What is Faith?
Thistlewait
Does not the word "faith" mean: acceptance without benefit of knowledge? So,
simply by declaring that one has "faith" hasn't one already admitted that
they DO NOT KNOW? If one has already admitted that one does not know, then
how can anything that one may have to say about their "faith" even possibly
be true? When I hear someone declare to me that they have "faith", and in
the same breath qualify that word "faith" with the word "truth", is there
anyone...anywhere on this planet that can explain to me why I should not
consider that I have just be LIED to?"
I think that humanity is facing a grave problem in the form of "faith". But
in a larger context the problem is really a problem of honesty. I don't
think human beings are honest. I thought that if I described to all of you
what it is that I KNOW has happened to me, that some of you may be compelled
to admit exactly the same truth about yourselves. So, this is what happened
to me:
Approximately nine months before I was born, I was summoned into existence
by two creatures...who, to the best of my knowledge, had no design or
purpose in their collaboration of summoning other than to satisfy an
immediate carnal compulsion. To the best of my knowledge, neither of those
two creatures (who I later came to understand as "my parents") every once
gave a single moment's thought to the idea that they may be summoning an
intelligence...sentience...sapience...into this universe that may one day
wish to ask them some very disturbing questions. Questions, as it turned
out, they were ill-prepared to answer with any degree of accuracy or
honesty.
That is what has happened to me! That is what has happened to all of you!
Of all the questions that I did ask, or wished that I had asked those two
creatures, one question is paramount. But I never asked this question of
those two creatures. By the time I had the experience and vocabulary to
understand what the question was that I wanted to ask...and the way I wanted
to ask it, one of those creatures (my father) no longer existed. Of the
other creature (my mother) I found that I had acquired a quality known as
"compassion" and I did not have the heart to ask her this question, because
I knew how disturbing this question would be in her mind. Now, that creature
(my mother) no longer exists.
So, now, I'm going to ask that question of all of you:
If, when you summoned me here, you KNEW that you would be summoning me into
a hostile universe, where I would face danger and hostility from a variety
of circumstances and creatures (including creatures of my own species); and
if you KNEW that you could not tell me with any degree of accuracy or
honesty what this universe is or what it represents; and if you KNEW that
one day I would come into the certain knowledge that one day I must die, and
you could not tell me with any degree of accuracy or honesty WHY I must die,
or WHAT death represents; and if you KNEW that I would have to carry this
knowledge in my mind all the days of my life; and if you KNEW that for
simply talking about these things, let alone trying to solve the problem, my
fellow human beings would ostracize me, ridicule me, and even seek to do me
harm...for nothing more than wanting to know the REAL truth; and if you KNEW
that all my fellow human beings, instead of trying to solve the problem, had
decided instead to wallow in ignorance and superstion; and if you KNEW that
my fellow ignorant, superstitious human beings had embarked upon a path in
which I and every other human being would be forced to bear witness to a
man-made cataclysm intended to justify the ignorant, superstious, insane
desires of "faithful" people in the practice of their irrational dishonesty;
THEN WHY DID YOU SUMMON ME HERE?
Faith, philosophy, systems of thought, paradigms of science...none of those
things are religion. All of those things are how human beings have RESPONDED
to what we all know religion really is: those questions we ask ourelves in
the dark of night that we KNOW we cannot honestly answer. How many of you
have lay in your beds during times of personal crisis or trauma and asked
yourselves questions like these:
"When I die, will I be judged for my actions in life?"
"When I die, have I earned a great reward for my actions in life?"
"When I die, do I deserve some horrendous punishment for my actions in
life?"
And then comes the most distubing question that any of us asks ourselves in
those "private moments":
"Are any of those stories true...at all?"
And isn't that the moment when we all KNOW what the REAL truth is? Isn't
that the moment when we all KNOW that we DOUBT the stories we have be told
since childhood? And isn't doubt like pregnancy, because we KNOW there is no
such thing as being "a little bit pregnant".
But don't mind me...go ahead...perpetuate your "armageddon". Try not to
think of these things when you see you children lying bleeding, broken, and
maimed...in the name of your "faith".
You all sleep well tonight...If...You...Think...You...Can!
Isabella
"Thistlewait" <thist...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ntadnYC2uIYAbO3b...@comcast.com...
> What is Faith? What does that word mean?
>
> Does not the word "faith" mean: acceptance without benefit of knowledge?
No, it doesn't. That's a misconception. Faith is based on knowledge, without
knowledge based on experience, faith is not possible.
So,
> simply by declaring that one has "faith" hasn't one already admitted that
> they DO NOT KNOW?
Nope.
If one has already admitted that one does not know, then
> how can anything that one may have to say about their "faith" even
> possibly
> be true? When I hear someone declare to me that they have "faith", and in
> the same breath qualify that word "faith" with the word "truth", is there
> anyone...anywhere on this planet that can explain to me why I should not
> consider that I have just be LIED to?"
Again, there is a difference between using a word, and using a word that
actually applies based on experience. Anyone can say anything, that doesn't
mean that they have actually the experience to back it up. Still, that does
not mean that the concept in itself is faulty.
>
> I think that humanity is facing a grave problem in the form of "faith".
> But
> in a larger context the problem is really a problem of honesty. I don't
> think human beings are honest. I thought that if I described to all of you
> what it is that I KNOW has happened to me, that some of you may be
> compelled
> to admit exactly the same truth about yourselves. So, this is what
> happened
> to me:
Not really, humanity is facing the same problem humanity has always faced:
ignorance of self, which of course leads to adopting a false self. All
problems multiply from there. Such as someone stating someone else is not
honest. Right, part of human nature...a part of your nature.
>
> Approximately nine months before I was born, I was summoned into existence
> by two creatures...who, to the best of my knowledge, had no design or
> purpose in their collaboration of summoning other than to satisfy an
> immediate carnal compulsion. To the best of my knowledge, neither of those
> two creatures (who I later came to understand as "my parents") every once
> gave a single moment's thought to the idea that they may be summoning an
> intelligence...sentience...sapience...into this universe that may one day
> wish to ask them some very disturbing questions. Questions, as it turned
> out, they were ill-prepared to answer with any degree of accuracy or
> honesty.
>
> That is what has happened to me! That is what has happened to all of you!
Ah, but you lie, you cannot expect everyone else to perceive only one half
of the equation just because that is the way you prefer to see things. For
everything seen, there is an unseen. Every tree has it's roots.
Yeah, well, from what I'm getting from this is you want to know why you are
here. But you don't want to go to the place where you can get answer: that
is in the depths of the self.
>
> Faith, philosophy, systems of thought, paradigms of science...none of
> those
> things are religion. All of those things are how human beings have
> RESPONDED
> to what we all know religion really is: those questions we ask ourelves in
> the dark of night that we KNOW we cannot honestly answer. How many of you
> have lay in your beds during times of personal crisis or trauma and asked
> yourselves questions like these:
>
> "When I die, will I be judged for my actions?
>
> "When I die, have I earned a great reward for my actions in life?"
>
> "When I die, do I deserve some horrendous punishment for my actions in
> life?"
>
> And then comes the most distubing question that any of us asks ourselves
> in
> those "private moments":
>
> "Are any of those stories true...at all?"
