Catholicism and Gnosticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psychotheosophy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Benadam said:
so principle -practice= love that visibly lacks meaning
Click to expand...
No,
A Principle of Perfect Love that does not love does not exist (therefore meaningless)
Benadam said:
and practice - principle=love that hides it’s lack of meaning
Click to expand...
No,
The subtraction of the Principle of Perfect Love leaves no love
Benadam said:
does this say something about love that lacks meaning
Click to expand...
Yes,
The Principle of Perfect Love that lacks meaning does not exist
Imperfect love lacks perfect meaning
Benadam said:
or
does this say something about the lover?
Click to expand...
Yes.
A love is completely meaningful to a lover who loves perfectly
A love lacks perfect meaning to a lover who loves imperfectly

Perfect Love (which is Perfect Happiness, Perfect Goodness, etc.) is beyond our imagination.
So only Perfect Love can perfect our love (not us).
 
Psychotheosophy said:
Gnosticism and docetism were pervasive in Roman society and contributed to the development of a gnostic form of Christianity that looked similar to orthodox biblical Christianity.
.
Click to expand...
I thought the Gnostic schools were small–which is why we have not a single scrap of Gnostic writing dated prior to 400 AD–and all of the schools were quite different. Which ones do you think developed anything that looked like Christianity, because I can’t think of any unless you mean Marcion. And are you sure Marcion could be called Gnostic or merely a Catholic heretic? I would vote for run of the mill Catholic heretic.
  1. The gnostic Pistis Sophia, with its detailed description of cleansing fire needed to become pure before entering heaven, was written by Valentinus before 150 AD and pre-dates all the church fathers comments on prayers for the dead and purgatory.
Click to expand...
Maccabees in the bible certainly pre dates Pistis Sophia. .
Code: 
7. The gnostic trinity was Father, Mother, and Son, in which God has a female consort. Then we find Athanasius of Alexandria first describing Mary as ever-Virgin, and in gnostic writing Mary is queen of angels. In Catholicism, Mary is the consort or spouse of God, and so for Joseph to have intimate relations with her after Jesus' birth would be considered adultery.
Click to expand...
My goodness, what books have you been reading??? Most of the Gnostics hated women. Thought they were basically evil, just as they hated the world and flesh… Typical, from Thomas: “Women do not deserve to live”

I would strongly question the time line you have here also. I am afraid you need to check those out, because it is quite wrong. Sorry, but the Protoevangelium, not to mention all those 'hail Mary’s" in the catacombs were long, long before Athanasius.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem
 
Psychotheosophy said:
I don’t know what you mean, can you elaborate?
Click to expand...
Thinking along the lines that a principle is made visible when it is practiced, I thought that the soul is refered to in theological terms as the principle of life and the flesh it animates is like practice in that it and only it actuates the principle and through that act both the principle and the body(body=practice) have meaning…

This would distinguish Catholicism from Gnosticism since to gnostics the flesh does not give meaning to the soul.
 
annem said:
Psychotheosophy said:

I thought the Gnostic schools were small–which is why we have not a single scrap of Gnostic writing dated prior to 400 AD–and all of the schools were quite different. Which ones do you think developed anything that looked like Christianity, because I can’t think of any unless you mean Marcion. And are you sure Marcion could be called Gnostic or merely a Catholic heretic? I would vote for run of the mill Catholic heretic.

Maccabees in the bible certainly pre dates Pistis Sophia. .

My goodness, what books have you been reading??? Most of the Gnostics hated women. Thought they were basically evil, just as they hated the world and flesh… Typical, from Thomas: “Women do not deserve to live”

I would strongly question the time line you have here also. I am afraid you need to check those out, because it is quite wrong. Sorry, but the Protoevangelium, not to mention all those 'hail Mary’s" in the catacombs were long, long before Athanasius.

May God grant you a million miracles, Annem
Click to expand...
Those are not my quotes.
 
Benadam said:
Thinking along the lines that a principle is made visible when it is practiced, I thought that the soul is refered to in theological terms as the principle of life and the flesh it animates is like practice in that it and only it actuates the principle and through that act both the principle and the body(body=practice) have meaning…

This would distinguish Catholicism from Gnosticism since to gnostics the flesh does not give meaning to the soul.
Click to expand...
From a catholic perspective…

The soul is not life, but is given life by life.
And
The flesh does not give meaning to life, because life is meaning.
Benadam said:
…to gnostics the flesh does not give meaning to the soul.
Click to expand...
Is this to say, gnostics believe meaning gives meaning to the soul, not the soul?
 
Benadam said:
yet God made man a self determined creature. A creature autonomous as to it’s ultimate meaning. This being so, the soul termed as such doesn’t refer to the source of life but the soul as the source of life of the body. The soul as final cause of the body.
Click to expand...
So, the creature is not it’s own ultimate meaning?
 
Psychotheosophy said:
What do you mean by, “Ultimately?”
Click to expand...
I mean, ‘in the end’. To what end do we live? is answered ultimately when our earthly life, which is a state of ‘becoming’ our ultimate meaning, ends and we enter into eternal life.
 
Benadam said:
I mean, ‘in the end’. To what end do we live? is answered ultimately when our earthly life, which is a state of ‘becoming’ our ultimate meaning, ends and we enter into eternal life.
Click to expand...
So, when the creature is not it’s own ultimate meaning,
What sustains it’s life?
 
Psychotheosophy said:
Then, how could the creature reject it’s own ultimate meaning?
Click to expand...
Maybe I can explain…

If obtaining ultimate meaning is eternal life…
Benadam said:
I mean, ‘in the end’. To what end do we live? is answered ultimately when our earthly life, which is a state of ‘becoming’ our ultimate meaning, ends and we enter into eternal life.
Click to expand...
And eternal life can not be lost once obtained (by definition),
Then,
The creature can not lose it’s ultimate meaning once obtained.

So, how is it that…?
Benadam said:
It’s a multifaceted condition to say the least. We have lost human perfection. That preternatural grace that enabled us to know it’s purpose and act towards that end. Human life that completes it’s reason for being created. We have lost that and in it’s place experience a sense of brokeness, a sense that something is missing, something just aint right.

Fundamentally it is a state of being that once lost could not be recreated through the memory of it or in efforts to imitate what we remembered. In fact it becomes a matter of faith to believe it was experienced at all being subject to a fallen memory.
Click to expand...
It appears that your “end” can never be reached. Is this true?
 
Benadam said:
…We have lost human perfection…
Click to expand...
You have created a false principle,
Which does not actually exist.
It is not a principle all people naturally seek,
Because
All people naturally seek a Happiness that can not be lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top