Paganism vs Gnosticism, Is there a difference?
Duane Tilden
Duane Tilden
Society of Energy & Resources for Sustainable Development
Meeting tomorrows needs today.
d_tilden@<antispam>attcanada.ca
Jeremy Reaban
Duane Tilden
news:tq4pfhd...@corp.supernews.com...
> Maybe...it depends on the definitions...
>
At the risk of being offensive (why stop now?), I will post the following
definition of the Gnostic tradition as explained in "The Ecclesia Gnostica".
http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/ecclesia.htm
"While the ancient Gnostic teachers were very pluralistic and creative
regarding the details of their teachings and practices, at the same time
they embraced a set of common assumptions which form the core of the Gnostic
tradition. The model of reality shown forth in the Gnostic scriptures and in
the Gnostic tradition may be very briefly (and therefore somewhat
inadequately) outlined by way of the following points:
There is an original and transcendental spiritual unity which came to
emanate a vast manifestation of pluralities.
The manifest universe of matter and mind (psyche) was not created by the
original spiritual unity but by spiritual beings possessing inferior powers.
These creators possessing inferior powers have as one of their objectives
the perpetual separation of humans from the unity (God).
The human being is a composite, the outer aspect being the handiwork of the
inferior creators, while the "inner man" has the character of a fallen spark
of the ultimate divine unity.
The fallen sparks of transcendental holiness slumber in their material and
mental prison, their self-awareness stupefied by forces of materiality and
mind.
The slumbering sparks have not been abandoned by the ultimate unity, rather
there is a constant effort forthcoming from this unity that is directed
toward their awakening and liberation.
The awakening of the inmost divine essence in humans is effected by salvific
knowledge, called Gnosis.
Salvific knowledge, or Gnosis, is not brought about by belief, or the
performance of virtuous deeds, or by obedience to commandments, for these
can at best but serve as preparatory circumstances leading toward liberating
knowledge.
Among the helpers of the slumbering sparks a particular position of honor
and importance belongs to a feminine emanation of the unity. The name of
this emanation is Sophia (Wisdom). She was involved in the creation of the
world and ever since remained the guide of her orphaned human children.
From the earliest times of history, messengers of light have been sent forth
from the ultimate unity. The task of these messengers has ever been the
advancement of Gnosis in the souls of humans.
The greatest of these messengers in our historical and geographical matrix
was the descended Logos of God, manifesting in Jesus Christ.
Jesus exercised a twofold ministry: He was a teacher, imparting instruction
concerning the way of Gnosis, and he was a hierophant, imparting mysteries.
The mysteries imparted y Jesus (which are also known as sacraments) are
mighty aids toward Gnosis and have been entrusted by him to his apostles and
to their successors.
By way of the spiritual practice of the mysteries (sacraments) and by a
relentless and uncompromising striving for Gnosis, humans can steadily
advance toward liberation from all confinement, material and otherwise. The
ultimate objective of this process of liberation is the achievement of
salvific knowledge and with it freedom from embodied existence and return to
the ultimate unity."
This works for me as a beginning point for a rudimentary
understanding/definition of gnosticism. However, I am sure that others may
wish to refute, or expand on this.
How about Neo-paganism or paganism, anyone up to it?
David Raphael
the moment. Here in the US, we have had to grapple with issues a bit
more pressing than quarreling over definitions concerning paganism and
gnosticism. I realize that our difficulties may not seem important to
you, but to us it is a matter of great concern. Perhaps we can take
up this discussion at another time, when the grief has lifted and the
dead have been buried.
Be well and in good spirits.
David R.
"Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message news:<tFro7.59945$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...
Duane Tilden
"David Raphael" <dav...@1freeemail.com> wrote in message
news:f147ec7a.01091...@posting.google.com...
> You know, somehow the question just doesn't seem all that important at
> the moment. Here in the US, we have had to grapple with issues a bit
> more pressing than quarreling over definitions concerning paganism and
> gnosticism. I realize that our difficulties may not seem important to
> you, but to us it is a matter of great concern. Perhaps we can take
> up this discussion at another time, when the grief has lifted and the
> dead have been buried.
>
> Be well and in good spirits.
>
> David R.
>
>
Yes of course, my sincere and utter condolences go out about this horrific
event.
I pray for peace and a resolution. I also pray that the US will pause,
reflect and rise above this tragedy.
I believe that these wounds may be healed, and healing takes place through
understanding, which requires dialogue.
I will be volunteering at the Summit 2001, Conference on Spirituality and
Sustainability, being held this weekend and
next week (Sept 15 to 22) in Vancouver, BC, Canada. ( www.2001summit.org for
details). The events in the US
have now been forwarded as the theme for the conference, replacing the
original "Quickening Global Consciousness".
I believe that by working to understand our differences and similarities in
our religions, we can start to form a commonality
from which we can all work together to make a safe, peaceful, and
sustainable world.
Peace Light Love and God Bless America
Saint
There is a difference between Paganism and Gnosticism. Pagans apply their
energies to the worship and manipulation by magical and other means (prayers
and supplications, sacrifices, etc.) to earth spirits and gods of the
fields, forests and fens. They are interested in mainly fertility, good
harvests and they are linked inexorably to the land and to the earth. They
believe the earth will tell them right from wrong and how to go about their
very primitive but endlessly interesting lives as they merrily dance about
fires and praise Odin or whomever. They usually like to put hexes on folk,
or make love potions. Nice folk, generally speaking. Now Neo-Pagans, they
are another story. Just hate groups in another guise.
Gnostics on the other hand are those who seek the wisdom to overcome earthly
existence and trials and tribulations. Their gods tend to be rather more
intellectual and technical. Gnostics long for another world where answers to
questions of a cosmic nature are made clear, and once answered, they can
have access to the creative powers of the gods. It is a transcendent
overview. Of course there's no harm in being a Gnostic-pagan. But believe
me, someone will find a reason to hate you anyway.
Love,
Saint Albans
"Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:eOuo7.60004$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Big Hair Televangelist
I am surprised that you would post such garbage
about other religions, like paganism. What you
have posted is a caricature of reality.
You either don't know, or don't understand
what you are talking about.
The word paganism also applies to modern day
witches. Contrary to what you have posted,
most pagans do not conduct animal, or human
sacrifices, curse people, and they are not
hate groups.
Maybe you just crave the attention.
Why don't you stay on your bullshit new age usenet
groups, where all of life is made of vibrations,
and sweetness, and light?
Is it any wonder that you said you thought you
were cursed, with posts like yours?
Jake
Duane Tilden
If you recall, in a previous posting of yours you included the following
attachment;
"From: bearatmetistadotcom
Date: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 01:40:02 PM
Subject: Attacks on World Trade Center/Pentagon - Call for Magick
Ple
* Safety and Healing, both for individuals and our piece of Gaia -
and Herself as a whole
* Reinforcement of our personal and national shields
* A STRONG thread of Peace and Calming directed within our own
borders as well as towards the Attackers
* A prayer for clarity and equanimity to prevail
* A STRONG thread directed to our country's leaders NOT to consider
War as an option and good vibes sent to our people in the military"
Your energy in the last posting, perhaps, is not "in line" with the message.
Separation from Unity results in fear, causing hatred, or misunderstandings,
resulting in breakdown of communications and perhaps war.
So lets stop all this cursing.
Now perhaps you have been offended by the last posting, fair enough these
are trying times.
Perhaps elucidating your viewpoint may enlighten Saint?
Just another opinion.
Peace
"Big Hair Televangelist" <bighairtel...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3BA38C46...@my-deja.com...
> saint,
>
> I am surprised that you would post such garbage
> about other religions, like paganism. What you
> have posted is a caricature of reality.
>
> You either don't know, or don't understand
> what you are talking about.
>
> The word paganism also applies to modern day
> witches. Contrary to what you have posted,
> most pagans do not conduct animal, or human
> sacrifices, curse people, and they are not
> hate groups.
>
> Maybe you just crave the attention.
>
> Why don't you stay on your bullshit new age usenet
> groups, where all of life is made of vibrations,
> and sweetness, and light?
>
> Is it any wonder that you said you thought you
> were cursed, with posts like yours?
>
> Jake
<snip>
Big Hair Televangelist
Saint wrote:
> Stop crossposting, Boggle...
The post already was cross posted, Saint.
>
>
> "> "Big Hair Televangelist" (Boggle)> > To Saint:
>
> > > I am surprised that you would post such garbage
> > > about other religions, like paganism. What you
> > > have posted is a caricature of reality.
>
> I was having what is known in the business as a "bit of pleasant fun." After
> all, you yourself are a caricature of reality. So it should have tickled
> you. I don't think asking if their is a difference between paganism and
> gnosticism is even a valid question. The differences are obvious to anyone
> who studies religion or who are involved in either religion.
What business would that be? My name is a parody oftelevision evangelists, not a
caricature of reality,
like you calling Neo-Pagans hate groups.
If the differences were so obvious about religions,
why would you even bother to answer?
The answer to that is that you want attention.
You crave it. You need to feed your fat, bloated
ego.
> > > You either don't know, or don't understand
> > > what you are talking about.
>
> Or perhpas you don't know what I am talking about, or don't understand what
> I am talking about. Or maybe you just didn't "get it?" Or maybe you are
> taking it way too seriously? There are other POVs you know? Besides just
> your own.
>
I am going to go with what resonates with me.I don't believe you know what you
are talking
about. And, I like other points of view.
I just don't like yours, when you
bash, and insult people that have
other religions than your own.
> > > The word paganism also applies to modern day
> > > witches.
>
> No, "Wicca" applies to modern day witches. Wicca does not necessarily imply
> Paganism, some White Wicca Witches believe in Jesus and Mary and a One God.
> Some "magicians" like yourself, claim to believe in Jesus.One would have to
> call themselves a Pagan, rather than a Witch if one wanted to be counted as
> a true pagan shamanistic practitioner. Since "Witchery" came to be known
> only AFTER the advent of Christianity in Europe. Whereas Pagans have been
> Pagans since before the time of Rome. In fact the Romans were Pagans. And to
> them a witch or sorcerer, oracle or diviner was simply a part of their
> paganisic worship. To me Pagan is anything before the advent of
> Judeo-Christian thought taking over a culture.
Well, I happen to disagree. Wicca is a term that modern Witches haveadopted to
describe themselves. Wicca translates as Craft of the Wise.
Pagan in the current usage, is what many modern day Witches
describe themselves as. Author Raven Grimassi, has documented
in The Ways of the Strega, that Dianic covens predate Christianity,
using the literature of those times.
Pagan can be used to describe Witches, both modern,
and ancient.
> > > Contrary to what you have posted,
> > > most pagans do not conduct animal, or human
> > > sacrifices, curse people, and they are not
> > > hate groups.
>
> Number one. Neo-Pagans, as in Russia and Germany, are in fact, Hate Groups,
> Racists and have nothing to do with the either the modern Wicca or Pagan
> movements.
>
You made a general statement that Neo-Pagans werehate groups. It is up to you to
clarify, and offer evidence of
those claims, or retract your claim (shut your trap).
> Number two, if your Modern Pagans aren't doing sacrifices (no one mentioned
> human sacrifice, BTW. You put that in there for the shock value), worshiping
> trees and idols, putting out curses and hexes and making potions, then they
> aren't really card-carrying Pagans. They are just calling themselves Pagans.
> They are some other philosophy or religion. I was speaking of Traditional
> Pagans. If you or someone meant anything else, then it is up to you to be
> more clear. You didn't say Modern Paganism. Nor did you say Moder
> Gnosticism, which is a far cry from ancient Gnosticism.
>
Read this: Modern day Pagans, and Witches do not as a rulesacrifice animals. If
you have any evidence that they do, please
offer it. Otherwise, you are in error. You know it, and I know it.
If you wish to discuss Santeria, or Voodoo, that's another
subject entirely. And, I haven't heard many of those people
calling themselves Pagans. That's a separate path.
> You know, you keep saying that you are "Albert Saint David" and Lord Leroy
> and Big Bertha and all these people who seem to supposedly "know" about
> religion having a "twenty year background... and apparently you don't know
> anything. I have a thirty fie year plus background. I saw your answers about
> angels. Tragically non-explanatory if you ask me. But you keep trying.
> Someday your trolling will bag you whatever it is you are after.
You called yourself Gregorius, and later claimed to be the angel,Metatron, and
challenged people to test you. Is it any wonder
that you have no creditability?
I have been studying angels, and spirits since 1972.
I have conducted thousands of experiments with them.
I'll leave my answers to questions on various usenet
groups, as my testimony.
> > > Maybe you just crave the attention.
>
> Why not? Is their something wrong with craving attention? You crave it. You
> come on many boards to cross-post what you call your "wisdom" which amounts
> to little more than bad jokes and silly commentary. I think the point is, if
> you crave attention, then bring something to the board people want to pay
> attention to.Attention, good. Neglect, bad. Thus Spake Frankenstein's
> Monster.
>
You always paint me in a bad light, but then youcome off as the villain, after
people have come
to know you through your usenet postings.
Remember when you called one woman from usenet,
an unfit mother? Talk about monsters.
> > > Why don't you stay on your bullshit new age usenet
> > > groups, where all of life is made of vibrations,
> > > and sweetness, and light?
>
> Now that is just downright belligerent. "Why don't you just stay on your
> bullshit arbitrarally named "religious" groups where everything is magical
> and mean tempered and stupid?" (You like to broadbrush and white wash? Well
> here's some paint for ye!)
>
Stupid, eh? You were the one who claimed that youregularly talk with angels, and
offered to answer questions.
You then proceeded to make all kinds of mistakes,
like advising a woman with ovarian cancer,
to drink plenty of orange juice.
Were you practicing medicine without
a license?
You even had the audacity to "channel the Christian God,"
(as distinguished from the Pagan Gods), and later said
the Bible is full of lies.
> Life is all vibration. Sorry to disabuse your theories of Djinnis and Earth
> Spirits. Even they are vibrations. But all sweetness and light? Well, we try
> to make it so. If people like you would stop attacking sweetness and light,
> maybe we wouldn't have the disasters we have today? Just a thought. Maybe
> your mean-assed baiting and twisting of other people's religions is a lot
> like what Osama Bin Laden wants us to do? Berate and harp on one another,
> while he stands ready to stab us in the back? I think your priorities are
> really out of order, Boggle.
>
>
Are you blaming me for terrorism now? That's just like you.Grasping at straws,
and strawmen.
> > > Is it any wonder that you said you thought you
> > > were cursed, with posts like yours?
>
> I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I never said I was
> cursed. I said certain people, like yourself were practicing black magic
> against innocent people. And I was right. But what that has to do with my
> posts here, I do not know? Are you saying I deserve it because somehow I
> "made light" of the question of Gnosticism vs Paganism? Is that any of your
> business? I was not talking to you. I was talking to Duane Tilden. And Duane
> has a level head. Whereas we can see by your post here, you do not.
>
You, and your little, private (pun intended),Annex usenet group were talking
about you,
and the group being cursed.
And when you talk about me, that is my business.
And saying that I practice black magic is another
outright lie of yours.
Since when do you have a level head?
You have the foulest mouth on usenet.
Even won an award for it.
> You seem to have a serious problem with New Age and with me. Why? Did we
> hurt you or your family? Do you often lump one person who hurt or abused you
> with ALL New Agers? And are you saying that as some sort of Paganist, you do
> indeed "curse" people? If so, then you have just gone against the so-called
> "truth" of your own post! Pagans do curse people. Apparently you were
> bringing down a curse on a lot of people this week or invoking magical
> injunctions against them. And people are taking exception to your
> invocations on other NGs. You don't seem to have many friends or supporters,
> Boggle.
>
> Saint
I take exception, when you appear to bash other religions,
like Paganism, and Witchcraft.
You once stated that the Gods, and culture of Egypt
were dead.
You are trying to use my own words, to paint me in a bad light.
But, your own words are often your undoing, and it's easy
to tie you up in knots. LOL!
For anyone interested in your black plagued history
on alt.religion.angels, and elsewhere, just do a search
for David St. Albans.
Warm Regards,
Jake
Big Hair Televangelist
I am truly sorry for these posts.
This is the wrong time for this.
Jake
Moggin Goldberg
> Paganism vs Gnosticism, Is there a difference?
All the difference in the world. Paganism commonly has to
do with nature-worship of one sort or another, while
gnosticism rejects worship of both the Creator and the Creation.
Here's an example: Herakleon's commentary on John 4:21-22.
(Preserved in Origen's _Commentary on John_ 13:95-96 and
13:102-104.) "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the
Father." Herakleon takes Jerusalem to signify the Creator, and
the mountain the Creation. Jews worship the Creator, he
observes, and Gentiles -- read "pagans" -- worship the Creation.
Then he states that pneumatics "...worship neither the
creation nor the Creator, but the Father of truth." Gnosticism
in a nutshell.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
> You know, somehow the question just doesn't seem all that important at
> the moment.
[...]
So shut up and go away.
-- Moggin
David R.
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-6AB069....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
Well, no. That's not the proper answer. I was simply observing that in the
aftermath of a truly horrific event, definitions of paganism vs. gnosticism
didn't seem as vital as they might otherwise have seemed. I managed to say
this without using offensive language or expressions. Perhaps you could
work on doing the same. There is no reason to be offensive to me,
especially when you were not even the person to whom I was addressing my
comments.
Duane Tilden
(Quoted from "The Dawn of a New Day in Human Relations -- The Message of The
Divine Iliad Vol. 2" by Walter Russell)
"If these words be read as words of mine, then indeed are they but mine,
and have I failed to translate true those inspired words of Light written
upon my heart by Him Whom thou art, and Whom I am, as I am also thee.
If these words be read as "I am I" and "thou art thou," and the skies
and winds and trees are things apart, separate and separable, and God afar
beyond, unknowable and unreachable, then have I failed indeed my Father's
work to do -- and are my words to thee unholy things; and I, who wrote them
down, am to thee unholy.
If these words be read by man to whom love is but a word, measurable,
and by him controlled, then indeed is God's Messenger of Love dead; and do I
blaspheme His name by resurrecting Him in me as God's Messenger of Love; so
hear me when I say that if thou art not God's Messenger of Love, then has
the Nazarene lived on earth for naught.
To me all things in this universe are One, and that One the God of
Creation whom I am; and thou art also He when thou knowest that thou art.
If God lives, he lives in thee and me.
Was that divine Idea of Love meant for God's illumined Messengers alone
whose clay has long returned to dust, or does God's Love live in thee and
me?
If God be One--Creator of All--then I am He, and I am All; and I am His
knowing, and His thinking; and I am creating with my knowing and my
thinking.
Is the beach just grains of sand, or is the sand the beach?
But if I am the beach, my words are not alone mine but Ocean's words,
and, therefore, are they mighty with all of Ocean's majesty.
And to thee, if thou art but a grain of sand, these words are too big;
and Ocean's words as though they were not.
If I be but clay alone and not eternal Man, and eternal Man not God,
then were all God's illumined Messengers of Light also but clay and not
Knowing Sons of God.
Such is not my thinking, for that which lived in them was Love which
could not die, so lives in me as Light of Love by which I am anoinited.
Love, if it be more than word, is eternal Light of God. And if Light of
Love be in my knowing, then art thou the Son of God throught thy knowing.
My illumined knowing is herein set down in words of Man's sensing
translated from God's language of Light throught which God speaks to all
inspired Sons of Light who know God's Love in them. When thou knowest Love,
then shalt thou know that neither thou, nor giant sun, nor blade of grass
can say the words "I am alone I," for in my Father's house there is but ONE,
and that ONE He, and thee, and me."
Gnasty, Gnasty, Gnasty
I am puzzled by u.
Akashik records, channeling and aetheric energy. Ok, so what does all this
have to do with the price of tea in China?
Try some form of Yoga and meditation, this may be of benefit.
As far as the idea of Unity is concerned, doesn't it say somewhere in the
Bible something about gathering together in my name and all that. Geesh for
such a Bible basher, you do seem to some of the good stuff. So you say that
all these gnostics kinda had to fight fire with fire? Hmm, I think such a
defensive posture is not necessary, because guess what? I agree with the
"liklihood" that there was a conspiracy by the RCC!!! Beyond that we seem
to digress into triviality, well maybe not since dialogue is worthwhile, so
I guess anything is valid as long as the goal is gnosis (my opinion).
If you want to know more go to AnAssesRecords.com for more details :-)
(Oh, by the way, I will continue to cross post, so flame away. My inbox is
empty.)
Duane Tilden
"Gnasty" <so...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3BA48B...@nospam.com...
> Saint:
>
> Thanks for bringing the thread back.
>
> And, you're right, of course, people WILL find a reason to generate
> self-riteousness no matter WHAT one believes in, if it's not THEIR
> brand.
>
> The RCC, who is responsible for more death than all the wars put
> togeather is proof enough of that.
>
> After taking over the Jerusalem Movement (originally called The Way),
> they issued an edict to their Generals in the fields to seek out and put
> to the sword ALL decendent heirs of Jesus, standing orders for 400
> years.
>
> Some religion.
>
> Gnostics didn't/don't do that.
>
> (Well, trenchcoaters may, but not generally speaking)
>
> Seeking of the Achassic Record (insert your own spelling if you'd
> like) is, perhaps, one of THE paramount efforts, for which, the
> reward(s) of finding it are assumedly GREAT, including personal power
> beyond comprehension, nekkid women, or whatever the individual sought
> out as a result of having accomplished this goal.
>
> MANY of them sought out a common heaven (full of Gnostics, of course),
> and that may have been the starting point of religious foundations.
>
> The WAY one goes about getting there (pardon the pun) is what's been
> up for secretive debate over the centuries, both with Gnostics and
> Mystics that have individually found this path for themselves.
>
> Channeling is the most common effort.
>
> Gnostics use to practice something we can call directed divinity, for
> lack of a better description.
>
> I've never heard it categorized by a name, but it was, perhaps, THE
> grand accomplishment of the Gnostics of old.
>
> They would 'create' their own 'heaven' in their dreams, going there
> each time they rested, replete with whatever they individually thought
> 'heaven' should be/have in it.
>
> Needles to say, this was a difficult task, and who knows how many
> actually succeded in even creating the dream world, let alone actually
> GETTING there.
>
> But it was their goal, just the same.
>
> The idea was that upon death, they would transfer their conciousness
> there, just as they had in their dreams WITH TRUE KNOWLEDGE (read as
> Power), and exist in their OWN 'heaven' for eternity, prefering to
> maintain an individual existance (and control) of whatever sort they
> envisioned.
>
> Being able to do so was a mystery held for only the exceptional few
> who could comprehend it, even among Gnostics.
>
> Supposedly, the Archons STOLE our aetheric energy, and ability for man
> to accomplish this, creating THIS world with it, and trapping us in
> THEIR dream using OUR powers against us, and the Gnostics REALIZED THIS,
> and took it back.
>
> At least, that was the goal.
