| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:19 am Post subject: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
 |
|
Hi all,
I am not sure if this is closer than being broadly "on topic", so I marked
it OT as it does not directly apply to Gnosticism.
Penitent Leper mentioned that Gnosticism does not depend on historical
proofs for its validity, as historical proofs are part of the "hylic" realm
of existence. This comment interested me, both because I can understand the
thinking behind it and I disagree with it to some degree.
When I say I disagree, I am thinking more of the Christian-based Gnostic
schools. These schools claim to teach the teachings of Christ, (reflected in
the Gospels that they have). I would think that if Christ was proven to have
never existed, this would seriously undermine the authority of those claims.
If we look at Christianity, (the mainstream type), they place a lot of
important on Christ and his resurrection. Now, if it was proven that Jesus
Christ was never even born, the whole claim would be up the crapper. And
understandably so.
With people like Valentinus, if Jesus was shown never to have been born, (an
historical event), this undermines the authority of the other claims which
are based on what Christ said. For example, Valentinus mentions the Aeons.
If Christ was not born, he could not teach about them, and so Valentinus'
own credibility would be called into question with respect his other ideas
and theological points.
I think that most religions would, in some way, depend on an historical
event. For Christianity, it is the life of Christ. For Islam, Mohammed's
life and teaching. For all Gnosticism, the creation of this world by
Yaldaboath.
If someone were to show, (I have no idea how), that the Demiurge was not the
one to create this world, (the beginning being the first truly material
historical event), then that would seriously erode the authority of any
other claim, especially regarding creation.
As I said, while I understand PL's comments and where they are coming from,
I cannot agree unreservedly. To an extent, historical events do play a part
in religious validation, though they are not the entirety.
Just thought I would throw some thoughts out there for discussion. 
--
Mouldy Jester
"I keep telling you, Gnosticism ain't dualistic."
-- Krag, (30th July, 2003) |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:19:15 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Hi all,
I am not sure if this is closer than being broadly "on topic", so I marked
it OT as it does not directly apply to Gnosticism.
Penitent Leper mentioned that Gnosticism does not depend on historical
proofs for its validity, as historical proofs are part of the "hylic" realm
of existence. This comment interested me, both because I can understand the
thinking behind it and I disagree with it to some degree.
|
If memory serves, I think the context was scientific claims/proofs,
not history per se, i.e., that most Gnostics would regard scientific
"proofs" for spirit or god's existence hylic and thus irrelevant at
best. But yes, the two are related.
| Quote: | When I say I disagree, I am thinking more of the Christian-based Gnostic
schools. These schools claim to teach the teachings of Christ, (reflected in
the Gospels that they have). I would think that if Christ was proven to have
never existed, this would seriously undermine the authority of those claims.
|
As Klaus might say, Gnostics who hold to a physical, historical
Jesus are weak Gnostics, infected with hyletic judgments. For radical
Gnostics like Klaus, proof that JC never existed would be most
welcomed, since with Marcion, they hold that JC is a Really Real
spirit-being who has no truck with the material world.
His appearance here was literally "appearance" - an illusion only,
although in terms of his essence, JC was the Really Real (= pure
spirit). For Klausites, "the authority of those
[literal-biological-historical] claims" _ought_ to be undermined
because they "hyletize" what was really only a purely spiritual
phenomenon..
| Quote: | If we look at Christianity, (the mainstream type), they place a lot of
important on Christ and his resurrection. Now, if it was proven that Jesus
Christ was never even born, the whole claim would be up the crapper. And
understandably so.
|
Agreed, at least for most Christians. However, as a quasi-Jungian,
I can say that some Christians would still be left, and be satisfied
with, JC's myth - as a true, but metaphorically true and nonliteral
narrative.
| Quote: | With people like Valentinus, if Jesus was shown never to have been born, (an
historical event), this undermines the authority of the other claims which
are based on what Christ said. For example, Valentinus mentions the Aeons.
If Christ was not born, he could not teach about them, and so Valentinus'
own credibility would be called into question with respect his other ideas
and theological points.
|
To play Klaus's advocate: as pure spirit, Jesus did not need to be
born or inhabit a human body in order to communicate his revelation.
All the trappings of the revelation - body, miracles, rituals,
healings, exorcisms, etc. - were appearances only, masking the Really
Real spirit-Jesus. "Jesus never existed" - if meant as "Jesus never
existed as a historical figure" - is music to Marcionite ears - since
to them, history is hyletic bunk.
If Christ was not born, or did not inhabit a human body, according
to modernity, he had no historical, and therefore no real, existence.
But to some spiritual systems, he had a Really Real existence "in" but
not "of" hyletic history - and therefore was, through supernatural
power, quite able to teach about anything, and manipulate matter in
any way, that he desired.
| Quote: | I think that most religions would, in some way, depend on an historical
event. For Christianity, it is the life of Christ. For Islam, Mohammed's
life and teaching. For all Gnosticism, the creation of this world by
Yaldaboath.
If someone were to show, (I have no idea how), that the Demiurge was not the
one to create this world, (the beginning being the first truly material
historical event), then that would seriously erode the authority of any
other claim, especially regarding creation.
|
It would weaken every other claim. But to reverse the issue, I
don't know how anyone can establish that the Demiurge _did_ create
this world. As I have said elsewhere, I see no mentation - not even
retarded mentation - in or behind the universe. In one sense, we
should be so lucky. Then we really would have a semi-sentient being
to blame for this mess.
| Quote: | As I said, while I understand PL's comments and where they are coming from,
I cannot agree unreservedly. To an extent, historical events do play a part
in religious validation, though they are not the entirety.
|
I agree, except in the case of radical Gnostics and
Jungian/Campbellian types.
| Quote: | Just thought I would throw some thoughts out there for discussion.
|
As always, great thoughts.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:48 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:p5b620tumf6hf7q73c08rk8inrbpvhqun3@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:19:15 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I am not sure if this is closer than being broadly "on topic", so I
marked
it OT as it does not directly apply to Gnosticism.
Penitent Leper mentioned that Gnosticism does not depend on historical
proofs for its validity, as historical proofs are part of the "hylic"
realm
of existence. This comment interested me, both because I can understand
the
thinking behind it and I disagree with it to some degree.
