Reasons for Dislike

[Buttons*]

I was in a class on Conspiracy Theories... (yeah, I know) and something came up as we were discussing a most loathed subject: Dan Brown's books. We discussed various things, but something the lecturer said caught my otherwise divided attention:

He said that Christians didn't like Gnostics because when Roman Pagans sacrificed Christians, and made martyrs out of them for not renouncing their God, Gnostics would say, "Just tell them what they want to hear, God knows your heart, and it does no good if we're all dead." - That because of this disagreement concerning doing what is right, the Christians killed off all the Gnostics when they got into power.

I wonder, is there any truth to that at all? I have no idea where he got it. I haven't read it anywhere. It does seem to make sense. But on the other hand, I'm having a hard time thinking that Christians would even remember Gnostics in a hateful way.... wouldn't they be more apt to destroy the actual monsters who were slaughtering them? (Romans) I don't know, but I'd like to see some input.

 

[BHSU_Student]

I don't think you can point to a single factor like that. It seems highly unlikely to me, that people would be highly motivated to commit genocide by this reason alone, although this could have definitely have been a contributing factor if it were true.

This phenomenon apears to happen within many religions, even in Bhuddism. When there is a clash of beliefs/culture, the dominating school or sect will alienate all others that are in opposition (i.e. follow a set of principles or ideas which are contradictory).
There was a sect of Tibeten bhuddism that involved the worship of a diety. The 14th Dalai Lama clearly disagrees with worshipping dieties, even going so far as to state that the past masters who did so were not masters at all. There was a clash between the followers of the Dalai Lama and this sect. One monk was stabbed, others recieved threat letters. This opposing viewpoint was heavily suppressed and the worship of this diety almost ceased.

Even differing schools of science quibble over who has the correct theory, although I don't recall anyone recieving any threat letters over it. However, scientists with unpopular theories do get alienated in favor of the dominating and highly supported theory at the time.

This also occurs in politics. In conclusion, I don't think this behavior is unique, or that the causality of such behavior can be blamed on some unique set of events. It is rather, how humans function in all aspects of society, from small cliques, to major religions, and even nations. Genocide, war, and alienation repeats itself over and over again throughout history, and the underlying causalities appear to be the same.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Practically all literature concernign the Gnostics is anti Gnostic....

I am not sure what you are asking ms buttons?

The last great Gnostic quelling was arguably the Cathars....

Before that were the condemnation and inhouse fighting of the early church fathers...

Augustine of course was an influential voice, him being a manichaean convert to catholicism..It is becoming increasingly clear though that Augustine did not have a very clear picture of the Manichaeans...

........

Arguably of course, the Gnostics didn't "die" they simply merged with other things...
Christianity of course still retains Gnostic elements...

Then of course there is the whole Hermetic people....
Who now have formed Gnostic churches, largely of course all going back to the late 19th century occult revival... groups such as Sophian Gnosticism, Johannite Church and the french Eglise Gnostique.....Or other groups such as the Golden Rosicrucian group who are an offshoot of the Max heindel school of ceremonial magical Rosicrucianism (ie ceremonial magic first, rosicrucian largely in name only) who use no magic, follow no set patterns or ritual and claim to be in spiritual contact with cathar lines....

Modern groups such as Order of Nazorean Essenes are at least attempting a revival of a sort. This group labelling themselves as the Orthodox Manichaean church. Of course as with any revival there are problems.... Some would argue about created and unreal spiritual lines/legacies.

There is always a danger when anyone "seeks power" Arguably even though Valentinus is much lauded online...and by Gnostics, his "want" of power and to an extent as his being a follower of Paul, make even Valentinus problematic.

Addendum:
Of course the Occult revival even includes the public face of Gnosticism. Here we have the muchlauded Stephan Hoeller, who is the head of Ecclesia Gnostica (Latin for "the Gnostic Church"). Which is the oputer face of a particular rose cross order.... again this is all tied in with free masonary and martinism.
The Ecclesia Gnostica is not to be confused with the similar sounding Crowley esk Thelemic (OTO)"group"

 

[sandandfoam]

I
I wonder, is there any truth to that at all? I have no idea where he got it. I haven't read it anywhere. It does seem to make sense. But on the other hand, I'm having a hard time thinking that Christians would even remember Gnostics in a hateful way.... wouldn't they be more apt to destroy the actual monsters who were slaughtering them? (Romans) I don't know, but I'd like to see some input.

Elaine Pagels goes into it in Ch. 4 of "The Gnostic Gospels" citing Irenaeus and Tertullian amongs others.

