Ship of Fools: Exploring Gnosticism

Thread: Exploring Gnosticism Board: The Da Vinci Code / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=66;t=000014

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

This follows a brief exchange with Papio and a quick check with Callan about the appropriate board.

Gnosticism has been bubbling in and out of a number of the threads on DVC, and there are, very clearly, some wide variations in view. So I thought it might be good to have a thread devoted to exploring Gnosticism. Basically, anything goes. Its historical basis, key documents, significance in the early church, spiritual/ethical pros and cons, reasons for re-awakened interest today.

Two quite good online resources are this website and this one. Folks may know others.

A personal POV. After a fair bit of study, I'm not a fan. Unlike Papio for example, I find it hard to relate to its underlying cosmology and explanation of evil in the world - and rather like Moo I'm not at all keen on the idea of being in some way "saved" or "liberated" by knowledge. I detect, sort of, a certain relativism and elitism in it. But that is just a personal view.

Over to you

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Excellent links.

I just don't get why Valentus, random example gnostic man, has more credibility that David Icke - random example new age man. Of course that leaves me with the problem of why I put such confidence in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John ...

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi,

For thoughtful commentary and background, try:

http://www.gnosis.org

Best site by far IMHO.

Cheers
FF

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I just don't get why Valentus, random example gnostic man, has more credibility that David Icke - random example new age man. Of course that leaves me with the problem of why I put such confidence in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John ...

Whereas I don't get why he has less credibility than Aquinas - esp as he made more sense!!!
[Razz]

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :

One of the issues I have with the early gnostics (and I haven't a clue about the modern ones) is that they are SO VERY misogynistic - by and large surpassing anything the ECFs had to say on the subject of women.

One of the biggest giggles/eyerolls I got from the DVC was its using the Gospel of Philip to bolster its "feminist" POV. The Gospel of Philip has Christ assuring us that Mary Magdalene will be saved "by making her male." Nice.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Sienna

I think that's saying 114 in the Gospel of Thomas. You can find it here. Just scroll down. But I think your general point bears study - one of the issues of Gnosticism in NT times for me is its understanding of women. More later - I'm a bit pushed for time.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi Sienna,

Bart Ehrman explains the general worldview that supports early gnostic writing. From "Lost Christianities" :

quote:
...in the ancient world, the world of this text, people generally understood gender relations differently than we do. Today we tend to think of men and women as two kinds of the same thing. There are humans, and they are either male or female. In the ancient world, genders were not imagined like that. For ancient people, male and female were not two kinds of human, they were two degrees of human.

As we know from medical writers, philosophers, poets, and others, women in the Greek and Roman worlds were widely understood to be imperfect men. ...

...Lifeless things are less perfect than living;plants are less perfect than animals;animals less perfect than humans;women less perfect than men; men less perfect than gods. ... For a woman to be perfected, she must first pass along the continuum and become a man.

So it's not a misogynism unique to gnostics, it's a misogynism that permeated the marketplace of ideas in ancient Roman and Greek cultures.

It's not as if there wasn't plenty of patriarchalism in the proto-orthodox communities either. The entire early church can be said to be tarred with a similar brush.

The gnostics believed that the Christ logos was come to perfect both men and women so that they could attain to the kingdom, not as male or female, but as beings restored to their original unity.

FF

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :

The modern label Gnosticism groups together a fairly broad range of ideas and beliefs which, in total, were likely not all shared by any one group of beleivers. Indeed, the Sethian forms of Gnosticism were not remotely Christian in any sense at all. Thus, some of the assertions in this thread are true for some forms of what we would call Gnosticism today, but certainly were not true of Gnosticism in general.

For instance, while there is little doubt that the above examples and analyses are accurate for the mysogyny they represent, the Nag Hamadi Library also contains The Gospel of Mary and The Thunder, Perfect Mind which are more feminist than virtually anything in the Christian cannon of that period or earlier.

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :

Barnabas - you're right (I can't ever keep them straight).

AFF, I'm a big Bart Ehrman fan (and his Da Vinci Code book is excellent), and I understand the point he's making - and it reinforces the point I made. The classical world as a general rule didn't hold women in high regard (whether they worshipped female deities or not), which is why Christianity's message is such a revolutionary one. I see much early gnosticism as a step backwards into the status quo from the liberating "in Christ there is no male or female..." I'm not launching a defense of the ECFs as feminists, or anything like that, believe me - I'm making the point that the gnostics were worse.

Other issues I have with early gnosticism is its negative view of flesh/the physical world, which I see in contradiction to the view put forth in Genesis that creation is good. It also seems to me, as others have commented, that this pursuit of esoteric knowledge as leading to salvation is a denial of grace - "knowledge salvation" as a subset of "works salvation" perhaps.

ETA Cross-posted with Mertseger, who made the point I forgot to, which is there wasn't exactly a unified gnostic theology....

[ 13. April 2006, 23:08: Message edited by: Sienna ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Thanks AFF. I know you're well into this stuff. What you say links directly into the Gnostic view of Genesis and the Fall - and also the Creator. That may be a lot to digest for folks unfamiliar with these ideas. So from the Gnostic website, here is a page which I've looked at a lot - and I guess you have as well.

The Gnostic World View

Its an oversimplification, but as a way of getting into some of the strangeness of this, the Gnostic world view sees the Fall as the Creator's fault, rather than an act of human rebellion. But that's because the Creator is a sort of flawed aspect of God (the God behind God). The Fall is a sort of punishment for human curiosity - I think the Creator is seen as some sort of half-aware semi-deity control freak, responsible for the entry of pain and suffering into the world. (Folks who understand the linked page more deeply, please feel free to comment.)

This fundamentally different way of looking at God is, I think, at the heart of ancient Gnostic thinking. And of course it does have a major impact on the way everything else is seen. Not just men and women.

AFF I think you are quite right to point to the patriarchal influences explicit in pre-Christian Jewish thought and early Christian thought. But I think the misogyny of the Gnostics is a different sort of misogyny. Culturally, women were property for millenia. I think it was some combination of this prevailing culture - plus the theological take on the Fall - that produced the different types of misogyny.

(I hope this hasn't become double dutch already - some of these notions are hard to get your head around if you're not used to them, but I think they are helpful in understanding why the ideas produced such battles in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries).

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Well, if you insist that gnostics were especially misogynistic, more so than any other religious group, then I think I have to disagree.

This idea that women are physically imperfect, inferior to men, etc. is one that stuck with us right up until the suffrage movement of the early 20th century.

I don't see anything inordinately hateful towards women in the gnostic worldview, no more so than, say, Freud's idea that I lack a penis and therefore I envy yours. It's peculiar, and mistaken, but it's a product of the understanding of its time, and we've simply outgrown these ideas since then.

