Gnosticism as forerunner of Cultural Marxism

Petr

Administrator
This hard-hitting piece points out that the Gnostic heresies were one phenomenon in antiquity that genuinely pre-figured modern egalitarian-libertarian madness - it is no wonder that this spiritual pest, that in true wolves-in-sheeps'-clothing manner tried to infiltrate the early Christian church, was denounced by the apostles with such exceptionally harsh language in 2 Peter 2 and the Epistle of Jude:


A DIFFERENT GOSPEL?

2000 July-August
Some of modern Christianity's most "progressive" ideas are rooted in heresies taught by false teachers who opposed Christ's gospel. Gnosticism is not just an ancient false philosophy—it is a force that has corrupted true Christianity almost from its beginning, and may affect the religion you practice today!
Today nearly two billion people profess a belief in Jesus Christ. The Christian religion that began in Jerusalem now girdles the globe and encompasses one-third of mankind. This seems like a remarkable accomplishment—but there is a hitch! Jesus warned that "many will come in My name [claiming to be Christian teachers]... and will deceive many" (Matthew 24:5, 11, 24). The Apostle Paul marveled that converts in Galatia (modern Turkey) were turning to a "different gospel" built on a perverted understanding of the truth (Galatians 1:6-9). The Apostle John recorded a prophecy that Satan would deceive the whole world (Revelation 12:9). Could this include you and the church you attend?
Surprising as it may seem, the Christianity embraced by millions today is not the same "faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). From the beginning, numerous false teachers opposed the gospel proclaimed by Jesus and the Apostles. It is common knowledge among historians that the original faith did not remain uncorrupted (see The Story of Civilization, Durant, 1972, vol. 3, p. 595). That is why some churches acknowledge that their beliefs are based on the Bible and tradition—which often runs counter to Scripture!
One of the prime opponents of early Apostolic Christianity was Gnosticism—a radical belief system that mixed pagan ideas, Greek philosophy, mysticism and human reasoning with twisted explanations of Scripture. Although Gnosticism faded from view after the 2nd century, many of its subversive and heretical ideas were absorbed into mainstream Christianity. Even more remarkable is that numerous scholars acknowledge that Gnostic ideas are alive and growing inside Christian churches and seminaries today. New Testament Professor Peter Jones documents the "striking parallels between the ancient heresy of Gnosticism and the spirituality of New Age thinking and the post-modern worldview" (Spirit Wars, 1997, p. vii). The dangerously deceptive doctrines battled by Paul, Peter, John and other early Apostolic leaders are being revived today with a vengeance—yet the average person is largely unaware of the real source of ideas promoted under the guise of progressive Christianity! This article will take a brief look at early church history, and will reveal some eye-opening and sobering facts!

WHO WERE THE GNOSTICS?

Gnosticism "developed in the same places as dawning Christianity and the Judaic religions: Palestine, Syria, Samaria and Anatolia [Asia Minor]" (The Gnostics, Lacarriere, 1989, p. 43). Gnostic teachers claimed to have secret knowledge about the creation of the world and the purpose of life and competed with the Apostles on the same ground. British historian Paul Johnson describes Gnosticism as "a spiritual parasite which used other religions as a carrier... Gnostic groups seized on bits of Christianity, but tended to cut it off from its historical source" (A History of Christianity, 1976, p. 45).
Gnostic teaching was a particular threat to Christianity because Gnosticism created "the illusion it was a Christian doctrine" by referring to the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus, while twisting and perverting the original meaning (Lacarriere, p. 44). Many Gnostics also claimed to be Christians. Historian Johnson notes the Apostle Paul "fought hard against Gnosticism, recognizing that it might cannibalize Christianity and destroy it" (p. 45). Johnson also comments "the most dangerous Gnostics were those who had, intellectually, thought their way quite inside Christianity, and then produced a variation which wrecked the system" (Ibid.).
One of the earliest Gnostic teachers was Simon Magus. He is thought to be the Simon (mentioned in Acts 8) who used sorcery to deceive people in Samaria. Simon was attracted by the miracles performed by Philip. Although Simon claimed to be a Christian after displaying a superficial conversion, Peter and John rejected him for being "poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" (Acts 8:23). Other translations of this verse describe Simon as "a bitter poison and a pack of evil" (Moffatt), and "a bitter weed and a bundle of crookedness" (Williams). Although Simon continued to follow the Apostles around (Acts 8:13), he and his disciples (Marcion, Valentinus and Basilides) promoted a message that was "subversive" and "radically different from the Apostolic teaching" (Lacarriere, p. 46).

