Knowledge Instead Of Faith, Direct Experience Instead Of Dogma

[Paladin]

That's awesome! Two Buddhas bumpin' bellies! Ha, ha, ha!

Yeah. All meaning is derivative, and life is what we make it! You climb and scramble to get on top of the rock, then you wonder "what the hell am I doing up here?" "I'm tired, and there's no place to go to the bathroom!"

I tried like hell to find the all-encompassing model. I tried on ists and isms looking for the ultimate bathing suit. You know, you come out of religion with this giant block on your shoulder, and a serious need for superiority. I've done it all, man! Atheism, then a born again experience when things were tough. Then on to New Age feel-good-ism, into Taoism and Buddhism, and the Western Magical Tradition. I spent years on Kabbalah looking for the ultimate Logos. I dabbled in Scientology, go figure. Then it was Gnosticism, and Theosophy. I've read everything from Rand to Krishnamurti. I've hung out with ISHKONis, meditated with spirit guides, channeled space dudes, lived in a commune, been a vegan... lost weight, gained weight, got married, had kids, got divorced, been a Republican, been a Democrat, thought I was an anarchist. Now...I don't know anything- because I know everything.

It all comes back to purposeful living and the idea that nothing: no philosophy, no dogma, no politics absolves us of our responsibility toward each other, our fellow creatures, and the land. That's it. Empathy and responsibility. Laughing Buddhas indeed!

Chris

If there is anything all encompasing, as far as observation shows, it is simply awareness. That continues, even in deep dreamless sleep it is there.

I also notice that when I put my attention on the feelings of anger, or fear they begin straightaway to fade. Yet when I put my attention on the feeling of love it deepens and widens somehow.
This leads me to think that love has a greater reality than does anything else.

But as for that I really don't know. Since I have come to the end of the spiritual search there is contentment, and the activity of life goes on but the colors are more vibrant, the sounds more noticeable. Little things are more noticeable too, as if everything is salient.

Sometimes I get caught up in the role I play like watching a really exciting movie but being quiet brings back an awareness of equanimity.
Now there is nothing to get and nowhere to go

There is simply isness, aliveness and yes a sense of gratitude for the simple reality the great and wonderful, awe inspiring ordinariness of life.

And of religion? Well, when I see a person's head bent in ernest and genuine prayer, when they have approached their idea of what God must be with nothing to bring but an open heart and empty hands, I am most deeply touched. Have you ever seen or heard something so beautiful it made you cry?

So this is what I am left with now, and it is much more than I ever imagined.

 

[Raksha]

Only in the last 50 years or so has the idea of autonomous self-development emerged, and mostly as a byproduct of the post-60s 'turn on-tune in-drop out' syndrome which in many ways is the living antithesis of authentic spiritual development actually is.

Thomas,

The arrogance and judgmentalism implicit in that statement go beyond even what I've come to expect from you. Just who elected YOU the arbiter of what is and is not "authentic spiritual development"? It flat-out terrifies me to think what a dead end the rest of my life would have been if I had NOT had the spiritual and lifestyle options the "tune in, turn on, drop out" spirit of age of the 1960s opened up for me. My religious background is Reform Judaism, which at that time was presenting an aggressively assimilationist and very shallow and materialistic face to the world. I was already a conspicuous failure at trying to fit into that world in the early 1960s. Bananabrain and Chris know what I'm talking about here.

It was my involvement with the Sixties counterculture that led directly to my discovery of the Hermetic tradition, and specifically to my long involvment in the Gnostic Society and the Ecclesia Gnostica in Los Angeles in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. Of course I encountered Eastern forms of spirituality at the time also because they were simply "in the air," part of the spirit of the age. But they didn't "take" with me like the Western esoteric tradition.

My close-knit spiritual circle studied the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic texts intensively, and also performed reconstructed Gnostic rituals along with the traditional Christian sacraments, to which we gave an entirely different inner meaning to anything in the Nicene Creed--which I would NEVER have recited except possibly under threat of death. Even if my family considered me an apostate and a "traitor to Judaism," as my sister called me once, I could not compromise my Jewish values to that degree. I could not say that God had ever become a man.

