Ask a Gnostic Anything

[curtish1947]

Hi,
I tried to say this earlier, but didn’t. I don’t meditate and never have, but I have had encounters with God, outside of me. Never once has Jesus, Mary, The Holy Spirit, or God The Father ever been talking to me from the inside of me.
Also, I have no method for having God talk to me. None. He just has. I also will not meditate as it is too close to consulting with spirits of the dead, which is very much forbidden, in that book called the Bible.
One day when I was asked a question, for whom you call the imperfect god, but who is to me God, the first item I struggled with, was the need for INFINITE HUMILITY. I wasn’t sure if I was up to that. Earlier in my life, I have always strived for humility, but only after I found out that God is Real. But, slowly I became very humble, but liked it, and choose no other ways, as that is so pleasant.
Humility is ever present. As far as your ideas that the material world has no value spiritually, there is a phrase in Christianity from our Book that one of us has proven is real and most of us just believe it is real. In there we are told no to get to attached to anything in the material world, and we are told why. It is passing away. What God gives us next is totally better than anything we could imagine.
I have often come across studied individuals, who miss the point of Christianity and the point of the Words in the Bible. I hope that is not you. I hope that all of your information is not from authors and students. I hope some of it is from you personally. Things you have proven to be true. Things that are provably true. And yes, I can prove everything I say, usually. I can, and you can ask me some of the things I can prove. I can also give you the proofs to try.
Please, I am not trying to sound horrible, and hope I do not. I just wanted to show you how I have come to believe differently, from things outside of myself, not interiourly.

…Curt/K.

Sophia and friend,
What is more important to you? The truth or what you believe? What do you believe? Is it what you have tried to prove wrong, or what you have tried to prove right? It may seem contrary to belief to try and prove all of your own assertions wrong to yourself, but it has worked for others and it has worked even, for whom you may think many thoughts of; me.
In our book we are told to do that, to test everything to see if it is wrong, or is from or is of God.
Here is my most extreme example in my life, on testing. In it I told the person assigned to me, what my problems were. Most of them revolved around things dealing with God, and if they were really what you might call meeting that flawed God, you speak of, or anything else.
One was a relationship with Him, that flawed God. The guy assigned to me says eventually. “We can do a fleece test.” Yes I was shocked. Who tests God? You don’t do that is what I thought, but in two places, James and in another place it is done in the old testament as it is called. Then I did not know that. Then I was shocked briefly.
Well the test came back as positive, but in my life, maybe because I have had many close contacts of the God kind, I have had more than one occasion to ask God this or that. Some of the time, I find out I am wrong. And no, I don’t know when anyone is allowed to do this. And no, in my life if there is no great God crisis, I cannot ask and get answers. Also other than guessing, I cannot tell you why this God, would ever interface with anyone like me. I cannot. It is just a reality, I live with. And some of the time, I am ostracized for it, out of fear or something else.
I just lost track of why I am writing this. Maybe it is because I care, about you and I care about God. That feeling of love, I not only cannot help anymore. I do not want to either. Could you please take another look at Christianity? Please? Please? Please?..Out of maybe something outlandish. My concern and love for you, but also for My love for God.
…Curtis/K.

 

[curtish1947]

