(no subject)
Jun. 3rd, 2003 06:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaWas commenting on a remark in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ravenia's journal and realized the post was good enough to put here.
I find it interesting that most critiques of Gnosticism published by the church (the most recent one I commented on here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/123334.html ) criticize Gnosticism as *both* dualistic and pantheistic.
The only logical explanation is that Gnosticism became a whipping-boy, a scapegoat, upon which accusations of all the "unfavorable" in mainstream Christianity were heaped.
The idea that Gnosticism was dualistic was taken as doctrine even by impartial scholars who examined first the heresiological writings, and *then* the Nag Hammadi texts. If you read these texts looking for evidence of dualism, you will find it easily; but when you read them from a truly detached perspective, you will see the question is actually much more complex.
While mainstream Christianity, especially in the modern sense, is defined by a saved/unsaved, heaven/hell dualism, Gnosticism admits of a much more complex scheme with at least three states of being (hylic, psychic, and pneumatic).
Edit Wednesday 9:12 AM: Wanted to add definitions of these three states of being:
The three natures (compare the three gunas of Hinduism):
hylic means earth-natured or carnal-natured
psychic means soul-natured
pneumatic means spirit-natured
In classical Gnosticism:
the hylics were those who were completely outside of the realm of spiritual concerns -- they were entirely wrapped in the needs and lusts of flesh.
the psychics were those who were primarily people of logic or emotion who tried to connect with the divine by way of worship, devotion, and following of religious codes.
The pneumatics were those who sought a direct mystical connection with Spirit and so had little use for religious code or prescribed sorts of worship.
ravenia's journal and realized the post was good enough to put here.I find it interesting that most critiques of Gnosticism published by the church (the most recent one I commented on here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/123334.html ) criticize Gnosticism as *both* dualistic and pantheistic.
The only logical explanation is that Gnosticism became a whipping-boy, a scapegoat, upon which accusations of all the "unfavorable" in mainstream Christianity were heaped.
The idea that Gnosticism was dualistic was taken as doctrine even by impartial scholars who examined first the heresiological writings, and *then* the Nag Hammadi texts. If you read these texts looking for evidence of dualism, you will find it easily; but when you read them from a truly detached perspective, you will see the question is actually much more complex.
While mainstream Christianity, especially in the modern sense, is defined by a saved/unsaved, heaven/hell dualism, Gnosticism admits of a much more complex scheme with at least three states of being (hylic, psychic, and pneumatic).
Edit Wednesday 9:12 AM: Wanted to add definitions of these three states of being:
The three natures (compare the three gunas of Hinduism):
hylic means earth-natured or carnal-natured
psychic means soul-natured
pneumatic means spirit-natured
In classical Gnosticism:
the hylics were those who were completely outside of the realm of spiritual concerns -- they were entirely wrapped in the needs and lusts of flesh.
the psychics were those who were primarily people of logic or emotion who tried to connect with the divine by way of worship, devotion, and following of religious codes.
The pneumatics were those who sought a direct mystical connection with Spirit and so had little use for religious code or prescribed sorts of worship.
