Bernie
January 3rd 2006, 12:24 PM
I've been reading up a bit on the Gnostic (or neo-Gnostic) ideas that seem to be flooding into Christian thinking the last few years. Some call this new age theology, or radical mysticism, or any number of other names. There are, of course, a diverse range of beliefs within this broad category, but there seem to be several recurring themes, one of which I'd like to see some opinions on. These make me wonder as a fundamentalist esotericist if it wouldn't be prudent for those who call themselves "Christian universalists" to reconsider the Bible's call to a separatist stance regarding falsity newage teaching, which seems to be a major player in giving CU a bad name among mainline theologies. Mind you, I don't give a rat's --- about being part of anyone's 'good old boy' religious club, about being 'accepted' by mainline or any other branch of Christianity, including universalists. My interest is in establishing truth as best one can, and if truth leads away from Gnostic mysticism rather than toward it, then it seems prudent to cut off the bad stuff rather than be drug down to hell with it. At this point, this is all a big "IF"; I don't discount Gnosticism quickly. My lessons the last few years have made me much more cautious in denouncing others' theology, even if it seems on the surface to be wrong.
Is time and space a great illusion from which individual spirits (humans) merely need awakening? A recent thread here by natsumi lam[?] follows this general idea, which commonly sees good and evil, satan and demons as well as time and space (matter) as an illusion from which we need only awaken to become aware of our Godness. The end result is typically a form of pantheism, to which I'm not totally opposed, except in what I consider to be its extreme forms. There are a number of references in the Bible (ye are gods; becoming 'all in all', etc.) that are just plain hard to interpret and understand with any degree of clarity.
So there's no misunderstanding, the position I'm approaching this from as the world's only rational esotericist and a realist, is mistrust. I have problems with these teachings. The notion of evil and matter as itself [themselves?] the great illusion doesn't makes sense from my realist position. These notions seem to spring from subjectivism, which appears to be the 'philosophic view of choice' for Gnosticism. I can agree that illusion per se has a strong attachment to prescriptive/spiritual reality. Jesus tells us in Rev 20 that Satan deceives the whole world. Deception stands in strong relation to illusion, so there's certainly no argument here that illusion exists. The newage position seems to be that the great illusion is Satan, that once we realize this and join other subjectivists, we'll become closer to the truth of our Godhood than other poor saps who believe satan and demons are real. We may perform "exorcisms" on oursleves by the sheer force of our own minds once we come to grips with the truth that evil, satan and demons don't really exist outside our minds.
In every theology there is a separation between good and evil. The problem I have with Gnostic subjectivism [GS] is that while these deny the traditional existence of good/evil, their philosophy is grounded in a dualist argument. To trace a monistic path from the subjective self through the curtain of "illusion" to light, truth and Godhood on the other side, simply places the division of good/evil in the mind. Illusion is evil, illumination is good. See what I mean? For all its talk of a greater truth which rises above archaic traditional dualism, GS really only places the dualistic division on a different plane, between mind and matter rather than traditional good/evil and body/spirit. The Rational Esotericism method is unorthodox in that I place the division of good and evil (true/false components) in both spirit and body (or matter), which is in opposition to both orthodoxy and Gnostic, but much closer to the orthodox.
The point is, there is, as near as I can tell, no escape from the truth of dualism. Anyone who acknowledges the distinction between good and bad on any level--including calling spirit 'good' and matter 'evil'--embraces the theological dualism of good and evil. As such, the whole GS picture becomes [to me, at this point, anyway] itself a deception which can't escape the realism of God's distinctly dualistic design.
The bottom line for me is that to follow the path of Gnosticism leads inexorably to a denial first of Christ (or a redesign of His character and attributes to less than what and who He actually is). If there's no real evil, there was no real reason for God to become matter and die for man's sin. Ultimately, if we are awakening to Godhood ourselves, there is no real reason for the Father. But John states, "I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father" (1Jn 2:21-24).
Any other opinions?
Is time and space a great illusion from which individual spirits (humans) merely need awakening? A recent thread here by natsumi lam[?] follows this general idea, which commonly sees good and evil, satan and demons as well as time and space (matter) as an illusion from which we need only awaken to become aware of our Godness. The end result is typically a form of pantheism, to which I'm not totally opposed, except in what I consider to be its extreme forms. There are a number of references in the Bible (ye are gods; becoming 'all in all', etc.) that are just plain hard to interpret and understand with any degree of clarity.
So there's no misunderstanding, the position I'm approaching this from as the world's only rational esotericist and a realist, is mistrust. I have problems with these teachings. The notion of evil and matter as itself [themselves?] the great illusion doesn't makes sense from my realist position. These notions seem to spring from subjectivism, which appears to be the 'philosophic view of choice' for Gnosticism. I can agree that illusion per se has a strong attachment to prescriptive/spiritual reality. Jesus tells us in Rev 20 that Satan deceives the whole world. Deception stands in strong relation to illusion, so there's certainly no argument here that illusion exists. The newage position seems to be that the great illusion is Satan, that once we realize this and join other subjectivists, we'll become closer to the truth of our Godhood than other poor saps who believe satan and demons are real. We may perform "exorcisms" on oursleves by the sheer force of our own minds once we come to grips with the truth that evil, satan and demons don't really exist outside our minds.
In every theology there is a separation between good and evil. The problem I have with Gnostic subjectivism [GS] is that while these deny the traditional existence of good/evil, their philosophy is grounded in a dualist argument. To trace a monistic path from the subjective self through the curtain of "illusion" to light, truth and Godhood on the other side, simply places the division of good/evil in the mind. Illusion is evil, illumination is good. See what I mean? For all its talk of a greater truth which rises above archaic traditional dualism, GS really only places the dualistic division on a different plane, between mind and matter rather than traditional good/evil and body/spirit. The Rational Esotericism method is unorthodox in that I place the division of good and evil (true/false components) in both spirit and body (or matter), which is in opposition to both orthodoxy and Gnostic, but much closer to the orthodox.
The point is, there is, as near as I can tell, no escape from the truth of dualism. Anyone who acknowledges the distinction between good and bad on any level--including calling spirit 'good' and matter 'evil'--embraces the theological dualism of good and evil. As such, the whole GS picture becomes [to me, at this point, anyway] itself a deception which can't escape the realism of God's distinctly dualistic design.
The bottom line for me is that to follow the path of Gnosticism leads inexorably to a denial first of Christ (or a redesign of His character and attributes to less than what and who He actually is). If there's no real evil, there was no real reason for God to become matter and die for man's sin. Ultimately, if we are awakening to Godhood ourselves, there is no real reason for the Father. But John states, "I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father" (1Jn 2:21-24).
Any other opinions?