About those Psychics

[nazz]

Referring to the Gnostic idea of course and not the fortune tellers.

It's hard to talk about the distinction between psychics and pneumatics without sounding condescending. Indeed Gnosticism has a bad rep of being a belief system for special initiates who are deemed more worthy of such grace than anyone else. I think that's an entirely wrong way to look at it but that's another subject.

What I really want to talk about is the value of the psychic way of believing. I believe it provides a kind of first base of faith which one must have before advancing any further. Every mystical system I've investigated says one must have a firm grasp of exoteric faith and practice before one delves into esoterica. Failing to do so can cause untold spiritual harm.

For many people the psychic step, one up from the hylic, remains their station throughout this life and there is really nothing necessarily wrong with that. They are spiritual babes in need of milk and not ever ready to receive the meat of God's holy word. Their faith is a simple faith but it sustains them and guides them (hopefully) in the right direction. Even if they hold what are obviously mistaken beliefs from our perspective unless these cause spiritual harm it is better to just leave them alone. To be honest I sometimes find myself longing to return to that place. To be a child cradled in the arms of its father ain't such a bad thing! But of course there is a downside to being so helpless and clueless.

Of course there is always the danger of such simple faith being quite corrupted by archontic influence and this is as true in the Christian faith as any other. When the Church became a political machine as it did under Constantine it ceased to be an instrument of God's grace.

So I think we have a responsibility to challenge corrupted forms of religious teaching. But it is not our place to destroy the simple faith of the psychic. We should respect it as the first rung on the spiritual ladder to heaven. We should not try to drag people further up who are not ready. When they are prepared they will come up on their own and we will be there to assist them.

I've been quite guilty of the above in the past and that is why I publicly repent of it here. May God give me more patience and understanding to accept people where they are.

 

[ELoWolfe]

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

This is an interesting discussion. But with gnosis, can you really "drag people further up who are not ready"? I am not sure.

On the one hand, I want to say we can't. You either "get it" or you don't. It is the Calvinistic idea mentioned in another thread. The Father will grace who is graced and they will have gnosis. Whether they think they're prepared or not (honestly, who can say they were prepared for it? The darkness was comforting and the light reveals too much).

But on the other hand, we all have the spiritual essence in us. We are all seeds that landed and various soil. If we do not cultivate the seed, it will whither and die. Some seeds may sprout up without aid, but others need to be nurtured. The weeds and the birds will try to kill it.

I think, and this is personally, that we can not in any way "force people up the rungs of the ladder," so to say. We can only cultivate what is already there. But I do not think that coddling someone with lies is the right thing. The Gnostic system, as we know it, is the truth. And the sooner someone hears it, and perhaps believes in it, the sooner they will be able to see the Light.

So essentially, I think there can be "psychic Gnostics" who know the system and believe in it. Those who know of the Craftsman, of the Christ, Sophia, Aeons and the Father. But they may not understand it. In time, with study and prayer, they may grow in understanding thanks to their faith and become pneumatic. It is not up to us to decide, or even know, if they become pneumatic, but Matthew 7:16a, "By their fruit you will recognize them."

I had a vision once, and perhaps sometime we could make a post of our gnostic experiences, but in it there was a land by the edge where some people went. It was a paradise - Eden perhaps. And every day, teachers and hosts came from a light in the distance on a rainbow bridge. And they would teach the people in the paradise. And in time, people eventually began to cross the bridge.

It told me that the psychics, with their faith, would be saved some day. Even if they hadn't received gnosis on Earth. But who wants to be stuck in that place, when something even greater is waiting for them across the bridge? Why wait until our body expires to learn, when we have the opportunity thanks to the Christ to know it now?

Of course, the vision went deeper to those who held on to the world, but that was a grim and dark place and not relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[nazz]

I think, and this is personally, that we can not in any way "force people up the rungs of the ladder," so to say. We can only cultivate what is already there. But I do not think that coddling someone with lies is the right thing.

Oh no, neither do I, don't get me wrong. I'm just talking about acknowledging and respecting where people are at in their spiritual walk. We should not encourage or commend false belief; but neither should we necessarily attack and attempt to destroy it unless as I say it is causing that person (or others) spiritual harm (or even physical harm).

