Gnosticism
SkulkBait
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">A better christianity?</div> Recently I became interested in Gnosticism (in a purley academic manner), and specificaly the concept that the God of the Old Testiment and the God of the New Testiment were not the same:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"The Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. (Demiurge means "public craftsman" in Greek.) This lower God created the earth and its life forms. This is Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). He is viewed by Gnostics as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion and prone to genocide. The Demiurge "thinks that he is supreme. His pride and incompetence have resulted in the sorry state of the world as we know it, and in the blind and ignorant condition of most of mankind." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and also:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They did not look upon the world as having been created perfectly and then having degenerated as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Rather the world was seen as being evil at the time of its origin, because it had been created by an inferior God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm
Now to me this seems like a relatively sensable interpretation of the bible (but of course, I'm not known for my knowledge of biblical lore), and indeed does seem to solve the major contradiction between the Old and New Testiments rather well. Heres what annother source has to say of Christ:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->From earliest times Messengers of the Light have come forth from the True God in order to assist humans in their quest for Gnosis. Only a few of these salvific figures are mentioned in Gnostic scripture; some of the most important are Seth (the third Son of Adam), Jesus, and the Prophet Mani. The majority of Gnostics always looked to Jesus as the principal savior figure (the Soter).
Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence. Ignorance -- whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities -- is dispelled only by Gnosis, and the decisive revelation of Gnosis is brought by the Messengers of Light, especially by Christ, the Logos of the True God. It is not by His suffering and death but by His life of teaching and His establishing of mysteries that Christ has performed His work of salvation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
Which also has this interesting bit to say about morality:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the words “ethics” or “morality” are taken to mean a system of rules, then Gnosticism is opposed to them both. Such systems usually originate with the Demiurge and are covertly designed to serve his purposes. If, on the other hand, morality is said to consist of an inner integrity arising from the illumination of the indwelling spark, then the Gnostic will embrace this spiritually informed existential ethic as ideal.
To the Gnostic, commandments and rules are not salvific; they are not substantially conducive to salvation. Rules of conduct may serve numerous ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. Rules, however, are not relevant to salvation; that is brought about only by Gnosis. Morality therefore needs to be viewed primarily in temporal and secular terms; it is ever subject to changes and modifications in accordance with the spiritual development of the individual. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what do you think? Blasphemous ramblings of a heathen or potentially correct interpretation of scripture? Keep in mind that there are several uncannonized writings accepted by gnostics, among which are:
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of The Egyptians
Pistis Sophia
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"The Supreme Father God or Supreme God of Truth is remote from human affairs; he is unknowable and undetectable by human senses. She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons. One of these was Sophia, a virgin, who in turn gave birth to an defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. (Demiurge means "public craftsman" in Greek.) This lower God created the earth and its life forms. This is Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). He is viewed by Gnostics as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion and prone to genocide. The Demiurge "thinks that he is supreme. His pride and incompetence have resulted in the sorry state of the world as we know it, and in the blind and ignorant condition of most of mankind." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and also:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They did not look upon the world as having been created perfectly and then having degenerated as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Rather the world was seen as being evil at the time of its origin, because it had been created by an inferior God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic2.htm
Now to me this seems like a relatively sensable interpretation of the bible (but of course, I'm not known for my knowledge of biblical lore), and indeed does seem to solve the major contradiction between the Old and New Testiments rather well. Heres what annother source has to say of Christ:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->From earliest times Messengers of the Light have come forth from the True God in order to assist humans in their quest for Gnosis. Only a few of these salvific figures are mentioned in Gnostic scripture; some of the most important are Seth (the third Son of Adam), Jesus, and the Prophet Mani. The majority of Gnostics always looked to Jesus as the principal savior figure (the Soter).
