Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seven8s · 06-26-2007, 06:09 AM

Quote:

I think you can actually see a "distancing" process even within Gnosticism itself. The "explanation" starts to overwhelm the simplicity of the original message. i.e. instead of putting God at arms' length by putting his advent in the past, in history, as the orthodox did, the Gnostics' way of putting Him at arms' length was by putting forward ever more complex, grand philosophical/cosmological schemas that are so much more interesting and intellectually engaging to think about than getting down to the nitty gritty.

No blood and guts, no glory..............and the children continue to suffer as such. Of course not everyone agrees with your line of thinking, thank God

seven8s · 06-26-2007, 06:20 AM

Quote:

rather, Gnosticism is a direct teaching about you and your total situation, your very own intimate relationship with the Divine, your Father. Any explanation of the situation in terms of abstracta (Pleroma/Aeons, etc.) is subsequent to that, an attempt to make sense of the bondage/release (crucifixion/resurrection) in intellectual terms.

I'm finding it difficult to comprehend the intelligence in 'crucifixion'.........ah yes, kill the Spirit. Bond them, kill them, let God sort them out correct?

Chili · 06-26-2007, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Because the father and my father are different

Still, that does not make it strange unless you can show that the difference you propose (assuming it holds up) is "out of sync" with the context of the quotes in John.

I am not much of a reader and not sure if I see the out of sync in John.

To trip over "my father" and "the father" shows a high degree of ignorance with regard to the proximity of the father which is a concept that a believer can accept in answer to the unknown element in his life. He would also recognize that Jesus was one with "the father" which in turn sets Jesus apart from him, while the Christian follower of Jesus (we'd call him a Jesuit instead of a Christian) would agree to also be one with "his father."

Chili · 06-26-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

//

The "explanation" starts to overwhelm the simplicity of the original message. i.e. instead of putting God at arms' length by putting his advent in the past, in history, as the orthodox did, the Gnostics' way of putting Him at arms' length was by putting forward ever more complex, grand philosophical/cosmological schemas that are so much more interesting and intellectually engaging to think about than getting down to the nitty gritty.

Sure, and I love it! Just drop the old metaphor and try some alchemy on the side. I think it is a beautiful hobby especially if you have nothing to lose (God doesn't owe you anything). It is like shooting holes in the Gnostic bubble to watch them crash.

Chili · 06-26-2007, 06:50 AM

[QUOTE=seven8s;4565852]

Quote:

. Bond them, kill them, let God sort them out correct?

You bet! It is just like they said before "God knows his own." :devil3:

gurugeorge · 06-26-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seven8s

Quote:

rather, Gnosticism is a direct teaching about you and your total situation, your very own intimate relationship with the Divine, your Father. Any explanation of the situation in terms of abstracta (Pleroma/Aeons, etc.) is subsequent to that, an attempt to make sense of the bondage/release (crucifixion/resurrection) in intellectual terms.

I'm finding it difficult to comprehend the intelligence in 'crucifixion'.........ah yes, kill the Spirit. Bond them, kill them, let God sort them out correct?

For the Gnostic, "crucifixion" means just this life, in "bondage" to matter, to the rule of the Archons, tortured by demons, etc. It's cognate with the Buddhist "Dukkha", suffering.

As to whether it makes sense, well none of it really makes any sense, does it? But that's the raison d'etre of the "Demiurge". Somehow or other (it's never clearly explained by Gnostics, and of course it's a philosophical aporia) this perfect creation has a spot of imperfection, created by a bit of God that mistakenly thinks it's God. We're trapped in that false "God"'s creation, but we yearn for the true God, which is unknown to us, but there's something in us that has the faith that He's there (a "Divine spark", itself a chip of God).

Another symbol the Gnostics used was the rather more sexually-charged "fallen Sophia" - a poor girl who wanders far from home, gets raped, used and abused, yearns for her true man, and the yearning awakens a response.

At the end of the day it's just as farcical as the orthodox idea of Atonement, but there you go. And of course rationalists will prefer Dawkins' line of thought - some suffering, horror, etc., are just what you'd expect from an accidental world, there's no problem of evil if you don't conceive of the world as somehow emanating from perfection, or as the result of any sort of grand plan.

But Gnosticism still "works" even in that context - i.e., in fact Dawkins' accidental universe is almost the picture of the Demiurge, a clumsy fool. The question is, is there any "unkown/Stranger God" beyond that?

No reason to think so, our yearning may be directed at nothing; but there's good reason to think that thinking along these lines, even with mere suspension of disbelief, working with the yearning, can bring tremendous psychological and emotional cleansing and release, a sense of true homecoming and a "peace that passeth understanding". Again, perhaps nothing actually changes, but at least the person feels much better, and treats people nicely.

seven8s · 06-26-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Chili
To trip over "my father" and "the father" shows a high degree of ignorance with regard to the proximity of the father which is a concept that a believer can accept in answer to the unknown element in his life. He would also recognize that Jesus was one with "the father" which in turn sets Jesus apart from him, while the Christian follower of Jesus (we'd call him a Jesuit instead of a Christian) would agree to also be one with "his father."

Jesus was one with the farther, which is his father? Hmm, why should I try to figure out what you are saying, when I have my own voice? My own way? I am the sun Chili, get used to it.

Cheerful Charlie · 06-26-2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Anything to avoid thinking about white Christians voting for a war president. But how does this read in the original Koine Greek? What meaning can you read into it? Jesus is clearly being a bit cryptic - only his sheep will hear his voice.

is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

"The Jews" didn't understand this. How can I?

No miracles seem to be worked by Christians.

See Romans 11, why did the Jews not believe in Jesus? Paul's answer, God hardened their hearts so they would not.

Say what?

CC

Chris Weimer · 06-29-2007, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I think you need to exaplin why it is strange. If this is the starting point and you are now looking for confirmation via other internal evidence, then it just doesn't seem strong enough.

On what basis is this strange?

Alternating terms for the same residing within the same literary piece where once separated they form two coherent pieces is usually a sign of two different works coming together, or a brilliant literary device. It's the basic principle behind the EJ documents in the Torah.

Chris Weimer · 06-29-2007, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

*bump*

Some wanted to discuss this further. It might be interesting. Or, it could fizzle away again like many of the more intellectual threads seem to do.

I'm without internet since I just moved, but an interesting reading of the Prologue has gotten my interested in reading John through. I'll only be able to comment every couple of days or so here, if that. So...keep the discussion alive on this interesting topic!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.