Ask a Gnostic Anything

[ProdglArchitect]

The Church teaches that a Christian is defined as a baptized person, IIRC. I usually avoid defining terms with subjective judgments hidden in them, since they sound a lot like the No True Scotsman fallacy (that terrorist is not a real Christian, since a real Christian wouldn’t do that, even though he believes in C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” and goes the church every week ). Moreover, if we define Christian as someone who follows the commands of Christ completely, then basically only Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and St John the Baptist are Christians!

I think a good, objective definition of a Christian is “one who is baptized in the name of the Trinity and who believes in the Creed with the Two Great Commandments”.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

A Christian is one who acknowledges the divinity of Christ. This distinction is why the Church doesn’t consider Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses to be Christian. Based on what the OP has said, they do not acknowledge the divinity of Christ (that he is the son of God). Therefore he cannot legitimately be classified as a Christian.

 

[Lucretius]

Perhaps one way to attempt to describe this is the observation that the Western spiritual mind, in general, seems to seek external validation, while the Eastern spiritual mind eschews the other and elevates solely the experiences of the individual. To Eastern spirituality, then, Western spirituality is missing the point in looking at others to validate the self; but to the Western, the Eastern fails to be able to validate his experience objectively and therefore, opens himself up to all sorts of misconstrued personal experience.

This is probably why modern science developed in the Christian (gasp! ) West, as opposed to the Asian east. Because of the way the East views the world, they didn’t even have an Aristotle. If the world is an illusion (or the material world is evil) that needs to be overcome, why study the illusion, the unreal? If only the spiritual is real (or good), then we should strive to mediate on the self (or non-self) as much as possible, as opposed to mediate on the things outside one’s self. If contradictory ideas can be both true, then the scientific method is useless.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is probably why modern science developed in the Christian (gasp! ) West, as opposed to the Asian east. Because of the way the East views the world, they didn’t even have an Aristotle. If the world is an illusion (or the material world is evil) that needs to be overcome, why study the illusion, the unreal? If only the spiritual is real (or good), then we should strive to mediate on the self (or non-self) as much as possible, as opposed to mediate on the things outside one’s self. If contradictory ideas can be both true, then the scientific method is useless.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

The east used Aristotle extensively as there was one Church.

 

[joe371]

There are two words in your post which are very important. The first is intuition which is the foundation of Gnostic experience.

The second is IMO-I find the experience of intuitive Gnosis to be far more profound than that of the Eucharist (and I was raised in the Catholic Church btw) but if you experience more directly via the Host, then who am I to say you are wrong?

Gnosis which I believe means - esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth - seems rather limited to the few as opposed to the many; is that a fair assessment?

I agree with you that anything, including gnosis, would be far more profound than that of the Eucharist if the Eucharist is nothing more than bread and wine, (and that is all it would be if you are right and Jesus is not God) i.e. the holy Trinity is not the true God. Of course, what you and I believe/embrace as truth, cannot be proven so it’s safe to say that you and I, although we have polar opposite beliefs regarding God, see through the eyes of faith only?

 

[Lucretius]

A Christian is one who acknowledges the divinity of Christ. This distinction is why the Church doesn’t consider Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses to be Christian. Based on what the OP has said, they do not acknowledge the divinity of Christ (that he is the son of God). Therefore he cannot legitimately be classified as a Christian.

I’m not an expert on Mormonism, but I believe they DO believe in the divinity of Christ. But it is a pagan divinity: Jesus is just one of many “spiritual children” the Father created. In Mormonism, we all are equal spiritual children of the Father (“we become by nature what God is by Nature”, as opposed to the orthodox “we become by participation what God is by Nature”). Mormons are not Christians because they believe in “Baptism for the Dead” and teach that the Trinity is really tri-theism (instead of believing “the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, they believe something like “the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”). So they are not Christian because their Baptisms are invalid.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are Arians, so they won’t Baptize in the Name of the Trinity, and so can’t be Christian as well.

To Baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to acknowledge the divinity of Christ (and the Holy Spirit!).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[joe371]

It’s just when I think of perpetual harmony, I think of something similar to heaven. And I can’t wrap my head around not understanding God while in heaven. Granted, here on earth, he’s quite mysterious.

Actually I don’t find the sorrowful mysteries to be harmonious. I’m a convert and the first time I prayed the sorrowful mysteries, I had an awful dream about our Lord’s passion. And in the dream, our lady was standing over me watching me sleep while dreaming the awful dream. As I type this it sounds rather confusing, but I guess dreams are. Anyway, I refused to pray the sorrowful mysteries for a while.

I get it; I too have had some pretty enthralling, lucid and surreal dreams that stay with you for awhile. :hypno:

 

[Lucretius]

The east used Aristotle extensively as there was one Church.

Do you mean the Eastern Christians (Greek, Coptic, etc.) ? I used “east” to refer to the Eastern Asians (Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc.). Science probably didn’t develop fully in the Byzantine Empire because they were too focused on resisting the Muslims.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[GaryTaylor]

Do you mean the Eastern Christians (Greek, Coptic, etc.) ? I used “east” to refer to the Eastern Asians (Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc.). Science probably didn’t develop fully in the Byzantine Empire because they were too focused on resisting the Muslims.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTheoria&ei=T4qtVKyCDMerggTKrIGgAw&usg=AFQjCNE6JYRwFuJIV0gWjTxSrPIgVO_O9g

I don’t see a difference sorry.

observation that the Western spiritual mind, in general, seems to seek external validation, while the Eastern spiritual mind eschews the other and elevates solely the experiences of the individual.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’m not an expert on Mormonism, but I believe they DO believe in the divinity of Christ. But it is a pagan divinity: Jesus is just one of many “spiritual children” the Father created. In Mormonism, we all are equal spiritual children of the Father (“we become by nature what God is by Nature”, as opposed to the orthodox “we become by participation what God is by Nature”). Mormons are not Christians because they believe in “Baptism for the Dead” and teach that the Trinity is really tri-theism (instead of believing “the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, they believe something like “the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”). So they are not Christian because their Baptisms are invalid.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are Arians, so they won’t Baptize in the Name of the Trinity, and so can’t be Christian as well.

To Baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to acknowledge the divinity of Christ (and the Holy Spirit!).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I believe you are correct in this, but one necessity of a valid baptism is the acknowledgment that Christ is the son of God. Since the OP’s believe structure denies this reality, they couldn’t really be considered Christian. They may be validly baptized, and are Christian in that regard, but their belief system is wholly un-Christian.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Once again, you are allowing your personal interpretations and assumptions about “how things should be” govern your conclusions about God. Just because you cannot see a purpose doesn’t mean that it has no purpose.

I never said I know how things should be-just that they shouldnt be the way they are

 

[Sophia_Christ]

You’ve yet to demonstrate any rational for your disagreement beyond you personal opinions, whereas I and others have demonstrated how your assertions about Christ are based on flawed interpretation of scriptures, or worse, on completely ignoring the scriptures. Unless you refute these assertions with something more than your opinion, your claims will remain matters of opinion, which is not a good basis for a belief structure. As for your claim that it is a simple minded argument, again, I point out that you are the one basing your claims on personal interpretation and opinions, rather than on scholarly effort and evidence in the scripture. You attach meanings that are foreign to the text, and base your life view on what you -think- it should be like, rather than the reality that God has created. If either of us is expressing a simple-minded fantasy, it is you.

Do a bit of research on Valentinian Gnosticism and Carl Jung and you will see that I am not alone in my belief. I am not just pulling this stuff out of thin air.

Gnosticism is based on personal, intuitive revelation. But that does not mean that it is not fruitful to have my beliefs backed up by some school of thought-it just means that I am not bound by any sort of dogma.

Alot of people on this forum have disagreed with me-but none have gone so far as to call my ideology a fantasy. Perhaps it is you that is the one in the fantasy world.

 

[Lucretius]

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTheoria&ei=T4qtVKyCDMerggTKrIGgAw&usg=AFQjCNE6JYRwFuJIV0gWjTxSrPIgVO_O9g

I don’t see a difference sorry.