To this day I don't consider any of this a "phase" that I went through and have now outgrown. It remains a valid and treasured part of my spiritual path. I have a group of friends on Facebook that I call my "Gnostic circle." Some of these people are old timers, old friends of mine from the 1960s and 1970s, but most of them are much younger. You may or may not be aware that modern Gnosticism is very much a growing movement. The new directions it has taken since the 1960s and 1970s sometimes surprise me but I definitely approve of them.

Again, just who do you think you are to decide--unilaterally and from the outside, and with an explicit Roman Catholic agenda--that our form of spirituality was and is "the living antithesis of authentic spiritual development"?

For reference, the Gnostic group I'm referring to is the same one responsible for this website, considered the most comprehensive Gnostic resource on the Internet: http://www.gnosis.org/

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychedelicDragon
However over time, as power centers grew, religion was hijacked in many cultures to serve the interests of those in power, until among many religions, all that was left was the rituals that have lost their original meaning.

Oh, good greif, not this old saw again.

Thomas,

That's so pathetic it's actually funny. Do you really believe your smug dismissiveness is fooling ANYONE?

In the past few years especially, the Catholic Church has been confronted with the full weight of its accumulated karma, the end result of its 2000-year old focus on POWER--political and temporal power--above and beyond all other considerations. The evil hidden for so long now stands revealed for the whole world to see in all its ugliness and horror. The fact that YOU choose to regard the Church's obsession with power and control as beneath consideration and unworthy of discussion isn't going to change that.

--Linda

 

[Thomas]

Hi Linda —

The arrogance and judgmentalism implicit in that statement go beyond even what I've come to expect from you.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

It was neither arrogant nor judgemental, just discriminatory.

For my part, I am always somewhat amused that when an orthodox voice expresses itself it is met with outrage and derision, whereas the heterodox is invariably applauded, for subjective opinions based on the slightest of material evidence, if any.

As I understand this forum, it is open to all to express their views, but I am constantly obliged to observe that the traditional and the objective is rarely well received.

Just who elected YOU the arbiter of what is and is not "authentic spiritual development"?

No-one, and nor did I make any such claim. I simply voiced what is in the public domain with regard to the great religious traditions' view of contemporary notions of 'spiritual development'. With regard to the critique I offered on this point, I stand by what the great traditions express, and concerning Christian spirituality in particular, I see no reference to the Holy Spirit or indeed any spirit beyond the spirit of self, which, as I have said, seems to me to fall into the area of human psychodynamic activity and requires not actual engagement with anything outside of the self.

To quote the Orthodox theologian Paul Evdokimov:

Moreover, there are those who have an interior life that is very rich but not religious. Thinkers, artists, theosophists also, live an intense and profound psychic life and are able to go quite far in cosmic mysticism or spiritualism without God.
Therefore one can observe two forms of life, "religious" and "interior", the first always entials a relation of dependence on a transcendent and personal Absolute. The second is autonomous and penetrates its own psychic richness.
The spiritual life alone integrates these two two dimensions and shows them to be complementary. Essentially interior, it is also the life of man facing God, participating in the life of God, and the spirit of man listening for the Spirit of God. (Paul Endokimov, Stages in the Spiritual Life)

I think, from the above, one can observe the distinction I was talking about.

Ages of the spiritual life

My close-knit spiritual circle studied the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic texts intensively, and also performed reconstructed Gnostic rituals along with the traditional Christian sacraments, to which we gave an entirely different inner meaning to anything in the Nicene Creed--which I would NEVER have recited except possibly under threat of death.

There you go, you've invented your own rituals and so forth that bear no relation to their revealed reality. Anyone can do this ... but whether they are in any way 'valid' outside one's own psychic subjectivity, or 'authentic' with regard to their original institution is another matter altogether. And I would suggest not.

Again, just who do you think you are to decide--unilaterally and from the outside, and with an explicit Roman Catholic agenda--that our form of spirituality was and is "the living antithesis of authentic spiritual development"?

On that point I am a spokesperson for one 'authentic spiritual development' and can see clearly the correspondences with others.