The church is having its own outgrowing pains, witness the debate about the ordination of women.

Some ideas are great while they last, but as our understanding of our human condition grows, some will naturally find themselves on the dustheap. This doesn't mean the the whole gnostic canon needs to be rejected, any more than Pauls grousing about women means I should reject the orthodox canon.

FF

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

AFF

No, just different! In a way, its a classic illustration of some of the problems of these sorts of discussions. People tend to take sides too quickly without really looking at what was - and is - going on. For example, I really liked your analogy with Freudianism - that's another classical illustration of how a whole understanding of the way we think and feel carried into it (I suspect without Freud knowing it) some very unfortunate over(and under)tones of female inferiority - the idea that women "lack" something. And yet of course Freudian understandings do contain some very good insights into the pain of human existence, despite this.

Basically, I'm all for people coming to turns with these sorts of things - that in all sorts of human endeavours to understand, you get flashing insight coupled with "black hole" blindness. The wheat grows with the weeds. It's one of the reasons why I called this thread Exploring Gnosticism, not Criticising Gnosticism. My own wanderings through it have led me to some critical conclusions, but I've found it very illuminating nevertheless.

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

I have known charismatic Christians with extraordinarily elaborate demonologies. They can tell you - if you stand still for long enough - the names and roles of dozens of demons, how they operate and how they can be opposed.

Of course one wonders where all their informatin comes from, and doesn't get very satisfactory answers. But more annoying is their smug air of elitism, not only that they are cognoscenti, but that they are involved in an apocalyptic war of which the rest of us blithely ignorant.

Fairly or unfairly, I've always bunched gnostics together with them, since I first came across their occult cosmologies and elusive gnosis.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Posted by me on the other thread:
Further on the Gospel of Thomas and women - surely it is a legimate interpretation of the possible addition to the end of that Gospel to say that women were frowned upon in that society, and so what it means by making themselves like men is that they can rise above the prejudices against them with the nobility of spirit that is part of Gnostic teaching? Indeed, to rise above those men who are not chosen. They become male not by ceasing to be female, but by becoming the chosen.

This is not really misogony, is it?

[ 14. April 2006, 08:50: Message edited by: Papio ]

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
Of course one wonders where all their informatin comes from, and doesn't get very satisfactory answers. But more annoying is their smug air of elitism, not only that they are cognoscenti, but that they are involved in an apocalyptic war of which the rest of us blithely ignorant.

Fairly or unfairly, I've always bunched gnostics together with them, since I first came across their occult cosmologies and elusive gnosis.

Do you know what else doesn't seem to "get very satisfactory answers"?

It's the question of why we should just happily except the present canon, with a happy and completely uncynical smile on our faces because the Church, or God we are told by some, says it is right so it must be. It just a bit uncritical and passive.

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :

quote:
Do you know what else doesn't seem to "get very satisfactory answers"?

It's the question of why we should just happily except the present canon, with a happy and completely uncynical smile on our faces because the Church, or God we are told by some, says it is right so it must be. It just a bit uncritical and passive.

Its been a long time since I tried (and failed) to read the Gnostic gospels. Apart from Thunder, Perfect Mind, which I did read often when I was a Pagan, they've been sitting on my shelf for upwards of 10 years. The canonical ones I now read very, very often. And being the sort of person who can't wade through something that I'm getting nothing out of just because I'm suppose to like it, that sort of settles the issue for me.

Its a question of intuitively feeling what nourishes me and what doesn't. However, I don't think I infallibly know whats good for me, so the fact that there are books that are supposed to be taken more seriously than others is a guide - which draws on the feelings of lots of other people on the subject, and which in humility I will accept.

I think that humilty itself is the important thing, more so than the details - its about realising we can't figure it all out ourselves, and weakening our egos. This is an unfashionable perspective I know, which you might think was uncritical and passive, but I'm not sure I'd be taking it if in my own judgement I'd felt no difference between the canon and the others. Its a bit of both.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
The modern label Gnosticism groups together a fairly broad range of ideas and beliefs which, in total, were likely not all shared by any one group of beleivers. Indeed, the Sethian forms of Gnosticism were not remotely Christian in any sense at all. Thus, some of the assertions in this thread are true for some forms of what we would call Gnosticism today, but certainly were not true of Gnosticism in general.

For instance, while there is little doubt that the above examples and analyses are accurate for the mysogyny they represent, the Nag Hamadi Library also contains The Gospel of Mary and The Thunder, Perfect Mind which are more feminist than virtually anything in the Christian cannon of that period or earlier.

Just an aside, the Gospel of Mary was found earlier than the Nag Hammadi collection. Here's the history of the sources.

I know from background reading that your general point about the variability of Gnosticism is right. I think some of the basic ideas pre-date Christianity. As a Christian, what fascinates me is the interplay during the first 2 or 3 centuries of the faith of various understandings (which included at least some Gnostic Christians, or Christianised Gnostics) and what eventually emerged as orthodoxy. I don't know very much about what forms of Gnosticism pre-dated the battle - my reading hasn't taken me into that yet. Can you recommend a good source (as well as the gnosis website)?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Apologies for the double post. I think Papio may be right in saying that we've sometimes been using misogyny wrongly in this thread. I've realised that what I meant was a sort of in-built, culturally conditioned, male superiority - which, although prejudiced, is a long way away from hatred or fear of women. (It does provide a breeding ground for the more extreme attitudes to emerge.)

In a footnote to "Beyond Belief", Elaine Pagels has the following observation about Saying 114 in Thomas.

"The words female and male are not to be taken literally (as if they referred to woman and man) but rather as characterising what is human and what is divine. See M Meyer (note on Saying 114 in the G of T)"

I think this is a rationalisation, but Papio has a point. It is not so much the language which matters as the underlying hopeful picture of a woman coming fully into her potential. What is put into to the mouth of Jesus stands in sharp contrast to the comment put into the mouth of Simon Peter.

quote:
From G of T saying 114(a)

Simon Peter said to them "Make Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life"

Now that does read like misogyny. But it is not the whole story about the mysterious saying 114.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

There's actually been a bit of discussion about women having to aim towards being reincarnated as men by submitting to authoratative men in their lives, and the man at the top of this 20th century cult.
"School of Economic Science/Philosophy"

The "gospels" and Jesus and Mary Magdalene are mentioned, as are the Laws of Manu.

Gnosticism seems to be part of the teaching as well, as it is in the Jungian and Edward Edinger and alchemical spiritual studies I did linked in with transpersonal psychotherapy.

