| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Heideana
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
 |
|
Catawumpus wrote:
| Quote: | zen gnostic <borgersbrent@yahoo.com>:
So
So your claims are contrary to the evidence, which clearly
shows the Valentinians rejecting Creator and Creation, and
your appeal to Pagels' authority failed twice-over: not merely
because of the logical fallacy but also because she talks
about the themes in Valentinian thinking you're trying to avoid.
the fucking blurb does not describe whats in the GD book?!?
You didn't claim that the blurb describes what the book is
about; you said that you were quoting Pagels when you were
merely cut-and-pasting the jacket copy. The second time you've
confused Pagels with advertising. In your own words, you
really are "that @#$%ing stupid." Hard though it is to believe.
This childish bullshit has officially ended.
|
Somehow this feels like a deconstruction, "if such a thing can
exist", and I have to side with Catawampus and his argument that you
can't use a jacket cover quote to explicate someone's view point...you
have to read the whole book and be able to quote paragraph and page to
support your arguments...on the other hand, ZG is sure rattling the
rafters....
| Quote: | Thus far your childish bullshit shows no signs of stopping.
or that maybe because he professed the kingdom in which Jesus spoke is
available to everyone.
No evidence for your blathering, but considerable evidence
to the contrary. The Valentinians divide mankind in three
classes. Only pneumatics can be fully saved; psychics can gain
at most partial salvation, since they can never enter the
pleroma (Irenaeus AH 1.7.1), while hylics can't be saved at all
-- Catawumpus
|
I'm just starting to read "The Revelation of Adam" from the Nag
Hammadi and the intro mentions this text divides peoplekind into three
categories of enlightenment...I'm not sure how it plays out yet and
very interested in how this solves the Christian notion that
"salvation" is available to everyone. It might be in the differance
between "salvation" and "enlightenment"...thanks to all for the
deconstructive edge to read the text by....  I think this is
probably a crucial differance between RCC and Gnostic Christianity.
Does anyone know how the 3 levels of enlightenment plays out in
Byzantine Christianity?
Heideana (with the gold braids...) |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Catawumpus
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
Heideana <heideana@pacbell.net>:
| Quote: | Somehow this feels like a deconstruction, "if such a thing can
exist", and I have to side with Catawampus and his argument that you
can't use a jacket cover quote to explicate someone's view point...you
have to read the whole book and be able to quote paragraph and page to
support your arguments...on the other hand, ZG is sure rattling the
rafters....
|
Not hardly. ZG couldn't possibly be rafter-rattling since
there isn't any force to his arguments. All that he's
offering is a pretence that the Valentinians conform to his own
outlook. Unfortunately for him the evidence indicates
otherwise, demonstrating that the Valentinian perspective, like
gnosticism generally speaking, divides the Creator of this
world from God, sees him as a crappy demiurge, and looks at his
Creation with a critical eye.
ZG is also disputed by Pagels, who he claims to agree with
on nearly everything, since her interpretation of the
Valentinians includes the same themes that he tried to avoid in
their theology.
| Quote: | I'm just starting to read "The Revelation of Adam" from the Nag
Hammadi and the intro mentions this text divides peoplekind into three
categories of enlightenment...I'm not sure how it plays out yet and
very interested in how this solves the Christian notion that
"salvation" is available to everyone. It might be in the differance
between "salvation" and "enlightenment"...thanks to all for the
deconstructive edge to read the text by.... I think this is
probably a crucial differance between RCC and Gnostic Christianity.
Does anyone know how the 3 levels of enlightenment plays out in
Byzantine Christianity?
|
What's it mean to solve a notion? Yes, the idea salvation
is universally available is _not_ always part of gnostic
thinking, which tends to distinguish a spiritual elite from hoi
polloi.
-- Catawumpus |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jul 16, 1:34 pm, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Catawumpus wrote:
zen gnostic <borgersbr...@yahoo.com>:
So
So your claims are contrary to the evidence, which clearly
shows the Valentinians rejecting Creator and Creation, and
your appeal to Pagels' authority failed twice-over: not merely
because of the logical fallacy but also because she talks
about the themes in Valentinian thinking you're trying to avoid.
the fucking blurb does not describe whats in the GD book?!?
You didn't claim that the blurb describes what the book is
about; you said that you were quoting Pagels when you were
merely cut-and-pasting the jacket copy. The second time you've
confused Pagels with advertising. In your own words, you
really are "that @#$%ing stupid." Hard though it is to believe.
This childish bullshit has officially ended.
Somehow this feels like a deconstruction, "if such a thing can
exist", and I have to side with Catawampus and his argument that you
can't use a jacket cover quote to explicate someone's view point...you
have to read the whole book and be able to quote paragraph and page to
support your arguments...on the other hand, ZG is sure rattling the
rafters....
|
Before purchasing a book do you read the book cover? If so...why?
Concerning the "categories of enlightenment" I found this review of
great interest.
By Michael Hoffman (Egodeath.com) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I'm surprised this book does not summarize the distinctions it
constantly makes between the two main conceptions of Christianity
according to the Valentinians' reading of Paul.
