Debate proposal: Gnosticism versus anti-Gnosticism

[Ahknaton]

I thought this would be a more interesting debate than boring old atheism-versus-Christianity.

Any takers?

Petr?
DR ANTI-CHRIST?
Bueller?
Anyone?

[Helios Panoptes]

What is it about Gnosticism that you'd like to see debated?

I don't know if there are any Gnostics here or even people sympathetic to it.

[Donny the Punk]

This topic is almost as obscure and outdated as the Arian heresy. :p

[Helios Panoptes]

This topic is almost as obscure and outdated as the Arian heresy. :p

We could get Mazdak vs. Lenny for that one. :rofl:

[Petr]

This topic is almost as obscure and outdated as the Arian heresy. :p
Au contraire, my dear philistine. Just ask Eric Voegelin:

http://www.ucd.ie/philosop/documents/Eric%20Voegelin%20on%20Gnosticism.htm


"Eric Voegelin uses the term ‘Gnosticism’ to condemn modernity. For him, modern Gnosticism encompasses movements as diverse as "progressivism, positivism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, communism, fascism, and national socialism." In The New Science of Politics (1952) he goes so far as to define modernity as "the growth of gnosticism." Modern individuals and movements share six characteristics that Voegelin calls "the Gnostic attitude": dissatisfaction with the world; confidence that the ills of the world derive from the way it is organized; certainty that amelioration is possible; the assumption that improvement must "evolve historically"; the belief that human beings can change the world; and the conviction that knowledge –i.e. gnosis- is the key to change (Science, Politics and Gnosticism [1968]).


Petr

[Ahknaton]

What is it about Gnosticism that you'd like to see debated?
There's plenty of possibilities:

The existence of the realm of ideals
Monism vs Dualism
The beneficience vs malfeasance of the creator

etc etc
I don't know if there are any Gnostics here or even people sympathetic to it.I'm not sure either, however there's no harm in casting a line into the water. I've noticed that Petr takes quite an interest in Gnosticism, even though he's not kindly disposed towards it.

[Petr]

I've noticed that Petr takes quite an interest in Gnosticism, even though he's not kindly disposed towards it.
I firmly subscribe to the idea "know thine enemy."


Petr

[Donny the Punk]

Au contraire, my dear philistine. Just ask Eric Voegelin:

http://www.ucd.ie/philosop/documents/Eric%20Voegelin%20on%20Gnosticism.htm


"Eric Voegelin uses the term ‘Gnosticism’ to condemn modernity. For him, modern Gnosticism encompasses movements as diverse as "progressivism, positivism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, communism, fascism, and national socialism." In The New Science of Politics (1952) he goes so far as to define modernity as "the growth of gnosticism." Modern individuals and movements share six characteristics that Voegelin calls "the Gnostic attitude": dissatisfaction with the world; confidence that the ills of the world derive from the way it is organized; certainty that amelioration is possible; the assumption that improvement must "evolve historically"; the belief that human beings can change the world; and the conviction that knowledge –i.e. gnosis- is the key to change (Science, Politics and Gnosticism [1968]).


Petr
What a horrid metaphor/rape of the English language.

[Boleslaw]

Sounds good. But which Gnosticism are we talking about? The historical Gnostics and their conflicts with the Christians; or the current battle between Neo-Gnostics and their fight against traditional Christianity?

I'd find the latter more interesting, especially in light of the Da Vinci Code and all the literature out there nowadays.

[Joe McCarthy]

This is obviously a rather dated thread but while I don't necessarily subscribe to all Gnostic concepts (that is insofar as there can even be said to be a Gnostic 'system' at all) I do believe, with Cerenthus and others, that the creator of this world, or aeon, is what the Gnostics of old referred to as the 'Demiurge'.

I'm confident that I can argue this point convincingly and would possibly be willing to debate said subject if suitable opposition can be found. I will say though that those knowledgeable in Gnostic theology are few and far between and those few of the 'know thine enemy' school seem little versed beyond rundowns from obviously impartial sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[Sean]

This is obviously a rather dated thread but while I don't necessarily subscribe to all Gnostic concepts (that is insofar as there can even be said to be a Gnostic 'system' at all) I do believe, with Cerenthus and others, that the creator of this world, or aeon, is what the Gnostics of old referred to as the 'Demiurge'.

I'm confident that I can argue this point convincingly and would possibly be willing to debate said subject if suitable opposition can be found. I will say though that those knowledgeable in Gnostic theology are few and far between and those few of the 'know thine enemy' school seem little versed beyond rundowns from obviously impartial sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Even if no one wants to take up your challenge, I would still love to hear your views on this issue, since I don't know that much about it myself. (I can't help but think that Petr is using the label "Gnostic" to make various disparate belief systems seem similar so that he can slander them all more easily.) Perhaps you could start a new thread.

[Joe McCarthy]

I've been told that my most likely prospective opponent Petr is too busy to engage in a debate at present so opening a thread might be premature if not an exercise in futility.

The issue of the Demiurge is necessarily involved, but to give a thumbnail, reductionist explanation just think of God as a basically malevolent being who allows thousands of children to die daily and looks on as innocent people die in natural catastrophes through no fault of their own. If you've read Voltaire's brief exposition of the earthquake in Lisbon you capture the essence of the Gnostic view, even if Voltaire himself was not a Gnostic and may have even been unfamiliar with their arguments. As one reads Voltaire's anguished disappointment with his maker, it becomes rather difficult to reconcile the concept of a 'loving god' with a deity who allows children to get smashed by crumbling buildings.

I'm sure there'll be more elaborate dialogue on this subject in the future, whether on this thread or another. For now though the prosecution rests.

[Anarch]

Once upon a time I had a strong interest in the original Gnostic heresy. However, times have changed. I'll be following closely if someone wishes to kickstart the argument, though.

[Joe McCarthy]

This thread is long dead. Anyone interested in taking it up? I'll be taking the anti-anti position.