Ask a Gnostic Anything

[OmegaPoint]

thank you gnosisofthomas for your patient and erudite explanations of Gnosticism. I admit I have had more than a passing interest in gnosticism primarily because my absolutely abhorrence for JHVH of the Old Testament. I have not once been able to reconcile The Father that Jesus speaks of with the monster that is JHVH in the Old testament. I have been inclined to believe that JHVH is some type of flawed, imperfect god and that Jesus was an incarnation of the True Father sent down to teach us the true law of love and compassion. Heck I have even read that JHVH is actually The Adversary posing as The Father in the OT and that the Jews confused the two at several important junctures. However, my problem with Gnosticism if also the problem that I have with certain Eastern Religions and that is the complete repudiation of material reality as being either totally unreal and illusionary, or that it is evil and needs to be transcended. Ultimately I aspire to be like Saint Francis and not seek to transcend material reality, but to love and cherish all material reality in all its imperfect goodness.

 

[clem456]

The flesh isn’t the real you, …

What do you mean by “real”? And how do you know what is real? How do you know anything at all, without a brain, and senses, and broken fingers to give you experience?
How about parents who teach you? Are they real?

How did you come to know about Gnosticism? Someone who is real had to tell you about it, right?

If your body is just a throw away shadow, where did it come from? Can God create something meaningless?

 

[OmegaPoint]

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 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

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! )

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

All of these logical arguments are all fine and good and St. Thomas is a brilliant thinker but he absolutely relied to much on Aristotle and the rational mind in his approach to the Divine. I also find it a bit ironic that Aquinas essentially repudiated all of his writings after his profound religious/spiritual experience where he stated that "“The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.”
Aquinas like the Zen Master realized that all theological, metaphysical, and philosophical writings are simply fingers pointing at the moon, but in no manner capture the truth or the majesty of the moon itself. It is quite interesting that the most profound Catholic Thinker came to the same exact realization that the Buddhist masters came to when they experienced ultimate reality, that there is simply no describing what it is. Ultimate Truth is beyond comprehension and far beyond explanation. No Religion has a monopoly on it and no Religion can contain it, they can simply point us towards it and provide some useful instructions in seeking it.

 

[simpleas]

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.

How about the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, that would not be part of the belief.

That the soul/spirit leaves the body and returns to the creator, and the body would not be needed, so no resurrection.

Am I right or nearly?

 

[GaryTaylor]

All of these logical arguments are all fine and good and St. Thomas is a brilliant thinker but he absolutely relied to much on Aristotle and the rational mind in his approach to the Divine. I also find it a bit ironic that Aquinas essentially repudiated all of his writings after his profound religious/spiritual experience where he stated that "“The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.”
Aquinas like the Zen Master realized that all theological, metaphysical, and philosophical writings are simply fingers pointing at the moon, but in no manner capture the truth or the majesty of the moon itself. It is quite interesting that the most profound Catholic Thinker came to the same exact realization that the Buddhist masters came to when they experienced ultimate reality, that there is simply no describing what it is. Ultimate Truth is beyond comprehension and far beyond explanation. No Religion has a monopoly on it and no Religion can contain it, they can simply point us towards it and provide some useful instructions in seeking it.

Thanks for your opinion, Aquinas’s vision may have been a vision of heaven, Aquinas had another mystical experience in which the voice of Christ said to him, “You have written well of me, Thomas”

 

[Hodegetria]

Is SophiaChrist still with us? I haven’t seen anything from her in 5 or 6 pages.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see what there is to discuss, scripture isn’t needed nor any book knowledge. you have to experience the experience.

But since Aquinas was bought up which btw had anyone actually read his work they would know he agreed divine revelation precedes reason. And of course his Divine Revelation “experience” must be true.

Christ said to him, “You have written well of me, Thomas”

His work was validated by the experience you just have to experience.

 

[Hodegetria]

Is the Gospel of Thomas referred to in this thread the same book or writing as the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas”?

 

[OmegaPoint]

Is the Gospel of Thomas referred to in this thread the same book or writing as the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas”?

Nope completely different books.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

St Thomas Aquinas did not “repudiate” all of his writings–far from it. Comparing it to straw is not the same as saying it was worthless. It is just that compared to the revelation of the Incarnation, his philosophizing while of value, in comparision is very common and very cheap.

 

[Lucretius]

All of these logical arguments are all fine and good and St. Thomas is a brilliant thinker but he absolutely relied to much on Aristotle and the rational mind in his approach to the Divine. I also find it a bit ironic that Aquinas essentially repudiated all of his writings after his profound religious/spiritual experience where he stated that "“The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.”

