:08 am, zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 17, 6:04 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
So...it appears the author of the ten commandments is the demiurge.
Exactly. As I've said before, gnosticism reduces the Lord
and Creator of this world from supreme deity to highly
inferior demiurge, an approach that you label "pure speculation
and arrogance."
Some of the commandments from the "evil demiurge."
'Honor your father and your mother.'
'You shall not murder.'
'You shall not commit adultery.'
'You shall not steal.'
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
They don't appear to be malicious. A slip in his morality?
|
I think the issue would be something like the nature of "rules" and
"laws" to rupture in their immutability or something like that. My
other understanding is that the "demiurge's" creation isn't
necessarily all bad since the "suffering Christ" is trapped in
it...its' more a problem of half-truths'...
I'm beginning to wonder if the "world" is simply the place where our
"free choice" to choice good or evil plays out before we give-up our
choices of good or bad. There's something tied in the question of
"free-will" to choose good or evil that underlies and/or obscures the
horizon or storyline. Does anyone have the Cliff notes on how the
Christian Gnostics understood or dealt with question of free-will vs.
design vs. destiny vs. being pre-determined or "fated"? The "pre-
determined/fated" thread seems incredibly boring to me if I were a
being of giving...it might be interesting if I were the "demiurge"
with deficient creation skills to see my plan actual work....
| Quote: | btw, the entirety means exactly that...or put another way God is "him
who surrounds every way while nothing surrounds him" (Gospel of Truth
22:22-26)
|
But isn't there always the excesses of the entirety ala Emmanual
Levinas...perhaps as the interstial space in "matter" or "what
matters"?
Also, isn't everything a story or the "narrative of a life"? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:16 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | Some of the commandments from the "evil demiurge."
'Honor your father and your mother.'
'You shall not murder.'
'You shall not commit adultery.'
'You shall not steal.'
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
They don't appear to be malicious. A slip in his morality?
|
A slip of yours: you skipped all of the other commands in
the decalogue, frex Yahweh's admission that he's a jealous
deity who punishes children "unto the third and fourth
generation" for their fathers' sins; you didn't mention that he
makes death by stoning the punishment for those who disobey
his theocratic demands; you conveniently forgot that he insists
on being propitiated with blood-sacrifices; you somehow
neglected to mention that he creates evil (his own admission in
Isaiah 45:7); you neglected to say that he and Satan
collaborate in torturing Job, a perfect and upright man; you've
simply ignored the massacres he orders, the curses and the
plagues he sends, his willingness to destroy the righteous with
the wicked, etc.
| Quote: | btw, the entirety means exactly that...or put another way God is "him
|
You're demonstrating your ignorance again. As I explained
before, in gnosticism "the entirety" (also translated "the
totality" or "the all") is a term of art referring to the aeons
understood as a group: not to literally everything, not to
God. You could have seen that for yourself if you had bothered
to do some reading. Examples: in Ptolemy's system, "the
aeons were set in order," after Sophia's fall, by the annointed
and the holy spirit, and the annointed then instructed them
about the Father, saying he's uncontained, incomprehensible and
so on. This leads immediately to an explanation about the
aeons, namely "the eternal permanence of the entirety is due to
the incomprehensible aspect of the parent," in distinction
from its "origin and forming," which are linked to the Father's
"comprehensible aspect, which is to say, its child."
Irenaeus, AH 1.2.5. "The entirety" here refers to the aeons in
particular, not to everything and anything, and not to the
Father, who's clearly distinguished from them. He's the source.
They're emmanations.
Likewise in the Gospel of Truth, which says right near the
beginning that the entirety searched for the Father ("the
entirety had searched for the one from whom they had
emmanated," GT 17:4-5), discriminating between the entirety and
God. As Bentley Layton writes, "the entire system of the
aeons that are lower than the second principle is 'the entirety.'"
_The Gnostic Scriptures_ 12. Since you're so new to the
subject, I don't blame you for tripping over this kind of thing.