I don't have those questions. These are questions based on induced guilt
that happens to cooperate well with our psychology. Reward/Punishment...etc,
it goes in circles. These are the questions that keep people in what I call
morality based religions, which most of them are, and these are the
questions that drive people there. Again, they are all based on guilt and
fear.
> And isn't that the moment when we all KNOW what the REAL truth is? Isn't
> that the moment when we all KNOW that we DOUBT the stories we have be told
> since childhood? And isn't doubt like pregnancy, because we KNOW there is
> no
> such thing as being "a little bit pregnant".
Dude, I've doubted those stories in church since childhood, which is why I'm
a gnostic. It's not the word faith that is the problem, it's ignorance of
self.
Isabella
vf...@aol.com
> What is Faith?
When it comes to faith...faith must always be based on the fact of a
'first see-er' or 'first contact' that is telling the truth.
We do not come up with ideas to base faith on all on our own.
All religious faith is based on someone else's reports.
If this persons report is based on lies, than the faith must
evaporate.
I am not shy to benefit from spiritual and religious tools. The only
requirement is that the tool can be tested for practical application.
And if the tool can't be tested and requires faith, I have to let it
go for the most part since there are so many lies that religion of man
is based on and no one can prove or disprove any of it.
See:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=133.0
That is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for ourselves.
As such, when we get a toolbox we can decide which tools to use for
the job. Some tools are used a lot, other tools are left alone for the
time being, and still others are trashed when we see they are broken
and useless.
Traditional freethinkers do not accept me as one of their group, since
I draw from spiritual paths as well as wordily areas to garner wisdom
to live at peace. Traditional freethinkers do not like anything that
comes from religion. Kind of a misnomer isn't it...I'm a
freethinker...but I must block out everything that comes from religion
and spiritual traditions and whatever other prejudice I wish to inject
into the equation?
Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe
they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
Religious practicers as well as atheists need to open their mind and
see things without the delusions that both sides of this topic are
stuck in.
'Honor dies where interest lies.'
As an agnostic freethinker my interest lies in discovering truth.
When we limit personal prejudice we can open our minds to truth and
peace. And realize the truth of Blake's words that "all deities reside
within the human breast."
If it is religion that atheists or theists need to adopt, they only
have to look as far as the religion of humanity. But just paying
secular humanism lip service will not do any good. Our talk of
spiritual values must match our actions.
I discuss this topic of faith with an ex-rabbi towards the end of this
thread:
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=51.0
>From my own perspective since religion is riddled with lies and
ambiguities, the need for faith is where I leave off.
I test the spiritual traditions for veracity by testing. Those areas
that cannot be tested or otherwise proved are let go of and those that
can be tested are either peace producing or peace destroying. If peace
destroying I let them go and if peace promoting I try to implement
some of them in my life.
A lot of people get confused when I talk about inner peace. Some of
them call me a 'self righteous twit' or worse.
Well, just because I talk about this peace subject a lot, does not
mean I practice it in all waking and sleeping hours.
Sometime I destroy me own peace as well. But at least I do know the
formula how to get back to a place of inner peace if I desire to
return to that place.
Peace is always a personal choice as no one can do it for us.
Inner peace does not take faith...it takes testing and practice.
"Just as water floes downhill without effort but requires outside
forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the human consciousness
falls to its lowest levels of the senses without effort and energies
to make our consciousness gravitate to more than our base desires." ~
Hindu Sage
Take Care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
For free access to my earlier posts on voluntary simplicity,
compulsive spending, debting, compulsive overeating and clutter write:
vf...@aol.com. Any opinion expressed here is that of my own and is not
the opinion, recommendation or belief of any group or organization.
Isabella
<vf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182175416.6...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 14, 3:43?am, "Thistlewait" <thistlew...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> What is Faith?
>
>
> When it comes to faith...faith must always be based on the fact of a
> 'first see-er' or 'first contact' that is telling the truth.
>
> We do not come up with ideas to base faith on all on our own.
All mythos has an origin in man, it is a reflection of humanity's internal
makeup and patterns. Not that I really see the point of your statement: we
do not come up with ideas that anything is based on all on our own. We are
taught how to behave and what to think since birth. Among this, we have the
ability to discern information, not only take it in and accept it. I
disagree: faith is not the placing of your trust into something that you
have no experiential knowledge of.
>
> All religious faith is based on someone else's reports.
I disagree, there is a tendency for people to want someone to save them from
themselves, a tendency to believe in miracles while remaining detached from
the spiritual process. This is not faith. Carl Jung said religion is a
defense agains the experience of god.
> If this persons report is based on lies, than the faith must
> evaporate.
>
> I am not shy to benefit from spiritual and religious tools. The only
> requirement is that the tool can be tested for practical application.
> And if the tool can't be tested and requires faith, I have to let it
> go for the most part since there are so many lies that religion of man
> is based on and no one can prove or disprove any of it.
>
Practical application is how what you discern manifests in your life, that's
the way that I see it. You know, there are many systems that do nothing for
me, but they do something for others: I'm in no position to convince anyone
that they need to see things my way.
> See:
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=133.0
>
> That is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for ourselves.
> As such, when we get a toolbox we can decide which tools to use for
> the job. Some tools are used a lot, other tools are left alone for the
> time being, and still others are trashed when we see they are broken
> and useless.
Yeah yeah, but this site has some biased info on it, in particular I recall
reading something about Paul where the entirety of his connection to
gnosticism was left out - but you know, this is how easy it is to sway
people. All you need is an audience that already wants to hear what you have
to say, has a tendency towards that opinion, then just about anything you
say will add up to some monumental truth.
>
> Traditional freethinkers do not accept me as one of their group, since
> I draw from spiritual paths as well as wordily areas to garner wisdom
> to live at peace. Traditional freethinkers do not like anything that
> comes from religion. Kind of a misnomer isn't it...I'm a
> freethinker...but I must block out everything that comes from religion
> and spiritual traditions and whatever other prejudice I wish to inject
> into the equation?
The other day I was talking to my corworker who informed me that he had
thought himself an atheist until he realized that this in itself was a
religion. Rejection binds, acceptance liberates.
>
> Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe
> they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
>
> Religious practicers as well as atheists need to open their mind and
> see things without the delusions that both sides of this topic are
> stuck in.
>
> 'Honor dies where interest lies.'
>
> As an agnostic freethinker my interest lies in discovering truth.
>
> When we limit personal prejudice we can open our minds to truth and
> peace. And realize the truth of Blake's words that "all deities reside
> within the human breast."
>
> If it is religion that atheists or theists need to adopt, they only
> have to look as far as the religion of humanity. But just paying
> secular humanism lip service will not do any good. Our talk of
> spiritual values must match our actions.
>
> I discuss this topic of faith with an ex-rabbi towards the end of this
> thread:
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=51.0
>
>>From my own perspective since religion is riddled with lies and
> ambiguities, the need for faith is where I leave off.
> I test the spiritual traditions for veracity by testing. Those areas
> that cannot be tested or otherwise proved are let go of and those that
> can be tested are either peace producing or peace destroying. If peace
> destroying I let them go and if peace promoting I try to implement
> some of them in my life.