>
> Savages envision their 'heaven' with warriors, Greeks epitomized their
> 'heaven' with Grecian Heros, the Jews with God and His Angels (and them
> in adoration of HIM), and Christians with a civilized society full of
> Christian Angels, each becoming an Angel if they did the right things
> here on earth.
>
> Variations of the same theme.
>
> Somehow, the 'reality' of a common goal seems to have validated the
> idea for the vast majority.
>
> And that's not so far from the Gnositc view of it as one would assume.
>
> The Gnostics, often times, would band togeather, channeling in unison,
> if you would, in an effort to collectively accomplish what, perhaps, one
> alone could not.
>
> The Christians now have a couple of BILLION doing exactly the same
> thing - banding togeather to form a common vision of where they should
> go when it's their turn.
>
> Strength in numbers, so to speak.
>
> What they DON'T have is comprehensive KNOWLEDGE of what they're
> actually DOING.
>
> THAT'S why I constantly (and often) claim there's no such thing as a
> "Christian Gnostic", because they don't even know what they're doing,
> let alone for what purpose, and THAT is CERTAINLY not Gnostic, by any
> STRETCH of the imagination.
>
> Should I add in a few Jesus stories to spice it up, or what ??
>
> (Sorry, tacky joke)
>
>
>
> Gnasty--
>
> And HOPING they don't like it....
Duane Tilden
--
Duane Tilden
"David R." <dav...@att.net> wrote in message
news:7x4p7.4253$lx5.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
root
Gnostic in the dictionary before now, so tell me, where does the majority of
Druidry lie; Pagan or Gnostic ?
I'd like to see where and what parts of druidry lie in which camp,
spiritually, intellectually and philisophically speaking, as I feel Druidry
straddles both paganism and gnosticism(from the brief overview given below).
with respect
root
"Saint" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9nuop2$a70gj$1...@ID-64061.news.dfncis.de...
Dreamsnake
> Duane Tilden <d_ti...@attcanada.ca>:
>
> > Paganism vs Gnosticism, Is there a difference?
>
> All the difference in the world. Paganism commonly has to
> do with nature-worship of one sort or another, while
> gnosticism rejects worship of both the Creator and the Creation.
Like Jeremy said, it depends on the definition. If the question
really refers to neopagans--and it very well might, looking at
the crossposting--you are right. If the question really is
about a more inclusive "paganism in general," however, I would
suggest a very broad definition of paganism to include every
religion but the "peoples of the book," as Islam puts it: every
faith that does not trace its lineage directly to the Old
Testament. In such a case, paganism includes not only nature-
worshippers but Neoplatonists and, more interestingly,
Hermeticists.
But a definition of "paganism" not limited to neopaganism is
so broad as to make the question virtually meaningless,
because we would have to deal with a phenomenon too varied to
compare with a coherent tradition such as gnosticism. In
other words, maybe this is the question Duane was asking, but
it is not a practical question.
Dreamsnake
Saint
"root" <mat...@nworder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9o2qcr$8ht$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> This is fascinating stuff, I'd never really even looked at the definition
of
> Gnostic in the dictionary before now, so tell me, where does the majority
of
> Druidry lie; Pagan or Gnostic ?
Since Pagan Druidry came well before the Gnostic teachings of the 1st
through the 3rd centuries AD, I'd say Druids were essentially Pagans. They
had no contact, that we know of, with Gnostic concepts. Though the higher
priesthood of Druids did have a sense of transcendent Wisdom. They still
worshiped and placated the gods and goddesses of the earth mainly those of
the Celts.
> I'd like to see where and what parts of druidry lie in which camp,
> spiritually, intellectually and philisophically speaking, as I feel
Druidry
> straddles both paganism and gnosticism(from the brief overview given
below).
I'm sure the Druid Priesthood was moving towards the idea of Gnosis.
(Spiritual Wisdom) But not Gnosticism, which essentially was a outcropping
of Judeo-Christianity mixed with Egyptian and Greek Philosophy and religion.
We might never be sure as both the Gnostics and the Druids were completely
wiped off the face of the earth by early Christian "Jihads" against heresy
and paganism. But I would say that historically the Druids were well founded
in the camp of Traditional Paganism.
Here's what I wrote to Boggle/Big Hair, who was being disagreeable petulant
this week. But we can forgive him, under the circumstances. He seems to
think what I said about Paganism vs Gnosticism was somehow belittling to
himeslf and others. What do you think?
"> "Big Hair Televangelist" (Boggle)> > To Saint:
> > I am surprised that you would post such garbage
> > about other religions, like paganism. What you
> > have posted is a caricature of reality.
I was having what is known in the business as a "bit of pleasant fun." After
all, you yourself are a caricature of reality. So it should have tickled
you. I don't think asking if their is a difference between paganism and
gnosticism is even a valid question. The differences are obvious to anyone
who studies religion or who are involved in either religion.
> >
> > You either don't know, or don't understand
> > what you are talking about.
Or perhpas you don't know what I am talking about, or don't understand what
I am talking about. Or maybe you just didn't "get it?" Or maybe you are
taking it way too seriously? There are other POVs you know? Besides just
your own.
> >
> > The word paganism also applies to modern day
> > witches.
No, "Wicca" applies to modern day witches. Wicca does not necessarily imply
Paganism, some White Wicca Witches believe in Jesus and Mary and a One God.
Some "magicians" like yourself, claim to believe in Jesus.One would have to
call themselves a Pagan, rather than a Witch if one wanted to be counted as
a true pagan shamanistic practitioner. Since "Witchery" came to be known
only AFTER the advent of Christianity in Europe. Whereas Pagans have been
Pagans since before the time of Rome. In fact the Romans were Pagans. And to
them a witch or sorcerer, oracle or diviner was simply a part of their
paganisic worship. To me Pagan is anything before the advent of
Judeo-Christian thought taking over a culture.
> > Contrary to what you have posted,
> > most pagans do not conduct animal, or human
> > sacrifices, curse people, and they are not
> > hate groups.
Number one. Neo-Pagans, as in Russia and Germany, are in fact, Hate Groups,
Racists and have nothing to do with the either the modern Wicca or Pagan
movements.
Number two, if your Modern Pagans aren't doing sacrifices (no one mentioned
human sacrifice, BTW. You put that in there for the shock value), worshiping
trees and idols, putting out curses and hexes and making potions, then they
aren't really card-carrying Pagans. They are just calling themselves Pagans.
They are some other philosophy or religion. I was speaking of Traditional
Pagans. If you or someone meant anything else, then it is up to you to be
more clear. You didn't say Modern Paganism. Nor did you say Moder
Gnosticism, which is a far cry from ancient Gnosticism.
You know, you keep saying that you are "Albert Saint David" and Lord Leroy
and Big Bertha and all these people who seem to supposedly "know" about
religion having a "twenty year background... and apparently you don't know
anything. I have a thirty fie year plus background. I saw your answers about
angels. Tragically non-explanatory if you ask me. But you keep trying.
Someday your trolling will bag you whatever it is you are after.
> >
> > Maybe you just crave the attention.
Why not? Is their something wrong with craving attention? You crave it. You
come on many boards to cross-post what you call your "wisdom" which amounts
to little more than bad jokes and silly commentary. I think the point is, if
you crave attention, then bring something to the board people want to pay
attention to.Attention, good. Neglect, bad. Thus Spake Frankenstein's
Monster.
> >
> > Why don't you stay on your bullshit new age usenet
> > groups, where all of life is made of vibrations,
> > and sweetness, and light?
Now that is just downright belligerent. "Why don't you just stay on your
bullshit arbitrarally named "religious" groups where everything is magical
and mean tempered and stupid?" (You like to broadbrush and white wash? Well
here's some paint for ye!)
Life is all vibration. Sorry to disabuse your theories of Djinnis and Earth
Spirits. Even they are vibrations. But all sweetness and light? Well, we try
to make it so. If people like you would stop attacking sweetness and light,
maybe we wouldn't have the disasters we have today? Just a thought. Maybe
your mean-assed baiting and twisting of other people's religions is a lot
like what Osama Bin Laden wants us to do? Berate and harp on one another,
while he stands ready to stab us in the back? I think your priorities are
really out of order, Boggle.
> >
> > Is it any wonder that you said you thought you
> > were cursed, with posts like yours?
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I never said I was
cursed. I said certain people, like yourself were practicing black magic
against innocent people. And I was right. But what that has to do with my
posts here, I do not know? Are you saying I deserve it because somehow I
"made light" of the question of Gnosticism vs Paganism? Is that any of your
business? I was not talking to you. I was talking to Duane Tilden. And Duane
has a level head. Whereas we can see by your post here, you do not.
You seem to have a serious problem with New Age and with me. Why? Did we
hurt you or your family? Do you often lump one person who hurt or abused you
with ALL New Agers? And are you saying that as some sort of Paganist, you do
indeed "curse" people? If so, then you have just gone against the so-called
"truth" of your own post! Pagans do curse people. Apparently you were
bringing down a curse on a lot of people this week or invoking magical
injunctions against them. And people are taking exception to your
invocations on other NGs. You don't seem to have many friends or supporters,
Boggle."
Saint
>
> with respect
>
> root
Thank you for the respect, Root. I also respect all forms of religious
belief and philosophy. And the words of those who desire and bring respect.
There is an awful lot we can learn through mutal teaching and respect. Also
I do not consider my post corss-posting, since you actually wanted to
discuss this openly.
Saint.
Moggin Goldberg
>>> Paganism vs Gnosticism, Is there a difference?
Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>> All the difference in the world. Paganism commonly has to
>> do with nature-worship of one sort or another, while
>> gnosticism rejects worship of both the Creator and the Creation.
dream...@my-deja.com (Dreamsnake):
> Like Jeremy said, it depends on the definition.
[...]
True. That's why I explained I was using the term to mean
nature-worship of some shape or form.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
> This is fascinating stuff, I'd never really even looked at the definition
> of Gnostic in the dictionary before now, so tell me, where does the majority
> of Druidry lie; Pagan or Gnostic ? I'd like to see where and what parts
> of druidry lie in which camp, spiritually, intellectually and
> philisophically speaking, as I feel Druidry straddles both paganism and
> gnosticism(from the brief overview given below).
Dunno about Druidry, but here's a couple more descriptions
of gnosticism to help fill out the picture. The first one
comes from Hans Jonas' _The Gnostic Religion_ -- the second one
is from Jacques Lacarierre's _The Gnostics_.
-- Moggin
"The cardinal feature of gnostic thought is the radical
dualism that governs the relation of God and the world, and
correspondingly that of man and the world. The deity is
absolutely transmundane, its nature alien to that of the universe,
which it neither created nor governs and to which it is the
complete antithesis: to the divine realm of light,
self-contained and remote, the cosmos is opposed as the realm of
darkness. The world is the work of lowly powers which though
they may mediately be descended from Him do not know the true God
and obstruct the knowledge of Him in the cosmos over which they
rule. ...
"The universe, the domain of the Archons, is like a vast
prison whose innermost dungeon is the earth, the scene of man's
life. ... The Archons collectively rule over the world, and
each invididually in his sphere is a warder of the cosmic prison.
Their tyrannical world-view is called _heimarmene_, universal fate,
a concept taken over from astrology but now tinged with the
gnostic anti-cosmic spirit. In its physical aspect this rule is
the law of nature; in its psychical aspect, which includes for
instance the institution and enforcement of Mosaic Law, it aims at
the enslavement of man. As guardian of his sphere, each Archon
bars the passage of souls that seek to ascend after death, in
order to prevent their escape from the world and their return to
God. The Archons are also the creators of the world, except where
this role is reserved for their leader, who then has the name of
_demiurge_ (the world-artificer in Plato's _Timaeus_) and is often
painted with the distorted features of the Old Testament God.
"Man ... is composed of flesh, soul, and spirit. But reduced
to ultimate principles, his origin is two-fold: mundane and
extra-mundane. Not only the body but also the 'soul' is a product
of the cosmic powers... Through his body and his soul man is a
part of the world and subjected to the _heimarmene_. Enclosed in
the soul is the spirit, or 'pneuma' (called also the 'spark'), a
portion of the divine substance from beyond which has fallen into
the world; and the Archons created man for the express purpose of
keeping it captive there. ... In its unredeemed state the pneuma
thus immersed in soul and flesh is unconscious of itself,
benumbed, asleep, or intoxicated by the poison of thw world: in
brief, it is 'ignorant.' Its awakening and liberation is effected
through 'knowledge.' [_Gnosis_.]
"The radical nature of the dualism determines that of the
doctrine of salvation. As alien as the transcendent God is to
'this world' is the pneumatic self inthe midst of it. The goal of
gnostic striving is the release of the 'inner man' from the bonds
of the world and his return to his native realm of light. The
necessary condition for this is that he _knows_ about the
transmundane God and about himself, that is, about his divine
origin as well as his present situation, and accordingly also
about the nature of the world which determines this situation. As
a famous Valentinian formula puts it,
What liberates is the knowledge of who we were, what we
became; where we were, whereinto we have been thrown, whereto
we speed, wherefrom we are redeemed; what birth is, and what
rebirth.
"This knowledge, however, is withheld from him by his very
situation, since 'ignorance' is the essense of mundane existence,
just as it was the principle of the world's coming into existence.
In particular, the transcendent God is unknown in the world and
cannot be discovered from it; therefore revelation is needed. The
necessity for it is grounded in the nature of the cosmic situation;
and its occurence alters this situation in its decisive aspect,
that of 'ignorance,' and is thus itself already a part of
salvation. Its bearer is a messenger from the world of light who
penetrates the barriers of the spheres, outwits the Archons,
awakens the spirit from its earthly slumber, and imparts to it the
saving knowledge 'from without.' ... "
Hans Jonas, _The Gnostic Religion_ 42-45
Gnostics "hold this world and the creatures that inhabit it
in total suspicion. ... Viscerally, imperiously, irremissibly,
the Gnostic feels life, thought, human and planetary destiny to be
a failed work, limited and vitiated in its most fundamental
structures. Everything, from the distant stars to the nuclei of
our body-cells, carries the materially demonstrable trace of an
original imperfection..." Gnosticism delivers "a radical censure
of all creation...accompanied by an equally radical certainty...
that there exists...a light issuing from the true God -- that
distant, inaccessible stranger to the perverse order of the real
universe; and that man's task is to regain his lost homeland by
wrenching himself free of the snares and illusions of the real, to
rediscover the original unity, to find again the kingdom of this
God who was unknown, or imperfectly known, to all preceding
religions."
"These convictions were expressed through a radical teaching
which held almost all of the systems and religions of former times
to be null and void. In spite of its links with some philosophies
of the times, and apart from minor reservations -- since they
borrowed certain beliefs indiscriminately from various systems,
prophets or sacred books -- one can say that Gnosticism is a
profoundly original thought, a _mutant thought_.
"...in their eyes the evil which taints the whole of creation
and alienates man in body, mind, and soul, deprives him of the
awareness necessary for his own salvation. Man ... possesses only
a shadow of consciousness. And it is to this one task that the
Gnostics deliberately devoted themselves, choosing paths that were
not only unorthodox but which, moreoever, greatly scandalized
their contemporaries: to create in man a true consciousness,
which would permit him to impart to his thoughts and deeds the
permanence and the rigour necessary to cast off the shackles of
this world."
Jacques Lacarriere, _The Gnostics_
Moggin Goldberg
>>> You know, somehow the question just doesn't seem all that important at
>>> the moment.
Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>> So shut up and go away.
David:
> Well, no. That's not the proper answer.
[...]
It's precisely the right one. The question doesn't strike
you as important right now, for whatever reason, fine. I'm
not telling you that it should. I'm simply giving you a little
helpful advice. Maybe you didn't understand. If you lack
interest in the subject, _don't_ read this thread or contribute
to it. Capisce?
-- Moggin
David Raphael
> Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>
> >> So shut up and go away.
>
> David:
>
> > Well, no. That's not the proper answer.
>
> [...]
>
> It's precisely the right one. The question doesn't strike
> you as important right now, for whatever reason, fine. I'm
> not telling you that it should. I'm simply giving you a little
> helpful advice. Maybe you didn't understand. If you lack
> interest in the subject, _don't_ read this thread or contribute
> to it. Capisce?
>
I understood your comment the first time. There is a considerable
difference between giving me "a little helpful advice", and telling me
to "shut up and go away". The latter is simply offensive without
conveying much useful information.
You might have also noticed that, having made the comment, I took no
further part in the discussions. I had for all intents and purposes
"shut up and [gone] away".
Whatever your feelings or motivations, there is no good reason to use
offensive or rude language. I did not criticize you nor did I attack.
I simply made an observation, and did so in a civilized manner. An
uncivil response was uncalled for.
Duane Tilden
It seems that the idea of definition, lacks definition. Or, perhaps who is
defining it and is this idea of definition agreeable with the adherents of
that definition. Of course that assumes that there are adherents, otherwise
we fall into the pits of speculation and assumption. This type of discourse
is better left to the Archons. (What we need is some input from those
people that we are talking about)
However, we are now living in an age where the Archons are dangerously close
to wreaking considerable damage which may threaten the sustained future of
the human race. There are forces at play, which are at the precipice, and,
could result in considerable bloodshed while the debasing practices which
are being perpetrated on this planet continue.
Jihads are not pretty.
It is my belief that we are at a time when strong actions are required by
the people. This can only be accomplished by majority action, and it is
through the faiths, religions, and groups of all orders whereby this may
become possible. However, we must consider the current apostasy which faces
all religions, this "turning away" from faiths has been caused by many
things, including the dissent and many versions of the bible and there
adherents. Multi-faith action is required, however, we cannot forget the
"faithless" who are those religions, sects, cultures or peoples who are not
heard. It is these voices who are the dimmest who we must strain to hear
the most. Some of these people require some faith and they may be wiccan,
neopaganist, paganist, falun gong, confuscionist, sufi, gnostic, or
christian gnostic.
These are the people, who do not have the means or knowledge to defend
themselves, that require our help and guidance the most.
So anyway, yes I think that the question is practical.
Perhaps you now see it differently?
With respect, love and gratitude.
--
Duane Tilden
d_tilden@<antispam>attcanada.ca
"Dreamsnake" <dream...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:df6c1ad0.01091...@posting.google.com...
Duane Tilden
This is a wonderful thread. I really appreciate the discourse and
information.
I have a recollection of some past conversation about Christ getting some of
his spiritual training in the east. What about the eastern traditions?
Confuscious predated Christ, and he could be considered a "Trancendant
Being".
Just a thought.
With respect, love and gratitude,
Duane
d_tilden@<antispam>attcanada.ca
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-DAA1D5....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
Fedallah
David Raphael wrote:
> You might have also noticed that, having made the comment, I took no
> further part in the discussions. I had for all intents and purposes
> "shut up and [gone] away".
Does this strike you as somehow more vital in light of
recent events than concerns over Gonsticism and such? Did
voicing the invitality of said concern strike you as vital?
Nah... 'twas just a salve and a public ego-stroke to let us
all know you were concerned.
You're a compassionate human being. Bravo, well done, pat
on the back.
> Whatever your feelings or motivations, there is no good reason to use
> offensive or rude language.
I find that trying to be offensive and rude is a very good
reason to use offesnive and rude language, actually.
Rick
--
"Why, gentlemen, perhaps the only reason I regard myself as
an intelligent man is that I've never in my whole life been
able either to begin or to finish anything." _Notes From
Underground_
Duane Tilden
You know, sometimes I can come across as cold or a little insensitive. I am
aware of it and I do try to compensate as much as possible.
Also, I am aware that if one person is brave enough to say something, they
generally represent more than one person who are not speaking. It is my
belief, as is apparently yours, that we can maintain civilized discourse.
For that I commend you.
Duality exists in all things, even in discourse. Anger can be
misinterpreted as passion, and vice versa. Also, we can be confronted with
Hate perpetrated by people in denial of the Truth.
Moggin could have said nothing and left you alone, but is that what you
really wanted? And yes he could have been less crass, however, it did
provoke a response, so Welcome.
peace, love and gratitude
Duane
Dreamsnake
I noticed that, and questioned the appropriateness of your
definition.
Dreamsnake
Moggin Goldberg
>> ... The question doesn't strike
>> you as important right now, for whatever reason, fine. I'm
>> not telling you that it should. I'm simply giving you a little
>> helpful advice. Maybe you didn't understand. If you lack
>> interest in the subject, _don't_ read this thread or contribute
>> to it. Capisce?
dav...@1freeemail.com (David Raphael):
> I understood your comment the first time.
[...]
Yet you're still here. Long as you're around, care to say
something on paganism vs. gnosticism?
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
>>>>> Paganism vs Gnosticism, Is there a difference?
Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>>>> All the difference in the world. Paganism commonly has to
>>>> do with nature-worship of one sort or another, while
>>>> gnosticism rejects worship of both the Creator and the Creation.
dream...@my-deja.com (Dreamsnake):
>>> Like Jeremy said, it depends on the definition.
Moggin:
>> True. That's why I explained I was using the term to mean
>> nature-worship of some shape or form.
DS:
> I noticed that, and questioned the appropriateness of your
> definition.
You did? Then I missed your point. Your post is still on
my newsserver, so lemme have another look. O.k. You said
that one could define "paganism" to mean every religion outside
"the peoples of the book," i.e., "every faith that does not
trace its lineage directly to the Old Testament." But then you
said that definition "is so broad as to make the question
virtually meaningless." I agree. But I don't see where or why
you're questioning the one I gave.
-- Moggin
root
Ah, not quite, see the History of Ireland for details.
> But I would say that historically the Druids were well founded
> in the camp of Traditional Paganism.
I'm not sure it's paganism as we know it today.
>
> Here's what I wrote to Boggle/Big Hair, who was being disagreeable
petulant
> this week. But we can forgive him, under the circumstances. He seems to
> think what I said about Paganism vs Gnosticism was somehow belittling to
> himeslf and others. What do you think?
<snip> I did read it btw.
That's just it, I don't know, I would need to learn more about the nature of
gnosticism and gnosis, but it does sound appealing.
>
> >
> > with respect
> >
> > root
>
> Thank you for the respect, Root. I also respect all forms of religious
> belief and philosophy. And the words of those who desire and bring
respect.
> There is an awful lot we can learn through mutal teaching and respect.
Also
> I do not consider my post corss-posting, since you actually wanted to
> discuss this openly.
>
>
> Saint.
No problem with the respect bit.
With respect
root
\/|\/
/\|/\
|
|
\ | /
\|/
\ | /
\|/
>
>
David R.
"Fedallah" <reha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BA6D1DE...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> David Raphael wrote:
>
> > You might have also noticed that, having made the comment, I took no
> > further part in the discussions. I had for all intents and purposes
> > "shut up and [gone] away".
>
> Does this strike you as somehow more vital in light of
> recent events than concerns over Gonsticism and such? Did
> voicing the invitality of said concern strike you as vital?
> Nah... 'twas just a salve and a public ego-stroke to let us
> all know you were concerned.
>
> You're a compassionate human being. Bravo, well done, pat
> on the back.