Gnostics do not look to salvation from sin (original or other), but rather from the ignorance of which sin is a consequence. Ignorance -- whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities -- is dispelled only by Gnosis, and the decisive revelation of Gnosis is brought by the Messengers of Light, especially by Christ, the Logos of the True God. It is not by His suffering and death but by His life of teaching and His establishing of mysteries that Christ has performed His work of salvation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
Which also has this interesting bit to say about morality:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the words “ethics” or “morality” are taken to mean a system of rules, then Gnosticism is opposed to them both. Such systems usually originate with the Demiurge and are covertly designed to serve his purposes. If, on the other hand, morality is said to consist of an inner integrity arising from the illumination of the indwelling spark, then the Gnostic will embrace this spiritually informed existential ethic as ideal.
To the Gnostic, commandments and rules are not salvific; they are not substantially conducive to salvation. Rules of conduct may serve numerous ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. Rules, however, are not relevant to salvation; that is brought about only by Gnosis. Morality therefore needs to be viewed primarily in temporal and secular terms; it is ever subject to changes and modifications in accordance with the spiritual development of the individual. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what do you think? Blasphemous ramblings of a heathen or potentially correct interpretation of scripture? Keep in mind that there are several uncannonized writings accepted by gnostics, among which are:
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of The Egyptians
Pistis Sophia
Comments
114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
7 Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
Interesting, to say the least.
Now, the Gnostic idea of God/ Gods would require that Christ be at odds with Jehovah. Not only does Christ call the God of the OT 'Father,' he cites OT scripture, implying that it is correct. If Christ is a messenger from the True God, he would be citing things from an evil God to help make his point.
Not only that, but the OT is riddled with prophecies that predict the coming of Christ, even to the year (Google Daniel 9). If the god of the OT is evil, then Christ is also a product of that evil, or the god of the OT saw it coming and somehow looked forward to the day that his own kingdom would be destroyed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All early gospels, then, were written sometime between the death of Jesus and the second half of the second century. Three gospels[37] must have been written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybody’s guess. Two gospels[38] must have been written before the end of the first half of the second century C.E.; how long before is anybody’s guess. With such chronologically distant boundaries, it is little wonder that scholars have come up with such divergent dates of origins for early gospels. The dates are based on nothing more concrete than each scholar’s impression of precisely when small stories, sayings, or phrases might or might not have been meaningful to a particular writer or community. There is considerable room for differences of opinion with such subjective analysis.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm
And, that the gospel of Thomas is not significantly dated in comparison to the others:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scholars agree that the only extant gospels that may date to the first century are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/dating.html
So there desn't seem to be enough evidence to suggest that Thomas is not a gospel based on its date of writing alone.
In #7, it seems a popular interpritation is that the lion represents bestial nature or passion. Thus this devouring would be metaphorical. Here is one such interpretation:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Gerd Ludemann writes: "Verse 1 is about the humanization of bestial forces in human beings, v. 2 about human beings lapsing into a bestial nature. Because of the parallelism, I have emended the text in v. 2b, 'and the lion will become man', to the text above ['and the man will become lion']. The logion fits well with the ascetic-Gnostic circles which are interested in taming or humanization of bestial passions. They are often concerned with taming bestial natures, of which that of the lion is the strongest."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas7.html
There is some evidence that #114 was added to the collection at a later date, I'm still digging up a resonable reference. But even so, here is an interpretation that may shed some light on the odd saying:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Robert M. Grant and David Noel Freedman write: "As in the Gospel of Mary (pages 17-18 of the papyrus) and in Pistis Sophia (chapter 146), Simon Peter is not enthusiastic about the presence of Mariham (mentioned in Saying 21), just as in John 4:27 the disciples of Jesus are amazed because he is speaking with a woman. Male and female must become one (Saying 23 and Commentary). Jesus will 'draw' her (John 12:32) so that she will become 'one spirit' with him (1 Corinthians 6:17). She will become a man; just so, Ignatius of Antioch says that when he receives the pure light he will 'become a man' (Romans, 6, 2; for another parallel to Ignatius see Commentary on Saying 82). In order to enter into the kingdom of heaven, women must become men. We might be tempted to take this notion symbolically were it not for the existence of Gnostic parallels, for example in the Gospel of Mary (page 9), in Clement of Alexandria (Excerpta ex Theodoto 21, 3), and among the Naassenes. The 'house of God' is reserved 'for the spiritual ones alone; when they come there they cast off their garments [see Saying 38] and all become bridegrooms [Saying 75], having been made male by the virginal Spirit' (Hippolytus, Ref., 5, 8, 44). The high point of Thomas's eschatology is thus reached, at the end of his gospel, with the obliteration of sex." (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, p. 198)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas114.html
I haven't found what I'm looking for yet in regards to the predictions of Christ's coming. But from what I have read no one seems to think it contradictory to the Gnostic belief system that the reedemer's coming was predicted. More when I find it...
