When Ichthus was accusing various people of Gnosticism, I denied I was one. I just came across the following definition of gnosticism in a review of Harold Bloom’s book “The American Religion” on Amazon.com. :
there is no higher religious authority than the private individual
every individual has the “soul sufficiency” to reach religious truth by themselves
external objective expressions of religion like churches, worship, or creeds are at best unnecessary but mostly a block to true spirituality
true religion does not need any external forms
so, no one can tell me what to believe, and anyone who does is potential threat to religious freedom.
By this definition I must admit that I am a gnostic. I haven’t read Bloom’s book yet, but now I plan to pick it up. Is anyone else here a gnostic by this definition? Bloom apparently thinks many Americans are.
Well, if that’s the measure I suppose Ichthus was wrong and I’m not a Gnostic. I don’t believe that the private individual is the highest religious authority, but rather that there are numerous authoritative people who are called to show other people the way of truth. Having said that, these authorities have no commanding authority, but theirs is an authority by example.
I do believe, however, that individuals have the “soul sufficiency” to reach religious truth by themselves, perhaps by stumbling into a discovery, or having a “mystical experience†which makes them awaken to the insight available, and grasp the global context, stammering with imperfect language some metaphorical explanation.
However, I do not believe that “external objective expressions of religion like churches, worship, or creeds are at best unnecessary†- I believe that it is commitment that is good sign of authenticity, and the expression of a commitment, engagement and dedication will always take on some kind of form. The second part is none the less true, nominal religion is very often a block to true spirituality because of its tendency towards idolatry.
I think that true religion does need external forms, but true piety doesn’t. Ones personal dedication doesn’t need form, but it does need self-discipline to overcome our waves of moods, tempers and whims. Religion is the collective form of spirituality and is external for that reason.
Lastly, no one can tell me what to believe, but they can tell me what they believe. I believe that the attempt to dominate with ones own views is a threat to religious freedom, which is the end of freedom altogether, not just witnessing or expressing ones own spirituality.
Um, how could any definition of gnosticism not include the cherished persuit of secret knowledge, and a rejection of the material world as evil? The 5 points of definition could fit just about any American hyper-individualist who attaches themselves to an obscure faith without really understanding what it is.
I don’t see a definition of a religious belief in there at all, just a particular attitude towards religiosity.
Bob–For me the true “authorities” or lights point me to my true inner self, what Saint Paul called “Christ in me”. The Church is, no doubt, important as the vessel for preserving the form of Christianity. But when Christianity realizes itself, it is no longer “Christianity”, no longer a religion. Jesus didn’t come to set up a religion. Yet that is what we got.
Uccisore–I don’t know if the term “gnosticism” correctly applies. But the five principles are ones that apply to me. And for better or worse they seem to apply to many other unchurched Americans.
Oh, that’s certainly true! I’m just saying they have nothing to do with gnosticism. Really, they don’t have anything to do with religion, either- they just look to me like a defense of self-love for those who wish to be spiritual.
Yes the positive thesis for what the five principles have to do with gnosticism han’t been made yet. I have some acquaintence with Bloom’s view on the subject from other books I’ve read but I haven’t read “The American Religion.” I think the above points do relate to religion as argued by Emerson in "Self-Reliance, for instance.
In any particular case, what someone calls his religion may actually be his self-love. There is hypocracy without as well as within the church. It does not follow from that that all religion is self-love or that a conscientious abstention from participation in organized religion must be false. These principles may be a logical out-working and perhaps end-stage of conscientially applied protestantism.
I think you misunderstand me. I’m saying these principals that you’ve listed are an example of self-love. Certainly, it exists from time to time within the Church, it is populated by human beings. But someone who lives by the 5 points listed in the original post is doing so necessarily.
Clearly we ought to love ourselves. For scriptures teaches us to love our neighbor as we love our self. Matt. 22:39 And how should we love ourself? In the same way we ought to love our neighbor. And why should we love both self and neighbor? Because both are created in the image of God. Gen. 1:27 And who is the true self that we ought to love? “Christ in (us) the hope of glory”. Col 1:27 Can you hope to find him elsewhere if you do not find him within? For he himself taught that the Kingdom of God is within us. Luke 17:21 And who is the the King of the inner kingdom? “Not I but Christ who lives in me.” Gal 2:20
So the five points can read as follows:
there is no higher religious authority than Christ within
every individual has the “soul sufficiency” to reach religious truth by themselves because Christ dwells in them at least potentially
external objective expressions of religion like churches, worship, or creeds are at best unnecessary but mostly a block to true spirituality because in them we look to others rather than the indwelling spirit
true religion does not need any external forms because Christ is the realization that the forms, rituals and symbols point to
so, no one can tell us what to believe, and anyone who does is potential threat to religious freedom because before Jesus left us he directed us to the Spirit of Truth who guides us into all truth. And the truth shall set us free.