Let me take a specific example, the idea of creationism. Although that belief is not in harmony with scientific knowledge, nor with Gnostic thinking, it's not a specifically harmful belief for people to hold. Or let's take the idea of penal substitution as a theory of atonement. I think that's a false belief but one that can give people enormous comfort. Of course it become harmful if someone thinks because Jesus died for their sins that means they are absolved of the consequences of all wrongdoing. Christian Gnosticism is ultimately about following Jesus. If people's beliefs encourage them to follow Christ can that be a bad thing as a necessary first step?

The Gnostic system, as we know it, is the truth. And the sooner someone hears it, and perhaps believes in it, the sooner they will be able to see the Light.

IME, you get a lot of negative pushback if you share Gnostic ideas with psychic believers. You have to bear in mind that many of these people are taught to fear and reject questions or doubts about their faith and strongly resist anything that looks like heretical teaching to them.

There is always a danger that if you try to force people's eyes open they will lose their faith entirely. I see this most clearly with atheists who are former Christians. They had doubts and questions, they could see that the Christian faith did not make much rational sense, and they were exposed to scientific knowledge that contradicts what is written in the Bible. So they threw the baby out with the bathwater. It takes someone very grounded in their faith to resist doing that and not everyone is in that place. So we need to be careful and tread lightly.

***

I think it would be interesting to look at core psychic beliefs and talk about what is good and necessary and what is not and potentially harmful. What are some of the commonalities we hold with psychic believers? What grounding in faith is necessary before one advances on to knowledge?

 

[ELoWolfe]

I wouldn't say that teaching new (and strange) ideas would result in strong resistance. Look at Mormonism (Gnosticism gone wrong?). Joseph Smith, in all seriousness, had a gnostic encounter he didn't understand. According to Study: Mormonism is fastest-growing faith in half of USA , "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reported 2 million new adherents and new congregations in 295 counties where they didn't exist a decade ago."

To go to your question, I would think the nature of the Craftsman could be a big one. I don't want to be first in discussing it, though, if that is alright. I tried and found myself getting rather uncharacteristically heated.

 

[nazz]

I wouldn't say that teaching new (and strange) ideas would result in strong resistance. Look at Mormonism (Gnosticism gone wrong?). Joseph Smith, in all seriousness, had a gnostic encounter he didn't understand. According to Study: Mormonism is fastest-growing faith in half of USA , "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reported 2 million new adherents and new congregations in 295 counties where they didn't exist a decade ago."

Yeah, but they faced extreme persecution from other Christians during their formative period and still do to some extent. Anyway I am speaking from firsthand experience in trying to relay Gnostic ideas to mainstream Christians.

To go to your question, I would think the nature of the Craftsman could be a big one. I don't want to be first in discussing it, though, if that is alright. I tried and found myself getting rather uncharacteristically heated.

Yes, it is a big one because in trying to fuse the two gods of the Bible into one must confusion results and this leads people to adopt very negative attitudes and behavior.

but what about the things we hold in common with psychic believers? Things that are essential to this spiritual walk?

 

[ELoWolfe]

The Christ, obviously. And the teachings of the Christ. We share in the community of love and understanding, and the innate desire for the best of everyone. We share in the Communion and the sufferings of the Cross.

I think what would separate the psychic from the pneumatic though, and something which you were looking for, is literalness.

The psychic, especially fundamentalists, hold to the literalness of the text. The pneumatic, however, sees beyond that to the spiritual meanings.

(Is that what you were talking about before?)

 

[nazz]

The Christ, obviously. And the teachings of the Christ. We share in the community of love and understanding, and the innate desire for the best of everyone. We share in the Communion and the sufferings of the Cross.

I think what would separate the psychic from the pneumatic though, and something which you were looking for, is literalness.

The psychic, especially fundamentalists, hold to the literalness of the text. The pneumatic, however, sees beyond that to the spiritual meanings.

(Is that what you were talking about before?)

Yes and no. I certainly read a lot of things literally. Sometimes more literally then psychic believers themselves! So the difference between us and them doesn't just depend on how the Scriptures are read. There's a lot more to it on a very deeper level as I am sure you are aware. I'm going to ponder this and see if I can express in words the clear difference.

