What inspired you to identify yourself as "Gnostic"?

[doppelganger]

I'm curious to hear your stories about what inspired you to start identifying yourself as "Gnostic."

If you haven't always identified yourself as "Gnostic," how did you indentify yourself before you decided upon "Gnostic"?

What kinds of ideas, experiences and feeling made you decide to identify yourself as "Gnostic"?

How does your "gnostic" identity relate to those who you perceive identify themselves with other identities, such as "Catholic", "Muslim," "Mormon," "Buddhist," etc.?

Thanks in advance for taking the time to respond.

the doppleganger

 

[allogenes]

I'll give this a go.

Before I identified myself as Gnostic, I didn't really identify myself as anything. I'd always been interested in esoteric spiritual paths, and had a number of experiences that I was unable to properly place into context until I began studying Gnosticism. As well you probably know, it's exceptionally difficult to explain these experiences in the limited vocabulary we're stuck with, but the Gnostic scriptures ("The Secret Gospel of John" and "The Gospel of Truth" in particular) provided me with an excellent foundation on which to build my own spiritual identity.

The reason it appealed to me, at first, was the answer it supplied to the question of theodicy: if God is all-good, then why does evil exist? The concept of emanation theology, as well as the role of the Demiurge, seemed to answer the question rather succinctly. I've since had plenty of cause to redefine and reexamine these initial ideas, but those probably got the ball rolling.

As to how my identification as Gnostic relates to those who identify themselves otherwise, I don't really think I could answer. According to Gnostic thought, every single individual (me, you, George W. Bush, etc.) contains a spark of the divine. I try to approach people as I would approach a spark of the divine, no matter who they are or how they identify themselves. I'm try to be as open as possible to everyone's spiritual approach, be they Gnostic, Buddhist or Southern Baptist. I think it's dangerous and counterproductive to criticize people we may consider "fundamentalist" or "literalist," because even the attendees at your local Megachurch all contain sparks of the divine and deserve love and compassion.

Hope this helps!

 

[Random]

I consider myself Gnostic in spirit, because it is a system based on the use of Reason and Intuition in harmony to achieve enlightened knowlege (gnosis itself). This what I do, as it forms the basis of virtually all freeform mysticism and individual endevour towards spiritual emancipation.

The 3-tier system of Hylics, Pneumatics and Psychics perfectly describes a valid Path toward liberation (moshka).

I am not so much concerned with the idea of God, though I believe in God, as other Gnostic figures such as Sophia and sometimes Christ play a greater part in the contemplative aspects of the journey.

The Problem of Evil is answerable by virtue of the doctrines regarding the Demiurge and the divine Spark within each of us, but more immportantly Gnosticism, like Buddhism, recognizes that the current life-now-lived is neither the highest nor the most desirable State of Being attainable, as all conditioned existence must ultimately lead to dissatisfaction (dukkha). Gnostics are assured Transcendence is possible, a joyous message for sure.

So, I guess, I partly identify with Gnosticism because it bridges the gap between Christianity and Buddhism (and Hinduism, too), but also narrows the gap to Paganism too in some ways, as any thorough reading of the Trimophic Protennoia should tell you.

Lastly, as a Gnostic, I can reject hierarchical interpretations of spirituality and religion and embrace an Anarchisitc approach to mind, body and spirit. I myself practice alone, am volutarily celibate, and have a code of ethical morality which doesn't need to be overseen by peers or Judges, and is Dogma free. It suits me perfectly.

Thanks, BTW, a good post. Hope you all find Happiness and love in this life and the next.

PS. I should add that, as above, I label myself as a Panentheist because in contemplation of God, I have come to recognize that the All prevades Creation on every level, and thus the Source or ground of being dwells both within and without the Universe and in each of us. There is only the illusion of seperation from God: there is no reality to it at all.

 

[Halcyon]

Welcome aboard Godlike!

I agree with your assessment about the three stages/types of humanity. I see them as stages of spiritual development, i know some ancient Gnostics believed those born Hylic remained Hylic, but i strongly disagree. In fact, i can chart my own progress through all three levels, and in doing so i'll also reply to the OP.

