Chili

Augustine and Aquinas were gnostic were they not? Gnostics are know to be shepherds and not believers.

Gavinicus

I was not aware that either Augustine or Aquinas were gnostics. Even if they were, how would that play out here. To say they were followers runs counter to my very limited knowledge of both men.

I haven't read the works of either men--I threw out their names because much of their thinking forms the foundation of modern Christianity.

Chili

Yes well, I called them gnostic to show that the two you named were gnostic and knew God instead of just believed in him ("know the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and body"). Gnostics know God so their God was different than the god you don't know -- or you would have the same father, GJohn would add.

That the advance is not universal is exactly their point because the ingenuity of humans is encultured by the civilization (unless you keep your eyes closed) of which the leading edge is emergent from the different levels in heaven (either by inspiration or extraction) to make heaven round and earth flat -- or human ingenuity would be universal as a basic human instinct instead of an intuit ideal.

Looking at it this way the interventionist God is still in charge and will always be in charge wherefore he promised that we would do greater things -- but allowed us to think that we are in charge and pretend to know what we are talking about.

Crucifiction

Chili, on this point, you are just simply wrong.

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defgnost.htm
http://www.academicinfo.net/gnostic.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

As you can see, your definition of Gnosticism has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. I like to think the actual Gnostics had more of a right to define what they are than you. It has nothing to do with "knowing God" or whatever you just wrote; Gnostics believed that the OT God was evil, and Jesus was good.

And, no, neither Augustine or Aquinas were close to being Gnostic.

Chili

But shit man, you just compared gnostic with Gnosticism which is not gnostic as an -ism. The Gnostics were believers and I just told you that gnostics are not believers or they would not be gnostic. That you cannot comprehend the difference is not their problem but yours. Let me give you a hint here and say that gnostics are known to be entertained by the absurdity of the suffering souls in hell.

Can you 'top' that?

Crucifiction

That I cannot "comprehend" is more a problem of you making no sense.

"Gnostic" stems from the word "gnosis", which means "knowledge". The Gnostics believed themselves privy to a "secret knowledge" that the OT God was an evil god, and Jesus represented a higher, holy God. If you meant something other than that; you should not use the term "gnostic".

Chili

To be gnostic is to know and there is nothing else to say about that. My kind of gnostic is he who resides in 'heaven' where faith and doubt do not exist -- or there would be churches in the New Jerusalem to which Jesus ascended after all doubt was removed and Peter was defrocked. Get the picture?

So now, it was from this lofty positions that Augustine and Aquinas were writing their works on faith as shepherds (while being entertained by the folly those down below).

Chili

I did not explain what Gnosticism means except to say that Gnosticism as an -ism is not gnostic (or God would have grandchildren).

My objection was to the idea the Gnosticism is gnostic in nature:

Toto

I think this clinches it. This thread belongs ~Elsewhere~

Crucifiction

I still don't understand. PLEASE don't take offense to this, but word your sentences a little more logically, please, if you have a non-metaphysical message in your posts.

So, from what I gather--

A. You are not speaking of the Christian sect of Gnosticism
B. You are using the term "gnosis" the way it was originally used in Greek, to mean "knowledge"
C. You are saying that Aquinas and Augustine were "gnostics" in the sense that you use the term; meaning that they believed themselves to have "special knowledge" of God.

Would that be right?