From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 12:03:13 EST
In a message dated 12/11/02 11:11:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rjschn39@bellsouth.net 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
rich
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Dec 11 2002 - 20:00:23 EST