But you definitely _are_ blameworthy for trying to pretend
that your ignorance is plain truth about the gnostics' thinking.
| Quote: | who surrounds every way while nothing surrounds him" (Gospel of Truth
22:22-26)
|
You misread. The above refers to the Father, doesn't even
mention the entirety.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | My other understanding is that the "demiurge's" creation isn't
necessarily all bad since the "suffering Christ" is trapped in
it...its' more a problem of half-truths'...
|
You've got to be kidding. That's like contending a prison
must not really be all bad because the guards torture the
prisoners. Anyway, the demiurge and his creation don't have to
be all bad to be plenty bad enough.
| Quote: | Does anyone have the Cliff notes on how the
Christian Gnostics understood or dealt with question of free-will vs.
design vs. destiny vs. being pre-determined or "fated"?
|
Sure. Three classes of people, viz. hylics, psychics, and
pneumatics, i.e., material, natural (also translated as
animal, animate, or soulish), and spiritual. Hylics don't have
any chance at salvation: as material beings they're doomed
along with the world they belong to. Pneumatics are definitely
saved, just as gold isn't harmed by mud. Full salvation is
impossible for psychics, but they can swing in either direction.
ZG:
| Quote: | btw, the entirety means exactly that...or put another way God is "him
who surrounds every way while nothing surrounds him" (Gospel of Truth
22:22-26)
|
Heidi:
| Quote: | But isn't there always the excesses of the entirety ala Emmanual
Levinas...perhaps as the interstial space in "matter" or "what
matters"? Also, isn't everything a story or the "narrative of a life"?
|
ZG has the gnostics' story wrong. As I've already said to
him, "the entirety" is a gnostic term of art denoting the
aeons as a group, and the quote from the Gospel of Truth refers
to the Father alone.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net>:
My other understanding is that the "demiurge's" creation isn't
necessarily all bad since the "suffering Christ" is trapped in
it...its' more a problem of half-truths'...
CT>>>:
You've got to be kidding. That's like contending a prison
must not really be all bad because the guards torture the
prisoners. Anyway, the demiurge and his creation don't have to
be all bad to be plenty bad enough.
|
I’m on the same page with you I think…I was thinking that its’
sometimes easier to pass off lies if you mix them with some half-
truths, so to speak. I agree that his creation doesn’t need to be
totally evil to be plenty bad enough.
HD> > Does anyone have the Cliff notes on how the
| Quote: | Christian Gnostics understood or dealt with question of free-will vs.
design vs. destiny vs. being pre-determined or "fated"?
CT>>>:
Sure. Three classes of people, viz. hylics, psychics, and
pneumatics, i.e., material, natural (also translated as
animal, animate, or soulish), and spiritual. Hylics don't have
any chance at salvation: as material beings they're doomed
along with the world they belong to. Pneumatics are definitely
saved, just as gold isn't harmed by mud. Full salvation is
impossible for psychics, but they can swing in either direction.
|
Hmmm…are there any apparent “outs” to allow the chance of salvation
for everyone? Are the Pneumatics like Boddisatva and Hylics like
those who need more time on the wheel of Karma and eventually get
reincarnated as Psychics who reincarnate eventually as Pneumatics?
Maybee Psychics are kinda of a purgatory holding place for souls in
transition from one incarnation to the next? I’m uncomfortable if
there’s truly a pre-ordainment without some room for movement/choice
of salvation…perhaps I’m reading something wrong? Its’ funny how this
problematic about the possibility of a personal relation with God (or
the Good) keeps popping up, no matter how much I try to move past it.
Apologies in advance, I know I asked for the Cliff notes
version….Hopkins |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | I¹m on the same page with you I thinkŠI was thinking that its¹
sometimes easier to pass off lies if you mix them with some half-
truths, so to speak. I agree that his creation doesn¹t need to be
totally evil to be plenty bad enough.
|
Sorry for misunderstanding. For some reason I thought you
meant the opposite. My mistake.