 

[Kurt31416]

The Samaritans and the Judean Jews both have always blamed each other of sucking up to the latest invading power. Seems to be a universal claim in competing religions.

And the Gnostics are alive and well. Paul is Gnostic. The Gnostics worship Paul even more than the Christians.

 

[Kurt31416]

And those early Christians in power slaughtered each other for the most minor of differences in thier dogma, not just the Gnostics or gnostics.

Keep in mind, there's a capical "G" Gnostic religion in the second century competing with the Christians, with all kinds of strange beliefs, such as God being the bad guy and this being hell. Completely different from little "g" gnostic, like Plato, Einstein, Spinoza, the Mandaeans, and the historical Jesus of Thomas, who thought this was heaven, not hell.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The Samaritans and the Judean Jews both have always blamed each other of sucking up to the latest invading power. Seems to be a universal claim in competing religions.

And the Gnostics are alive and well. Paul is Gnostic. The Gnostics worship Paul even more than the Christians.

speak for yourself Kurt

 

[Mr Cheese]

And those early Christians in power slaughtered each other for the most minor of differences in thier dogma, not just the Gnostics or gnostics.

Keep in mind, there's a capical "G" Gnostic religion in the second century competing with the Christians, with all kinds of strange beliefs, such as God being the bad guy and this being hell. Completely different from little "g" gnostic, like Plato, Einstein, Spinoza, the Mandaeans, and the historical Jesus of Thomas, who thought this was heaven, not hell.

this is only "hell" if you dont have Gnosis Kurt....

le sigh...

your whacky proclamations in the Thomas Group were one reason I left....
You come up with some doozies...

You're on a Samaritan kick now....:sarcastic

It is like watching a kid proclaim everythign is blue.....
even if its green.

You did this at the Thomas group also....

 

[Kurt31416]

speak for yourself Kurt

You don't like Paul either? I didn't know that.

 

[Kurt31416]

this is only "hell" if you dont have Gnosis Kurt....

le sigh...

your whacky proclamations in the Thomas Group were one reason I left....
You come up with some doozies...

You're on a Samaritan kick now....:sarcastic

It is like watching a kid proclaim everythign is blue.....
even if its green.

You did this at the Thomas group also....

How about I totally ignore you, and you totally ignore me? How about that for a start?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

He said that Christians didn't like Gnostics because when Roman Pagans sacrificed Christians, and made martyrs out of them for not renouncing their God, Gnostics would say, "Just tell them what they want to hear, God knows your heart, and it does no good if we're all dead." - That because of this disagreement concerning doing what is right, the Christians killed off all the Gnostics when they got into power.

I wonder, is there any truth to that at all?

In the early persecutions by the Romans, Christians and Gnostics were martyred beside eachother. Some Christian apologists didn't like this, and they did not recognize the deaths of Gnostics as genuine maryterdoms because they did not have the same orthodox Christian confession.

 

[Buttons*]

And the Gnostics are alive and well. Paul is Gnostic. The Gnostics worship Paul even more than the Christians.

.... No, Paul is not a Gnostic. I'm Gnostic, and I would NEVER worship Paul. I honestly doubt any Gnostic would agree with you on this point.

 

[Buttons*]

In the early persecutions by the Romans, Christians and Gnostics were martyred beside eachother. Some Christian apologists didn't like this, and they did not recognize the deaths of Gnostics as genuine maryterdoms because they did not have the same orthodox Christian confession.

Oh wow... so even though they went through the same tortures, Christians don't consider Gonstics martyrs? Fair enough, I don't think Gnostics would even want to be considered that way. It detracts from the point of the faith. Even so, would this have caused a hatred between the two factions? Are you implying that Gnostics were angry at Christians for this because Christians would not accept their deaths as heroic? If not, I didn't mean to be rude, I just want to know what you mean. if there was no implication at all, perhaps you can share more of this in detail. It would be of great interest to me, and you are probably the only person who actually knows a great deal on this.

 

[Buttons*]

Elaine Pagels goes into it in Ch. 4 of "The Gnostic Gospels" citing Irenaeus and Tertullian amongs others.

Since I can't pick up the book, since I have no money... would you mind paraphrasing it?

 

[Buttons*]

And those early Christians in power slaughtered each other for the most minor of differences in thier dogma, not just the Gnostics or gnostics.