For aboout half of my life (i'm 24 now) i was atheist, verging on anti-theist. This was my Hylic phase, i never thought about spiritual matters, in fact i considered them silly and a waste of time. At the age of five i disproved God to my own mind and that was that, no looking back until the age of fourteen.

At fourteen my father died and it sent a shock through my system, this shiock sent me out on a spiritual journey to find meaning in life, and death. I embraced a Kemetic form of religion and so entered the Psychical phase, i found great comfort in the Ancient Egyption idea of afterlife and in their Gods, for four years i was happy in my faith-alone state of being.

But then i went to university, there i discovered Buddhism and its concept of personal enlightenment, personal spirtuality. No reliance of non-self entities and the practice of meditation drew me in, but there was something that i felt was missing, for me Buddhism felt cold, soul-less. I reverted back to paganism and looked into Wicca since there was a reasonable number of neo-pagans attending my university.

After i left university and my Wiccan friends i found myself looking at what i was doing and what i believed in a different light, again i felt that something was wrong, something was missing. I entered into a state of spiritual flux, torn between Buddhism, Wicca, agnosticism and about a billion other spiritual paths and concepts.
I did a lot of research and eventually, while exploring "pagan" goddesses, i discovered Sophia.
She led me to further research Gnosticism, and i felt that i was home. It had the enlightenment and mystery of Buddhism alongside the grand mythologies and 'deities' of Wicca. And underneath it all there was this unknowable but all-encompassing, very unanthropomorphic God that offended none of my early-achieved logical conclusions.

I've been Gnostic for about two years now, not long, and during that time i've learnt a lot more and developed what i actually believe so that it is reasonably structured (i'm a scientist, i need structure ). It hasn't been easy, if you feel like reading the 2,000 odd posts i've made here you'll see i've had a wide variation in my belief, and still at times i am tempted to go back to the Psychical, anthropomorphic, comforting gods of my past, but so far i've stuck with Gnosticism, i love it.
I'd say at the moment i'm still in the transitional stage between Psychical and Pneumatic, but i can't really see myself ever going back.

Brother Jeremy, i wish i could be more like you, i try not to criticise people (even just in my own thoughts) for their literal views etc, but i'm no good at it. Hopefully with time i will devleop the patience and inner peace to accept people's beliefs without arguing with them.

 

[doppelganger]

Thanks to all for the excellent responses so far.

the doppleganger

 

[SimonMagus]

I consider myself Gnostic, but not the mainstream mystical term or level. I don't believe in Monistic thought, for the most part at least, though I am always open to change. I might actually be a bit dualistic sometimes in my approach to divinity. I had recently become a Gnostic, last year or so, after several years of being a Demonologist and practicing Demonolatry (worship of demons, specifically Christian ones). I had studied many other faiths during this time though...

I'm 23 now so I was probably a Demonologist since I was 15. I was always a bit rebellious of established religions, especially Christianity lol, growing up in a semi-strict Christian community in the eastern U.S., not getting along with most the kids my age (or adults lol), and being attracted to the strangest of spiritual beliefs, I fully accepted an open mind for alternative paths at an early age.

So lets see, I identify as Gnostic because I really like this Simon Magus character, the stories about his magical arts and stuff are just insane and I'm very attracted to what he was all about. His spiritual movement, identified by his enemies, was the first "Gnostic" tradition (1st century, right alongside the first Christian circles).

Simon was said to be a manifestation of God, who descended to earth to reveal divine Knowledge (Gnosis) to man. Simonians believed the god of this world, the Demiurge, was sinister, and enslaved mankind with his rules and laws of religion. Jesus was the son of the Demiurge (unlike the later Gnostic systems that use Jesus as the Gnostic Savior or Logos).

Simon came to offer salvation to those who place their trust and faith in him, and through purity and goodness of heart they may enter the kingdom of God. He also came to save an angel that was trapped in the world by the lower beings called Helena, who became his consort on earth.

