Ask a Gnostic Anything

[curtish1947]

The real you is God Himself… The Divine Spark within you isn’t separate from other Divine Sparks. In the Gnostic worldview, we are all the One God have a human experience – when you look at the face of someone else, you are looking upon the face of God. But when we’re incarnated, we tend to forget that fact, and imagine that we are all separate individuals. The goal of the Gnostic is to help that spark remember its divine origin, so that it can be saved. Of course we still have to live in the world, but the key is to not be *of *the world. Even with Gnosis, you still have to continue to live in the world until your body dies, but, as Jesus said, we should “be passers-by” and not be attached to the physical.

In the Gnostic mythos, God the Father is not the false god who made us. God the Father is the Father of the alone-begotten Son, Christ, who was sent to earth to repair the error of the world. The demiurge, the false god, along with his archons, fashioned the physical universe and everything in it. Creation was never “bad”, it was just imperfect – which has led to evil existing, sin, sickness, etc. Despite being imperfect, though, Gnostics still recognize beauty and goodness in the world – it’s just not as perfect as the eternal Fullness of God from which we all come.

The Gnostic creation myth is pretty complex and hard to summarize in a brief post… A better idea might be to look up either The Apocryphon of John or The Hypostasis of the Archons to get the full story. The Apocryphon describes the Father and the emanations of the Aeons, as well as the emanation of the demiurge, creation of the world, and the story of Adam, Eve, and the serpent; the Hypostasis focuses more on just the demiurge and archons, and the Adam and Eve story.

Wow!
Hi again,
This is long. Let me just work on just a part of this now.

1. I always took your definition of the “Divine Spark” as SophiaChrist descrided it, as God, therefore God Himself to use your words.
   1.1 Is all of God residing in each person?
   1.2 Is the God in each of you different in any way shape or form?
2. Is the Father the only True God, who is in each of us, in the Gnostic World view?
   2.1 Is the son of this Father, the one your religion says is Jesus The Christ?
3. Saved from what?
   3.1 Troture?
   3.2 Ceasing to exist?
   3.3 From an endless return to the material universe?
   3.4 From what?
4. This face of God on everyone.
   4.1 Is it literally the way God looks?
5. Gnosis as an idea in Christianity is clear. I am that. The other I am, some of the time. FYI. Again though mine differs from yours. Mine is to an external God from me. Yours is to the internal God in each of us. I do have some experience with something similar, to your idea of The God in each of us. That differs also. Lets go on.
6. SophiaChrist had some errors if you are right about the creator of the universe. That wa orignally listed as created by a creation of Wisdom who is a creation (if you will allow) of God the true God. (Not sure yet if that is God The Father or not, yet from you.) SophiaChrist I am totaly fine with errors as long as no one needs the errors to continue. You do not seem to need that nor want that, as you have been gone for awhile. So please come back with or without some errors on your part. You gave me much on your religion so far. This post would not be here, had you not started this. I would not be here. I still have my request in for both of you, to give Christianity another try, but will continue on, honoring the orginial intent of SophiaChrist, of I am Gnostic. Ask me Anything.
7. Is God The Father the one true God, who is in everyone according to Gnosticism?

Sorry if I am redundant. This your religion is fairly complex to me.

 

[curtish1947]

I decided to look up some of your words, amazingly I found that your religion or language used is Philosophical. It may be both. Meaning it is a school of Philosophy. Meaning, it is just thoughts in the minds of men, of what could be true.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

In the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, the demiurge (/ˈdɛmiˌɜrdʒ/) is an artisan-like figure responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the physical universe. The term was subsequently adopted by the Gnostics. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as the creator figure in the familiar monotheistic sense, because both the demiurge itself plus the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are considered either uncreated and eternal, or the product of some other being, depending on the system.

On the contrary, none of the Bible that I know of deals with what could be true, thought wise. And scientifically it seems easy to prove wrong, but I haven’t been able to. I know also of no other scientist like me, who has ever proven that book wrong either. I looked as that is a normal part of any scientists work.