This book has a lot to offer for the Christ-myth theory. The book
explains the Valentinian gnostic reading of Paul's early epistles.
"Jews" means literalists, the uninitiated, lower Christians. "Greeks"
means spiritualists, the initiated, higher Christians. Paul encouraged
the higher Christians to feel united or married with the lower
Christians.
The book would greatly benefit from a 2-column listing of the ideas
the Valentinians associated with the higher and lower Christians. As a
philosopher and theorist of ego death who is looking for a rational
reading of the Christian scriptures, I agree with everything that
falls into the group of ideas the Valentinians associated with higher
Christians, and I disagree with all the ideas that fall into the group
of ideas the Valentinians associated with lower Christians.
The two sets of doctrines -- the book The Gnostic Paul divides the
religious ideas as follows, from the Valentinian reading of Paul's
early writings:
HIGHER, ESOTERIC CHRISTIANITY
"Greeks"
The religion of Heresy
Early Paul
The Truth, wisdom, enlightenment
The initiated, adults
A secret mystery is revealed to some apostles, but not to other
apostles
The sacrament of apolytrosis (apo- can mean after-, post-, and
separate redemption) in addition to common eucharist
Redemption
Spiritual freedom from moral codes -- but metaphysical determinism/
fatedness, predestined election
Reject idea of responsible moral agency and idea of our culpability of
sin/guilt
The apple was a gift of gnosis
All blame is placed on the Ground, not us
No death on the Cross (it was mythic and could be seen as a pseudo-
death)
Sacrifice is mythic, mental, conceptual, a mental experience
No bodily resurrection
Mythic Christ
Belief in higher and lower Christians (with a principled respect for
the lower)
No point in moral-reward heaven or moral-punishment hell
We are spirits, controlled by God
LOWER, EXOTERIC CHRISTIANITY
"Jews"
The Orthodox religion
Peter, The Church Fathers and their forged later Paul
The Lie, error, darkness, foolishness
The uninitiated, children
No secret mystery; all apostles have authority through simple ordinary
seeing of miraculous resurrection
The common eucharist, only
Salvation, baptism
Spiritual enslavement to morality -- with delusion of free will and
choosing faith oneself
Belief in responsible moral agency and our culpability for sin/guilt
All blame is placed on us
The apple was bad
Jesus died on the Cross
Sacrifice is bodily, bloody, magically effective, physical
Bodily resurrection
Supernaturalist Jesus
Disbelief in higher level of Christianity -- to obtain unity and
harmony of the Church
Moral-reward heaven and moral-punishment hell exist, for the
responsible agent/soul
We are souls, controlled by ourselves
Each point I listed above should have page references to Pagel's book
to prove that the ideas break out this way in her book.
An important reason why Christ-myth scholars should read this book is
that Pagels shows how to read the scriptures in a 2-valued ambiguous
way, where the meaning deliberately toggles between two distinct
readings. It's not just that Paul was misinterpreted; Pagel's
treatment seems to indicate that Paul deliberately wrote in an
encoded, ambiguous way that flips between the two conceptual systems.
If people were confused, it is because Paul meant for them to be
confused and carefully chose his words so that they could support both
readings: literal and spiritual. The epistles were written as encoded
mysteries and should be read as such.
The most remarkable thing presented repeatedly in this book is the
idea that the Pauline writings intentionally withheld the higher view
from the uninitiated. Pagels never ventures to explain why. Perhaps
the Valentinians wanted to protect and preserve the delusion of the
ego just as we protect children. This problem extends beyond the
Christian mystery-religion; the Greek mystery religions forbade, by
punishment of death, publically revealing the things shown in the
mysteries. There were political reasons to veil a deterministic belief
system, because cosmic determinism has been used to justify an
oppressive status quo ("I was meant, fated, and divinely ordained by
Necessity to dominate you") rather than democracy. So the Pauline
writings were deliberately written in a way that would be read in a
supernatural, Literalist way but could be read as a non-supernatural,
mystery-religion, mystic allegory. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Heideana
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:07 am Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
| Quote: |
Before purchasing a book do you read the book cover? If so...why?
|
I'd look at the cover to tray and get and idea about the books
contents, but then you shouldn't judge a book by its cover and there's
always the possibility that the blurbs are way off base, along with
the problematic of reifying the book's contents in a few sentence
without losing the richness of the text....
| Quote: |
Concerning the "categories of enlightenment" I found this review of
great interest.
By Michael Hoffman (Egodeath.com) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I'm surprised this book does not summarize the distinctions it
constantly makes between the two main conceptions of Christianity
according to the Valentinians' reading of Paul.
This book has a lot to offer for the Christ-myth theory. The book
explains the Valentinian gnostic reading of Paul's early epistles.
"Jews" means literalists, the uninitiated, lower Christians. "Greeks"
means spiritualists, the initiated, higher Christians. Paul encouraged
the higher Christians to feel united or married with the lower
Christians.