[hylics, psychics, and pneumatics]
| Quote: | HmmmŠare there any apparent ³outs² to allow the chance of salvation
for everyone?
|
Not in this particular scheme. "The material element will
necessarily perish, in that it is unable to receive any
breath of incorruptibility." (Ptolemy according to Irenaeus in
AH 1.6.1.) So much for the hylics. And since the pleroma
excludes everything psychic (AH 1.7.1), nobody in that category
can be completely saved: a possibility open only to the
spiritual. Which makes sense in this story, where the material
and the natural are creatures of the world. Only the
pneumatic have a higher origin, only they can eventually ascend
to the divine realm.
| Quote: | Are the Pneumatics like Boddisatva and Hylics like
those who need more time on the wheel of Karma and eventually get
reincarnated as Psychics who reincarnate eventually as Pneumatics?
|
Not really. Hylics are entirely material beings. Nothing
much happening with them. Psychics have the ability to
improve their fate through good works, but they lack the divine
element characterizing pneumatics.
| Quote: | Maybee Psychics are kinda of a purgatory holding place for souls in
transition from one incarnation to the next?
|
We're talking about already incarnated people, three types
of them, all presently in the flesh. But there's something
like what you're hoping for in the Apocryphon of John. Details
below.
| Quote: | I¹m uncomfortable if
there¹s truly a pre-ordainment without some room for movement/choice
of salvation...perhaps I¹m reading something wrong?
|
Things get complicated here. It's not clear just how much
of this is preordained and how much is describing things as
they stand, including individual choices. Psychics at the very
least can influence their own fate: they're explicitly
credited with free will (Irenaeus, AH 1.6.1); they're able, tho
not necessarily willing to learn; and they proceed in
whichever direction they're inclined to move, either toward the
spiritual or toward the material.
| Quote: | Its¹ funny how this
problematic about the possibility of a personal relation with God (or
the Good) keeps popping up, no matter how much I try to move past it.
Apologies in advance, I know I asked for the Cliff notes version.
|
No need to apologize. Makes sense to move from the simple
stuff to the complexities. Yes, there's a bunch. The
division of mankind into three categories that I sketched in is
found in some parts of gnosticism -- especially the
Valentinian school -- but in others it can be missing or at any
rate less consequential. For example, Marcion keeps the
Pauline distinction between the spiritual and natural or carnal
man (the _pneumatikos_ vs. the _psychikos anthropos_ in 1
Corinthians 2), but in his understanding Jesus offers salvation
to everyone, although not everyone accepts (Irenaeus, AH
1.27.3). To the Manichaeans, "all men and beasts," on the land
or in the water, contain the divine nature, which is
"continually bound, and shut up, and contaminated" in them (I'm
quoting from Augustine's _Anti-Faustus_ 3.5). In the
Apocryphon of John the savior responds to a series of questions
about the fate of the soul ((ApJohn 25:15ff) by explaining
that "those who are from the immovable race" will definitely be
saved. At the other extreme, those who gain knowledge and
then turn away will be damned. In between are those who become
victims of the counterfeit spirit: the archons throw them
back into the flesh, but it's possible for them to be liberated
by acquiring gnosis.
Just more notes, but I hope that they begin to fill things
in.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 18, 5:16 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
Some of the commandments from the "evil demiurge."
'Honor your father and your mother.'
'You shall not murder.'
'You shall not commit adultery.'
'You shall not steal.'
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
They don't appear to be malicious. A slip in his morality?
A slip of yours: you skipped all of the other commands in
the decalogue, frex Yahweh's admission that he's a jealous
deity who punishes children "unto the third and fourth
generation" for their fathers' sins; you didn't mention that he
makes death by stoning the punishment for those who disobey
his theocratic demands; you conveniently forgot that he insists
on being propitiated with blood-sacrifices; you somehow
neglected to mention that he creates evil (his own admission in
Isaiah 45:7); you neglected to say that he and Satan
collaborate in torturing Job, a perfect and upright man; you've
simply ignored the massacres he orders, the curses and the
plagues he sends, his willingness to destroy the righteous with
the wicked, etc.
|
My point is that the demiurge cannot be described as "all evil" given
the 10 commandments. The commandments I provided are given to help
transcend the people to a higher plane of existence than that of
animal. I'm not sure (given these facts) how you or anyone can
maintain the purely negative concept of the demiurge.
Or in other words the Valentinian Monism argument wins out. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 20, 9:27 am, zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 18, 5:16 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
Some of the commandments from the "evil demiurge."
'Honor your father and your mother.'
'You shall not murder.'
'You shall not commit adultery.'