Is theoria the Byzantine understanding of what the Romans call “Beatific Vision”?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Sure, but you continue to dodge the question. To be fair, your answers have given us a whiff of what your perspective is; could I summarize it in this way? “External forces are not necessary to validate one’s religious convictions; only personal experience gives rise to what validates a person’s religious belief.”

Does that about sum it up, or am I misunderstanding your perspective?

The misunderstanding arises on one point-I do not see external validation as a bad thing and in a certain sense it can be very helpful to make sense of one’s experience. But I do believe that it is subordinate to personal experience and it is negative when one is dependent upon it to describe their spiritual experience.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Thank you, KjetilK!

Wisdom Christ,
For all your years of study - three on Christianity, one year Judaism, one year Islam and three more years on Gnostic, etc. **how do you fool yourself into thinking you’re any kind of Christian? **

There IS Truth. The Incarnation is REAL. You’re not any kind of Christian.

Haha my goodness! Some of you are very caught up in labels and identification! My justification for calling myself a Christian is that I follow the Gnostic Gospels and strive to realize Christ in this way. You may disagree on this definition and that’s fine! Call me a purple elephant for all I care-We will simply agree to disagree. Let’s move on from this point shall we?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Is theoria the Byzantine understanding of what the Romans call “Beatific Vision”?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

No, its here, mystical revelation of the living God. It would be opposed to awareness of evil which exists in man’s attachment to the world through the senses, the intellect, and the spirit. Its seeing through the spiritual eye not a push of head work rooted in logic.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

I was rather intrigued by Gnosticsm many years ago and still find some Gnostic and Jungian thought insightful. However, the saints of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and particularly the hesychastic writings of eastern Christianity, drew me ultimately to traditional Christian orthodoxy. One thing that I personally found lacking in Gnostic thought is humility, which is among the greatest of virtues and essential to theosis. Also, I think the material world, while not without its flaws and a good deal of dangers, is beautiful, magnificent, and awesome!

Interesting Stavros, I personally find that humility is a salient theme in Gnosticism because of the emphasis to transcend the ego which is the source of pride.

Also, I am not denying that there is apparent beauty, magnificence, and awesomeness in the material world. Just that it is not perfect. If you recall in a previous post, I stated that the creator was half divine and half material. The beauty in the world can be credited to the divine and the ugliness to the material.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Sophia who was part divine and part human, was sent by God to change society.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.kenyon.edu%2FDepts%2FReligion%2FProjects%2FReln91%2FGender%2FGnosticism.htm&ei=71StVLz6DomigwT86IDAAQ&usg=AFQjCNHXzyoY8NgcJTssy9js78egmSKeAQ

Sophia Christ welcome to the forum. Is that where “Sophia” comes from?

Interesting article and that is the interpretation by some Gnostic schools. However, Valentinian Gnostics do not believe the God of the Old Testament to be ‘evil,’ just flawed, ignorant, and egotistical. These do not make one evil in my opinion just misguided.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I never said I know how things should be-just that they shouldnt be the way they are

And from where do you gain this omniscient knowledge?

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Thanks, so the creator that you believe in (maker of all things visible and invisible) is imperfect, hence why man too is imperfect and the universe?

Are your practises to do with the false self and the true self?

Your welcome simpleas! Your post on our belief on imperfection is right on point. And yes to your question about the false and true self. It is very Jungian in nature.

As I stated in a previous post, in the Gnostic creation myth, God represents the true self, Jehovah represents the ego (or false self; material nature), and Sophia represents our creative energy which can be used either to create a false reality for ourselves or be united with God. It is the responsibility of man to transcend the ego (or material nature) and bring ourselves closer to the true self (true god). It is all analogous to the workings of the psyche.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

And from where do you gain this omniscient knowledge?

Its not really omniscient or a profound revelation. I just see flaws in world with genocide, pedophilia, starvation, etc.

But i suppose this is all part of God’s plan which humans just can’t comprehend right? That explanation just doesn’t do it for me, sorry.