It definitely has so many variations that varying "beliefs" can link in with whatever they want to focus on and emphasise.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi,

Think of the characetrs in GofT like the characters in a Platonic dialogue (after all, Platonism underpins most Christian gnosticism). In a Platonic dialogue, the main character expounds the main ideas at the prompting or questions of the minor characters.

So in the case of saying 114, Simon Peter says what's on the minds of most men of the period, who are steeped in the belief that women are a whole degee inferior to themselves. Also, any women listening would have had similar thoughts. "How can I attain salvation if I am less perfect than a man?"

And Jesus' answer is "I will atrract her so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males."

So the final result is in saying 108:

"Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I, too, will become that person, and to that person hidden things will be shown forth."

The Christ Logos will be present in that person. This is not inconsistent with the orthodox idea that we are all members in the body of Christ. I don't think it's too much to say that when one invites Christ to dwell within, one sees the entire world differently, and one sees oneself in a whole new light.

FF

(clarity)

[ 14. April 2006, 11:59: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Do you know what else doesn't seem to "get very satisfactory answers"?

It's the question of why we should just happily except the present canon, with a happy and completely uncynical smile on our faces because the Church, or God we are told by some, says it is right so it must be. It just a bit uncritical and passive.

Was I suggesting that my contacts were the only ones who don't give satisfactory answers?

And I would be very interested to hear what I have said that suggests that I accept the present canon, with or without a happy and completely uncynical smile on my face.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
Of course one wonders where all their informatin comes from, and doesn't get very satisfactory answers. But more annoying is their smug air of elitism, not only that they are cognoscenti, but that they are involved in an apocalyptic war of which the rest of us blithely ignorant.

Brother SteveTom, we need to cast out your demon of skepticism.

Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on :

I find it very hard to get my head around gnosticism. It seems so complicated and the language makes my brain bleed at times e.g.

"God 'divides' himself into opposites in order to be revealed in our material world. These opposites are in no way to be seen as a breach of the origional unity, but rather as proceeding from the loving will of God to permeate creation and to dwell within his creatures. But this is only possible if the origional unity denounces itself to become a differentiating duality - only in this way can there be a visible prsence and colour ,which while proceeding from the unity, only takes form through the duality."

This is from an article about dance.

I read this and I wonder if I am just thick and that is why I can't understand it. Or maybe this is all just bollocks designed to keep the uninitiated out and make those in the inner circle feel powerful.

Dunno

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Maybe it's simpler to understand like this:

The ALL-THAT-IS is a pool of pure awareness.

From that pool of awareness, the First Thought emerges. That Thought is conscious of itself as part of the ALL-THAT-IS.

Other Thought-Forms emerge from the First Thought in perfect pairs. This is the birth of identity, which can't exist without something to compare itself to. These first Thought-Forms are complimentary ideals like intelligence, loveliness, prudence, perception.

The Thought-Form "Sophia" gives birth to an imperfect Thought-Form, in a sort of twisted "immaculate conception", and from that birth, polar duality is born: good and evil and the polarity of the world of matter.

In a funny way, though they knew nothing about electromagnetism, the gnostics were on to something when they described the world as the product of continual tension between polar opposites. I think physicists would have to agree.

Cheers
FF

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Although I've also met people fitting SteveTom's description of 'Charismatic with a well developed theory of demonology' I'm surprised to see them being compared with Gnostics. Gnosticism appears to me to be rather similar to much later New Age ideas, something which the demonically-challenged Charismatics would strongly wish to separate themselves from.

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
Was I suggesting that my contacts were the only ones who don't give satisfactory answers?

And I would be very interested to hear what I have said that suggests that I accept the present canon, with or without a happy and completely uncynical smile on my face.

My comments were a reaction to a position that I have heard a lot and of which I thought your post was reminiscent. However, they were not aimed specifically at you and I can see how it looked as though they were - so sorry.

That said, I really do think that words like "heresy", "unorthodox" and "extra-biblical" (none of which you used) can often be used as magic talismans to ward off the satanic forces of free thought and critical evaluation.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I really do think that words like "heresy", "unorthodox" and "extra-biblical" (none of which you used) can often be used as magic talismans to ward off the satanic forces of free thought and critical evaluation.

Heretic!

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

[Big Grin]

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :

Perhaps the group knowledge-base here can help me resolve one aspect of Christian history as it relates to Gnosticism. One fairly common idea in the ancient documents that have been collected and labeled as Gnostic is the idea that matter is corrupt. In several Gnostic myths, for instance, the creator of the material world (often caled the Demiurge) is deluded that He is the One God and the world that He creates is a barrier preventing souls from re-uniting with God. I do not find the same level of distaste for the material world in the Older Testament or in the Gospels. We find a bit of it in Paul I think. But it seemed to flower to a certain extent in subsequent Christian theology, say, in the mediaeval idea of the mortification of the flesh.

My question for those of you who know the history better than I is, did this thread of Christianity come from Gnosticism or did it arise in parallel or did it, perhaps preceed both coming from, say, the Zoroastrians along with the Good/Evil dichotomy?

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :

Mertseger, I think it's due in large part influence of Neo-platonic school of philosophy - here's a link discussing it.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi,

Gnosticism is a way of looking at the world that precedes Christianity, and is most likely derived from Platonism. It's a template, if you will, that can be modified to accomodate different types of spiritual endeavour.

As far as I know, dualism as a worldview precedes Christian gnosticism. The Manichaean gnostics were even more throughly dualistic than the Christian. Their creation myth was adapted from the Zoroastrian myth, and they even go as far as to say there are two equally powerful gods who struggle for dominion over the earth. I think the Marcionites did something similar.

The Christian gnostics could not find the answer to the problem of evil without resorting to dualism. I think Christians have trouble with it as well, and resort to their own version of dualism with the story of the fall of Lucifer.

But in the gnostic myth, even the imperfect archictect of the universe, Ialdabaoth, does not exist on its own,. It sustains its being through its mother Sophia, who in turn derives her being from the First Thought, which is an expression of the I AM. So they are all, essentially, degrees of expression of the I AM. Behind the dualism of this planetary existence, there exists a consciousness united in the ground of all being.

Only Ialdabaoth is ignorant of this fact. Actually, it's not wholly ignorant, it's half aware, and it's afraid to learn the truth. How very human of it.

FF

[ 14. April 2006, 18:11: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :

Sorry for the double-post, but I wanted to respond to AFF's comment below:

quote:
Well, if you insist that gnostics were especially misogynistic, more so than any other religious group, then I think I have to disagree.

Please don't think that I'm defending the misogynistic elements in other religions, particularly Christianity. I do think, though, that when you couple the view that our bodies/matter form a barrier between us and God (as opposed to being part of a good creation that will ultimately be perfected) with the view that the female is the most corrupt embodiment of a corrupt species, you end up with something particularly toxic.