Again, I do think that your definition of faith and mine are two different
things. Religion in itself is not the problem, you see anything can be a
religion, such as politics, such as science, such as being a vegeterian.
>
> A lot of people get confused when I talk about inner peace. Some of
> them call me a 'self righteous twit' or worse.
>
> Well, just because I talk about this peace subject a lot, does not
> mean I practice it in all waking and sleeping hours.
Well, whatever you are into, that's what works for you.
Isabella
Kater Moggin
> I am not shy to benefit from spiritual and religious tools. The only
...
More of VFR44's spam. He's posted the same crap again and
again, both on Usenet and on the Web, regardless of its
relevance. To him, discussion groups are just billboards where
he pastes his ads.
-- Moggin
rain forest
> No, it doesn't. That's a misconception. Faith is based on knowledge, without
> knowledge based on experience, faith is not possible.
Experience is one word you never see in the Bible, but I'm glad that's
important to you. You also don't see the words feelings and emotions,
which is maybe why the concept of faith is often perceived as some
form of self-hypnosis or mental athleticism.
rain forest
> v...@aol.com <v...@aol.com>:
Man, you have some serious mental health issues. If you don't
instinctually perceive that possibility, you're in trouble.
Isabella
Isabella
"rain forest" <rain_f...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1182742922.5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Kater Moggin
> Man, you have
I've shown what a dunce you are. You positively insist on
the misogynistic falsehood that Sophia is the demon in the
Apocryphon of John and the Hypostasis of the Archons -- stories
where the role of demon is played by the Demiurge and the
other archons -- you ignorantly deny that Socrates negates life
in the Platonic dialogues, you ridiculously claim Sophia is
missing from Christian gnosticism, etc. A whole parade of lies
and stupidity.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Experience is one word you never see in the Bible
Genesis 30:27:
And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found
favour in thine eyes, tarry: for I have learned by
experience that the LORD hath blessed me for thy sake.
Ecclesiastes 1:16:
I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come
to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all
they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my
heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.
Romans 5:4-5:
Tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience;
and experience, hope: And hope maketh not ashamed;
because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by
the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
> You also don't see the words feelings and emotions,
Job 20:19-20:
Because he hath oppressed and hath forsaken the
poor; because he hath violently taken away an house
which he builded not; Surely he shall not feel
quietness in his belly, he shall not save of that
which he desired.
Ecclesiastes 8:5:
Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil
thing: and a wise man' heart discerneth both time
and judgment.
Ephesians 4:19:
Who being past feeling have given themselves
over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness
with greediness.
Hebrews 4:15:
For we have not an high priest which cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was
in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
-- Moggin
shriven leper
wrote:
As always, Moggin, an excellent and info-filled rebutal. I've been
watching you and Isabella from the sidelines - you both do such a good
job with your replies.
- sl -
rain forest
> Well, the bible is a mixed bag: but who said anything about the bible?
>
> Isabella
>
>
> news:1182742922.5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 6:26 pm, "Isabella" <isabellari...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Experience is one word you never see in the Bible, but I'm glad that's
> > important to you. You also don't see the words feelings and emotions,
> > which is maybe why the concept of faith is often perceived as some
>
> - Show quoted text -
Classical Gnosticism is the unconscious generator of Orthodox
Christianity. That is exactly what Karl Jung said.
rain forest
> rain forest <rain_fore...@msn.com>:
The Holy original Catholic and Protestant versions never use the words
feeling or experience. I don't recognize those modern translations you
quote because they don't speak with authority and modern Christianity
has no clue what they mean.
rain forest
> rain forest <rain_fore...@msn.com>:
There you go again, the perpetual incapable of logical thinking girly
whoose. If the Demiurge is the sole result of Sophia's mistaken
attempt to create without her consort, how can she not be the sole
cause of his miserable existance? Does Sophia shuck it off and say
it's all his fault? NO! She admits her mistake, repents and becomes a
Boddhisaatva because of her sense of guilt for starting the whole ball
rolling. Your beloved Sophia is a total destruction of the Goddess in
Christianity and you know it and love it.
Furthermore, you worship Socrates and can't see beyond his lie that he
negates life...he was a fat cat living off inherited riches and
attempted to put people on a false spiritual trip because of his lust
for fame.
I'm attempting to justify Gnosticism by demonstrating that it
represented balance between the God and Goddess. You want to drag it
down to what Jung calls the unconcious explanation for the
dissappearance of the Orthodox Christian Goddess. You're not as
educated and as intelligent as me, yet you persist with a mimic of
conventional thought. Your position is so average and the same old
status-quo rhetoric, and unproductive.
Isabella
Isabella
"rain forest" <rain_f...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1182831998.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 5:14 pm, "Isabella" <isabellari...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Well, the bible is a mixed bag: but who said anything about the bible?
> Classical Gnosticism is the unconscious generator of Orthodox
Kater Moggin
> There you
There I showed what a fool you've been. You insist on the
misogynistic falsehood that Sophia is the demon in the
Apocryphon of John and the Hypostasis of the Archons -- stories
where the role of demon is played by the Demiurge and the
other archons -- you ignorantly deny that Socrates negates life
in the Platonic dialogues, you ridiculously claim Sophia is
missing from Christian gnosticism, etc. A whole parade of lies
and stupidity.
> it's all his fault? NO! She admits her mistake, repents and becomes
By contrast, you refuse to admit any of your many mistakes.
> Furthermore, you worship Socrates and can't see beyond his lie that he
The lies are entirely yours: you falsely claimed Socrates
never denies life in this world -- something that he very
plainly does in the Platonic dialogues -- and now you're making
up shit about me.
> I'm attempting to justify Gnosticism by demonstrating
You're attempting to criticize gnosticism by claiming it's
puritanical, showing you don't grasp the differences
separating the repressive Creator-worship preached by Christian
orthodoxy from the gnostics' rejection of both Creator and
Creation. A simple distinction that sails right over your head.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> > > Experience is one word you never see in the Bible
> > > You also don't see the words feelings and emotions
Kater Moggin <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> ["experience": Genesis 30:27, Ecclesiastes 1:16, Romans
>> 5:4-5
>> "feel" or "feeling": Job 20:19-20, Ecc. 8:5, Ephesians
>> 4:19, Hebrews 4:15]
rain_forest:
> The Holy original Catholic and Protestant versions never use the words
> feeling or experience. I don't recognize those modern translations you
> quote because they don't speak with authority and modern Christianity
> has no clue what they mean.
Heh. You don't recognize the KJV: the Authorized Version
to Protestants. That's what I quoted -- not the "modern
translations" you imagine. Inventing excuses has made you into
an even bigger fool.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> I've been
> watching you and Isabella from the sidelines - you both do such a good
> job with your replies.
The only good thing to say about rain_forest is that she's
provoked Izzy into some great posts.
-- Moggin
shriven leper
wrote:
>shriven leper <bastas...@comcast.net>:
Sounds right to me...
- sl -
rain forest
> Ok...the surprise is?
>
> Isabella
>
>
> news:1182831998.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 5:14 pm, "Isabella" <isabellari...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Well, the bible is a mixed bag: but who said anything about the bible?