When I did that work, my work with that, none of the Bible was normal human thought to me. There was nothing there to suspect it was anything but clever stories and words that might be true, or they might be fiction. Yet, when tested, every statement made by God, that I understood, was true by a test.
So, finding that I knew the Bible. It talks about God. I then knew He was real. What I did not know was in there was a phrase that ended with, I will reveal myself. That happened also, and then my knowledge of God was and is impossible to budge, because I have fact, not philosophy and not opinion, plus I did the work myself, over a period of ten years or so.
I wonder if you would care to look into the above references. Sure you guys may have something the Catholic Church does not, from a mystical point of view and I am one of those.
However, I do not know why I am mytical. Also I stick totally to the restrictions Biblically that are there concerning that. I do not ask for things that have nothing to do with God, nor do I ever ask until there is no other option and it is important for me or someone else.
Please try and take this as anything you want, except for a criticism of any kind against you. It is not and it cannot be that, as that prohibition is in my set of rules. I can tell you what I found, I can tell you my experiences, I can even plead as I have done, but I cannot make you angry on pupose.
…Curt/K.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

And how many bodies does Christ have?

He has one, but there are many expressions… That’s what 2000 years does! Heck, I love studying world religions, and seeing what happened to the Baha’i faith within a couple of centuries has shown me how quickly and easily Christianity could have diverged early on, in a similar fashion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The real you is God Himself… The Divine Spark

Creation was never “bad”, it was just imperfect -

So how do all these interrelated souls of which we are all in this together and responsible for each other, bad or just imperfect, be the real God, the divine spark? Where is this universal never that bad but imperfect morality of reality of which we are all the Divine Spark? How bad is bad and imperfect? Personally I think bad may be daily constant fear, fallen nature bad, sin, evil and the entire convoy of chaos. Not to blow it out of proportion, but I don’t see the two connected.

 

[clem456]

On an eternal scale, physical existence is just a little blip in the grand scheme of things, so that does make the flesh pretty irrelevant. But while we live on earth, knowing that we’re all of the same divine origin, we have an obligation to care for those in need – if you can’t see Christ in your neighbor and extend your hand to help them, how could you possibly see Christ in yourself? We’re all going through a similar experience, and have to make the best of our situation – which would include helping others ahead of oneself.

The Gospel of Thomas says, “The Kingdom [of heaven] is spread out upon the earth, but men don’t see it.” If this is true, how can we help but to act like it?

So, call me confused.
First you say the flesh* is *irrelevant, but then you say we have an obligation to care for the physical and spiritual welfare of others.
Can you clear the fog a little?
Why would anyone have an obligation for the needs of others if our physical existence is meaningless?

 

[GaryTaylor]

So the poor, needy, illiterate of society who are not that bad, what becomes of them? How do they reach the divine God of the self? They get to come back reincarnated? Would that be human or does that depend of the behavioral part? What if they are merely sick? What becomes of all these souls?

 

[Lucretius]

So the poor, needy, illiterate of society who are not that bad, what becomes of them? How do they reach the divine God of the self? They get to come back reincarnated? Would that be human or does that depend of the behavioral part? What if they are merely sick? What becomes of all these souls?

That’s why I think Gnosticism has a tendency to become elitist. They tend to be secretive with their gnosis, Sometimes one would have to learn the “secret code” of some texts. (I’m NOT trying to insult all Gnostics, since many are quite nice: like Sophia Christ and gnosisofthomas ) On the other hand, the early Christians would actively preach their knowledge, giving it to any who would listen (St. Justin wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor explaining everything from the Incarnation and the New Law all the way to the Mass (which was somewhat secretive at the time)). These men and women were often killed as a result (St. Justin is called the Martyr for a reason ).