If memory serves, I think the context was scientific claims/proofs,
not history per se, i.e., that most Gnostics would regard scientific
"proofs" for spirit or god's existence hylic and thus irrelevant at
best. But yes, the two are related.
|
Ah! That alters the discussion, somewhat. The relation between the two would
depend on the historical focus of the discussion at hand. Some history would
definitely be in the realm of science, (archaeology, for instance).
| Quote: | When I say I disagree, I am thinking more of the Christian-based Gnostic
schools. These schools claim to teach the teachings of Christ, (reflected
in
the Gospels that they have). I would think that if Christ was proven to
have
never existed, this would seriously undermine the authority of those
claims.
As Klaus might say, Gnostics who hold to a physical, historical
Jesus are weak Gnostics, infected with hyletic judgments. For radical
Gnostics like Klaus, proof that JC never existed would be most
welcomed, since with Marcion, they hold that JC is a Really Real
spirit-being who has no truck with the material world.
His appearance here was literally "appearance" - an illusion only,
although in terms of his essence, JC was the Really Real (= pure
spirit). For Klausites, "the authority of those
[literal-biological-historical] claims" _ought_ to be undermined
because they "hyletize" what was really only a purely spiritual
phenomenon..
|
I can see what he means there. That presents a whole new angle on the
discussion. However, that "appearance" still happened in history, and
anything that "appearance" did was in the context of the lives and realm of
"hylic" existance. If Christ had no "Really Real" connection with the
material world, his "appearance" did, (in that it appeared here). Therefore,
if I were to somehow prove that the appearance never happened, then claims
based on it, or its teachings, have been eroded.
Can you see what I mean? Even in the radical considerations above, there is
some link, despite a vastly different nature. Something still *happened*.
| Quote: | If we look at Christianity, (the mainstream type), they place a lot of
important on Christ and his resurrection. Now, if it was proven that
Jesus
Christ was never even born, the whole claim would be up the crapper. And
understandably so.
Agreed, at least for most Christians. However, as a quasi-Jungian,
I can say that some Christians would still be left, and be satisfied
with, JC's myth - as a true, but metaphorically true and nonliteral
narrative.
|
Yeah, that opens a whole new can of worms. :-)
| Quote: | With people like Valentinus, if Jesus was shown never to have been born,
(an
historical event), this undermines the authority of the other claims
which
are based on what Christ said. For example, Valentinus mentions the
Aeons.
If Christ was not born, he could not teach about them, and so Valentinus'
own credibility would be called into question with respect his other
ideas
and theological points.
To play Klaus's advocate: as pure spirit, Jesus did not need to be
born or inhabit a human body in order to communicate his revelation.
All the trappings of the revelation - body, miracles, rituals,
healings, exorcisms, etc. - were appearances only, masking the Really
Real spirit-Jesus. "Jesus never existed" - if meant as "Jesus never
existed as a historical figure" - is music to Marcionite ears - since
to them, history is hyletic bunk.
|
I think my comments above are also relevant to this part. However, I would
certainly agree that Christ didn't *need* to have a human body or be born to
bestow revelation in a Gnostic view of things.
| Quote: | If Christ was not born, or did not inhabit a human body, according
to modernity, he had no historical, and therefore no real, existence.
But to some spiritual systems, he had a Really Real existence "in" but
not "of" hyletic history - and therefore was, through supernatural
power, quite able to teach about anything, and manipulate matter in
any way, that he desired.
|
I think the use of words like "manipulate matter" and "he had a Really Real
existence "in" but not "of" hyletic history" serve to illustrate what I said
above.
Despite Christ not being a part of this world in any way, he still acted in
it in someway. His appearance, his teachings and his actions still
"appeared" and acted on this world. They were also perceived by others.
Thus, the appearances are historical in nature.
| Quote: | I think that most religions would, in some way, depend on an historical
event. For Christianity, it is the life of Christ. For Islam, Mohammed's
life and teaching. For all Gnosticism, the creation of this world by
Yaldaboath.
If someone were to show, (I have no idea how), that the Demiurge was not
the
one to create this world, (the beginning being the first truly material
historical event), then that would seriously erode the authority of any
other claim, especially regarding creation.
It would weaken every other claim. But to reverse the issue, I
don't know how anyone can establish that the Demiurge _did_ create
this world. As I have said elsewhere, I see no mentation - not even
retarded mentation - in or behind the universe. In one sense, we
should be so lucky. Then we really would have a semi-sentient being
to blame for this mess.
|
lolol....yeah, I can see what you mean. I think, we can't in any direct way.
It can be, however, rather indirectly. If we use Valentinus as an example,
maybe I can explain what I mean more exactly.
Valentinus makes some claims that he got some teachings from Christ. These
teachings are based on some historical events that are verifiable, (an
assumption here). If Valentinus was telling the truth there, and it is
verifiably so, then we can make some judgements on his comments about what
Christ said regarding creation. While we are not verifying creation
directly, but making a judgement call on it based on someone else. Not even
ideal, but when we are dealing with Christ, I would hope that we are in a
better position than with a human. :-)
| Quote: | As I said, while I understand PL's comments and where they are coming
from,
I cannot agree unreservedly. To an extent, historical events do play a
part
in religious validation, though they are not the entirety.
I agree, except in the case of radical Gnostics and
Jungian/Campbellian types.
Just thought I would throw some thoughts out there for discussion. :-)
As always, great thoughts.
|
Thanks for the detailed reply. Always good to know what you think.
--
Mouldy Jester
"You really *are* Moggins kiss-ass lapdoggie aren'tcha?"
--Nuvoadam, 17th January, 2004
(in reference to myself). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:48:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:p5b620tumf6hf7q73c08rk8inrbpvhqun3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:19:15 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I am not sure if this is closer than being broadly "on topic", so I
marked
it OT as it does not directly apply to Gnosticism.
Penitent Leper mentioned that Gnosticism does not depend on historical
proofs for its validity, as historical proofs are part of the "hylic"
realm
of existence. This comment interested me, both because I can understand
the
thinking behind it and I disagree with it to some degree.
If memory serves, I think the context was scientific claims/proofs,
not history per se, i.e., that most Gnostics would regard scientific
"proofs" for spirit or god's existence hylic and thus irrelevant at
best. But yes, the two are related.