I'm not saying, by any means, that orthodox Christianity hasn't been influenced by this view - but that gnosticism, with its rejection of the goodness of the created world, is particularly prone to this mindset. (Again, I should clarify that I'm talking about early gnosticism, not whatever's going on currently.)

I think my objections to gnosticism boil down to one essential - I see it as incompatible with a religion that is centered on the incarnation of God - a God who loved his human creations so much that he joined us, ate and drank with us, and ultimately died for us - not to "free" us from an inherently evil creation, but to restore an inherently good creation.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think Sienna is right about the distinctiveness and centrality of the Incarnation. I'm also very impressed by this piece of very early NT evidence, the first 5 verses from the letter to the Galatians.

quote:
1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2and all the brothers with me,
To the churches in Galatia:

3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Can someone explain to me how these verses are compatible with the Gnostic view of the Divine, the evil in the world and the nature of salvation? Check out AFF's post and the link to the Gnostic World View on the website. The reason why I think its a good question is that the letter to the Galatians is normally dated about 50AD. Well before the codification of orthodoxy, the settling of the canon, church orders etc. It is primitive. And, so far as it goes, it is completely consistent with the the subsequently codified orthodoxy.

And, even stranger, these 5 verses are just an introduction - the main theme of the letter lies elsewhere. Incidental information in historical documents is powerful. It seems to me you either have to consign this document to the "fraudulent" category or concede that, before any structures were in place, there was a distinctive, clear and open expression of Christianity which was not compatible with the Gnostic world view - at least as expressed on the Gnostic website. And it came from someone who sat with the apostles when they were alive - and learned from them after previously opposing them. The Pauline link in Galatians takes us back into the AD30s. To the disciples.

To me this is pretty strong evidence that Irenaeus was right, that the faith once given was not compatible with the Gnostic world view. So tell me what I'm missing.

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sienna:
Mertseger, I think it's due in large part influence of Neo-platonic school of philosophy - here's a link discussing it.

Well, at least your link got me searching a bit more. This Wikipdeia article does not seem to support that the idea came from the Platonists. Earlier forms of Platonism held the view that the Demiurge was beneficent, and the Neo-Platonist Plotinus argued against some local Gnostics' view that matter was corrupt as late as the early Third Century.

Certainly, Paul precedes Gnosticism, so did both Christianity and Gnosticism explore this avenue as an answer to the problem of evil in parallel or did one feed off the other? It would appear that the idea was already intrinsic in the pre-Christian Sethian forms of Gnosticism, but, of course, the Sethians had Jewish roots. And so I'm still left wondering if this anti-materialism was present in pre-Christian sects in and around Judea, and whether it worked its way into Christianity via these earlier sects, arose in parallel or came through latter exchange with Christian Gnostics.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Christ was sent by the Father to liberate us from our present evil age. This seems to be a point both the orthodox and the gnostics can agree on. The point of distinction comes with the "how" and "from whom".

For me, it's not profitable to discuss who is right or who is wrong. Irenaeus made his decisions, and history has conferred upon them the dignity and respect that arises out of tradition. He was right, because that's the course the church eventually steered towards. His decisions were necessary, and there's no point in trying to imagine some other outcome. It was as it should have been, and the orthodox church is how we now experience Christianity.

I think a better question to ask is "If the orthodox church is so deeply satisfying to the spirit on every level, why are people so hungry for an alternative view of Christianity that they'll swallow any amount of codswallop Dan Brown and Bagent and Leigh care to promote?"

There's always going to be a segmant of humanity that leans toward a more gnostic/platonic worldview. Why do these ideas persist in the face of systematic attempts to discredit/eradicate them?

FF

[ 14. April 2006, 22:49: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on :

Is it just my imagination or does there seem to be more than a resemblance between Gnosticism and certain Eastern ideas eg Sankara's theology in Hinduism and some Buddhist ideas ? Would there be any sort of communication between the Indian religions and some Christians at the time of the early Church or is that a bit too fanciful?
I remember reading about Gnosticism in the late 1960s - I don't think it'd have made much impact at the time. However with the rise of New Age ideas it may seem to resonate perhaps with those who are interested in those ideas

[ 14. April 2006, 22:59: Message edited by: The Royal Spaniel ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

AFF

You're right of course, in general. But this is da Vinci Code, where the emphasis has not been so much on the co-existence of different world views, but on the notion that the big bad Imperial church suppressed a world view which was right (whereas its own was wrong). As a matter of history, I don't think that argument stands. As a matter of theology, I find it difficult to see how Gnostic cosmology coheres with the Christian faith in its earliest recorded proclamations. So I think, essentially, that we are talking about different faiths here.

You know I'm an accommodating sort of person - comfortable with wide umbrellas and diversity. Well, that hasn't changed. I'm just saying, that on this issue, different faiths seems a more reasonable interpretation than variations within the same faith. Its only a POV. Somebody may come along in a minute and tell me how the Gnostics accommodated Galatians 1:1-5 into their world view. I mean they certainly knew about the letter. Its in Marcion's list.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

I think it's important to distinguish between faith and belief.

They are two separate and very distinct belief systems.

They share a faith that Christ is our salvation.

FF

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :

Mertseger, here's a better link discussing Neoplatonism and St. Augustine which tangentially Neoplatonism versus gnostic worldviews. I think the Christian strain of "anti-physicality" is more aligned the Neoplatonic variety than the gnostic, but your mileage may vary - and there's enough overlap that I don't know that there is a definitive answer. At any rate, St. Augustine is the Colosssus of theologians in the early and medieval church,** and I think he and his neoplatonism probably have more to do with the orthodox Christian suspicion of the physical world than gnosticism - since Augustine comes to completely reject the Manichean version.

[I'm given to understand that Augustine doesn't have nearly the stature in the capital O Orthodox Church as he does in the West (which probably explains my love for Orthodox theology, but I disgress), so perhaps one of the Plot shipmates will weigh in with a different POV.]

At any rate, what I read in the NT canon seems more compatible with the influence the neoplatonic worldview - Paul's metaphor that we see through a glass darkly, the references in Hebrews to earthly shadows that are perfect in Heaven - creation is fallen and short of the mark, but still contains hints and traces pointing the way to the coming Kingdom. In early gnosticism, creation is portrayed as a barrier, not a preview.

All that being said, in terms of the gnostic/orthodox Christian interaction, so much has been lost (often at the hands of of orthodox Christians) that I don't know that we'll ever be able to be sure.

**and fairness dictates that I mention that he is quite the misogynist himself....

[ 15. April 2006, 04:10: Message edited by: Sienna ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
I think it's important to distinguish between faith and belief.