I’m making a point about humility and egoism, not self-love in the sense of respect or hatred for the self.
Yes, except that the person who wrote your five points would have never accepted that, because I’m assuming they want to leave room for the Buddah within, the Allah within, the Coyote within, or the martians within. If you’re defining point one as a reference to Christ, you’re already subverting the personal authority of those who’s religion has nothing to do with Jesus or any other Savior. A step in the right direction, but I’m not sure it’s what you intended.
But on a more serious note, do you see what you’re doing? You’ve just taken point 1, and casually replaced ‘the self’ with ‘the Christ within’. Now, here’s the crucial thing: Can you explain to me how the two are different in practice? I suspect not, and I suspect that was the point. If so, then all you’ve done is deify the self and called it ‘Christ’ to appease a Christian ear. That’s exactly the kind of egoism I was talking about- now compounded with a little blasphemy.
At the very least, you can't be talking about 'Jesus' when you say 'Christ', because His teachings were in direct contradiction to points 3, 4, and 5. Jesus established a Church, set up sacraments, and encouraged fasting and celebacy.
So then maybe I’m less a gnostic than a wayward Christian. Christ within may be seen as our deepest or true Self. However, finding that I may be at variance with Jesus’ teaching has given me pause. Thanks Uccisore
each person has the equal right and capacity to believe in nonsense.
It is also subject to the self-referential paradox. If the individual is the highest authority, and one individual, by his authority, says that it is not by authority, then the claim is not true, because he is saying that he has no authority.
And if the claim were true, there might as well be as many religious texts as there are individuals, since religious truth, according to you, is only “the individuals belief” and nothing more. I might ask as Dawkins asked O’ Reily: “how can something be true for you and not for me?”
the most terrible people are still eligible for truth.
This implies that somewhere, somebody is going to have an authority over what a criminal should do to redeem himself. With this practical example, you can clearly see the impossibility, or rather the absurdity, of the claim.
religious behavior is not necessary, nor are the symbols, rituals, customs, habits, or cultures. All that matter is the “thinking”.
This is simply admitting that doing nonsense is as possible as believing in nonsense, for the individual. I completely agree.
this is a repetition of the third one, only said differently.
this one contradicts the entire thing. If five is true, I should ignore 1-4.
To be quite blatant, you don’t know that at all. You have the recorded speech of Jesus in various situations which the Evangelists even portray differently and clearly with the intention to support the theology of others. The Gospels are the legitimation of sacraments, not the setting up of. Jesus encouraged fasting because it is a quite normal religious habit. I can’t see that he encouraged celibacy, since the Roman Church only insisted on celibacy for priests from the 11th Century onwards.
I also can’t see a “direct contradiction†either.
Mat 24:1-2
And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Joh 2:19-21
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.
Mat 12:5-8
Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.
Mat 10:19-20
But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.
Luk 11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Joh 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!
Joh 14:26
But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.
What I’m getting from all this is that Harold Bloom’s defination of Gnosticism amounts to little more than spiritual masturbation.
The word gnostic refers to knowledge of the devine. By Bloom’s defination the only ‘knowledge’ of the devine that matters is that obtained by the private individual.
By the defination of religion then Bloom’s Gnosticism is not religious at all. why? because a religion is something that binds people together; most commonly its a set of beliefs and practices that binds people. But the defining element of a religion as supposed to spirtuality is the binding of people.
Personally I would say that there is something lacking in this personal spirtuality in the same way there is something lacking in masturbation as compared to sex.
Maybe the fact that americans are swaying towards this spiritual “self-love” is a sympton of an ever more anti-social culture. People in western society are increasingly more private and the sense of a community, a binding or people, a religion is being lost.
To me Gnostic means someone who claims to have knowledge of the devine. Agnostic then litrally means someone who claims to have no knowledge.