> > Classical Gnosticism is the unconscious generator of Orthodox
>
> - Show quoted text -
What you seem to defend as Gnosticism led to the all-male trinity. The
established archetypes of a fallen daughter and inept mother is what
the religion is seemingly stuck with.
rain forest
> Heh. You don't recognize the KJV: the Authorized Version
> to Protestants. That's what I quoted -- not the "modern
> translations" you imagine. Inventing excuses has made you into
> an even bigger fool.
I'd consider the KJV a modern translation, about 1500 yrs after the
original. The Catholic version does use the word feelings in Hebrews
4:15, but none of those other verses in the Catholic version use the
words feeling, emotion or experience there. I guess that makes me 10%
a fool and you about 90%...lol
Isabella
to masquarade as truth. As far as rejection of the feminine....that is fear,
just as rejection of the masculine is fear. I hate to say it, but I don't
see this as something that is going anywhere anytime soon because
essentially it stems from fear of aspects of self as projected onto others.
Isabella
"rain forest" <rain_f...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1182980005.0...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 5:41 pm, "Isabella" <isabellari...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ok...the surprise is?
> What you seem to defend as Gnosticism led to the all-male trinity. The
rain forest
> There I showed what a fool you've been. You insist on the
> misogynistic falsehood that Sophia is the demon in the
> Apocryphon of John and the Hypostasis of the Archons -- stories
> where the role of demon is played by the Demiurge and the
> other archons --
Stories that clearly show that Sophia daring to create without her
consort is why they are the way are.
> you ignorantly deny that Socrates negates life
> in the Platonic dialogues,
I'm not using the Platonic dialogues as reference, only historical
fact.
> you ridiculously claim Sophia is missing from Christian gnosticism, etc.
I don't recognize Valentinus as a Christian, but a deluded heretic.
True Gnostic Christianity is best represented by the Gospel of the
Hebrews and the original Matthew.
> A whole parade of lies
> and stupidity.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at you renting your garments in
frustration. I consider your position as blasphemy of the female Holy
Spirit.
> The lies are entirely yours: you falsely claimed Socrates
> never denies life in this world -- something that he very
> plainly does in the Platonic dialogues -- and now you're making
> up shit about me.
Chill out Moggin, I respect you believe it or not.
> You're attempting to criticize gnosticism by claiming it's
> puritanical, showing you don't grasp the differences
> separating the repressive Creator-worship preached by Christian
> orthodoxy from the gnostics' rejection of both Creator and
> Creation. A simple distinction that sails right over your head.
That's your version of Gnosticism, the only one in your opinion. I use
the Gospel of the Hebrews, (the original Matthew), other Gnostic texts
that don't blaspheme the Holy Spirit and the Greek Mystery Religions
for my orientation.
Kater Moggin
> Stories that clearly show
The ApJohn and the HypArch clearly depict the demiurge and
the other archons as demons -- i.e., tyrants, rapists, and
jailers -- despite your misogynistic idea Sophia is the demonic
figure in those stories.
> I'm not
You're not telling the truth when you insist that Socrates
doesn't negate life, since he does precisely so in the
Platonic dialogues, and you're running from your own words when
you pretend that wasn't your claim.
> I don't recognize
You miss alot, it's true. In this instance you were wrong
to deny Sophia is part of Christian gnosticism. You also
failed to comprehend the difference between the Creator-worship
of Puritanism and the gnostics' rejection of Creator and
Creation: a fundamental misunderstanding of gnostic as well as
orthodox theology.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> I'd consider
You claimed the words "experience" and "feeling" aren't in
the Bible -- another of the many idiocies that you've
contributed, as I showed with quotes from the KJV. Your excuse
making made you even more of a clown, since you managed to
confuse the KJV with a modern translation while trying to dodge
the evidence against you.
> Hebrews 4:15, but none of those other verses in the Catholic version
> use the words feeling, emotion or experience there. I guess that
> makes me
That makes you a liar and a fool, i.e., the usual with you.
The words "experience" and "feel" appear repeatedly in the
Douay-Rheims (the Catholic counterpart to the KJV), contrary to
your idea they're not in the Bible.
"Experience":
Genesis 30:27:
Laban said to him: Let me find favour in thy sight:
I have learned by experience, that God hath blessed
me for thy sake.
Judith 6:6:
And that thou mayst know that thou shalt experience
these things together with them, behold from this
hour thou shalt be associated to their people, that
when they shall receive the punishment they deserve
from my sword, thou mayst fall under the same
vengeance.
Esther 3:5:
Now when Aman had heard this, and had proved by
experience that Mardochai did not bend his knee to
him, nor worship him, he was exceeding angry.
Ecclesiastes 21:25:
The foot of a fool is soon in his neighbour's
house: but a man of experience will be abashed at
the person of the mighty.
Ecclesiastes 25:8:
Much experience is the crown of old men, and the
fear of God is their glory.
Ecclesiastes 34:9:
What doth he know, that hath not been tried? A
man that hath much experience, shall think of many
things: and he that hath learned many things, shall
shew forth understanding.
Ecclesiastes 34:10:
He that hath no experience, knoweth little: and
he that hath been experienced in many things,
multiplieth prudence.
Ecclesiastes 36:22:
A perverse heart will cause grief, and a man of
experience will resist it.
2 Machabees 8:9:
And he with all speed sent Nicanor the son of
Patroclus, one of his special friends, giving him
no fewer than twenty thousand armed men of
different nations, to root out the whole race of
the Jews, joining also with him Gorgias, a good
soldier, and of great experience in matters of war.
2 Corinthians 8:2
That in much experience of tribulation, they have
had abundance of joy; and their very deep poverty
hath abounded unto the riches of their simplicity.
"Feel":
Proverbs 14:35:
A wise servant is acceptable to the king: he that is
good for nothing shall feel his anger.
Ecclesiastes 31:22
How sufficient is a little wine for a man well
taught, and in sleeping thou shalt not be uneasy with
it, and thou shalt feel no pain.
Daniel 5:23:
But hast lifted thyself up against the Lord of heaven:
and the vessels of his house have been brought before
thee: and thou, and thy nobles, and thy wives, and thy
concubines have drunk wine in them: and thou hast
praised the gods of silver, and of gold, and of
brass, of iron, and of wood, and of stone, that
neither see, nor hear, nor feel: but the God who hath
thy breath in his hand, and all thy ways, thou hast
not glorified.
-- Moggin
rain forest
> I do not understand your point. The way of the world is to reject truth, or
> to masquarade as truth. As far as rejection of the feminine....that is fear,
> just as rejection of the masculine is fear. I hate to say it, but I don't
> see this as something that is going anywhere anytime soon because
> essentially it stems from fear of aspects of self as projected onto others.
>
> Isabella
>
>
> news:1182980005.0...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 5:41 pm, "Isabella" <isabellari...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Ok...the surprise is?
> > What you seem to defend as Gnosticism led to the all-male trinity. The
> > established archetypes of a fallen daughter and inept mother is what
rain forest
> to masquarade as truth. As far as rejection of the feminine....that is fear,
> just as rejection of the masculine is fear. I hate to say it, but I don't
> see this as something that is going anywhere anytime soon because
> essentially it stems from fear of aspects of self as projected onto others.