She had originally been created in the higher realms but descended to form the lower universe, and created all the angels. They being jealous of her superior origins enslaved her in the world through eternal rebirth, until the grace of God, in the form of Simon Magus, came to free her.

I guess I just like the whole intimate belief system, it sounds very passionate, peaceful, non-threatening, and graceful. I like the idea of a loving God who doesn't threaten people to hell-fire or degrade you for not accepting him. I always believed in a God of perfect peace and love, so that's why I'm on this little obscure path.

 

[SimonMagus]

By the way, I pretty much accept everyone elses' beliefs and religions, usually I just try to leave others alone who are more fundamentalist, instead of getting into debate, to which I am not very good at defending myself lol. I just don't see the point in slamming people this or that way because of beliefs, It's so self-destructive and it hurts people feelings, but I do like intelligent, open minded conversation.

 

[Halcyon]

Have you read the Acts of Peter?
It doesn't show Magus in a good light, but it is interesting, and one of the last remaining early writings concerning him, you can read a lot into the mind of the Christian author about his fear of the rise of Simonianism.

What is your view of the scholarly idea that Simon Magus was a cypher for St. Paul? And that he was called Simon Magus as a play on Simon Peter the apostle?

 

[SimonMagus]

well yeah, none of the texts concerning Simon the magician cast him in a very good light simply because they came from enemy hands, but what's interesting is they go into detail and alot of it may have truth. I've been reading from the Clementine Legends, I don't think that's the same as Acts of Peter, I'll have to go read that one, haven't yet though. One interesting thing about Simon's speaches is that, even though it may be from enemy hands, a good detailed debate between Peter and Simon goes on, each getting a chance to express their beliefs.

There was a surviving Simonian writing, The Great Declaration I believe it's called.

about Simon being a cypher for Paul, I've heard the arguements about it (and then it would have had to come from an Ebionite source), I'm not sure, It's possible of course, but Simon Magus was the great enemy of the apostles and the early church in a general sense, as well as being so according to the early church Fathers. The Ebionites denounced Paul as not upholding or keeping the Jewish Law but wouldn't they have denounced Simon too?

Unless they thought that Paul and Simon were the same person? Now that would be interesting...

 

[Halcyon]

Unless they thought that Paul and Simon were the same person? Now that would be interesting...

That's exactly the point , ever heard of Marcion?
He was an early Christian who held "heretical" beliefs, his opponants claimed he was taught by Simon Magus, but he claimed Paul as his teacher. Marcion didn't even mention Magus, only Paul - makes you think.

Also, did you know that only 7 of the epistles attributed to Paul in the NT were actually written by him? Its theorised that the others were written specifically to bring the originals in line with orthodox teaching.

None of this is conclusive of course, and i'm not sure how it would affect your beliefs it were true (would it?). But it is intriguing...

 

[Buttons*]

Jacob Needleman

 

[SimonMagus]

yeah that never made any sense where they got the idea that Paul expressed similar beliefs with the Simon Magus tradition. Those early Pauline gnostics were not started specifically with Marcion either as we know, remember Cerdon was even before him professing a Duo-Theism of sorts.

So what we have is, well, unclear origins. The Pauline Gnostic Jesus was very similar to Simon, and some Gnostics may have broken away with Simonian tradition and started thinking it was Jesus who revealed the supreme unknown God, forgetting about Simon.

There was another very early Gnostic in the later years of John the apostle that I've been interested in, his name was Cerinthus, what do you think about his beliefs? He was like Judeo-Gnostic or something like that...

 

[doppelganger]

There was another very early Gnostic in the later years of John the apostle that I've been interested in, his name was Cerinthus, what do you think about his beliefs? He was like Judeo-Gnostic or something like that...

He was an Egyptian Gnostic who some believed wrote the original version of what would later be changed by the proto-orthodox and called "The Gospel of John". Which, of course, would be an interesting irony since orthodox tradition holds that "John" (the version we have now) was "written" to refute Cerinthus. This little detail about the "orthodox" origin of the gospel comes, of course, courtesy of exclusively one person. Guess who . . .?

the doppleganger

 

[gnostic]

My alias here is "gnostic", but I am truly an "agnostic". But that's a long story, I would not bother you with this, unless someone ask why I call myself "gnostic".

