Comments on: Get Your Stinkin’ Paws Off My Religion, You Damn Dirty Apes!

By: Jordan Stratford+

Jordan Stratford+ — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:29:25 +0000

May Sophia and the Logos bless your representin’ self, Jeremy. This is great.

By: Br. Jay

Br. Jay — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 03:53:26 +0000

Well said, Br. Jeremy!

By: Donald Donato

Donald Donato — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:27:20 +0000

All well stated, JP. I agree with the spirit of your thoughts

#3 is not accurate. Christianity existed without the Bible for a great many years, and that leads to the greater question regarding the confluence of Christianity and Gnosticism. It is dangerous to categorically state that “to have Gnosticism you have to have NHL” Our tradition lived without NHL for how many centuries?

#4 begs the question “Which is more important, the religious tradition of Gnosticism, or the achievement of gnosis?” I think that we all know the answer to that, so I’ll leave it there. I agree with you about the need to consolidate and respect the Gnostic tradition, but let’s not forget that Valentinus would have called himself a Christian, albeit a pneumatic Christian.

I am a Gnostic Christian, so I place high value on the Church and the Tradition, including Apostolic Succession, but I need to remember that these things are means to attaining gnosis. I think that we need to be ever vigilant of building sand castles that merely replicate the errors of orthodoxy.

By: JP

JP — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:07:44 +0000

#3 is not accurate. Christianity existed without the Bible for a great many years, and that leads to the greater question regarding the confluence of Christianity and Gnosticism. It is dangerous to categorically state that “to have Gnosticism you have to have NHL” Our tradition lived without NHL for how many centuries?

Ah, but I’m talking about now, and I’m talking about Canonical Christianity, which absolutely depends upon the New Testament. This isn’t written in support of sola scriptura, obviously, just that Christianity requires a collection of stories about Jesus Christ in order to be Christianity. In the modern context, this collection of stories is the Bible.

And, if I could ask, why is it dangerous to claim that to have Gnosticism you have to have NHL? It’s the same deal, and I think it correlates to your statements on #4: Gnosticism is not Gnosticism without a collection of stories about Gnosis. Without stories about gnosis as found in the NHL and other specific texts from our tradition, Gnosticism simply ain’t.

By: Donald Donato

Donald Donato — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:43:17 +0000

You didn’t say “Canonical Christianity,” but ok, I see your point. My mention of it is simply to show that the closer that you get to Jesus Christ, the less dependence on scriptures. You know as well as I do that haggling over the canon was a political effort that came with the same tendency that saw “our people” ousted and burned. The Bible did not define Christianity at that juncture, perhaps the Christ impulse and the celebration of the Eucharist did. And that is what we miss when we start wanting to codify and create canons to support our identity.

As far as NHL goes, I am not questioning the value of the stories. I question the time-bound attachment to them. Gnostics existed without most of the texts. They are useful to us because they show some continuity of major theological points, but they do not define our identity any more than the contradictory gospels do for orthodox Christians. Out of respect for generations of Christians (pneumatic and psychic) that lived their spirituality without the Synoptics, let alone the entire Bible, I stand firm. The Gnostic identity obviously predates the discovery and translation of NHL. I guess that I am trying to describe ideal forms here, because I am an idealist too :)

By: Anthony Silvia

Anthony Silvia — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:35:36 +0000

Amen, Brother, for this is truth.

By: kay

kay — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:56:27 +0000

My mention of it is simply to show that the closer that you get to Jesus Christ, the less dependence on scriptures.

Ooooh, very well said. That sums up my feelings and experiences exactly. :)

By: speedbird

speedbird — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:06:43 +0000

It’s interesting to consider here the spirit of the Church of England… the only requirement for entry is to be aware of what it is and not to reject it. I mean, seriously: you go to hospital in the UK, they ask you your religion. Some people go ‘hmm, I’m not really sure…’. The nurse will say ‘C of E, then,’ and make the appropriate record. The State (i.e. the Crown) sponsors a default position, from which one is free to excuse oneself… to the extent that UK coinage bears the mark ‘DG REG FD’: By the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith.

By: Donald Donato

Donald Donato — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:43:53 +0000

Interesting thought, Speedbird. An Anglican-style Gnostic Book of Common Prayer, then? Hmmm, where’s Walsingham when we need him :)

By: Summer Harvest » The Temple and The Bridal Chamber

Summer Harvest » The Temple and The Bridal Chamber — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:53:34 +0000

[…] then, where am I going with all of this? Believe it or not, I’m continuing the discussion on definition versus inspiration, so ably picked up by Donald over at In Puris Naturalibus. When discussing Gnosticism, how much […]