Ah! That alters the discussion, somewhat. The relation between the two would
depend on the historical focus of the discussion at hand. Some history would
definitely be in the realm of science, (archaeology, for instance).
When I say I disagree, I am thinking more of the Christian-based Gnostic
schools. These schools claim to teach the teachings of Christ, (reflected
in
the Gospels that they have). I would think that if Christ was proven to
have
never existed, this would seriously undermine the authority of those
claims.
As Klaus might say, Gnostics who hold to a physical, historical
Jesus are weak Gnostics, infected with hyletic judgments. For radical
Gnostics like Klaus, proof that JC never existed would be most
welcomed, since with Marcion, they hold that JC is a Really Real
spirit-being who has no truck with the material world.
His appearance here was literally "appearance" - an illusion only,
although in terms of his essence, JC was the Really Real (= pure
spirit). For Klausites, "the authority of those
[literal-biological-historical] claims" _ought_ to be undermined
because they "hyletize" what was really only a purely spiritual
phenomenon..
I can see what he means there. That presents a whole new angle on the
discussion. However, that "appearance" still happened in history, and
anything that "appearance" did was in the context of the lives and realm of
"hylic" existance. If Christ had no "Really Real" connection with the
material world, his "appearance" did, (in that it appeared here). Therefore,
if I were to somehow prove that the appearance never happened, then claims
based on it, or its teachings, have been eroded.
Can you see what I mean? Even in the radical considerations above, there is
some link, despite a vastly different nature. Something still *happened*.
|
Yes, disproving even a hallucinatory experience would invalidate
claims for that experience.
| Quote: | If we look at Christianity, (the mainstream type), they place a lot of
important on Christ and his resurrection. Now, if it was proven that
Jesus
Christ was never even born, the whole claim would be up the crapper. And
understandably so.
Agreed, at least for most Christians. However, as a quasi-Jungian,
I can say that some Christians would still be left, and be satisfied
with, JC's myth - as a true, but metaphorically true and nonliteral
narrative.
Yeah, that opens a whole new can of worms. :-)
With people like Valentinus, if Jesus was shown never to have been born,
(an
historical event), this undermines the authority of the other claims
which
are based on what Christ said. For example, Valentinus mentions the
Aeons.
If Christ was not born, he could not teach about them, and so Valentinus'
own credibility would be called into question with respect his other
ideas
and theological points.
To play Klaus's advocate: as pure spirit, Jesus did not need to be
born or inhabit a human body in order to communicate his revelation.
All the trappings of the revelation - body, miracles, rituals,
healings, exorcisms, etc. - were appearances only, masking the Really
Real spirit-Jesus. "Jesus never existed" - if meant as "Jesus never
existed as a historical figure" - is music to Marcionite ears - since
to them, history is hyletic bunk.
I think my comments above are also relevant to this part. However, I would
certainly agree that Christ didn't *need* to have a human body or be born to
bestow revelation in a Gnostic view of things.
|
Got it
| Quote: | If Christ was not born, or did not inhabit a human body, according
to modernity, he had no historical, and therefore no real, existence.
But to some spiritual systems, he had a Really Real existence "in" but
not "of" hyletic history - and therefore was, through supernatural
power, quite able to teach about anything, and manipulate matter in
any way, that he desired.
I think the use of words like "manipulate matter" and "he had a Really Real
existence "in" but not "of" hyletic history" serve to illustrate what I said
above.
Despite Christ not being a part of this world in any way, he still acted in
it in someway. His appearance, his teachings and his actions still
"appeared" and acted on this world. They were also perceived by others.
Thus, the appearances are historical in nature.
|
Yes, historical at least inasmuch as they happened in the subjective
psyches of historical people. And certainly if he really was
physical/historical, of course.
| Quote: | I think that most religions would, in some way, depend on an historical
event. For Christianity, it is the life of Christ. For Islam, Mohammed's
life and teaching. For all Gnosticism, the creation of this world by
Yaldaboath.
If someone were to show, (I have no idea how), that the Demiurge was not
the
one to create this world, (the beginning being the first truly material
historical event), then that would seriously erode the authority of any
other claim, especially regarding creation.
It would weaken every other claim. But to reverse the issue, I
don't know how anyone can establish that the Demiurge _did_ create
this world. As I have said elsewhere, I see no mentation - not even
retarded mentation - in or behind the universe. In one sense, we
should be so lucky. Then we really would have a semi-sentient being
to blame for this mess.
lolol....yeah, I can see what you mean. I think, we can't in any direct way.
It can be, however, rather indirectly. If we use Valentinus as an example,
maybe I can explain what I mean more exactly.
Valentinus makes some claims that he got some teachings from Christ. These
teachings are based on some historical events that are verifiable, (an
assumption here). If Valentinus was telling the truth there, and it is
verifiably so, then we can make some judgements on his comments about what
Christ said regarding creation. While we are not verifying creation
directly, but making a judgement call on it based on someone else. Not even
ideal, but when we are dealing with Christ, I would hope that we are in a
better position than with a human.
|
Ok, and you're saying if JC is completely refuted historically then
Valentinus's claims, based on bogus history, are damaged if not
undone.
| Quote: | As I said, while I understand PL's comments and where they are coming
from,
I cannot agree unreservedly. To an extent, historical events do play a
part
in religious validation, though they are not the entirety.
I agree, except in the case of radical Gnostics and
Jungian/Campbellian types.
Just thought I would throw some thoughts out there for discussion. :-)
As always, great thoughts.
Thanks for the detailed reply. Always good to know what you think.
|
Sure - and thanks for helping to keep the group alive.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:fee620d85r87ikmpr1nriukhuv83nn1f6v@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:48:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:p5b620tumf6hf7q73c08rk8inrbpvhqun3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:19:15 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
|
[snipped for size]
| Quote: |
I can see what he means there. That presents a whole new angle on the
discussion. However, that "appearance" still happened in history, and
anything that "appearance" did was in the context of the lives and realm
of
"hylic" existance. If Christ had no "Really Real" connection with the
material world, his "appearance" did, (in that it appeared here).
Therefore,
if I were to somehow prove that the appearance never happened, then
claims
based on it, or its teachings, have been eroded.
Can you see what I mean? Even in the radical considerations above, there
is
some link, despite a vastly different nature. Something still *happened*.