>
> Isabella
>
>
> news:1182980005.0...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 5:41 pm, "Isabella" <isabellari...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Ok...the surprise is?
> > What you seem to defend as Gnosticism led to the all-male trinity. The
> > established archetypes of a fallen daughter and inept mother is what
>
> - Show quoted text -
This Google system says I already posted a response but I never did. I
object to the fact that all of the Gnostic, Jewish, Muslim and
Christian stories portray a feminine person as the scapegoat. Maybe
you're too weak intellectually and faith-wise to see beyond this. I am
not!
rain forest
> rain forest <rain_fore...@msn.com>:
No, you're wrong
rain forest
> rain forest <rain_fore...@msn.com>:
>
> > Stories that clearly show
>
> The ApJohn and the HypArch clearly depict the demiurge and
> the other archons as demons -- i.e., tyrants, rapists, and
> jailers -- despite your misogynistic idea Sophia is the demonic
> figure in those stories.
Kater, the guy self-proclaimed spokesperson for the Divine Feminine,
what is created cannot be anything but the essence of it's creator's
mistake. I'm a woman and have a little more insight first-hand than
you. I feel sorry for you cause you have nothing else to adhere to
than what others have mistakenly presumed. Think for youself if you
can.
> You're not telling the truth when you insist that Socrates
> doesn't negate life, since he does precisely so in the
> Platonic dialogues, and you're running from your own words when
> you pretend that wasn't your claim.
I've told you over and over that Socrates never actually negated life.
He relished his inherited riches while claiming some imaginary
spiritual realm beyond. Let's see your proof he gave up his
inheritance.
> You miss alot, it's true. In this instance you were wrong
> to deny Sophia is part of Christian gnosticism. You also
> failed to comprehend the difference between the Creator-worship
> of Puritanism and the gnostics' rejection of Creator and
> Creation: a fundamental misunderstanding of gnostic as well as
> orthodox theology.
I think you have a different definition of Gnostic. It means to know
first-hand, not to spout-off something you memorized with some
ulterior motive,
shriven leper
wrote:
Moggin's definition of Gnostic and Gnosticism is correct. Yes,
Gnosticism includes the notion of unmediated first-hand mystical
experience, but it cannot be _identified_ by this idea, since mystical
experience in general makes similar claims. As Moggin has pointed
out, Gnosticism has a specific meaning, i.e., the beliefs, theologies,
schools, scriptures and pneumatologies of... the Gnostics. The
identifying features of ... the Gnostics ... include hatred or
mistrust of the material world; scorn for the putative creator of the
material world; "alternative" teachings and writings opposed to the
branches of religion that eventually became orthodoxy; belief that the
Gnostic's spirit is bound up with the True God; belief in the True
God's perfect realm as opposed to the evil "abortion" of the material
world created by the demiurge/creator god; belief in Aeons and Archons
and Sophia and Ialdaboth and Abraxas, etc.
If a system does not have these features, it is not Gnostic. A
system that promotes unmediated divine union but does not have the
above-listed features is not Gnostic.
- sl -
Kater Moggin
> Kater, the guy self-proclaimed spokesperson for the Divine Feminine
Rain_forest, the lying little bitch. I haven't proclaimed
myself any kind of spokesman.
> mistake. I'm a woman and have a little more insight first-hand than
You have the usual net.kook combo of lies and illiteracies.
> I've told you
You've told me all sortsa stupid things. You wrongly said
that Socrates never negates life -- just what he repeatedly
does in the Platonic dialogues -- you mistakenly claimed Sophia
is the demon in the ApJohn and the HypArch (a role that's
played by the Demiurge and the other archons), you falsely said
she isn't part of Christian gnosticism, you missed the
feminism in the Pistis Sophia, you absurdly contended the words
"feel" and "experience" aren't in the Bible, you somehow
confused puritanical Creator-worship with gnosticism's critique
of Creator and Creation, etc.
> I think you have a different definition of Gnostic. It means to know
> first-hand
False. If "to know first hand" defined "gnostic," anybody
with first-hand knowledge of their own name would be
practicing gnosticism. Same for anybody knowing first-hand the
taste of lime Jello.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> No, you're wrong
The mistake is yours, as usual. You illiterately asserted
that the the words "experience" and "feeling" aren't in the
Bible. I've proved you wrong with quotes from both the KJV and
the Douay-Rheims.
-- Moggin
Isabella
> On Jun 27, 4:56 pm, "Isabella" <isabellari...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I do not understand your point. The way of the world is to reject truth,
>> or
>> to masquarade as truth. As far as rejection of the feminine....that is
>> fear,
>> just as rejection of the masculine is fear. I hate to say it, but I don't
>> see this as something that is going anywhere anytime soon because
>> essentially it stems from fear of aspects of self as projected onto
>> others.
>>
>> Isabella
>>
>> "rain forest" <rain_fore...@msn.com> wrote in message
> This Google system says I already posted a response but I never did. I
> object to the fact that all of the Gnostic, Jewish, Muslim and
> Christian stories portray a feminine person as the scapegoat. Maybe
> you're too weak intellectually and faith-wise to see beyond this. I am
> not!
Hmm, I guess you do not see Jesus as the scapegoat, per crucifiction? I must
be too intellectually and intuitively weak to not agree with your pov.
Isabella
Isabella
>> "rain forest" <rain_fore...@msn.com> wrote in message
> This Google system says I already posted a response but I never did. I
> object to the fact that all of the Gnostic, Jewish, Muslim and
> Christian stories portray a feminine person as the scapegoat. Maybe
> you're too weak intellectually and faith-wise to see beyond this. I am
> not!
>
I'm a little hesitant to throw an idea out as I come up with it because
people half the time cannot do the same, they have to stick to something
they read and do not explore the limits of what is stated. In any case, here
goes. The gnostic mythos can be nothing but an analogy, one long parable. We
are in a state of boundary and prison, because of that, these things become
the vehicles of certain important concepts: however, actually what is before
these concepts and after them, the original state without limit, is
something that cannot be described nor put into words. What can is certain
modes of thinking that sequentially bring us back, after we are done with
these vehicles, we get off. Since Sophia is an aspect, she has broken away
from the whole: the whole that is the father, that whole that came into
being from him. In essence, this is saying that the feminine aspect of the
father went astray, which actually is the father. Just as much as I would
say to a christian: stop blaming man for the lack of foresight that
originates in his creator, that is, realize that if the creator created
everything, this is the root of the problem, now I'm doing the same for the
pleroma. This is nothing but a logical chain. But that's not what I really
think, although I could get lost in that little dilemma though. There are
some things that there are no answer for, because all we have are analogies,
approximations, you get to the end and you realize something is off because
it does not provide you with the answer. I don't think it's supposed to.
Still it presents us with concepts that are transformative, initiatory and
activate something within. I've seen the Matrix, I've seen the Fountain, and
other movies that describe a world view: not a single one goes beyond
describing the world view, the pattern of symbols we already know: not one
goes beyond this. Are you familiar with tarot? Well, the magician is the
masculine active principle while the high priestess is the passive one, the
one that knows the depths of all mysteries, yet she does not create. I think
that the respective roles of Sophia, the father, the demiurge, etc. are very
much like a demonstration of various traits assigned genders that are really
genderless. But being human beings, we can understand those things that are
in our faces all the time: namely male and female, the union thereof, etc.
