Have any of you done any reading about the very early development of
the two sects of Christianity, those that became Catholic and those that
were Gnostics?
Thoughts? Any links you can share about this topic?

I read a good amount of the Nag Hammadi collection of "gnostic" texts.
Interesting. Some are crap. Some are so abstract they're impossible to
grasp. A couple are interesting.

I've also read a good amount of the other gnostic scriptures. They're
interesting, usually more focused on familiar new-testament themes. They
also have some real interesting insights. Despite the crappy movie, 'the
Da Vinci Code' does quote some of the more interesting gnostic texts -
like the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas.

A favorite web site for gnostic texts:
http://www.gnosis.org/library.html

Absolutely. I've been interested in the Gnostic "myth" so to speak for
several years. The web addresses you post are very good places to get a
good understanding of what it's about.

I see, said the blind man. Now I see where some of your off the beaten
path views eminate from, not many - no - no one I've actually talked to
knew anything about the Gnostic side of things.

Just shows to go ya - there are some who value what history has to offer
and some who do not go beyond the book under their nose.

Your right redyk, I am stuck on the book under my nose.

You can learn alot from history, but alot of it holds false pretenses.
There are many known facts about 'wronged' history events. History can
teach us, just like the book under our nose, (or eyes on screen), as
well as all 'regilgions', but the ways of the wise guide us to realize
that all the knowledge gained, brings us closer to understanding, thus
making us more wise. I love this community.

with much agreement Net.

Try a Google search on "Edmund D. Cohen Mind of the Bible Believer". His
book of the same title has shed a lot of light on the divergence of
Pauline Christianity and the Gnostics. Also try
www.religioustolerance.org

The Gnostics tended to be both elitists and heterodoxical, and in any
establishment seeking to become mainstream, that can be a fatal
combination (figuratively and literally, as the Gnostics were labelled
heretics and had genocide visited upon them by the Roman Army at the
direction of the Roman Church). That's probably why so few people have
even heard of the Gnostics, much less can expound on their theories,
beliefs and contributions.

Too, the very word 'gnostic' implies 'a knowing', and much of what was
to become Christian orthodoxy was based more on faith than on concrete
knowledge or introspective ponderings outside of doctrine and dogma.
That especially is an antithesis to the often authortarianism that is
the hallmark of orthdox Christianity.

The Gnostics weren't the only ones to suffer this fate. Google on the
'George Fox Religious Society of Friends' (you probably know them better
at the Quakers), and note there too the awful persecution they endured.

Myself, I'm an agnostic-- but I've always had a soft spot in my heart
for the Quakers.

-Kerry O.

KerryO - where ya been? Nice to hear a new voice in the walls of this
cyberdome. Hope to hear your voice again. I Will definately review
the info you gave, as I'm very interested.

HUM! Redykeulous,

After 'tripping' on our mutual interest with 'Gnosticism' on the now
infamous 'evolution vs creationism' post, I was wondering how to get
back to you on that topic, until I tripped again, ...on this post of
yours this morning.

Anyhow, what a playgroung you have here!

Great angles from 'MikeM' and 'KerryO' on historical perspectives.

... and without wanting to disturb the historical angle, nor shy away
from learning more about it myself, how about bringing up the
contemporary aspects of Gnosticism?

Although still marginal today (IMO was very marginal throughout its
history?!?!), 'Gnosticism' is still alive and kicking.
And although 'non-religious' myself, (can't quite bring myself to say
'agnostic'), I find very rich, the relationship of the Gnostic
founding principles of 'TIMELESS knowledge' through, among others, the
Oriental texts of Buddhism, Toaism and Vedas.

While I have no intention of joining any church or religious movement,
and like KerryO, have a 'open' penchant for Mennonites and Quakers, I
am very impressed by the theoretical founding premise of the 'Universal
Gnostic Church'.

In theory at least (I haven't had any firsthand contact with the church
itself, nor have I come across any of its members), the Church's
constitution today is very much in line with its origins (whatI know of
it).
An 'inside-out' eastern perspective of 'being', as opposed to our
solidly anchored western 'outside-in' mentality.