Also, remember, the idea of reincarnation in some Gnostic systems is different the Hindu-Buddhist conception.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s why I think Gnosticism has a tendency to become elitist. They tend to be secretive with their gnosis, Sometimes one would have to learn the “secret code” of some texts. (I’m NOT trying to insult all Gnostics, since many are quite nice: like Sophia Christ and gnosisofthomas ) On the other hand, the early Christians would actively preach their knowledge, giving it to any who would listen (St. Justin wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor explaining everything from the Incarnation and the New Law all the way to the Mass (which was somewhat secretive at the time)). These men and women were often killed as a result (St. Justin is called the Martyr for a reason ).

Also, remember, the idea of reincarnation in some Gnostic systems is different the Hindu-Buddhist conception.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Agreed, hard to imagine how this equates to salvation for the many from a secret society. I guess the majority are headed for the repose, the ignorant, not so bad, illiterate, afflicted, poor, needy and your basic innocents. But since there is no hell I suppose its easy to marginalize them in the overall plan of salvation, and pity them in reality. I don’t see that as the inner connected reality of “us” all being in this together. How are we to see ourselves in them on such a path? I guess you can pray for them that they are better equipped and programmed for the next go around.

The secret knowledge can’t be freely transmitted but to a elite few.

 

[stavros388]

On an eternal scale, physical existence is just a little blip in the grand scheme of things, so that does make the flesh pretty irrelevant. But while we live on earth, knowing that we’re all of the same divine origin, we have an obligation to care for those in need – if you can’t see Christ in your neighbor and extend your hand to help them, how could you possibly see Christ in yourself? We’re all going through a similar experience, and have to make the best of our situation – which would include helping others ahead of oneself.

The Gospel of Thomas says, “The Kingdom [of heaven] is spread out upon the earth, but men don’t see it.” If this is true, how can we help but to act like it?

While I commend the attitude presented here - praise be to God! - I think it is colored by personal perspective and not representative of a Gnostic perspective at large. I used to listen to hours and hours of Stephan A. Hoeller’s lectures on Gnosticism and a remember him closing a lecture once by saying (to paraphrase) we can see the world going to ****, but we can’t be bothered with it. It is not our problem. I don’t recall reading anything about feeding the poor or looking after one’s neighbour in my studies of Gnosticism, but it’s refreshing to see that not everyone who calls himself Gnostic fails to have a sense of responsibility to his fellow man!

 

[Denise1957]

While I commend the attitude presented here - praise be to God! - I think it is colored by personal perspective and not representative of a Gnostic perspective at large. I used to listen to hours and hours of Stephan A. Hoeller’s lectures on Gnosticism and a remember him closing a lecture once by saying (to paraphrase) we can see the world going to ****, but we can’t be bothered with it. It is not our problem. I don’t recall reading anything about feeding the poor or looking after one’s neighbour in my studies of Gnosticism, but it’s refreshing to see that not everyone who calls himself Gnostic fails to have a sense of responsibility to his fellow man!

It is indeed refreshing to see that a gnostic believes that we have a responsibility to our fellow men. IMO, the gnostic view that flesh is irrelevant, well, this view goes against human nature, in that we are in this world, and must live in it. We all have parents, whom we care about (most of us do,anyway), and those who are married and have children are also attached to them, and love them. I would think that gnostics must struggle with being detached from the world and family members, but still in reality being attached to them by love and a familial bond. How do they reconcile the two? It must be a difficult thing to do.

Jesus talked about love, and how the two most important things of the law are firstly love of God, and the second is love of neighbor. How would gnostics view this command of Jesus? Or do they think that He didn’t really say this?

 

[meltzerboy]

It is indeed refreshing to see that a gnostic believes that we have a responsibility to our fellow men. IMO, the gnostic view that flesh is irrelevant, well, this view goes against human nature, in that we are in this world, and must live in it. We all have parents, whom we care about (most of us do,anyway), and those who are married and have children are also attached to them, and love them. I would think that gnostics must struggle with being detached from the world and family members, but still in reality being attached to them by love and a familial bond. How do they reconcile the two? It must be a difficult thing to do.