Besides the fact that it completely contradicts massive portions of the Bible, especially the bit about sin and salvation. As for the rules and laws not being salvific, they are just agreeing with Christianity on that one. They also talk about the remoteness of God, yet in many books in the old testament, such as Job 38, we see how he is very active in nature, keeping everything running smoothly.
Their idea about a supreme God "giving rise" to an inferior God is also an interesting one. Somewhere along the line, the perfection must have been lost, but good can only produce more good. If their God of Truth is so interested in leading people to Gnosis, why doesn't he just destroy the inferior god, making hius job much easier?
If this god was purely evil, he would have no desire to help people, so why lead a bunch fo slaves to freedon, to thier own land? Why give a young king incredible wisdom, riches and victories? Why promise to a king that the savior of the world would be decended from him, when the savior comes from the Supreme God? Surely the inferior god would just kill all these messengers of light as soon as they are born? He does after all, have the power of death.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'll notice that, according to Gnostics, there are two Gods. The one who created the material world, the one who is spoken of in the Old Testimant, is "The Demiurge". The God they speak of as being remote is the True God.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Their idea about a supreme God "giving rise" to an inferior God is also an interesting one. Somewhere along the line, the perfection must have been lost, but good can only produce more good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why did Adam and Eve fall? Where they not supposedly created by a "Good" God? If good can only produce more good, then Genesis is also contradictory in this regard is it not?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If their God of Truth is so interested in leading people to Gnosis, why doesn't he just destroy the inferior god, making hius job much easier?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps it is the same reason that the Christian God doesn't just rid the world of evil in one fell swoop?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If this god was purely evil, he would have no desire to help people, so why lead a bunch fo slaves to freedon, to thier own land? Why give a young king incredible wisdom, riches and victories?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is not pure evil, mearly flawed like his human creations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why promise to a king that the savior of the world would be decended from him, when the savior comes from the Supreme God?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Got me. I'm still looking for it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You'll notice that, according to Gnostics, there are two Gods. The one who created the material world, the one who is spoken of in the Old Testimant, is "The Demiurge". The God they speak of as being remote is the True God.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, perhaps I should have re-read my post.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Their idea about a supreme God "giving rise" to an inferior God is also an interesting one. Somewhere along the line, the perfection must have been lost, but good can only produce more good. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then why did Adam and Eve fall? Where they not supposedly created by a "Good" God? If good can only produce more good, then Genesis is also contradictory in this regard is it not?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Christians say that evil was introduced from another source, Satan. Satan was not created evil, he was a good angel, the highest angel in heaven. He got jealous of God, he wanted the power for himself (there is nothing wrong with being jealous though) but jealosy ate him up inside until he rebelled against God. The gnostic story shows no way for evil to enter they world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If their God of Truth is so interested in leading people to Gnosis, why doesn't he just destroy the inferior god, making hius job much easier?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps it is the same reason that the Christian God doesn't just rid the world of evil in one fell swoop?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could be. I did think of that reply before I asked the question, but didn't get far enough as to convince myself of an answer. By eliminating the inferior god, the Supreme god will not have got rid of evil, just the source.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If this god was purely evil, he would have no desire to help people, so why lead a bunch fo slaves to freedon, to thier own land? Why give a young king incredible wisdom, riches and victories?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is not pure evil, mearly flawed like his human creations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so pure was the wrong word. But still, why would he want to help when he can have more fun killing them?