>
Thank you. However, you do not know my motivations. Also, my motivations
are irrelevant.
>
> > Whatever your feelings or motivations, there is no good reason to use
> > offensive or rude language.
>
> I find that trying to be offensive and rude is a very good
> reason to use offesnive and rude language, actually.
>
OK, then let me rephrase that. There is no good reason to be offensive and
rude.
> Rick
>
> --
> "Why, gentlemen, perhaps the only reason I regard myself as
> an intelligent man is that I've never in my whole life been
> able either to begin or to finish anything." _Notes From
> Underground_
Be well and in good spirits.
David R.
David R.
Hi, Moggin:
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-8FB8DE....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
Thank you for the invitation. I do not care to make any comments on either
paganism nor gnosticism at this time.
David R.
>
> You know, sometimes I can come across as cold or a little insensitive. I
am
> aware of it and I do try to compensate as much as possible.
>
Actually, you come across as very passionate about your subject. I do not
consider this to be a bad thing. But I did not perceive you as being cold.
> Also, I am aware that if one person is brave enough to say something, they
> generally represent more than one person who are not speaking. It is my
> belief, as is apparently yours, that we can maintain civilized discourse.
> For that I commend you.
>
I am struck by the irony of this. My original post was to you, and could
have been seen as an attack against you. Yet you are the only person who
has responded to me in a civil manner. Thank you. I appreciate kind words
and reasonable discussion.
> Duality exists in all things, even in discourse. Anger can be
> misinterpreted as passion, and vice versa. Also, we can be confronted
with
> Hate perpetrated by people in denial of the Truth.
>
This is so true. We just can't always (often?) tell what another person is
feeling, just by looking at his actions.
> Moggin could have said nothing and left you alone, but is that what you
> really wanted? And yes he could have been less crass, however, it did
> provoke a response, so Welcome.
>
Thanks for the welcome. I would have preferred a more civil response from
others. However, I have noticed that many people use newsgroups to vent
their anger and venom in a relatively safe way. This is neither necessary
nor beneficial, as experience has shown me.
> peace, love and gratitude
>
> Duane
>
>
Dreamsnake
Hmmm--I do not seem to be communicating well on this. Your
definition was narrow enough to produce a viable short
conversation, but it was not clear to me that it was a definition
Duane or others reading the thread would *necessarily* have in
mind. My intent was to point out that you had provided a
definition of paganism that excluded at least some "paganisms."
(In fact, I think it may exclude a lot, but that is another
thread.) In my view, you had constructed an artificially
narrow definition--not necessarily inappropriately, since you
might have been deliberately tailoring it to your assumed
audience. I implicitly questioned it (I thought) by pointing
out the existence of another definition truer to both dictionary
entries and what most Westerners might think of as paganism.
And if that ain't clear, I suggest we drop it ;-)
Dreamsnake
Saint
I am going to remain suspicious of your posts having a virus or something,
when you keep sending them without a text body.
You are saying nothing. Is this a statement to someone? Or just a mistake on
your part?
"Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:tFro7.59945$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Saint
Buddhism while he attended classes in Alexandria, Egypt, where his family
dwelt until he was about twelve years old. He was also trained by the
Essenes, who were also spice merchants and so had a good connection with
travelers from the Far East. As well as having had access to the ancient
religions of Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Egypt and the Greek Mystery Schools.
I'm sure Jesus was aware of a great deal of different doctrines, including
Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Gnosticism and Paganism. There is a sprinkling
of each in much of his word. But then, truth is truth no matter where you
find it.
Namaste'
Saint Albans
"Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:6xzp7.60696$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Duane Tilden
> Duane,
>
> I am going to remain suspicious of your posts having a virus or something,
> when you keep sending them without a text body.
>
> You are saying nothing. Is this a statement to someone? Or just a mistake
on
> your part?
>
Pardon my lack of understanding but I am not sure what you are referring to
unless it is the original post of "Re: Paganism vs Gnosticism, Is there a
difference?" If this is the case then, I meant that the change in the
thread title to be the question that I was asking. If you recall the
original title of the thread is not the present title. I thought it clever
and was having some fun, but meant no harm.
If this is not to which you refer then please explain.
Duane
Saint
I thought your old post was a new one. And recently there is a virus warning
out for any messages sent with no text.
Apologies.
David St. Albans
"Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:bmTp7.60924$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Dreamsnake
Sensitive material. Please do not read this post if you have
high blood pressure or are upset by the recent terrorist
attacks. Caveat lector. ("Let the reader beware.")
"Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message news:<uhzp7.60695$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...
If by "paganism" we mean what the average person thinks of as
paganism, then no, the question is not practical. If I were to
step outside my door and begin discussing paganism with folks
I met, the working definition would include everyone who is not
Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheistic, agnostic, perhaps Buddhist,
and maybe some fringe faiths. Is there a difference between the
"everyone else" and gnostic? There is too much variety to give
a simple answer. The ancient hermeticists are sometimes called
"gnostic," and rightly so in my opinion. Any pagan who worships
a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
incompatible with gnosticism. How can a question be practical
when the answer must be both yes and no?
My answer: it is not practical because one is asking the wrong
question. It appears you are not really asking about the
identity of gnosticism and paganism at all, but rather, about
the feasibility of interfaith action.
I do not favor interfaith efforts because they invariably lead
to mealy-mouthed pronouncements like "we all worship the same
God in different ways." Bullshit. I know I am putting myself
in danger of serious flamage for saying this, but here goes:
from my point of view, Catholics are demon-worshippers, so are
Protestants, Muslims, neopagans, and anyone who thinks the
world and its creator are pretty great. I mean this in the
nicest way (really!). I bear no ill will or hostility to any
of them. I do not preach their damnation or try to stamp out
their religious faiths. But any effort to work together on the
basis of religion assumes a common denominator between those
religions, which is why I prefer secular action.
Besides, I do not want to exclude the truly faithless--my
atheistic and agnostic friends--from any efforts to protect the
"minorities," as your proposal would do.
Now, before everyone flames me, please be sure you flame me for
what I have actually written, not what you think I am like.
Dreamsnake
Moggin Goldberg
> Hmmm--I do not seem to be communicating well on this. Your
> definition was narrow enough to produce a viable short
> conversation, but it was not clear to me that it was a definition
> Duane or others reading the thread would *necessarily* have in
> mind.
Same here. Duane said absolutely nothing to indicate what
he meant by "paganism" in his original post, and he still
hasn't elaborated. But so what? I never claimed I was reading
his mind. I simply answered the question -- "Paganism vs
Gnosticism, is there a difference?" -- using the term "paganism"
in the way I described.
> My intent was to point out that you had provided a
> definition of paganism that excluded at least some "paganisms."
> (In fact, I think it may exclude a lot, but that is another
> thread.)
Your definition is much wider than mine, I agree. A whole
lot wider, since it includes every religion that there is
except those based directly on the Old Testament. (Unless I've
got the wrong idea.)
> In my view, you had constructed an artificially
> narrow definition--not necessarily inappropriately, since you
> might have been deliberately tailoring it to your assumed
> audience.
No tailoring. I was using the meaning I felt I applied to
the question. If "paganism" means "anything other than OT
religions," then "What is the difference between gnosticism and
paganism?" is nearly meaningless. It would translate to
"What's the difference between gnosticism and every religion in
the world except those based on the OT?"
> I implicitly questioned it (I thought) by pointing
> out the existence of another definition truer to both dictionary
> entries and what most Westerners might think of as paganism.
> And if that ain't clear, I suggest we drop it ;-)
It's clear, but I don't agree. The American Heritage does
supprt you: "One who is not Christian, Moslem, or Jewish."
But Webster's offers "A follower of a polytheistic religion (as
in ancient Rome)."
"What most Westerners might think" is hard to feel certain
about, but I think the Webster's definition is a clue. Even
tho you can apply the term "pagan" to any non-OT religion, it's
got a more specific connotation: _those_ pagans, the ones
confronted by "the people of the book," not just any un-bookish
folks on earth.
Under "pagan," the OED says (among other things) "'heathen'
as opposed to Christian or Jewish: indicating the fact that
the ancient idolatry lingered on in the rural villages and
hamlets after Christianity had generally been accepted in
the towns and cities of the Roman empire." (An allusion to the
etymology: Latin for "hick.")
That's what I'm trying to get at. There may be people who
call Buddhists "pagans," but I think meaning of the term is
commonly limited to those ancient idolators encountered by Jews
and Christians, who were far more likely to be worshipping
nature or its representations than sitting cross-legged, trying
to liberate themselves from the wheel.
-- Moggin
Duane Tilden
"Dreamsnake" <dream...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:df6c1ad0.01091...@posting.google.com...
> DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!
>
> Sensitive material. Please do not read this post if you have
> high blood pressure or are upset by the recent terrorist
> attacks. Caveat lector. ("Let the reader beware.")
>
> "Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:<uhzp7.60695$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...
> > Hi Dreamsnake,
> >
> > It seems that the idea of definition, lacks definition. ...
<snip>
.
.
.
<snip>
> > Perhaps you now see it differently?
>
> If by "paganism" we mean what the average person thinks of as
> paganism, then no, the question is not practical.
OK, we have to define point of view (POV) here. If I ask a question, who or
what determines a questions' practicality, the responder or the seeker? And
what if the question has practical merit from the POV of the seeker, and the
answer has no practical use to the seeker? Is it the question's fault or
the answer's fault?
> If I
why say if, this is something that you could check out for yourself :->
> were to
> step outside my door and begin discussing paganism with folks
> I met, the working definition would include everyone who is not
> Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheistic, agnostic, perhaps Buddhist,
> and maybe some fringe faiths.
Is it not possible you would get a lot of responses that include "I don't
know"?
Walk into any church and ask.
> Is there a difference between the
> "everyone else" and gnostic? There is too much variety to give
> a simple answer. The ancient hermeticists are sometimes called
> "gnostic," and rightly so in my opinion.
Please, do not think that I do not value your opinion or what you say, and
we must consider that much of the information that we are discussing here
has been hidden away from the common people, and that we are in the
auspicious position of revealing the Truth for those to see.
> Any pagan who worships
> a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
> incompatible with gnosticism.
Opinion and not fact. My opinion is based on the fact that I am surrounded
by pagans, and wiccans, and all sorts of people, and I can count on one
hand, the number of people I know in my life who know of any other person
who claims to be a gnostic besides myself. And you are entitled to dispute
this or not, as long as you own it rather than project it as a fact.
> How can a question be practical
> when the answer must be both yes and no?
Is that the case? Or perhaps this is a point where some hidden belief you
hold to be true has been challenged? Or is it possible that both are true?
>
> My answer: it is not practical because one is asking the wrong
> question.
U may be on to something here. And it is not because that I think that the
question is wrong, but perhaps it is no longer valid given the information
already provided?
> It appears you are not really asking about the
> identity of gnosticism and paganism at all, but rather, about
> the feasibility of interfaith action.
It appears that this thread has evolved to this plateau.
>
> I do not favor interfaith efforts because they invariably lead
> to mealy-mouthed pronouncements like "we all worship the same
> God in different ways." Bullshit. I know I am putting myself
> in danger of serious flamage for saying this, but here goes:
> from my point of view, Catholics are demon-worshippers, so are
> Protestants, Muslims, neopagans, and anyone who thinks the
> world and its creator are pretty great. I mean this in the
> nicest way (really!). I bear no ill will or hostility to any
> of them. I do not preach their damnation or try to stamp out
> their religious faiths. But any effort to work together on the
> basis of religion assumes a common denominator between those
> religions, which is why I prefer secular action.
>
Suprisingly enough DS I am not going to jump down your throat here. I will
freely interpret all your cursing and foul language as a reflection of your
desire to emphasize how strongly you feel about the current situation.
I am aware of how group dynamics operate, and that there is a lot of lip
service being paid by the clergy who minister to those fat cat wealthy
bueraucrats, politicians, capitalists, and other defilers of the Truth.
And please, do not get me wrong, I am not against wealth, I am all for it,
in a responsible, healthy sharing way. Which is of course possible, but
generally not likely, in my experience. We live in an age where people feel
trapped by the rat race, feel totally disconnected from the Truth, and now
we throw the possibility of going to war. Well, break out the ammo Martha.
Now, is it possible that a group of multi-faith religions are going to band
together to help the oppressed, when the only way they can help them means
their own destruction. Not likely, is it DS?
> Besides, I do not want to exclude the truly faithless--my
> atheistic and agnostic friends--from any efforts to protect the
> "minorities," as your proposal would do.
>
Nor would I, nor was it my intent, perhaps I should have said etcetera to
include everyone left out from the traditional religions.
> Now, before everyone flames me, please be sure you flame me for
> what I have actually written, not what you think I am like.
>
> Dreamsnake
These are interesting times DS
Peace, love and gratitude
Duane
d_tilden@<antispam>attcanada.ca
Moggin Goldberg
>>>> ... The question doesn't strike
>>>> you as important right now, for whatever reason, fine. I'm
>>>> not telling you that it should. I'm simply giving you a little
>>>> helpful advice. Maybe you didn't understand. If you lack
>>>> interest in the subject, _don't_ read this thread or contribute
>>\>> to it. Capisce?
dav...@1freeemail.com (David Raphael):
>>> I understood your comment the first time.
Moggin:
>> Yet you're still here. Long as you're around, care to say
>> something on paganism vs. gnosticism?
David:
> Thank you for the invitation. I do not care to make any comments on either
> paganism nor gnosticism at this time.
Despite which you've now made three more posts to a thread
on paganism vs. gnosticism. See advice above.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
>> Any pagan who worships
>> a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
>> incompatible with gnosticism.
Duane Tilden <d_ti...@attcanada.ca>:
> Opinion and not fact.
Whatever you wanna call it, Dreamsnake is dead-on. Making
Creator or Creation into an object of worship directly
conflicts with gnosticism, since the gnostics rejected 'em both.
I already gave an example: Herakleon's commentary on John
4:21-22. (In Origen's _Commentary on John_ 13:95-96 and
13:102-104.) "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the
Father." Herakleon takes Jerusalem to signify the Creator, and
the mountain the Creation. Jews worship the Creator, he
observes, and Gentiles -- read "pagans" -- worship the Creation.
Then he states that pneumatics "...worship neither the
creation nor the Creator, but the Father of truth." Gnosticism
in a nutshell.
-- Moggin
Duane Tilden
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-094FB5....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
> dream...@my-deja.com (Dreamsnake):
>
> >> Any pagan who worships
> >> a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
> >> incompatible with gnosticism.
>
> Duane Tilden <d_ti...@attcanada.ca>:
>
> > Opinion and not fact.
>
> Whatever you wanna call it, Dreamsnake is dead-on. Making
> Creator or Creation into an object of worship directly
> conflicts with gnosticism, since the gnostics rejected 'em both.
Okay, I notice you use the wording "the gnostics" meaning to imply that
whatever book you got your information is the sole source. Stepping out on
a limb here as I would have to do my homework here, and frankly I do not
have the time, I will "speculate" that there are alternative gnostic models
to draw from. Are we not falling into the same rigid thinking as those
whose actions we question?
I believe we need to be mutable, not fixed.
>
> I already gave an example: Herakleon's commentary on John
> 4:21-22. (In Origen's _Commentary on John_ 13:95-96 and
> 13:102-104.) "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall
> neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the
> Father." Herakleon takes Jerusalem to signify the Creator, and
> the mountain the Creation. Jews worship the Creator, he
> observes, and Gentiles -- read "pagans" -- worship the Creation.
> Then he states that pneumatics "...worship neither the
> creation nor the Creator, but the Father of truth." Gnosticism
> in a nutshell.
>
If I may make a critical comment here. There are many paths to the "Father
of truth", and I believe not we are limited to one. Not saying that you are
not on the right path, just not the only path.
> -- Moggin
Be Well,
Duane
d_tilden@<antispam>attcanada.ca
Duane Tilden
how do you account for the other religions of the day? And also the ones to
follow?
"Then he states that pneumatics "...worship neither the
creation nor the Creator, but the Father of truth"
So some how you assume that someones' definition is not subject to change.
Can one not see the effects of our hateful actions and attitudes do to our
environment. These conditions did not exist before Christ, there were not
6.5 billion inhabitants on earth. Is this is what is required to become a
gnostic, to live in blind ignorance to which you only have to open your eyes
to see and ears to hear. Perhaps lifting your head once and a while, and
looking around may help you to further understand the enormity of the
present.
Personally, life goes on, one way or another.
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-094FB5....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
> dream...@my-deja.com (Dreamsnake):
>
> >> Any pagan who worships
> >> a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
> >> incompatible with gnosticism.
>
> Duane Tilden <d_ti...@attcanada.ca>:
>
> > Opinion and not fact.
>
<snip>
David R.
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-C21625....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
I haven't actually made any comments on paganism vs. gnosticism. Most of my
posts have been about courtesy vs. rudeness. This is something I do feel is
important enough to discuss, no matter where the issues arise. I am free to
respond to whatever posts I choose, as are you. You have chosen to respond
to mine. I choose to respond to yours. Isn't this a great country?
Dreamsnake
> "Dreamsnake" <dream...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:df6c1ad0.01091...@posting.google.com...
> > DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!
> >
> > Sensitive material. Please do not read this post if you have
> > high blood pressure or are upset by the recent terrorist
> > attacks. Caveat lector. ("Let the reader beware.")
> >
> > "Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
> news:<uhzp7.60695$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...
> > > Hi Dreamsnake,
> > >
> > > It seems that the idea of definition, lacks definition. ...
> <snip>
> .
> .
> .
> <snip>
> > > Perhaps you now see it differently?
> >
> > If by "paganism" we mean what the average person thinks of as
> > paganism, then no, the question is not practical.
>
> OK, we have to define point of view (POV) here. If I ask a question, who or
> what determines a questions' practicality, the responder or the seeker? And
> what if the question has practical merit from the POV of the seeker, and the
> answer has no practical use to the seeker? Is it the question's fault or
> the answer's fault?
You can learn from a bad question. For example, you can learn that the
assumptions you used in constructing the question were incorrect. But
it does not change the fact (or opinion, in your view) that the
question was a bad one.
> > If I
>
> why say if, this is something that you could check out for yourself :->
Subjunctive, my friend. I was not actually stepping outside my door
in order to make conversation at the moment I wrote that. Even if I
could take my computer and internet hookup along, I tend not to make
conversation with people I meet on the street at 1 in the morning.
> > were to
> > step outside my door and begin discussing paganism with folks
> > I met, the working definition would include everyone who is not
> > Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheistic, agnostic, perhaps Buddhist,
> > and maybe some fringe faiths.
>
> Is it not possible you would get a lot of responses that include "I don't
> know"?
> Walk into any church and ask.
Based on actual conversations I have had in the past, yes, I would
expect some initial responses to the effect of "I don't know."
Further conversation would reveal that most of this class of
respondants *could* give an answer if they knew they were not
being judged. They might give examples and discuss what they
thought those examples comprised. They might be given examples
of different religions or practices and asked whether they thought
the examples qualified, and why or why not.
> > Is there a difference between the
> > "everyone else" and gnostic? There is too much variety to give
> > a simple answer. The ancient hermeticists are sometimes called
> > "gnostic," and rightly so in my opinion.
>
> Please, do not think that I do not value your opinion or what you say, and
> we must consider that much of the information that we are discussing here
> has been hidden away from the common people, and that we are in the
> auspicious position of revealing the Truth for those to see.
>
> > Any pagan who worships
> > a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
> > incompatible with gnosticism.
>
> Opinion and not fact.
[D. makes a flamboyant French shrug] Ultimately, anything we say
is "opinion" and subject to debate, refinement, disagreement, and
correction. We could render opinions about whether I made that
last post or someone was forging my name, which would certainly
affect whether that post is valid evidence of my attitudes in
your opinion.
> My opinion is based on the fact that I am surrounded
> by pagans, and wiccans, and all sorts of people, and I can count on one
> hand, the number of people I know in my life who know of any other person
> who claims to be a gnostic besides myself. And you are entitled to dispute
> this or not, as long as you own it rather than project it as a fact.
My opinion of what makes a gnostic is based on my readings of the
various historical texts called "gnostic" and the scholars who
study them; on my discussions with self-identified gnostics on this
newsgroup (alt.religion.gnostic); on the webpages of various
gnostics; and on my own experience being a gnostic. My opinion of
what makes a pagan is based on my readings of texts by paleo- and
meso-pagans and the scholars who study them, as well as a little
classroom experience; on my readings of neopagans online and in
print, and the scholars, few as they are, who study them; on my
discussions with neopagans online and in person; and on my own
experiences having been a neopagan.
In other words, my opinions are not uninformed.
I do not feel like going into who-is-a-gnostic mode at the moment.
Since I know that in RL there are people who call themselves
"gnostic" yet fail to meet the criteria offered by Moggin, I would
be willing to offer a compromise for the duration of this thread:
"Any pagan who worships a creator or nature deity, or reveres
nature, is doing something incompatible with *a significant subset
of self-identified gnostics*."
This statement indicates a considerable difference and
incompatibility between at least *some* pagans and *some* gnostics.
It is also easily supported by the evidence: the statements of
Moggin and myself on this thread, for starters.
> > How can a question be practical
> > when the answer must be both yes and no?
>
> Is that the case? Or perhaps this is a point where some hidden belief you
> hold to be true has been challenged? Or is it possible that both are true?
Perhaps you prefer mystical questioning to critical thought?
My beliefs about what comprises gnosticism are not hidden. I have
expressed both my opinions and the reasoning behind them repeatedly
and freely on this newsgroup. I have made clear on this thread my
opinions concerning what comprises paganism. I am insistent on
the point gnosticism not from some hidden agenda, but because I do
not care to witness the debasement of a perfectly good word to make
it equivalent to another perfectly good word.
Given the definitions of gnosticism and paganism proffered, yes,
the answer must be both no and yes. No, because some paganism
(namely hermeticism) is essentially the same of gnosticism. Yes,
because many or most instances of paganism differ from gnostic
theology in key particulars. If you disagree, it is because you
are working with a diluted definition of gnosticism such as "any
direct experience of the divine," not because my reasoning is
invalid or I have secret motivations. If you do not like my
definition, it is your loss.
> > My answer: it is not practical because one is asking the wrong
> > question.
>
> U may be on to something here. And it is not because that I think that the
> question is wrong, but perhaps it is no longer valid given the information
> already provided?
Translation, please? How do you distinguish between "wrong"
questions and "invalid" questions?
> > It appears you are not really asking about the
> > identity of gnosticism and paganism at all, but rather, about
> > the feasibility of interfaith action.
>
> It appears that this thread has evolved to this plateau.
>
> >
> > I do not favor interfaith efforts because they invariably lead
> > to mealy-mouthed pronouncements like "we all worship the same
> > God in different ways." Bullshit. I know I am putting myself
> > in danger of serious flamage for saying this, but here goes:
> > from my point of view, Catholics are demon-worshippers, so are
> > Protestants, Muslims, neopagans, and anyone who thinks the
> > world and its creator are pretty great. I mean this in the
> > nicest way (really!). I bear no ill will or hostility to any
> > of them. I do not preach their damnation or try to stamp out
> > their religious faiths. But any effort to work together on the
> > basis of religion assumes a common denominator between those
> > religions, which is why I prefer secular action.