GNOSTIC TEACHINGS

The radical and subversive nature of Gnosticism can best be appreciated when contrasted with the teachings of Scripture. The Bible reveals that an all-powerful God created the earth and the universe (Genesis 1:1). This magnificent creation was produced according to a well-thought-out plan (Psalm 139:14; Proverbs 8:22-31; Job 38). Everything God made was very good (Genesis 1:10, 18, 21). God created human beings in His own image (Genesis 1:27). Male and female were created as separate genders for the purpose of marrying and reproducing in a family context (Genesis 1:28, 2:22-25). Satan, in the form of a serpent (Ezekiel 28:13), deceived the first human beings by insinuating that God was a liar and was withholding valuable information from them (Genesis 3). Adam and Eve were banished from the garden paradise for disobedience. Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind, making it possible to be reconciled to God, receive the Holy Spirit, gain eternal life and participate in the future kingdom of God (John 3:16-17; Acts 2:38; Mark 1:14-15).
Gnostic teaching totally reverses nearly every detail of these biblical accounts! Gnostics taught that the real God is unknowable and incomprehensible. This world "is a stupendous mistake, created by a foolish or vicious creator-god" (Mystery Religions in the Ancient World, Godwin, 1981, p. 84). Humans are merely "fragments of the universe... sediment from a lost heaven" (Lacarriere, pp. 16, 19). This evil, incompetent god was self-conceived by Sophia (goddess of wisdom) and later seduced Eve, who then gave birth to Cain and Abel. The serpent was actually sent by the true God to teach wisdom to Adam and Eve before they were unmercifully expelled from the garden. This wicked god, the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, tricked people into worshiping him as the true God, and the Old Testament "is the story of his tyranny and egotism" (Ibid., p. 85). The villains of the Bible (Cain, Esau, the Sodomites, etc.) are regarded as heroes by Gnostics for standing up to this evil god!
In Gnostic belief, salvation is obtained not by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins and changing our life, but by learning secret knowledge. For Gnostics, knowledge comes from within oneself—not from revealed Scripture, yet the Bible says just the opposite (Proverbs 3:5; John 17:17)! For Gnostics, this world is evil; the body is the evil—a corrupt prison for the soul—from which one must seek to escape. Marriage and procreational sex are also seen as evils dreamed up by the wicked creator-god. The real hope, to Gnostics, is not to see the future kingdom of God, but to regain an imagined past, freed from the fetters of this world (spirit from matter, light from darkness) in a timeless and incorporeal Kingdom of Light. It is not hard to see why the ideas of Simon and his followers "flew in the face of the whole Apostolic doctrine and the teaching of Jesus" (Lacarriere, p. 47). Gnostics literally turn the Bible upside down!
Gnosticism is anti-Scripture, anti-God, anti-Law and anti-Christ—yet its proponents often claim to be the true Christians! Marcion, a highly intelligent man—and originally a member of a Christian community—wrote and traveled widely in the 2nd century promoting deceptive Gnostic ideas. His major work entitled Antithesis contains many ideas that subvert and reverse the meaning of Scripture. Marcion even produced a canon—a list of books that he felt should constitute the real Bible! Marcion, however, eliminated the whole Old Testament because he felt it was a record of Jehovah's "crimes against humanity" (Godwin, p. 85). He rejected three gospels (Matthew, Mark and John) because he felt they had been corrupted by Jewish influences and leaned too heavily on the Old Testament. He discarded six of Paul's epistles for the same reasons. Marcion apparently felt he was a better judge of Scripture than the Apostles and Jesus Christ!