The essence of 'inside-out', puts each human being at the center of his
or her own quest for enlightment, through timeless and material less
Knowledge, inside of one's always 'existing' communion with the
'Divine'.
(whether one is 'present' to it, or ignoring it (the Divine), the
communion is alleged to be there (not somethong to go to, or earn), and
depends only on the nature of one's quest (choice and commitment).

None of the outside 'apocalyptic fear', or need for redemption Dogma of
more orthodox Christianity.

A straight and 'free' quest arond 'non-dualistic' paradox, and a quiet
trust to deepen something that is 'alledged' already within us: a
'timeless' and 'material less' knowledge of our relation with the
Divine.

It's a sort of very grounded 'primitive brain' vs 'cortex' struggle with
the paradoxical!!! ... essence of (human) 'being'.

http://www.geocities.com/alandwpeters/intro.html
http://www.universalgnostic.com/
http://www.spiritual-teachers.com/thomas.htm

Thanks for the post Redykeulous.

As an pertinent aside,

Middle age Cathars have had and still hold significant ties with
Gnosticism:

The Cathars, catholics whom adopted among other elements, Gnostic
principles, were rapidly tagged as 'heretics' by the 'mother' Church,
which eventually lead to their 'elimination'.

Traveling through France, and the Languedoc recently, I was determined
to get some firsthand historical information on the Cathar 'genocide',
and where it stood today with the French locals today.
Had France admitted to this 'middle-age' old massacre, and had they
gained some perspective, I wondered!

Strangely enough, to my great surprise, it hadn't! Anyhow, not from the
several dozen accounts I gathered. Much in the same way (some/most)
North Americans mainstream Christians would get very uncomfrotable
discussing the principles of Gnosticism today, so did the French I spoke
with about the Cathar genocide.

The link with Gnosticism is prevalent in The Cathars Beliefs, and was in
stark contradiction with Christian dogma of the time as it still is
today.

But interestingly (or ironically), mainstream Catholic Church is
incorporating more and more of the Cathar positions, thus indirectly
Gnosticism to a degree.

For what it's worth, is a 'linking' link!

"While I have no intention of joining any church or religious movement,
and like KerryO, have a 'open' penchant for Mennonites and Quakers, I
am very impressed by the theoretical founding premise of the 'Universal
Gnostic Church'."

Hi Voileazur,

There are some Mennonites in my woodpile, but I found their practice of
shunning people to be alienating. I feel like that recent saying on a
bumper sticker:

"Do God's work, not his job."

I know so many people whose religion fills them with love for their
fellow humans, and I never fail to stand in awe of that aspect of human
goodness that causes them to help the unfortunate. Or, how religion
inspired people like Kahlil Gibran to write words such as these in 'The
Prophet':

"Say not, 'I have found the truth', but rather, 'I have found a truth'.
Say not, 'I have found the path of the soul', but rather 'I have found
the soul walking on my path.' For the soul walks upon all paths. The
soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed. The soul
unfolds itself like a lotus of countless petals."

-Kerry O.

Voil, how interesting that you've been able to see first hand what
questioning religion in another country is like. I was not aware that
there were actual practicing Gnostic followers. I will look up the
links you provided. I know that when I was researching the Gnostic
history, I was really ticked to think "now here is someting that could,
possibly, have been a true religious philosophy worthy of it's
followers." I'd like to see how the current trend fits into the older
philosophy.

And K - gotta say, I think I own everything Kahlil Gibran ever wrote.
Sometimes instead of reading fairy tales to my son, I would read him
storyies that Gibran wrote. I've bought and given away probably dozens
of copies of The Prophet.

Have any of you ever read - Johathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach?
(a little off the subject but K's comment made me think about it.)

Say not, 'I have found the truth', but rather, 'I have found a truth'.
Say not, 'I have found the path of the soul', but rather 'I have found
the soul walking on my path.' For the soul walks upon all paths. The
soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed. The soul
unfolds itself like a lotus of countless petals."


Very interesting concepts, it is a very simplistic way of looking at
the paths that are before me, that I may walk, or in finding a truth I
could walk another path.

Thank you for the links, I have much reading to do on some of these
ideas.