> >
> Suprisingly enough DS I am not going to jump down your throat here. I will
> freely interpret all your cursing and foul language as a reflection of your
> desire to emphasize how strongly you feel about the current situation.
Exactly. I thought you would understand that I am trying to
dramatize passionate feelings. I hope others reading this will
also understand. I should drop in a caveat for their benefit:
I do not speak for all gnostics on this! I do not recall any
poster on this ng using such in-your-face language about the
issue.
> I am aware of how group dynamics operate, and that there is a lot of lip
> service being paid by the clergy who minister to those fat cat wealthy
> bueraucrats, politicians, capitalists, and other defilers of the Truth.
> And please, do not get me wrong, I am not against wealth, I am all for it,
> in a responsible, healthy sharing way. Which is of course possible, but
> generally not likely, in my experience. We live in an age where people feel
> trapped by the rat race, feel totally disconnected from the Truth, and now
> we throw the possibility of going to war. Well, break out the ammo Martha.
>
> Now, is it possible that a group of multi-faith religions are going to band
> together to help the oppressed, when the only way they can help them means
> their own destruction. Not likely, is it DS?
What are you talking about? Who do you see in need of such help
that rendering them aid would cause the destruction of a multifaith
effort? Why does this need to be a faith-based effort, rather than
a secular one such as the ACLU?
> > Besides, I do not want to exclude the truly faithless--my
> > atheistic and agnostic friends--from any efforts to protect the
> > "minorities," as your proposal would do.
> >
>
> Nor would I, nor was it my intent, perhaps I should have said etcetera to
> include everyone left out from the traditional religions.
Cool. We all make little oversights.
> > Now, before everyone flames me, please be sure you flame me for
> > what I have actually written, not what you think I am like.
> >
>
> > Dreamsnake
>
>
> These are interesting times DS
Got that right.
Dreamsnake
serenwen
Mind if I join in, no, grand :)
> > > Any pagan who worships
> > > a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
> > > incompatible with gnosticism.
I'd say that I agree with this statement. As I understand the main
drive behind gnosticism is a desire to escape from a physical reality
which is a trap for the divine within the individual, a prison for the
soul. The creator god of nature is seen as the enemy of god by
creating the prison and seperating us from the divine, and so the
physical world is evil. The bind is that you are trapped here by
desire, so to be freed you must become desireless. As such, in
reverring the creative powers of nature, nature itself in some
pantheistic cases you are in Gnostic thought reverring the wrong
deity, the imprisoner and not the true creator of the soul.
I'm not a gnostic so I could be wrong or slightly off themark here,
its been a while since I looked at Gnosticism.
> Given the definitions of gnosticism and paganism proffered, yes,
> the answer must be both no and yes. No, because some paganism
> (namely hermeticism) is essentially the same of gnosticism. Yes,
> because many or most instances of paganism differ from gnostic
> theology in key particulars.
I guess by this you mean the same belief that the world of physical
reality can be transcended and to do so is a good idea. Roughly.
That would also be true of the Cathars as well as many other heretical
<according to Rome> branches of christianity which shares its roots
with gnosticism. The general practice of gnosticism, the path
followed was a personal one, with each person responsible for their
own salvation, so yes some forms of Paganism are very gnostic. I
personally think the key to this is the underlying cosmology, not
ptractice, so I would say that no pagan qualifies as a gnostic, unless
of course they are confused.
> > > It appears you are not really asking about the
> > > identity of gnosticism and paganism at all, but rather, about
> > > the feasibility of interfaith action.
Hmm, just a personal opinion but I have always thought it impossible
to serve two masters. For me, multifaith belief systems must be
included in the general area of the new age. Thats the only place
where all masters are seen as archytypes and therefore the same. But
thats just not the reality, rather the modern heresy <imho> And as
for atheists...well, that is their choice after all. Perhaps the most
sensible if we are right and they're wrong, or is that me being ever
the optomist? :)
serenwen
Duane Tilden
Well now DS, I think your choice of the word "bad" goes back to POV.
Perhaps using the word "any" could be more inclusive, did you not chide me
for be exclusionary?
Judging by the length of this thread I would guess that some have gained by
it, I must admit I have :-)
> For example, you can learn that the assumptions you used in constructing
the question were incorrect
Are you refering to the following definition as noted by Serewens posting?
> > > Any pagan who worships
> > > a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
> > > incompatible with gnosticism.
I have never made any comment about this, however, please reread this
assertion because it is a flawed syllogism IMO.
> But
> it does not change the fact (or opinion, in your view) that the
> question was a bad one.
I am sorry if you feel offended when I question anyones so-called "facts".
As many years as a practicing engineer, I have learned that "facts" are
gathered through scientific enquiry, hypothesis formation, testing and
reformulation (if necessary). This requires study, and really being honest
about findings so that an underlying truth can be formulated. This leads to
discovery and hopefully to growth. This is a very natural and organic
process. The idea of "The Scientific Method" was not developed until after
Christ (please do the search yourself if you want to check this assertion,
and I may get some flames about this, but I am sure this will only lead to
more debate so I will leave it up to you), so I guess I could equally argue
that anyone who claims to be any form of "Scientist" could equally not be
able to adopt gnosticism. That being said, then who could?
Of course, we could now discuss the idea of definition of a scientist. I
guess then, the idea of science must then decree that all things in the
natural and mineral kingdoms, are of no importance? And what about the idea
of evolution, is this flawed too? Hmmm
>
> > > If I
> >
> > why say if, this is something that you could check out for yourself :->
>
> Subjunctive, my friend. I was not actually stepping outside my door
> in order to make conversation at the moment I wrote that. Even if I
> could take my computer and internet hookup along, I tend not to make
> conversation with people I meet on the street at 1 in the morning.
>
IMO, it is more convincing to claim knowledge, rather than conjecture. Use
personal experience as an example, I would find your statements more
believable.
> > > were to
> > > step outside my door and begin discussing paganism with folks
> > > I met, the working definition would include everyone who is not
> > > Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheistic, agnostic, perhaps Buddhist,
> > > and maybe some fringe faiths.
> >
> > Is it not possible you would get a lot of responses that include "I
don't
> > know"?
> > Walk into any church and ask.
>
> Based on actual conversations I have had in the past, yes, I would
> expect some initial responses to the effect of "I don't know."
> Further conversation would reveal that most of this class of
> respondants *could* give an answer if they knew they were not
> being judged. They might give examples and discuss what they
> thought those examples comprised. They might be given examples
> of different religions or practices and asked whether they thought
> the examples qualified, and why or why not.
Are you speeking from personal experience here? If so I would like to
discuss this further, otherwise please speak from personal experience. It
is from personal experience that gnosis is obtained. IMO, gnosis is the
foundation of gnosticism, all else is conjecture.
You see, DS, it is through reading the Nag Hammadi, and other aspects of the
literature I have found that it is gnosticism which I resonate most with.
IMO, the bible is clearly wrong on a number of issues which affect our
social structure.
Here is one definition that could be used;
"Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in
pre-Christian times. The term is derived from the Greek word gnosis which
means "knowledge". It is pronounced with a silent "G" (NO-sis). Gnostics
claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the
universe of which the general population was unaware. It became one of the
three main belief systems within 1st century Christianity, and was noted for
its: novel beliefs about Gods, the Bible and the world which differed from
those of other Christian groups
tolerance of different religious beliefs within and outside of Gnosticism
lack of discrimination against women
The movement and its literature were essentially wiped out by the end of the
5th century CE by heresy hunters from mainline Christianity. Its beliefs are
currently experiencing a rebirth throughout the world. The counter-cult
movement and some other Christian ministries disseminate a great deal of
misinformation about the movement (10,11,12)"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm
"By the way, the name Sin was the Syrian name for Yahweh."
http://www.tantramagic.com/theessenes.htm
Right, not uninformed, just not validated. Studying gnosticism and claiming
to be a gnostic are two different things. Are there not many adherents to
any faith that claim to be what they are not? It is not through rhetoric
that we justify ourselves, but it is through "walking the talk". My friend,
IMO it is through communing with nature and really being able to appreciate
its own essence, that I can see, and hear and experience the ineffable one
working wonders.
>
> I do not feel like going into who-is-a-gnostic mode at the moment.
> Since I know that in RL there are people who call themselves
> "gnostic" yet fail to meet the criteria offered by Moggin, I would
> be willing to offer a compromise for the duration of this thread:
>
> "Any pagan who worships a creator or nature deity, or reveres
> nature, is doing something incompatible with *a significant subset
> of self-identified gnostics*."
>
As explained before. ( We have two definitions at play here not one )
> This statement indicates a considerable difference and
> incompatibility between at least *some* pagans and *some* gnostics.
> It is also easily supported by the evidence: the statements of
> Moggin and myself on this thread, for starters.
>
> > > How can a question be practical
> > > when the answer must be both yes and no?
> >
> > Is that the case? Or perhaps this is a point where some hidden belief
you
> > hold to be true has been challenged? Or is it possible that both are
true?
>
> Perhaps you prefer mystical questioning to critical thought?
Perhaps. In this case yes, because you assume you are correct without
stating why. Oversight or arrogance?
>
> My beliefs about what comprises gnosticism are not hidden. I have
> expressed both my opinions and the reasoning behind them repeatedly
> and freely on this newsgroup. I have made clear on this thread my
> opinions concerning what comprises paganism. I am insistent on
> the point gnosticism not from some hidden agenda, but because I do
> not care to witness the debasement of a perfectly good word to make
> it equivalent to another perfectly good word.
I am not stating that paganism and gnosticism they are the same. Nor do I
state that any other form of faith is equivalent to gnosticism. Please, I
am not trying to debase the idea of gnosticism. I am simply making the
observation that any one can come from any origin, and claim gnosticism.
However, they may not be the same afterwards, as transformation is not an
easy road. I am not commercially selling gnosticism to anyone, which in my
opinion should not be done, and is considered a sin (error) because it is
through the experience of the journey of life that gnosis is attained.
Certainly reading and study are also generally required. I do believe that
without some form of understanding of Universal order, and an unseen
intangible intelligence which binds us all you would not be able to ascend
to this level. I guess you need to have some understanding of religions,
power structures, people, the bible, other religous texts and readings and
all other such matters because you are going to have a lot of those
"religous folks" and others, wanting to talk with you, and you better be
prepared otherwise, who will take you seriously?
>
> Given the definitions of gnosticism and paganism proffered, yes,
> the answer must be both no and yes. No, because some paganism
> (namely hermeticism) is essentially the same of gnosticism. Yes,
> because many or most instances of paganism differ from gnostic
> theology in key particulars. If you disagree, it is because you
> are working with a diluted definition of gnosticism such as "any
> direct experience of the divine," not because my reasoning is
> invalid or I have secret motivations. If you do not like my
> definition, it is your loss.
>
> > > My answer: it is not practical because one is asking the wrong
> > > question.
> >
> > U may be on to something here. And it is not because that I think that
the
> > question is wrong, but perhaps it is no longer valid given the
information
> > already provided?
>
> Translation, please? How do you distinguish between "wrong"
> questions and "invalid" questions?
First off you are still assuming the question was wrong, not your answers.
Second off, the question became invalid because I believed that we were in
agreement about the evolution of the thread, perhaps I misjudged. It seems
we are still stuck on a definition of gnosticism. You know, I have only
claimed that Christ may have been a gnostic, which is what I believe,
because I agree with portions of the Nag Hammadi. I have stated this in
previous postings. If this is not clear I state it again. I, however, do
not dispute that there may be evidence that there are adherents of similar
faiths which also practice gnosticism. Actually, IMO Gnosticism can be
practice by anyone, however I think that without acknowledgement of some
form of Higher Order, this would be impossible. Truth is Universal.
Sorry, assumed you could read my mind. I just attended this multi-faith
group thing held by the Institute for Ethical Leadership here in Vancouver
yesterday. Anyway, they are trying to mount some sort of concerted
"multi-faith" effort to resolve some of their issues. I came away from this
event, thinking how really out of touch these people are with the world.
IMO the problem stems from the failure to recognize the Truth because their
own eyes have been darkened. That being said there may be some "embers" in
that crowd, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any "real" effort from this
group.
Now regarding the term secular, I think there is considerable over-use of
the word which is too rigidly defined. And, unfortunately we tend to throw
all those believers in non-traditional customs and practices into the same
box. So what does that do, I guess it leaves them in a predicament because
many forms of worship involves gatherings, this is the true intention of any
religion, is it not? (Not power mongering, conversion efforts, judgement,
indifference and apathy) And, since many of these people are not willing to
join the above traditional churches or convert they are basically
disaffected and thus disempowered. Unity tends to empower people due to the
synergies gained by sharing resources and knowledge.
The ACLU is really a red-herring. The ACLU (or any other organization) is
not universally accessible for local issues everywhere, and we are really
dealing with faith oriented subject matter, not secular.
>
> > > Besides, I do not want to exclude the truly faithless--my
> > > atheistic and agnostic friends--from any efforts to protect the
> > > "minorities," as your proposal would do.
> > >
> >
> > Nor would I, nor was it my intent, perhaps I should have said etcetera
to
> > include everyone left out from the traditional religions.
>
> Cool. We all make little oversights.
>
> > > Now, before everyone flames me, please be sure you flame me for
> > > what I have actually written, not what you think I am like.
> > >
> >
> > > Dreamsnake
> >
> >
> > These are interesting times DS
>
> Got that right.
>
> Dreamsnake
With Respect
Duane
Moggin Goldberg
>>>> Any pagan who worships
>>>> a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
>>>> incompatible with gnosticism.
Duane Tilden <d_ti...@attcanada.ca>:
>>> Opinion and not fact.
Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>> Whatever you wanna call it, Dreamsnake is dead-on. Making
>> Creator or Creation into an object of worship directly
>> conflicts with gnosticism, since the gnostics rejected 'em both.
Duane:
> Okay, I notice you use the wording "the gnostics" meaning to imply that
> whatever book you got your information is the sole source.
You notice wrong. I never said or suggested that there is
only one source of info on gnosticism.
> Stepping out on
> a limb here as I would have to do my homework here, and frankly I do not
> have the time, I will "speculate" that there are alternative gnostic
> models to draw from.
Yes and no. There were plenty of gnostic schools, so when
and if you do your homework, you'll find many variations on
the basic gnostic themes. But you'll also find common elements
-- including the rejection of Creator and Creation that
Dreamsnake and I have pointed out, both of which are central to
gnosticism.
> I believe we need to be mutable, not fixed.
Your beliefs are irrelevant. The subject is gnosticism in
relation to paganism, not "what Duane believes."
Moggin:
>> I already gave an example: Herakleon's commentary on John
>> 4:21-22. (In Origen's _Commentary on John_ 13:95-96 and
>> 13:102-104.) "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall
>> neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the
>> Father." Herakleon takes Jerusalem to signify the Creator, and
>> the mountain the Creation. Jews worship the Creator, he
>> observes, and Gentiles -- read "pagans" -- worship the Creation.
>> Then he states that pneumatics "...worship neither the
>> creation nor the Creator, but the Father of truth." Gnosticism
>> in a nutshell.
Duane:
> If I may make a critical comment here. There are many paths to the
> "Father of truth", and I believe not we are limited to one.
[...]
Again, your beliefs are irrelevant here. What matters are
the beliefs of the gnostics. See above.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
>>>> Any pagan who worships
>>>> a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
>>>> incompatible with gnosticism.
Duane Tilden <d_ti...@attcanada.ca>:
>>> Opinion and not fact.
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>> Whatever you wanna call it, Dreamsnake is dead-on. Making
>> Creator or Creation into an object of worship directly
>> conflicts with gnosticism, since the gnostics rejected 'em both.
>> I already gave an example: Herakleon's commentary on John
>> 4:21-22. (In Origen's _Commentary on John_ 13:95-96 and
>> 13:102-104.) "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall
>> neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the
>> Father." Herakleon takes Jerusalem to signify the Creator, and
>> the mountain the Creation. Jews worship the Creator, he
>> observes, and Gentiles -- read "pagans" -- worship the Creation.
>> Then he states that pneumatics "...worship neither the
>> creation nor the Creator, but the Father of truth." Gnosticism
>> in a nutshell.
Duane Tilden <d_ti...@attcanada.ca>:
> Oh, by the way, I did notice that the reference you use is pre Christ.
[...]
You noticed wrong. Idiotically wrong, since I referred to
Herakleon's commentary on the Gospel of John.
> So some how you assume that someones' definition is not subject to
> change.
[...]
You want to change the definition of "gnosticism"? You'll
need to explain what you want to change it to and why you
believe the change is worth making. You seem to have forgotten
those parts.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
>> Any pagan who worships
>> a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
>> incompatible with gnosticism.
"Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca>:
> I have never made any comment about this, however, please reread this
> assertion because it is a flawed syllogism IMO.
The above isn't a syllogism. It's a simple and I'd say an
accurate assertion that both nature-worship and
creator-worship are incompatible with gnosticism. If you think
that's false, I'd like to know why. Be specific.
> Here is one definition that could be used;
> "Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in
> pre-Christian times.
Debatable. Nobody has ever offered hard evidence to prove
the existence of pre-Christian gnosticism.
> The term is derived from the Greek word gnosis which
> means "knowledge". It is pronounced with a silent "G" (NO-sis). Gnostics
> claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the
> universe of which the general population was unaware.
[...]
Not just any knowledge. Gnosis has contents, for instance
the knowledge that the the Creator is not God, but a badly
flawed demiurge, and the knowledge that this world is not a
divine Creation, but an exile or a prison of the spirit. Worth
remembering that there were different gnostic schools, each
with a slightly different take, so efforts to generalize on the
topic always have their limits.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
> I haven't actually made any comments on paganism vs. gnosticism.
[...]
I noticed. You're more interested in giving yourself gold
stars for behaving well in class.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
>> Any pagan who worships
>> a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
>> incompatible with gnosticism.
sere...@serenwen.screaming.net (serenwen):
> I'd say that I agree with this statement. As I understand the main
> drive behind gnosticism is a desire to escape from a physical reality
> which is a trap for the divine within the individual, a prison for the
> soul. The creator god of nature is seen as the enemy of god by
> creating the prison and seperating us from the divine, and so the
> physical world is evil. The bind is that you are trapped here by
> desire, so to be freed you must become desireless. As such, in
> reverring the creative powers of nature, nature itself in some
> pantheistic cases you are in Gnostic thought reverring the wrong
> deity, the imprisoner and not the true creator of the soul.
> I'm not a gnostic so I could be wrong or slightly off themark here,
> its been a while since I looked at Gnosticism.
Hi, serenwen. You're very much on the mark. All that I'd
add is that the gnostics sometimes rejected the Creator by
embracing desire rather than renouncing it: two opposing paths
to the same goal. Details on request.
Dreamsnake:
>> Given the definitions of gnosticism and paganism proffered, yes,
>> the answer must be both no and yes. No, because some paganism
>> (namely hermeticism) is essentially the same of gnosticism. Yes,
>> because many or most instances of paganism differ from gnostic
>> theology in key particulars.
serenwen:
> I guess by this you mean the same belief that the world of physical
> reality can be transcended and to do so is a good idea. Roughly.
> That would also be true of the Cathars as well as many other heretical
> <according to Rome> branches of christianity which shares its roots
> with gnosticism.
The Cathars are definitely part of the gnostic family tree
even tho the historical connections are hard to trace.
Probably goes Paulicans --> Bogomils --> Cathari, but of course
that's speculation.
Where else do you find gnosticism in Christianity? I have
the impression it's pretty rare. Most heresies remain
orthodox in worshipping the Creator as God. Can you add to the
list above?
> The general practice of gnosticism, the path
> followed was a personal one, with each person responsible for their
> own salvation, so yes some forms of Paganism are very gnostic. I
> personally think the key to this is the underlying cosmology, not
> ptractice, so I would say that no pagan qualifies as a gnostic, unless
> of course they are confused.
[...]
Agreed. Unfortunately, that kind of confusion is a common
thing. Too common for my taste, anyway.
-- Moggin
David R.
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-FB6266....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
Actually, I am simply more interested in people remaining courteous. That
would include me, of course, and I get a gold star. But it would include
other posters as well, and they would also get gold stars. And wouldn't
that be nice?
Fedallah
"David R." wrote:
> > You're a compassionate human being. Bravo, well done, pat
> > on the back.
> >
> Thank you. However, you do not know my motivations. Also, my motivations
> are irrelevant.
Alright then, I'll just re-ask the questions which you
didn't answer...
Does this strike you as somehow more vital in light of
recent events than concerns over Gonsticism and such? Did
voicing the invitality of said concern strike you as vital?
> > > Whatever your feelings or motivations, there is no good reason to use
> > > offensive or rude language.
> >
> > I find that trying to be offensive and rude is a very good
> > reason to use offesnive and rude language, actually.
> OK, then let me rephrase that. There is no good reason to be offensive and
> rude.
Sure there is... as an excuse to indulge in the pleasure of
using offensive and rude language.
Rick
Duane Tilden
TU
No harm done.
Duane
Dreamsnake
>news:df6c1ad0.01091...@posting.google.com...
>> "Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message >news:<czVp7.60949$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>...
>> > "Dreamsnake" <dream...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> > news:df6c1ad0.01091...@posting.google.com...
[...]
>> > > If by "paganism" we mean what the average person thinks of as
>> > > paganism, then no, the question is not practical.
>> >
>> > OK, we have to define point of view (POV) here. If I ask a
question,
>> > who or
>> > what determines a questions' practicality, the responder or the
seeker? And
>> > what if the question has practical merit from the POV of the
seeker, and
>> > the
>> > answer has no practical use to the seeker? Is it the question's
fault or
>> > the answer's fault?
>>
>> You can learn from a bad question.
>
>Well now DS, I think your choice of the word "bad" goes back to POV.
>Perhaps using the word "any" could be more inclusive, did you not
chide me
>for be exclusionary?
Being exclusionary has its place. I am exclusionary in my definition
of
gnosticism. Faith-based groups are welcome to be exclusionary in
their tasks, memberships, or targeted audience, as far as I am
concerned; I merely do not
wish to take part in them. Being exclusionary was quite appropriate
here,
since we were discussing what I had labelled as a "bad" question.
Would you have been content had I instead labelled it an "invalid"
question?
That might have been a better choice, but I used "bad" through habit,
since
it is used in my non-online circle regularly and without the prejudice
you seem
to ascribe to "bad."
[...]
>> For example, you can learn that the assumptions you used in
constructing
>>the question were incorrect
>
>Are you refering to the following definition as noted by Serewens
posting?
1. It is not a definition. It is an assertion based on a definition.
2. What does Serenwen's post have to do with it?
>> > > Any pagan who worships
>> > > a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing
something
>> > > incompatible with gnosticism.
