Christian theologians didn't give the Gnostics & Sufis the same rights

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

Again, in relation to:

 

> A little note on this oft-misunderstood phrase: many people confuse

> it with the idea of " imminentizing " the eschaton. Imminent means

> " real soon " . Immanent means " everywhere " or " all-permeating " ,

> perhaps. The eschaton, as every good Chaote knows, is the End of

> Everything. " Immanentizing the eschaton " refers to the heretical

> idea that the eschaton is in fact a state of being, accessible at

> any time, rather than some chronological event. Of course, in the

> theological usage, it doesn't normally refer to magickal efforts to

> make apocalypse happen, as the Chaote's looser usage usually means.

>

> Hope this helps, as they say.

>

> --JB

>

> http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/ite.html

 

 

i recall from Christianity theologians saying that since some of the

hard questions were not answered in the Bible, that for all practical purposes

it was OK for them to give themselves the creative liberty to 'theologize' the

answers. That's all very well and seems innocent enough except that at the same

time they did not give the same spiritual freedom to the Sufis and the Gnostics

who actually got their realisation. So, Christendom was not innocent about it.

They were downright guilty because they were not all-around truthful, honest,

fair, and aboveboard. Because you can't give yourself the liberty to theologize

- knowing that what you theologize may actually prove to be a wrong mental

concept and at the same time call others heretics for getting their knowledge

from within, from " gnosis " :

 

" Simple people are impressed by tricks like materializing Swiss watches, " They

do not understand that none of the incarnations did these tricks and that truth

should be based on the tradition, on the Shastras " . Whatever deviates is

heretic, but instead real Sufis and Gnostics who got their realization were

called heretics and thrown out of the religion. In the same way those who are

following something negative will definitely go against Sahaja Yoga. Now that we

understand this, we have to bring forth new laws so that non-Sahaja Yogis who

are practising some religion will realize that they are not doing the right

thing. Corrupt religious organizations are getting exposed. People need to ask

what the guru has given them. " A guru who doesn't talk of realization, doesn't

talk of Kundalini, who doesn't talk of ascent, who doesn't talk of second birth

cannot be a guru. "

 

Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi

Shri Mahakali Puja Synopsis

Bangalore, India

9 December, 1991

 

regards to all,

 

violet

 

 

 

, " Violet " <violetubb

wrote:

>

> Dear All,

>

> i have just realised that J.B. came to the rescue as to the meaning of

> " immanentizing the eschaton " :

>

> > A little note on this oft-misunderstood phrase: many people confuse

> > it with the idea of " imminentizing " the eschaton. Imminent means

> > " real soon " . Immanent means " everywhere " or " all-permeating " ,

> > perhaps. The eschaton, as every good Chaote knows, is the End of

> > Everything. " Immanentizing the eschaton " refers to the heretical

> > idea that the eschaton is in fact a state of being, accessible at

> > any time, rather than some chronological event. Of course, in the

> > theological usage, it doesn't normally refer to magickal efforts to

> > make apocalypse happen, as the Chaote's looser usage usually means.

> >

> > Hope this helps, as they say.

> >

> > --JB

> >

> > http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/ite.html

>

> So, in reality, the Gnostics got called heretics because they said

> that people could enter the state of being we call " being one with the

> Divine " at any time. This is actually the truth. But they called it

> " immanentizing the eschaton " and said that that was heresy. They were

> wrong, of course. It was not heresy or 'hearsay'. It was the truth!

>

> regards to all,

>

> violet

>

>

>

> , " Violet " <violetubb@>

> wrote:

> >

> > 10 Things Religious Pundits Need To Know About Gnosticism

> >

> > - Saturday, April 22, 2006

> >

> >

> > " We don't need to take the Gospel of Judas / Thomas / Mary

> seriously, because unlike Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it wasn't

> written in the first century, wasn't written by eyewitnesses and is

> not historically true. It was written by an elitist world-hating sect

> called the Gnostics who were rejected by early Christians as heretics.

> Gnostics preached that the flesh was evil, and salvation was only

> available to a select few who had secret magical knowledge, or gnosis. "

> >

> > - Every bible " expert " in the western world in the last three weeks.

> >

> > I've read variations on this spiel at least twenty times this month.

> The problem is that this summation of Gnosticism is entirely false,

> and in many cases known by its proponents as false; this is bearing

> false witness.

> >

> >

> > 1) Gnosticism is not a heretical sect of Christianity

> >

> > Gnosticism is a distinct, pre-Christian religion. Its roots are in

> Alexandria in Egypt, about 2200 years ago, where a " cafe-society " of

> Greek-speaking and-educated Jews were syncretizing the myths of the

> ancient world with Judaism and classical Greek philosophy.

> >

> > These communities and their ideas greatly influenced Christianity as

> it later emerged. As Christianity struggled in its first four

> centuries to distinguish itself from the pagan world, it slowly began

> to reject some of these Gnostic influences. But most of the people who

> still favoured these ideas considered themselves devout Christians,

> not heretics.

> >

> > Let us not forget that the most common topic in the New Testament -

> more common than the power of love or redemption or the sacrifice of

> the cross or even the divinity of Jesus - is that " other Christians

> are getting it wrong " . Paul condemns James as a heretic. Jesus refers

> to Peter as " Satan " .