Then why did Adam and Eve fall? Where they not supposedly created by a "Good" God? If good can only produce more good, then Genesis is also contradictory in this regard is it not?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Christians say that evil was introduced from another source, Satan. Satan was not created evil, he was a good angel, the highest angel in heaven. He got jealous of God, he wanted the power for himself (there is nothing wrong with being jealous though) but jealosy ate him up inside until he rebelled against God. The gnostic story shows no way for evil to enter they world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But Satan was created by God right? And thus something created by Good became evil right? Besides that, in Gnosticism only the True God is perfect, other beings are made of small parts of the True God and are imperfect (At least, thats how I read it). I can't really see how that makes any less sense than the christian explaination.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If this god was purely evil, he would have no desire to help people, so why lead a bunch fo slaves to freedon, to thier own land? Why give a young king incredible wisdom, riches and victories?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is not pure evil, mearly flawed like his human creations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so pure was the wrong word. But still, why would he want to help when he can have more fun killing them?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He does kill them on occasion, in the OT he orders the slaughter of entire cities. He would be much like a child playing with toys, somedays he makes his Army men slaughter his Lego men, other days he makes his army men journey accorssed the carpet to fertile land, and sometimes (perhaps in the case of Job) he takes one outside and sticks it under a magnifying glass at high noon just to see what will happen. Heh, funny, that analogy works better then I thought it would when you use it to explain why God doesn't talk to people like he used to, maybe he just got bored with his toys and moved on.
The Christians say that evil was introduced from another source, Satan. Satan was not created evil, he was a good angel, the highest angel in heaven. He got jealous of God, he wanted the power for himself (there is nothing wrong with being jealous though) but jealosy ate him up inside until he rebelled against God. The gnostic story shows no way for evil to enter they world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But Satan was created by God right? And thus something created by Good became evil right? Besides that, in Gnosticism only the True God is perfect, other beings are made of small parts of the True God and are imperfect (At least, thats how I read it). I can't really see how that makes any less sense than the christian explaination.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
When satan was created by God, he was not evil, he was perfect. Gnosticism says that The supreme God created something that was not perfect
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He does kill them on occasion, in the OT he orders the slaughter of entire cities. He would be much like a child playing with toys, somedays he makes his Army men slaughter his Lego men, other days he makes his army men journey accorssed the carpet to fertile land, and sometimes (perhaps in the case of Job) he takes one outside and sticks it under a magnifying glass at high noon just to see what will happen. Heh, funny, that analogy works better then I thought it would when you use it to explain why God doesn't talk to people like he used to, maybe he just got bored with his toys and moved on.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So basically, this god is nothing more than a child playing with his toys. And the Supreme God is like his grandfather who grew out of such childish games long ago, and spends most of his time asleep, occasionally dropping some different lego characters into his grandson's play world. Its strange, but none of those figures seem to insipre me to worship them. I would not worship the demiuge because he is inferior, basically a more powerful human being. I would not worship the Supreme god because, well, what has he ever done for anybody? He gives rise to this demiurge, then just sits back and takes a nap, leaving us to suffer at the hands of his flawed creation.
No thanks.