Jesus talked about love, and how the two most important things of the law are firstly love of God, and the second is love of neighbor. How would gnostics view this command of Jesus? Or do they think that He didn’t really say this?

This idea of detachment from the world and from others whom we nonetheless love is reminiscent of Buddhism. I wonder whether there is any further connection between the two beliefs?

 

[Randy_Carson]

He has one, but there are many expressions… That’s what 2000 years does!

Yes, Jesus only has one body, and that one body of Christ began referring to itself as the Catholic Church by the end of the first century.

Many others have chosen to separate themselves to varying degrees from that Church, but after 2,000 years that Church is still here, it is still one, and it is the largest of all “expressions” because in it are found the fullness of what the others are expressing imperfectly.

 

[Denise1957]

This idea of detachment from the world and from others whom we nonetheless love is reminiscent of Buddhism. I wonder whether there is any further connection between the two beliefs?

A very good question!

 

[OmegaPoint]

If you say that truth can be reveal in different ways, then in a certain way, you’re correct. I can say, in one form: “the sky is blue”, but I can also say, in another form: “caelus est caerulus” (that’s a strange sentence, I suppose: I haven’t written Latin in years ): or in another form “der Himmel ist blau”. These are different ways to experience Truth. However, one cannot say that “the sky is blue” and “el cielo es de color naranja” are both true at noon.

In the same way, we can’t say the Christianity and Islam are both true; one teaches that Jesus is divine, and the other denies it. One is wrong (in this instant). End of story. Despite the good intentions of some, one cannot get around the law of non-contradiction.

Moreover, we can also say, as Catholics, that although the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Latin Ordinary Liturgy are quite different, they are both individual participations in the same event, specifically the Sacrifice on the Cross, the Last Supper, the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, etc. A Thomist would say they are essentially the same, but differ in their accidents

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I think this is a limited and somewhat narrow definition of truth. I agree that both religions can not each be right to the claim that they are exclusively “true”, however they both can be “true” in the sense that they point their worshippers towards ultimate truth and contain “truth”. Religion is not a Geometry equation that can be “proved” true by certain proofs. It is based upon faith and faith is a personal decision that at some point simply can not be based upon “Evidence.”
Similarly I find Religion to be more akin to Love. We both can agree that Love exist, we both can experience Love, but our definitions of Love and our experience and understanding of Love might be radically different. That does not mean that your experience of love is any less than or greater than, or more “True” than my experience of Love.

 

[OmegaPoint]

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 I am sorry if you have answered this already, I have not read through all 24 pages yet, but I too am curious how you or Gnostics are supposed to interpret and validate your “spriitual” experiences or Gnosis.

First off I want to clear up some misconceptions that keep being expressed on this forum regarding Eastern meditational practices. It is an absolute fallacy to claim that all spiritual experiences are considered of equal worth and equally valid in Eastern Spiritual practices. I have no idea where this idea comes from, but anyone who espouses it is clearly just basing such statements on hearsay and not from any personal familiarity, either through practice or just academic study. In most Eastern Disciplines one must find an appropriate School of teaching, possibly Theraveda, Zen, Tibetan, Vedanta, Sufi, etc… under a experienced and realized meditation/spiritual teacher. This is somewhat similar to the spiritual director in the Catholic tradition. The teacher is supposed to guide the student in their meditational practices and as the student becomes more advanced they will pass certain “objective” guidepost that earlier instructors have passed before and the teacher can explain to the student what these experiences mean and how to move past them. In Eastern practices one is taught to not be caught up or become attached to one’s spiritual experiences as they are not ultimate truth, and they seek to continue transcending experiences until they reach the final point of what they perceive to be ultimate truth. It is disrespectful and shows a lack of knowledge to imply that all Eastern Teachings rely on purely “subjective” experiences. These experiences are definitely “objective” criteria by which one’s spiritual progress can be assessed and measured.