I just hit the wrong button. Now the system this old person is interfacing with, supposdely has to say something to get out of here.
I am ostracized from time to time, one reason is I say God has talked to me. That gets a lot of people running. But really God talked to me. One day the personal voices of God the Father, and then Jesus and back and forth twice, is in my right hand jaw bone, but in my joint. I cannot tell the person I am talking to of this, but the words are for him. I deliver them and then it is over. People have heard of this, and I don’t think they feel comfortable around me. I don’t even if they are. Another day, as I have been treated to The Trinity being around me in the Catholic Church, again for another person, I am urged to tell 6 or 7 people of this.
I approach them after they finish prayers, and say to them what it was I am supposed to say. Sure it made a believer out of one woman who was bored, but for one person only God did this extraordinary thing for her.
Much of this, makes me feel like the freak of freaks to non Christians, even to Chritians I don’t know how they feel. I have no miracles I can do to prove my position. I am not holy like I think I should be, yet all of the above is true and so far these things keep happening to me. They do when I am doing something that is said to be true, in the Bible.
Imagine my isolation from this, all takes place outside of me. Outside of my body. None of this is as you say, is from getting in touch with the Real God inside of me, the Divine Spark as SophiaChrist called that. Imagine my isolation as even on this forum many might think I am a heretic, a liar, misled, mentally ill, or off the point, as I talk of these things. Today this is for both of you. I am outing myself to both of you, who claim interior experince with the God, is the Gnostic way and a higher authority than anything. I can prove the Bible is Real. I can give you that proof to do. I know, not believe God is Real. I have seen Him. I have seen Him and more, as He is in His ESSENCE. And now foolishly I am talking to both of you, outing myself who has seen the entire known and unknown universe, touched the casing that it is in, have seen people in the earth, have seen people somewhere like in heaven but I do not know where it was, have seen the Devil’s Kingdom or what I think is the Devil’s Kingdom with it’s sick black boxes conntaining what I do not know or for what I do not know. So yes, although I can conjure up nothing, I have been shown much, but not ouside of me. I have seen the Father’s love for His Son, and also for just a girl on another occasdion. All outside of me.
Inside of people I have seen things, but in not way is that God, it is the person as they really are. It glows. It is beautiful. It is so unique there is no possiblity of envy, if that was in charge rather than just suggesting to the person to be what they are on the inside. Is that a soul? I don’t know. This is too much for now…

I will risk the above, not knowing what effect it will have on you. I will also sign off the way I do with people who know me this way.
LOVE and love,
…Curtis/K.

 

[Servant19]

Yes, but Science (which studies the material aspect of the world) won’t develop under a system that sees the material world as “something to remain detached from.”

There are three worldviews I see here:

1. The Indians tend to believe that the world is an illusion. Meditation is to remove oneself from the illusion to focus on Reality.
2. The Gnostics tend to believe that the world is real, but evil. Meditation is removing oneself from the evil material world to contemplate the transcendent Good. The maker of the material world is either imperfect or evil (in traditional Gnosticism this is Jehovah). Jehovah and Christ (who is not incarnated in “evil” matter, and is completely spiritual) are usually considered different beings, as a result.
3. The Christians tend to believe that the world is real, and good (Christ incarnated into it), but due to our fallen nature (and Satan), we can be distracted by the goodness of the world, and forget the Source of that Goodness (that’s God. You knew that, didn’t you?) by doing evil. By removing ourselves from the imperfect goodness in the world (through fasting, prayer, the Sacraments, and most importantly, Grace), we can contemplate the perfect, transcendent Goodness.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

In terms of what a human being is actually “doing” what is the difference between these three?

They all say the exact same thing from different points of reference…



.

 

[Servant19]

Fair enough. I believe science should not be a chief concern amongst the spiritually minded so whether or not the physical sciences flourish is not a worry of mine (with the exception of agricultural/food science). Now, psychology on the other hand, should be given primacy amongst these areas of study.

If there is only one reality, only seen from different perspectives, then science is equally as valid as religion while humans are physically roaming the earth. Spiritual principles govern scientific practice, and when this happens we have no dichotomy between the two disciplines

.

 

[meltzerboy]

If the sin of man does not factor in then why didn’t God just do it right the first time instead of creating the world INTENTIONALLY imperfect with the goal of making it a better world for everyone by repairing it?

G-d did do it right the first time. G-d gave something to mankind: free will. That free will involving the choice to do good or evil essentially means the choice to behave in a manner that either helps others, harms them, or does nothing to help or harm. Only the first choice is the truly moral one, and it forms the Covenant between G-d and His people. That Covenant is thought of in Judaism as a partnership between G-d and mankind. As in a legal partnership, there must be a give-and-take relationship between the partners, so that, in a sense, G-d as well as Man must be flexible. This benefits the relationship and the world. However, if the world were created perfectly, there would be no partnership between G-d and mankind, no relationship, and no need to repair the world. Mankind would have no need for free will and no reason to choose to help others and repair the world rather than do nothing since no help or repair would be necessary.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know, I have the Gospel of Thomas here, to me its written after the 4-Gospels as it referenced or alludes to the NT. Origen among others list the book pre-233-AD and, he speaks about it. He also addressed many of contrary teachings on this thread in his Fundamental Doctrines.