The Christians say that evil was introduced from another source, Satan. Satan was not created evil, he was a good angel, the highest angel in heaven. He got jealous of God, he wanted the power for himself (there is nothing wrong with being jealous though) but jealosy ate him up inside until he rebelled against God. The gnostic story shows no way for evil to enter they world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But Satan was created by God right? And thus something created by Good became evil right? Besides that, in Gnosticism only the True God is perfect, other beings are made of small parts of the True God and are imperfect (At least, thats how I read it). I can't really see how that makes any less sense than the christian explaination.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When satan was created by God, he was not evil, he was perfect. Gnosticism says that The supreme God created something that was not perfect <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously Satan wasn't perfect either, because if he was he would never have fallen. But it really doesn't matter, Christianity and Gnosticism just have a difference of opinion on weather or not imperfection can be created by a perfect being.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So basically, this god is nothing more than a child playing with his toys. And the Supreme God is like his grandfather who grew out of such childish games long ago, and spends most of his time asleep, occasionally dropping some different lego characters into his grandson's play world.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite, the True God doesn't fit the analogy really, unless you count it as the other God's God... which it sort of is. It would have never played those "childish games" because unlike The Demiurge, the True God is perfect. And it certainly would never have dropped new characters into the play world, since it doesn't care for material things. Under gnosticism all worldly creations are those of The Demiurge.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Its strange, but none of those figures seem to insipre me to worship them. I would not worship the demiuge because he is inferior, basically a more powerful human being. I would not worship the Supreme god because, well, what has he ever done for anybody? He gives rise to this demiurge, then just sits back and takes a nap, leaving us to suffer at the hands of his flawed creation. No thanks.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Demiurge isn't really his "cretion" in the sense that it is generally understood.
Heres a brief bit of text on that:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and some more on The Demiurge:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the aeonial beings who bears the name Sophia (“Wisdom”) is of great importance to the Gnostic world view. In the course of her journeyings, Sophia came to emanate from her own being a flawed consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the True God doesn't just sit on his fanny, he sends Messangers of Light to assist us: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Gnostic concept of salvation, like other Gnostic concepts, is a subtle one. On the one hand, Gnostic salvation may easily be mistaken for an unmediated individual experience, a sort of spiritual do-it-yourself project. Gnostics hold that the potential for Gnosis, and thus, of salvation is present in every man and woman, and that salvation is not vicarious but individual. At the same time, they also acknowledge that Gnosis and salvation can be, indeed must be, stimulated and facilitated in order to effectively arise within consciousness. This stimulation is supplied by Messengers of Light who, in addition to their teachings, establish salvific mysteries (sacraments) which can be administered by apostles of the Messengers and their successors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
Thats what I meant about the Supreme God "occasionally dropping some different lego characters into his grandson's play world"
If this supreme God is so remote, why do this? He doesn't care does he? If he did, surely he would take a closer interest in the activities of this realm, yet we are told that he is "remote from human affairs"
Aslo, they seem to have got themselves confused about if the true god created the lesser beings:
"She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons."
"While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds"
So what was it? Did he (when I say he, i mean he/she/it. I just cba to type that the whole time) create it, implying knowledge and purpose of his (same with his, read his/her/its) actions, or did it kind of ooze out, which almost suggests to me that it was an accident.
The impression I get from the second quote is that this true god basically pulled out his spleen and it turned into sophia. That doesn't really speak about omnipotence and supremancy, if he cannot create something out of nothing, but rather has to detract from himself in order to produce something. Atleast the Christian God has got one up on him there.
Which also has this interesting bit to say about morality:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the words “ethics” or “morality” are taken to mean a system of rules, then Gnosticism is opposed to them both. Such systems usually originate with the Demiurge and are covertly designed to serve his purposes. If, on the other hand, morality is said to consist of an inner integrity arising from the illumination of the indwelling spark, then the Gnostic will embrace this spiritually informed existential ethic as ideal.
To the Gnostic, commandments and rules are not salvific; they are not substantially conducive to salvation. Rules of conduct may serve numerous ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. Rules, however, are not relevant to salvation; that is brought about only by Gnosis. Morality therefore needs to be viewed primarily in temporal and secular terms; it is ever subject to changes and modifications in accordance with the spiritual development of the individual. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is probably the most interesting and relevant part of the whole arguement. What I would consider obvious is that, as times change, rules must change. New rules must come about and old ones must be removed, as they no longer are able to achieve their purpose.