However, I do have interested in reading gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi Library. I had know the existence of the gospels of Thomas and Philip, when I was a teenager, but could not find any copy of the Gnostic texts. I didn't know Thomas and Philip gospels had to do with Gnosticism. Actually, I never heard of Gnosticism until a few years ago (2003, I think), when I finally came across the gospel of Thomas on the Internet.

Since then I have read some of the Gnostic texts that sparked my interested. I am very interested in the Gnostic version of the Creation, the Demiurge and of course, my favourite personality in Gnosticism - Sophia. Sophia is the reason why I became interested in the feminine principle, in otherwise monotheistic-based religion.

Of all, the Christian groups, I think I find myself more at home with Gnosticism, then elsewhere. And even though I find the Gnosticism and gnosis to be quite fascinating subject and point of great interest, I am still an agnostic at heart.

 

[SimonMagus]

let's see....Irenaeus right? Alot of the others copied off of him so I'll bet he's the culprit.

So do you think there was an original gospel of Cerinthus, including even epistles (formerly John's) and a proto-Revelations text? I'm aware of the accusations against him from others, they actually said he was the original author which was surprising....

It was claimed he was inspired by "angels," and wrote these revelations down, but so far no definite writings of his has survived...

he was one of the first to claim Jesus was merely a prophet, and just a man (so his beliefs were similar to the Jewish Ebionite sect). When baptized by John the spirit of God in the form of a dove came down and empowered Jesus to perform miracles and proclaim the great Unknown God. His religious system was confusing, I don't see how he could have kept Judaistic principles and at the same time rejected the lower angels of the world including the Demiurge. Probably Cerinthus was like Marcion, following the Ethical and Libertine tenets of Jesus, rather than the Jewish Law, which the new God under Jesus abolished. Maybe this was a kind of "New Law" for the people to follow....

 

[doppelganger]

let's see....Irenaeus right?

Bingo! He claims to know it from Polycarp, who Irenaeus claims knew it from John the Apostle. But there's no reference to it in the one surviving writing attributed to Polycarp (Epistle to the Phillipians).

Of course, that all comes viaIrenaeus, who had need to establish all his "apostolic succession" arguments to counter Valentinus and Marcion similar, earlier claims. The former claimed to be a disciple of Theudas who was a direct disciple of Paul. The latter, of course, formed the first "canon" of New Testament scriptures containing a "gospel" now lost to us that it is said looked like a version of Luke and ten Pauline epistles (all but Hebrews and the Pastorals). Curiously, not only do these apostolic succession stories for Peter and John first appear with Irenaeus, but Irenaeus's writings contain the first known extant mention of Acts of the Apostles, which conveniently depicts a very different "Paul" then the one found in the Epistles, and the "Pastoral epistles", 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.

So do you think there was an original gospel of Cerinthus, including even epistles (formerly John's) and a proto-Revelations text? I'm aware of the accusations against him from others, they actually said he was the original author which was surprising....

I don't know. There was such an effort to cleanse the historical record, destroying writings and erasing "heresies" that the picture we have of the first three centuries of "Christianity" will likely be forever tainted, imcomplete and unreliable.

he was one of the first to claim Jesus was merely a prophet, and just a man (so his beliefs were similar to the Jewish Ebionite sect).

In some details perhaps. But, setting aside the issue of whether Gnostic "cosmology" is intended to be taken metaphorically, Cerinthus was also a proponent of the idea of the O.T. "God" being the self-deceived "Demiurge," which doesn't sound like an idea the Ebionites would have accepted. But who really knows at this point? Everything was destroyed over the centuries except the writings of the anti-heresy polemicists of proto-orthodoxy. Maybe there's another treasure trove of writings like Nag Hammadi stashed somewhere, waiting to be discovered . . .