G

HUM! John Lennon's 'Imagine', Georges Harrison's 'All Things Must
Pass’, …WATERGATE!!! ... and Jonatan Livingston Seagull!!! Here!
Here! to time travel!!!

Interesting coincidence, I did my first read of The Prophet (my grand
mother let me her copy), right around the time I got Johnathan L. S. for
my 15th birthday, in 1970, the year it came out.

Back to Gnosticism, while J.L.S. is great read, it is, much like 'Le
Petit Prince' from Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, profoundly based on the
traditional 'western', and traditional Christian perspective of
Spirituality. Nothing wrong with that, but it is only 'one side'.

Kahlil G., on the other hand, is in stark contrast with the western
perspective, and still succeeds to connect to 'Western' souls. When
interested with Universality, and inclusiveness, well, that's
interesting!

And while we're at it, ther are IMO, two other interesting 'carriers' or
bridges between the Occident and the Orient, relating directly with the
'non-dualistic', and indirectly with the 'inclusiveness' founding
principles of Gnosticism. The works of Krisnamurti fom the 'Indian East'
and Albert Camus from the 'European West'.


“”WARNING:
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
I only have one writing style, and it betrays my weaknesses: arrogance,
'preachy', maybe condescending (I hate that one), etc. I ask you to
forgive me in advance, and remind yourself, as you're reading 'me', that
I really do not take myself seriously at all (dramatic for fun maybe,
but not serious). In essence, I'm still very much a student of
everything I read and write!!!).
By the way : I LIKE THIS POST!
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

What I find riveting in Krisnamurti's work, is his tireless focus on
breaking-up the 'sclerosed' way of (non) 'being', this notion where we
separate ourselves form the essence of life, by boxing ourselves
unconsciously into 'known modes of being', unable to escape.

Liberating self from the 'known' (not getting rid of, but 'freeing'
self of the instinct), was and is Krisnamurti's core message.

He went to indiscriminately do violence to the 'DO' anchored way of
American 'being', 'HAVE' anchored way of European 'being', and 'BE'
anchored way of East (mainly his native India) way of 'being'.
Krisnamurti figured the three 'separate' ways of anchored 'being', once
brought together, constituted the essence of being for all humans.

Albert Camus, from a different angle and background, also contributed
enormously to the this notion of 'freeing oneself from the known and
static way of being'.

While all his novels carry this theme from a number of refreshing
variations, it is his philosophical 'fight' with Jean-Paul Sartre on
the ‘absurd’, that brought him to write his greatest piece, in my
opinion.

'The myth of Sisyphus', an essay on existentialism, the absurd and
meaninglessness of life, sums up his opposition with Sartre's message of
'hopelessness' on existentialism. Not that Camus argues for hope to
counter balance, on the contrary. He argues that hope, or its
correlate hopelessness, are a form of cancer to the possibility of
'being'. IOW, denies one's acces to experiencing life for what it is.
(Resigned about the hopelessness of life, ‘Christian religiousness’ is
very much founded on offering the hope of redemption, and a place in
Heaven, thus the debate between Camus and Sartre)

Camus demonstrates, with the help of Greek Mythology, and The Myth of
Sisyphus, that ‘seeking’, or ‘wanting’ , I and as of itself, is the sum
total of all suffering.
That 'IT' creates the survival driven division of ego, and separates
one from the experience of life 'as it is'. In its stead, it installs
an unconscious form of denial through wanting and wishing. (‘I wish…’,
and ‘I want…” only affirms your not having; your not being, … your not
being whole).

This, the 'non-dualistic'* notion, is IMO what might be argued to tie
Kahlil G., Krisnamurti, and Camus to only names those, with the essence
of Gnosticism (not necessarily as practiced, but essentially as
constituted).

*non-dualistic: because we are essentially under the perpetual illusion
of being 'one-AND' the world (separate and distinct from), as opposed to
'one-IN-or-WITH' the world (part of, or totally inclusive). For one to
pretend that he has become 'one' with the world, is just that,
PRETENTIOUS.

