Catholicism and Gnosticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psychotheosophy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ready said:
I am not a theologean. I don’t know what to say. Sorry. (But don’t have anything to do with those Gnostics. Christianity is Truth.👍)
Click to expand...
If you are willing,
And please let me know if you are not,
Maybe I can simplify it…

Let me start with the phrase in red…
Psychotheosophy said:
Since,

Goodness = Existence = Perfect Unity

Then,

Given all things being equal,
All people naturally,
Prefer suffering to end imperfection in the body (healing)
Over suffering to end the existence of the body.

Therefore,

All people naturally,
Prefer that the end of the body is to have Goodness, not evil.
Click to expand...
…This is like…
A patient who endures painful treatment in order to be healed
An athlete who practices “no pain, no gain” in training for a race
The marine who practices “pain, is weakness leaving the body”

These are similar to of Catholic spirituality.

When Perfect Happiness (God ) is compared to imperfect happiness (everything else)
Then
Perfect Happiness leads us to sacrifice imperfect happiness for Perfect Happiness
And
Perfect Happiness gives us Perfect Happiness (turns a man into a Perfectly Happy man)

Therefore,

The Way to Perfect Happiness (Jesus) includes sacrifice (the Crucifixion)
And so,
We sacrifice all imperfect happiness,
Not to give ourselves Perfect Happiness,
But to cooperate with Perfect Happiness
Which gives us Perfect Happiness (see above)
Since Perfect Happiness does not force us to be Perfectly Happy. (free will)

Does the phrase in red make sense?
 
Psychotheosophy said:
Does the phrase in red make sense? END QUOTE]

What kind of imperfection exists in the body? Sin in its members? Then I agree, people would want suffering to correct the sinfulness of their members (their depraved passions, their vices, etc…) But I really think they would want the grace of God more than painful suffering without Him to help them with their body’s imperfections.
Click to expand...
 
What kind of imperfection exists in the body? Sin in its members? Then I agree, people would want suffering to correct the sinfulness of their members (their depraved passions, their vices, etc…) But I really think they would want the grace of God more than painful suffering without Him to help them with their body’s imperfections.

Also I would like to say, if a person does not have his sufferings united to Jesus, then his sufferings are in vain and ultimately does him or her no good. A Gnostic can suffer all he or she wants in this world, but because his or her sufferings are not united to Jesus’ on Calvary, their sufferings are really in vain, the same goes for Catholics who do not suffer in union with Jesus…their suffering does nothing of any real good spiritual value for them and is a total waste. A little experience is gained but that’s about it.

The Gnostics may get into Christ consciousness, but that’s not the same thing as getting into Jesus and taking up one’s cross and following Him and uniting one’s suffering to Him. He’s what brings healing in suffering, not the suffering itself, suffering is just a means of uniting ourselves with Him and growing in holiness…suffering apart from Jesus does nothing, and only is bothersome suffering, and in the spiritual realm should not be seen as a good thing, unless of course it is united to Christ’s sufferings for the redemption of mankind.
 
ready said:
What kind of imperfection exists in the body? Sin in its members? Then I agree, people would want suffering to correct the sinfulness of their members (their depraved passions, their vices, etc…) But I really think they would want the grace of God more than painful suffering without Him to help them with their body’s imperfections.

Also I would like to say, if a person does not have his sufferings united to Jesus, then his sufferings are in vain and ultimately does him or her no good. A Gnostic can suffer all he or she wants in this world, but because his or her sufferings are not united to Jesus’ on Calvary, their sufferings are really in vain, the same goes for Catholics who do not suffer in union with Jesus…their suffering does nothing of any real good spiritual value for them and is a total waste. A little experience is gained but that’s about it.

The Gnostics may get into Christ consciousness, but that’s not the same thing as getting into Jesus and taking up one’s cross and following Him and uniting one’s suffering to Him. He’s what brings healing in suffering, not the suffering itself, suffering is just a means of uniting ourselves with Him and growing in holiness…suffering apart from Jesus does nothing, and only is bothersome suffering, and in the spiritual realm should not be seen as a good thing, unless of course it is united to Christ’s sufferings for the redemption of mankind.
Click to expand...
Let me give an example to help clarify what I mean…

A person has clinical depression.
This is due to a chemical imbalance in his brain. (imperfection in the body)
He has a choice:
Either receive electro-convulsant shock therapy (suffering) to relieve the depression (maintain having existence (God))
Or
Kill himself (suffering to end his existence)

Since, all people naturally seek existence (given as a grace of God)
He will naturally seek treatment to live, over suicide.