There is a difference between recognizing the limits of reason and denying it’s value at all. St Thomas didn’t repudiated his thought. He just realized how little his truth went when compared to the real thing.

Aquinas like the Zen Master realized that all theological, metaphysical, and philosophical writings are simply fingers pointing at the moon, but in no manner capture the truth or the majesty of the moon itself.

Again, there is a difference between capturing the whole truth, and capturing parts of it. The Dogma of the Trinity is true, but the Trinity as it really is, goes far beyond. You might think of the dogma as truth spoken to us in baby talk so that be might be able to understand it a little bit.

It is quite interesting that the most profound Catholic Thinker came to the same exact realization that the Buddhist masters came to when they experienced ultimate reality, that there is simply no describing what it is.

The Buddhist masters denied a theistic God. St. Thomas never did.

Ultimate Truth is beyond comprehension and far beyond explanation.

St. Thomas believed this before his “straw” experience. He didn’t just sit in a room all day and think. His best thinking was done in front of the tabernacle while praying.

No Religion has a monopoly on it and no Religion can contain it, they can simply point us towards it and provide some useful instructions in seeking it.

What does this mean? That all religions contain Truth? Of course! When a Buddhist says that abortion is evil, we praise him for his wisdom, for he is right! It’s just that the Catholic Church contains the entirety of the Truth known here on Earth. Some religions are wrong in their teachings. Some religions aren’t wrong, but incomplete, like Orthodox Judaism. Most are both.

You seem to assume that religion is a man-made search for Truth. In many cases, that’s correct. But for Christians, our religion is “not man’s search for God, but rather God’s search for man” (C. S. Lewis). Christianity is not about men climbing up to the ultimate Truth, but rather the ultimate Truth climbing down to men. It is completely different then all other religions, and if wrong, is the most arrogant and wrong of them all.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Hodegetria]

Nope completely different books.

That’s good! Thank you.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

How about the resurrection of the body and life everlasting, that would not be part of the belief.

That the soul/spirit leaves the body and returns to the creator, and the body would not be needed, so no resurrection.

Am I right or nearly?

We understand the resurrection to be a spiritual rather than physical reality.

The Gospel of Philip says, “But there is evil after this world which is truly evil: what is called ‘the middle’. It is death. While we are in this world, it is fitting for us to acquire the resurrection, so that when we strip off the flesh, we may be found in rest and not walk in the middle.”

And: “Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.”

We definitely acknowledge the life everlasting, but it is our union and rest in the Fullness of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We understand the resurrection to be a spiritual rather than physical reality.

The Gospel of Philip says, “But there is evil after this world which is truly evil: what is called ‘the middle’. It is death. While we are in this world, it is fitting for us to acquire the resurrection, so that when we strip off the flesh, we may be found in rest and not walk in the middle.”

And: “Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.”

We definitely acknowledge the life everlasting, but it is our union and rest in the Fullness of God.

So you consider yourself resurrected spiritually rather than physically, its not the fullness of God I take it, so what is it, what does it mean to you? Of what significance is The Gospel of Philip? Is it the inspired word and of whom? And who decided this?

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Is the Gospel of Thomas referred to in this thread the same book or writing as the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas”?

Nope, that’s a different book. The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of 114 sayings of Jesus without any narrative, whereas the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a narrative about Jesus’ childhood.

 

[OmegaPoint]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. First off, The Buddha actually never denied that there was a theistic god, he just found questions about God to be irrelevant to transcending suffering in this world. I am not a Buddhist mind you, I have just done a bit of studying and a small amount of meditation practice and I find much that I admire in both Buddhist thought and practice. I also find much that I admire in Catholicism, however, exclusivist assertions of Truth make me quite uncomfortable and unlike our Gnostic friend, I do take a Ramakrisna approach to Truth in that there are many paths that lead to the top of the mountain.

I am somewhat of a traditional Perennialist and believe that all the Traditional faith approaches at their esoteric core are teaching the same ultimate reality. Exoterically they differ, but the truth experienced is ultimately the same but necessarily expressed differently due to cultural, educational, and linguistic preconditions of that experience. I do believe it is essential that one be grounded in a well established tradition, whether that tradition be Catholicism, Buddhism, Hindu Vedanta, or yes, even Islam (Sufi) in order to be able to traverse the spiritual path successfully. I have little patience for every new age Oprah approved pop Guru teaching instant spiritual enlightenment that simply feeds our lazy, capitalistic, insatiable desires for instant gratification with as little work as possible. Spiritual work is the most difficult enterprise one will ever be engaged in and is not meant to just make us feel better. That is what therapy is for. Spiritual work is for warriors.

 

[stavros388]

+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…?

