Ask a Gnostic Anything

[KendraDZ1902]

She could not understand Him in full because He is incomprehensible even to the wisest creature.

And the anxiety came from her yearning to understand God and that is paradoxically beautiful. An analogy would be Catholics meditating on the sorrowful mysteries while praying the rosary which is a very harmonious experience, no?

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.

 

[Denise1957]

Actually, I think experiences on the emotional level are also important to some Christians (charismatic, Pentecostals, etc.).

I know that when I receive, I “know” that I’m being as intimate with Christ as possible: He is closer to me then I am to myself, if that makes sense. Sometimes, I have tears in my eyes :crying: ; sometimes I am so filled with joy that I want to go and share this joy with everyone around me :extrahappy: , showing them how much Christ loves them! But other times, I’m terrified (especially if I recently confessed a mortal sin). And sometimes, I don’t feel anything: I simple understand the humility of the God who takes on the form of bread and wine, instead of something big and showy, like a juicy steak or something. :bowdown2:

I have always thought that emotions can come with the experience: but they are not necessary to them. Many people become unhappy because they think they should be seeing angels or something. The Saints teach that we shouldn’t focus on emotions though: they flux. Focus on them, and they will leave, and you will find you have no Faith; Focus on following the Lord, and they might come. St. John of the Cross, St. Therese of Lisieux, and Blessed Mother Teresa all experienced a (perceived) mental, emotional, and spiritual distance from God called by St John as “the Dark Night of the Soul.” But as St. John points out, even though you don’t see or feel God anyway, this is actually a closer, more direct experience, since emotions and intellectual knowledge often serve as idols. God, who is utterly transcendent, is nothing like what we see with either the senses or the mind, so if we are to know Him “as He is” with no distractions, a Dark Night might be something closer to what we should expect.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I tend to agree with what you’ve written here, though I think it’s unfortunate that the emotive and experiential (or Immanentism, which was condemned by Pope St. Pius X) is important for some Catholics. We should not expect consolations, but of course we accept them when they’re given.

It makes perfect sense that you feel closer to Him than you do to yourself when you receive, and I understand the tears, at times, too. It’s an amazing and miraculous thing, to receive His Body and Blood!

It’s good, from a Catholic POV to move beyond the emotional level to the level of the intellect, which according to St Thomas, I think, is the most beautiful thing about humans. This is getting off-topic, but that’s why Pope St Gregory the Great was so enthusiastic about chant - because it moves the intellect, rather then the emotions (or only the emotions). I hope that makes sense.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

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.

Hmm I’m not a Catholic but are you sure this is the proper attitude to take during when praying the sorrowful mysteries?

I always thought that you were supposed to contemplate the mysteries, and take part in Mary’s sorrow. This sorrow then connects you with the Mother in a cathartic way which then leads to greater unity with God. So, through the paradoxical medium of sorrow, one is connected with the Lord which is a joyful experience.

Similarly, with Sophia,her anxious yearning for God was a healthy expression of spirituality and not disharmonious.

 

[Lucretius]

Fair enough but who is to say that your contemplative experience with the Eucharist is more authentic than the God-intoxicated Sufi mystic? No doubt it is different in nature, but is it more authentic?

I feel you must call upon dogma in order to answer this question whilst not betraying the teachings of the church

It’s not about “which experience is more authentic?”, but any experience that contradicts the known Truth in any way is a deceitful one (it might even be caused by the Enemy ). Mystics contradict each other: how can we know which experiences are true and which are lies? In the east, people have a tendency to throw out common sense and logic in order to claim that all their experiences are valid, which leads in the end to something like Hinduism (and the Modern West ). Christianity, on the other hand, combines historical, philosophical, and scientific knowledge, all baptized by Revelation, and protected and taught by the Church, to create an objective standard for mysticism. Hinduism has no standard, which is why it’s all over the place. The Gnostics were historically all over the place as well. In fact, some scholars think the term is too broad; being used to describe religions that aren’t really related at all.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Hmm I’m not a Catholic but are you sure this is the proper attitude to take during when praying the sorrowful mysteries?