However, I want to point out…

There are circumstances where he would reject the ECT and, sadly, choose suicide.
But in this case, there is something else shifting the scale.
This is why I began by saying, “Given all things being equal.”

I wanted to make a point to which both Catholics and Gnostics could relate.
I don’t think Gnostics believe that Jesus was crucified, died, and resurrected.

Let me know if there are errors.
 
Tp Psycotheosophy re: last post:

What do you think about people like the holy martyrs who would rather be killed and die on this earth rather than give up their beliefs in their God and religious practices. They choose death over existence on the earth because they know that this existence on earth is nothing and only second in rank compared to the spiritual life, eternal in God.

Does that complicate the argument you make? I don’t think some of us (like myself) value existence on earth so much as existence eternal with God. I’d rather be killed and die today than live a life of a lie apart from my God and Savior.

I guess what I am saying is there must be at least two kinds of existence we are dealing with: the eternal and the temporal. Which are you referring to in your arguments, the temporal? If you are just referring to the temporal, then I don’t think the argument really works, as the life of maryrs shows us that death is something good and preferable to temporal existence for reasons of conscience.

I’m sure Catholics and people from other religions (like Gnostics) can relate when it comes to certain truths, but inherent in Gnosticism is hidden truth, secrecy and deviation from Catholic teaching, which makes it really difficult.

Jesus tells us not to fear him who can kill the body, but Him who can kill both the body and soul in Gehenna. This tells me we should not try to preserve our life on this earth from death when there is a conflict involving God’s commands, but rather, we should perseveringly try to preserve the life of the Spirit within us unto life eternal.
 
ready said:
Tp Psycotheosophy re: last post:

What do you think about people like the holy martyrs who would rather be killed and die on this earth rather than give up their beliefs in their God and religious practices. They choose death over existence on the earth because they know that this existence on earth is nothing and only second in rank compared to the spiritual life, eternal in God.

Does that complicate the argument you make? I don’t think some of us (like myself) value existence on earth so much as existence eternal with God. I’d rather be killed and die today than live a life of a lie apart from my God and Savior.

I guess what I am saying is there must be at least two kinds of existence we are dealing with: the eternal and the temporal. Which are you referring to in your arguments, the temporal? If you are just referring to the temporal, then I don’t think the argument really works, as the life of maryrs shows us that death is something good and preferable to temporal existence for reasons of conscience.

I’m sure Catholics and people from other religions (like Gnostics) can relate when it comes to certain truths, but inherent in Gnosticism is hidden truth, secrecy and deviation from Catholic teaching, which makes it really difficult.

Jesus tells us not to fear him who can kill the body, but Him who can kill both the body and soul in Gehenna. This tells me we should not try to preserve our life on this earth from death when there is a conflict involving God’s commands, but rather, we should perseveringly try to preserve the life of the Spirit within us unto life eternal.
Click to expand...
People choosing to end having Existence doesn’t mean they will be successful.

The principle of Existence (God) is naturally sought.
Suicidal people choose to suffer ECT, and potential death from the ECT, trusting in the principle of Existence.
Martyrs choose to suffer, and potential death from the suffering, trusting in the principle of Existence.
The principle of Existence on earth, and eternity, are they same one.

Are you Gnostic?
 
ready said:
No, I am not Gnostic. I am an orthodox Roman Catholic. Are you Gnostic?
Click to expand...
I’m not either. I’m also Catholic.
You never know in these forums.

The reason why I wanted to check it out was…
Code: 
You said secrecy is inherent to Gnosticism, and
You said that there is an existence for matter, and a separate existence for the spiritual.

Since the Catholic teaching is that there is one Existence, which is God,
It sounded as though you believed that there is a god of matter and a god of spirit.
I thought I read somewhere that this is a Gnostic belief.
Do you know if this is a Gnostic belief?
 
Psychotheosophy said:
I’m not either. I’m also Catholic.
You never know in these forums.

