Gnosticism as a belief/religion/mantra

[taters]

What do you all think of the religion/mantra/belief of 'knowing' over 'obeying'?

Before I give my own take on what Gnosticism is (and its general tenants are wide and broad, existing within every major religion throughout history), Ill give the basic idea Wikipedia puts forth

Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to a diverse, syncretistic religious movement consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god, the demiurge, who is frequently identified with the Abrahamic God.

Now, that is a VERY one sided and single point of view ideal of gnosticism. My own thoughts, and I think a more widely accepted understanding of it is an understanding that individual enlightenment/heaven/whatever you feel the 'good goal' of life is can only be found in deeper individual understanding of the self, the world, and others in it. Not necessarily the study of people and the world, though study is a definite part of it. More of a general grasping of the world, and an acceptance that things are not how they should be (or at least could be at best), and that there is a link between all people who think and feel on earth.

Now, reading deeper into it other than that differs by person/group. Needless to say, gnostic ideology has existed in philosophy and history at several subtle points in human history, often taking conflicting positions depending on the individual who espoused its tenants (or part of its tenants). Plato, Socrates, Alexander, Xerxes, Mani, Zoroaaster, Pythagoras, Descartes, Hegel, Marx, The pre-christian Roman legion, mithraism, Canaanites, St Thomas, Jesus, Muhammed, Judas, Hitler, The Buddha, The *if real* bohemian grove, all had or took something from gnostic ideologies.


So I guess my question is, what do you all think? Is it all just 'world hating' anti-religious nonsense, or do you think there is something to it?

[Archetype]

I don't even know where to go with this.

With any modern-day philosophy or doctrine you have elements that have been espoused throughout history. But gnosticism itself is about as specific as that wiki quote. Which really, isn't that specific, but it does center itself largely around early Christianity. It seems more like you're talking more about individualism, but then that's sort of what gnosticism is, just with a religious anchor, ie. "the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis."

I don't know, man, you'll have to expound on your view a little further.

[taters]

I don't even know where to go with this.

With any modern-day philosophy or doctrine you have elements that have been espoused throughout history. But gnosticism itself is about as specific as that wiki quote. Which really, isn't that specific, but it does center itself largely around early Christianity. It seems more like you're talking more about individualism, but then that's sort of what gnosticism is, just with a religious anchor, ie. "the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis."

I don't know, man, you'll have to expound on your view a little further.


It doesnt center around early christianity. It existed far earlier (mithraism *the religion many of the holidays of christianity are taken from*, zoroastrianism, Pythagorians etc). It was once a mainstay of christianity (before the council of Nicea) with the Arianist (Gothic/Celtic christian sect, not naszis), and later with the Cathars.


I guess what I am asking is do most of you here think it is merely another fringe sect of religion, or is there anything to it?

[Insomniac]

It's my understanding that gnosticism divided the world into three classes of people: those who "got" it (secret knowledge, enlightenment, whatever), those who didn't but with sufficient study under the first class, could "get" it, and then a third class of essentially subhumans that were so stupid they were hopeless, and this was 90 percent of the world.

So in my opinion, it was an effort to re-introduce mystery into cult of Christ and give more of a place to the intellectual elite. If women, slaves, and children could be Christians, what desire was there for an intellectual to be lumped in with them? Ah, but if the material world, the thing everyone sees and experiences, isn't really anything, and you have to come and study and listen to what wise teachers say to learn what really is and matters, well, there you have an attractive hierarchy, don't you?

The idea is heavily Platonic, and of course philosophers were at the top of Plato's ideal society.

In other words, if it's about individualism, it's about learning how to be an individual the way someone tells you to, and you and all of your friends laughing at those idiots out there who aren't as special and individual as you and all of your friends.

[taters]

It's my understanding that gnosticism divided the world into three classes of people: those who "got" it (secret knowledge, enlightenment, whatever), those who didn't but with sufficient study under the first class, could "get" it, and then a third class of essentially subhumans that were so stupid they were hopeless, and this was 90 percent of the world.