Yes, disproving even a hallucinatory experience would invalidate
claims for that experience.
|
Yes, claims that were based on it.
[snipped for size]
| Quote: | I think the use of words like "manipulate matter" and "he had a Really
Real
existence "in" but not "of" hyletic history" serve to illustrate what I
said
above.
Despite Christ not being a part of this world in any way, he still acted
in
it in someway. His appearance, his teachings and his actions still
"appeared" and acted on this world. They were also perceived by others.
Thus, the appearances are historical in nature.
Yes, historical at least inasmuch as they happened in the subjective
psyches of historical people. And certainly if he really was
physical/historical, of course.
|
If he was historical or just an appearance, the issue is pretty much the
same. The only variation is the nature of the event. I can imagine that
Christian Gnostics and their mainstream counterparts would have no argument
about Christ's presence in this world. However, the nature of that presence
would cause some serious issues between them, (and indeed did).
[snipped for size]
| Quote: | lolol....yeah, I can see what you mean. I think, we can't in any direct
way.
It can be, however, rather indirectly. If we use Valentinus as an
example,
maybe I can explain what I mean more exactly.
Valentinus makes some claims that he got some teachings from Christ.
These
teachings are based on some historical events that are verifiable, (an
assumption here). If Valentinus was telling the truth there, and it is
verifiably so, then we can make some judgements on his comments about
what
Christ said regarding creation. While we are not verifying creation
directly, but making a judgement call on it based on someone else. Not
even
ideal, but when we are dealing with Christ, I would hope that we are in a
better position than with a human. :-)
Ok, and you're saying if JC is completely refuted historically then
Valentinus's claims, based on bogus history, are damaged if not
undone.
|
Yeah, even if he holds that Jesus was not *physically* present, and takes a
more docetic view of things.
[snipped]
| Quote: |
Sure - and thanks for helping to keep the group alive.
|
I'm surprised that we agreed on a lot in this. Can I ask if you are a
practicing Gnostic? Just curious.
Thanks also to you. Peace.
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:09 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com> writes:
| Quote: |
When I say I disagree, I am thinking more of the Christian-based Gnostic
schools. These schools claim to teach the teachings of Christ, (reflected in
the Gospels that they have). I would think that if Christ was proven to have
never existed, this would seriously undermine the authority of those claims.
|
all lies, the Christ is a metaphysical entity and can't pbe proven
or disproven to have existed or not by any historical means.
| Quote: |
If we look at Christianity, (the mainstream type), they place a lot of
important on Christ and his resurrection. Now, if it was proven that Jesus
Christ was never even born, the whole claim would be up the crapper. And
understandably so.
|
of course the Christ is never born.
Only Antichristians believe in a born Christ, like Graham, Wojtyl/a,
Bultmann, Ceveazy, Van Impee
| Quote: |
With people like Valentinus, if Jesus was shown never to have been born, (an
historical event), this undermines the authority of the other claims which
are based on what Christ said. For example, Valentinus mentions the Aeons.
If Christ was not born, he could not teach about them, and so Valentinus'
own credibility would be called into question with respect his other ideas
and theological points.
|
Valentinus is just a feeble Gnostic, thus not all that relevant,
unlike Saturninus Antiochus and Marcion.
| Quote: |
I think that most religions would, in some way, depend on an historical
event.
|
Only fake religions do, like Southern Baptism, Catholicism, Sunnitism,
Shiitism, Phariseism, and the like diseases.
| Quote: | For Christianity, it is the life of Christ.
|
no, that's only the case for Antichristianity.
| Quote: | For all Gnosticism, the creation of this world by Yaldaboath.
|
no, that's not nowhere near the case. Gnosticism only relies on the plain
self-evident fact that the formal world is utter dirt, crap, and junk.
| Quote: | If someone were to show, (I have no idea how), that the Demiurge was not the
one to create this world, (the beginning being the first truly material
historical event), then that would seriously erode the authority of any
other claim, especially regarding creation.
no, it wouldn't do anything like that at all. |
The world is perverse and corrupt, whatever mythological framework is used
is way less important than the self-evident fact that the world needs to
be rigorously abhorred in order to obtain redemption.
Klaus Schilling |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:11:49 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:fee620d85r87ikmpr1nriukhuv83nn1f6v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:48:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:p5b620tumf6hf7q73c08rk8inrbpvhqun3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:19:15 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
[snipped for size]
I can see what he means there. That presents a whole new angle on the
discussion. However, that "appearance" still happened in history, and
anything that "appearance" did was in the context of the lives and realm
of
"hylic" existance. If Christ had no "Really Real" connection with the
material world, his "appearance" did, (in that it appeared here).
Therefore,
if I were to somehow prove that the appearance never happened, then
claims
based on it, or its teachings, have been eroded.
Can you see what I mean? Even in the radical considerations above, there
is
some link, despite a vastly different nature. Something still *happened*.
Yes, disproving even a hallucinatory experience would invalidate
claims for that experience.
Yes, claims that were based on it.
[snipped for size]
I think the use of words like "manipulate matter" and "he had a Really
Real
existence "in" but not "of" hyletic history" serve to illustrate what I
said
above.
Despite Christ not being a part of this world in any way, he still acted
in
it in someway. His appearance, his teachings and his actions still
"appeared" and acted on this world. They were also perceived by others.
Thus, the appearances are historical in nature.
Yes, historical at least inasmuch as they happened in the subjective
psyches of historical people. And certainly if he really was
physical/historical, of course.
If he was historical or just an appearance, the issue is pretty much the
same. The only variation is the nature of the event. I can imagine that
Christian Gnostics and their mainstream counterparts would have no argument
about Christ's presence in this world. However, the nature of that presence
would cause some serious issues between them, (and indeed did).
[snipped for size]
lolol....yeah, I can see what you mean. I think, we can't in any direct
way.
It can be, however, rather indirectly. If we use Valentinus as an
example,
maybe I can explain what I mean more exactly.
Valentinus makes some claims that he got some teachings from Christ.
These
teachings are based on some historical events that are verifiable, (an
assumption here). If Valentinus was telling the truth there, and it is
verifiably so, then we can make some judgements on his comments about
what
Christ said regarding creation. While we are not verifying creation
directly, but making a judgement call on it based on someone else. Not
even
ideal, but when we are dealing with Christ, I would hope that we are in a
better position than with a human. :-)
Ok, and you're saying if JC is completely refuted historically then
Valentinus's claims, based on bogus history, are damaged if not
undone.