I always thought that you were supposed to contemplate the mysteries, and take part in Mary’s sorrow. This sorrow then connects you with the Mother in a cathartic way which then leads to greater unity with God. So, through the paradoxical medium of sorrow, one is connected with the Lord which is a joyful experience.

Similarly, with Sophia,her anxious yearning for God was a healthy expression of spirituality and not disharmonious.

The first time praying them, the sorrow scared the Hell out of me. To the point that I had a nightmare about them. Maybe I meditated on them too hard, no clue.
I suffer from 2 mental illnesses in the anxiety spectrum and anxiety is also a symptom of another mental illness I have. Anxiety is quite disharmonious when I become afflicted.

 

[Lucretius]

I tend to agree with what you’ve written here, though I think it’s unfortunate that the emotive and experiential (or Immanentism, which was condemned by Pope St. Pius X) is important for some Catholics.

I’m pretty oversensitive about things, so I can understand their pain. We are what C.S. Lewis called a “spiritual animal”, so it’s in our nature to desire spiritual and carnal joy. However, much of it is too much like a spiritual version of hedonism. Instead of junk food, drugs, or sex, they seek these experiences, although they’re a bit better (and healthier) then the type of man St. Thomas has in mind here:

Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures.

It’s good, from a Catholic POV to move beyond the emotional level to the level of the intellect, which according to St Thomas, I think, is the most beautiful thing about humans. This is getting off-topic, but that’s why Pope St Gregory the Great was so enthusiastic about chant - because it moves the intellect, rather then the emotions (or only the emotions). I hope that makes sense.

Thanks! I never knew that’s the philosophy behind Gregorian Chant

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[KjetilK]

I am a Christian Gnostic-Ask me anything at all

Are you also a circular square?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If you read my earlier posts, you would see that Gnostics believe that the Jehovah of the Old Testament was a flawed emanation from the actual, true God who is the source of all existence.

The problem is that there’s nothing in scripture to support this interpretation.

As for your comment on suffering serving a purpose, this may be true in some cases. However, I see no purpose in, for instance, a child in Liberia suffering a debilitating death from Ebola.

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 disagree with your interpretation of the nature of reality but I never once said it was illogical. It is a difference of interpretation. You calling Gnostic ideology a fantasy is a very single-minded attempt to discredit something that does not ideologically align with your thought process.

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.

 

[Gorgias]

Denise1957:

So truth, to you, is whatever you “experience.” Meaning subjective. Based on self, and not on any absolute truths.

Not everything experienced is truth, but the truth is not limited to one single experience

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?

If that’s the case, though, it means that God is whatever any of us dream Him up to be, as long as we’re having a personal experience and we feel that this experience is valid. Having an external touchpoint isn’t the bad thing that you claim it to be; rather, it’s the means by which we affirm that our experience is objectively real (rather than only subjectively sensed).

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.

It would seem, then, that your perspective is that personal experience trumps all (please correct me if I’m mistaken). That seems problematic (as others have mentioned, since that implies that diverging Gnostic personal experiences must all be interpreted as correct, even if mutually exclusive). Is this your understanding of what Gnosticism is? A personally validated, purely experiential faith?

 

[Hodegetria]

Are you also a circular square?

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.

 

[stavros388]

Some of you sound exactly like those anti-Catholic Protestants who claim that Catholics are not Christian! Let’s not jump into lynch mob mode, hey?

The poster has politely and eruditely answered questions about Christian Gnosticism because people have asked. I personally find it interesting.

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!

 

[Hodegetria]

Some of you sound exactly like those anti-Catholic Protestants who claim that Catholics are not Christian! Let’s not jump into lynch mob mode, hey?

The poster has politely and eruditely answered questions about Christian Gnosticism because people have asked. I personally find it interesting.

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!

Yes, I also find it interesting and I’m still asking questions. Sophia Christ has proved more than capable of answering for him/herself without anyone else’s help.

I have read every single word that OP has posted and OP is not Christian, if you define Christian as following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

FWIW, I do regret posting “You’re not any kind of Christian”, but I was not able to edit that out or the fact I got OP’s name wrong. Please forgive my knee jerk reaction. It does sound rude. Hindsight is 20/20 and I do appreciate Sophia Christ being here and keeping up with all the questions.

