I was chatting with a friend this past week, and I was being immature (as usual) and began asking "Why?" as he was explaining something to me. I really didn't want to know why, but I wanted to test him to see if he knew why. After a couple of times, he said, "Why? is the Devil's question."
I said, "I beg your pardon? Did you just say 'Why? is the Devil's question?'"
He said that he had, and I asked, "Who told you that?"
"My priest," he said bluntly. "Why?" apparently caused Lucifer to rebel against the Most High, and "why?" opens us up to being faithless, according to his priest.
As a Gnostic, I was tempted to correct him, but also as someone who can respect another person's faith if it fulfills them, I let it slide. But the statement has stuck with me since, and it bugs me -- because it is both very wrong and right at the same time.
Initially, I was shocked by the statement. Not asking "why?" helped keep people in submission to a corrupt Church throughout the Middle Ages and led them to keep paying indulgences, even though there is no biblical proof of anyone's ability to purchase a loved ones' salvation. Not asking "why?" led the Church into a destructive acquiescence to the Third Reich in World War II. And in modern times in America, not asking "why?" has opened 13-year-old girls up to disturbing misogynistic, and polygamist marriages to 50+-year-old pedophiles in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS).
The question "why?" allows us to use the minds that we've been given. If God is the Creator (which Gnostics don't necessarily believe, but orthodox Christians do), then shouldn't we use the minds He gave us? Or is this a "have faith in the Creator, not the creation" debate?
At the same time, there is a tendency for people to get hung up on asking the question rather than listening for an answer. Their minds and spirits are acting in the same immature way I was with my friend, asking, "Why? Why? Why?" If the spirit and mind are focused only on the question, then the answer may never come. Asking "why?" can become the habit, rather than something more productive, like listening.
The act of falling into a silent state of being is what Centering Prayer, a practice I use, is about. The practitioner sits comfortably with the back straight and their eyes closed. And rather than reciting a sutra or prayer, they just let their minds relax. There is no forcing of the mind to be blank -- if thoughts arise, the practitioner lets the thoughts occur without becoming attached to them. Divine revelation isn't the point either. The point is simply to listen by being silent. If the person finds themselves becoming attached to a thought or emotion, they can simply recite their sacred word (like "Abba" or "Peace" or "Trust") to return their mind to the task at hand.
By falling into silence and not necessarily expecting anything in return for our 20 minutes of time, we break the self-centered habit of always having to have our minds move at a million miles per hour. We're a vain society, and we love to think we're showing our importance by having our minds multi-task. It is so odd to us to think that our eventual evolution may actually involve embracing silence, not talking or texting or fitting as much stuff into our days as possible.
I run into many people who call themselves agnostics (more now than ever before). They don't want to say that they're atheists, because they don't want to shut off the possibility that there is something beyond this mundane existence. But they also don't want to know the answer, if there is one. They're stuck at the stage of asking "why?," and they have no desire to move any further. To go further requires sacrifices that they're unwilling to make (time, effort, ... noise).
To question the existence of a higher power is chic and hip -- it shows, so they think, that they're intelligentsia. They think like Obama thinks -- faith (and guns) are for the desperate. Those are niceties to cling to when all else fails. To ask the question "why?" in pop culture makes you sound really cool and intelligent in conversations, but no one expects the answer to the question ... they don't want it, in fact.
So, in a sense, "Why?" is the Devil's question. But so is not asking it. The Archon can keep you in submission if you follow either path exclusively. His control over the human race is found in the extremes of both choices. Gnosis, on the other hand, is found when you ask the question, and then silence your mind and actually listen for the answer.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Why Christians Still Hate Gnostics
A while back, I set up a Google alert that sends me an e-mail when someone posts something online about "gnosticism," "gnostics," or "gnosis." These can be anything from blog posts to forum entries. I've read through each of the items that comes into my Inbox. The reason I set this up was primarily to see the discourse regarding Gnosticism unfold online, both from the Gnostics point of view and from the modern-day Christian heresiologists. It's really a fascinating conversation to see.
On the one hand, you have the Gnostics (amateur students, practitioners, and ordained ministers) discussing the path to gnosis amongst themselves on sites like Palm Tree Garden and some of the gnostic blogs. In general, I've not seen any anti-Christian rhetoric, calls for the destruction of the Church, or anything like that. In fact, I think I'm more confrontational in my posts than anyone on the Gnostic side of the spectrum.