 

[nazz]

Yes and no. I certainly read a lot of things literally. Sometimes more literally then psychic believers themselves! So the difference between us and them doesn't just depend on how the Scriptures are read. There's a lot more to it on a very deeper level as I am sure you are aware. I'm going to ponder this and see if I can express in words the clear difference.

Well. okay, I've given this some thought and I am finding it difficult to delineate exactly what separates psychic believers from pneumatic knowers.

I just used two contrasting terms there: believers and knowers. But here is the thing. Even as someone who identifies as a gnostic I still posses beliefs including religious beliefs. Views I hold that I can't assert are knowledge. Is this a deficiency?

And psychic believers would assert there are things that they know to be true. They would say they know God exists and that they know God for instance.

So I think maybe the most that could be said about this alleged difference is that the psychics place a good deal of emphasis on holding what they perceive to be right beliefs, beliefs they would acknowledge are not a matter of knowledge, whereas gnostics stress that knowledge is more important than and superior to belief. Does this make sense?

Similarly I don't see the difference being defined as faith vs knowledge. I don't even see those as opposites. Faith is essentially trust and is an important part of my spiritual life. I have faith in Christ and I also have knowledge of Christ. Because of my faith in Christ I accept as true what he taught even if I don't actually have knowledge of its truthfulness.

One thing I think I can say with reasonable surety is that the things I believe are based on reason and/or experience. I reject beliefs that cannot be supported by reason or that are contradicted by evidence. That may not be the case with psychic believers. Especially those who would simply accept whatever is written in the Bible as being literal, inerrant truth.

Thoughts?

 

[ELoWolfe]

I don't think (and this is me personally) that "gnosis" and knowledge are separate from faith (I agree with you). You can't be a purely intellectual Gnostic. You have to know the spirit, not just a different letter.

Take the tale of the good Samaritan.

The Priest and the Levite were Psychics. They had strong faith and they listened to the letter of the law. But the Samaritan was Pneumatic, because he listened to the spirit of the law. He had as much faith, but he also had knowledge.

Those who yelled at Jesus for healing on the Sabbath were Psychics. And those who continue to follow the spirit of the law (The Patriarchy movement; the churches who won't ordain women; etc.) are Psychics. Those who fully understand who Jesus was, and is, are Pneumatic.

Psychics aren't bad, in theory. But it when their lack of understanding becomes a dominant force that there is a problem. Women and the treatment of women, for example. Those who think women should be subservient to men, but not realize that "nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

It is like the first quote I made: 1 Corinthians 13:11: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me."

Psychics are children. Pneumatics are men (and, in the PC world, women as well).

 

[nazz]

I don't think (and this is me personally) that "gnosis" and knowledge are separate from faith (I agree with you). You can't be a purely intellectual Gnostic. You have to know the spirit, not just a different letter.

Take the tale of the good Samaritan.

The Priest and the Levite were Psychics. They had strong faith and they listened to the letter of the law. But the Samaritan was Pneumatic, because he listened to the spirit of the law. He had as much faith, but he also had knowledge.

Those who yelled at Jesus for healing on the Sabbath were Psychics. And those who continue to follow the spirit of the law (The Patriarchy movement; the churches who won't ordain women; etc.) are Psychics. Those who fully understand who Jesus was, and is, are Pneumatic.

Psychics aren't bad, in theory. But it when their lack of understanding becomes a dominant force that there is a problem. Women and the treatment of women, for example. Those who think women should be subservient to men, but not realize that "nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

It is like the first quote I made: 1 Corinthians 13:11: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me."

Psychics are children. Pneumatics are men (and, in the PC world, women as well).

That's an interesting take on it; the idea that the difference relates to the letter and spirit. But here again I think that not all we would classify as psychics would be ignorant of this principle. Maybe that is the thing. Rather than divide people into these hard and fast categories we should instead be establishing principles that fall into different categories and recognizing that many in either group can have understanding of them.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It is for the Psychics that there is the saving work of gnosis. It's for them. The Pneumatics do not need to be awaken, they are the Elect, they are already awaken.