PERVERTED PRACTICES

Some of the most controversial teachings of the Gnostics had to do with the lifestyle they advocated. Marriage and procreational sex were scorned as the distractions of a wicked god. This led to drastic extremes! Certain teachers, such as Marcion and Valentinus, advocated asceticism (self-denial). They forbade marriage and taught that Gnostics should remain celibate. Initiates already married were told to abstain from sexual relations for life (After Jesus, Reader's Digest, 1992, p. 132). Since some Gnostics taught that Adam was created without gender, the ideal state one should aspire to is androgyny—where sexual identity is suppressed or eliminated. The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas states, "when you make the male and female into one, so that the male is not male and the female is not female... then you shall enter the kingdom" (Unearthing the Lost Words of Jesus, Dart and Riegert, 1998, p. 54). Celibate asceticism—denying one's sexuality and abhorring marriage—was a way of achieving this androgynous ideal and becoming like the true God.
However, other Gnostic teachers advocated just the opposite! Simon Magus appears to have rejected marriage and promoted free love! Gnostics saw laws given by an evil creator-god as restrictive and inhibiting. They taught the "practice of free love must be the means of bursting out of the social straight jacket specifically invented to stifle its [love's] liberating spontaneity... in the promiscuity of men and women lies the true communion" (Lacarriere, p. 51). Some Gnostic sects participated in orgiastic rites of almost indescribable perversion. The idea was that to extirpate evil, it must be practiced until it is exhausted! This stood in marked contrast to the biblical admonitions to "flee sexual immorality" (1 Corinthians 6:18-20) and avoid all forms of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

GNOSTIC INFLUENCES

One might expect that such extreme ideas would have vanished from the Christian community, especially after being labeled as heresy by the early Church. Yet, despite considerable opposition by Church leaders, "this unusual religion was to have a lasting impact on Christianity" ("After Jesus," p. 131). Gnosticism was the bridge over which pagan ascetic practices such as celibacy crossed into Christianity. The Gnostic idea that faith needed to be supplemented by philosophy (The Early Church, Chadwick, 1993, p. 74) appears in church doctrines based upon the Bible and tradition! The idea that the kingdom of God is "within you," instead of being a definite future event, is a Gnostic twist of Scripture that still influences the belief of many Christians today (compare Luke 17:21; Acts 1:6; Matthew 19:28).
Gnosticism taught that the true God is unknown, unknowable and non-corporeal (without a body). This contrasts sharply with the God of Scripture (see Jones, pp. 168-169, also Exodus 33:17-23; Revelation 1:13-17; 4:1-3). These ideas about God, which originate from Greek philosophy, have influenced Christian thinkers from Augustine (a former Gnostic) and Aquinas to many modern theologians (see The Openness of God, Pinnock, 1994, chap. 2). The ultimate goal of Gnosticism—to be freed from the fetters of this world (spirit from matter, light from darkness) and to return to a Kingdom of Light—is remarkably similar to the belief about going to heaven to behold the beatific vision (look on God) for all eternity. This differs dramatically from biblical promises that the saints will rule with Christ when the kingdom of God is restored to this earth (Daniel 2:44; 7:27; Revelation 5:10; 11:15-18).
Scholars now recognize that when Marcion eliminated entire books of Scripture based on his own reasoning, he was "using historical and critical methods basically similar to those of modern scriptural scholars" (Johnson, p. 46). Marcion's attempt to call into question the inspiration of Scripture by listing supposed contradictions between the Old and New Testaments finds ready listeners today—even among professing Christians! For Gnostics, Bible prophecy was myth or allegory without literal historical meaning—a view that also finds supporters in modern mainstream Christianity (see Chadwick, p. 37).

A GNOSTIC REVIVAL!