They are two separate and very distinct belief systems.

They share a faith that Christ is our salvation.

FF

That is a very good point - and it brings me at least to a personal crux point; the issue of community. I'm not sure how well this crosses the Atlantic but the use of the term "faith community" has become commonplace in the UK. The notions of the peaceful co-existence of, and possibilities of co-operation between, different faith communties is a recognition that there are boundaries of association. The reason why there are different faith communities is because we see those boundaries and associate with one community, rather than another. It does not mean that there isn't a fair measure of common ground. Nor does it mean that there are no sharp differences.

In that context, in our 21st century world, we can seek the common ground. And the sentence "Christ is our salvation" can be said by folks with different belief systems. We can get along with our differences. We have, mostly, the freedom, and the luxury of that freedom.

Two recorded saying of Jesus are

"He who is not for us is against us" and

"He who is not against us is for us".

Open and closed seasons! Regardless of ones views about the rights and wrongs of gnosticism, I think there is broad historical agreement that "Against Heresies", written at the end of the 2nd century by Bishop Irenaeus, is a crux document. And personally, I go along with Pagels' implication that the key factors in all of this were

a) the huge impact on Irenaeus of the persecution, torture and martyrdom of many Christians in his own community.

b) the opinion of some Christian Gnostics that the martyrdoms were neither necessary nor wise.

And this goes deeper than the notion that those who did this lacked community spirit, or solidarity, or sympathy. They were certainly insensitive. They thought they knew better. It caused a questioning of what it was in their underlying belief system made them go that way. It was certainly a major departure from the 1st century apostolic experience, for many of them were martyred. It was a sort of acid test of both community and continuity. I think Irenaeus said, these people have placed themselves outside. Not just the faith community but the continuity with the first century apostles - and their attitude to martyrdom demonstrates it. Then, by looking at the distinctive belief systems he found the reasons for that lack of attachment. And a whole lot of strange stuff. And said, in effect, "Whatever it is, it aint Christian. We are members, one of another. These guys are members of themselves, but they are not members with us". And out of that arose Tradition, orthodoxy, boundaries, definition. In the sentence "Christ is our salvation" the key word became "our". Who are we?

Well, we have the luxury of debating the pros and cons of that. But looking back to those times, it sure seems understandable to me. Here is Pagels again (I've quoted it before on these threads, because it seems to me to be such a perceptive observation).

quote:
In her commentary on these times and the Irenaeus critique (in her book "Beyond Belief") Pagels makes the following observation.

"..we can see that Irenaeus' characterization, however hostile, is right. Those who wrote and treasured innovative works ... were implicitly criticising, intentionally or not, the faith of most believers". (Chapter 4)

Maybe a key point is "so where do we go from here?"

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi Barnabas,

We can debate the rightness or wrongness of third century gnostics for disagreeing with martydom as a means to promulgate the faith, and base our present day relationship on an old grudge that has nothing to do with you and me personally in the present. Or we can acknowledge that our understanding of both sides of that story is incomplete at best, and try to find the common ground that exists in the present.

The stakes are not life-and-death now. Christians are not being thrown to the lions, and are not likely to become a persecuted minority anytime soon. Gnostics are not being hunted and exterminated as heretics any longer.

I think that it might profit both kinds of Christianity to acknowledge that the genie is out of the bottle. The old way of exterminating disagreeable ideas was to kill the messenger and burn his books. This is no longer acceptable, nor do I think it's even possible. So gnostic ideas are in the world marketplace now, and there are buyers.

As a member of a very tiny gnostic minority, the solution for me has been to find a Christian community that tolerates different beliefs while acknowledging a common faith journey. I still need a sense of common Christian purpose. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't matter one bit to me that I don't agree with someone's theology. That's not the basis of my relationship with them.

Christianity in any form is not easy. It is not a comfortable stroll. The scripture is full of baffling, challenging and shattering truths that are designed to break apart our hardnesses and expose our sweetness and vulnerability.

I think if we proceed in a spirit of kindness and acknowledgement of the importance of each of our faith journeys, then what we believe will not make the difference in the end. The destination is the same, what does it matter if we arrive by this belief or that belief? No more than if you arrive by train and I by car.

FF

[ 15. April 2006, 12:13: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

AFF

You're a star! I've got visitors round at present and want to think about what you say, but my intuition is that there is a very great deal right with what you say. More later.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

The stakes are not life-and-death now. Christians are not being thrown to the lions, and are not likely to become a persecuted minority anytime soon. Gnostics are not being hunted and exterminated as heretics any longer.
FF

Not a grumble at your post, but a bit of information, up-to-date persecution , which is still happening in many parts of the world, not always by Islamicists.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

A personal response

Laying myself open to all manners of misunderstanding here, I am in agreement with a very large amount of your previous post. The little bit which is different comes out like this. Yes, it is our following, not the correctness of our theology, which is the most important. In the end this is not a gospel of works, but of grace and obedience. I do think, however, that what we believe impacts on our following, so I think the truth of what we believe is important. In the end, on that issue, I'm not pomo.

I've never been in any doubt about the communion of the saints. In the end we're all going to be surprised by the final membership of that community. Understanding these old battles helps me to understand, to some extent, the reasons for them. Some of that adds to my understanding of all battles - their perceived necessity and the damage they do.

AFF, I've often thought it would be great fun to be in the same home group as you in my local church. There is of course a sort of understanding in my group that we're all "sound"! But you should hear some of the stuff ... I suspect that if I was to join your small gnostic group, I might have the same effect on them as you might have on the home group I currently belong to. This notion of affectionate sticks of dynamite comes to mind! (What the heck is an affectionate stick of dynamite?)

Although I know this can come across as patronising I'm being honest when I put it this way. I reckon you and I could both cope fine - its the others I worry about ...... Maybe that is an unworthy, over-protective thought? I'm not sure. In the end it is our working assumptions and our ability to cope with one another in the present which determine the longevity of association.

God bless you. These boards would be the poorer without your contribution.

Back on the main discussion ....

I am pretty convinced, currently, as a matter of history, that some of the pre-Christian gnostics were attracted into the very early faith communities by Jesus, for this reason.

quote:
From the Gnostic World View

Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence. Ignorance -- whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities -- is dispelled only by Gnosis, and the decisive revelation of Gnosis is brought by the Messengers of Light, especially by Christ, the Logos of the True God. It is not by His suffering and death but by His life of teaching and His establishing of mysteries that Christ has performed His work of salvation.

Attracted to him by what they heard, and because of pre-existing understandings, they were likely to see Jesus' role and mission in those terms. They are not the same as the Messianic expectation - and its Suffering Servant development - which have very great significance in orthodox Christianity. Seeing the Logos differently is not a small thing. But we can talk about it. And some of us will always be willing to. Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war.