Then, on the other hand, you have anti-Gnostic posts from fundamentalist Christians and Catholics alike; heresiological apologists so to speak. Obviously, questions are being asked within the flock. People are looking at the Nag Hammadi texts or reading about the Gnostics in modern literature or watching shows on the History Channel, and they're asking how this fits in with their faith. These inconvenient little forays into non-canonical territory are a little like Toto pulling at the curtain and showing the man behind the Wizard.
The Christian response to the resurgence of interest in Gnosticism is the same as it was roughly 1800 years ago, when the frail body of the Church was just beginning to form and questions were raised that threatened (in their eyes) to destroy the Church before it was even built. Old, effectively intimidating words like "blasphemy" and "heresy" are employed, and the great disdain that Ireneaus felt for the Gnostics of his age is reborn in the rhetoric of the modern apologist blogger.
So, where does this disdain come from? What is it about the Gnostics that the Christians hate so much? I've compiled a list of things that I (neophyte that I am) feel have been consistently disputed across the millennia:
The point is that Christians have hated Gnostics since the beginning of the Christian Era, and they're not likely to start liking them any time soon. The differences between the two are fundamental and unresolvable. Unfortunately for them, however, Toto has already pulled aside the curtain. What is seen cannot be unseen. What is said cannot be unsaid. Nearly 1800 years have passed since the Christians tried to purge society of Gnosticism, but these thousands of years passed with the Gnostic thread of thought always under the surface, occasionally resurfacing in movements like Manichaeism, Catharism, Alchemy, Theosophy, etc. and finally culminating in Mohammed Ali Samman's discovery at Nag Hammadi, Egypt.
As for the Gnostics, there is no hatred for Christians -- just the occasional (or not-so-occasional) chuckle when they contradict themselves. We focus on what we can focus on, which is our own practice and our own striving for gnosis. When you know the truth, you don't need to justify yourself.
On the one hand, you have the Gnostics (amateur students, practitioners, and ordained ministers) discussing the path to gnosis amongst themselves on sites like Palm Tree Garden and some of the gnostic blogs. In general, I've not seen any anti-Christian rhetoric, calls for the destruction of the Church, or anything like that. In fact, I think I'm more confrontational in my posts than anyone on the Gnostic side of the spectrum.
Then, on the other hand, you have anti-Gnostic posts from fundamentalist Christians and Catholics alike; heresiological apologists so to speak. Obviously, questions are being asked within the flock. People are looking at the Nag Hammadi texts or reading about the Gnostics in modern literature or watching shows on the History Channel, and they're asking how this fits in with their faith. These inconvenient little forays into non-canonical territory are a little like Toto pulling at the curtain and showing the man behind the Wizard.
The Wizard: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
The Christian response to the resurgence of interest in Gnosticism is the same as it was roughly 1800 years ago, when the frail body of the Church was just beginning to form and questions were raised that threatened (in their eyes) to destroy the Church before it was even built. Old, effectively intimidating words like "blasphemy" and "heresy" are employed, and the great disdain that Ireneaus felt for the Gnostics of his age is reborn in the rhetoric of the modern apologist blogger.
So, where does this disdain come from? What is it about the Gnostics that the Christians hate so much? I've compiled a list of things that I (neophyte that I am) feel have been consistently disputed across the millennia:
- First and foremost, in my opinion, is that the Gnostics call into question the validity of the Holy Bible. The additional scriptures the Gnostics wrote (including the ones in the Nag Hammadi Library, Pistis Sophia, and others) coupled with the Gnostic tendency to discount the importance of the Old Testament (except for the Wisdom books) is really too much to bear for most fundamentalists. Their basic belief is in the inerrancy of the Scripture in the Bible. According to the Basic Beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention: "The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trusthworthy (sic)."
- Secondly, the Gnostics believe that the Jehovah God of the Old Testament is a fallible, imperfect Demiurge, known by many names, including Yaldabaoth, Saklas, and Samael, none of which are favorable names to have. Christians believe that the Creator of the world and the Father of Christ are one in the same. Gnostics see the imperfection of this world, the harsh realities of life, and the sheer madness and cruelty of the Old Testament Jehovah and they can't rationalize how that relates to the Loving Father that Jesus the Christos spoke of.