So after that rant, Sophia I was wondering how Gnostics handle this as Buddhism, Sufism and Vedanta all have a long history of practices and tradition by which a person can utilize on their spiritual journey under an experienced spiritual master, but Gnosticism does not seem to have this structure in place since it was decimated by persecution. How does one go about seeking guidance in Gnosticism, do you have “masters” like the Eastern traditions or is it mostly an individualized pursuit? Thank you.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

That’s why I think Gnosticism has a tendency to become elitist. They tend to be secretive with their gnosis, Sometimes one would have to learn the “secret code” of some texts. (I’m NOT trying to insult all Gnostics, since many are quite nice: like Sophia Christ and gnosisofthomas ) On the other hand, the early Christians would actively preach their knowledge, giving it to any who would listen (St. Justin wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor explaining everything from the Incarnation and the New Law all the way to the Mass (which was somewhat secretive at the time)). These men and women were often killed as a result (St. Justin is called the Martyr for a reason ).

Also, remember, the idea of reincarnation in some Gnostic systems is different the Hindu-Buddhist conception.

I think there might be a misunderstanding here… Gnosis isn’t book knowledge, and Gnostics don’t rely on scripture as the source of knowledge. Gnosis is knowledge gained from experience, and is available to anyone who strives for it – being poor or sick or illiterate wouldn’t be an impediment to Gnosis anymore than these things would be an impediment for Catholics.

Keep in mind too that there were teachings publicly available to attract converts to Christianity, and then there were also teachings given to the initiated baptised Christians. This was common during the time Christians were persecuted, and is even still reflected a bit in the modern liturgies of the West and the East – for example, the dismissal of the catechumens before the Liturgy of the Eucharist at Mass, and the closing of the doors in the Eastern Divine Liturgy. So even keeping a teaching or sacrament “secret” isn’t so much about being elitist, it’s about revealing certain things to those who are ready to receive them. And the “secret” nature of Gnosis isn’t to keep it to oneself, it’s secret because the experience can’t easily be explained to someone who hasn’t yet experienced it.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

So, call me confused.
First you say the flesh* is *irrelevant, but then you say we have an obligation to care for the physical and spiritual welfare of others.
Can you clear the fog a little?
Why would anyone have an obligation for the needs of others if our physical existence is meaningless?

The flesh isn’t the real you, that’s all I was getting at. But we still have to operate in these bodies, so we can’t completely ignore them. I was just getting at the idea that we can (and should) be in the world, but not of it. I hope that makes more sense.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

While I commend the attitude presented here - praise be to God! - I think it is colored by personal perspective and not representative of a Gnostic perspective at large. I used to listen to hours and hours of Stephan A. Hoeller’s lectures on Gnosticism and a remember him closing a lecture once by saying (to paraphrase) we can see the world going to ****, but we can’t be bothered with it. It is not our problem. I don’t recall reading anything about feeding the poor or looking after one’s neighbour in my studies of Gnosticism, but it’s refreshing to see that not everyone who calls himself Gnostic fails to have a sense of responsibility to his fellow man!

+Stephan’s my bishop, and while I’ve listened to many of his lectures, I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to… I’ve heard him many times express how frustrating it is to watch the horrible things that happen in the world, while not being able to do anything about it. The best we can do when these things happen is to remember that all this is just temporary. I’m guessing that’s probably what he was getting at…?

 

[gnosisofthomas]

It is indeed refreshing to see that a gnostic believes that we have a responsibility to our fellow men. IMO, the gnostic view that flesh is irrelevant, well, this view goes against human nature, in that we are in this world, and must live in it. We all have parents, whom we care about (most of us do,anyway), and those who are married and have children are also attached to them, and love them. I would think that gnostics must struggle with being detached from the world and family members, but still in reality being attached to them by love and a familial bond. How do they reconcile the two? It must be a difficult thing to do.