Keep in mind, there's a capical "G" Gnostic religion in the second century competing with the Christians, with all kinds of strange beliefs, such as God being the bad guy and this being hell. Completely different from little "g" gnostic, like Plato, Einstein, Spinoza, the Mandaeans, and the historical Jesus of Thomas, who thought this was heaven, not hell.

I'm a Gnostic... and I know what they were/are. (Though, today's Gnostics seem to be on a occult kick rather than actual Gnostics)

Anyway, if you're talking about philosophers as being "g"nostics... it makes sense.

As for the rest... I have to say I disagree. But this is not the thread for that.. so if you'd like to explain your theories in another thread, I'll read them there.

 

[sandandfoam]

Since I can't pick up the book, since I have no money... would you mind paraphrasing it?

It says that the Orthodox thought that because of the Gnostics different understanding of Christs passion the value of their (i.e the orthodox's) martyrdom was being called into question,
In an attack on the Valentinian understanding of Christ's passion, Iraneus is quoted as saying "when the martyrs attain glory, then all who cast a slur upon their martyrdom shall be confounded by Christ"

 

[Buttons*]

It says that the Orthodox thought that because of the Gnostics different understanding of Christs passion the value of their (i.e the orthodox's) martyrdom was being called into question,
In an attack on the Valentinian understanding of Christ's passion, Iraneus is quoted as saying "when the martyrs attain glory, then all who cast a slur upon their martyrdom shall be confounded by Christ"

Thank you very much that's quite interesting. I just hope that more people will chip in on this thread. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and irrelevant discussion on here thus far.

 

[sandandfoam]

I haven't read any of Dan Brown's books. Aren't they loosely based on 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'?
Are there 2 dislikes here - one for the early Christian Gnostics and the other for the Cathars?

 

[Kathryn]

I lump Dan Brown and the guy who wrote the Left Behind series into the same category - Pseudotheological Fiction.

 

[Mr Cheese]

.... No, Paul is not a Gnostic. I'm Gnostic, and I would NEVER worship Paul. I honestly doubt any Gnostic would agree with you on this point.

well thats a bit untrue....

Pagels represents Paul through a Gnostic mirror in her book, which I havent gotten round to reading, but refuses to commit and call him a Gnostic. What Paul has is a Gnostic leaning, of a kind.

Fact: Valentinus supposedly indentified himself as a follower of Paul
Fact: The Nag Hammadi Library begins with a prayer "by" Paul

What we see in Paul are magicians, in the vein of Simon Magus as opposed to mystics...there have always been the two "factions", and many confuse that there is only one faction and the other does not exist.

The Paul prayer in the Nag Hammadi Library is cleary the words of one who is seekign to create change, influence and manipulate...or more simply, one who is creating magic...at least it is arguable but I would lean this way. Many modern Gnostics and Gnostic groups/churches, see no problem with incorporating a bit of magick into their Gnosticism..... Manipulation is manipulation.

Kurt of course thinks Paul was Marcion. Or that Paul wrote Marcion's works..largely
SOme also think that Paul was Simon Magus..... Simon after all was "famously accused" of selling the Holy spirit... he proclaimed he was Christ and that the whore he chose was an incarnation of Sophia.......sounds awfully like a proto Alesteir Crowley if I ever heard one! Of course this is debated. Simon is afterall a "hero" for some Gnostics.

Of course many see Gnosticism as heresy and rebellion, be they detractors or those that identify with Gnosticism, the idea of rebellion is embraced.

A far more healthy way to see Gnosticism in my opinion is not rebellion, but completion. Thus Gnosticism does not act like a spoilt child giving God the finger and telling Christians they are wrong. Gnosticism acts like an adult, and become a deeper way of understanding God.

Of course however you choose to approach Gnosticism is up to you. Gnostics are "called" to "write their own gospel" afterall, essentially create their own beliefs, practises etc..afterall what you read in a book may work for Jane Higgenbottom, but it may not work for YOU. this is where Gnosticism may differ (although not really)in that it calls you to walk the walk, talk the talk, but do it for yourself.... If you feel reading poems about sophia while spreading peanut butter on your elbows will aide in Gnosis, then do it.... although this may raise some eyebrows in others.

We find in Gnosticism and in Christianity Jesus commanded that we do not do things by rote. The most famous examples are in the Gospel of Thomas where Jesus laughs and tells them to not fall into the patterns of religion....and simply do things for the sake of doing them. In Christianity of course the most famous example is the Lord's prayer. Here Christ is giving an example, a forumula...one you are supposed to use...and create your OWN thing.


Paul of course can be shown to be supremly anti Gnostic also...and could be accused of the first Anti Gnostic.