The book would greatly benefit from a 2-column listing of the ideas
the Valentinians associated with the higher and lower Christians. As a
philosopher and theorist of ego death who is looking for a rational
reading of the Christian scriptures, I agree with everything that
falls into the group of ideas the Valentinians associated with higher
Christians, and I disagree with all the ideas that fall into the group
of ideas the Valentinians associated with lower Christians.
|
You might want to check any notion of or need for "rational" at the
door when conversing about Gnostic beliefs, unless you want to spend
some care in defining what you mean by the word...that might be the
problem of understanding what Catawump is trying to tell you....or at
least that's what jumps out at me, or I should say literally "jumps
off the page at me" when I'm reading your text. I tend to read things
more in terms of non-rational coherencies or something like that. I
could be wrong, but whenever you get into the realms of mysteries,
leaps of faith, etc., then your getting into systems of non-
rationality.
| Quote: | An important reason why Christ-myth scholars should read this book is
that Pagels shows how to read the scriptures in a 2-valued ambiguous
way, where the meaning deliberately toggles between two distinct
readings. It's not just that Paul was misinterpreted; Pagel's
treatment seems to indicate that Paul deliberately wrote in an
encoded, ambiguous way that flips between the two conceptual systems.
If people were confused, it is because Paul meant for them to be
confused and carefully chose his words so that they could support both
readings: literal and spiritual. The epistles were written as encoded
mysteries and should be read as such.
|
I hate to say it, but this sounds like Derrida's diferance, or
whatever he was getting at, with the comparison of two systems. That
might be Hegel's synthesis too??? Also the part about carefully
choosing his words and confusing people. A good "deconstructionist"
carefully chooses words to slow you down and force you to read the
text...if you read it too fast, it makes no sense. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
zen gnostic
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:03 pm Post subject: Re: Hello |
|
|
On Jul 19, 12:07 am, Heideana <heide...@pacbell.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Before purchasing a book do you read the book cover? If so...why?
I'd look at the cover to tray and get and idea about the books
contents, but then you shouldn't judge a book by its cover and there's
always the possibility that the blurbs are way off base, along with
the problematic of reifying the book's contents in a few sentence
without losing the richness of the text....
|
My understanding of the phrase is that it's more of a metaphor
concerning people. How they look on the outside says nothing about who
they are on the inside. As far as books I've read my fair share and
always read the book cover because they've always given me a fair
summary as to what is in the book. That's their purpose.
| Quote: |
Concerning the "categories of enlightenment" I found this review of
great interest.
By Michael Hoffman (Egodeath.com) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I'm surprised this book does not summarize the distinctions it
constantly makes between the two main conceptions of Christianity
according to the Valentinians' reading of Paul.
This book has a lot to offer for the Christ-myth theory. The book
explains the Valentinian gnostic reading of Paul's early epistles.
"Jews" means literalists, the uninitiated, lower Christians. "Greeks"
means spiritualists, the initiated, higher Christians. Paul encouraged
the higher Christians to feel united or married with the lower
Christians.
The book would greatly benefit from a 2-column listing of the ideas
the Valentinians associated with the higher and lower Christians. As a
philosopher and theorist of ego death who is looking for a rational
reading of the Christian scriptures, I agree with everything that
falls into the group of ideas the Valentinians associated with higher
Christians, and I disagree with all the ideas that fall into the group
of ideas the Valentinians associated with lower Christians.
You might want to check any notion of or need for "rational" at the
door when conversing about Gnostic beliefs, unless you want to spend
some care in defining what you mean by the word...that might be the
problem of understanding what Catawump is trying to tell you....or at
least that's what jumps out at me, or I should say literally "jumps
off the page at me" when I'm reading your text. I tend to read things
more in terms of non-rational coherencies or something like that. I
could be wrong, but whenever you get into the realms of mysteries,
leaps of faith, etc., then your getting into systems of non-
rationality.
|
Have you ever seen the footage of soldiers in Vietnam who jump out of
a helicopter under heavy fire to bring their wounded comrades back to
safety? Do you think it's rational to risk ones life for someone you
have never met before? It may not be "rational" but it is no doubt
"real". This is the mystery I talk about and the mystery in which (it
appears) neither of you comprehend.
| Quote: |
An important reason why Christ-myth scholars should read this book is
that Pagels shows how to read the scriptures in a 2-valued ambiguous
way, where the meaning deliberately toggles between two distinct
readings. It's not just that Paul was misinterpreted; Pagel's
treatment seems to indicate that Paul deliberately wrote in an
encoded, ambiguous way that flips between the two conceptual systems.
If people were confused, it is because Paul meant for them to be
confused and carefully chose his words so that they could support both
readings: literal and spiritual. The epistles were written as encoded
mysteries and should be read as such.
I hate to say it, but this sounds like Derrida's diferance, or
whatever he was getting at, with the comparison of two systems. That
might be Hegel's synthesis too??? Also the part about carefully
choosing his words and confusing people. A good "deconstructionist"
carefully chooses words to slow you down and force you to read the
text...if you read it too fast, it makes no sense.
|
I'll need time to grok the above. I liked what he wrote but I disagree
with his reasonings on why Paul did not disclose the higher view
from the uninitiated. It's simple...when the student is ready the
master will appear. Giving the higher view to the uninitiated would
not only be fruitless but a serious danger to one's own life.
Christian gnosticism is blasphemy to the uninitiated. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