If Gnosticism leads to a very personal spirituality in the modern maybe agnostism can lead to a more social religion.
But…i hear you say…how can we have an agnostic religion? I’m not sure but its an interesting thought.
why would Gnosticism lead to this very private religion?
Maybe its because what people are discovering is that literal traslations of the major religions seems to clash so heavyly with the scientific world view. But peoples argue for spirtuality still remains so they go off on there own and try and find something. People also want freedom they don’t want to be told what to believe.
I think one of the main reasons for the “clash of civilisation” between the west and the middle east is the middles observation that that the western culture is deeply impersonal. Culture in the middle east is binded by islam. I think this binding of people in the middle east is something that the people actually feel strongly about they don’t want to lose it and they feel threatened. The reaon people are not as free indiviually is beause they fear that there very culture would fall apart if they were. This fear for the culture is, in my mind, a reason for there lack of human rights.
I think what the world needs is a relgious revelation. Maybe in direct opposition to Bloom’s Gnostism. We need a defination of Agnostism:
There is no higher spiritual athourity simply because knowledge of the divine can not be obtained.
The divine maybe experienced by the individual or by a group of individuals.
Internal subjective expressions of spirituallity at most unfulfilling but mostly a block to true religious bonding of people and cultures.
4)True relgion excepts that one shouldn’t try to seperate out the external and internal worlds, the material and spirtual worlds or the objective and subjective. But understand that they are just 2 different descriptions of the same oneness.
5)No one should belive anything that they do not have empirical evidence for. Even then we should understand that this obtained ‘knowledge’ is only a description of the universe and not knowledge of the universe itself.
If it was true that O’Reily was sitting in chair X when Dawkins asked him that question, then it is true for O’Reilly that he was sitting in chair X and not true for Dawkins. Unless, of course, one was sitting in the other’s lap.
In all fairness Bob, you seem to be making an historical interpretation of the sacraments which is only one of the ways of looking at it. And, the “Roman Church” not withstanding,there are one or two verses I am aware of in which Jesus may be interpreted as supporting celibacy.
As far as breaking bread with the church I have an immediate problem. In Saint Paul’s day he could write a letter to the Church in Corinth and carrier would know who to deliver it to. Alas, in my community there are numerous groups all calling themselves churches who do not break bread together. It would be physically impossible for me to meet with them all on any given Lord’s day. So where shall I go? How shall I choose? What would Jesus do?
My concern was Ucc’s claim that who you mean by Jesus wasn’t the Christ because of the reasons he stated. I was quite surprised at him, since his statements are seldom that bland. Sacraments come to be as a means of reminiscence, a ritual of memory which takes the participants back to the event and let them be a part of it again. It is also a form of overcoming loss and continuing a mission in the frame of mind of the founder. Normally, the rituals need no explanations or legitimation, because it is the original participants that celebrate that memory. It is only when the group looses these original members that they need established rules, principles, or standards to keep up the practice.
The Gospels were written as memories and reminiscences, not as history. They were composed as spiritual witnesses of that unique occurrence by inspired people who embedded those established rules, principles, or standards in a framework that could be memorised and passed on. That is the strength of myth and legend, and also its purpose. It transports timeless truths and principles, it gives a movement rules and standards without being just a list of commandments – although, initially, that is what it is supposed to be.
I know your problem at first hand. It is really a case of what “Fin666†expressed in his crude obsession, but it was a correct observation. There is something lacking in many cases of “personal spirituality†and the claims made are often a little stereotyped. There is also a tendency to try and give religious experience some dramatic dimension, although it is often very undramatic. And what is it that a mystical experience imparts? In my experience, I have learned more about myself and the nature of life, the essence of things, the reality of my ignorance and the need for greater humility and restraint than something I could tell people about the “nature†of God.
Perhaps I am more receptive for inspiration, but am I a better person? No, I am nobody to be revered just because I am receptive. But that is often what comes across when people claim to be “Gnostics†- however, the classical message of those deemed to be Gnostics is also inspiring, albeit in a different way to the Gospels or the Epistles. However, they resound in one’s soul and help us gain insight into the Holy – not it’s “natureâ€, but it’s importance, weight and relevance.
To find authentic spirituality, you have to be authentic yourself.
Thanks Uccisore