[ 16. April 2006, 07:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Blow - late editing cut a vital bit out. Although its probably very obvious, let me clarify that the first part of my post was response to some dialogue with AFF.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi Barnabas,

quote:
Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war.

Amen, amen and amen.

Just a quick note now and more later...

The best thing about gnosticism, IMHO, is that it relies entirely on individual spiritual revelation. Gnosis is a process of discovery that has no prescription other than the willingness of a person to undertake it. There is no roadmap to my interior landscape, only signposts erected by those who have gone before me into their own unknown. Those signposts are the messages in the gospels that resonate in me as divinely inspired.

Because gnosis is an individual process, its message is not static, but fluid and dynamic. We didn't get a chance to see how Christian gnosticism might have evolved into the present. We can only see snapshots of it frozen in time. So there's almost as much about ancient Christian gnosticism that I disagree with as I do with orthodox dogma.

Notwithstanding this, I am overjoyed to be joining my orthodox Christians friends everywhere this morning with my praise and gratitude and awe for His resurrection.

Hallelujah HE IS RISEN INDEED!

Talk to you later.

FF

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Royal Spaniel:
Is it just my imagination or does there seem to be more than a resemblance between Gnosticism and certain Eastern ideas eg Sankara's theology in Hinduism and some Buddhist ideas ? Would there be any sort of communication between the Indian religions and some Christians at the time of the early Church or is that a bit too fanciful?

I don't think that's so far-fetched. The Roman empire shared a border with the Persian empire, which went as far as what is now Pakistan, so communications with India were better than one might assume.

The 3rd-century religious movement of Mani, for example, popular in the Roman empire, venerated both Jesus and Buddha.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi Barnabas,

I wanted to address this specifically:

quote:
I do think, however, that what we believe impacts on our following, so I think the truth of what we believe is important.

I think many would agree with you, but I'm not certain that ritual, dogma, cosmology, or soteriology has anything to do with how "Christian" I am. I think the measure of my Christianity is summed up in how well I live the Great Commandment. What's interesting about the Great Commandment is that Jesus paraphrased the rabbi Hillel, but the Gospel writer omitted Hillel's concluding admonishment "Now go and learn". I like to include it, because the nature of the commandment gives rise to many questions.

Love the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, strength and spirit. (I think I do, but I'm willing to bet I'm in denial at some level of my being).
Can I love my fellow before I love myself? (my answer: no)
Do I love myself? (my answer: undecided)
Do I love myself perfectly and completely or imperfectly and incompletely? (my answer: imperfectly)
Do I know myself well enough to love myself? (my answer: no)
Is it possible to love an unknown? (my answer: no)

So what kind of a Christian does this make me?

I think I love God as much as I am commanded to, but it's easy to lie to myself, and my actions are inconsistent with someone whose love is perfect, whole and complete.
I doubt I can love my fellow more than, or before, I love myself.
I am not certain I love myself, and if I do it's imperfectly and incompletely, so that's the best my poor neighbour can expect from me right now.
I don't think I know myself well, and not well enough to love myself unreservedly.
I am afraid of the unkown, and so therefore it's impossible for me to love it in myself or my fellow.

On the whole, I think this makes me about as good, bad or indifferent as any orthodox Christian. Cosmology, dogma and belief are powerless to fix these problems of mine because they have nothing to do with it. "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."

I think a Christien gnostic seeks knowledge of self, and searches for the hidden barriers within that prevent him/her from perfecting his/her obedience to the Great Commandment. The proof of the perfection or imperfection of his/her gnosis is shown in the manner of words and deeds. This should not be mistaken for a works-based salvation. It springs from a deep and urgent desire to be in full acquaintance with God through obedience to God.

The saving grace that is ours through Jesus Christ is the Logos that dwells within every human as a result of His coming. This is the Lamp of Love that lights the interior, and shines into the dark recesses of our unkown, unloved and unforgiven corners so that they may be shown forth and reconciled.

If we are reconciled within, so we can be reconciled with one another, and God's shalom will be known on earth as it is in heaven.

FF

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

AFF

Thanks for that. I suppose one of the things which needs to be said is that our dialogue on this thread may illuminate some differences between Gnosticism and orthodox (Nicene) Christianity, but it's probably more accurate to say that it illustrates our individual "take" on these things. That, however, reminds me of a brilliant observation by Solzhenitsin. "To taste the sea only takes one gulp". So maybe this will help not just you and me to "taste the sea".

Your post is very interesting and reminds me of something I said earlier about the value of home groups. Membership of of the same home group often enables people to get under the surface differences and find much common ground. For example your description of the work of the Logos within us seems to me to be remarkably similar to the orthodox understanding (mostly gained from John's gospel) of the work of the Holy Spirit. I suppose if there is a difference, it is that the impulses to follow the great commandment are seen in orthodox understanding to come from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, rather than a "gnosis". It may be that these are simply descriptions of the same divine effect. (I realise I don't know enough about gnosticism to confirm that.)

Another immediate thought that occurs to me is that I tend to see (I suppose because this is what I've discovered) a very great value in discipleship measured against orthodox norms of belief. "We" seems more important than "I". Being a pretty rugged individualist with a penchant for minority views, I think most of my appreciation of the corporate, "we are one body", aspects of Christian faith has been hard won - often against my natural individualism. On the whole this seems to me to have done me good. I'm gentler now, finding many positive values in obedience. I have been fortunate to make the journey in the company of some very lovely people. So my positive take on corporate orthodox Nicene understandings was probably pretty embryonic in the beginning. I think it grew on me, and grew in me. It hasn't made me blind to the risks of spiritual abuse or over-controlling church governance. I've seen some of that on the way. But I have definitely become more "corporate". Again, I'm up against a limit, because I do have a limited understanding of the place of corporate life in gnosticism.

"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves". Yes, that's very good. Reminds me of a well known story in the UK. The author G K Chesterton, replying ot a discussion in the letter columns of the Times about what was wrong with the church, sent a reply saying "I am". That is a pretty good place to start, or resume, the journey into life. And a pretty good thing to keep in mind on the way.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Although I've also met people fitting SteveTom's description of 'Charismatic with a well developed theory of demonology' I'm surprised to see them being compared with Gnostics. Gnosticism appears to me to be rather similar to much later New Age ideas, something which the demonically-challenged Charismatics would strongly wish to separate themselves from.

