Gnosticism...

Gnostic:
someone who claimed to have special knowledge, particularly of a religious nature, such as passwords for getting into the heavens or for controlling angels.
--------------------
Blessed are those who control angels.

Gnostics should never ever say: "I'm a gnostic."

Gnostic?
I might consider a religion. Gnosticism? Care to explain how you find it inspiring, useful, or edifying?

Just went to a Christian Sunday school with my father. Enjoyed the discussion and appreciated the topics, but I don't hold their religious belief of a divine Christ or that his words were holier or more of a mandate than other decent traditions.

So to hang with mainstream Christians for the discussions would eventually sour. How do Gnostics feel about trading insights with a nonbeliever who shares many principles?

I read a description here: <http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html>

Do gnostics have places like churches or temples where they go to discuss, and learn--once a month or whatever?

Sal

Welcome to the forum Karalily and SallyMander. This is a forum of frolic and fun.

As for the word gnostic, my first thought was for the pasta I enjoyed several nights ago.

But then I remembered:

The touchstone for professed christian gnostics is Jesus' statement at Matthew 11:25: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes."

Obviously, Jesus did not espouse gnosticism.

Don't need a weatherman to gnow which way the wind blows?
Thanks for the welcome, and the tip, neologist!

Lucky I'm such a babe.

gnoccio, gnoccias, gnocciat, gnociamus, gnociatis, gnociant ??

Perhaps not the 'school of thought' that is currently regarded as gnosticism.

I think Jesus did not espouse any kind of '-ism.'

As far as the purest definition of gnosis:
Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge

--that is exactly what Jesus was speaking about:



Also as mentioned here:

The anointing you received from him abides in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. Instead, because his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not a lie, abide in him, as he taught you to do.
~1 John 2:27

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of all that I have told you.
~John 14:26

Don't hit me, I'm curious...how does one differentiate between gnosis and imagination....or between gnosis and psychopathology?

Huh?

Heehee

There have been more varieties of Gnosticism than probably any other religious movement. And unless it's agreed upon which kind of "Gnosticism" is being discussed, the term itself is pretty useless.
These days, the word almost always describes a (somewhat) Christian sect that is very similar to Buddhism. The other meanings are mainly used by people trying to discredit Gnosticism.
I think Jesus most likely was a Gnostic teacher. The best evidence I know to support this is the fact that the early Christian leaders severely persecuted Gnostics and burned any Gnostic scripture they could get their hands on (which, BTW, is why you don't hear more about them).
It was only fifty or sixty years ago that the only truly Gnostic texts known to still exist were found in Egypt (Nag Hammadi).
Before that, most of what was known about Gnosticism was what the Catholics and other Christians propagandized.

Well, because the orderly understanding that comes with gnosis is not at all contradictory or confusing as psychopathy or as meandering, unsure, and incomplete as imagination frequently is. It just makes too much sense to be coming from normal human speculation. It's also not easily explained to others, hence the need for the individual experience of gnosis.

Also, outside of psychological problems, it is not hard to differentiate between
one's own thoughts and those from another source--especially if a person is a 'thinker' (rather than a 'knower')

I'd say their pretty much opposites. "Gnosis" is said to result from introspection (and reasoning). "Imagination"... well, we know what that is.

Gnosticism tends to be associated with the concept of a Demiurge, a mad God that thinks he is the Creator but isn't really.

Some have acquainted the Demiurge to the God of the Old Testament. Others have associated him with the Abrahamic God.

This school of thought tends to get confused with Satanism, because both reject the Abrahamic God.

The difference with Gnosticism is that it is believed the Demiurge is a product of the real God, or rather, Goddess, known as Sophia (Wisdom). Of course, Gnosticism is quite a loose term and as I've said before can be confused with a number of other things.

I once confused Doktor S's brand of Satanism with a certain brand of Gnosticism.

If anyone's interested in learning about it, The Gnostic Society Library is a good place to start.

Hm. Comparing to a classical view that the gods may share divine verities with a few chosen mortals, how would gnosis differ? Jesus did the sharing?