- Thirdly, the Gnostics dispute the purpose and form of Jesus. Christians believe that Christ's blood sacrifice and our willingness to believe in Him is what grants us salvation. Gnostics again, can't cope with the idea that salvation has to come from a blood-thirsty god who demands an animal or human sacrifice, much less the slaughter of his own son. This is not a god that we care to worship or praise. The Logos (the Word) came to us in order to awaken us to our true selves and lead us into a direct experiential knowledge (gnosis) of the True God, who is Father to us all. Whether or not the Christos appeared to be human or actually took human form is something that is still debated in Gnostic circles. That fact also distresses the Christians.
If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me. I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy. [Deuteronomy 32:42 (King James Version)]This is "God" speaking to his faithful servant Moses, right before he tells him, "Oh, by the way, for all your hard work in keeping my children together, you'll get to see Israel, but you won't set foot there. Yay Me."
The point is that Christians have hated Gnostics since the beginning of the Christian Era, and they're not likely to start liking them any time soon. The differences between the two are fundamental and unresolvable. Unfortunately for them, however, Toto has already pulled aside the curtain. What is seen cannot be unseen. What is said cannot be unsaid. Nearly 1800 years have passed since the Christians tried to purge society of Gnosticism, but these thousands of years passed with the Gnostic thread of thought always under the surface, occasionally resurfacing in movements like Manichaeism, Catharism, Alchemy, Theosophy, etc. and finally culminating in Mohammed Ali Samman's discovery at Nag Hammadi, Egypt.
As for the Gnostics, there is no hatred for Christians -- just the occasional (or not-so-occasional) chuckle when they contradict themselves. We focus on what we can focus on, which is our own practice and our own striving for gnosis. When you know the truth, you don't need to justify yourself.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Why Christianity's Failure to Change is Killing It
The death of a religion doesn't come as a result of a violent murder by outsiders. Proof of this is in religions like Tibetan Buddhism, which suffered greatly under the tyranny of Communist oppression and yet still flourishes today; Catharism, which was wiped out by the Catholic Church and which still inspires pride in the residents of Montsegur; and, of course, Gnosticism, with its many iterations throughout history, suppressed so widely, even today, by mainstream Christianity, and yet its allure is as strong as ever.
No, the death of a religion doesn't come from without. It comes from within. Death of religion results when proponents of that religion fail to evolve it as human understanding of the universe evolves. It is when those proponents point to a specific point in time and say, "That's the only time God revealed himself to humanity, and there can be no other time when that happened because that's what I believe, and what I believe is all true. Anything that goes against what I believe is heresy or blasphemy or Satan's work." It is when that religion becomes an inflexible, absolute, and closed system that it begins to suffocate itself.
You need no other evidence that this mindset exists within modern Christianity than the recent Digg article, "100 Greatest Quotes from fundamentalist christian chat rooms." While most of the quotes are quite hilarious in their absurdity, like JohnR7's statement, "I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie," there is a sadness that overwhelms me when I read them. These people have given up their ability to think logically in exchange for a comfortable belief system, where they don't have to think, ask questions, or make decisions on their own. A good example of this is the following quote:
Gnostics will love this,
If you've never been in a fundamentalist Christian church, you may not recognize a lot of these arguments as coming directly from the pulpit. I briefly attended a Baptist church in a rural area of North Carolina. One Sunday, the preacher lamented how he prayed so hard for his in-laws, because they were Methodists. "And as we all know, the Methodists are going to Hell because they don't fully submerse themselves in baptism," he said. And the congregation nodded their heads in agreement.
This is the kind of attitude that casts such a dim light on Christianity. It is as Dr. Stephan Hoeller said once in a lecture. The label of "Christianity" has been taken over by a radical group of fundamentalists who see the Bible as infallible, inerrant, and the only source of truth. While more moderate and even liberal groups are technically Christian, they've been cast out and labeled as lukewarm.
Unfortunately, ignorance breeds ignorance. And instead of good seed, as in the parable of the sower, weeds are being propagated, and the fools are speaking as if they're enlightened. What they're doing is dogmatically reciting what they've been taught by preachers who are no better than used car salesmen, who use simple mind-control techniques, like nodding their heads when they say something they want their listeners to agree with, speaking loudly and passionately to inspire an emotional response, etc. The ability to use the brain that their God supposedly gave them is diminished, and blind belief, sometimes called faith, takes hold.
The problem is that these people feel like they're truly speaking on behalf of the rest of the Christian faith, just like radical Islamic terrorists feel they are speaking on behalf of the whole of Islam. What they're really inspiring is a deep distrust and hatred in the general public for what should be a beautiful religion. I overheard someone I know the other day saying, "We all know that Christians are the Devil." I'd be interested in know exactly why he felt that way, but I would assume that it has to do with the fundamentalists' constant attempts to force their beliefs on others.