If you look at any commandment or rule to live by or declaration of "sin" in the Bible, consider the reason behind the restriction in the first place. In times of famine, it might be considered sinful to grow crops that are tasty but nutritionally poor, as you are wasting the resources of the earth and bringing harm (starvation) to your brothers, all of man. Taking the same rule as law 2000 years later could easily be quite silly if food is not so much a limited resource, but rather there are greater things to consider. edit: like, for instance, undue stigma and persecution of men who sow "unclean" crops would be far more serious a sin than the growing itself.
Also, on the book of Genesis: why must it be taken as literal truth? There are books full of proverbs in the Bible, and I'm pretty sure that Genesis is one of them. Understanding the moral behind the story does not require the assumption that people turning into pillars of salt actually happened, and the moral is far more important than the actual events. Time skews history, but morality and ethics stands the test of time far more easily.
Genesis: There are not very many christian groups who take every work of the Bible literaly. I find that causes too many problems, and I don't like problems. I much prefer to look behind the words at the meaning. I for one do not take the creation story literaly. I see the meaning behind the words: God created the univerese and everything in it just by speaking, yet he took time over man, made him is his image, that sort of thing.
Thats what I meant about the Supreme God "occasionally dropping some different lego characters into his grandson's play world"
If this supreme God is so remote, why do this? He doesn't care does he? If he did, surely he would take a closer interest in the activities of this realm, yet we are told that he is "remote from human affairs"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He doesn't care about "human affairs" meaning the affairs of the physical world created by the Demiurge. In that sense he is remote. But, as I understand it, the True God does care about the "salvation" of the spiritual component of humans, which is why he sends the messengers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Aslo, they seem to have got themselves confused about if the true god created the lesser beings:
"She/he created a series of supernatural but finite beings called Aeons."
"While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds"
So what was it? Did he (when I say he, i mean he/she/it. I just cba to type that the whole time) create it, implying knowledge and purpose of his (same with his, read his/her/its) actions, or did it kind of ooze out, which almost suggests to me that it was an accident.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nothing I've read has been very specific about the creation of the Aeons, but the second quote is definatly more correct. The first quote used the word "created" mearly to simplify the statement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The impression I get from the second quote is that this true god basically pulled out his spleen and it turned into sophia. That doesn't really speak about omnipotence and supremancy, if he cannot create something out of nothing, but rather has to detract from himself in order to produce something. Atleast the Christian God has got one up on him there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The laws of physics in the physical realm sugest that matter/energy cannot ever be destroyed, mearly converted. I don't think its much of a streach to believe that the same rules could apply to the spiritual realm as well. So what if the christian God is more powerfull? I had a dream once in which a being more powerfull than God existed. But my dream was a fantasy, and acording to gnostics the idea of the Christian God is also a fantasy. Indeed, according to Gnosticism the Demiurge pretty much made it up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is probably the most interesting and relevant part of the whole arguement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, its one of the things that make this particular religion interesting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ules: Ofcourse they must change. However, I feel that there are some rules that do not have to, and shouldn't. Basic rules like "do not murder", "love thy neighbour", rules at the very heart of religions and society.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But you cannot predict that society will always function in a way that such ideals make sense. Indeed, there may come a time when consentual murder is a perfectly acceptable practice, for example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The laws of physics in the physical realm sugest that matter/energy cannot ever be destroyed, mearly converted. I don't think its much of a streach to believe that the same rules could apply to the spiritual realm as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The laws of possibility and physics do not apply to the spiritual realm. Omnipotent spritual beings in the are only limited by the laws of logic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So what if the christian God is more powerfull? I had a dream once in which a being more powerfull than God existed. But my dream was a fantasy, and acording to gnostics the idea of the Christian God is also a fantasy. Indeed, according to Gnosticism the Demiurge pretty much made it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was just a little remark, something to be ignored. I wasnt expecting to get such a backlash from it, that wasn't my intent.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some how I doubt there are enough people who wan't to get murdered for that to happen. And we already live in a society where a form of murder is acceptable. But moving on...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The laws of physics in the physical realm sugest that matter/energy cannot ever be destroyed, mearly converted. I don't think its much of a streach to believe that the same rules could apply to the spiritual realm as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The laws of possibility and physics do not apply to the spiritual realm. Omnipotent spritual beings in the are only limited by the laws of logic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Two problems: 1) Who are you to say that those laws don't apply? After all, its doubtfull that you've observed the laws of the spiritual realm in action. And 2)How can a being be omnipotent if they are limited by anything?