I have always thought that the Charismatic movement and the New Age movement have much more in common than either side would care to admit to.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Callan

I think that is fair. My view from "inside" is actually very similar. Maybe the key idea actually is "gnosis". One of the least attractive features of some of the Valentinian gnostics was that they divided the ancient church explicitly between those in error and in ignorance, and those who had come to know the truth (comment by Pagels in Beyond Belief). This was tied up with the idea of a "second baptism" in a ritual called apolutrosis. I remember feeling the heat of a familiar fire when I read that.

In his comment, Irenaeus talks about someone "elated" who goes "strutting around with a superior expression on his face, with all the pomposity of a cock". Well, it's pretty pejorative language, but I have come across analogous behaviour. Enthusiasm is attractive, over-enthusiasm giving rise to superiority isn't.

But the truth is, it's "some and some". And the idea of superior knowledge, or gnosis, or experience is not confined just to charismatics in the church. At least not IME. The temptation to pride is pretty general.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi,

In a couple of other threads, I gave examples of a moment of gnosis. I think in the orthodox canon, the moment of the cock crow is Peter's moment of self revelation. He attains gnosis: "intimate acquaintance with" himself. It's devastating, and rips apart his illusions of what kind of a person he thinks he is.

I think it's fair to say, if it's arrogant, it's not gnosis. If it doesn't kill the ego and destroy its works in your life, it's not gnosis.

Irenaeus might have detested an air of superiority in some third century gnostics. It's hard to tell if he was projecting some of his own unknowns, or if this was a completely objective observation. As noted, a similar air of smug superiority can be seen on the faces of the members of the 700 Club.

From his general antipathy, I reserve judgment about Irenaeus' objectivity, but am willing to bet there were as many third century gnostics who "got it wrong" as there are present day Christians who "don't get it". However, I don't judge all present day Christians by the mannerisms of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

FF

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
If it doesn't kill the ego and destroy its works in your life, it's not gnosis.

G.K. Chesterton couldn't have put the case for the humanism of orthodoxy better.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

AFF

This is a crux of the exploration, at least as far as I am concerned. I accept your personal view that arrogant understanding isn't "gnosis". My problem, historically, is that it was precisely Valentinian arrogance which was a key factor in getting gnosticism a bad name! So I think you are arguing that the inappropriate behaviour of the Valentinians was not "gnosis". What seems historically very likely indeed is that there was arrogance by Valentinian followers. (Pagels, who is sympathetic to gnostic world views, confirms this. Her analysis does not come from an orthodox Christian POV).

You may be saying the same sorts of things that I am saying about charismatic renewal. I am saying that if anything proclaimed in its name is arrogant presumption, it is human error. You are saying that if anything is arrogant presumption, it clearly isn't gnosis. I guess, in common with DOD, we are all saying that arrogant presumption is unChristian! (Maybe this is progress?)

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hey!

I think we can claim a few more square inches of common ground. [Smile]

Arrogance is not a Christian value.

I don't know if the Valentinians were actually arrogant, or misunderstood/misperceived (wilfully or otherwise) or some fatal combination of the two. I respect Elaine Pagels' opinion on the matter, but I reserve agreement because I don't think she can say for certain any more than I can. The information available is too polarized and polemical for me to be able to conclude anything except that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, which is lost now.

Like I said earlier, we never got a chance to see how Christian gnosticism might have evolved into the present, so I disagree almost as much with Valentinus as I do with Paul, Augustine, Aquinas et al.

If you feel inclined to reject Valentinian gnosticism because you think it caused people to be arrogant and insensitive to the martyrs, that's as good a reason as me rejecting it because it promotes a dualism that doesn't make sense to me. Works for me. [Smile]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That's very good. I'm going to press a personal pause button here, probably for a day or two. Leaving some space for reflection, and certainly for others to comment. IME, discussions like this dont happen too often. Thanks very much indeed.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Um, I was suggesting that sidelining the ego (as distinguished from egomania) actually isn't very Christian at all. There is an absolutely proper self-regard (hence, 'love your neighbour as you love yourself).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Yes I know. I chose my words quite carefully. It was one of the things I want to reflect on. There is a difference between "death of ego" laguage and "dangers of pride" language, but often folks mean pretty much the same thing. Its Thomas a Kempis territory; the notion of inordinate self-love. Still reflecting, however ...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Given the turn in the thread, here is a link provided on a current Purg thread about the sense of eternity. It contains the following quote.

quote:
Religion is supposed to be about the loss of the ego, not about its eternal survival in optimum conditions.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

That's the mystery and paradox of gnosis.

Only by dismantling what one thinks is "self", does one find what is truly "Self".

FF

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

My short period of reflection provoke in me a question to contributors. What is your understanding of the place of community values and beliefs in the journey of faith? I think this question may help in exploring both gnosticism and the reaction it provoked - and still provokes - amongst orthodox Christians.

Posted by Mikethealtarboy (# 11317) on :

As an example of how "Christian Gnosticism might have evolved into the present", would it be unfair to look to the Christian Kabbalah? Although it's not a direct successor to early Christian gnosticisms, it's certainly a relative on the family tree. Being the preserve for a very long time of Judaism filters out a lot of what *I* found distastful in gnosticism - matter/spirit dualism, evil Jewish creator God, etc. But, given that Christianity is built on a Jewish foundation anyway, those early writers (Lull, della Mirandola) found it to fit well enough with Christianity too. And as the Christian Kabbalah developed further under the "Rosicrucians" and hermeticists, it seems to offer a gnostic path that is *alternative* to orthodox path - but not mutually exclusive.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Mikethealtarboy - belated welcome to the Ship.

You put your finger very well on what I also find obnoxious about gnosticism - its cosmology. Apparently, AFF has similar problems with its dualism. What I suppose puzzles me is the modern interest. Is it just because any validity in gnosticism supports the Imperial Orthodoxy thesis. Is it just because of Hag Hammadi? Or is it because there in something in the gnostic thinking which links into our present cultures and anxieties?

Basically, I saw the cosmology as its religious foundation, perceived that as flawed and fanciful and shelved the rest. Maybe there is something in your line. Would you like to go a bit further.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

I don't personally find the cosmology offensive, it's some gnostic schools' interpretations of the cosmology that I object to. Ditto for orthodox cosmology and interpretations.

The early orthodox church seemed incapable of avoiding the dualism of a "heaven/hell, reward/punishment, Christ/Satan" struggle. I think this is because of the physical circumstances of the world at the time (and which continue). The world contains what we experience as evil. How do you reconcile Christ's unifying message of "God loves eveyone so you must love everyone, including your enemies" with a daily experience that clearly includes evil?

By the same token, I think the early gnostics seemed incapable of concluding that the Architect of the Universe, (because he was a being conceived in confusion, darkness and pain), was capable of creating anything that didn't contain the taint of his origins. His products were necessarily imbued with his suffering and ignorance, and therefore his creation is inherently flawed and evil.