The reason why I wanted to check it out was…
Code: 
You said secrecy is inherent to Gnosticism, and
You said that there is an existence for matter, and a separate existence for the spiritual.

Since the Catholic teaching is that there is one Existence, which is God,
It sounded as though you believed that there is a god of matter and a god of spirit.
I thought I read somewhere that this is a Gnostic belief.
Do you know if this is a Gnostic belief?
Click to expand...
What I was saying is that the* Gnostics* believe that the body is evil while the sprit is good. That’s not what I believe, just what they believe. And the whole issue of knowledge and wisdom for them is not like Catholicism, open to all and for all to understand equally: the Gnostics believe that what they obtain in wisdom comes from the arcane (secret/mysterious) open only to the enlighened few who are able to aquire it.
 
Psychotheosophy said:
Good and Evil occur on a continuum.

When you say “Evil,” do you mean:
A lack of some goodness
Or
A lack of all goodness?
Click to expand...
In that particular statement I meant both. Because to a Gnostic the body lacks all goodness yet provides a good they don’t accept worthy of any kind of permanence. I should have worded it differently so as to be more precise. I should have written ‘percieved as’ rather than ‘becomes’. This kind of conversation is new to me:blush:

Good= pernanence
then
Evil= temporary
:confused:
 
Benadam said:
…This kind of conversation is new to me:blush:
Click to expand...
No worries. 🙂
Benadam said:
In that particular statement I meant both. Because to a Gnostic the body lacks all goodness yet provides a good they don’t accept worthy of any kind of permanence. I should have worded it differently so as to be more precise. I should have written ‘percieved as’ rather than ‘becomes’. This kind of conversation is new to me:blush:

Good= pernanence
then
Evil= temporary
:confused:
Click to expand...
In post #25,
We were assuming that
Good = Evil.

So,
permanence = temporary?
“percieved as” = “becomes”?

So if,
The body is perceived as (becomes) evil (good) rather than becomes (perceived as) evil (good)
I don’t see how changing the words changes the meaning.
It could be considered meaningless.

Do our actions guide meaning?
Does meaning guide our actions?
 
Benadam said:
I’m thinking it depends on how we percieve
Click to expand...
So,
When you compare your own perceptions
With
Anything opposing your perceptions
Then
You sacrifice anything opposing your perceptions
For
Your own perceptions?

(Why do you use formatting syntax to get other people to misquote you?)
 
Correct me if i’m wrong, but…
Benadam said:
Things that percieve can be compared with perceptions opposite of their own?
Click to expand...
Here, you don’t seem to be saying anything.
Benadam said:
If things that percieve the opposite of what I percieve, can replace my perception, then things that percieve are like what they percieve even if they are opposites.
Click to expand...
Since we are both Catholic, and therefore likely believe in free will,
Here again, you don’t seem to be saying anything.
Benadam said:
I don’t know why
Click to expand...
Here again, you don’t seem to be saying anything.
 
Since it is clear that Catholicism and Gnosticism (or gnosticism) are not the same,
(for a number of reasons),
How do we distinguish the Catholic view of love,
from the Gnostic view of love?
 
Psychotheosophy said:
Since it is clear that Catholicism and Gnosticism (or gnosticism) are not the same,
(for a number of reasons),
How do we distinguish the Catholic view of love,
from the Gnostic view of love?
Click to expand...
From a Catholic perspective…

In principle,

We don’t love out of fear of punishment,
We don’t love for some payment of loving,
We are free to love for the sake of love itself,

Responding to that principle of love which we naturally seek.
 
Psychotheosophy said:
From a Catholic perspective…

In principle,

We don’t love out of fear of punishment,
We don’t love for some payment of loving,
We are free to love for the sake of love itself,

Responding to that principle of love which we naturally seek.
Click to expand...
…And so,

Love overcomes fear and punishment
Love itself is more meaningful than any payment.

But,

If we separate
Principle and practice
Both lose meaning.

How does this compare to Gnosticism?
 
Psychotheosophy said:
If we separate
Principle and practice
Both lose meaning.
Click to expand...
For example,

If we say love is important to us,
But act unlovingly toward others,
Then love lacks meaning to us.

If we appear lovingly in our behavior,
But simply as a show to impress others,
Then love lacks meaning to us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top