For reference, the Gnostic group I'm referring to is the same one responsible for this website, considered the most comprehensive Gnostic resource on the Internet: The Gnosis Archive
And for my own, the Christian Group I'm referring to is some 2,000 years old, and highly regarded by Masters of different traditions. I've got the url of an amusing talk given by the Dalai Lama to monks of the Dominican Order in the UK. Most notable is the fact that he declared 'he can't think of anything to say' because he counts himself among friends who share the same essential truths.

I not that outrage aside, you have not addressed any single point of the issues raised, just railed at me for daring to raise them, whilst you yourself make free to make the most wild, arrogant, unfounded, ill-informed and dismissive claims with regard to Christianity in general and Nicea in particular.

If you're going to insult others, and dismiss their beliefs with obvious contempt, please do not assume they are not going to answer back.

Thomas

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

There is simply isness, aliveness and yes a sense of gratitude for the simple reality the great and wonderful, awe inspiring ordinariness of life.

.

I made my first ever eagle on the golf course today! I celebrated by apologizing to my ex-wife for being grumpy, and promising to be friendlier and let bygones be.

Chris

 

[Thomas]

That's so pathetic it's actually funny. Do you really believe your smug dismissiveness is fooling ANYONE?

I'm not trying to fool anyone, Linda ... just point out when people trot out the same baseless propaganda about Constantine/Nicea/Church etc., they're repeating what they've heard so often they assume it to be true.

You would make your point much better if you could actually provide any facts to support your theses, and a reasoned argument, instead of just shouting abuse.

And changing the subject when one has no argument to offer:

In the past few years especially, the Catholic Church has been confronted with the full weight of its accumulated karma, the end result of its 2000-year old focus on POWER--political and temporal power--above and beyond all other considerations.

Is this the same church that has produced and continues to produce mystics of world renown?

So, because of the sins of a few, everyone is condemned?

It's that kind of justice that makes my blood run cold.

+++

Were this a reasoned discussion, I would actually engage with you on the faults, as I see them, in the institutional structure of the church as it sought to reflect temporal majesty — with all its pomp and circumstance — and the problems this has caused and continues to cause for the church in the world.

Not the least is the apparent indications of the 'institutional reflex' to conceal its faults.

However, as such a discussion is evidently not possibly, I'll not go there.

+++

To anyone else interested, I am painfully aware of the faults that afflict the Church at the moment, but am not so naive as to think that entry into the Church automatically turns one into a saint, nor that the Church as an institution stands outside the temporal procession, nor that institutions do not at time succumb to institutional thinking ...

But I make no excuses for what has gone on.

+++

The evil hidden for so long now stands revealed for the whole world to see in all its ugliness and horror. The fact that YOU choose to regard the Church's obsession with power and control as beneath consideration and unworthy of discussion isn't going to change that.

I don't disregard it, I'm just not jealous of it, that's all.

Thomas

 

[Raksha]

I not that outrage aside, you have not addressed any single point of the issues raised, just railed at me for daring to raise them, whilst you yourself make free to make the most wild, arrogant, unfounded, ill-informed and dismissive claims with regard to Christianity in general and Nicea in particular.

Because I didn't have time to answer your note point-by-point, and for no other reason. I haven't even been around here for months although I like this forum and the people on it very much--okay, with a few exceptions but for the most part.

I have a lot of friends in several different cyber-circles on the Internet, and when I post on one forum it inevitably means I'm neglecting someone else or leaving some other topic hanging. For example: Gabriel Wilensky over on the Amazon Judaism board. He just posted a new note tonight, which I haven't responded to yet. And I promised to help him in his cause, which is also very much my cause

You might be interested in the book he just published, which is also the topic of the Amazon debate I just mentioned. It's called Six Million Crucifixions: How Christian Teachings About Jews Paved the Road To the Holocaust.
http://http://www.amazon.com/Six-Mi...UTF8&coliid=I3QMEJCVEGZF7J&colid=J6K5KUFNU1L1

If just the title alone enrages you--IT'S SUPPOSED TO!!! It wasn't intended to prop up the Church's endless whitewashing rationalizations about itself but to tear them to shreds--and it does. It's very well documented, and the author can back up every one of his assertions. I've seen him hold his ground against some of the slickest Catholic apologists in the world on a couple of discussion boards, one of them being the Amazon board I mentioned earlier.