>
>I have never made any comment about this,
Yes you have. You said, and I quote:
:>Opinion and not fact. My opinion is based on the fact that I am
surrounded
:>by pagans, and wiccans, and all sorts of people, and I can count on
one
:>hand, the number of people I know in my life who know of any other
person
:>who claims to be a gnostic besides myself. And you are entitled to
dispute
:>this or not, as long as you own it rather than project it as a fact.
Are you forgetful or deceitful?
>however, please reread this assertion because it is a flawed
syllogism IMO.
It is not a syllogism; it is an assertion. "All syllogisms have three
parts,
therefore this is not a syllogism." If you do not know formal logic,
I
recommend avoiding its terminology.
As for my assertion, I have made it abundantly clear that it depends
on
accepting my definition--or Moggin's definition, or Serewen's
definition,
or in fact the definition that *you* gave early in the thread by
quoting
materials from the Ecclesia Gnostica. You have apparently decided to
change
the rules of the game by switching your operative definition. You
neglected
to inform us of this, yet you seem to feel free to attack my
statements
which legitimately assumed you still agreed with the definition you
had
proffered.
You might recall having posted these statements:
:>The manifest universe of matter and mind (psyche) was not created by
the
:>original spiritual unity but by spiritual beings possessing inferior
powers.
:>
:>These creators possessing inferior powers have as one of their
objectives
:>the perpetual separation of humans from the unity (God).
:>
:>The human being is a composite, the outer aspect being the handiwork
of the
:>inferior creators, while the "inner man" has the character of a
fallen spark
:>of the ultimate divine unity.
:>
:>The fallen sparks of transcendental holiness slumber in their
material and
:>mental prison, their self-awareness stupefied by forces of
materiality and
:>mind.
Did you not think through the implications of saying that the universe
of
matter was created by inferior powers with the intent of separating us
from
God? Or of calling the material universe a prison?
>> But it does not change the fact (or opinion, in your view) that the
>> question was a bad one.
>
>I am sorry if you feel offended when I question anyones so-called
"facts".
Nah, I am not offended. I am, however, at something of a loss if you
thought
I was presenting things I called "facts." The thread was patently
proceeding
from definitions: my definition of paganism and Moggin's and your
definitions
of gnosticism.
[Confused meanderings on the scientific method removed.]
[Requests for examples from personal experience removed.]
>> > > [If I] were to
>> > > step outside my door and begin discussing paganism with folks
>> > > I met, the working definition would include everyone who is not
>> > > Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheistic, agnostic, perhaps
Buddhist,
>> > > and maybe some fringe faiths.
>> >
>> > Is it not possible you would get a lot of responses that include
"I don't
>> > know"?
>> > Walk into any church and ask.
>>
>> Based on actual conversations I have had in the past, yes, I would
>> expect some initial responses to the effect of "I don't know."
>> Further conversation would reveal that most of this class of
>> respondants *could* give an answer if they knew they were not
>> being judged. They might give examples and discuss what they
>> thought those examples comprised. They might be given examples
>> of different religions or practices and asked whether they thought
>> the examples qualified, and why or why not.
>
>Are you speeking from personal experience here? If so I would like
to
>discuss this further, otherwise please speak from personal
experience.
Sigh. Yes, I was speaking from personal experience, as indicated by
my
comment "based on actual conversations I have had in the past." For
your
benefit, I spent some of the afternoon discussing paganism with people
with
whom I interacted, so my experiences could be as fresh as possible.
The
answers fell into three categories:
1. Anyone who is not a Christian (atheists and agnostics sometimes
excepted, as not having a "religion").
2. Anyone who is not a Christian or a member of a "world religion" or
"major religion."
3. It is a word used to label "others" and not a description given by
the
people said to be pagan, therefore it is not a valid construct.
Are you satisfied yet that I was not spinning my comments about
popular
definitions of paganism entirely from my imagination? Can we move on
now?
>It is from personal experience that gnosis is obtained. IMO, gnosis
is the
>foundation of gnosticism, all else is conjecture.
Of course it is. The conversation we need to be having is "what
qualifies
as gnosis?" See infra.
>You see, DS, it is through reading the Nag Hammadi, and other aspects
of the
>literature I have found that it is gnosticism which I resonate most
with.
>IMO, the bible is clearly wrong on a number of issues which affect
our
>social structure.
>
>Here is one definition that could be used;
[Lengthy but nonspecific discussion from the Religious Tolerance
website
removed.]
Your quote made some comments about the historical background of
gnosticism
but almost nothing about its specific content. All it says is that
the gnostics
"claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of
the
universe" and that they had "novel beliefs about Gods, the Bible and
the world
which differed from those of other Christian groups." It tells us
nothing about
what the secret knowledge and novel beliefs are. (It does tell us,
however,
that the author(s) of the article was not sufficiently careful in
editing,
because the comment about "*other* Christian groups" raises a problem
with
the statement that gnosticism "started in pre-Christian times.")
I suggest that the content of the secret knowledge and novel beliefs
matter,
because the article tells us that they are what distinguished
gnosticism from
other beliefs of the time. I also suggest that the knowledge and
beliefs are
spelled out clearly in the gnostic literature we have, such as the Nag
Hammadi
texts, and that they unambiguously include acute dislike of the
creator and its
creation, to put it mildly.
>"By the way, the name Sin was the Syrian name for Yahweh."
>http://www.tantramagic.com/theessenes.htm
What does this have to do with anything?
[...]
>> My opinion of what makes a gnostic is based on my readings of the
>> various historical texts called "gnostic" and the scholars who
>> study them; on my discussions with self-identified gnostics on this
>> newsgroup (alt.religion.gnostic); on the webpages of various
>> gnostics; and on my own experience being a gnostic. My opinion of
>> what makes a pagan is based on my readings of texts by paleo- and
>> meso-pagans and the scholars who study them, as well as a little
>> classroom experience; on my readings of neopagans online and in
>> print, and the scholars, few as they are, who study them; on my
>> discussions with neopagans online and in person; and on my own
>> experiences having been a neopagan.
>>
>> In other words, my opinions are not uninformed.
>
>Right, not uninformed, just not validated. Studying gnosticism and
claiming
>to be a gnostic are two different things. Are there not many
adherents to
>any faith that claim to be what they are not? It is not through
rhetoric
>that we justify ourselves, but it is through "walking the talk".
Deciding who belongs to a faith must proceed from some sort of
definition
before we can discuss who is "walking the talk." Since you regard my
statements on the matter as biased, I suggest we begin with an
objective third
party: the Oxford English Dictionary, widely regarded as the
authoritative
source on proper usage of the English language. The OED gives 1 (one)
definition for gnosticism:
Gnosticism: "The system or principles professed by the Gnostics."
The OED gives a variety of definitions for gnostic, some of which are
quite
broad, but most of them are adjectival. Only two deal with gnostic as
a noun:
1. "The designation given to certain heretical sects amont the early
Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of things spiritual,
and
interpreted the sacred writings by mystic philosophy."
2. "One skilled or learned in any subject (obs). Also slang ‘a
knowing one',
an adept in dishonest acts."
Since 2 does not limit itself to religious matters, I feel safe in
assuming
that we are dealing exclusively with definition 1, which agrees in
general
form with your definition from the Religious Tolerance site. It gives
a
historical context, specifying the early centuries of this era, and
mentions
special knowledge. Since it is a dictionary, and a quite large one at
that,
it does not explain the details of that knowledge.
The knowledge of the gnostics is available in a number of primary
sources
handily translated into English for our convenience. Since you and I
have read
them yet come to very different conclusions about their contents, I
suggest
turning to the works of academic scholars for interpretation. They
are, if not
entirely objective, at least third parties in the sense that they do
not view
themselves as participants in gnosticism; they have extensive access
to primary
sources and languages that most of us on these newsgroups do not; and
their
works are extensively peer-reviewed and combed over by others with
similar familiarity with the sources and, frequently, a vested
interest in
finding things to correct. Under these circumstances, academics come
to
largely the same conclusions I have concerning the ancient gnostics'
attitudes towards the world we live in.
>My friend,
>IMO it is through communing with nature and really being able to
appreciate
>its own essence, that I can see, and hear and experience the
ineffable one
>working wonders.
How special. But feeling that you are closer to God while tiptoeing
through
the tulips does not give you greater insight into gnosticism.
>> I do not feel like going into who-is-a-gnostic mode at the moment.
>> Since I know that in RL there are people who call themselves
>> "gnostic" yet fail to meet the criteria offered by Moggin, I would
>> be willing to offer a compromise for the duration of this thread:
>>
>> "Any pagan who worships a creator or nature deity, or reveres
>> nature, is doing something incompatible with *a significant subset
>> of self-identified gnostics*."
>>
>As explained before. ( We have two definitions at play here not one
)
That is not an answer, as you have not explained before and you do not
indicate which two definitions you have in mind.
[...]
>> > Is that the case? Or perhaps this is a point where some hidden
belief you
>> > hold to be true has been challenged? Or is it possible that both
are true?
>>
>> Perhaps you prefer mystical questioning to critical thought?
>
>Perhaps. In this case yes, because you assume you are correct
without
>stating why. Oversight or arrogance?
Neither. I assumed we had a common working definition of gnosticism
because *you* had already given a definition compatible with what I
was
saying, and you had said nothing to indicate you had come to the
conclusion
that it was incorrect.
>> My beliefs about what comprises gnosticism are not hidden. I have
>> expressed both my opinions and the reasoning behind them repeatedly
>> and freely on this newsgroup. I have made clear on this thread my
>> opinions concerning what comprises paganism. I am insistent on
>> the point gnosticism not from some hidden agenda, but because I do
>> not care to witness the debasement of a perfectly good word to make
>> it equivalent to another perfectly good word.
>
>I am not stating that paganism and gnosticism they are the same.
When I referred to the equation of gnosticism with another word, I was
thinking,
not of paganism, but of mysticism. Many posters, and you now seem to
be
among them, equate "gnosis" with "any direct contact with the divine"
or "any
sort of special or secret knowledge about the divine." But we already
have a
perfectly good word for that sort of thing: mysticism. I advocate
keeping the
word "gnosticism" to help us talk about "what the gnostics did," since
the
gnostics did some fairly specific things.
>Nor do I
>state that any other form of faith is equivalent to gnosticism.
Please, I
>am not trying to debase the idea of gnosticism.
You are debasing the meaning of the word "gnosticism" in the same way
that
coinage is debased: by mixing it with other metals to make it less
pure.
If you equate gnosticism with finding the works of God in nature, you
are
adulterating its meaning with concepts derived from other religions.
>I am simply making the
>observation that any one can come from any origin, and claim
gnosticism.
And currently you seem to be offering yourself as an example, by
rejecting
the secret knowledge of the ancient gnostics as irrelevant to a
definition
of gnosticism.
>However, they may not be the same afterwards, as transformation is
not an
>easy road. I am not commercially selling gnosticism to anyone, which
in my
>opinion should not be done, and is considered a sin (error) because
it is
>through the experience of the journey of life that gnosis is
attained.
>Certainly reading and study are also generally required. I do
believe that
>without some form of understanding of Universal order, and an unseen
>intangible intelligence which binds us all you would not be able to
ascend
>to this level. I guess you need to have some understanding of
religions,
>power structures, people, the bible, other religous texts and
readings and
>all other such matters because you are going to have a lot of those
>"religous folks" and others, wanting to talk with you, and you better
be
>prepared otherwise, who will take you seriously?
[The remainder removed for space, as it is useless to discuss without
a
common definition of gnosticism.]
At this point *I* for one am not prepared to take you seriously as an
authority on gnosticism or a gnostic yourself. Try doing some more of
that
reading you just mentioned. And when you come back, I suggest not
speaking as though you have received some special experience and your
interlocutor has done nothing but read a book, merely because he or
she
does not agree with you.
Dreamsnake
Dreamsnake
> TU
> No harm done.
Meaning . . . ? And to whom are you speaking?
D.
Duane Tilden
> Dreamsnake" <dream...@my-deja.com>:
>
> >> Any pagan who worships
> >> a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
> >> incompatible with gnosticism.
>
> "Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca>:
>
> > I have never made any comment about this, however, please reread this
> > assertion because it is a flawed syllogism IMO.
>
> The above isn't a syllogism. It's a simple and I'd say an
> accurate assertion that both nature-worship and
> creator-worship are incompatible with gnosticism. If you think
> that's false, I'd like to know why. Be specific.
Ok, if you recall, and I will include so you don't need to look it up you
made the following assertion;
"All the difference in the world. Paganism commonly has to
do with nature-worship of one sort or another, while
gnosticism rejects worship of both the Creator and the Creation."
I would modify your assertion to say "gnosticism rejects worship of both the
sub-creator, and the sub-creation." I would further define that the
sub-creator, generally termed YWHW in the bible, as the name referred to in
the bible for the sub-creator. The attributes of the sub-creator are greed,
lust, and avarice, just to name a few. The sub-creation is the construction
known as man's world which is governed and controlled by the Archons.(This
statement excludes the Hu-man world)
Meanwhile, the Creator, The Ineffable One, The Universal All ...(call it
what you will)... is the GOD who created Heaven and Earth...after that YWHW
moved in. Our connection to the Divine comes from within, not imposed on us
from some external force or pressure. (This leads to oppression which is
not the natural order of things.) Also, so the Plant, Animal and Mineral
Kingdoms all belong to the Creator, and it is those Kingdoms through which
the Creator expresses and communicates to us via the Holy Spirt (Divine
Mother). I suppose it depends on what you read and how you interpret it.
To me, Nature Worship and Gnosticism are compatible. And....., I do "not"
worship the sub-creation.
>
> > Here is one definition that could be used;
>
> > "Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in
> > pre-Christian times.
>
> Debatable. Nobody has ever offered hard evidence to prove
> the existence of pre-Christian gnosticism.
What does "hard evidence" mean to you? What would someone have to do to
convince you that it is "possible" that their POV may also be valid while
being respectful to yours? I notice that you like to bug Dave quite a bit,
handing out gold stars for silence. I believe that "silence" on other
people's parts can be an admirable quality, especially when they speak
"their Truth" when called.
This all being said, I do not mind the discourse, however, please be a bit
more respectful.
>
> > The term is derived from the Greek word gnosis which
> > means "knowledge". It is pronounced with a silent "G" (NO-sis). Gnostics
> > claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the
> > universe of which the general population was unaware.
>
> [...]
>
> Not just any knowledge. Gnosis has contents, for instance
> the knowledge that the the Creator is not God, but a badly
> flawed demiurge, and the knowledge that this world is not a
> divine Creation, but an exile or a prison of the spirit. Worth
> remembering that there were different gnostic schools, each
> with a slightly different take, so efforts to generalize on the
> topic always have their limits.
I could go into this one, but it's late,
bye
>
> -- Moggin
With Respect,
Duane
Moggin Goldberg
>>> I haven't actually made any comments on paganism vs. gnosticism.
Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>> I noticed. You're more interested in giving yourself gold
>> stars for behaving well in class.
David:
> Actually, I am simply more interested in people remaining courteous. That
> would include me, of course, and I get a gold star. But it would include
> other posters as well, and they would also get gold stars. And wouldn't
> that be nice?
No. I value folks with something to say -- not people who
congratulate themselves on their manners.
-- Moggin
Fedallah
Duane Tilden wrote:
Moggin:
> "All the difference in the world. Paganism commonly has to
> do with nature-worship of one sort or another, while
> gnosticism rejects worship of both the Creator and the Creation."
Duane:
> I would modify your assertion to say "gnosticism rejects worship of both the
> sub-creator, and the sub-creation." I would further define that the
> sub-creator, generally termed YWHW in the bible, as the name referred to in
> the bible for the sub-creator. The attributes of the sub-creator are greed,
> lust, and avarice, just to name a few. The sub-creation is the construction
> known as man's world which is governed and controlled by the Archons.(This
> statement excludes the Hu-man world)
>
> Meanwhile, the Creator, The Ineffable One, The Universal All ...(call it
> what you will)... is the GOD who created Heaven and Earth...after that YWHW
> moved in. Our connection to the Divine comes from within, not imposed on us
> from some external force or pressure. (This leads to oppression which is
> not the natural order of things.) Also, so the Plant, Animal and Mineral
> Kingdoms all belong to the Creator, and it is those Kingdoms through which
> the Creator expresses and communicates to us via the Holy Spirt (Divine
> Mother). I suppose it depends on what you read and how you interpret it.
Please show any Gnostic system where the Father created the
heavans or the earth. I'd be interested in seeing it.
Rick
Moggin Goldberg
>>>> Any pagan who worships
>>>> a creator or nature deity, or reveres nature, is doing something
>>>> incompatible with gnosticism.
Duane Tilden <d_ti...@attcanada.ca>:
>>> I have never made any comment about this, however, please reread this
>>> assertion because it is a flawed syllogism IMO.
Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>> The above isn't a syllogism. It's a simple and I'd say an
>> accurate assertion that both nature-worship and
>> creator-worship are incompatible with gnosticism. If you think
>> that's false, I'd like to know why. Be specific.
Duane:
> Ok, if you recall, and I will include so you don't need to look it up
> you made the following assertion;
[Duane:]
: Paganism vs Gnosticism, Is there a difference?
[Moggin:]
: All the difference in the world. Paganism commonly has to
: do with nature-worship of one sort or another, while
: gnosticism rejects worship of both the Creator and the Creation.
Duane:
> I would modify your assertion to say
I wasn't asking what assertion would be more to your taste.
I pointed out that Dreamsnake's statement wasn't a flawed
syllogism, since it was no syllogism at all, and I asked you to
explain why you believed it was false. If you want to
substitute my assertion, that's alright, but my question stands:
why do you think it's false? Be specific.
> "gnosticism rejects worship of both
> the sub-creator, and the sub-creation." I would further define that the
> sub-creator, generally termed YWHW in the bible, as the name referred to
> in the bible for the sub-creator. The attributes of the sub-creator are
> greed, lust, and avarice, just to name a few. The sub-creation is the
> construction known as man's world which is governed and controlled by the
> Archons.(This statement excludes the Hu-man world) Meanwhile, the
> Creator, The Ineffable One, The Universal All ...(call it what you
> will)... is the GOD who created Heaven and Earth...after that
> YWHW moved in.
[...]
Nope. I mean, you're welcome to believe whatever you like
about God, the universe, and everything. But we're talking
about gnosticism. And to the gnostics, the demiurge is clearly
the creator of this cosmos -- that is, the heavens and the
earth -- while the true God (the Ineffable One, or whatever you
wanna say) doesn't have that role.
> To me, Nature Worship and Gnosticism are compatible.
[...]
Then your understanding of gnosticism is badly flawed. As
you admitted, you haven't done your homework. Take the
creation-story in Ptolemy's system, as described by Irenaeus in
_Adversus Haereses_ I. It's a Valentinian myth, which is to
say that it comes from one of the most moderate gnostic schools.
Yet it claims this world is the result of a cosmic tragedy,
namely Sophia's fall from the divine realm, and it explains the
natural elements as the materialized forms of the suffering
that she experienced as she tumbled from on high: water is the
fear which she felt, the air is her grief, and the earth
itself is her terror. Wondering about fire? It's found in the
others "as death and corruption." (AH 1.5.4. AH 1.4.2
contains a slightly different version.) A deeply negative view
of the natural world.
Or take my earlier example: Herakleon's commentary on John
4:21-22. (In Origen's _Commentary on John_ 13:95-96 and
13:102-104.) "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the
Father." Herakleon takes Jerusalem to signify the Creator, and
the mountain the Creation. Jews worship the Creator, he
observes, and Gentiles -- read "pagans" -- worship the Creation.
Then he states that pneumatics "...worship neither the
creation nor the Creator, but the Father of truth." Gnosticism
in a nutshell.
Duane:
>>> "Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started
>>> in pre-Christian times."
Moggin:
>> Debatable. Nobody has ever offered hard evidence to prove
>> the existence of pre-Christian gnosticism.
Duane:
> What does "hard evidence" mean to you?
Some documents would be good. Gnostic texts which date to
before Christ would settle the question, if someone could
manage to discover a few. Even one would do the trick. But so
far none have turned up.
> What would someone have to do to
> convince you that it is "possible" that their POV may also be valid
> while being respectful to yours?
We're discussing the existence of pre-Christian gnosticism.
You quoted something -- did you say what? -- stating that
gnosticism started in "pre-Christian times." As I said, that's
a debatable assertion.
> I notice that you like to bug Dave quite a
> bit, handing out gold stars for silence.
No, I pointed out that Dave, who hasn't been silent, likes
to give himself gold stars for behaving well in class. I
notice that whenever you say, "I notice," it's followed by some
sorta falsehood. Third time in a row.
> I believe that "silence" on other
> people's parts can be an admirable quality, especially when they speak
> "their Truth" when called. This all being said, I do not mind the
> discourse, however, please be a bit more respectful.
I'm giving you as much respect as you deserve and a little
extra, just cuz I'm such a nice guy.
-- Moggin
David R.
"Fedallah" <reha...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BAAAE36...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> "David R." wrote:
> > > You're a compassionate human being. Bravo, well done, pat
> > > on the back.
> > >
> > Thank you. However, you do not know my motivations. Also, my
motivations
> > are irrelevant.
>
>
> Alright then, I'll just re-ask the questions which you
> didn't answer...
>
>
> Does this strike you as somehow more vital in light of
> recent events than concerns over Gonsticism and such? Did
> voicing the invitality of said concern strike you as vital?
>
> > > > Whatever your feelings or motivations, there is no good reason to
use
> > > > offensive or rude language.
> > >
> > > I find that trying to be offensive and rude is a very good
> > > reason to use offesnive and rude language, actually.
>
> > OK, then let me rephrase that. There is no good reason to be offensive
and
> > rude.
>
> Sure there is... as an excuse to indulge in the pleasure of
> using offensive and rude language.
>
David R.
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-3CFAB8....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
I value folks who say what they have to say with courtesy and kindness.
This is not quite the same as congratulating myself on my manners.
Bright Thunder
Niall
Duane Tilden
My Pleasure,
The following has been extracted from "The Gnostic Catechism" by Rev.
Stephen A. Hoeller (Tau Stephanus I)
"A Brief Credo
We Acknowledge one great invisible God, the Unknown Father, the Aeon of
Aeons, who brought forth with His providence: The Father, the Mother and
the Son.
We acknowledge the Christos, the self-begotten Son, born from the virginal
and ineffable Mother in the high Aeons: who in the Logos of God came down
from above to annul the emptiness of this age and restore the fullness of
the Aeon.
We acknowledge the Holy Spirit, our celestial Mother and consoler, who
proceeded from Herself, a gift of Herself out of the silence of the unknown
God.
We seek the gathering of the sparks of light from the sea of forgetfulness
and we look to the glories of eternal life in the Fullness. Amen."