The Church has 4-Gospels, but the heretics have many, including one of the Egyptians and another of the Twelve Apostles. Even Basilides made bold to write a gospel and title it with his own name. I know of a certain gospel of Thomas and one of Mathias. We ave read many others too, rather than seem to be ignorant of them , because those who think they know something when acquainted with such things. But of all these we approve of none except those 4 Gospels only received by the Church Homilies on Luke-1

Thomas leans towards Buddhism, and from them…

Exploring the Gospel of Thomas, we discover that Jesus believed the self and the divine to be identical and one. Furthermore, the Kingdom of Heaven is not in the future but is “right here.” and one only needs to be awakened to this perfection. Jesus, in this gospel, speaks of enlightenment, the same type that is taught by Shakyamuni Buddha, Shin teachers and Zen Masters. In addition, Thomas does not have a narrative story line but just 114 sayings attributed to Jesus, many of which are akin to Zen koans. Here, Jesus is never presented as Lord or Savior, but rather as a spiritual guide who is equal to his students. Senpai Sensei Fellowship of Connecticut and North America

Further…

Gospel of Thomas

1. And he said: whoever finds the correct interpretation of these sayings will never die.

21f. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

1. Jesus said: The seeker should not stop until he finds. When he does find, he will be disturbed. After having been disturbed, he will be astonished. Then he will reign over everything.

3a. Jesus said: If your leaders say to you. “Look! The kingdom is in the sky!” then the birds will be there before you are. If they say that the Kingdom is in the sea, then the fish will be there before you are. Rather the Kingdom is within you and it is outside of you.

1. …Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is already spread out on the Earth, and people aren’t aware of it.
2. Jesus said: Recognize what is right in front of you, and that which is hidden from you will be revealed to you. Nothing hidden will fail to be displayed.

Buddhist Teachings

For those who are ready, the door
To the deathless state is open.
You that have ears, give up
The conditions that bind you and enter in. (Majjhima Nikaya)

However I pray to be without “I”, my character is that I cannot be without “I, and as I come to comprehend this, I cannot help feeling an inexplicable loneliness and desolation…Yet when I come to penetrate to the very bottom of that desolation, then as I stand, there suddenly manifest a power of absolutely unconditional compassion. It is a power which will never desert me. (Zen Abbot Obora)

True peace of mind…can be obtained only when one is personally awakened to the stark-naked fact that every effort is ultimately in vain (Zenkei Shibayama).

Like a bird, he rises on the limitless air and flies an invisible source. He wishes for nothing. His food is knowledge. He lives upon emptiness. He has broken free (Dhammapada).

At the moment of awakening, the Buddha exclaimed: “Wonder of wonders! All living beings are truly enlightened and shine with wisdom and virtue. But because their minds have become deluded and turned inward to the small self, they fail to understand this” (Kegon Sutra).

We don’t go out of this world in order to be born into the Pure Land but we carry the Pure Land. Being born in the Pure Land means discovering the Pure Land within ourselves….the Pure Land is this dirty Earth itself…My conclusion is that Amida is our inner-most Self and when that inner-most Self is found, we are born in the Pure Land (D.T. Suzuki).

The Pure Land is not millions and millions of miles away in the west, it is right here and those who have eyes can see it around them (D.T. Suzuki)

There are many reasons all these were rejected. Not because the Church wanted to pick on the poor Gnostics either. As noted the mystical aspect with far east leaning would have been picked up immediately. Also NT scholar Craig Evans makes the following observation…

the Gospel of Thomas quotes or alludes to more than half of the New Testament writings including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, and Revelation.2. For just one example, see how saying 17 reflects 1 Cor. 2:9.