'You shall not steal.'
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
They don't appear to be malicious. A slip in his morality?
A slip of yours: you skipped all of the other commands in
the decalogue, frex Yahweh's admission that he's a jealous
deity who punishes children "unto the third and fourth
generation" for their fathers' sins; you didn't mention that he
makes death by stoning the punishment for those who disobey
his theocratic demands; you conveniently forgot that he insists
on being propitiated with blood-sacrifices; you somehow
neglected to mention that he creates evil (his own admission in
Isaiah 45:7); you neglected to say that he and Satan
collaborate in torturing Job, a perfect and upright man; you've
simply ignored the massacres he orders, the curses and the
plagues he sends, his willingness to destroy the righteous with
the wicked, etc.
My point is that the demiurge cannot be described as "all evil" given
the 10 commandments. The commandments I provided are given to help
transcend the people to a higher plane of existence than that of
animal. I'm not sure (given these facts) how you or anyone can
maintain the purely negative concept of the demiurge.
Or in other words the Valentinian Monism argument wins out.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
But that's the precise question...if you have a system where there's
black "x" plus a white "y" on one side of the equal sign, and a "z" on
the other side represented by a pixilated mixture of black and white
spots that looks grey when you don't examine it too closely. The idea
is to separate all the white dots from the black dots in the grey "z"
so you know how much x and y are in it. Once x is separated from y,
there is no "contamination" of one by the other. If you subsitute
"evil" for x and "good" for y, then your completely separating the two
from each other and there is no evil in good and no good in evil and
never the "twain" shall meet.
If I'm understanding things correctly then I think solving that
equation is the end game/"second coming of Christ"/"The Rapture",
etc... In the mean time, we're working on cleansing ourselves to get
out of the "grey" in the equation before hand using the gift of
"gnosis" to recognize the "real nature of the world"....sorry it
that's too simplistic.
Catawampus can probably explicate it "clearer" then I...HD |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jun 20, 10:46 am, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Jun 20, 9:27 am, zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 18, 5:16 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
Some of the commandments from the "evil demiurge."
'Honor your father and your mother.'
'You shall not murder.'
'You shall not commit adultery.'
'You shall not steal.'
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
They don't appear to be malicious. A slip in his morality?
A slip of yours: you skipped all of the other commands in
the decalogue, frex Yahweh's admission that he's a jealous
deity who punishes children "unto the third and fourth
generation" for their fathers' sins; you didn't mention that he
makes death by stoning the punishment for those who disobey
his theocratic demands; you conveniently forgot that he insists
on being propitiated with blood-sacrifices; you somehow
neglected to mention that he creates evil (his own admission in
Isaiah 45:7); you neglected to say that he and Satan
collaborate in torturing Job, a perfect and upright man; you've
simply ignored the massacres he orders, the curses and the
plagues he sends, his willingness to destroy the righteous with
the wicked, etc.
My point is that the demiurge cannot be described as "all evil" given
the 10 commandments. The commandments I provided are given to help
transcend the people to a higher plane of existence than that of
animal. I'm not sure (given these facts) how you or anyone can
maintain the purely negative concept of the demiurge.
Or in other words the Valentinian Monism argument wins out.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
But that's the precise question...if you have a system where there's
black "x" plus a white "y" on one side of the equal sign, and a "z" on
the other side represented by a pixilated mixture of black and white
spots that looks grey when you don't examine it too closely. The idea
is to separate all the white dots from the black dots in the grey "z"
so you know how much x and y are in it. Once x is separated from y,
there is no "contamination" of one by the other. If you subsitute
"evil" for x and "good" for y, then your completely separating the two
from each other and there is no evil in good and no good in evil and
never the "twain" shall meet.
If I'm understanding things correctly then I think solving that
equation is the end game/"second coming of Christ"/"The Rapture",
etc... In the mean time, we're working on cleansing ourselves to get
out of the "grey" in the equation before hand using the gift of
"gnosis" to recognize the "real nature of the world"....sorry it
that's too simplistic.
Catawampus can probably explicate it "clearer" then I...HD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
I meant to ask...how many folks are actually in this forum? Thanks
again to all for responding to my questions! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
