Christo-Paganism. Yay or Nay?

[Valentine]

The "Christianity" of Gnosticism is debatable -- even at the time it was a living practice (early Common Era).

Most than that, the "Gnosticism" of "Gnosticism" is debatable. There was never really a group of historical people who identified themselves as "Gnostics," as a sect. What we call "Gnostic" was basically "stuff rejected by guys like St. Anthony" rather than an established body of work of anyone's. It's a polemical term that, in any of the sources we have, is mostly defined in opposition to the "accepted" doctrine and practice, by the advocates of that accepted doctrine and practice. We modern folk have mostly invented "the Gnostics" as a group, or even as a group of ideas, out of a handful of buried, decontextualized texts and the very cranky opinions of people saying "And all of them over there--they have it wrong! that guy, and that guy, and that guy. Wrong!" "Gnostic" mostly just means, "stuff edited out of mainstream Christianity during a particular period of time, mostly in the same part of the world."

I always kind of tilt my head at self-identified modern Gnostics. There's not a set of practices for Gnostics, that we know of. There's not community rituals, particularly, that we know of. Does it mean, "a big fan of the Gospel of Thomas?" "repeats lines from The Thunder Perfect Mind fervently and piously before going to sleep?" "keeps a weather eye out for the Demiurge?" Which "Gnostic" thinkers do they follow? Which documents, and which documents are rejected, and by what standards? In what ways do they differentiate themselves from other Christians? They aren't rhetorical or accusatory questions; a lot of us have identifications that need explaining, or interrogating, or airing out for sense. But I stop tilting my head when people have good answers for those questions, and I tilt it further when they don't.

[cigfran]

But I stop tilting my head when people have good answers for those questions, and I tilt it further when they don't.

You should put the questions to Jordan Stratford (a priest in Apostolic Johannite Church), or read any of the great many words he's written on the subject, or even his book.

Personally, I study Gnosticism because the notion of the Demiurge fits with certain portions of my own worldview, because certain aspects of it overlap with other estorica and because the central idea of gnosis - real gnosis, not the overused stand-in term for "speculation and/or imagination" (UPG) - is critical to my personal path. I part company at the doctrine of the Christos, however.

[SunflowerP]

real gnosis, not the overused stand-in term for "speculation and/or imagination" (UPG) - is critical to my personal path.

I get cranky when UPG is used to (try to) legitimize any damn bit of speculation/imagination myself. I have any amount of speculation, imagination, extrapolation, bootstrappery, etc, that I don't count that way, as well as some stuff that I do. (And nevertheless also differentiate between the flashes of more-than-insight-but-less-than-epiphany that people can have w/r/t their own personal practices/beliefs - UPG - and what I might call capital-g Gnosis, which implies to me more of a body of received knowledge, not just the bits'n'flashes.)

Sunflower

[SunflowerP]

... and the very cranky opinions of people saying "And all of them over there--they have it wrong! that guy, and that guy, and that guy. Wrong!" "Gnostic" mostly just means, "stuff edited out of mainstream Christianity during a particular period of time, mostly in the same part of the world."

<chuckle> Business as usual, in the fractious early Christian community.

Sunflower

[Valentine]

You should put the questions to Jordan Stratford (a priest in Apostolic Johannite Church), or read any of the great many words he's written on the subject, or even his book.

Personally, I study Gnosticism because the notion of the Demiurge fits with certain portions of my own worldview, because certain aspects of it overlap with other estorica and because the central idea of gnosis - real gnosis, not the overused stand-in term for "speculation and/or imagination" (UPG) - is critical to my personal path. I part company at the doctrine of the Christos, however.

Well, he--and you--sound like people who've got answers for those sorts of questions just fine. You're not where I'm tilting my head, I guess I'm saying.

I think I mostly have a standard vexation for people who cherrypick bits of culturally-specific-and-situated movements because they're shiny--people who want to be "Sufis" but have nothing to do with Islam or Muslims, people who want do "do Kabbalah" without touching Judaism, and so on--without knowing what they're talking about, or basing their opinions in some singular, often ignorant polemic, especially while denigrating the faith that the movement they're lauding is intimately part of. You're not one of those people. Stratford doesn't seem to be, either.