I’m not exactly sure which lecture it was, or exactly the words he used, but it strongly impressed upon me that the material world and its creatures were essentially not a pressing concern of the Gnostics, and that we needn’t waste time worrying about them. I will say that I enjoyed very much listening to Mr. Hoeller, and I still have a couple of his books on my shelf. He’s a very intelligent and clever man, and I found him to be laugh-out-loud funny at times, too!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. First off, The Buddha actually never denied that there was a theistic god, he just found questions about God to be irrelevant to transcending suffering in this world. I am not a Buddhist mind you, I have just done a bit of studying and a small amount of meditation practice and I find much that I admire in both Buddhist thought and practice. I also find much that I admire in Catholicism, however, exclusivist assertions of Truth make me quite uncomfortable and unlike our Gnostic friend, I do take a Ramakrisna approach to Truth in that there are many paths that lead to the top of the mountain.

I am somewhat of a traditional Perennialist and believe that all the Traditional faith approaches at their esoteric core are teaching the same ultimate reality. Exoterically they differ, but the truth experienced is ultimately the same but necessarily expressed differently due to cultural, educational, and linguistic preconditions of that experience. I do believe it is essential that one be grounded in a well established tradition, whether that tradition be Catholicism, Buddhism, Hindu Vedanta, or yes, even Islam (Sufi) in order to be able to traverse the spiritual path successfully. I have little patience for every new age Oprah approved pop Guru teaching instant spiritual enlightenment that simply feeds our lazy, capitalistic, insatiable desires for instant gratification with as little work as possible. Spiritual work is the most difficult enterprise one will ever be engaged in and is not meant to just make us feel better. That is what therapy is for. Spiritual work is for warriors.

in order to be able to traverse the spiritual path successfully

Means what exactly? Is this where another opinion comes in? Or who are you referring to for this distinction aside from yourself? What makes you think you are at all successfull as you can’t “feel” it. You “know” right? What do you know exactly?

 

[OmegaPoint]

Gnosis of Thomas:
I was wondering how does one evaluate one’s spiritual experiences and intuitions in Gnosticism? I have sensed a lot of misunderstanding of Eastern Meditational techniques in this thread, where people continue to label them simplistically as “Subjective Experiences”, however, anyone who has ever participated in a traditional school knows that this is far from the truth. Individual experiences must be judged by an experienced Master who can interpret and guide a person in their meditational practices as when these practices are left alone to an individual they can be quite misleading and even dangerous. “Subjective” experience means very little in Meditation unless that experience can be validated according to a long and deeply developed tradition. How does Gnosticism deal with this problem of validation since the tradition was decimated due to Orthodox persecution? Do you have “Masters” to guide you on your practice and certain objective roadmaps and guidepost that are typically encountered during the Gnostic path?

 

[someperson555]

thank you gnosisofthomas for your patient and erudite explanations of Gnosticism. I admit I have had more than a passing interest in gnosticism primarily because my absolutely abhorrence for JHVH of the Old Testament. I have not once been able to reconcile The Father that Jesus speaks of with the monster that is JHVH in the Old testament. I have been inclined to believe that JHVH is some type of flawed, imperfect god and that Jesus was an incarnation of the True Father sent down to teach us the true law of love and compassion. Heck I have even read that JHVH is actually The Adversary posing as The Father in the OT and that the Jews confused the two at several important junctures. However, my problem with Gnosticism if also the problem that I have with certain Eastern Religions and that is the complete repudiation of material reality as being either totally unreal and illusionary, or that it is evil and needs to be transcended. Ultimately I aspire to be like Saint Francis and not seek to transcend material reality, but to love and cherish all material reality in all its imperfect goodness.

I actually used to hold this view of the father of the old testament myself. But l later on I just found out that I was ignorant of the old testament. All throughout the OT you see that the father is indeed loving and compassionate. I do believe that a lot of the ot was written by man. But not every word of the bible is the word of God. This is what so many people dont understand. It is the central message of the bible ( which is to love God and love thy neighbor) that is the word of God. Since the bible was written by fallible people though, many times the prophets added their own biases and cultural traditions to the message of God. They did not do this on purpose though.

I too reject the dualism of Gnosticism and in fact I have the same problem with mainstream christianity too. Im a pretty worldly person therefore Im really having a hard time accepting any religious teaching on certain things. I very much like the body and material reality. I think many times christians confuse humans with angels. We are NOT spiritual beings. We are a combination of matter and spirit. We have amimal bodies and to merely ignore this aspect of humanity or pretend that it can be transcended is foolish. Thats why I loathe Catholic asceticism as well as buddhist or gnostic asceticism.