'ONENESS' if it can be said, is not on sale at Wall-Mart, nor is it a
'10 step' course in your local college. If anything, it is an
impersonal and immaterial phenomenon which eludes you, the more you
attempt to 'own' it, or reach it.

On the other hand, it has been observed, that being humble, conscious,
accepting, distinguishing and revealing authentically to ourselves, the
manner in which this 'dualistic illusion' operates in our lives ('I' as
separate from everything and all), doing violence to this permanent
dualistic illusion (paradox), or 'being non-dualistic', paradoxically
has been known to bring about in an uncontrollable manner, the notion of
'oneness'. This is what Gnostics sensed, centuries ago.


As I said, my 'I' comes across a bit dramatic maybe, but 'I' don't take
any of it too seriously!

Voil, the evidence is now conclusive. From these chats, I now believe
that philosophy is alive if not popular, in the general American public,
in some small faction of it anyway. The best part of my days are sitting
here reading, thinking, responding.

I have read Sartre, I felt him to be a tired, disconcerted, possibly
even bi-polar entity. It was difficult to glean the information from
his dark mind. However, you seem to have captured more than I did. I
must now go back and re-read. I have also run accross Krisnamunti and
Camus in small degrees. I think you have summed up what we have
stumbled upon in our discussion by connecting Krisnamunti, Camus, and
Gibran in the manner you have.
Gibran is a much simpler read and the format in which he writes is not
given to excessive explanation or theory, though it does not lack power
of it's own as it is an apt and applicable read to the general public.
While, on the other hand, the others express ideas, logic and theory
that most people are not likely to find intuitively fascinating or even
applicable to their current life styles.

To go a bit further with the gnostic discussion. I find the philosophy
of it all, including those more current writers listed here, to be
something that could effectivly be used within an educational
enviornment. I have believed, since I was in highschool, that what the
education system lacks is the ability to invoke logic as a normal brain
function. The theories of those discussed here, can be made "user
friendly" on many different levels. It should be the goal of education,
not just to teach reading and writing, but to teach how to reason, how
to use logic, when and how to think philisophically. To bring down the
walls of "the box". I think that taught correctly the basics
surrounding gnosticism could be a beginning to accomplish these
educational goals. Ethically they can be benign. It is not necessary
that they conflict with any religious teachings by families. In fact, I
think, they stand to encompass, on some tolerant level, the beliefs of
all poeple. However, the ability to think for ones self, on such a high
level of logic may just be too much for the Christians, Muslims,
Mormons, etc. of this United States.

Keep a child interested and they will learn, is true enough, but teach a
child logic, tolerance, acceptance and they will find interests of their
own accord. Keep peach in the teaching proccess and a child will keep
peach in their mind and in the world they survey and live in. (just a
very small part of my educational theory) Just had to get it in here,
as it is so extremely rare to find a discussion in which my theories are
enlightned.

Redykeulous,

Just for the fun of fine tuning,

- I brought Sartre up in the context of his public debate with Camus.
While one cannot ignore Sartre (huge influence in the existential
debate), many, of whom I'm part, do not subscribe to his essential
position. Although it is unfair to his work, for the beefit of our
exchange here, let's zero in on Sartre's chief premise.

On existentialism: Sartre basically describes life as a relative 'hell'
for all, which all have a choice to transcend, in his view: thus
'liberty' or 'hope of liberty'.
He bases this premise on his very own notion that for humans, 'existence
preceedes essence'.
That is again, this difficult notion for me, that somehow humans are a
special or superior party to the universal whole. That humans by some
mystical notion, escape the unexplained universal 'oneness'.
We 'apart' from all else in the universe, escape the essence of it all,
through 'pre-existence'!!! Can't by that in a philosophical exchange.

That is how Camus came to confront Sartre's notion, and (again, unfair
simplification of Camus' work, but for the benefit...) proposed that the
very notion of 'hell', is a human mythical creation, and simply doesn't
exist in the material-physical world. While, in Camus's argument, myth
exists and is very rich as such, it should exist for what it is; MYTH,
and not be confused woth the material and physical.

Again, for Camus, HELL only exist in the fabricated by hummans
dimension. A dialectic dimension: in languaging: in the organization and
large consensus among all between emotions, thoughts, symbols and words.