Something the early gnostics missed, which is abundantly apparent to me, is that the Ialdabaoth is just as much the child of the Ineffable Oneness of Being as his mother Sophia. The gnostic cosmology does not permit anything to exist apart or independent of the One. All grades of "being" have their being in yet another, higher form of being. All are sustained within the One, and are part of the Entirety.

It's this unity-of-being around which I organize my beliefs about reality.

I think it's also important to understand that gnosis isn't head-knowledge about the world, it's self-knowledge. The promise of gnosis is this: understand yourself, be intimately acquainted with your inmost heart, understand with your heart and not your mind, and you will understand/be at peace with the world.

I think this is a powerful attractor to the modern post-freudian mind. The intellect has limits, the heart has no boundaries. I think many people are ready to do some deep-water diving into a heart-based way of knowing. Eastern traditions all point to this kind of knowing, but we are discovering that the same thread of thought also flows like an undercurrent in our own tradition. Esoteric Christian traditions that speak in symbols (alchemy, hermetism, canon parables) provide one with signposts.

I personally could resonate intellectually with many of the eastern teachings, but they were sterile to me, because they lacked Christic imagery, fire, love and delight. I didn't want to experience the Buddha of compassion. I wanted to experience the passion for Christ. My unfulfilled love was for Christ, and I suspect many people feel the same way. I was so relieved what I found that the gnostic tradition perfectly marries a passionate and living love of Christ with the teachings of the east that feel so rational and pure.

FF

Posted by Mikethealtarboy (# 11317) on :

Barnabas, I don't know that I could go much further without being inadvertantly quite unclear. :-) But if your library has "A Garden of Pomegranates" by Israel Regardie, or "The Mystical Qabalah" by Dion Fortune, those would give you the basis of what I'm refering to.

(I'd point out too that eastern-like self-knowledge isn't *just* an undercurrent - it's in some rather mainstream texts! like "The Interior Castle" of St. Theresa of Avila.)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

The early orthodox church seemed incapable of avoiding the dualism of a "heaven/hell, reward/punishment, Christ/Satan" struggle. I think this is because of the physical circumstances of the world at the time (and which continue). The world contains what we experience as evil. How do you reconcile Christ's unifying message of "God loves eveyone so you must love everyone, including your enemies" with a daily experience that clearly includes evil?

I can very easily understand where this came from and I suppose it may contain some truth about the behaviour of some of those who counted themselves Orthodox. But I actually find something deeper in Orthodoxy (or at least, my protestant nonconformist "orthodox" take on it). And it may be, AFF, that the sort of refining of gnosticism that you have been thinking about (on your own or with others) brings you from a soemwhat different path to somewhere pretty close to me.

My understanding of Orthodox belief incorporates an understanding of the Kingdom of God, which is, and is not. (An aside - there is some argument about the differences of meaning in the use of "kingdom of heaven and "kingdom of God" and I don't want to go there). There is also the prophetic promise that God will be "all in all". And the picture that the role of the believing community is to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. A "bringer in".

What we see now is not the way things will be. We are called to a way of life where what we do now is to be harmonious with what will be. That way, the kingdom is brought into greater reality now. The "is not" of the kingdom moving towards the is. God is working His purpose out as year succeeds to year. And the Spirit of God helps us in this journey towards the promised wholeness, the "all in all"ness.

That does not seem to me to be dualism, rather it it the antidote to all dualisms. It is the acted out redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with us drawn by him into the community of the redeemed and the redeeming. It is not unmindful of the struggle, the pain of living in the "is and is not". But we have an inkling of the end-game. We are saved by a living hope. Our present practice and our future destiny is, essentially, to be and become the body of Christ. To see him more clearly, love him more dearly and follow him more nearly, day by day.

Eschatology is a controversial topic, of course. I think the above is orthodox (and Orthodox). It seems to me to harmonise with one of the most central messages from the four canonical gospels. I'd be interested how you and others see it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Quick PS. After today I'm off on family and friends visits for 12 days and will be resting from Ship discussions. The exploration has reached, for me at least, another very interesting place, so I'm looking forward to seeing what, if anything, happens while I'm away.

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :

quote:
(I'd point out too that eastern-like self-knowledge isn't *just* an undercurrent - it's in some rather mainstream texts! like "The Interior Castle" of St. Theresa of Avila.)

Which translation are you reading? I know of one, by Mirabai Starr, who didn't like Theresa's Catholic theology and replaced a lot of her Christian expressions by New-Agisms.

Posted by Mikethealtarboy (# 11317) on :

I don't know about that translation; mine is by E. Allison Peers, and seems fairly catholic. :-)

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

Hi Barnabas,

Posting in your absence. If I may, I'd like to comment on some of your thoughts.

quote:
What we see now is not the way things will be. We are called to a way of life where what we do now is to be harmonious with what will be. That way, the kingdom is brought into greater reality now. The "is not" of the kingdom moving towards the is.

Yes, from one perspective I can see how this is so.

I see it from another perspective where the IS NOT is contained in the IS. That is, what I perceive to be a "lack" or "imprefection" is already perfectly embodied and contained in the totality. From this POV, it's not a matter of "moving toward" anything, the perfection already IS. From this perspective it's a matter of "moving out of" a state of being into a state of being that already exists and encloses the present.

It's a spatial as opposed to a linear POV I think. Refers back to Plato.

quote:
God is working His purpose out as year succeeds to year. And the Spirit of God helps us in this journey towards the promised wholeness, the "all in all"ness.

Amen.

quote:
That does not seem to me to be dualism, rather it it the antidote to all dualisms. It is the acted out redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with us drawn by him into the community of the redeemed and the redeeming. It is not unmindful of the struggle, the pain of living in the "is and is not". But we have an inkling of the end-game. We are saved by a living hope. Our present practice and our future destiny is, essentially, to be and become the body of Christ. To see him more clearly, love him more dearly and follow him more nearly, day by day.

Yes.

quote:
Eschatology is a controversial topic, of course. I think the above is orthodox (and Orthodox). It seems to me to harmonise with one of the most central messages from the four canonical gospels. I'd be interested how you and others see it.

I think Tim LaHaye would be very surprised if he found himself in the "end" I have glimpsed. He'd be astonished to find out who he would be keeping company with. [Biased]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Thanks AFF, good value as always. I think I can quite happily live the rest of my life without wondering what will happen to Tim la Haye. Your time point was well made. I "get" that when considering the "is and is not" of the kingdom - but of course it is one of the limitations of language. Oddly enough, I'm actually very comfortable with no more than an "inkling" about the future. Personally, it helps me to live more actively in the present. But it takes all sorts. Even Tim-la-Haye-like all sorts.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0