That might not seem to have a whole lot to do with Gnosticism or with spiritual development. It is basically just a warning to you not to underestimate your enemy, and make no mistake about that, Thomas: I AM YOUR ENEMY!

The Roman Catholic Church is my detested enemy on three fronts: As a JEW, first of all. And then as a GNOSTIC. And finally as a Pagan, which is to say AS A WOMAN. I stand for the Goddess against the most overbearing and tyrannical of all patriarchal institutions.

These are the three major strands of my particular form of syncretism, and they also just "happen" to be the three groups that suffered the most from the spiritual and temporal tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church: Jews, heretics and women. I didn't exactly plan my life that way but it worked out that way, and I certainly accept my karma as an instrument of our collective revenge.

Make yourself an apologist for the Church, and you put yourself in the cross-hairs. Your choice. But don't snivel and whine about it--and don't expect any mercy either.

BTW, I didn't make any "wild, arrogant, unfounded, ill-informed and dismissive claims with regard to Christianity in general and Nicea in particular." I didn't say much of anything about them at all in my previous note, except to say I don't like 'em, and wouldn't recite the Nicene Creed except under threat of death...which has been the case with Jews and heretics in the past often enough, and you know it!

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

So, because of the sins of a few, everyone is condemned?

Thomas,

Gabriel Wilensky and I had an interesting little exchange about that on Facebook not long ago. He was being pretty sarcastic on subject of the Church's famous "few rotten apples" defense, and I enjoyed it immensely. I should probably copy and paste what he said, although I doubt very much that you would enjoy it like I did. Let's just say that the defenses used by Catholic apologists fall into certain very predictable categories, which after a while their opponents can recognize and anticipate. The "few rotten apples" defense is a classic. It's actually more like a cliche, but I was being charitable for once.

--Linda

 

[bananabrain]

It is basically just a warning to you not to underestimate your enemy, and make no mistake about that, Thomas: I AM YOUR ENEMY! The Roman Catholic Church is my detested enemy on three fronts: As a JEW, first of all. And then as a GNOSTIC. And finally as a Pagan, which is to say AS A WOMAN. I stand for the Goddess against the most overbearing and tyrannical of all patriarchal institutions.

<mod>linda, as you know i do my best to understand your point of view and where you're coming from, as well as understanding that your challenges come from a place of principle, but i strongly question whether an interfaith dialogue board is the best place for sentiments like this, particularly expressed in this way, the same way that i would do if someone comes round and tells me i'm going to hell because i'm not a christian. you may not like the catholic church, but thomas is a valuable member of this board, habitually responds carefully, calmly and in considerable detail to sometimes extremely intemperate and vitriolic attacks on his religion; i would appreciate it if you were able to take that into consideration in your tone - and, furthermore, if you could avoid responding to this comment by calling me a "gatekeeper". i'm just trying to make sure discussions are civil and open and do not degenerate into flame wars.

just saying...</mod>

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Raksha]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raksha
Just who elected YOU the arbiter of what is and is not "authentic spiritual development"?

No-one, and nor did I make any such claim. I simply voiced what is in the public domain with regard to the great religious traditions' view of contemporary notions of 'spiritual development'. With regard to the critique I offered on this point, I stand by what the great traditions express, and concerning Christian spirituality in particular, I see no reference to the Holy Spirit or indeed any spirit beyond the spirit of self, which, as I have said, seems to me to fall into the area of human psychodynamic activity and requires not actual engagement with anything outside of the self.

Thomas,

So it wasn't your own personal arrogance but the spiritual arrogance of the Catholic Church you were expressing. I should have guessed that!

But it's precisely that compulsion to put its own copyright on the work of the Holy Spirit, to claim to make that distinction between the action of the Holy Spirit and "any spirit beyond the spirit of self," (i.e. little self = ego) that is so utterly galling. It belittles and denigrates and falsifies ANY spiritual experience not under its authority or control (if those are even the right words) and makes impossible for a non-Catholic to discuss spiritual experience with an apologist for the Church.