He does an in depth comparison from the NT and concludes its a later editing of the original text. It lacks of references from early church fathers or first century witnesses. The Church tradition is absent which stands out.

That said they add important historical context to an important period where not much exists do to the library in Alexandria and persecution of Christians.

 

[Servant19]

G-d did do it right the first time. G-d gave something to mankind: free will. That free will involving the choice to do good or evil essentially means the choice to behave in a manner that either helps others, harms them, or does nothing to help or harm. Only the first choice is the truly moral one, and it forms the Covenant between G-d and His people. That Covenant is thought of in Judaism as a partnership between G-d and mankind. As in a legal partnership, there must be a give-and-take relationship between the partners, so that, in a sense, G-d as well as Man must be flexible. This benefits the relationship and the world. However, if the world were created perfectly, there would be no partnership between G-d and mankind, no relationship, and no need to repair the world. Mankind would have no need for free will and no reason to choose to help others and repair the world rather than do nothing since no help or repair would be necessary.

Would you not say though meltzer, that the only repair that is required in the world is as a result of man turning away from the guidance that G-d has revealed to man?

There is no inherent “fault” in the world that is in need of repair, it is purely as a result on man’s turning away from G-d that causes the damage.

What are your thoughts?

.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What are your thoughts?

.

Its dangerous to dismiss the reality and existence of evil and fallen man, and for those who claim spirituality I find it extremely naive and narrow minded. The problem is when dismissing this yet upholding a spiritual reality one can easily attract the demonic though various foolishness and even sincere concern by cleansing’s etc. There is NO protection, and Jesus name as I have mentioned quoting St Paul and the demons, will not protect. To dismiss exorcism is to dismiss the supernatural and is contrary to the very spirituality promoted. Thats my concern, I have no issue with other beliefs. I have a concern for their spiritual welfare.

 

[Servant19]

Its dangerous to dismiss the reality and existence of evil and fallen man, and for those who claim spirituality I find it extremely naive and narrow minded. The problem is when dismissing this yet upholding a spiritual reality one can easily attract the demonic though various foolishness and even sincere concern by cleansing’s etc. There is NO protection, and Jesus name as I have mentioned quoting St Paul and the demons, will not protect. To dismiss exorcism is to dismiss the supernatural and is contrary to the very spirituality promoted. Thats my concern, I have no issue with other beliefs. I have a concern for their spiritual welfare.

Would you not call the “turning away” from God and His guidance as a “falling away”?

Its all the same Gary. When Moses gave His Commandments, those who turned away from them and carried out acts that were contrary to the Commandments were the one’s who damaged the world and made it in need of “repair”…

.

.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Would you not call the “turning away” from God and His guidance as a “falling away”?

Its all the same Gary. When Moses gave His Commandments, those who turned away from them and carried out acts that were contrary to the Commandments were the one’s who damaged the world and made it in need of “repair”…

The world was fallen before the commandments are given per Genesis. turning away so to speak happens Chapter 3 Genesis, murder quickly follows Chapter 4. So no, to you it may be the same, to me its very different. I can exercise and practice unselfish humility and see a therapist for the model of behavior proposed depending where I live with the ideal you propose. Whats the difference?

 

[Servant19]

The world was fallen before the commandments are given per Genesis. turning away so to speak happens Chapter 3 Genesis, murder quickly follows Chapter 4. So no, to you it may be the same, to me its very different. I can exercise and practice unselfish humility and see a therapist for the model of behavior proposed depending where I live with the ideal you propose. Whats the difference?

I think you may misunderstand. I am not specifically talking about the Commandments. I am talking about God speaking at any time in history.

When He speaks to mankind, whether that is in the Garden of Eden or to the Moses, or to Jesus, He gives the standard for “right living”…if man turns away from that guidance and that standard, he causes a damage to himself and to the world which is in need of repair (as meltzerboy put it)

.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think you may misunderstand. I am not specifically talking about the Commandments. I am talking about God speaking at any time in history.

When He speaks to mankind, whether that is in the Garden of Eden or to the Moses, or to Jesus, He gives the standard for “right living”…if man turns away from that guidance and that standard, he causes a damage to himself and to the world which is in need of repair (as meltzerboy put it)

.