Yeah, even if he holds that Jesus was not *physically* present, and takes a
more docetic view of things.
[snipped]
Sure - and thanks for helping to keep the group alive.
I'm surprised that we agreed on a lot in this. Can I ask if you are a
practicing Gnostic? Just curious.
|
Not a practicing Gnostic, because I don't accept Gnosticism's
central thesis of a retarded creator. Actually I don't accept any
creator thesis, as I don't see any evidence for a sentient Cause for
the universe. I'm hylic enough to accept hylic science's observations
about the hylic universe: i.e., a creator is an unnecessary hypothesis
- plus the fact that science has plenty of models explaining the
universe that do quite well without a single Big Bang or creation _ex
nihilo_.
Natural ills are just that - blind, mindless nature doing its thing.
For me to accept either a retarded creator or a smart but
irresponsible creator would be to invoke an unnecessary hypothesis -
and to derive a mindful Cause from a mindless universe, which to me
makes no sense. This does not make me an atheist, though - in fact,
I'm not. I'm a panentheist (not a pantheist), which means I believe
that god is here (immanent) and more than here (transcendent). Having
discarded the god of supernatural theism permits me the luxury of not
needing to work out the exact nature of god's relationship to the
universe - I leave theodicy for those who posit a perfect supernatural
interventionist god.
The perfect supernatural interventionist god is particularly
obnoxious and is the cause of most atheism - a perfect, loving
omniscient, omnipotent being who only intervenes to prove a point
(e.g., parting the Red Sea, bullying Job, raising a divine "Son" back
to life, etc.) simply cannot be forgiven for Its millions of
non-interventions.
I'm only Gnostic in the sense that I agree with them that:
the universe is meaningless pain; spirit and matter are not
identical (here I reject hylic science's pronouncements that "We Are
The Brain"); if god exists, It is essentially the hidden, "alien"
Godhead, not a creator (if such exists) or the deity of any particular
myth or religion; god is the object not of belief but of experience,
etc.
| Quote: | Thanks also to you. Peace.
|
Same to you.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 8:52 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:rpb720dpvl4d7a7jjo38ou5200tul35mfa@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:11:49 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:fee620d85r87ikmpr1nriukhuv83nn1f6v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:48:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:p5b620tumf6hf7q73c08rk8inrbpvhqun3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:19:15 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
|
[snipped]
| Quote: | I'm surprised that we agreed on a lot in this. Can I ask if you are a
practicing Gnostic? Just curious.
Not a practicing Gnostic, because I don't accept Gnosticism's
central thesis of a retarded creator. Actually I don't accept any
creator thesis, as I don't see any evidence for a sentient Cause for
the universe. I'm hylic enough to accept hylic science's observations
about the hylic universe: i.e., a creator is an unnecessary hypothesis
- plus the fact that science has plenty of models explaining the
universe that do quite well without a single Big Bang or creation _ex
nihilo_.
Natural ills are just that - blind, mindless nature doing its thing.
For me to accept either a retarded creator or a smart but
irresponsible creator would be to invoke an unnecessary hypothesis -
and to derive a mindful Cause from a mindless universe, which to me
makes no sense.
|
If the universe were completely mindless, I would be inclined to agree with
you. However, I would be also inclined to ask what nature the human mind or
any other living mind has. Human mind at least acts in this universe, and
has some connection to it. If not, then we must ask what is mind and is it
even real?
I would agree that arguing a sentient "God-Being" from trees and rocks would
be fraught with problems. However, I think those aspects that *do* include m
ind, (eg. humans, and some other living creatures), should not be ignored in
the process.
No doubt, you have some thoughts on this, so I would be rather interested to
know how a "mindless universe" can include humans and others with a mind.
This does not make me an atheist, though - in fact,
| Quote: | I'm not. I'm a panentheist (not a pantheist), which means I believe
that god is here (immanent) and more than here (transcendent). Having
discarded the god of supernatural theism permits me the luxury of not
needing to work out the exact nature of god's relationship to the
universe - I leave theodicy for those who posit a perfect supernatural
interventionist god.
The perfect supernatural interventionist god is particularly
obnoxious and is the cause of most atheism - a perfect, loving
omniscient, omnipotent being who only intervenes to prove a point
(e.g., parting the Red Sea, bullying Job, raising a divine "Son" back
to life, etc.) simply cannot be forgiven for Its millions of
non-interventions.
|
I would debate that it is the cause of "most atheism", (it certainly was the
cause of mine, anyway). However, I do agree that the times when God appears
to have done nothing, (I use "appear" as I do not fully understand God at
all), do raise serious questions that require answers. I have asked these
questions before and still do, without any real progress, I am afraid.
Of greater importance to me, is the examples when God has ordered the
obliteration of entire cultural groups. I can't think of an example's name,
but there is an instance in the Bible where God orders the Israelites to
exterminate a nation's men, women, children and even the livestock. To me,
these issues where God *actively* ordered the murder of innocents are
glaring issues.
| Quote: | I'm only Gnostic in the sense that I agree with them that:
the universe is meaningless pain; spirit and matter are not
identical (here I reject hylic science's pronouncements that "We Are
The Brain"); if god exists, It is essentially the hidden, "alien"
Godhead, not a creator (if such exists) or the deity of any particular
myth or religion; god is the object not of belief but of experience,
etc.
|
Yes, I have questioned the importance of belief myself. Belief is only
important in the context of worship or some other active relationship with
God. One also should add that is also becomes important if that God claims
to be the only true one. If one doesn't have the right knowledge, then such
relationship is flawed, if not completely blown out of the water. In your
situation, belief can truly take a back seat.
However, I also agree with you, that experience is central, even in the
above example. Belief in God, without experience *of* God, is totally
useless.
Peace,
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:20 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
<snipppppped>
Interesting discussion, all.
-------------
Valentinus
It seems to me that if Valentinus thought the spirit of Paul teached him
something, or was met by someone claiming to be Paul the Apostle or one
of Paul's Students, and they taught something, that is genuine and
sincere, given the attitude to writings 'in the spirit of' some ancient
figure, in those times, in Hellenistic culture, etc.