If you wish to do your own research on this topic, may I suggest one of the
best websites on this matter <imho> at http://www.gnosis.org/
Be Well,
Duane
Bright Thunder
Saint wrote:
> Sorry, Duane
>
> I thought your old post was a new one. And recently there is a virus warning
> out for any messages sent with no text.
>
> Apologies.
>
> David St. Albans
> "Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
> news:bmTp7.60924$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> >
> > "Saint" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:9o8tq4$bigop$1...@ID-64061.news.dfncis.de...
> > > Duane,
> > >
> > > I am going to remain suspicious of your posts having a virus or
> something,
> > > when you keep sending them without a text body.
> > >
> > > You are saying nothing. Is this a statement to someone? Or just a
> mistake
> > on
> > > your part?
> > >
> >
> > Pardon my lack of understanding but I am not sure what you are referring
> to
> > unless it is the original post of "Re: Paganism vs Gnosticism, Is there a
> > difference?" If this is the case then, I meant that the change in the
> > thread title to be the question that I was asking. If you recall the
> > original title of the thread is not the present title. I thought it
> clever
> > and was having some fun, but meant no harm.
> >
> > If this is not to which you refer then please explain.
> >
> > Duane
> > > "Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:tFro7.59945$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> > > > --
> > > > Duane Tilden
> > > > Society of Energy & Resources for Sustainable Development
> > > > Meeting tomorrows needs today.
> > > > d_tilden@<antispam>attcanada.ca
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
the Kajun Hippie
matter is a physical expression of the spirit, in much the same way that ice
is a solid expression of fluid water. The two are not separate, but one is
an expression of the other.
And there are many Pagans who agree with me. The ones who don't are, IMHO,
still heavily influenced by the Christian matter/spirit dichotomy, and you
can spot one at fifty yards because s/he will make some cheesy comment about
how we're "trapped" in physical reality and about how s/he looks forward to
going to the Summerlands when s/he leaves this "vale of tears."
And it is this disrespect for physical reality which leads to ecological
destruction and incidents like the Sept. 11 attacks.
Gnosticism is a spinoff of Christianity and the Hebrew mythos. While there
are Christo-Pagans and Judeo-Pagans and probably Pagan Muslims in existence
(Sufi, for instance?), most Pagans do not worship the God of Abraham.
NT
Dana
--
*****
the Kajun Hippie
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kajunhippie
Take THAT, Jerry Falwell:
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/goddessbless
"Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:%9uo7.59995$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> "Jeremy Reaban" <j...@Xconnectria.com> wrote in message
> news:tq4pfhd...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Maybe...it depends on the definitions...
> >
> Hmm, yes this is tricky.
>
> At the risk of being offensive (why stop now?), I will post the following
> definition of the Gnostic tradition as explained in "The Ecclesia
Gnostica".
> http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/ecclesia.htm
>
> "While the ancient Gnostic teachers were very pluralistic and creative
> regarding the details of their teachings and practices, at the same time
> they embraced a set of common assumptions which form the core of the
Gnostic
> tradition. The model of reality shown forth in the Gnostic scriptures and
in
> the Gnostic tradition may be very briefly (and therefore somewhat
> inadequately) outlined by way of the following points:
>
> There is an original and transcendental spiritual unity which came to
> emanate a vast manifestation of pluralities.
>
> The manifest universe of matter and mind (psyche) was not created by the
> original spiritual unity but by spiritual beings possessing inferior
powers.
>
> These creators possessing inferior powers have as one of their objectives
> the perpetual separation of humans from the unity (God).
>
> The human being is a composite, the outer aspect being the handiwork of
the
> inferior creators, while the "inner man" has the character of a fallen
spark
> of the ultimate divine unity.
>
> The fallen sparks of transcendental holiness slumber in their material and
> mental prison, their self-awareness stupefied by forces of materiality and
> mind.
>
> The slumbering sparks have not been abandoned by the ultimate unity,
rather
> there is a constant effort forthcoming from this unity that is directed
> toward their awakening and liberation.
>
> The awakening of the inmost divine essence in humans is effected by
salvific
> knowledge, called Gnosis.
>
> Salvific knowledge, or Gnosis, is not brought about by belief, or the
> performance of virtuous deeds, or by obedience to commandments, for these
> can at best but serve as preparatory circumstances leading toward
liberating
> knowledge.
>
> Among the helpers of the slumbering sparks a particular position of honor
> and importance belongs to a feminine emanation of the unity. The name of
> this emanation is Sophia (Wisdom). She was involved in the creation of the
> world and ever since remained the guide of her orphaned human children.
>
> From the earliest times of history, messengers of light have been sent
forth
> from the ultimate unity. The task of these messengers has ever been the
> advancement of Gnosis in the souls of humans.
>
> The greatest of these messengers in our historical and geographical matrix
> was the descended Logos of God, manifesting in Jesus Christ.
>
> Jesus exercised a twofold ministry: He was a teacher, imparting
instruction
> concerning the way of Gnosis, and he was a hierophant, imparting
mysteries.
>
> The mysteries imparted y Jesus (which are also known as sacraments) are
> mighty aids toward Gnosis and have been entrusted by him to his apostles
and
> to their successors.
>
> By way of the spiritual practice of the mysteries (sacraments) and by a
> relentless and uncompromising striving for Gnosis, humans can steadily
> advance toward liberation from all confinement, material and otherwise.
The
> ultimate objective of this process of liberation is the achievement of
> salvific knowledge and with it freedom from embodied existence and return
to
> the ultimate unity."
>
> This works for me as a beginning point for a rudimentary
> understanding/definition of gnosticism. However, I am sure that others
may
> wish to refute, or expand on this.
>
> How about Neo-paganism or paganism, anyone up to it?
the Kajun Hippie
the same species. It is therefore in our best interests to stop being so
damned homicidal towards one another.
And I will personally discuss whatever I like. Being silent and not
discussing anything will not revive the dead.
NT
Dana
--
*****
the Kajun Hippie
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kajunhippie
Take THAT, Jerry Falwell:
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/goddessbless
"Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:eOuo7.60004$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>
>
> "David Raphael" <dav...@1freeemail.com> wrote in message
> news:f147ec7a.01091...@posting.google.com...
> > You know, somehow the question just doesn't seem all that important at
> > the moment. Here in the US, we have had to grapple with issues a bit
> > more pressing than quarreling over definitions concerning paganism and
> > gnosticism. I realize that our difficulties may not seem important to
> > you, but to us it is a matter of great concern. Perhaps we can take
> > up this discussion at another time, when the grief has lifted and the
> > dead have been buried.
> >
> > Be well and in good spirits.
> >
> > David R.
> >
> >
> Yes of course, my sincere and utter condolences go out about this horrific
> event.
> I pray for peace and a resolution. I also pray that the US will pause,
> reflect and rise above this tragedy.
>
> I believe that these wounds may be healed, and healing takes place through
> understanding, which requires dialogue.
>
> I will be volunteering at the Summit 2001, Conference on Spirituality and
> Sustainability, being held this weekend and
> next week (Sept 15 to 22) in Vancouver, BC, Canada. ( www.2001summit.org
for
> details). The events in the US
> have now been forwarded as the theme for the conference, replacing the
> original "Quickening Global Consciousness".
>
> I believe that by working to understand our differences and similarities
in
> our religions, we can start to form a commonality
> from which we can all work together to make a safe, peaceful, and
> sustainable world.
>
> Peace Light Love and God Bless America
the Kajun Hippie
If you think your mind can live without your body, try sitting in a running
car in a closed garage for about fifteen minutes.
A Pagan honors the unity of mind and spirit and body. They are all One.
There is no split, no dichotomy. There may be something of us which
survives beyond death but it doesn't stay dead, it comes back and is reborn
again. The nature of spirit is always to inhabit matter. Matter is an
expression of spirit.
As far as I'm concerned anybody who says otherwise is living in denial. And
it's your right to do so. But don't come into a Pagan newsgroup spouting
crap about something you don't understand.
Hate groups? I'm sure. When was the last time Neopagans made Gnostic
Christianity illegal?
NT
Dana
--
*****
the Kajun Hippie
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kajunhippie
Take THAT, Jerry Falwell:
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/goddessbless
"Saint" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9nuop2$a70gj$1...@ID-64061.news.dfncis.de...
> Well spoken.
>
> There is a difference between Paganism and Gnosticism. Pagans apply their
> energies to the worship and manipulation by magical and other means
(prayers
> and supplications, sacrifices, etc.) to earth spirits and gods of the
> fields, forests and fens. They are interested in mainly fertility, good
> harvests and they are linked inexorably to the land and to the earth. They
> believe the earth will tell them right from wrong and how to go about
their
> very primitive but endlessly interesting lives as they merrily dance about
> fires and praise Odin or whomever. They usually like to put hexes on folk,
> or make love potions. Nice folk, generally speaking. Now Neo-Pagans, they
> are another story. Just hate groups in another guise.
>
> Gnostics on the other hand are those who seek the wisdom to overcome
earthly
> existence and trials and tribulations. Their gods tend to be rather more
> intellectual and technical. Gnostics long for another world where answers
to
> questions of a cosmic nature are made clear, and once answered, they can
> have access to the creative powers of the gods. It is a transcendent
> overview. Of course there's no harm in being a Gnostic-pagan. But believe
> me, someone will find a reason to hate you anyway.
>
> Love,
>
> Saint Albans
the Kajun Hippie
Pagans would remember that.
NT
Dana
--
*****
the Kajun Hippie
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kajunhippie
Take THAT, Jerry Falwell:
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/goddessbless
"Big Hair Televangelist" <bighairtel...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3BA38C46...@my-deja.com...
> saint,
>
> I am surprised that you would post such garbage
> about other religions, like paganism. What you
> have posted is a caricature of reality.
>
> You either don't know, or don't understand
> what you are talking about.
>
> The word paganism also applies to modern day
> witches. Contrary to what you have posted,
> most pagans do not conduct animal, or human
> sacrifices, curse people, and they are not
> hate groups.
>
> Maybe you just crave the attention.
>
> Why don't you stay on your bullshit new age usenet
> groups, where all of life is made of vibrations,
> and sweetness, and light?
>
> Is it any wonder that you said you thought you
> were cursed, with posts like yours?
>
> Jake
the Kajun Hippie
> > > > The word paganism also applies to modern day
> > > > witches.
> >
> > No, "Wicca" applies to modern day witches. Wicca does not necessarily
imply
> > Paganism, some White Wicca Witches believe in Jesus and Mary and a One
God.
> > Some "magicians" like yourself, claim to believe in Jesus.One would have
to
> > call themselves a Pagan, rather than a Witch if one wanted to be counted
as
> > a true pagan shamanistic practitioner.
A TRUE PAGAN SHAMANISTIC PRACTITIONER???
Um.
First off, I'm sick of seeing the word "shaman" misused and abused. You are
not a shaman just cause you say so. There is no such thing as a Native
American shaman. There is no school for shamanism. There's no shamanistic
church.
Being Pagan doesn't mean you work magick. For those who do work magick, you
don't have to travel between the worlds. You don't have to perform
ceremonial magick. Folk magick will suffice.
Wicca is a Pagan religion. Always has been, always will be, unless it
morphs into a Christian denomination. Which would not surprise me since
most Wiccans appear to worship Jesus-In-A-Dress.
Since "Witchery" came to be known
> > only AFTER the advent of Christianity in Europe. Whereas Pagans have
been
> > Pagans since before the time of Rome. In fact the Romans were Pagans.
And to
> > them a witch or sorcerer, oracle or diviner was simply a part of their
> > paganisic worship. To me Pagan is anything before the advent of
> > Judeo-Christian thought taking over a culture.
You mean "paganistic" right? By the way, no such word. "Pagan" will
suffice. "A part of their PAGAN worship." Also, Muslims are not Pagan. So
even if "Judeo-Christian" thought took over an Arab country, for instance,
that doesn't make Muslims Pagan.
> Well, I happen to disagree. Wicca is a term that modern Witches
haveadopted to
> describe themselves. Wicca translates as Craft of the Wise.
Well, that explains all the idiots practicing it. Nobody can agree on the
entymology of the word "Wicca." Some say it means "wise," others say it
means "to shape or bend," as in shaping or bending reality.
> Pagan in the current usage, is what many modern day Witches
> describe themselves as. Author Raven Grimassi, has documented
> in The Ways of the Strega, that Dianic covens predate Christianity,
> using the literature of those times.
>
> Pagan can be used to describe Witches, both modern,
> and ancient.
Except for Christian witches who wouldn't dream of invoking anybody but
their Christian divinities. You know, God and Jesus and Mary and the
saints...
> > > > Contrary to what you have posted,
> > > > most pagans do not conduct animal, or human
> > > > sacrifices, curse people, and they are not
> > > > hate groups.
> >
> > Number one. Neo-Pagans, as in Russia and Germany, are in fact, Hate
Groups,
> > Racists and have nothing to do with the either the modern Wicca or Pagan
> > movements.
*bzzt* Wrong! There are Neopagans in THIS country and they are NOT hate
groups. The people YOU refer to are trying to revive their Paleopagan roots
and are probably getting it all mixed up with racist Christianity. That's
Mesopaganism.
> You made a general statement that Neo-Pagans werehate groups. It is up to
you to
> clarify, and offer evidence of
> those claims, or retract your claim (shut your trap).
>
> > Number two, if your Modern Pagans aren't doing sacrifices (no one
mentioned
> > human sacrifice, BTW. You put that in there for the shock value),
worshiping
> > trees and idols, putting out curses and hexes and making potions, then
they
> > aren't really card-carrying Pagans. They are just calling themselves
Pagans.
> > They are some other philosophy or religion. I was speaking of
Traditional
> > Pagans. If you or someone meant anything else, then it is up to you to
be
> > more clear. You didn't say Modern Paganism. Nor did you say Moder
> > Gnosticism, which is a far cry from ancient Gnosticism.
Nobody worships an idol, idiot. They worship what it represents. How come
NOBODY understands this? Even in the Hindu sects where they will actually
"feed" and "dress" an idol, they only do this to convey respect for the
Deity it represents... i.e., if the Deity were to appear in material,
three-dimensional form before them, they'd treat the Deity with the same
hospitality they do the statue.
Not every Pagan trad performs animal sacrifices. Ever talk to someone who
practices Shinto? If not all Paleopagans perform animal sacrifice then why
do Neopagans have to? And while behavior/ritual is certainly an important
part of what makes Pagans Pagan, you missed the belief part. You could do
all the sacrifices and make all the potions you wanted but if you don't
believe in any Deity at all, you are either an atheist or an agnostic, NOT a
Pagan. I realize this differs from the old Roman definition, but I've come
to believe that belief is equally important to practice. Without intent
your actions are not effective.
> Read this: Modern day Pagans, and Witches do not as a rulesacrifice
animals. If
> you have any evidence that they do, please
> offer it. Otherwise, you are in error. You know it, and I know it.
>
> If you wish to discuss Santeria, or Voodoo, that's another
> subject entirely. And, I haven't heard many of those people
> calling themselves Pagans. That's a separate path.
Santeria and Voodou are Mesopagan paths. Thus they are Pagan. If they
don't call themselves Pagan it is only because they have learned to hate
that word thanks to their Christian influence.
> > You know, you keep saying that you are "Albert Saint David" and Lord
Leroy
> > and Big Bertha and all these people who seem to supposedly "know" about
> > religion having a "twenty year background... and apparently you don't
know
> > anything. I have a thirty fie year plus background. I saw your answers
about
> > angels. Tragically non-explanatory if you ask me. But you keep trying.
> > Someday your trolling will bag you whatever it is you are after.
It doesn't matter how much of a background you have if you read the wrong
books and talk to the wrong people.
> You called yourself Gregorius, and later claimed to be the angel,Metatron,
and
> challenged people to test you. Is it any wonder
> that you have no creditability?
>
> I have been studying angels, and spirits since 1972.
> I have conducted thousands of experiments with them.
> I'll leave my answers to questions on various usenet
> groups, as my testimony.
Performing experiments on spirits? *rolls on the floor* That must have
been very amusing for Them.
> You even had the audacity to "channel the Christian God,"
> (as distinguished from the Pagan Gods), and later said
> the Bible is full of lies.
It probably is. It's a political document as much as a spiritual one.
Politicians necessarily lie.
> > Life is all vibration. Sorry to disabuse your theories of Djinnis and
Earth
> > Spirits. Even they are vibrations.
Well, I'm the most solid vibration I've ever met. Don't get me wrong, I see
where you are coming from, but let's not get too simplistic here.
> > You seem to have a serious problem with New Age and with me. Why? Did we
> > hurt you or your family? Do you often lump one person who hurt or abused
you
> > with ALL New Agers? And are you saying that as some sort of Paganist,
you do
> > indeed "curse" people?
"Paganist"? In your thirty-plus years of experience, has nobody ever
corrected your horrid word usage? You even INVENT words.
If so, then you have just gone against the so-called
> > "truth" of your own post! Pagans do curse people.
They say a witch who cannot hex cannot heal. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate
it if you'd use qualifiers in your speech, such as "SOME Pagans do curse
people." Because not all of us do.
And both of you get on my nerves. Can't you take it off the all-worlds ng?
the Kajun Hippie
Druidism. Meso- necessarily is more Gnostic than Neo- is. Paleopagan
Druidism died out a long time ago.
NT
Dana
--
*****
the Kajun Hippie
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kajunhippie
Take THAT, Jerry Falwell:
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/goddessbless
"root" <mat...@nworder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9o2qcr$8ht$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> This is fascinating stuff, I'd never really even looked at the definition
of
> Gnostic in the dictionary before now, so tell me, where does the majority
of
> Druidry lie; Pagan or Gnostic ?
> I'd like to see where and what parts of druidry lie in which camp,
> spiritually, intellectually and philisophically speaking, as I feel
Druidry
> straddles both paganism and gnosticism(from the brief overview given
below).
>
> with respect
>
> root
> "Saint" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:9nuop2$a70gj$1...@ID-64061.news.dfncis.de...
the Kajun Hippie
NT
Dana
--
*****
the Kajun Hippie
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kajunhippie
Take THAT, Jerry Falwell:
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/goddessbless
"David R." <dav...@att.net> wrote in message
news:8V%p7.803$WW.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Hello, Moggin:
>
>
> "Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:moggin-C21625....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
> > Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net>:
> >
> > >>>> ... The question doesn't strike
> > >>>> you as important right now, for whatever reason, fine. I'm
> > >>>> not telling you that it should. I'm simply giving you a little
> > >>>> helpful advice. Maybe you didn't understand. If you lack
> > >>>> interest in the subject, _don't_ read this thread or contribute
> > >>\>> to it. Capisce?
> >
> > dav...@1freeemail.com (David Raphael):
> >
> > >>> I understood your comment the first time.
> >
> > Moggin:
> >
> > >> Yet you're still here. Long as you're around, care to say
> > >> something on paganism vs. gnosticism?
> >
> > David:
> >
> > > Thank you for the invitation. I do not care to make any comments on
> either
> > > paganism nor gnosticism at this time.
> >
> > Despite which you've now made three more posts to a thread
> > on paganism vs. gnosticism. See advice above.
> >
> > -- Moggin
>
> I haven't actually made any comments on paganism vs. gnosticism. Most of
my
> posts have been about courtesy vs. rudeness. This is something I do feel
is
> important enough to discuss, no matter where the issues arise. I am free
to
> respond to whatever posts I choose, as are you. You have chosen to
respond
> to mine. I choose to respond to yours. Isn't this a great country?
the Kajun Hippie
mean you're being either courteous or kind.
If you've got nothing to say, shut up.
NT
Dana
--
*****
the Kajun Hippie
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kajunhippie
Take THAT, Jerry Falwell:
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/goddessbless
"David R." <dav...@att.net> wrote in message
news:VfGq7.3263$WW.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
the Kajun Hippie
"savior" figure Pagan. Hence I'm not sure I would call Buddhism Pagan. I
think it treads the fine line between Paleopaganism and Mesopaganism in some
sense, but it also focuses on avoiding rebirth and sees the material world
as inferior, and I have trouble reconciling that with the Pagan spiritual
impulse.
NT
Dana
--
*****
the Kajun Hippie
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kajunhippie
Take THAT, Jerry Falwell:
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/goddessbless
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-E92A74....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
> dream...@my-deja.com (Dreamsnake):
>
>
> That's what I'm trying to get at. There may be people who
> call Buddhists "pagans," but I think meaning of the term is
> commonly limited to those ancient idolators encountered by Jews
> and Christians, who were far more likely to be worshipping
> nature or its representations than sitting cross-legged, trying
> to liberate themselves from the wheel.
>
> -- Moggin
the Kajun Hippie
to me that you are suicidal, based on my own understanding of how matter and
spirit interact. In other words if you think the material world is a
"demon," you obviously don't want to live in your body anymore. I can only
feel sorry for you and wonder how you manage to carry on.
But I do agree with you on one point: We DON'T all worship the same God.
NT
Dana
--
*****
the Kajun Hippie
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kajunhippie
Take THAT, Jerry Falwell:
http://www.angelfire.com/art2/goddessbless
"Dreamsnake" <dream...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:df6c1ad0.01091...@posting.google.com...
> I do not favor interfaith efforts because they invariably lead
> to mealy-mouthed pronouncements like "we all worship the same
> God in different ways." Bullshit. I know I am putting myself
> in danger of serious flamage for saying this, but here goes:
> from my point of view, Catholics are demon-worshippers, so are
> Protestants, Muslims, neopagans, and anyone who thinks the
> world and its creator are pretty great. I mean this in the
> nicest way (really!). I bear no ill will or hostility to any
> of them. I do not preach their damnation or try to stamp out
> their religious faiths. But any effort to work together on the
> basis of religion assumes a common denominator between those
> religions, which is why I prefer secular action.
David Raphael
"the Kajun Hippie" <kajun...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tUKq7.9953$2H2.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>...
> Just because you refrain from using foul or threatening language doesn't
> mean you're being either courteous or kind.
>
This is true. However, it's a start.
> If you've got nothing to say, shut up.
>
No, I think I'll exercise my right to express myself when and where I
choose. I'll comment that I do have something to say. But even if I
didn't, I'd feel free to exercise my right to say nothing, using
however many words I chose to do it in. Aren't these newsgroups
great?
Saint
I am A Southern California Hippie. I was here before you.
> Um.
>
> If you think your mind can live without your body, try sitting in a
running
> car in a closed garage for about fifteen minutes.
Sounds like a really boring fifteen minutes. The Mind precedes the Body, the
Mind manifests the body. It is the body which cannot live without the mind.
The physical without the active mental energy or Mind or what is sometimes
termed Spirit, does not become an active principle. Hence, asteroids,
comets, planets and other entities like rocks and rubble that certainly have
their place, but still "don't make good house-pets."
If you kill the body, the Mind does not die. Nor does it necessarily (in my
belief system) need to reincarnate into another piece of matter. Be it
animal, plant or mineral. It can and does exist in a higher vibrational
sphere which we call Spirit. At least that's what the Spirit tells me.
>
> A Pagan honors the unity of mind and spirit and body. They are all One.