The source being the human emotion of fear from our primitive brain, and
the hard work from the cortex to understand and control fears.

IMPOSSIBLE AND FRUITLESS TASK: argues Camus!

He suggests on the contrary that embracing, includuing, and accepting
our condition for what it is:
'a symbolic creation convincing us of the illusion that we're 'special'
in the universe', is the experience of HELL.
It creates denial, resignation for some, cynicism for others, fanaticism
for yet others, but disconnection from what's so! for most!!!
He went on to write an essay on the Myth of Sisyphus, to make his
point. Extremely liberating piece of work!!!


- When you say:

'...I think that taught correctly the basics surrounding gnosticism
could be a beginning to accomplish these
educational goals.'

I would rather agree with the teaching of philosophy, as you proposed
in a preceeding paragraph of your comment, along with the teaching of
the history of religions (rather than one religion in particular), and
history of human thought or thinking: how our collective and historical
thinking works (dialectic in some way). It's mostly impersonnal, and is
extremely shocking to most. Unless you introduce it in Kintergarden,
inspite of those who would prefer the infamous 'creationism'!!!

Mm I see. So I begin again.

I see a basic flaw, I would expect, in my own thinking. You see I
understood “existence precedes essence” in quite the opposite light as
you. I felt that Sartre was subscribing the physical to the hell of
existence, while the ‘awareness’ of self and our ability to overcome the
hell of existence, was the essence to which he referred. And the fact
that our very existence in a physical plane with the body and mind we
have makes it impossible to rise above the hell (on a continual basis)
in this life. Yet I do see more now; that it’s possible that he, like
billions of other humans, saw humanity as something apart, above nature.
This alone is grounds for a creationist heyday – is it not? Smile.

I’m glad you indulge me with such information as I’ve said; I take
philosophy in small doses, over many years and tend to forget or may
even be unaware of some.

In reference to Camus confronting Sartre’s notion, I agree with the
confrontation as far as the definition of hell goes. However, I’m not
so sure that Sartre was referring specifically to hell as a definitive
place, but rather in terms more existential in value. Just as I often
say “God Damn it” or “Oh my God”. These are points of reference, put
forth for the purpose of exclamation so those around me will get the
point of frustration I may be feeling. For an atheist, is not likely to
use/utter those phrases for any other particular reason. However, in
the end, and correctly so, you mention the fact that we so often have
and use this “dialectic dimension in languaging”. This causes problems
beyond measure these days, doesn’t it?

I will say, that even before I had heard of Camus, I held some level of
philosophy akin to his. ‘a symbolic creation convincing us of the
illusion that we’re special in the universe, is the experience of hell’

As for education, can you think of any reason why philosophy should not
begin in Kindergarten? It’s as simple as teaching how and when to
share. We tend to tell a child to share with no reasoning behind the
action. To instill a child with a belief that sharing has a place and a
reason begins the process of a child’s logical thought patterns. It is
for us to continue to shape these. To teach a child to take care of
themselves and others around them, not just the how but also the why is
philosophy that most homes do not begin to hit upon. When we find
abhorrent behavior, we need to find the error in the logic and make
corrections. Lot’s more personal communications between student and
teacher would be required. Something so many current teachers don’t
want – gets in the way of the job of educating the masses. Believing
as the Gnostics did, that we are all part of one nature, that the power
we seek within ourselves is only functional and actual when we
acknowledge and place our existence with and of this universe, is non
confrontational with whatever other religion a child may be learning at
home.

For a long time I agreed with your thoughts about teaching say 20 or so
main religions of the world. I still agree in part, the problem I
always encounter with this thinking is who would decide which ones to
teach, and how much history do we get into. For teaching a single
religion with all the documented and historical reasons for those
believes would take at least a semester maybe a year and could not begin
until a child was of the age that they could read and understand the
information being presented. There also remains the fact that some
would not “allow” their children to take these classes, and some
teachers would, in fact, either teach them with bias or refuse to teach
them at all. It’s all part of that same fear that teaching evolution
brought about. Therefore, I would stick as closely to philosophy as I
could and as I said, I think taken generally Gnosticism may just be
benign enough to use, not in whole perhaps, but in the small doses as
the pieces fit.