Now if it were shown that Valentinus never came into contact with a
student of Paul, or that his contact with such a tradition and his own
interpretation of it was vehemently opposed by the conveyor of the
tradition to him, that would raise some questions, like: why then would
Valentinus claim it if it was so obviously refuted, or why would there
be such a disagreement, who's changing their tune, etc.
But what if Paul had a little contact with someone in Paul's tradition,
but had revelations in addition, revelations of his own? How do you
deny that? And how do you distinguish 'inspired poetry' from a mystic
vision? These would be the questions, in regard to 'historic' visions
and teachings.
So if many or most Gnostic teachings are of this nature, it really comes
down to the person authoring the text or teaching, NOT a historical
connection to some previous teacher.
------------
Demiurge...
It seems to me that any modern Christian who believes that evolution is
responsible for the development of species and the laws of biological
organisms and their interrelationshipsa and instincts, is one step away
from being rather Gnostic. All they must do is recognize evolution as a
very ignorant, negative, and/or perniciously evil reality shaping our
existence here, being responsible for this world's creation and rule by
Fate.
I mean come on, the accounts of man wriggling on the ground, unable to
move until the breath from the Demiurge is breathed into him, and other
aspects of development of life and the world, as depicted in Gnostic
texts, are wonderfully analogous of the processes of evolution from
inanimate to animate to cerebral.
The Gnostics anticipated Chaos theory in describing repeated
bifurcations until they split off into a chaotic state, and the stages
they speak of describe the states of consciousness and ignorance and
coping mechanisms in our own minds, as understood by Jung for example,
and allegorically they easily fit processes known to modern science. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:37 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
pessolo@freemail.it wrote:
| Quote: | If someone were to show, (I have no idea how), that the Demiurge was not the
one to create this world, (the beginning being the first truly material
historical event), then that would seriously erode the authority of any
other claim, especially regarding creation.
no, it wouldn't do anything like that at all.
The world is perverse and corrupt, whatever mythological framework is used
is way less important than the self-evident fact that the world needs to
be rigorously abhorred in order to obtain redemption.
Klaus Schilling
|
Klaus, I'm wondering, what you consider crucial to Gnosticism?
While I do identify with what you are saying, and greatly value Marcion,
Saturninos, and Basiledes, and while one of favorite texts from Nag
Hammadi is the Apocryphon of John, I also have great respect for
Ptolemy's teaching, although he is a Valentinian.
When I see some being (any kind of being, animal, human, or
metaphysical) manifesting Spiritual Fruit, I acknowledge that as having
SOMETHING to do with something Good. It might be nothing but a pale
reflection of something related to the Good God, for example. But I can
point my eyes to the greater reality that is beyond what I see. It
might be something that has a perverse or corrupt side to it, and I
acknowledge that. But it also might have some aspect to it that is
trapped here, just as I am. Much that is alive, for example, may be
alive only because of some power stolen from above. That spiritual
power that was stolen, is good and trapped here, and I'd like to see it
reclaimed, redeemed. All consciousness, is especially beyond much of
this world. Whatever spark that might be in any conscious or living
thing, I hope can be raised back to the True God or reclaimed, purified,
redeemed, etc. I think either the creator of this world was utterly
incapable of making anything live, or else anything alive or conscious
is liable to be influenced by some agent of the True God, and that
accounts for nurturing among animals and humans, compassion, seeking
understanding, etc. When I see the more remarkable examples of these
things among those beings that happen to be living within this world, I
don't see how those things could come from the creator of this world.
The creator of this world, when creating any sort of 'life' or
'consciousness' just doesn't rise up to the great manifestations of
life, compassion, and understanding. I am less concerned with what one
thinks about the creator, than that people are honest about the
limitations and perversity manifest in this world.
What are your views on that?
And what about Valentinus do you find to be weak? And do you mean weak
as in unreliable, or as dangerously comrpomised, or as an almost evil
bastardization, or as utterly false? I'm not sure how strong your
criticism of Valentinus is, and why, that's all. I do feel that
Valentinus and Ptolemy uphold the critical insights of Gnostics, that
are basic to Gnosticism, and so Valentinus and Ptolemy are Gnostic. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:48 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
penitent leper wrote:
| Quote: | Natural ills are just that - blind, mindless nature doing its thing.
For me to accept either a retarded creator or a smart but
irresponsible creator would be to invoke an unnecessary hypothesis -
and to derive a mindful Cause from a mindless universe, which to me
makes no sense. This does not make me an atheist, though - in fact,
I'm not. I'm a panentheist (not a pantheist), which means I believe
that god is here (immanent) and more than here (transcendent). Having
discarded the god of supernatural theism permits me the luxury of not
needing to work out the exact nature of god's relationship to the
universe - I leave theodicy for those who posit a perfect supernatural
interventionist god.
|
Ok, so God is transcendent, though immediate to you in some way, and not
related to matter, not related to the laws of this universe, and not
involved in creating or interventionist activity. Sounds similar to
Marcion without refering to the Old Testament God as a metaphysical
entity. Even if the Demiurge is an ALLEGORY of the laws of nature and
the processes of evolution, if you identify with the stories told about
the Demiurge as relevant to our own ego consciousnesses in our psyche's,
and the way the world works ignorantly, personified, then it sounds like
you are Gnostic enough in affirming that the True God is NOT creator or
ruler of this world. That is a KEY insight that neither panethiests nor
traditional theists make, but that Gnostics did make, and one that
atheists do not consider since they deny any sort of God.
| Quote: | The perfect supernatural interventionist god is particularly
obnoxious and is the cause of most atheism - a perfect, loving
omniscient, omnipotent being who only intervenes to prove a point
(e.g., parting the Red Sea, bullying Job, raising a divine "Son" back
to life, etc.) simply cannot be forgiven for Its millions of
non-interventions.
|
It is often stated that limiting God's power or realm of influence
absolves God from not intervening, i.e., God CAN'T intervene, or at
least, most of the time, for reasons we may or may not wish to theorize
about.
| Quote: | I'm only Gnostic in the sense that I agree with them that:
the universe is meaningless pain; spirit and matter are not
identical (here I reject hylic science's pronouncements that "We Are
The Brain"); if god exists, It is essentially the hidden, "alien"
Godhead, not a creator (if such exists) or the deity of any particular
myth or religion; god is the object not of belief but of experience,
etc.
|
That sounds pretty Gnostic to me, although in all fairness some
Buddhists might say the same thing, and many Buddhists as well as
Gnostics affirm value in recognizing their differences. Show me a
Buddhist that is 'pessimistic' enough, and well, if he walks like a
Gnostic, water rolls off his back like a Gnostic, and he quacks like a
Gnostic, then he's a duck. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 10:31 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 15:52:57 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:rpb720dpvl4d7a7jjo38ou5200tul35mfa@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:11:49 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:fee620d85r87ikmpr1nriukhuv83nn1f6v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:48:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:p5b620tumf6hf7q73c08rk8inrbpvhqun3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:19:15 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
[snipped]
I'm surprised that we agreed on a lot in this. Can I ask if you are a
practicing Gnostic? Just curious.