> There is no split, no dichotomy.
I believe this is true. All is One. However One may not yet be aware that it
is All and this is called "Ego." And Ego has it's relative POV. It usually
sees itself as separate from All but understands inherintly that it is
somehow Part of All. If it doesn't then it is indeed One with everything and
bears no distinction which we can understand from our Ego POV. This thing we
call God, which is the All. There may be no *actual* split or dichotomy, but
their is a relative and *apparent* split and dichotomy which causes we
physically aware beings to be able to difference ourselves form say, a tree,
a spider or a tuna. Yet we can FEEL that there is a oneness that is what we
all are. It is a way of experience. And that is all that really "dies" when
the physical body ceases to function. Experience of Self as the Body we were
in.
> There may be something of us which
> survives beyond death but it doesn't stay dead, it comes back and is
reborn
> again.
Yes, but remember there may be many, many varied forms of which you are
unaware at this time. One of them being the Angelic or Spirit. A form of
Spiritual Mind at a higher vibrational rate than matter.
> The nature of spirit is always to inhabit matter.
This I do not believe. It is the nature of Spirit to inhabit whatever form
it chooses and there are millions, matter being just one and even that has
millions upon millions of forms.
> Matter is an
> expression of spirit.
True. But it is only one type of millions of expressions of spirit. It is
not the only expression.
>
> As far as I'm concerned anybody who says otherwise is living in denial.
That is as far as you are concerned. However you could expand your thinking
and your relative POV to include that which you yourself are in denial of,
because you have yet to experience it.
> And
> it's your right to do so. But don't come into a Pagan newsgroup spouting
> crap about something you don't understand.
Excuse me. Since when did you become ruler of the said News Group? I will go
where I like, when I like. Did it occur to you that some of your compatriots
and posters might not see what I said as crap? Why would you deny others
someone else's point of view and supplant it with yours alone? Are you that
egotistical?You are being rude and vindictive. And believe me, this shows a
very little understanding of the Spiritual on your part. Which leads me to
believe I was right all along about you. Your POV is narrow and relative
only to your tiny position in the scheme of things. Too bad. You bring up
some good points, then ruin them by being like every other person in the NG
world.
>
> Hate groups? I'm sure. When was the last time Neopagans made Gnostic
> Christianity illegal?
Perhaps you have not read about the new Russian and German Neopagans? First
they do not make laws, as they are outlaws in their own countries. Secondly
they would string you up just for being who you are. The appelation "Pagan"
in their title is meaningless, except to say: Equal to Barbarian. They are
new Barbarians. And they want to add YOUR scalp to their hut. They don't
care what or whom you worship. They just want to kill you.
Time to wake up to Reality. It isn't just what is in YOUR head.
David St. Albans
Saint
> A TRUE PAGAN SHAMANISTIC PRACTITIONER???
Yes. Shamanism was what was practiced before the word witch was coined. A
true Pagan is someone who lives the way of the Shaman, they worship and
apply their spiritual connection to earth spirits, ancestors and totemistic
animals as guides to help their people. These guides give them dreams,
visions and recipies for potions, poultices and charms in order to ward off
bad energies and to direct one's life to the correct path. Sometimes these
beings and guides are called animal guides, gods, sprites, elves or faeries,
or other things. Sometimes they are just refered to as "spirits."
> First off, I'm sick of seeing the word "shaman" misused and abused.
This would tend to mean that you have a really big opinion about something
other people don't care about. Why would anyone care whether you (whomever
you are) cared about anything? Let alone the misuse of a word? If we cared,
it would because we cared about you as a person, not as some sort of
"authority" who just decided to butt into a conversation.
> You are
> not a shaman just cause you say so.
Actually, yes you are. Since, as you say there are no legitmate Shaman
schools. But there are various cultures which teach shamanist practices. If
you are in one of those cultures or learning from a shaman you can
rightfully call yourself a shaman, when and if you "graduate."
> There is no such thing as a Native
> American shaman.
Excuse me but Native American Shamans are direct lineal descendants of the
true Norther Asian Shamans as well as other Cultural Schools of Shamanism
from the East who came into the West thousands of years previous to your
being born.
> There is no school for shamanism.
There are many schools of Shamanism. You are saying you simply don't
recognize them as legitimate. But I haven't seen your diploma anywhere that
says you are an expert on diddly-squat. In fact the more you speak, the more
stunningly ignorant you sound. Are you an expert in something besides bing a
bayou runnin' cajun hippie?
> There's no shamanistic
> church.
Guess you never heard of the Native American Church? You won't get more
paganistic or shamanistic than that. Sounds like you are a bit of a
Europeanist.
>
> Being Pagan doesn't mean you work magick. For those who do work magick,
you
> don't have to travel between the worlds. You don't have to perform
> ceremonial magick. Folk magick will suffice.
Magic is magic. Have you ever even sat before a real shaman???
>
> Wicca is a Pagan religion. Always has been, always will be, unless it
> morphs into a Christian denomination.
There is no such thing as One Pagan Religion. All religions which are not
based on Judeo-Christianity are regarded by Judeo-Christians as Pagan. They
are the ones writing your history, not you.
> Which would not surprise me since
> most Wiccans appear to worship Jesus-In-A-Dress.
What in the hell does that mean?
.
>
> You mean "paganistic" right? By the way, no such word. "Pagan" will
> suffice. "A part of their PAGAN worship." Also, Muslims are not Pagan.
So
> even if "Judeo-Christian" thought took over an Arab country, for instance,
> that doesn't make Muslims Pagan.
Muslims are People of the Book. Their antecedants are Judeo-Christian. Their
father is Abraham, the Biblical Pre-Judaic patriarch, who became the First
Jew when God told him his wife was to have a son, sent angels to him and
asked that all his camp become circumscized to be differenced fromtheir
neighbors. Therefore Muslims are de-facto, not Pagans. However the Arabs
WERE pagans before they accepted Islam. What you don't understand is that
PAGAN is a Judeo-Christian put-down word for anyone outside their religion.
Celts and Druids did NOT call themselves Pagans, neither did the Greeks or
Egyptians. They had their particular worship and deities and rites. To call
yourself a Pagan is exactly the same as calling yourself a Heretic or an
Infidel! Pagan is a Latin-Christian curseword!
>
> > Well, I happen to disagree. Wicca is a term that modern Witches
> have adopted to
> > describe themselves. Wicca translates as Craft of the Wise.
Lovely May we all feel free to describe ourselves as both Crafty and Wise.
>
> Well, that explains all the idiots practicing it.
Boy, you sure like to come up with uncalled for epithets.
> Nobody can agree on the
> entymology of the word "Wicca." Some say it means "wise," others say it
> means "to shape or bend," as in shaping or bending reality.
It is a wise person who knows their mind is what shapes and bends reality.
>
> > Pagan in the current usage, is what many modern day Witches
> > describe themselves as. Author Raven Grimassi, has documented
> > in The Ways of the Strega, that Dianic covens predate Christianity,
> > using the literature of those times.
Strega, in Romanian. Means witch and includes blood-sucking female demons
who kill babies. When they say Strega in those countries that's another
curseword.
> >
> > Pagan can be used to describe Witches, both modern,
> > and ancient.
>
> Except for Christian witches who wouldn't dream of invoking anybody but
> their Christian divinities. You know, God and Jesus and Mary and the
> saints...
Who, as with the religion of the Mexican Indians are simply coverings for
older, more potent gods and goddesses.
> *bzzt* Wrong! There are Neopagans in THIS country and they are NOT hate
> groups. The people YOU refer to are trying to revive their Paleopagan
roots
> and are probably getting it all mixed up with racist Christianity. That's
> Mesopaganism.
Gee, I din't know this was a game show. Can you make a point without making
someone wrong and yourself right? I know of no "NeoPagan" groups in America
worth mentioning. However I did state, NeoPagan groups in Russia and
Germany. Not in America. Mesopaganism is your word. And it is meaningless. A
Neo Pagan, by virtue of being Neo (NEW) cannot be Meso (Middle.) Why don't
you get off your high-horse? We have enough experts around here...BZZZZT! (I
think my buzzer is broken...)
>
> > You made a general statement that Neo-Pagans were hate groups. It is up
to
> you to
> > clarify, and offer evidence of
> > those claims, or retract your claim (shut your trap).
Why don't you come over here and shut my trap for me? I said Russian and
German Neopagans were hate groups. Whatever group YOU seem to be in seems to
be a hateful little group on its own as well. So there's my proof.
> Nobody worships an idol, idiot.
You know calling me an idiot only makes you look bad. How do you know what
people do and do not worship? You are one person out of billions! A
Traditional Pagan worships the idol itself, because the god invests the
idol. The idol is the earthky body of the god or goddess. Do you know
anything about religion at all?
> They worship what it represents. How come
> NOBODY understands this?
Maybe because you haven't written the super authoritative book on the
subject? Why don't you stop whining and do some real work?
> Even in the Hindu sects where they will actually
> "feed" and "dress" an idol, they only do this to convey respect for the
> Deity it represents... i.e., if the Deity were to appear in material,
> three-dimensional form before them, they'd treat the Deity with the same
> hospitality they do the statue.
Hinduism is NOT Paganism. It is Polytheism. A different subject entirely.
Pagansim is not a religion it is a PRACTICE. Polytheism is a RELIGION which
has various different gods and goddesses who need to be placated.
>
> Not every Pagan trad performs animal sacrifices. Ever talk to someone who
> practices Shinto?
Again, Shinto is a Polytheistic religion, which incorporates parts of
Buddhism as well, which is a religion which has no deity. Sometimes. You are
trying to wrap up a whole group of different fish, tuna, pike, cod, bream
and whitefish and call it a School. It will never be one. And you are being
really obnoxious about it. Your ignorance is showing.
> If not all Paleopagans
There aren't any PaleoPagans. Paleo means OLD. The old pagans are ALL GONE.
There are only NeoPagans and or Modern Pagans.
> perform animal sacrifice then why
> do Neopagans have to? And while behavior/ritual is certainly an important
> part of what makes Pagans Pagan, you missed the belief part. You could do
> all the sacrifices and make all the potions you wanted but if you don't
> believe in any Deity at all, you are either an atheist or an agnostic, NOT
a
> Pagan. I realize this differs from the old Roman definition, but I've
come
> to believe that belief is equally important to practice. Without intent
> your actions are not effective.
>
> > Read this: Modern day Pagans, and Witches do not as a rule sacrifice
> animals.
Some do and some don't.
> If
> > you have any evidence that they do, please
> > offer it. Otherwise, you are in error. You know it, and I know it.
The evidence is in the literature and in the practices. What is it with you
needing evidence? I have seen it, possibly because I actually read about
things and see things. If you need evidence, do likewise. Byt me not giving
you specific cites does not mean some modern pagans do not practice animal
sacrifice.
> >
> > If you wish to discuss Santeria, or Voodoo, that's another
> > subject entirely. And, I haven't heard many of those people
> > calling themselves Pagans. That's a separate path.
Santeria and Voodoo come specifically out of a combination of African ritual
magic, which is in fact paganistic by definition and Christianity, which is
used to cover up it's pagan antecedants. Yo!
>
> Santeria and Voodou are Mesopagan paths.
Again with the Mesopagans...
> Thus they are Pagan. If they
> don't call themselves Pagan it is only because they have learned to hate
> that word thanks to their Christian influence.
That really is meaningless. "I'm not a pagan because Christians made me hate
the word Pagan." That's like saying I'm not Polish because people tell too
many Polish Jokes, so I hate the word Polish!
> It doesn't matter how much of a background you have if you read the wrong
> books and talk to the wrong people.
They are wrong, only according to your own narrow and blighted and highly
secularized world view.
>
> > You called yourself Gregorius, and later claimed to be the
angel,Metatron,
> and
> > challenged people to test you. Is it any wonder
> > that you have no creditability?
I believe Gregorius was channeling the word of Metatron. I am neither one.
But who cares? At least their words were righteous and useful and
non-vindictive and non-hostile. You on the other hand are one little hostile
entity!
Now. you can offer some damned "proof" that I was either Gregorius or
Metatron. Or you can shut the heck up and go away. You can prove you are
Albert Saint David and not just a useless little know-nothing troll-boy. Go
back to telling flying dick jokes.
> >
> > I have been studying angels, and spirits since 1972.
Yeah? Well I've been studying them since 1963. And I speak with them. And I
LISTEN to them. Which helps my life. I don't just come on cross-posting to
NGs and say addle-pated inane things about stuff I read once. And try to
convince people that somehow I am something I am not. It's not WHAT you
know, Boggle, it's how you comport yourself on the NG systems. and as it
stands you comport yourself like a high-falutin' know-it-all "No one will
ever catch me" horse's ass! You cannot be taken seriously by me or anyone
else. You're just a boggle.
> > I have conducted thousands of experiments with them.
Oh, it's Herr Doktor Boggle, now, is it? Another Mad Metaphysical Scientist!
> > You even had the audacity to "channel the Christian God,"
> > (as distinguished from the Pagan Gods), and later said
> > the Bible is full of lies.
First of all God was called God long before anyone was called a Christian. I
never said I channeled the Christian God. I do not "channel anyone" for that
matter. I have personal one on one conversations and I record them. You have
never understood the distinction. Have you. Nor will you even try. Too bad,
for you. The Bible is indeed full of lies. God had little to do with it.
>
> It probably is. It's a political document as much as a spiritual one.
> Politicians necessarily lie.
>
> > > Life is all vibration. Sorry to disabuse your theories of Djinnis and
> Earth
> > > Spirits. Even they are vibrations.
>
> Well, I'm the most solid vibration I've ever met.
Well, appearances can be deceiving. So can NG posters.
> Don't get me wrong, I see
> where you are coming from, but let's not get too simplistic here.
It is a most complex situation. And you are simplifying it.
>
> > > You seem to have a serious problem with New Age and with me. Why? Did
we
> > > hurt you or your family? Do you often lump one person who hurt or
abused
> you
> > > with ALL New Agers? And are you saying that as some sort of Paganist,
> you do
> > > indeed "curse" people?
>
> "Paganist"? In your thirty-plus years of experience, has nobody ever
> corrected your horrid word usage? You even INVENT words.
Shakespeare invented words. James Joyce did as well. A paganist is someone
who practices paganism. As I said, it is not a relgion, more of a lifestyle
or belief system that maintains certain rites and traditions. Since you
cannot be a true Pagan (i.e. your "paleopagan" ) then you are a paganist.
However I didn't make up the word.
>
> If so, then you have just gone against the so-called
> > > "truth" of your own post! Pagans do curse people.
>
> They say a witch who cannot hex cannot heal. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate
> it if you'd use qualifiers in your speech, such as "SOME Pagans do curse
> people." Because not all of us do.
>
> And both of you get on my nerves. Can't you take it off the all-worlds
ng?
Sure!
David R.
"the Kajun Hippie" <kajun...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iTKq7.9943$2H2.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> Yeah well, you're still being a fucking pest.
>
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
Dreamsnake
> Don't really care whether you mean hostility or not. It's patently obvious
> to me that you are suicidal, based on my own understanding of how matter and
> spirit interact.
Then you need to rethink your understanding of how matter and
spirit interact.
D.
Dreamsnake
> news:moggin-E92A74....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
>
> > call Buddhists "pagans," but I think meaning of the term is
> > commonly limited to those ancient idolators encountered by Jews
> > and Christians, who were far more likely to be worshipping
> > nature or its representations than sitting cross-legged, trying
> > to liberate themselves from the wheel.
Of course. None of the gods or spirits worshipped by the
ancient pagans most prominent around the early Jews and
Christians ever represented anything but nature.
Oh wait, they DID.
Dreamsnake
[I cannot find this post anywhere; this was the only snippet I
happened to see quoted by Kajun Hippie. . . .]
Duane Tilden
U raise some interesting points. Perhaps we need to define which form of
gnosticism we are talking about, since according to other posters on these
ngs this issue has yet to be resolved.
It seems, however, that if we go by the definition which Moggin offers, no
form of Druidism could possibly be Gnostic. But don't feel bad, no-one else
can because all the "gnostics" are either dead, silent or courteous
(including only those following this thread of course).
So, I would assume that we are using the definition used by Rev. Stephen
Hoeller? Makes sense to me as it is more current, and definitive <imho>.
EnJoy
Duane
"the Kajun Hippie" <kajun...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QOKq7.9925$2H2.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Duane Tilden
TU for the update. I am delighted with this enlightening information and I
am sure so will others be.
With Gratitude
Duane
"Saint" <whispe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9o8u6r$b52eh$1...@ID-64061.news.dfncis.de...
> It is my personal belief that Jesus was trained in the essentials of
> Buddhism while he attended classes in Alexandria, Egypt, where his family
> dwelt until he was about twelve years old. He was also trained by the
> Essenes, who were also spice merchants and so had a good connection with
> travelers from the Far East. As well as having had access to the ancient
> religions of Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Egypt and the Greek Mystery
Schools.
> I'm sure Jesus was aware of a great deal of different doctrines, including
> Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Gnosticism and Paganism. There is a
sprinkling
> of each in much of his word. But then, truth is truth no matter where you
> find it.
>
> Namaste'
>
> Saint Albans
> "Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
> news:6xzp7.60696$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > This is a wonderful thread. I really appreciate the discourse and
> > information.
> >
> > I have a recollection of some past conversation about Christ getting
some
> of
> > his spiritual training in the east. What about the eastern traditions?
> > Confuscious predated Christ, and he could be considered a "Trancendant
> > Being".
> >
> > Just a thought.
> >
> > With respect, love and gratitude,
> >
> > Duane
> > d_tilden@<antispam>attcanada.ca
> > "Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:moggin-DAA1D5....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
> > > "root" <mat...@nworder.co.uk>:
> > >
> > > > This is fascinating stuff, I'd never really even looked at the
> > definition
> > > > of Gnostic in the dictionary before now, so tell me, where does the
> > majority
> > > > of Druidry lie; Pagan or Gnostic ? I'd like to see where and what
> parts
> > > > of druidry lie in which camp, spiritually, intellectually and
> > > > philisophically speaking, as I feel Druidry straddles both paganism
> and
> > > > gnosticism(from the brief overview given below).
> > >
> > > Dunno about Druidry, but here's a couple more descriptions
> > > of gnosticism to help fill out the picture. The first one
> > > comes from Hans Jonas' _The Gnostic Religion_ -- the second one
> > > is from Jacques Lacarierre's _The Gnostics_.
> > >
> > > -- Moggin
> > >
> > >
> > > "The cardinal feature of gnostic thought is the radical
> > > dualism that governs the relation of God and the world, and
> > > correspondingly that of man and the world. The deity is
> > > absolutely transmundane, its nature alien to that of the universe,
> > > which it neither created nor governs and to which it is the
> > > complete antithesis: to the divine realm of light,
> > > self-contained and remote, the cosmos is opposed as the realm of
> > > darkness. The world is the work of lowly powers which though
> > > they may mediately be descended from Him do not know the true God
> > > and obstruct the knowledge of Him in the cosmos over which they
> > > rule. ...
> > >
> > > "The universe, the domain of the Archons, is like a vast
> > > prison whose innermost dungeon is the earth, the scene of man's
> > > life. ... The Archons collectively rule over the world, and
> > > each invididually in his sphere is a warder of the cosmic prison.
> > > Their tyrannical world-view is called _heimarmene_, universal fate,
> > > a concept taken over from astrology but now tinged with the
> > > gnostic anti-cosmic spirit. In its physical aspect this rule is
> > > the law of nature; in its psychical aspect, which includes for
> > > instance the institution and enforcement of Mosaic Law, it aims at
> > > the enslavement of man. As guardian of his sphere, each Archon
> > > bars the passage of souls that seek to ascend after death, in
> > > order to prevent their escape from the world and their return to
> > > God. The Archons are also the creators of the world, except where
> > > this role is reserved for their leader, who then has the name of
> > > _demiurge_ (the world-artificer in Plato's _Timaeus_) and is often
> > > painted with the distorted features of the Old Testament God.
> > >
> > > "Man ... is composed of flesh, soul, and spirit. But reduced
> > > to ultimate principles, his origin is two-fold: mundane and
> > > extra-mundane. Not only the body but also the 'soul' is a product
> > > of the cosmic powers... Through his body and his soul man is a
> > > part of the world and subjected to the _heimarmene_. Enclosed in
> > > the soul is the spirit, or 'pneuma' (called also the 'spark'), a
> > > portion of the divine substance from beyond which has fallen into
> > > the world; and the Archons created man for the express purpose of
> > > keeping it captive there. ... In its unredeemed state the pneuma
> > > thus immersed in soul and flesh is unconscious of itself,
> > > benumbed, asleep, or intoxicated by the poison of thw world: in
> > > brief, it is 'ignorant.' Its awakening and liberation is effected
> > > through 'knowledge.' [_Gnosis_.]
> > >
> > > "The radical nature of the dualism determines that of the
> > > doctrine of salvation. As alien as the transcendent God is to
> > > 'this world' is the pneumatic self inthe midst of it. The goal of
> > > gnostic striving is the release of the 'inner man' from the bonds
> > > of the world and his return to his native realm of light. The
> > > necessary condition for this is that he _knows_ about the
> > > transmundane God and about himself, that is, about his divine
> > > origin as well as his present situation, and accordingly also
> > > about the nature of the world which determines this situation. As
> > > a famous Valentinian formula puts it,
> > >
> > > What liberates is the knowledge of who we were, what we
> > > became; where we were, whereinto we have been thrown, whereto
> > > we speed, wherefrom we are redeemed; what birth is, and what
> > > rebirth.
> > >
> > > "This knowledge, however, is withheld from him by his very
> > > situation, since 'ignorance' is the essense of mundane existence,
> > > just as it was the principle of the world's coming into existence.
> > > In particular, the transcendent God is unknown in the world and
> > > cannot be discovered from it; therefore revelation is needed. The
> > > necessity for it is grounded in the nature of the cosmic situation;
> > > and its occurence alters this situation in its decisive aspect,
> > > that of 'ignorance,' and is thus itself already a part of
> > > salvation. Its bearer is a messenger from the world of light who
> > > penetrates the barriers of the spheres, outwits the Archons,
> > > awakens the spirit from its earthly slumber, and imparts to it the
> > > saving knowledge 'from without.' ... "
> > >
> > > Hans Jonas, _The Gnostic Religion_ 42-45
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gnostics "hold this world and the creatures that inhabit it
> > > in total suspicion. ... Viscerally, imperiously, irremissibly,
> > > the Gnostic feels life, thought, human and planetary destiny to be
> > > a failed work, limited and vitiated in its most fundamental
> > > structures. Everything, from the distant stars to the nuclei of
> > > our body-cells, carries the materially demonstrable trace of an
> > > original imperfection..." Gnosticism delivers "a radical censure
> > > of all creation...accompanied by an equally radical certainty...