And there are certain tendencies that we have based on gender - you remind
the males on this forum of this all the time - these are things we can
understand and grasp as symbols.
Isabella
rain forest
> Hmm, I guess you do not see Jesus as the scapegoat, per crucifiction? I must
> be too intellectually and intuitively weak to not agree with your pov.
Jesus is portrayed as a sinless righteous savior who never made a
mistake. His supposed consort Sophia is portrayed as mistaken and
later repentant, huge difference. It's obvious that Sophia is
identified with the fallen human soul which was considered feminine.
(the male bridegroom and his bride the human soul)
rain forest
OK, you are an intelligent and gifted writer. I have no problem with
the stories of Sophia as long as they're considered just stories
teaching spiritual principles. What I object to the most is there
aren't enough Christian stories about a fallen male unless he's
directly linked to the feminine as the initial cause. This biased
tradition was invented by male church leaders who frankly blamed Eve
for our predicament. The many stories that clearly demonstrated this
is not a gender issue were destroyed by the Roman emporers like
Theodosius and Justinian, but not totally.
rain forest
> rain forest <rain_fore...@msn.com>:
>
>
> The mistake is yours, as usual. You illiterately asserted
> that the the words "experience" and "feeling" aren't in the
> Bible. I've proved you wrong with quotes from both the KJV and
> the Douay-Rheims.
>
> -- Moggin
Those words are missing from the Catholic bible except in one verse
that I've found. I don't recognize any of the newer protestant
translations and the use of those words have no significance and
meaning in Protestant theology or Catholic. Feelings and emotions are
symbolically feminine and are wedded to physical bodily sensations,
hence back to Sophia, who you, as a gender-fascist male, have no
understanding of.
rain forest
> You have the usual net.kook combo of lies and illiteracies.
I remember all the people who posted here in the past, having gotten
to know you, who thought you were a kook yourself. They're gone
because they got tired of your linear biased point of view. The only
thing you have going for you is mathematical organization of several
anti-feminine interpretations.
> You've told me all sortsa stupid things. You wrongly said
> that Socrates never negates life -- just what he repeatedly
> does in the Platonic dialogues -- you mistakenly claimed Sophia
> is the demon in the ApJohn and the HypArch (a role that's
> played by the Demiurge and the other archons), you falsely said
> she isn't part of Christian gnosticism, you missed the
> feminism in the Pistis Sophia, you absurdly contended the words
> "feel" and "experience" aren't in the Bible, you somehow
> confused puritanical Creator-worship with gnosticism's critique
> of Creator and Creation, etc.
You're a ridiculous broken record with no insight into the greater
meaning of the classical gnostic texts or Socrates.
> False. If "to know first hand" defined "gnostic," anybody
> with first-hand knowledge of their own name would be
> practicing gnosticism. Same for anybody knowing first-hand the
> taste of lime Jello.
I'm talking about spiritual reality known first-hand, not something
you memorized in your Hellenic empire manual.
rain forest
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:39:25 -0700, rain forest <rain_fore...@msn.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gnosticism is not a system, it's an experience.
shriven leper
wrote:
>On Jul 2, 8:16 pm, shriven leper <bastasch8...@comcast.net> wrote:
Wrong again. Gnosis is an experience. Gnosticism is the codification
of that experience into the schools of Gnosticism. These schools
share mistrust of creation and creator, belief in the True God, Aeons,
Archons, Sophia, Abraxas, the true God's perfect realm. If any
experience does not result in these features it is not Gnosis and it
is not Gnosticism.
- sl -
Isabella
> On Jul 3, 9:36 pm, "Isabella" <isabellari...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "rain forest" <rain_fore...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>
> the stories of Sophia as long as they're considered just stories
> teaching spiritual principles. What I object to the most is there
> aren't enough Christian stories about a fallen male unless he's
> directly linked to the feminine as the initial cause. This biased
> tradition was invented by male church leaders who frankly blamed Eve
> for our predicament. The many stories that clearly demonstrated this
> is not a gender issue were destroyed by the Roman emporers like
> Theodosius and Justinian, but not totally.
I think that is what they are. I think they are so aspectual, that the idea
of this progression of division can be missed. Or the idea of balance,
union. It's interesting what the Tripartite Tractate says though:
The Logos himself caused it to happen, being complete and unitary, for the
glory of the Father, whom he desired, and (he did so) being content with it,
but those whom he wished to take hold of firmly he begot in shadows and
copies and likenesses. For, he was not able to bear the sight of the light,
but he looked into the depth and he doubted. Out of this there was a
division - he became deeply troubled - and a turning away because of his
self-doubt and division, forgetfulness and ignorance of himself and <of
that> which is.
His self-exaltation and his expectation of comprehending the
incomprehensible became firm for him and was in him. But the sicknesses
followed him when he went beyond himself, having come into being from
self-doubt, namely from the fact that he did not <reach the attainment of>
the glories of the Father, the one whose exalted status is among things
unlimited. This one did not attain him, for he did not receive him.
The one whom he himself brought forth as a unitary aeon rushed up to that
which is his and this kin of his in the Pleroma abandoned him who came to be
in the defect along with those who had come forth from him in an imaginary
way, since they are not his.
When he who produced himself as perfect actually did bring himself forth, he
became weak like a female nature which has abandoned its virile counterpart.
From that which was deficient in itself there came those things which came
into being from his thought and his arrogance, but from that which is
perfect in him he left it and raised himself up to those who are his. He was
in the Pleroma as a remembrance for him so that he would be saved from his
arrogance.
Kater Moggin
> Gnosticism is not a system, it's an experience.
The term "gnosticism" refers to the thinking, history, and
practices of the gnostic schools, for instance the
Valentinians, Sethians, Naasenes, and Marcionites. It can also
apply by extension, I'd argue, to others with the same
perspective, frex the Cathars and the Bogomils. Central themes
include the division of God from the Creator of this world --
lowered from supreme being to inferior demiurge -- and a
correspondingly critical view of the Creation, seen as a prison
or exile of the soul.
-- Moggin
shriven leper
wrote:
>rain forest <rain_f...@msn.com>:
You said it, Moggin. I said something similar, but you nailed it.
- sl -
Kater Moggin
> You're
I'm listing your laughably false claims. You illiterately
said Socrates never negates life (something he clearly and
repeatedly does in Plato), you misogynistically insisted Sophia
is the demon in the ApJohn and the HypArch (a role that's
played by the Demiurge and the other archons), you ridiculously
denied she's part of Christian gnosticism, you missed the
feminism in the Pistis Sophia, you absurdly contended the words
"feel" and "experience" aren't in the Bible, you somehow
confused puritanical Creator-worship with gnosticism's critique
of Creator and Creation, etc.
> I'm talking about spiritual reality known first-hand, not something
You're babbling ignorantly. In this case you were foolish
enough to say the definition of "gnostic" is "to know
first-hand," a nonsensical idea implying anyone with first-hand
knowledge of their own name is practicing gnosticism.
"Spiritual reality known first-hand" describes mysticism in the
general sense, not the gnostic perspective in specific.