Not a practicing Gnostic, because I don't accept Gnosticism's
central thesis of a retarded creator. Actually I don't accept any
creator thesis, as I don't see any evidence for a sentient Cause for
the universe. I'm hylic enough to accept hylic science's observations
about the hylic universe: i.e., a creator is an unnecessary hypothesis
- plus the fact that science has plenty of models explaining the
universe that do quite well without a single Big Bang or creation _ex
nihilo_.
Natural ills are just that - blind, mindless nature doing its thing.
For me to accept either a retarded creator or a smart but
irresponsible creator would be to invoke an unnecessary hypothesis -
and to derive a mindful Cause from a mindless universe, which to me
makes no sense.
If the universe were completely mindless, I would be inclined to agree with
you. However, I would be also inclined to ask what nature the human mind or
any other living mind has. Human mind at least acts in this universe, and
has some connection to it. If not, then we must ask what is mind and is it
even real?
|
I would think it's the Really Real, since it does not seem to occupy
spacetime the way the body-brain does. In fact it drags the
body-brain along in its wake, and its artifacts have changed the face
of the planet, for good and ill. I don't derive mind's reality from
its action in the hyletic universe or its influence on the hyletic
brain-body.
Quantification is for material objects and processes that can be
measured, and so is a hylic function. Spirit-mind, otoh, not being
material, couldn't (shouldn't?) care less about taking its measure of
reality from the material, quantifiable universe. It knows itself
independently from and without recourse to, sensory input. On a
mundane level, it knows when it's depressed or when it has an
intuition or a realization, without such information coming to it from
the external hylic universe and the hylic bodily senses. So I don't
put much stock in mind's manipulation of the material universe as
granting for mind x-amount of quantifiability, and therefore of
"reality".
| Quote: | I would agree that arguing a sentient "God-Being" from trees and rocks would
be fraught with problems. However, I think those aspects that *do* include m
ind, (eg. humans, and some other living creatures), should not be ignored in
the process.
|
It comes down to the issue: is spirit a natural-physical
thing/process, or is it something else? I can't argue for a creator
based on the presence of humans and living creatures - because these
beings have a hylic, confused, painful material existence for which a
creator is ultimately morally to blame - or for which nothing is to
blame in the case of there being no creator.
Inasmuch as humans and living creatures are organisms, they either
speak for no creator or for a functional equivalent of a Demiurge.
Inasmuch as they are "sentient" beings, they do seem to share in a
nonmaterial reality.
But even that reality is fraught with suffering. I can see a
spirit/sentiency sharing in Godness, at least potentially. But hylic,
organic bodies? How? And how would hylic beings and processes,
however sentient, point to an omniscient, good creator? I think some
Gnostics deny not only hylic creation, but also pneumatic creation, to
the true god, who is a creator neither of bodies nor of spirits -
although spirits as "Imago Dei" have a native likeness to the true
god.
| Quote: | No doubt, you have some thoughts on this, so I would be rather interested to
know how a "mindless universe" can include humans and others with a mind.
|
Could be like how a mindless body can include our individual
spirits. If, along with the Gnostics, we are strict dualists, it only
makes sense to deny sentiency to the ape-body our spirits inhabit.
Yes, New Agers and Yoga preachers promote "the ancient wisdom of the
body", but even that "wisdom" is not equivalent to that of the spirit.
"Me as me", myself as myself, is not my brain or my body. I live in,
or am "included" in the mindless "universe"/microcosm of my body.
Maybe its the same with god, who might be found in, or is "included
in", the mindless hylic universe...? That is, "mind" is present in,
but is not derivative of, the nonsentient universe.
| Quote: | This does not make me an atheist, though - in fact,
I'm not. I'm a panentheist (not a pantheist), which means I believe
that god is here (immanent) and more than here (transcendent). Having
discarded the god of supernatural theism permits me the luxury of not
needing to work out the exact nature of god's relationship to the
universe - I leave theodicy for those who posit a perfect supernatural
interventionist god.
The perfect supernatural interventionist god is particularly
obnoxious and is the cause of most atheism - a perfect, loving
omniscient, omnipotent being who only intervenes to prove a point
(e.g., parting the Red Sea, bullying Job, raising a divine "Son" back
to life, etc.) simply cannot be forgiven for Its millions of
non-interventions.
I would debate that it is the cause of "most atheism", (it certainly was the
cause of mine, anyway). However, I do agree that the times when God appears
to have done nothing, (I use "appear" as I do not fully understand God at
all), do raise serious questions that require answers. I have asked these
questions before and still do, without any real progress, I am afraid.
|
Me, too, but recently I'm finding panentheism helpful in this
regard, because it "lets me off the hook" in terms of dredging up a
theodicy to explain the supernatural/interventionist/creator god's
utter passivity in the face of mind-boggling human and animal
suffering. I say this because panentheism does not (necessarily)
require working out god's relationship, if any, to the universe. For
all I know, "God" is just there, like the atmosphere, without any
causational relationship and therefore without any blame or praise for
a universe to which it relates only obliquely, if at all. (If memory
serves, Buddha Nature inheres in all things, but it is not a First
Cause or a Creator or a Moral Force - but I could be mistaken.)
| Quote: | Of greater importance to me, is the examples when God has ordered the
obliteration of entire cultural groups. I can't think of an example's name,
but there is an instance in the Bible where God orders the Israelites to
exterminate a nation's men, women, children and even the livestock. To me,
these issues where God *actively* ordered the murder of innocents are
glaring issues.
|
It's some solace to remember that this God-image had been
commandeered by the traditions which preserved the story. In these
examples, God has been "drafted" into the role of Commander in Chief
of Israel's political-military interests. Those who preserved the
prophetic books present God in a quite different - a merciful, wise,
restrained - light much of the time. What is most disturbing to me is
that fundies insist in the literal inerrancy of these gruesome
stories, and promote that God _actually_ did and does such things.
| Quote: | I'm only Gnostic in the sense that I agree with them that:
the universe is meaningless pain; spirit and matter are not
identical (here I reject hylic science's pronouncements that "We Are
The Brain"); if god exists, It is essentially the hidden, "alien"
Godhead, not a creator (if such exists) or the deity of any particular
myth or religion; god is the object not of belief but of experience,
etc.
