Believers Must Value Truth and Facts

The Holy Spirit is a feminine noun in both Hebrew (OT), and Greek (NT). The pronoun that would go with those is "she". Personally, I like that. Why would the God of Creation exclude half of the people?

As to Elohim it seems to be conjugated as "God" in dome places, and "The Gods" in some others. One suggestion is that the Yahwist's were the Exodus Jews who returned from Egypt, and the Elohists are the ones who stayed behind in the land of Canaan. Elements of both were preserved in the Bible. Reading the early OT carefully leaves one with the impression that the monotheism came later. Later the "we" parts were demoted to Angels.

I was surprised to find out about the Shekhinah when I started looking into Kabala. The divine feminine in the midst of a seemingly strict patriarchal monotheistic religion? Who would have thunk it? Some suggest it can be equated with The Holy Ghost, but I don’t know, The Holy Ghost was never really explained in my Baptist upbringing, and I certainly don’t remember being told that it was a feminine principle.

I’ve heard a few different explanations for Elohim – that the word implies a multiple male and female beings, or a single being with male and female attributes. What is your understanding?

"In the end, for those of us not content with dogma, it will always remain a matter of keeping our eyes open and separating the wheat from the chaff to the best of our abilities."

Yes. I left the Roman Catholic Church when I was a teen because I could not accept the dogma and the Ex Cathedra infallibility of the Pope. Only a God could be infallible, and the Pope is no God. And also because the nuns and priests all seemed so angry about everything. I think the RCs are in need of another major reform, and all the scandals with abusive priests seem to close the case on that. This business of celibate priests and nuns seems to select for an odd group. Perhaps opening things up to people who live in committed relationships might help. And the Bishop of Rome will have to give up on this infallibility thing. They have to give up on the old: "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." approach.

After almost thirty years of Atheism, I slowly came to the conclusion that it was just not enough. So somehow, I ended up an Episcopalian. That was a long story in its own right. But a lot is left for the individual to discern in this church. If there weren't I could not be a part of it.

As you seem to, I read diverse ideas and think on how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Sophia was also a major element in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Testament as a rabbi friend of mine calls it). Almost like there had once been a Hebrew Goddess. The stuff about the Elohim is interesting, too, in this regard.

All the best,

Mod

I agree completely with all of that. We will probably never have the whole story on the Gnostics, and it could be that Gnosticism was too diverse to nail down to a fixed set of ideas anyway. In the end, for those of us not content with dogma, it will always remain a matter of keeping our eyes open and separating the wheat from the chaff to the best of our abilities.

Dear Mad Love,

I am glad you enjoyed Elaine Pagels' Gnostic Gospels. She seems to have done a number of additional books on the subject since the early edition I read years ago. Surely, if it was useful to you in your understanding process, then you should use it. I may give them a closer look now that I have a positive read from someone who has read them more recently.

As to the Gnostic revelation, all that stuff about the Demiurge (a Platonic concept for the imperfect craftsman creator of the physical universe) of creating an inferior and flawed world and the esoteric knowledge held by the few Gnostics who would return flawed creation one soul at a time to the First and Perfect God really does sound like a mystery cult of antiquity to me. I think that the interpretation you have “an emphasis on having personal revelation, as opposed to merely putting faith in the revelations of others.” Is a more modern than some of the Gnostic mystery cults. I think you have a good interpretation for your own use, and I also believe that we have enough connection with the sacred to undertake discernment of truth without taking everything on someone else’s authority. It is a life long process with many twists and turns, at least for me. That is what makes it worth all the work.

All the best,

Mod

Thanks Moderate, I am familiar with Thunder Perfect Mind. I've looked into the Gnostics quite a bit, and find them very interesting, including their reverence of Sophia. The way I understand the "secret information" they were privy to was nothing dogmatic, but an emphasis on having personal revelation, as opposed to merely putting faith in the revelations of others. This is probably my favorite aspect of Gnostisism. Elaine Pagels 'Gnostic Gospels' was my introduction the the Gnostics, still a favorite of mine, and that's why I asked. Thanks for replying.

Dear Mad Love,

I hope I was not really "vitriolic" in regards to Elaine Pagels. I was dealing with a hard core sarcastic debater who goes by "Henry James" and meeting him on his own ground. We all get cranky from time to time, and I am no exception. You can let me know if you think I am doing that.

I read an earlier edition of Elaine's Gnostic Gospels. I just checked on Amazon and found a new 2006 edition.

The earlier edition had some glosses (errors) in it that I was uncomfortable with. Basically, I think it was a nice breezy popular press intro to the Gnostic Gospels. As a scholarly source it leaves a lot to be desired. So I would not cite in a debate.

I put up a longer append earlier but did not sign in, so it has to be approved by Fr. Reese. I am not sure it will make it, so I am going to repeat myself a bit.

I think that Jesus was tuned to women in a way that the male apostles were not. You can read that in the canonical gospels as well as the Gnostic ones. But the Gnostics all thought that they were privy to the secret teachings of Jesus and were an elite who would be saved by their secret knowledge. I think that they were not specially privileged in this regard. The people of antiquity thought they made a lot of that stuff up to create a mystery cult, too.

Anyway, there was a very interesting poem in the Gospel of Thomas called Thunder Perfect mind about a feminine messenger who "... was sent forth from the power,..." I think a lot of the Pagans on the site might like it. It can be found on www.gnosis.org.

Anyway, don't take the sparing with other opinionated debaters too seriously.

Check out Thunder Perfect Mind. Very interesting.

Moderate-

I know this is wildly off topic, but in that this system doesn't allow us to PM or start new threads I'll go ahead and ask...

I noticed in an older thread that you had a poor opinion of Elaine Pagels work, and I thought I even detected a little vitriol in your tone. I'm not looking for a debate here, but I was wondering if you could elaborate a little on your problems with her research.

Dear Father Reese,

Well thought out, and well stated as usual. We have a responsibility to our fellows, and Jesus reminded us that doing this for the least of these is doing it for him.

But I think that religions do not have the resources needed to, say, fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That takes public policy. While our work attempting to influence public policy must be informed by our beliefs, we must also be prepared to work with others who differ from us and forge links based upon common interest and for the common good. I guess that is a long winded way of agreeing with you. :-)

A homophobe in denial, apparently.

Re: Truth's "facts"...Uh, not quite, but nice try.

"the above passages are true facts of our modern day."

These are not even close to facts...unless YOUR saying so is the new definition of a fact. No wonder folks like you can't understand the "good science" referred to in the article.

Dear Mr. Mark,

In re: facts

Fr. Reese said:

"Believers must respect good science and not ignore facts."

Is that a "religious fact", or is it only believers who must respect good science?

As to St. Paul, what is wrong with it if he had "homosexual tendencies"? Stating that as an accusation that way gives your reader to wonder if you yourself are a homophobe.

Dear Truth -

Thanks for the laundry list of mental afflictions of St Paul who battled his own homosexual tendencies by berating everyone and everything else he could think of.

It's called "projection," and it was just as much a reality in the ancient world as it was when psychologists finally defined it.

If Paul could have come out as a gay back then, the world would have been spared a whole lot of needless pain.

An additional footnote- the above passages are true facts of our modern day. How can one tell? Because they are perceptible realities that are easily observed throughout modern societies around our globe without a great deal of exhaustive searching for them.

Some facts of our world today - religious, if you will - that have existed for centuries upon centuries:

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Mr Mark,

What are you referring to? There is no mention of "religious facts" in this article.

What, exactly, constitutes a religious "fact?" Facts are things based on objective reality.

Does such a thing as a "religious fact" even exist?