I almost said "for a non-Catholic to discuss spiritual experience with a Catholic" but that isn't quite true. I have some very good Catholic friends, and I can and do discuss spiritual experiences with them if their spirits resonate with mine--and surprisingly, some of them do.

But NEVER with an apologist for the Church--that is simply impossible and I don't know why you'd even attempt it. And it's YOUR assumption of superiority that's the problem, not mine.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Thomas,

A note on my last note, because I think I'm past the 20-minute editing window. I said among other things:

But it's precisely that compulsion to put its own copyright on the work of the Holy Spirit, to claim to make that distinction between the action of the Holy Spirit and "any spirit beyond the spirit of self," (i.e. little self = ego) that is so utterly galling.

You can bad-mouth syncretism all you want to, but if I were not a syncretist I would not have been able to use the term "Holy Spirit" as I did in that sentence. I used it as the equivalent term for the Hebrew "Shekhina" or Divine Presence. If I had been posting on the Judaism forum or addressing my post to bananabrain I probably would have called it the Shekhina instead of the Holy Spirit. But I would have meant the same thing, because what I'm talking about isn't a "thing." And the experience of it has nothing to do with the personal self or ego.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

<mod>linda, as you know i do my best to understand your point of view and where you're coming from, as well as understanding that your challenges come from a place of principle, but i strongly question whether an interfaith dialogue board is the best place for sentiments like this, particularly expressed in this way, the same way that i would do if someone comes round and tells me i'm going to hell because i'm not a christian. you may not like the catholic church, but thomas is a valuable member of this board, habitually responds carefully, calmly and in considerable detail to sometimes extremely intemperate and vitriolic attacks on his religion; i would appreciate it if you were able to take that into consideration in your tone - and, furthermore, if you could avoid responding to this comment by calling me a "gatekeeper". i'm just trying to make sure discussions are civil and open and do not degenerate into flame wars.

just saying...</mod>

b'shalom

bananabrain

BB,

Okay, I'll tone it down from now on. I understand that you're just trying to avoid flame wars. I don't think my friend Gabriel Wilensky that I mentioned earlier would appreciate a recommendation in that tone anyway. He always manages to keep it civil with his opponents, despite [ahem] EXTREME provocation!

--Linda

 

[Thomas]

But it's precisely that compulsion to put its own copyright on the work of the Holy Spirit,

Other way round, Linda ... the Holy Spirit put His copyright on the Church.

Usually, we're accused of 'inventing' the Holy Trinity, but I think I can fairly say, that as that doctrine — Father, Son, Holy Spirit — is an expression unique to Christianity (which I am sure someone will want to contend) and therefore we have every right to claim it as our own.

to claim to make that distinction between the action of the Holy Spirit and "any spirit beyond the spirit of self," (i.e. little self = ego) that is so utterly galling.

Only if the ego is attached to the idea of self-importance and self-determination? Outside of that, it seems to me the truth of it is self-evident.

It belittles and denigrates and falsifies ANY spiritual experience not under its authority or control (if those are even the right words) and makes impossible for a non-Catholic to discuss spiritual experience with an apologist for the Church.

No it doesn't, it draws the distinction between the psychodynamic activity of the self, and the activity of 'The Other', that is vital to prevent delusion derailing one' spiritual effort.

In Buddhist mediation, for example (as in deeper states of Christian prayer) one is taught to ignore 'spiritual experience' because the mind is very clever at producing the kind of experience one is secretly hoping for ...

And it's YOUR assumption of superiority that's the problem, not mine.

Actually, the problem as I see it, is someone who comes along and assumes that their own assumptions and experience outweighs 2,000 years of combined spiritual endeavour.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Linda —

You can bad-mouth syncretism all you want to...

I don't 'badmouth', I just point out the common contemporary problem with syncretism, as opposed to synthesis, which I'm all for ... the Holy Spirit used in a Christian context infers the Holy Trinity and a given and specific dynamic of operation, that's all I'm saying.

Anyone is of course free to use the term, but whether the term, in the sense used, bears any relation to the reality of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, is something else altogether.

On another note, as the theology of the Holy Spirit was affirmed at Nicea, I'm surprised you can bring yourself to use the term at all!

but if I were not a syncretist I would not have been able to use the term "Holy Spirit" as I did in that sentence.