Yes, I have questioned the importance of belief myself. Belief is only
important in the context of worship or some other active relationship with
God. One also should add that is also becomes important if that God claims
to be the only true one. If one doesn't have the right knowledge, then such
relationship is flawed, if not completely blown out of the water. In your
situation, belief can truly take a back seat.
However, I also agree with you, that experience is central, even in the
above example. Belief in God, without experience *of* God, is totally
useless.
|
Yeah, I agree. I also have a problem with worship, since to worship
is to wallow in "sinful" creaturehood, whereas the truth of the
esoteric traditions is that in regard to the divine,"We Are That",
already - sleeping deities blinded by ignorance, who have the
potential of awakening into our own godhood. Hence worship can only
keep one imprisoned in the delusion that we are little unworthy
bottom-feeders separated from god by sin and creatureliness.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 10:39 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 03:48:42 GMT, Carlcat <booboo@booboo.net> wrote:
| Quote: | penitent leper wrote:
Natural ills are just that - blind, mindless nature doing its thing.
For me to accept either a retarded creator or a smart but
irresponsible creator would be to invoke an unnecessary hypothesis -
and to derive a mindful Cause from a mindless universe, which to me
makes no sense. This does not make me an atheist, though - in fact,
I'm not. I'm a panentheist (not a pantheist), which means I believe
that god is here (immanent) and more than here (transcendent). Having
discarded the god of supernatural theism permits me the luxury of not
needing to work out the exact nature of god's relationship to the
universe - I leave theodicy for those who posit a perfect supernatural
interventionist god.
Ok, so God is transcendent, though immediate to you in some way, and not
related to matter, not related to the laws of this universe, and not
involved in creating or interventionist activity. Sounds similar to
Marcion without refering to the Old Testament God as a metaphysical
entity. Even if the Demiurge is an ALLEGORY of the laws of nature and
the processes of evolution, if you identify with the stories told about
the Demiurge as relevant to our own ego consciousnesses in our psyche's,
and the way the world works ignorantly, personified, then it sounds like
you are Gnostic enough in affirming that the True God is NOT creator or
ruler of this world. That is a KEY insight that neither panethiests nor
traditional theists make, but that Gnostics did make, and one that
atheists do not consider since they deny any sort of God.
The perfect supernatural interventionist god is particularly
obnoxious and is the cause of most atheism - a perfect, loving
omniscient, omnipotent being who only intervenes to prove a point
(e.g., parting the Red Sea, bullying Job, raising a divine "Son" back
to life, etc.) simply cannot be forgiven for Its millions of
non-interventions.
It is often stated that limiting God's power or realm of influence
absolves God from not intervening, i.e., God CAN'T intervene, or at
least, most of the time, for reasons we may or may not wish to theorize
about.
I'm only Gnostic in the sense that I agree with them that:
the universe is meaningless pain; spirit and matter are not
identical (here I reject hylic science's pronouncements that "We Are
The Brain"); if god exists, It is essentially the hidden, "alien"
Godhead, not a creator (if such exists) or the deity of any particular
myth or religion; god is the object not of belief but of experience,
etc.
That sounds pretty Gnostic to me, although in all fairness some
Buddhists might say the same thing, and many Buddhists as well as
Gnostics affirm value in recognizing their differences. Show me a
Buddhist that is 'pessimistic' enough, and well, if he walks like a
Gnostic, water rolls off his back like a Gnostic, and he quacks like a
Gnostic, then he's a duck.
|
Thanks for your comments - you've given me a couple of new ideas
here.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 11:43 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:44cb209e0m4im6mnr6q8ns2savs6gubfr2@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 15:52:57 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:rpb720dpvl4d7a7jjo38ou5200tul35mfa@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 21:11:49 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:fee620d85r87ikmpr1nriukhuv83nn1f6v@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 19:48:04 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:p5b620tumf6hf7q73c08rk8inrbpvhqun3@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 18:19:15 +1300, "Mouldy Jester"
Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
|
[snipped for size]
| Quote: | If the universe were completely mindless, I would be inclined to agree
with
you. However, I would be also inclined to ask what nature the human mind
or
any other living mind has. Human mind at least acts in this universe, and
has some connection to it. If not, then we must ask what is mind and is
it
even real?
I would think it's the Really Real, since it does not seem to occupy
spacetime the way the body-brain does. In fact it drags the
body-brain along in its wake, and its artifacts have changed the face
of the planet, for good and ill. I don't derive mind's reality from
its action in the hyletic universe or its influence on the hyletic
brain-body.
|
On this paragraph, I would certainly agree. There is a definite difference
between mind and the physical. In addition, I agree that physical embodiment
is not needed for a mind to exist. If this were so, all talk about God would
be a moot point and a waste of time. Finally, our own existence after death
is dependant on the mind being able to function and survive after the body
has turned to worm food.
I think experience can safely show that mind does act in the physical realm,
at some level. Therefore, there is some connection. That interface I would
suggest is the body. The body is not a foundational requirement for the
mind, but I think the word "interface" fits the body's function wrt the
mind.
| Quote: | Quantification is for material objects and processes that can be
measured, and so is a hylic function. Spirit-mind, otoh, not being
material, couldn't (shouldn't?) care less about taking its measure of
reality from the material, quantifiable universe.
|
Absolutely agreed. I think I have agreed with this in the previous
paragraph.
| Quote: | It knows itself
independently from and without recourse to, sensory input. On a
mundane level, it knows when it's de |
| |