So in my opinion, it was an effort to re-introduce mystery into cult of Christ and give more of a place to the intellectual elite. If women, slaves, and children could be Christians, what desire was there for an intellectual to be lumped in with them? Ah, but if the material world, the thing everyone sees and experiences, isn't really anything, and you have to come and study and listen to what wise teachers say to learn what really is and matters, well, there you have an attractive hierarchy, don't you?

The idea is heavily Platonic, and of course philosophers were at the top of Plato's ideal society.

In other words, if it's about individualism, it's about learning how to be an individual the way someone tells you to, and you and all of your friends laughing at those idiots out there who aren't as special and individual as you and all of your friends.

Interesting. Are you saying as a practice, it is merely another social organization system, only organized in a different fashion that most others are?

I often wonder the merit of it all. Especially when you look at history. It seems (IMO) the most important characters in written history are people who were effected by the ideals of it.

Then when you look at the world we function in (not the world physically), you see very interesting things, like our capitolist system is based on money, something with in reality does not exist, other than as arbitrary worth given to plentiful objects and things that we build out society off (a dollar is actually just paper, gold is a simple and manufacturable element, as are diamonds).

I have always found this stuff to be very interesting.

[Archetype]

My ideas on it vary about as much as any of the information on it I get. Frankly, there's just not a lot that we know about it. It's interesting when you cut it out of it's mold and play the immaterial card, but the validity of it may just stretch as far as it survived.

In other words, if it's about individualism, it's about learning how to be an individual the way someone tells you to, and you and all of your friends laughing at those idiots out there who aren't as special and individual as you and all of your friends.

And you get that, in varying degrees, from some of the major figures from it. That Simon character, for instance, pretty much just ended up starting his own religion. The cult of the individual so often leads to the cult of a certain individual. Then a hierarchy of worshipers, and before you know it...

But you also get a lot of negative documentation from the period, which is obviously biased towards another religion. Even the early pacifist, vegetarian commune got labeled as extremely heretical, so it's tough to say how much is positive, and how much really is just bullshit.

[Morfin]

Good discussion. Way over my head and education, so I'll just lurk, but interesting. Thank you.

[riseabove!]

gnosticism died with the cathars

[taters]

gnosticism died with the cathars

Interesting. Do you mean it died 'in western christianity' with the cathars? It still existed in very limited practices within the Oreintal Orthodox Church with the nestorians, and the 'practice' of 'praxis'.

The last true continuance refuge of ancient gnosticism I think lies in the last Iranian zoroastrians (dying out at a rapid pace due to religious persecution) and the mandineaens of Iraq (dying out for the same reason in Iraq, with even less political protections than they once had).

[riseabove!]

Interesting. Do you mean it died 'in western christianity' with the cathars? It still existed in very limited practices within the Oreintal Orthodox Church with the nestorians, and the 'practice' of 'praxis'.

The last true continuance refuge of ancient gnosticism I think lies in the last Iranian zoroastrians (dying out at a rapid pace due to religious persecution) and the mandineaens of Iraq (dying out for the same reason in Iraq, with even less political protections than they once had).

You fail to mention one major group that are gnostic. It's very much dead

[taters]

You fail to mention one major group that are gnostic. It's very much dead

As a major religion, oh yes it is dead (at least publically). There are gnostic religions that are fizzling on, even after 3 thousand years.

[Archetype]

3000 years is a pretty big stretch. It hasn't been around that long.

[taters]

3000 years is a pretty big stretch. It hasn't been around that long.

True. I should have said about 2500 years (if you count Plato and pythagoreans). There are some that argue the original proto-indo-european/ural italic religion was a form of gnosticism (I highly doubt it, but similarities are interesting to note)

Theoretically, I imagine you could argue ancient Hindu was a near form of gnosticism (the creator and destroyer deities being the primary figures in it). But thats even more of a stretch.