Until then, my personal approach is to apply the legal principles of "spoliation." When someone sets out to destroy evidence, it should be presumed that the evidence destroyed would have signficantly undermined their assertions.

Where does that leave me? I give little to no weight to apologetic arguments for orthodoxy based on appeals to the authority of scripture or tradition because the sources are not trustworthy.

the doppleganger

 

[allogenes]

So doppleganger, how about giving us your answers to the question you asked at the beginning of the post?

 

[doppelganger]

So doppleganger, how about giving us your answers to the question you asked at the beginning of the post?

I'm not so sure I identify myself as "Gnostic," though I once did. I'll still try to answer my questions though:

If you haven't always identified yourself as "Gnostic," how did you indentify yourself before you decided upon "Gnostic"?

I was born to an Irish-Catholic family in the Pacific Northwest United States. The youngest of six kids (4 older sisters and one older brother), I was raised very loosely "Catholic" (a couple years of sunday school early on, and just Christmas and Easter after that). My older sisters all became "born again" Evangelical Christians when I was a teen. At age 15, under the guidance of one of my sisters (who is and always has been my one, lifelong confidant), I also became a Bible-thumping, conservative Evangelical Christian. That's how I viewed my self for about 4 or 5 years, but gradually grew disillusioned because I never could reconcile the fundamentalist Christian worldview with the message of Love and Grace that had originally inspired me to identify myself as "Christian" and I am just too inquisitive by nature to take "because tradition says so" for an answer to my questions. After a time, I gradually just dropped the facade and stopped identifying my self as "Christian."

What kinds of ideas, experiences and feeling made you decide to identify yourself as "Gnostic"?

I studied philosophy, anthopoology, history, psychology, law and government and became particularly enamored of the writings of Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, Ernst Cassirer and Friedrich Nietzsche. It was with the help of these four that I developed a methodology of deconstructing mythology, culture and symbolic language to arrive at my own original experiences. That made Buddhism, Taoism, and Sufism especially attractive to me because I was able to apply this methodoloy in those traditions much more easily. It was through Campbell that I first encountered the Gospel of Thomas, which turned my attention back toward my native "Christianity" with new eyes. For a while I identified myself as "Christian Gnostic" working on deconstructing Christianity for its meanings.

How does your "gnostic" identity relate to those who you perceive identify themselves with other identities, such as "Catholic", "Muslim," "Mormon," "Buddhist," etc.?

My experience over the years has been that there is a common, absolute truth being expressed in every major tradition (including "atheist" traditions like humanism), because there is a common human experience of empathy for others and confusion about identity and the operation of language that lies at the heart of all of them. Finding it under all the politics, fear and culture is not always easy - it takes a lot of questions - and more importantly - a lot of careful and patient listening and observation. But it is always rewarding.


the doppleganger

 

[SimonMagus]

The Gospel of John looks like it's been tampered with if you ask me. Why the heck would a Gospel written to refute such deadly Gnosticism have so much Gnostic undertones and strange differences from the Synoptic Gospels.

Why trust the authorship of any Gospel at all since none even sign their names to the work lol, sheesh...like foreigners (who weren't hebrew) a century later are gonna know who wrote them? yeah right

(just my opinion but still...)

 

[doppelganger]

Why trust the authorship of any Gospel at all since none even sign their names to the work lol, sheesh...like foreigners (who weren't hebrew) a century later are gonna know who wrote them? yeah right

(just my opinion but still...)

The authorship of all four "canonical" gospels is unknown. There's "tradition" about who wrote them, but if you trace it back to it's origins (almost all paths lead to one person), the tradition turns out to be third and fourth-hand hearsay. None of the four canonical gospels have any extant reference before the second half of the Second Century. More important than the unknown authorship is the unknown purpose for which they were written. For all we know, they are or were based on teachings myths or midrash, or were written or altered sometime in the latter half of the second century by polemicists. Since we have no idea where they came from, who wrote them, when, or what they originally said, it seems a little presumptuous to have spent the last 2000 years hating, torturing and murdering people over differences in the way one chooses to understand a turn of phrase here or there.