The trouble is, most often, syncretists tend to use terms they don't fully understand, which only causes or adds to the confusion and error that accrues to the understanding of such terms.

I used it as the equivalent term for the Hebrew "Shekhina" or Divine Presence.

Well OK then, but you've just made the point I was making. There is a massive difference between one's own psychic presence or sprit, and the Divine Presence. If you find someone pointing out the distinction between the two 'galling', then that's your issue.

Thomas

 

[Raksha]

Thomas,

Changed my mind. I'm not sure if I want to get into it with you or not, because I still find your "WE are the real thing" attitude so galling and inherently offensive I doubt very much if I can address a civil comment to you. You are simply incapable of dealing with other people--especially your opponents--as spiritual equals.

--Linda

 

[Snoopy]

Now there is nothing to get and nowhere to go

Why do people travel to far, dusty lands to "find themselves"?



"There is no mind and there is no mirror, so where can the dust gather?"

- Hui Neng.​

s.​

 

[Raksha]

Thomas,

Okay, I changed my mind again. I guess I do want to get into it with you, at least a little bit. Maybe not to any great extent, though.

Other way round, Linda ... the Holy Spirit put His copyright on the Church.

Strictly your opinion! For one thing, you used the masculine gender, and the Gnostics would emphatically disagree with you on that point. If you accept my definition of the Holy Spirit as equivalent to or identical with the Shekhina (which you probably don't), Judaism also emphatically disagrees with you. The Shekhina is always conceived as female in Jewish tradition, and you can ask BB about that if you don't believe me! Anyway, here's what the Gnostic Gospel of Philip has to say on that subject:

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and apostolic men.

I'm not sure who "the apostles and apostolic men" are, but the passage is clearly a refutation of an assertion to the contrary. The writer's theological opponents were evidently a literalizing faction who were the precursers of Christian orthodoxy. The concept of Gnosticism as "Christian heresy" is obsolete, BTW.

Gnosticism seems to have originated in pre-Christian Jewish Alexandria, where the Hellenized Jewish population spoke Greek and Coptic and could no longer read Hebrew. That's what made the Septuagint was necessary. Living in Egypt and immersed in Hellenistic culture as they were, they were strongly influenced by Hermeticism as I really don't need to tell you. And that all started several hundred years before anyone had ever heard of Christianity.

Usually, we're accused of 'inventing' the Holy Trinity, but I think I can fairly say, that as that doctrine — Father, Son, Holy Spirit — is an expression unique to Christianity (which I am sure someone will want to contend) and therefore we have every right to claim it as our own.

I certainly concur with that accusation, and furthermore I think it was a very unfortunate invention! Just WHY do you think I have such strong objections to the Nicene Creed, anyway?

The Catholic Church has every right to claim the orthodox definition of the Trinity as its own, because I want NOTHING to do with it! Other Trinity concepts exist in other spiritual traditions, and I have no problem with any of them. I can understand the Hindu trinity, for example: Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer or Transformer, if the word "destroyer" is too harsh for you. It isn't for me. Sometimes old, obsolete forms NEED to be destroyed so that something new can be born.

Likewise with the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, which contains a number of trinity or threefold configurations. Coming from a Jewish background as I do, these are all extremely important to me as you can imagine. There are the three Supernals at the top of the Tree, for one thing. I hesitate to talk about them because human language is inadequate to do them justice, especially in a context like this one. Especially the first one, Kether (the Crown), which I was about to call it the "first emanation" but then stopped myself. Maybe the "first crystallization" of divine potential would be a better way of putting it.

The point is that I can understand the concept of emanation, from both a Gnostic and a kabbalistic point of view because it isn't really "both." It is the SAME concept in two different languages, not really separate from each other historically, any more than they are now. The kabbalistic teacher I met recently on Facebook uses both languages fluently and interchangeably--and I understand them both.

The ONE trinity concept that makes absolutely NO sense to me whatsoever is the one formulated at the Council of Nicea. Three persons in one God? What is that supposed to mean? I can understand three (or ten!) emanations of one God. I can understand three personifications of one God, because that's a natural outgrowth of the idea of emanation. I guess the reason I don't understand it is because I don't believe God is a "person" at all, not in any kind of absolute sense anyway.