Jesus is God who is the standard, Jesus calls the devil “a murderer from the beginning”, God appeared to destroy the work of the devil. One must know God- Christ as the source of all grace in order to know Adam in relation to sin and the fall. Everyone deals with evil on a daily basis with temptation. However, there is another way to encounter evil and through the preternatural one meets evil in a more personal way, the realm of the preternatural is infested with the demonic. In this realm, faith, knowledge and the state of the soul is absolute.

Evil is, as man turns from grace. So yes he causes damage to himself and the world.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Your definition of Gnostic is correct. Different Gnostic schools have different interpretations on of Jesus depending on their orthodoxy. The school that I subscribe to sees the question of whether Jesus was purely spirit, purely human, or both as irrelevant. The Gnostics interpret scripture as myth; not in the sense that they are not true but that they are symbolic stories with a purpose.

Ah, so your Gnostic take on the OT and NT is that they are liken to Aesop’s Fables? Sort of much ado about nothing, except with some lesson or philosophical guidance incorporated?

Do you believe in any kind of ‘after life’? Do you believe in the concepts of right and wrong and good and evil as also being realities? Do you believe in Heaven, Hell, and/or Purgatory? If you believe in an after life, do you also believe in the need for salvation? - If so, how do we find it?

 

[Hodegetria]

Sophia Christ,
I am interested in knowing your profession or vocation, if it’s not too personal to ask. Are you / will you be doing something in the Gnostic ministry (as Rev. Winsor is)?

I’m wondering if you believe in miracles, such as miraculous healings, the kind the Catholic Church may base Sainthood upon during saint’s causes (I’m sure you know what I mean.)

Finally, in the post above this one, and I also noted earlier that you see OT & NT scripture as “myth”, not in the sense that they’re not true, but stories to learn from-- do to see the Gospel of Thomas the same or does that Gospel carry more weight? Thank you.

 

[meltzerboy]

Would you not say though meltzer, that the only repair that is required in the world is as a result of man turning away from the guidance that G-d has revealed to man?

There is no inherent “fault” in the world that is in need of repair, it is purely as a result on man’s turning away from G-d that causes the damage.

What are your thoughts?

.

I wouldn’t exactly put it that way. Of course mankind can make the world worse by abusing its “evil inclination.” But, according to Jewish thought, mankind was not created perfect in the first place and neither was the world. The partnership idea I mentioned, mankind and G-d acting together, results from mankind’s imperfection. So, no, I would not say that mankind’s turning away from G-d is the ONLY reason for the necessity of repair of the world. Furthermore, G-d has given mankind the capacity to do good through his free will even though He has created mankind imperfect.

 

[Lucretius]

I wouldn’t exactly put it that way. Of course mankind can make the world worse by abusing its “evil inclination.” But, according to Jewish thought, mankind was not created perfect in the first place and neither was the world. The partnership idea I mentioned, mankind and G-d acting together, results from mankind’s imperfection. So, no, I would not say that mankind’s turning away from G-d is the ONLY reason for the necessity of repair of the world. Furthermore, G-d has given mankind the capacity to do good through his free will even though He has created mankind imperfect.

From my understanding of (Roman) Catholic theology, we would probably say that everything was not made perfect, since only God is perfect, in the sense that only God is complete. However, I think we would also say that we (humans) were created perfect in the sense that we were perfect in reference to our nature.

We (Roman) Catholics also believe that we were created with something called Original Grace, in which one of its effects was to have the spirit have complete freedom over the flesh. What we mean is that the spirit (which has free will) was able to freely choose the Good without influence of the passions of the flesh (Adam would not have “lusted” after Eve: his spirit would keep those irrational, uncontrollable impulses in check). However, after the Fall, this Grace was lost (Original Sin is the absence of Original Grace), including its effects, and so the flesh started to war against the spirit, which is called concupiscence (inclination to go evil - “evil-intention”). Another effect was physical mortality.