The parallels between ancient Gnostic ideas and modern Christian theology are not accidental. Today we are witnessing "an orchestrated attempt in Christian liberal circles" to present Gnostic writings "as a valid, alternate, even superior expression of early Christianity" (Jones, p. viii). Modern radical scholars are attempting to rehabilitate Gnostic texts and are even suggesting that such writings—clearly labeled as heretical in the early centuries of the Church—be added to the New Testament canon! But why is there such an interest in Gnosticism on the part of liberal theologians?
The reason is simply that ideas promoted by the Gnostics in the first and second centuries are very popular today! Gnosticism was a theology of liberation—promoting unlimited human freedom! Gnostic teachers wanted an "adult Christianity" that was "liberated from the everlasting references to Genesis and the Mosaic commandments" (Lacarreire, p. 103). Their goal was to break the "mooring ropes" that tied human conduct to the Bible. Sound familiar? For many Gnostics, "total insubordination was lauded as the road to liberation" (Ibid., p. 74). Their practice of communal sex, attempts to gain a state of spiritual ecstasy, refusal to work, desiring to live as philosophical vagabonds, would blend easily with the hippies of the 1960s. Former rock star John Lennon once commented "It seems to me that the only true Christians were the Gnostics" (Jones, p. ix).
But that is not all! Gnostic texts "are employed [by liberals] to justify women's ordination, the goddess character of the Holy Spirit, the moral appropriateness of abortion, the feminist re-interpretation of culture, and much more" (Jones, p. 90). These common interests reveal why New Testament scholar Peter Jones asserts, "Gnosticism was the earliest expression of 'Christian' liberalism" and that "modern liberals only imitate their long-lost cousins, the Gnostics" (p. 64).
Many professing Christians do not seem to realize that their progressive ideas are rooted in this ancient heresy!

