sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2003-06-13 01:56 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2003-06-13 01:56 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Gnosticism question and answer I posted (in a couple of different places) today on Beliefnet.
If the Demiurge is only our individual ego, how did the universe become the place of suffering, terror, death, and innumerable flaws that it is?
The Universe, it appears, is the result of a series of happy accidents over the course of 14 billion years that allowed for the evolution of life on planet Earth (and, we might presume, in other localized pockets elsewhere).
It is the propensity of human flesh for pain (and pleasure) that makes the universe seem like a cold, heartless place of suffering.
It can also be a place of immense beauty.
I take a "liberal" view of the Gnostic teachings. For example, the Gospel of Truth describes a "fog of error" that grew to have a substance of its own. I take this as a metaphor for the state of agnosia, rather than a literal description of the way matter came into form.
Do Gnostic's believe in GOD?
There are agnostic and atheist Gnostics, but the majority "believe" in God.
I put "believe" in quotes because it is more a matter of KNOWING there is a divine presence through having had some direct experience of it.
If so, in what way do they see or think of God?
The answers to this are quite varied. Generally what you find is that the "root" of God is described as or compared to a state of total stillness or infinite potential.
Imagine the Singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang. Within the crystal stillness of that Singularity resided the entire Universe, but only unrealized, as potential.
The pleroma or "fullness of God" is the impression or experience of God as a "divine unfolding."
Some versions of the Gnostic myth described the pleroma as a Name with 30 letters, each letter of which was an aion or infinite facet of the divine. The Name of God, or Pleroma, as a whole was itself the Christ (the source of this myth is an esoteric reading of Colossians 1:19).
This is too involved to go into here, but there is an excellent (if detailed) essay online here:
The Name and Naming in Valentinianism
(Valentinianism is the school of Gnosticism with which I most closely identify.)
What about Jesus?
There are typically two answers that you will get about Jesus from the average Gnostic Christian.
The first is that Jesus was born an ordinary human and, by experiencing Gnosis (symbolically at the moment of his baptism) he harmonized with the Spirit of Christ. Mainstream Christianity views this as the "heresy" of Adoptionism.
The second answer is that Jesus was fully divine and only appeared to be human. Mainstream Christianity views this as the "heresy" of Docetism.
Again, I can refer you to a more detailed essay:
The Role of Jesus in Valentinianism
If the Demiurge is only our individual ego, how did the universe become the place of suffering, terror, death, and innumerable flaws that it is?
The Universe, it appears, is the result of a series of happy accidents over the course of 14 billion years that allowed for the evolution of life on planet Earth (and, we might presume, in other localized pockets elsewhere).
It is the propensity of human flesh for pain (and pleasure) that makes the universe seem like a cold, heartless place of suffering.
It can also be a place of immense beauty.
I take a "liberal" view of the Gnostic teachings. For example, the Gospel of Truth describes a "fog of error" that grew to have a substance of its own. I take this as a metaphor for the state of agnosia, rather than a literal description of the way matter came into form.
Do Gnostic's believe in GOD?
There are agnostic and atheist Gnostics, but the majority "believe" in God.
I put "believe" in quotes because it is more a matter of KNOWING there is a divine presence through having had some direct experience of it.
If so, in what way do they see or think of God?
The answers to this are quite varied. Generally what you find is that the "root" of God is described as or compared to a state of total stillness or infinite potential.
Imagine the Singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang. Within the crystal stillness of that Singularity resided the entire Universe, but only unrealized, as potential.
The pleroma or "fullness of God" is the impression or experience of God as a "divine unfolding."
Some versions of the Gnostic myth described the pleroma as a Name with 30 letters, each letter of which was an aion or infinite facet of the divine. The Name of God, or Pleroma, as a whole was itself the Christ (the source of this myth is an esoteric reading of Colossians 1:19).
This is too involved to go into here, but there is an excellent (if detailed) essay online here:
The Name and Naming in Valentinianism
(Valentinianism is the school of Gnosticism with which I most closely identify.)
What about Jesus?
There are typically two answers that you will get about Jesus from the average Gnostic Christian.
The first is that Jesus was born an ordinary human and, by experiencing Gnosis (symbolically at the moment of his baptism) he harmonized with the Spirit of Christ. Mainstream Christianity views this as the "heresy" of Adoptionism.
The second answer is that Jesus was fully divine and only appeared to be human. Mainstream Christianity views this as the "heresy" of Docetism.
Again, I can refer you to a more detailed essay:
The Role of Jesus in Valentinianism
On contradictions
What do they know!
Lu.
But--seriously--how can you be a gnostic without thinking you can know the divine? I guess you could believe in saving knowledge without it being knowledge of anything in particular? Or is it just that the agnostic gnostic knows by experience that there is no (personal or individual or capital letter) God?
Re: On contradictions
Re: On contradictions
A side-question (or several): how does one determine whether an experience is an experience of gnosis? (Or rather, how would you?) Is it important what you attribute it to? Is it possible to have experienced gnosis and misinterpreted it?
Lu.
Re: On contradictions