It seems to me that Gnostics have used concupiscence as evidence that the flesh (matter) is evil. However, Catholics believe that the flesh is not evil, but good (God created it, after all). Now, there are several theories from the Fathers as to why the flesh tries to be disordered. St. Athanasius seems to think that it is a sort of habit that has gotten worse over time. But some Greek Fathers (and theologians today) seem to think that it is because the flesh “realized” that it was subjected to death, and so started to indulge into excessive activities with the irrational intention of keeping alive as long as it can (too much food to keep the body intact, perverted sex to keep the species alive, too much stuff (greed) for emergencies, desire to control our environment to make it safer, etc.).

Anyone more confident: correct me if I made a mistake

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Servant19]

I wouldn’t exactly put it that way. Of course mankind can make the world worse by abusing its “evil inclination.” But, according to Jewish thought, mankind was not created perfect in the first place and neither was the world. The partnership idea I mentioned, mankind and G-d acting together, results from mankind’s imperfection. So, no, I would not say that mankind’s turning away from G-d is the ONLY reason for the necessity of repair of the world. Furthermore, G-d has given mankind the capacity to do good through his free will even though He has created mankind imperfect.

Thankyou meltzerboy, it’s interesting to read the Jewish perspective

.

 

[meltzerboy]

From my understanding of (Roman) Catholic theology, we would probably say that everything was not made perfect, since only God is perfect, in the sense that only God is complete. However, I think we would also say that we (humans) were created perfect in the sense that we were perfect in reference to our nature.

We (Roman) Catholics also believe that we were created with something called Original Grace, in which one of its effects was to have the spirit have complete freedom over the flesh. What we mean is that the spirit (which has free will) was able to freely choose the Good without influence of the passions of the flesh (Adam would not have “lusted” after Eve: his spirit would keep those irrational, uncontrollable impulses in check). However, after the Fall, this Grace was lost (Original Sin is the absence of Original Grace), including its effects, and so the flesh started to war against the spirit, which is called concupiscence (inclination to go evil - “evil-intention”). Another effect was physical mortality.

It seems to me that Gnostics have used concupiscence as evidence that the flesh (matter) is evil. However, Catholics believe that the flesh is not evil, but good (God created it, after all). Now, there are several theories from the Fathers as to why the flesh tries to be disordered. St. Athanasius seems to think that it is a sort of habit that has gotten worse over time. But some Greek Fathers (and theologians today) seem to think that it is because the flesh “realized” that it was subjected to death, and so started to indulge into excessive activities with the irrational intention of keeping alive as long as it can (too much food to keep the body intact, perverted sex to keep the species alive, too much stuff (greed) for emergencies, desire to control our environment to make it safer, etc.).

Anyone more confident: correct me if I made a mistake

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Thank you, Lucretius, for this interesting perspective. I was familiar with the Christian concept of original sin but not that of original grace.

 

[Lucretius]

In terms of what a human being is actually “doing” what is the difference between these three?

They all say the exact same thing from different points of reference…



.

Not really. They may “do” the same things, but from the standpoint of a completely different philosophy. Religion not about ethics per se. “Religion” (or mythological religion) is primary an expression of an urge in human nature. The desire for Truth is as well. The problem is that these urges were not combined into one (human nature is one), and so fell into paganism (that’s why you have philosophical paganism (Plato) and mythological paganism (Mithraism)).

Christianity (and the Abrahamic religions generally) attempt to order what C.S. Lewis called “thick” parts (rituals, mysteries) of religion with “thin” parts (ethics, philosophy —> truth). C.S. Lewis calls it the search for “true myth.” And this started with the Jews. Only the Jewish God was mighty AND righteous. All the pagan gods were powerful, but they were as evil as their worshippers (think of the adulterous Zeus, for example), and as a result ethics was part of philosophy rather than mythological religion in the ancient world. But the Jews made ethics a part of their religion, and so paved the path to what we see now, religions that are both thick and thin.