 

[stavros388]

I believe he has stated that he follows the teachings of Jesus, but just not strictly using the orthodox Christian canon. I also don’t see how demanding that he not call himself Christian is helpful to this discussion, or to inter-religious dialogue in general. There are probably many people who you and I would agree are not really Catholic, but who’s to stop them from saying they are?

I am sure our poster can defend himself quite well! However, it’s an open forum and I felt compelled to interject.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

The inferior God created by Sophia’s desire, also referred to as the Demiurge, is the Creator God of the Old Testament. Due to his inferiority, he is not seen as good but rather an evil, angry, violent God. It is the fault of this God that the world is in the mess that it is, and due to the fact that he created it, the world is evil. The higher transcendent God is not a creator of the material world, and instead is a nurturer of the spiritual. The only hope for humankind, while locked in this evil shell of a body is to spiritually transcend this world and deny the body.

one must be trying to reach beyond the evil, dark, material, physical earth and body toward that of the good, light, immaterial, and spiritual worlds. The indwelling spark must be awakened from its terrestrial slumber by the saving knowledge that comes “from without.” Jesus is one of the most fundamental “awakeners” of this knowledge. Therefore, although Gnostics, like other Christians, find salvation through the messages of Jesus, Gnostics seek salvation not from sin but from “the ignorance of which sin is a consequence.” The gnostics believe that the evil creator God and his angels cause this ignorance.

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?

 

[stavros388]

FWIW, I do regret posting “You’re not any kind of Christian”, but I was not able to edit that out or the fact I got OP’s name wrong. Please forgive my knee jerk reaction. It does sound rude. Hindsight is 20/20 and I do appreciate Sophia Christ being here and keeping up with all the questions.

And for my part, I am sorry for being argumentative. I posted before I had my morning coffee!

Peace.

 

[simpleas]

We do not believe in Original Sin in the sense of the Fall of Man as related in the book of Genesis. We believe that the origin of sin stems from an imperfect creator

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?

I’ve heard of the cosmic Christ and teachers that say Jesus became the Christ, that Christ is not Jesus’ surname sort of thing.

Thanks, this is an interesting thread

 

[Hodegetria]

And for my part, I am sorry for being argumentative. I posted before I had my morning coffee!

Peace.

:hug3: I can understand that! Peace.

 

[KjetilK]

FWIW, I do regret posting “You’re not any kind of Christian”, but I was not able to edit that out or the fact I got OP’s name wrong. Please forgive my knee jerk reaction. It does sound rude. Hindsight is 20/20 and I do appreciate Sophia Christ being here and keeping up with all the questions.

But the fact remains that if you are a Gnostic you AREN’T any kind of Christian. It’s not being rude, it is the correct use of language.

A person who do not believe in the Incarnation - that the second Person of the Trinity became man, became flesh, that this shows us that the material and visible is just as divinely willed and good as the spiritual and invisible, and that we thus meet God here and now, in the material and concrete - isn’t any kind of Christian. It would be like saying that it is rude to tell a square that he isn’t any kind of circle.

 

[curtish1947]

Hello everyone!

I am a Christian Gnostic-Ask me anything at all

Hi,
Just a thank-you now and still. This morning I am going to go over every one of your responses, and every one elses. I have noticed that you give me, and hopefully us all much into what you say. It is revealing and hopefully not contentious in any way shape or form ever.
On that last sentence, one can ask but to ask is not to tell. If you ask, I will tell, but in my case since I have a prohibition against teaching, I will only share, hopefully.
See you, in print after I do my job, in respect and honor of your being here.
…Curt/K.

 

[Lucretius]

I believe he has stated that he follows the teachings of Jesus, but just not strictly using the orthodox Christian canon. I also don’t see how demanding that he not call himself Christian is helpful to this discussion, or to inter-religious dialogue in general. There are probably many people who you and I would agree are not really Catholic, but who’s to stop them from saying they are?

I am sure our poster can defend himself quite well! However, it’s an open forum and I felt compelled to interject.

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