> > > that there exists...a light issuing from the true God -- that
> > > distant, inaccessible stranger to the perverse order of the real
> > > universe; and that man's task is to regain his lost homeland by
> > > wrenching himself free of the snares and illusions of the real, to
> > > rediscover the original unity, to find again the kingdom of this
> > > God who was unknown, or imperfectly known, to all preceding
> > > religions."
> > >
> > > "These convictions were expressed through a radical teaching
> > > which held almost all of the systems and religions of former times
> > > to be null and void. In spite of its links with some philosophies
> > > of the times, and apart from minor reservations -- since they
> > > borrowed certain beliefs indiscriminately from various systems,
> > > prophets or sacred books -- one can say that Gnosticism is a
> > > profoundly original thought, a _mutant thought_.
> > >
> > > "...in their eyes the evil which taints the whole of creation
> > > and alienates man in body, mind, and soul, deprives him of the
> > > awareness necessary for his own salvation. Man ... possesses only
> > > a shadow of consciousness. And it is to this one task that the
> > > Gnostics deliberately devoted themselves, choosing paths that were
> > > not only unorthodox but which, moreoever, greatly scandalized
> > > their contemporaries: to create in man a true consciousness,
> > > which would permit him to impart to his thoughts and deeds the
> > > permanence and the rigour necessary to cast off the shackles of
> > > this world."
> > >
> > > Jacques Lacarriere, _The Gnostics_
> >
> >
>
>
Duane Tilden
You raise a point which I did not cover in my original response, which upon
reflection seems to require further exploration. Not to make excuses,
however, I had a lot to cover, and I needed to turn the volume down.
In my understanding, I would say that spirit and matter interact by
intention, forming a thought, a communication, and a result. This result
can manifest or not, depends on what you do and how you do it. However, the
final result is generally in line with the original intention. I believe,
that a person that uses, right thinking (a buddhist or any other adherent to
this type of philosophy) generally do not concern themselves with "bad"
results, because if they do get them then there is something wrong with
either their thinking, or their knowledge. "Haste makes Waste"
The material world, in and of itself, is neutral. However, the harmful and
violent abuses of material wealth, stripping the earth, is *evil* <imho>.
I believe that we are material beings, which are vessels containing a
spiritual *essence* which longs to connect with its beloved. The beloved is
the Truth, the ineffable, which can only be experienced by death or virginal
birth (according to the RCC). However, their is another possibility. This
possibility is the Truth. Connection with the beloved is experienced by
truly connecting with Nature and slowing down to observe life. By listening
and seeing we can now explore the Universe with new thought and
understanding. By this connection we can establish Heaven on Earth, again
<imho>.
And I believe, demons and devils do exist, but these are generally the
result of ignorance, which gnosis, or right thinking would correct. Living
in blindness and ignorance let sin (error) perpetuate undetected. These
manifest in mans world through his material expression, in other words the
results speak for themselves. (If you read I may have used reference to
demons, but as a dramatic metaphor, in other words I got carried away.) :-)
Be Well
Duane
"the Kajun Hippie" <kajun...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bLq7.10013$2H2.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Duane Tilden
"the Kajun Hippie" <kajun...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XrKq7.9838$2H2.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> That's where you go way off base. Right there. I am Pagan and I believe
> matter is a physical expression of the spirit, in much the same way that
ice
> is a solid expression of fluid water. The two are not separate, but one
is
> an expression of the other.
I would alternatively say that matter can also be a physical expression of
man, regardless of spirit. Many men in the past have adhered to beliefs
which, unbeknownst to them cause them great anguish. We are experiencing so
of this trauma at this time with what is happening in this world. However,
this does not deny the ineffable one total dominion over all. Love can
change all if man allows it in.
So man can distort love, and turn it into something hateful, abhorrent,
mutegenic, or genocidal. This is not a Natural expression. Neither is
retribution.
>
> And there are many Pagans who agree with me. The ones who don't are,
IMHO,
> still heavily influenced by the Christian matter/spirit dichotomy, and you
> can spot one at fifty yards because s/he will make some cheesy comment
about
> how we're "trapped" in physical reality and about how s/he looks forward
to
> going to the Summerlands when s/he leaves this "vale of tears."
>
> And it is this disrespect for physical reality which leads to ecological
> destruction and incidents like the Sept. 11 attacks.
I agree.
>
> Gnosticism is a spinoff of Christianity and the Hebrew mythos. While
there
> are Christo-Pagans and Judeo-Pagans and probably Pagan Muslims in
existence
> (Sufi, for instance?), most Pagans do not worship the God of Abraham.
>
Neither Do I. According to my definition of gnosticism.
Moggin Goldberg
>>> That's what I'm trying to get at. There may be people who
>>> call Buddhists "pagans," but I think meaning of the term is
>>> commonly limited to those ancient idolators encountered by Jews
>>> and Christians, who were far more likely to be worshipping
>>> nature or its representations than sitting cross-legged, trying
>>> to liberate themselves from the wheel.
Dreamsnake <ktre...@ou.edu>:
> Of course. None of the gods or spirits worshipped by the
> ancient pagans most prominent around the early Jews and
> Christians ever represented anything but nature.
> Oh wait, they DID.
Huh? We're talking about the semantics of the term "pagan."
You said the term applied equally well to anyone who was
outside "the peoples of the Book." I'm pointing out that while
that may technically be true -- maybe there are people who
call Buddhists "pagans" -- the connotations of the word usually
are much narrower: it refers to idolators the book-people
encountered historically, who were given more to nature-worship
of some shape or form than to practicing za-zen.
"Ancient idolators" came from the OED definition of "pagan"
which I offered earlier in my post:
Under "pagan," the OED says (among other things) "'heathen'
as opposed to Christian or Jewish: indicating the fact that
the ancient idolatry lingered on in the rural villages and
hamlets after Christianity had generally been accepted in
the towns and cities of the Roman empire." (An allusion to the
etymology: Latin for "hick.")
> [I cannot find this post anywhere; this was the only snippet I
> happened to see quoted by Kajun Hippie. . . .]
I've e-mailed you the whole thing.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
> Gnosticism is a spinoff of Christianity and the Hebrew mythos. While
> there are Christo-Pagans and Judeo-Pagans and probably Pagan Muslims
> in existence (Sufi, for instance?), most Pagans do not worship the God
> of Abraham.
You're misinformed about gnosticism, which views Abraham's
deity -- i.e., the Creator -- as a crappy demiurge and
sharply distinguishes him from the true God. Get it? Gnostics
reject Creator and Creation alike. That puts gnosticism in
opposition to orthodox Christianity and Judaism and to paganism
at the same time.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
>>> The Creator, The Ineffable One, The Universal All ...(call
>>> it what you will)... is the GOD who created Heaven and Earth...
"Fedallah" <reha...@earthlink.net>:
>> Please show any Gnostic system where the Father created the
>> heavans or the earth. I'd be interested in seeing it.
Duane:
> The following has been extracted from "The Gnostic Catechism" by Rev.
> Stephen A. Hoeller (Tau Stephanus I)
[...]
Two problems there. First, to make your point, you'd need
to offer something from the gnostics -- not just from some
fella in CA who likes calling himself funny names. Second, the
passage you quoted _doesn't_ say the Father created the heavens
and the earth. It says that the Unknown Father "brought
forth" the trinity: i.e., "the Father, the Mother, and the Son."
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
[...]
> So, I would assume that we are using the definition used by Rev. Stephen
> Hoeller? Makes sense to me as it is more current, and definitive <imho>.
But then you thought it made sense to call a commentary on
the Gospel of John "pre-Christ."
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
> I value folks who say what they have to say with courtesy and kindness.
> This is not quite the same as congratulating myself on my manners.
You've congratulated yourself on your good manners instead
of commenting on the topic of this thread. As you said, you
haven't addressed the subject. You've just given yourself gold
stars for being a nice boy.
-- Moggin
root
mocking or making fun, but reading the descriptions you gave, it seems that
some major 'changes in thinking' are required for the average schmo to get
into the Gnostic way of thinking.
It does, however contain something than could be perceived as a self
re-inforcing delusion type thing. The Gnostic idea about the cosmic prison
and Archons that is.
Perhaps getting over that doubt is the bridge across the chasm, but I see it
as being an extremely difficult topic to discuss with someone who does not
share the same view (like me)
with respect
root
Dreamsnake
> Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net>:
>
> >>> That's what I'm trying to get at. There may be people who
> >>> call Buddhists "pagans," but I think meaning of the term is
> >>> commonly limited to those ancient idolators encountered by Jews
> >>> and Christians, who were far more likely to be worshipping
> >>> nature or its representations than sitting cross-legged, trying
> >>> to liberate themselves from the wheel.
>
> Dreamsnake <ktre...@ou.edu>:
>
> > Of course. None of the gods or spirits worshipped by the
> > ancient pagans most prominent around the early Jews and
> > Christians ever represented anything but nature.
> > Oh wait, they DID.
>
> Huh? We're talking about the semantics of the term "pagan."
> You said the term applied equally well to anyone who was
> outside "the peoples of the Book." I'm pointing out that while
> that may technically be true -- maybe there are people who
> call Buddhists "pagans" -- the connotations of the word usually
> are much narrower: it refers to idolators the book-people
> encountered historically, who were given more to nature-worship
> of some shape or form than to practicing za-zen.
Limiting "pagan" to the peoples in the Roman Empire, as per your
suggestion, we still find more than just nature-worship going on.
Even excluding Neoplatonism and Hermeticism, there is ancestor
worship and hero cults, tutelary deities and gods whose spheres
of influence fall outside the domain of nature. These do not
qualify as nature-worship unless you stretch the meaning of the
phrase to include anything that is not outside nature and
actively opposed to it.
> "Ancient idolators" came from the OED definition of "pagan"
> which I offered earlier in my post:
>
> Under "pagan," the OED says (among other things) "'heathen'
> as opposed to Christian or Jewish: indicating the fact that
> the ancient idolatry lingered on in the rural villages and
> hamlets after Christianity had generally been accepted in
> the towns and cities of the Roman empire." (An allusion to the
> etymology: Latin for "hick.")
The copy of the OED you looked at must be an older one, because
the scholarship surrounding the etymology and early use of the
word "pagan" has changed considerably in the past 15 years.
"Pagan" cannot have originated in a meaning like "hick" or
"rustic" because the use of the word to identify non-Christians
goes back to the time when most people in towns were still
pagan. Check a more recent edition.
I would agree that worship of Hercules, for example, qualifies
as "idolatry," but I would not call it "nature-worship."
> > [I cannot find this post anywhere; this was the only snippet I
> > happened to see quoted by Kajun Hippie. . . .]
>
> I've e-mailed you the whole thing.
Appreciated--thanks.
D.
Saint
Thank you! Its refreshing to have anyone in the NG world be nice to me for
whatever reason. I really, really appreciate it!
Sometimes people forget that Jesus lived in the Greco/Roman world where
culture had been disseminated from the time of Alexander the Great, into the
Middle East and Western Europe from as far off as India and China.
Alexandria, even after Julius Caesar burned the Great Library there, was
still a cultural melting pot, especially for scholars. Jesus also lived very
near one of the most beautiful Roman cities in the world. They say he was a
"rural, uneducated man. But four miles from his home was constructed a
beautiful Roman type city (can't recall the name just yet...) where most
likely he and his father worked as workmen. (The idea that he was a
carpenter is also erroneous. He was more than likely a stone carver or
stonemason. (not a freemason!) In Greek the word used for him simply meant a
tradesman or common laborer. Which could include carpentry skills as well.
But for a man who wandered from the Sea of Galilee and beyond walking to and
fro, a short four mile jaunt from his home in Galilee to this new, fabulous
city (Sephira? Seppkara?)with marble colonnades, paved streets, hot baths
and a large marketplace selling exotic items would have been no trouble. And
of course we know the story of the time when he was twelve and visiting
Jerusalem his parents couldn't find him for a whole day. Then they
discovered him having arguments with the scholars in the Temple. A very
precocious and well read twelve year old boy indeed!
His times among the Essenes gave him the ability to read and write and to
study scripture in depth in order to study to be a "sage" which is what
Rabbi's were called before the fall of Jerusalem. We were taught in Sunday
School that Jesus was the Logos or Living Word of God, so he just "knew" all
the scriptures because he was the scriptures. A nice fantasy about God
becoming human. But he was, I feel, no more God than any of us are and the
whole God as Man or Son of God scenario is simply a misreading of Jewish
Cultural statements. Really it is more important to understand why he called
himself "Son of Man" because according to ancient Jewish tradition, like the
Book of Noah and Enoch, the Son of Man was the being created from the
beginning of Time to rule peacefully and justly over all of mankind. He
appears in those texts more as an angel than a man.Angels of course were
known as "The Sons of God." They "ruled" the heavenly spheres. The Son of
Man ruled the human sphere. And he was the one which the Jews were waiting
for as the True Messiah. Which of course the Greeks called "Christos."
(Which means He who is anointed to rule.) Being a heavenly being, the Son of
Man would appear out of the heavens, out of mysterious clouds, enthroned
among the angels and having Divine weapons and a fiery chariot, etc. For
Jesus to go around calling himself Son of Man meant that he did believe he
was the anointed one. Not a "begotten son of a god" but rather a fully
realized emanation of the Godhead brought into being to rule over mankind,
the literal Spirit of Man before creation! This would make him "The First
Man" or "Father" in the sense that all mankind sprang from his spirit. He
was Adam, the first Created man. However this is all pure speculation on my
part. We know only that Jesus called himself Son of Man which was more
important a title than Son of God. Because to him and all Jews, all people
were sons and daughters of God.
David St. Albans
"Duane Tilden" <d_ti...@attcanada.ca> wrote in message
news:K%Uq7.61640$TW.3...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Saint
religions which Christians or Jews encountered which was not their religion.
This includes all forms of nature worship, polytheism, homodeism (the
worship of Men as Gods, as in the case of Hercules or Caesar) the Egyptian
worship of the Cosmic Gods and Goddesses (which went far beyond nature
worship), Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Sun worship, etc. etc.
Gnosticism on the other hand was not a "religion" per se, but rather a
"Heresy" a perverting of religions into a personal religious philosophy.
Heresy is the Latin word for Choice. In other words, for Christians at the
time both Gnosticism and Judaism were "choices other than Christianity"
which by proxy made them Heresies. At first heresies were considered to be
valid ideologies and philosophies which deserved to be looked at and thought
about. But by the time of Arius, they began to be looked upon as a threat to
the traditions which were being established in Christianity. And so people
like Arius, who were Christian bishops of some fame and notoriety, were
attacked for bringing false doctrines into Christianity. Heresy became a
curseword and was ferreted out and destroyed wherever it could be found.
Gnosticism, which comes from the word "Gnosis" which means "To Know" or
"Wisdom" was one of these heresies, based upon Greek Platonic, and Greek
Mystery School, Egyptian and Judeo-Christian concepts, as well as an
admixture of Mithraism and Zoroastrianism (Archons after all, are just
another name for Arch Angels) which emphasized the utter-dualism of the
Universe. It was never a series of rites and rituals or even, in a sense, a
community religion that brought people together. It was more a "state of
mind." However both Pagans and Heretics were lumped together in the minds of
traditional Christians as people who had to be destroyed or converted. So
the Christians started their own little Jihad, called the Inquisition to
ferret out heretics and Pagans. And so began the rapid eradication of hundre
ds of cultures and their individual religions. And also the end of freedom
of thought, much like the Taliban wants of its followers today. So began the
Dark Ages. And they were called dark for a reason. The slaughter and forced
baptisms of thousands of barbarian cultures like the Avars, Celts, Norse,
Franks, etc. set up Christianity in place of their bloody, drunken war gods
and beautiful seductress fertility goddesses. Which of course made them
repressed the point where they began to believe Jesus himself wanted them to
go out a kill everyone who didn't know about him! Exactly like the Taliban
of today! hence the Crusades. Hence the burning of Witches, hence the
destruction of all old life-ways, and the absolute hatred of the Jews, who
would not follow Christ and yet said they believed in God.
(I know, you call this brief?)
At any rate, yes, there is a lot of difference between Paganism and
Gnosticism.
David St. Albans
"Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:moggin-0AFDAD....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
Duane Tilden
> Seems Gnostisism is a 'way out there' religion. Don't get me wrong, I am
not
> mocking or making fun, but reading the descriptions you gave, it seems
that
> some major 'changes in thinking' are required for the average schmo to get
> into the Gnostic way of thinking.
>
> It does, however contain something than could be perceived as a self
> re-inforcing delusion type thing. The Gnostic idea about the cosmic prison
> and Archons that is.
This is the language that is used, generally metaphorical in concept,
however often elusive in definition :-)
>
> Perhaps getting over that doubt is the bridge across the chasm, but I see
it
> as being an extremely difficult topic to discuss with someone who does not
> share the same view (like me)
One of the reasons I started this thread was to enlighten myself and others
about various beliefs, some of which are interesting but require <imho> some
dialogue to put some "life" into the definitions. And as such it sounds to
me that your beliefs are more in tune, with my personally held beliefs than
some of those stuffy self proclaimed gnostics. Not to slam Gnosticism at
all, by the way, but perhaps some of the translations need some work? If
anyone can give me some help here I would appreciate it.
>
> with respect
>
> root
>
--
Be Well
Duane
root
>
> "root" <mat...@nworder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9oi240$2gr$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Seems Gnostisism is a 'way out there' religion. Don't get me wrong, I am
> not
> > mocking or making fun, but reading the descriptions you gave, it seems
> that
> > some major 'changes in thinking' are required for the average schmo to
get
> > into the Gnostic way of thinking.
> Yes, it does seem to be an exclusive "boys" club.
Most mystery teaching led religions and traditions are. Due to the sensitive
nature of the teachings and 'secrets' any person 'initiated' into the
tradition have to be 'prepared', else they simply will not understand what
is being taught to them.
>
> >
> > It does, however contain something than could be perceived as a self
> > re-inforcing delusion type thing. The Gnostic idea about the cosmic
prison
> > and Archons that is.
> This is the language that is used, generally metaphorical in concept,
> however often elusive in definition :-)
The Celtic and Druidic traditions also have these metephorical or
referential languages, but at least there are plenty of publicly known ways
of learning how to speak the language and then understand the mysteries
hidden in the cauldron of knowledge and wisdom of the Celts.
I am on the Druid path, though only very recently have I come to be there,
so I'm no expert.
>
> >
> > Perhaps getting over that doubt is the bridge across the chasm, but I
see
> it
> > as being an extremely difficult topic to discuss with someone who does
not
> > share the same view (like me)
> One of the reasons I started this thread was to enlighten myself and
others
> about various beliefs, some of which are interesting but require <imho>
some
> dialogue to put some "life" into the definitions. And as such it sounds
to
> me that your beliefs are more in tune, with my personally held beliefs
than
> some of those stuffy self proclaimed gnostics. Not to slam Gnosticism at
> all, by the way, but perhaps some of the translations need some work? If
> anyone can give me some help here I would appreciate it.
Are there any 'mythological' type stories, divination systems or anything of
that manner involved in Gnosticism? From the definition given I can't see
that there should be, but then I don't really know anything about it. Seeing
as Gnosticism requires us to see the physical world as being 'false', and
any religion as being 'false' or at best incomplete, where does one begin? I
know about 'start with yourself', druidry has the same thing, the goal (in
part) is to discover one's self, and true identity - but in a Celtic
context, therefore making it incompatible with the ideal of Gnosticism.
mmmmm, questions, questions, questions ??????
with respect
root
Duane Tilden
Um, Saint, while I think you just lost me here. While I have really no
comment about what you are saying above, but it basically conforms to my own
understanding of what I have read, however, could we not also say that
Architects are Archons as well. So, would that also make Architects =
ArchAngels? Any comment?
> which emphasized the utter-dualism of the
> Universe. It was never a series of rites and rituals or even, in a sense,
a
> community religion that brought people together. It was more a "state of
> mind." However both Pagans and Heretics were lumped together in the minds
of
> traditional Christians as people who had to be destroyed or converted.
It seems that the current process is now to exclude the "secular" community
rather than hunt and destroy. Today, if one is not a member of some
traditional religion they generally get excluded from the benefits that
these communities have to offer their parishiners. However, the price is
steep. They tend to engage in "conversion" tactics, which of course
includes worship of the "false" God (in my experience).
> So
> the Christians started their own little Jihad, called the Inquisition to
> ferret out heretics and Pagans. And so began the rapid eradication of
hundre
> ds of cultures and their individual religions. And also the end of freedom
> of thought, much like the Taliban wants of its followers today. So began
the
> Dark Ages. And they were called dark for a reason. The slaughter and
forced
> baptisms of thousands of barbarian cultures like the Avars, Celts, Norse,
> Franks, etc. set up Christianity in place of their bloody, drunken war
gods
> and beautiful seductress fertility goddesses. Which of course made them
> repressed the point where they began to believe Jesus himself wanted them
to
> go out a kill everyone who didn't know about him! Exactly like the Taliban
> of today! hence the Crusades. Hence the burning of Witches, hence the
> destruction of all old life-ways, and the absolute hatred of the Jews, who
> would not follow Christ and yet said they believed in God.
>
> (I know, you call this brief?)
Well, actually yes. You are covering a lot of ground here. Interesting
that you remind me of some earlier posting where I was talking about the
rebirth of science. So you have segued into the Renaissance, which is
attributed to the efforts of Galileo Galilei. Interesting how he was
ordered by the RCC to renounce his teaching of Copernicum Astronomy which he
did not, and was exiled.
http://galileo.imss.firenze.it/museo/b/egalilg.html
Would this make Galileo a Heretic, Pagan, Gnostic, or criminal? JK
At any rate, I would call him the originator of the modern scientific method
(as is recorded in mainstream literature, but persecution by the church for
failing to adhere to doctrine is a common theme).
>
> At any rate, yes, there is a lot of difference between Paganism and
> Gnosticism.
Also some similarities <imho>.
>
> David St. Albans
> "Moggin Goldberg" <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:moggin-0AFDAD....@bvnntp.nevol.mediaone.net...
> > "the Kajun Hippie" <kajun...@nospam.hotmail.com>:
> >
> > > Gnosticism is a spinoff of Christianity and the Hebrew mythos. While
> > > there are Christo-Pagans and Judeo-Pagans and probably Pagan Muslims
> > > in existence (Sufi, for instance?), most Pagans do not worship the God
> > > of Abraham.
> >
> > You're misinformed about gnosticism, which views Abraham's
> > deity -- i.e., the Creator -- as a crappy demiurge and
> > sharply distinguishes him from the true God. Get it? Gnostics
> > reject Creator and Creation alike.
You make no comment about about this assertion. I previously stated that I
believed that Gnostics reject the sub creator and the sub creation, not the
Creator and the Creation. Or would we have to consider that there may be
different Gnostic Orders? Personally, I am not about to give YWYH dominion
over all Creation no matter what some uninformed or misguided soul believes.
Any comments here?
> > That puts gnosticism in
> > opposition to orthodox Christianity and Judaism and to paganism
> > at the same time.
> >
> > -- Moggin
>
>
--
Be Well
Duane