> >

> >

> > 2) Gnosticism is a lot like Buddhism

> >

> > Because of Gnosticism's insistence on personal responsibility and

> ethics, its emphasis on singular prayer, the practice of compassion,

> detachment from materialism and the striving for enlightenment, it has

> been called " the Buddhism of the West " . The similarities between

> Gnosticism and Mahayana Buddhism are so strong it has been speculated

> that there may have been ongoing contact between the two religions.

> >

> >

> > 3) The Gnostic Scriptures are, for the most part, contemporary with

> > Christian canon

> >

> > None of the four canonical Gospels were written in the first

> century. Mark was not written by Mark, nor Luke written by Luke. John

> was written in two distinct phases, the first of which showed

> significant Gnostic elements, and the latter a retraction and

> condemnation of those elements. These were based on first century oral

> traditions which varied greatly from region to region, but did not

> exist in written form until at least 100 years after the events they

> describe. Paul is the only first century Christian writer we have, and

> much of his writings were edited centuries later into the form we have

> today.

> >

> > The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is contemporary with the later

> half of John, and there is some evidence to support that John's later

> editors were familiar with Thomas. The scriptural authors of the

> second century were reaching for meaning, using their interpretation

> of what they had heard, their intuition, their creativity, and their

> yearning for God.

> >

> >

> > 4) Gnostics do not hate the physical world

> >

> > Gnostic scripture frequently invokes favourably the beauty and power

> of the natural world; the symbolism of pregnancy, midwifery,

> childbirth, newborns, storms and ripe crops are frequently employed by

> Gnostic authors. Gnostics do not view the flesh as evil, but rather as

> temporary when contrasted with the immortality of the soul - a view

> shared by most if not all Christians.

> >

> > What Gnostics reject is not the earth, but they system: the

> artificial world of injustice, prejudice, institutionalization and

> materialism.

> >

> >

> > 5) Gnostics do not repudiate salvation through Grace

> >

> > The role of Grace, and of the Holy Spirit, is of paramount

> importance to the Gnostics. Where Gnosticism differs from Christianity

> is that Gnosticism says that " blind faith " does not grant salvation.

> To be saved from the forces of deception and ignorance (maya in

> Buddhist parlance) one must attain enlightenment: the direct

> experiential intimacy with God that is gnosis. This experience is the

> birthright of every aware human person.

> >

> >

> > 6) Gnosticism is not elitist

> >

> > Do Christians distinguish between the saved and the unsaved? Is this

> elitism? Gnostic teachings frequently reinforce the idea that

> liberation via gnosis is available to everyone; that such distinction

> is a matter of reclaiming birthright, of intent, choice, and effort.

> In fact, Gnostic theology tends to support the idea of apokatastasis,

> of universal salvation.

> >

> >

> > 7) Gnosticism is not Utopian.

> >

> > There is nothing in Gnostic scripture to support the idea that

> Gnostics wish to make " heaven on earth " from human efforts, and no

> connection whatsoever between Gnosticism and the reshaping of society;

> neither from fascism nor socialism. There is no " immanentizing the

> eschaton " in Gnosticism: Rather, this idea is the hallmark of

> millennialist Christianity.

> >

> >

> > 8) Most basic tenets of Gnosticism are supported by Christian

scripture

> >

> > In fact there is a litany of Christian saints who are blatantly

> Gnostic; St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the

> Cross, St. Hildegard of Bingen and St. Joan of Arc all described in

> detail the integrity of their experience of gnosis.

> >

> > Paul says " The Kingdom of God is within you " which is probably the

> best single summation of Gnostic theology. Jesus says " My kingdom is

> not of this world " (Jn 18:36).

> >

> >

> > 9) Gnosticism serves as a bridge between world religions

> >

> > Gnosticism stands at the crossroads of Judaism, Christianity, and

> Islam, representing a common ground. Historically Gnosticism

> influenced Judaism in the development of Kabala, and Islam in the

> development of Sufism; it both encouraged and challenged Christianity

> through its early centuries and contributed profoundly to Christian

> theology and identity.

> >

> >

> > 10) Gnostic churches are thriving

> >

> > Gnostics across North America and Europe gather weekly for prayer

> and Eucharist in forms very similar to orthodox liturgy. We derive

> inspiration from the Old and New Testaments, and also from Nag Hammadi

> scripture such as The Gospel of Thomas and The Thunder: Perfect Mind.

> A vital and growing Gnostic ekklesia is serving in charities, missions

> and hospitals; writing, crafting, debating and working in coffeehouses

> and dozens of parishes around the world. Most Gnostics consider

> themselves Christian, their churches constituting the Body of Christ.

> Other Gnostics gravitate to the symbolism and traditions of the Divine

> Feminine in her aspect as Sophia ( " wisdom " ), the Shekhina

> ( " presence " ), and the Holy Spirit.

> >

> > Despite book-burnings, despite the Albigensian Crusade and the

> Inquisition, despite schlock-populism, and despite inane castigations

> from self-appointed pundits, we are still here; still praying,

> celebrating, exploring, and asking. Still Knowing.

> >

> >

>

http://egina.blogspot.com/2006/04/10-things-religious-pundits-need-to.html

> >

>