This is great!

1) I think we're on the same page with this one, but just in case:

When Sartre's brings-up that in the case of humans only, 'existence'
preceedes 'essence', he goes against all logic, and breaks with the
phsychological and sociological norm which argues the exact opposite:
that 'essence' precedes 'existence'.

(a dog, in his essence as a dog, will not be expected to do anything
other than what dogs to, 'GIVEN BY THEIR ESSENCE; NATURE'.)

In this context, he futher argued for this notion of,

...'being' FOR self (existence of conscience pre-exists, able to be
aware of one condition, as unique for humans),

... as well (concurrently) as 'being' AS self (essence). The
'being' FOR self, will be the notion upon which Sartre will found his
'human liberty of choice' on as a pre-existence to man's essence.

And with respect to God or faith, Sartre is unquestionably an Atheist,
so is his notion of existentialism. He argues that humans are totally
responsible for their condition. No Godly referre or savior. All
choices I make are entirely mine, he would argue.

Ultimately, since there is no God, our existence is a succession of
'free choices' which are never entirely justifiable, in Sartre's world.
Confronted with having to take action, humans must engage in their own
existence, take charge of the course of their own life.

So not quite good news for 'creationists', I'm afraid.

Camus, in this context, and with the writing of 'Myth of Sisyphus',
simply argues that on the contrary, conscience, from which the notion of
liberty of choice is derived, is fundamentally the essence of man, and
his existence 'occurs' inside of this 'matrix', it could be said.

Camus argues brillantly, that humans have it within themselves to make
peace with, or embrace the meaninglessness of life. Thus access a
dimension of 'impersonnal' freedom, allowing to be with life as it
'occurs', with our 'conscience and free choice' ESSENCE.

2) I think we on the same page also with respect to the kind of 'hell'
that Sartre refers to. As I think you mentionned, it has nothing with
the religious connotation of 'hell'.

It strictly defines the human suffering as an unavoidable constituting
part of being human, and a part to avoid, or to 'transcend' through free
choice.

Camus, on the contrary, will argue that the only thing real about the
'suffering', is nothing other than a 'real' mand-made myth, or illusion,
which of course we believe mostly without questionning.

Free choice in Camus world, does not give any power to 'change' or
trancend suffering. Free choice does work on illusions, it works on a
life 'as it is' dimension.
IOW, with Camus, we have choice only to chose our 'real' condition or
essence, as imperfect or undesirable as it may 'seem' to us.

It is only inside, or through this excruciationg moment of lucidity,
that trancendence shows up: being with life as it is: the only
enlightment, and possible salvation from 'self' generated illusions. No
religious connotations here either.

Redykeulous,

Almost forgot,

You said...

"... For a long time I agreed with your thoughts about teaching say 20
or so main religions..." - - - - -
"... Therefore, I would stick as closely to philosophy as I
could and as I said, I think taken generally Gnosticism may just be
benign enough to use, not in whole perhaps, but in the small doses as
the pieces fit."


Made me think long ...and long!

I understand your logic (one piece of the puzzle at a time!), and I
agree with your approach here! And the compromise could very well be
Gnosticism, as an entry gate!

Good food for thought! Thanks!

"And K - gotta say, I think I own everything Kahlil Gibran ever wrote.
Sometimes instead of reading fairy tales to my son, I would read him
storyies that Gibran wrote. I've bought and given away probably dozens
of copies of The Prophet."

Me too, Redy. I think The Prophet, in particular, is the most spiritual
book I've ever read. Not to mention, some of the best prose, too.



"Have any of you ever read - Johathan Livingston Seagull by Richard
Bach?
(a little off the subject but K's comment made me think about it.)"

No, sorry to say, I haven't. Not sure why, as a voracious reader when
time permits, I've read most of the classics.It's like a gap in my
literary exposure that was more by accident than by design. Really, I've
read things like 'The Master and Margarita', and it's *got* to be less
taxing than that tome. :0

I'll have to see if it's available on Project Gutenberg and remedy that
situation when my next set of projects ends.

-Kerry O.