You're an idiot, babe, it's a wonder that you still know how to
breathe.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Those words are missing from the Catholic bible except in one verse
Wrong again. I already gave chapter and verse showing the
words "feel" and "experience" are used repeatedly in both
Protestant and Catholic translations: the KJV and Douay-Rheims
respectively.
-- Moggin
vf...@aol.com
> rain forest <rain_fore...@msn.com>:
>
Wow, I always have admired your abilities Kater.
You know I've been all over hell when it comes to the net forums.
You really stand out with your knowledge and ability to discuss a
multitude of areas.
If they could combine your 'brain smarts' with my 'practical
application' abilities...the atheists would really be in trouble!
V
rain forest
> I'm listing your laughably false claims. You illiterately
> said Socrates never negates life (something he clearly and
> repeatedly does in Plato),
Saying something and doing something else is endemic human behavior.
Did he not bask in his inherited riches? His 'negation' of life' is so
exaggerated and definately a put-on. I'm Jungian which means I'm in
tune with the unconscious. What you do is parrot the pundents.
> you misogynistically insisted Sophia
> is the demon in the ApJohn and the HypArch (a role that's
> played by the Demiurge and the other archons),
She created him and his evil falls on her head and yours. Quit
repeating yourself and explain how the created thing is more evil than
the creator. It's clearly stated that the demiurge was the way he was
because of Sophia's sin, which she later repents of.
you ridiculously
> denied she's part of Christian gnosticism,
I don't call that Gnosticism. I call it Hellenic Empire bs. If you
want to idolize the Hellenic Empire over the Roman one, whoop-dee-doo!
> you missed the
> feminism in the Pistis Sophia,
That's not feminism. It's the repentent Mary/Sophia admitting her sin
and then elevated to the status of #1 disciple, subserviant to the
great sinless male savior.
> you absurdly contended the words
> "feel" and "experience" aren't in the Bible,
Only one of those words are present once in the NT and who cares about
the OT?...you certainly don't.
> you somehow
> confused puritanical Creator-worship with gnosticism's critique
> of Creator and Creation, etc.
The puritans don't worship the creator. They're what you call Gnostic
and see the creator as doing his thing exactly at the time of the fall
when nature was transformed into something evil.
> You're babbling ignorantly. In this case you were foolish
> enough to say the definition of "gnostic" is "to know
> first-hand," a nonsensical idea implying anyone with first-hand
> knowledge of their own name is practicing gnosticism.
Knowledge of one's first name is an acceptable starting place, like "I
think therefore I am". At least it's empirical unlike you.
> "Spiritual reality known first-hand" describes mysticism in the
> general sense, not the gnostic perspective in specific.
> You're an idiot, babe, it's a wonder that you still know how to
> breathe.
Poor Kater Moggin, you'll always be my intellectual inferior I'm
afraid.
Kater Moggin
> Saying something and doing something else is endemic human behavior.
Talking crap is your behavior, along with ducking your own
mistakes. In this case you wrongly claimed that Socrates
never negates life -- something he clearly does in the Platonic
dialogues -- then ran from your own words, pretending they
came from somebody else: your typical combination of ignorance
and dishonesty.
> She created him and his evil falls on her head and yours. Quit
Quit dodging. You offered the false and misognyistic idea
that Sophia is the demon in the Apocryphon of John and the
Hypostastis of the Archons, a role occupied by the Demiurge and
company in those writings.
> want to idolize the Hellenic Empire over the Roman one, whoop-dee-doo!
You're dodging again. In this instance you wrongly denied
Sophia is part of Christian gnosticism.
> That's not feminism. It's the repentent Mary/Sophia admitting her sin
Another of your evasions. In the Pistis Sophia, Jesus and
the First Mystery rebuke Peter's woman-hating while
encouraging Mary to speak and teach: an example of feminism in
gnostic mythology.
> Only one of those words are present once in the NT and who cares about
You're dodging again. According to you the words "feeling"
and "experience" aren't in the Bible -- but as I already
showed, they appear there again and again. You were completely
and illiterately wrong.
> The puritans don't worship the creator. They're what you call Gnostic
False. Puritans are Protestants rather than gnostics, and
they worship the Creator as God.
> Knowledge of one's first name is an acceptable starting place, like "I
More of your dodgerations. You wrongly contended that the
definition of "gnostic" is "to know first-hand" -- a
nonsensical idea implying that anyone with first-hand knowledge
of lime Jello practices gnosticism.
-- Moggin
rain forest
> Talking crap is your behavior, along with ducking your own
> mistakes. In this case you wrongly claimed that Socrates
> never negates life -- something he clearly does in the Platonic
> dialogues -- then ran from your own words, pretending they
> came from somebody else: your typical combination of ignorance
> and dishonesty.
Man, you believe in all that rhetoric? That's as crazy as believing
the Bible is the Word of God.
> Quit dodging. You offered the false and misognyistic idea
> that Sophia is the demon in the Apocryphon of John and the
> Hypostastis of the Archons, a role occupied by the Demiurge and
> company in those writings.
Every scholar of gnosticism knows that Sophia is solely responsible
for the demiurge because she dared to create without her consort
Christ....except you apparently. You've obviously never really read
the classical Gnostic texts, but are emotionally swayed by someone's
interpretation. I've got a M.A. degree in ancient history and have
studied Gnosticism for over 10 years. I see you as a gnostic fundy,
like every other empire fundy.
> You're dodging again. In this instance you wrongly denied
> Sophia is part of Christian gnosticism.
I don't call that True Gnosticism anymore than I call Roman
Catholicism and it's endless offshoots True Orthodox Christianity.
> Another of your evasions. In the Pistis Sophia, Jesus and
> the First Mystery rebuke Peter's woman-hating while
> encouraging Mary to speak and teach: an example of feminism in
> gnostic mythology.
Encouraging the repentant whore Mary/Sophia to be the #1 disciple
forever subserviant to the sinless male savior. I've got you
intellectually confined to a box and it's not pretty.
> You're dodging again. According to you the words "feeling"
> and "experience" aren't in the Bible -- but as I already
> showed, they appear there again and again. You were completely
> and illiterately wrong.
I said they weren't in modern translations like the Protestant King
James, considering the 1500 year old original Catholic version. You
scored a little on this, but there is no doubt that Protestants have
no perception of what feelings and perceptions might be.
> More of your dodgerations. You wrongly contended that the
> definition of "gnostic" is "to know first-hand" -- a
> nonsensical idea implying that anyone with first-hand knowledge
> of lime Jello practices gnosticism.
"I taste therefore I am." You have no empiracle common sense, but
consistantly preach what other minds have dictated.
shriven leper
wrote:
>On Jul 9, 9:19 pm, Kater Moggin <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Talking crap is your behavior, along with ducking your own
>> mistakes. In this case you wrongly claimed that Socrates
>> never negates life -- something he clearly does in the Platonic
>> dialogues -- then ran from your own words, pretending they
>> came from somebody else: your typical combination of ignorance
>> and dishonesty.
>
>Man, you believe in all that rhetoric? That's as crazy as believing
>the Bible is the Word of God.
