The gnosticism thread

[VicarJoe]

Someone wanted one started.

So my opening gambit: I could never be a gnostic, because I'm not a fan of hidden, secret or esoteric knowledge. I like my truths to be accessible and universal.

[cradlerc]

because I have a secret love of the idea of esoteric secret knowledge. Seriously. I think it accounts for the appeal of the Harry Potter books to people like myself, or Madeleine L'Engle's books--no one else kows what the Murrays know.

And just FYI, I wasn't making fun of gnosticism but comparing it to Harry Potter--I meant that Harry finds out he's special and different, and learns all the secrets of magic. This was the initial appeal of gnosticism to me when I first looked into it.

[VicarJoe]

There was a point, maybe fifteen years ago, where I had what for me was an epiphany about this facet of our culture. It was when see-through watches were all the rage, and shows like "Inside Edition" promised they could take you inside where you'd get the real story, etc., and everywhere I looked, I was being sold the idea that there was what everyone else saw and knew, but I could go behind the scenes, see what was really happening behind closed doors, and that THAT was the only truth worth knowing. It was around the same time as "The Player" and a bunch of movies about making movies, and of course post-modernism was all the rage, and you could read book after book where the story was about writing the story itself. It was like the whole culture had decided that anything that had a surface had to be delved. Now I see it's become fashionable to put glass doors on clothes dryers, and people pay extra for the esoteric knowledge of the delicate cycle.

Does this post sound crazy? I may have to edit it later.

[stihl]

Ok, I have not finished reading my beginners guide to philosophy so, be gentle.

It seems to me what defines Truth is something that is "always" the case. This is different from a "true statement".

An example; gravity. Gravity exsists. That is a true statement but, gravity is not a "Truth". Because gravity is not "always the case".

Morality is a "Truth" because it is always the case. Whether one is on Earth or on the Moon, it is wrong to kill a human being without justification.

The thing is, I believe I have found a Truths regarding morality, God's nature and His relationship with us. This has led me back to the Catholic Church. Although the Catholic Doctrine also believes in these "Truths", it did not lead me to them.

This is different from what Human expresses, that his religon serves to LEAD him to Truth while, Truth has lead me to my religon.

Did that make sense to anyone. and no, I haven't been drinking.

[VicarJoe]

One of the more dismissive comments on the other forum was that we just believe what we do because our "masters" tell us to. We are "owned." We are "sheep." Etc.

This kind of attack never stung me, because my experience was just like yours. I followed a line of truth-seeking that led me into the faith. The faith doesn't tell me what's true. What's true told me that I could have faith.

It's exactly the opposite of what the militant atheists want to believe about us, and in fact, no matter how many times you tell them that they've got the order reversed, they can't admit that possibility. So, somehow, I converted to Catholicism and my masters told me that traditional sexual morality was better than the modern free-for-all, and those who own me told me to be against abortion (against all reason), etc. It could NEVER be possible that I discovered certain truths and then traced them back to the speaker, the church, whom I only then decided I could trust.

[stihl]

...about the atheist having it backward. Well, if they were to take an honest look at the path that led us to out Faith, it would take away their chain of reasoning that goes like this....." There should be guilt free abortions therefore, there is no God."

[BelievHUman]

to remember is the Gnostic, Esoteric, Mystic whatever one calls them, it is no longer a 'hidden' teaching.

That started to go away with the Enlightenment.

The Teachings have been in 'hiding' only so long as those who study it have been subject to persecution.
Since that is no longer an issue today, the teachings are out. One only has to look.
I can post links all day to practicing Gnostics in some form or another.

As for me, I don't agree with all forms but the general understanding is The Christ inhabited the body of Jesus,
as he has with a number of other entities, Krishna, Buddha etc. The crucifixion was to show that We are Spiritual
Beings of the same form as Christ, only lacking in awareness of our Relationship with God.

There is obviously more to the story but this should be good for discussion.

[AustenFan]

of this thread, but Yes, Gnosticism has been around a long time as has the idea "which is now out in the open" that there is a "Christ Consciousness" (There is even a book by that title and there are scads of books about this subject).

I could never be a Gnostic because (for one) I believe that Christ was God incarnate, not that there was some kind of being that also lived in Buddha and Krishna as well as Christ. That, to me, takes away the uniqueness of Christ and gets into the whole "enlightened teacher" mode of Universalism/ Unitarianism way of viewing Jesus. On the other hand, the Episcopal Church is considering elevating to Bishop a man who believes just that-that there is nothing unique about Christ, but that we are all "only begotten children of God" and who rejects the divinity of Christ, so obviously this idea is floating around in church circles too.

What does that mean, "I don't agree with all the forms?" What's an example of a form you don't agree with?

[AustenFan]

not how I few the crucifixion either. I'm obviously not a candidate for being a Gnostic.

[AustenFan]

Meant "view" not "few".

[stihl]

...this thread shows the value of this forum. The indepth discussion of religon without the rancor.

Human, I did not know that about Gnostism, that Christ inhabited the body of Jesus (and Buddah, ect.). I had read a fictional book called "Instance of the Finger Post" in which one of the characters (a girl) exhibited Christ-like characteristics. The story put forth the premise that once every generation Christ appears in a different form. I thought these was a novel idea, apparently not.

I appreciate Austen's post because it contrasts the beliefs of gnostism and orthodoxy. The gnostic belief does have implications for how we view God's nature and the nature of Christ. More specifically, the uniquness of Christ. If Christ is a spirit that occasionally occupies various human beings, then Jesus would be no more than a prophet and there was no sacrifice and suffering. If there is no sacrifice and suffering, then that changes our relationship with God.

Maybe I shouldn't include suffering because, Jesus would still have sufffered but, the idea of a sacrifice would still be impreiled.

[VicarJoe]

it's not actually historical to claim that gnosticism became esoteric and secretive because it was persecuted. Quite the contrary, it always based its appeal on "secret society" kinds of rewards, including the idea that gnostics went to a better neighborhood in Heaven.

[stihl]

has been around before Christ. The Egyptians held a belief in a "god making" making ceremony where the pharohs were made into gods. National Geographic did a feature on the system of belief.

A book written by two Mason's claimed a liniage of Masonic beliefs back to the acient Egyptians and with that, the knowledge of how to make one a god. They had a tie-in with Christ having the secret knowledge along with the Gnostic texts.

What I find interesting is the question, what happened to the other apsoltatles? We (Christians) are tied into to the aposatle missoins to the North and Northwest of Isreal. I believe the aposatle missions to the south of Isreal came up with a variant of Christianity by virtue of what it mixed with, namely the Egyptian tradition of gnotisim.

Consider how the Hellinistict thought process influenced what would be the dominant form of Christianity. this may be Nero (not Robert)

[Sponsored content]