It's doubtful that society will ever rise up against Christianity, as it did during Roman times, and as the Christians themselves rose up against other religions. And I hope it never does. But what will likely happen is that the people who are trying so rabidly to force it on others will end up killing it.
For an interesting take on this, check out John Shelby Spong's book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile.
No, the death of a religion doesn't come from without. It comes from within. Death of religion results when proponents of that religion fail to evolve it as human understanding of the universe evolves. It is when those proponents point to a specific point in time and say, "That's the only time God revealed himself to humanity, and there can be no other time when that happened because that's what I believe, and what I believe is all true. Anything that goes against what I believe is heresy or blasphemy or Satan's work." It is when that religion becomes an inflexible, absolute, and closed system that it begins to suffocate itself.
You need no other evidence that this mindset exists within modern Christianity than the recent Digg article, "100 Greatest Quotes from fundamentalist christian chat rooms." While most of the quotes are quite hilarious in their absurdity, like JohnR7's statement, "I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie," there is a sadness that overwhelms me when I read them. These people have given up their ability to think logically in exchange for a comfortable belief system, where they don't have to think, ask questions, or make decisions on their own. A good example of this is the following quote:
"What does a functioning brain have to do with the Bible?" LittleLambofJesusOr,
"Make sure your answer uses Scripture, not logic." cdevidal
Gnostics will love this,
"To say the Bible was written by men and may contain inaccuracies completely contradicts the word of the Bible." Ia OranaOr,
"The only thing I don't like about them is they sell foreign language versions of the KJB ["King James Bible," I assume -- it should be KJV for "King James Version"]. I don't think that's right. We know the only true translation is the 1600's version in English. ... It's too risky for anybody to translate into other languages. Mistakes can creep in ... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English." leyenda
If you've never been in a fundamentalist Christian church, you may not recognize a lot of these arguments as coming directly from the pulpit. I briefly attended a Baptist church in a rural area of North Carolina. One Sunday, the preacher lamented how he prayed so hard for his in-laws, because they were Methodists. "And as we all know, the Methodists are going to Hell because they don't fully submerse themselves in baptism," he said. And the congregation nodded their heads in agreement.
This is the kind of attitude that casts such a dim light on Christianity. It is as Dr. Stephan Hoeller said once in a lecture. The label of "Christianity" has been taken over by a radical group of fundamentalists who see the Bible as infallible, inerrant, and the only source of truth. While more moderate and even liberal groups are technically Christian, they've been cast out and labeled as lukewarm.
"You are banned. You are not a Christian for Christians don't accuse brothers and sisters in Christ of being non-Christian." TroyThis type of behavior doesn't endear them to many people. The love that Jesus taught us to have for one another isn't present in any of these statements. "Love thy enemy" has been replaced by "I honestly don't care about your rights. If it were up to me, all Atheists would be burnt at the stake and or cast into a river with weights tied to their ankles and or placed before a firing squad, etc etc etc," as AV1611VET so eloquently put it.
Unfortunately, ignorance breeds ignorance. And instead of good seed, as in the parable of the sower, weeds are being propagated, and the fools are speaking as if they're enlightened. What they're doing is dogmatically reciting what they've been taught by preachers who are no better than used car salesmen, who use simple mind-control techniques, like nodding their heads when they say something they want their listeners to agree with, speaking loudly and passionately to inspire an emotional response, etc. The ability to use the brain that their God supposedly gave them is diminished, and blind belief, sometimes called faith, takes hold.
"I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it." TexasSky
The problem is that these people feel like they're truly speaking on behalf of the rest of the Christian faith, just like radical Islamic terrorists feel they are speaking on behalf of the whole of Islam. What they're really inspiring is a deep distrust and hatred in the general public for what should be a beautiful religion. I overheard someone I know the other day saying, "We all know that Christians are the Devil." I'd be interested in know exactly why he felt that way, but I would assume that it has to do with the fundamentalists' constant attempts to force their beliefs on others.
It's doubtful that society will ever rise up against Christianity, as it did during Roman times, and as the Christians themselves rose up against other religions. And I hope it never does. But what will likely happen is that the people who are trying so rabidly to force it on others will end up killing it.
For an interesting take on this, check out John Shelby Spong's book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
