Re: joshua

Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 12:03:13 EST

  • Next message: "Re: joshua"

    In a message dated 12/11/02 11:11:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

    > That means he was not the Gnostic God walking around in a body; it affirms

    That is an interesting remark but I'm not sure I understand it. Are you
    saying gnosticism is a ''supernatural" state? I thought gnosticism was a
    communion with God like the Hasidic devekut or the Rg Vedan self sacrifice
    (or even the supposedly non-religious Zen 'no-mind') that had nothing to do
    with the supernatural but with a personal discipline. Here you seem to be
    saying that a gnostic God has a supernatural component/constitution. I would
    be grateful if you would expand on this remark if you care to. I am
    especially interested because I may be misinterpreting a remark Pope John
    Paul II made in Crossing the Threshold of Hope. In a chapter on Buddhism he
    warns against gnosticism which he says has always coexisted with the church
    but "in distinct, if not declared, conflict with all that is essentially
    Christian.' I understood him to mean that gnostic communion with God was not
    real communion with God but replaced the possibility of real communion with
    God with as he says with,"' purely human words."
    So, is gnosticism human or supernatural? I can't tell.
    (I am not interested in a critique of the catholic pope. I am interested in
    the concept of gnosticism as you have used it and as the pope has used it. I
    am looking for your conceptual understanding of gnosticism.)
    thanks for any input

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Dec 11 2002 - 20:00:23 EST