1) I am making an educated guess on the basis of my beliefs. Since I believe that God is a spiritual being and did create the universe <i>ex nihilo</i>, and I believe that matter and energy cannot just be be created, I guess that the laws of physics do not apply to him. After all, he created them in the first place. Being a spiritual being, he is not limited by the things that us physical beings are. God created the laws of physics to govern the physical realm. Being a spiritual being, he is not affected by them.
2) (How many times have I said this??) Omnipotence does not mean God can do absolutely everything. Omnipotence means all powerful. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nobody can make a 3 sided square, not even God. It is logically impossbile. A square has 4 sides. If it had 3, it would no longer be a square, it would be a triangle. Tying to create something that goes against the definition of itself is impossible, even for God. God is a logical God.
2) Haha, so you agreed with me all along <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> While power enough to do <i>absolutely anything</i> is a logical impossibility, that doesn't mean that some being doesn't have so much of it that we can't even comprehend the scope. For all practical purposes, what matters is that your god is way nicer/stronger/knowing than you or anybody else is.
1) I am making an educated guess on the basis of my beliefs. Since I believe that God is a spiritual being and did create the universe <i>ex nihilo</i>, and I believe that matter and energy cannot just be be created, I guess that the laws of physics do not apply to him. After all, he created them in the first place. Being a spiritual being, he is not limited by the things that us physical beings are. God created the laws of physics to govern the physical realm. Being a spiritual being, he is not affected by them.
2) (How many times have I said this??) Omnipotence does not mean God can do absolutely everything. Omnipotence means all powerful. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nobody can make a 3 sided square, not even God. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lets look at that again, this time with emphasis:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Having <b>unlimited</b> or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unlimited. Even logic can't be a limit for this definition to work. Besides, God could easily make a 3 sided square: Step 1, redifine squares to have 3 sides; Step 2, create a square under the new definition. Done.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am making an educated guess on the basis of my beliefs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since it is based on belief, it cannot be stated as fact.
in response to Z.X. Bogglesteinsky's and SkulkBait's logical God thingy; It is prosumptuous to prosume that God cannot make a 3 sided square, or that he has to redifine "squares" to do so. God in all likelyhood created the laws of physics, so who is to say that God is not capable of creating things that are physical impossibilities in our realm of existance. Though in all likelyhood, even if God's 3 sided square were able to exist in our realm, we would most likely not be able to see/understand it, since it conforms in no way to even the farthest streching theorys about our physical existance. God may or may not be limited by what is logically possible, but our understanding of God is DEFINATELY limited to what is logically possible.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anybody can make a three sided square that way. Making a three sided quare without step 1 is impossible.
Would you say there is a difference between power and ability?
Power: "The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively"
Therefore, unlimited power: "The unlimited ability or capacity to perform or act effectively"
All that means is that nothing stops God from acting effectively. He is not limited by the weather or traffic jams. Nothing stops him from dong what he has to do. Because God does not have to produce three sided squares, he is not limited by the fact that it is impossible. He couldn't do it, but he doesn't have to and he doesn't want to, so the fact that it is impossible doesn't come into effect. I do not want to be able to swim under water unaided indefinitely, so the fact that I cannot is not important. However, I have thought about being able to, so I am now limited by the fact that I cannot. I suppose to sum this up, I could say that when we think about doing that we cannot do, we are limited by that impossbility of it. Since God doesn't even consider making a three sided square, he is not limited by the fact that it is impossible.