Concerning the separation of Christian asceticism and Gnostic asceticism:

Now that purity was preserved by dogmatic definitions and exclusions. It could not possibly have been preserved by anything else. If the Church had not renounced the Manicheans it might have become merely Manichean. If it had not renounced the Gnostics it might have become Gnostic. But by the very fact that it did renounce them it proved that it was not either Gnostic or Manichean. At any rate it proved that something was not either Gnostic or Manichean; and what could it be that condemned them, if it was not the original good news of the runners from Bethlehem and the trumpet of the Resurrection? The early Church was ascetic, but she proved that she was not pessimistic, simply by condemning the pessimists. The creed declared that man was sinful, but it did not declare that life was evil, and it proved it by damning those who did. The condemnation of the early heretics is itself condemned as something crabbed and narrow; but it was in truth the very proof that the Church meant to be brotherly and broad. It proved that the primitive Catholics were specially eager to explain that they did not think man utterly vile; that they did not think life incurably miserable; that they did not think marriage a sin or procreation a tragedy. They were ascetic because asceticism was the only possible purge of the sins of the world; but in the very thunder of their anathemas they affirmed forever that their asceticism was not to be anti-human or anti-natural; that they did wish to purge the world and not destroy it. And nothing else except those anathemas could possibly have made it clear, amid a confusion which still confuses them with their mortal enemies. Nothing else but dogma could have resisted the riot of imaginative invention with which the pessimists were waging their war against nature; with their Aeons and their Demiurge, their strange Logos and their sinister Sophia. If the Church had not insisted on theology, it would have melted into a mad mythology of the mystics, yet further removed from reason or even from rationalism; and, above all, yet further removed from life and from the love of life. Remember that it would have been an inverted mythology, one contradicting everything natural in paganism; a mythology in which Pluto would be above Jupiter and Hades bang higher than Olympus; in which Brahma and all that has the breath of life would be subject to Seeva, shining with the eye of death.

That the early Church was itself full of an ecstatic enthusiasm for renunciation and virginity makes this distinction much more striking and not less so. It makes all the more important the place where the dogma drew the line. A man might crawl about on all fours like a beast because he was an ascetic. He might stand night and day on the top of a pillar and be adored for being an ascetic. But he could not say that the world was a mistake or the marriage state a sin without being a heretic. What was it that thus deliberately disengaged itself from eastern asceticism by sharp definition and fierce refusal, if it was not something with an individuality of its own; and one that was quite different? If the Catholics are to be confused with the Gnostics, we can only say it was not their fault if they are. And it is rather hard that the Catholics should be blamed by the same critics for persecuting the heretics and also for sympathizing with the heresy.

That is from chapter IV from part II of G. K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man, written as a Christian critique of History. It can be found here: worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/content.htm

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Thank you, Lucretius, for this interesting perspective. I was familiar with the Christian concept of original sin but not that of original grace.

Thanks!

When St. Paul writes about the “flesh” and “spirit”, it has always shocked me how similar they are to yetzer-hatov (good-intention) and yetzer-hara (evil-intention). The Rabbis seem to teach that the “evil-intention” is not evil in the sense that Modern English speakers use the term, but rather it can become evil when left unchecked by the “good-intention.” In fact, when ordered with the “good-intention”, the “evil-intention” gives fruit to good things (sex drive alone can become perverted, while sex drive ordered with chastity creates the family, a good thing). In the same way, when the flesh is ordered with the spirit, it creates good things. I guess St. Paul was a Jew after all

On the other hand, (Sophia Christ can correct me if I am wrong) it seems that Gnostics believe that the flesh can’t produce good fruit at all (and thus, groups like the Cathars thought that food, drink, and sex which creates children were nothing but evil). But, as I point out above, orthodox Christians think the flesh absolutely can be good (but also used wrongly), similar to the Jewish view, which I think is evidence that Christian interpretation of Scripture is more correct, since Jesus and His Apostles were Jews and would be expected to interpret Scripture in a more Jewish way.

IIRC, Rabbinical Judaism really doesn’t have a Christian concept of Grace (this is where I think we disagree), since Grace is something that only makes sense with the idea of the Incarnation, which our Jewish Brothers disagree with, of course

Christi pax,

Lucretius