Jesus talked about love, and how the two most important things of the law are firstly love of God, and the second is love of neighbor. How would gnostics view this command of Jesus? Or do they think that He didn’t really say this?

I can see how it might be confusing… I’ve argued with atheists who claim that Christianity is by nature violent and unloving when they read Jesus saying, “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

Of course, as Christians, we all know that we can’t take statements like this literally. We do have to live in this world, and we do love God and our neighbor as Christ told us to do. Consider monastic orders like the Carthusians, who live completely detached from the outside world, but they still have a love for the world and their families and friends. They may be more extreme than those of us not living in monasteries, but detachment doesn’t necessarily mean shunning everyone and everything. It’s about focusing on something higher, and that focus ends up greatly influencing how you live your life and interact with others.

 

[Lucretius]

I think this is a limited and somewhat narrow definition of truth.

Christ said the path to Heaven was narrow. Truth is a dogmatic, intolerant thing. It can’t tolerate any sort of error :knight2:

I agree that both religions can not each be right to the claim that they are exclusively “true”, however they both can be “true” in the sense that they point their worshippers towards ultimate truth and contain “truth”.

I agree that the religious impulse of human nature can be filled temporary through other religions (most religions have rituals, meditation techniques, etc.). However, this religious urge was never supposed to be separated from Truth, for the religious impulse can make a man do amazingly good or despicably evil deeds. For example, the Aztec religion and the Canaanite/Carthaginian religion separated religion from truth so much that they began to sacrifice humans. The impulse is very strong: the Gnu Atheists are right that it can be very destructive. But they also ignore how it can (and often is) a source of great good.

In the modern day, an example of a religious impulse that is so divorced from truth that it is destructive would be the Muslim suicide bombing religion (not to be confused with the other Muslim religion ).

My opinion (and I think the Church’s as well) on non-Catholic religions can be best taught by Bishop Fulton Sheen (specifically between 14:00 - 16:30) here: youtube.com/watch?v=XA6aIhHzXkw&safe=active

Remember, Catholicism isn’t illogical enough to teach that every other religion is completely wrong. When the Buddhist says that abortion is wrong, we praise the Lord because he is right

Religion is not a Geometry equation that can be “proved” true by certain proofs. It is based upon faith and faith is a personal decision that at some point simply can not be based upon “Evidence.”

First of all, don’t mix up Mathematics with logic. They are related, but also distinct

Now, you are right that faith is an act of the will, and not of the passions (many Evangelicals and Pentecostals sadly make this mistake: when they lose their emotional feelings, they lose their faith). However, it is an act of the will (Grace is required, but that’s another story), which is trying to order itself with the Intellect. I don’t believe in Christianity, and therefore that makes it true. No, Christianity is true, and therefore I believe it.

Define “evidence.” I don’t want to assume that you believe in Scientism, but scientific evidence (as it is often defined today) is not the only way of understanding reality, let alone the universe. Scientism is demonstratively (and obviously) false. Many today think that religion and metaphysics are the same thing They also turned “religion” and “dogma” into boo! words, while making “science” and “evidence” into ya! words (if it’s scientific, it must be good! )

Similarly I find Religion to be more akin to Love. We both can agree that Love exist, we both can experience Love, but our definitions of Love and our experience and understanding of Love might be radically different. That does not mean that your experience of love is any less than or greater than, or more “True” than my experience of Love.

Love is an act of the will, causing a person to act for what they think is good for themselves or another. St. Thomas makes a distinction between natural love (which doesn’t require Grace) and Divine Charity (which is caused by Grace). Now, humans are spiritual animals, so when they experience spiritual realities (like true love, the act of the will), the “animal” side of them tries to “understand” it as well, which is why we experience different types of Love. You might think of this as experiencing love emotionally in different ways due to the different beloveds (so love between a mother and child is fundamentally the same as love between a mother and father, but the emotions are the different, and so we think of the two examples of love as different).

Christi pax,

Lucretius