Or are are you saying that everyone is packed with a user's manual but only some have tapped into it?

I think that's it, exactly.

Sal--

I am fascinated by your question, even as I am unable to grasp exactly what you mean.
This may take a few minutes.

-------------------------
BTW, in order to make sure that your message is in proper form, click the "Preview" box, and it will appear at the top of your screen. You can then scroll down and make changes before you Submit.

I'm not Gnostic but do follow Buddhist philosophy.
I find there are similarities but major differences.
Gnostics do believe in a form of enlightenment and also similar to eastern religion they believed in reincarnation. However Buddhism sets itself apart from it all because they do not hold a heirarchy or believe in a particular deity.

I also find that people wil dismiss Gnostism because its based on hidden knowledge but if we were to look at other religions they also have similar sects. For example The Vedas in Hinduism and Kabbalah in Judiaism.

Take two for echi. I'm probably addressing too much at once. "Gnowing" means gnostic revelation below.

[1] Premise: Revealed knowledge (gnowing) of the divine (or divine being) is a personal event between man and god. (This principle became popular in Europe during the Enlightenment.)

[2] Even assuming that, man experiences all through his/her human faculties. By virtue of differences and human means of "representing," or "experiencing," human experience is individual, relative, and subjective. ("Angry" to me feels different and "is" a different _experience_ for me than "angry" to you.) Thus, because of our widely varying inner experience, we would be unlikely to experience the divine or a divine being as any other human would. Where does that leave "gnowing"? Each person's "knowledge" of the divine would be relative and subjective, right?

[3] Therefore, divine "is" absolute, but its experience by multiple individuals has integrity only if we were all one, and also one with the divine. That oneness would have to exist beyond (human, worldly) time and space, to assure the integrity of the divine and individual perception of it. (A gnostic principle?)

[4] Fact: The human brain at times processes perception and fancy through the same neurological centers, thus, at times we experience fact and fancy as "the same." In human mode, how do we know we "gnow"?

[5] We cannot separate for sure our own relative-subjective perception from divine revelation while we exist in human form. Therefore, we would have to die (abandon flesh) to "experience" the universal undistorted. Yet we have to deal with Earthly matters in life. Would we know that we "gnow" by faith? Would our prophecies be more likely to come true than the predictions of those less in the gnow?

[6] Despite the dogma of Western religion, it would seem useless to codify "knowledge" of the divine into religion because we as humans experience and represent our gnowing drastically differently. Where does that put churches, liturgy, and Bible/Koran, etc.?

Any clearer? A little disjointed, I guess.

[7] 2. Meanwhile, as humans, if one knows what's going on intuitively (or by common sense) or absolutely, why cite sources even in human existence? No substantiation would add to or detract from absolute truth.

Yet, what if humans "gnow" opposing things? How would we know whether THEY gnow about something happening on the planet? They could make the right prediction based on the wrong reasons/phenomena. Or we could simply see "it" differently and assume our way is correct and gnown.

[8] Could we know by how pious/faithful the speaker?
[9] By the way we intuitively feel in their presence?
[10] By the history of what they have said and done (could they never be wrong)?
[11] By science--the antithesis of divine revelation?

Any more intelligible, echi?

Too many suppositions and questions? Remember, I'm barely hatched.

Sal--

It is only by way of reason/reasoning that any truth can be known. We each have to utilize our own sense of reason before we can accept that what we know is true.


The gnostic concept of "gnosis" (like Buddhist "enlightenment") requires that no assumption go unchallenged.

The "sources" you mention (I assume) do not contain any sort of dogma or any detailed set of beliefs to which one must conform. Instead, they probably contain (knowingly) vague descriptions of what someone else has reported to be true, as well as their own, personal advice for the reader (calling one's attention to concepts that are commonly overlooked). I have found this to be the case with all "gnostic" scripture that I have read (which is relatively little).

The reason for the descriptions being "knowingly vague" is that they attempt to describe that which is not accurately describable. Although nothing can truly be accurately described, this fact becomes obvious when the "subject" is "reality".