In fact, the older I get the more I detest monotheism. I have come to see it as an express route to intolerance, and I haven't considered myself a monotheist for years. I usually call myself a monist or pantheist--maybe a panenteist, but I don't know how any human can say anything whatsoever about the transcendant aspect of God. Which is not to say it doesn't exist, but I don't know how humans can claim to "know" it when we are limited creatures simply by our nature as incarnate beings. And to say that God is a transcendant "Person"? To me that is simply a contradiction in terms.

I think I've said enough here that you realize that just because I have a short fuse, especially when dealing with Catholic apologists, doesn't mean I don't know my stuff. As I already told you, I am very familiar with this material because I have studied it in the context of a spiritual community, and under the guidance of an excellent teacher who has dedicated his life to the revival of Gnosticism. The fact that YOU consider him a heresiarch is totally beside the point. You can't burn him at the stake or even burn his books at this late date. So if you want to engage in dialogue with one of his proteges you'd better damn well drop the condescending attitude.

--Linda

 

[shawn]

Monotheism is a lie anyways.
IMO.
I am not alone in that opinion either.

 

[Dogbrain]

Make yourself an apologist for the Church, and you put yourself in the cross-hairs. Your choice. But don't snivel and whine about it--and don't expect any mercy either.

Because mercy is foreign to neopaganism? Or is mercy simply too Christian a concept for you to embrace it, yourself?

Your words cast you into the exact same mindset you claim you oppose. You are just another Crusader.

 

[Dogbrain]

Strictly your opinion! For one thing, you used the masculine gender, and the Gnostics would emphatically disagree with you on that point. If you accept my definition of the Holy Spirit as equivalent to or identical with the Shekhina

If you accept my definition of Argentina as a province of Ireland...

The statements are essentially equivalent.

Gnosticism seems to have originated in pre-Christian Jewish Alexandria

Nope, it's older than that, from what I've read. Gnosticism seems to be a originally Persian in origin. This later became Mandeanism and Manichianism, but the basic premises that are known by Greek-originating terms (demiurge, pleuroma, gnosis, etc.) and the basic premise of immaterial souls trapped in an inherently evil/contaminating material reality are older than Jewish Alexandria and come from outside the Greek and Jewish communities.

That being said, one of the great battles regarding Gnostic trends within Christianity is something that would astonish very many people these days. The Gnostic position was that material reality is inherently evil, or at the very best "unreal". People are merely spirits that inhabit disposable bodies. Sex and procreation were inherently evil for the Gnostic Christians. The Gnostic "resurrection" was presumed to be a purely immaterial existence. The Orthodox position was that material reality is or at least can be good, for it was made by God, who is good. People are not just spirits flitting around shells, but our physical existence is an important part of what we are supposed to be. Sex and procreation are not seen as inherently evil by the Orthodox Christian faction. Likewise, the Resurrection is presumed to be both physical and spiritual.

Things have changed since then for so many Christians...

no longer read Hebrew. That's what made the Septuagint was necessary.

Funny you should bring up the Septuagint, since it is my own church's preferred "Old Testament" text...

The ONE trinity concept that makes absolutely NO sense to me whatsoever is the one formulated at the Council of Nicea. Three persons in one God?

"Person" is a very crude English translation of "persona", a Latin translation of the actual term used in the Ecumenical councils. The actual word is Greek. "Hypostasis" (to transliterate) does not mean "person". It is a rather complex term that can mean "existence", "expression", "specific form of existence", or even, in some sense "manifestation". It does not, however, mean "person" as the word is typically used in English. It should be noted that the Latin "persona" might include the meaning "person", but also ranges very far beyond that.

Were you such an accomplished scholar of issues of the Trinity and the Councils as you present yourself to be, you would already know this.

In fact, the older I get the more I detest monotheism. I have come to see it as an express route to intolerance

Then I am very sorry for the monotheists you have met. Oddly enough, I have directly seen polytheism and pantheism be "express routes" to intolerance for quite a few people.