>
>> Quit dodging. You offered the false and misognyistic idea
>> that Sophia is the demon in the Apocryphon of John and the
>> Hypostastis of the Archons, a role occupied by the Demiurge and
>> company in those writings.
>
>Every scholar of gnosticism
Pain Forest invoking scholarship. That's like fundy creationists
invoking science. Here she is, in dialogue with Moggin, a true
Gnostic scholar, and she has the temerity to debate him, even though
she loses each battle.
>knows that Sophia is solely responsible
>for the demiurge
The demiurge to which Pain Forest is totally devoted, as a battered
wife is devoted to her abuser.
>because she dared to create without her consort
>Christ....except you apparently. You've obviously never really read
>the classical Gnostic texts, but are emotionally swayed by someone's
>interpretation. I've got a M.A. degree in ancient history and have
>studied Gnosticism for over 10 years. I see you as a gnostic fundy,
>like every other empire fundy.
>
>> You're dodging again. In this instance you wrongly denied
>> Sophia is part of Christian gnosticism.
>
>I don't call that True Gnosticism
Pain Forest refuses to recognize True Gnosticism, to her everlasting
confusion - and the amusement of those who do recognize True
Gnosticism.
>anymore than I call Roman
>Catholicism and it's endless offshoots True Orthodox Christianity.
>
>> Another of your evasions. In the Pistis Sophia, Jesus and
>> the First Mystery rebuke Peter's woman-hating while
>> encouraging Mary to speak and teach: an example of feminism in
>> gnostic mythology.
>
>Encouraging the repentant whore Mary/Sophia to be the #1 disciple
>forever subserviant to the sinless male savior. I've got you
>intellectually confined to a box and it's not pretty.
Can't say Pain Forest lacks a sense of the absurd. If only she knew
it.
>> You're dodging again. According to you the words "feeling"
>> and "experience" aren't in the Bible -- but as I already
>> showed, they appear there again and again. You were completely
>> and illiterately wrong.
>
>I said they weren't in modern translations like the Protestant King
>James, considering the 1500 year old original Catholic version. You
>scored a little on this, but there is no doubt that Protestants have
>no perception of what feelings and perceptions might be.
>
>> More of your dodgerations. You wrongly contended that the
>> definition of "gnostic" is "to know first-hand" -- a
>> nonsensical idea implying that anyone with first-hand knowledge
>> of lime Jello practices gnosticism.
>
>"I taste therefore I am." You have no empiracle
"Empirical".
>common sense, but
>consistantly preach what other minds have dictated.
>
>
Quite the contrary. Moggin doesn't preach. He analyses, observes,
interprets, and teaches (those who are capable of learning) according
to the standards of Gnosticism, i.e., according to the standards of
the schools of Gnostics who mistrusted matter, called the demiurge's
creation an abortion and a prison, knew the body to be a trap for the
spirit, realized that the creator is a false, cruel, arrogant, clumsy
"god". Etc., etc. In Moggin, Pain Forest has met a true Gnostic
scholar. Her response is multiple flimsy attempts to refute true
Gnostic scholarship, while herself pretending to know what Gnosticism
is. A truly sad thing to watch, yet somehow horribly amusing, too.
- sl -
Kater Moggin
> Man, you believe in all that rhetoric?
I sure don't believe the crap you say. And neither do you.
That's obvious, since you distort and deny your own words.
For example, you ignorantly claimed that Socrates never negates
life. Faced with the evidence against you -- places in the
Dialogues where he does just so -- you pretended your assertion
had come from someone else.
> Every scholar of gnosticism knows that Sophia is solely responsible
You're dodging again. You didn't settle for saying Sophia
is responsible for creating the demiurge. Rather you
illiterately and misogynistically insisted she's the _demon_ in
the Apocryphon of John and the Hypostasis of the Archons, a
role played by the demiurge and the other archons, described as
tyrants, jailers, and rapists.
> interpretation. I've got a M.A. degree in ancient history and have
You have a doctorate in net.kookery and post-graduate work
in babbling.
> studied Gnosticism for over 10 years.
Judging from your posts, you've studied gnosticism for two
minutes while watching t.v.
> I don't call that True Gnosticism anymore than I call Roman
Nobody cares what you call "True Gnosticism." You wrongly
and ridiculously asserted that Sophia is missing from
Christian gnosticism. Only one of the many howlers you've come
up with.
> Encouraging the repentant whore Mary/Sophia to be the #1 disciple
The Pistis Sophia depicts both Jesus and the First Mystery
rebuking Peter's woman-hating while telling Mary that she
should share her understanding with the other disciples despite
his complaints. Similar to the Gospel of Mary. Feminism in
gnostic mythology, your misogynistic commentary notwithstanding.
> I said they weren't in modern translations like the Protestant King
> James
You insisted that the words "feeling" and "experience" are
missing from the Bible, not merely from any specific
translation: another of your brain-dead claims, as I showed by
giving a number of quotes. Your retreat to the King James
won't help you at all, since the KJV is one of the translations
I quoted from.
> "I taste therefore I am."
You're a dunce, is what you are. In this case you had the
stupidity to claim that the definition of "gnostic" is "to
know first-hand," a bit of idiocy implying anyone with personal
knowledge of the state of North Dakota is practicing
gnosticism. Your next try, describing gnosticism as "spiritual
reality known first-hand," defined mysticism generally
speaking instead of the gnostic point of view in particular, as
I reminded you before.
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
> Pain Forest invoking scholarship. That's like fundy creationists
> invoking science. Here she is, in dialogue with Moggin, a true
> Gnostic scholar, and she has the temerity to debate him, even though
> she loses each battle.
Rain_forest is welcome to debate anything she differs with
me about, but so far she's spent most of her time
misrepresenting you, me, gnosticism, Socrates, the Bible, so on
and so forth.
Just for the record, I don't make any claim to scholarship.
I give cites more than usual on Usenet, but that's just a
courtesy to readers and a help to myself when I need to go back
and figure out what I quoted.
-- Moggin
shriven leper
wrote:
>shriven leper <bastas...@comcast.net>:
I know you yourself make no claims to scholarship. I was just
saying that the informed observer would tend to see your posts as
scholarly in the sense of arguing logically and supporting your claims
with pertinent, well-documented citations.
- sl -
rain forest
with every post:
> Rain_forest is welcome to debate anything she differs with
> me about, but so far she's spent most of her time
> misrepresenting you, me, gnosticism, Socrates, the Bible, so on
> and so forth.
Gnosticism means alot of things to alot of different people. I don't
agree with you but I think I respect you, finally.
> Just for the record, I don't make any claim to scholarship.
> I give cites more than usual on Usenet, but that's just a
> courtesy to readers and a help to myself when I need to go back
> and figure out what I quoted.
I like to debate you because you teach me things. Are you familiar
with Hegel's theory of dialetics, where 2 opposing philosophies clash,
resulting in a more transcendent view? That's how I feel about you,
though I cannot put it into words at this time.
rain forest
> I know you yourself make no claims to scholarship. I was just
> saying that the informed observer would tend to see your posts as
> scholarly in the sense of arguing logically and supporting your claims
> with pertinent, well-documented citations.
Kater Moggin could teach an interesting and viable class on Gnosticism
in any university.