A MODERN GNOSTIC AGENDA

As the 21st century dawns, several powerful social movements are reviving Gnostic ideas. Peter Jones states "feminist thinkers have discovered the revolutionary character of Gnosticism as it applies to gender and patriarchal civilization" and that "an egalitarian, non-patriarchal vision constitutes the agenda of cutting-edge theology, sociology, and global politics in the West. Gnosticism and feminism are a match made in heaven" (Jones, p. 162). He quotes a feminist who states, "Gnosticism is becoming a powerful influence in feminist research into the overthrow of the male in the divine" (Ibid.).
Feminists want to change Western society, and they realize that "to change the civilization built on the Bible, you must change the Bible" (Jones, p. 81). This is why liberals and radical feminist theologians want to include Gnostic texts as an authentic view of early Christian teaching—equal with the Bible! Theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether asserts, "Feminist theology must create a new textual base, a new canon... Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible" (Ibid., p. 82). Asian feminist theologian Chung Hyun Kyung has stated, "feminists are free to use the ancient Gnostic texts, originally rejected as heretical, because the Christian canon was created by men" and that "women are not obliged to accept a book... they had no part in framing" (Ibid., p. 88). Feminists view the orthodox Bible as a tool "for social control through the patriarchal suppression of women" (Ibid.). They like the Gnostic Gospel of Mary because it places Mary Magdalene at the foundation of Christ's church, rather than the Apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:19-20; Matthew 16:18; Galatians 1:17-19). Women took unprecedented leadership roles in many early Gnostic sects (After Jesus, p. 131).
Today's radical feminist theologians have developed what they call a "ritual of exorcism" to expunge Bible verses that describe different roles for men and women, such as Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:1-6 (Jones, p. 82). Like the Gnostics, they use verses they like, and discard verses with which they disagree! Feminists create an androgynous deity by their support of sexually inclusive terms in new biblical translations. To understand the Bible, feminist theologians assert, "new rules will require feminist interpreters to assume that Scripture is not the word of God... is not a container of revelation" and to "correct as we read" (Ibid., p. 120). In other words, everything in the Bible "must be re-interpreted by feminist interpreters" which is just what the Gnostics did (Ibid.).
Many Christians today simply do not grasp the real intent of feminist theology. Radical feminist Naomi Goldberg has stated, "the feminist movement in Western culture is engaged in the slow execution of Christ and Jehovah. Yet very few of the women and men now working for sexual equality within Christianity and Judaism realize the extent of their heresy" (Ibid., p. 195). She blames "God the Father of Judeo-Christian Scripture as the architect of the patriarchal society" and states that "like patriarchy, this God will have to go" (Ibid., p. 180). Patriarchy refers to the authority of the father. In her words, "We women are going to bring an end to God" (Ibid.). This would include rejecting His laws found in the Bible—which was also the Gnostic mission! Goldberg has predicted, "when feminists succeed in changing the position of women in Christianity and Judaism, they will shake these religions at their roots" (Ibid., p. 181). Remarkably, very few theologians acknowledge that Bible prophecy reveals women will push to dominate society as the end of the age nears (Isaiah 3:12).
In light of such brazen comments, Peter Jones observes, "Christians must realize that the religious feminist movement carries with it a frontal assault on the normativity of creational heterosexuality and, beyond that, on God Himself as the Creator" (Ibid., p. 196). This, in essence, was also the Gnostic agenda—to denigrate the creation, its laws and its Creator! Catholic educator Leon Podles senses the significance of this assault when he writes, "feminism may be as much of a challenge to Christianity as was Gnosticism (to which it bears a strong resemblance) (The Church Impotent—The Feminization of Christianity, 1999, p. 139).
Retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong has an even larger radical agenda! Spong made headlines a decade ago when he ordained a homosexual priest. The radical bishop has asserted, "Feminism and homosexuality lie at the heart and soul of what the Gospel is all about" (Jones, p. 192). Spong feels "the church should bless and encourage same sex marriages" (The Arizona Daily Star, Sept. 25, 1999). Spong would agree with radical feminist theologians—and Gnostics—that "the Bible is full of rhetoric and concepts we do not and can not believe" (Ibid.) such as guidelines for sex role differentiation and prohibitions against homosexuality. He also echoes sentiments of early Gnostics who wanted an adult Christianity when he asserts, "I'm anxious to open Christianity so it can be everything it can be... a more enlightened Christianity" (Ibid.). Spong is simply advocating the same goal as the Gnostics—the destruction of biblical Christianity!
Today the Christian view of sex and gender roles is under attack. Liberals say biblical guidelines limit human freedom—but the real reason for this attack goes much deeper. Jones quotes a common lesbian assertion that "compulsory [biblical] heterosexuality is the very backbone that holds patriarchy together," that homosexuality will break that backbone and that "lesbian, bisexual and gay issues... are wedges driven into the superstructure of the heteropatriarchal system" (Ibid., p. 179). The real goal of homosexuals, radical feminists and liberal progressives is to change the way Western society operates by eliminating its biblical foundation! Their tool is the Gnostic tool of sexual liberation!
The modern return of Gnosticism—a belief system that rejects both God and His laws—is no coincidence. It was actually prophesied! The Bible warns that the end of the age would be marked by lawlessness (Matthew 24:11-12) and that it would be related to a movement that was "already at work" in the days of the Apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8). The early Gnostics were major antagonists of the Apostles and, just as liberals today, they preached a very deceptive message. This is why Paul warned the Galatians against believing a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), and why he instructed Timothy to "guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge [gnosis]" (1 Timothy 6:20).
Gnostic ideas are the product of intelligent yet profoundly misguided minds. Gnosticism—ancient or modern—is a dangerous deception. Social movements built on these perverted ideas will lead to disaster. Societies that reject moral guidelines in favor of unfettered human desires are headed for trouble! The God of the Bible thunders: "Because you have rejected [My] knowledge, I also will reject you... Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children" (Hosea 4:6). The revival and embrace of Gnostic ideas by liberal professing Christians is a case of history repeating itself. To remain ignorant of the past is to risk being deceived by a different gospel. Do not be deceived! Open your eyes! Believe the real word of God and the message of true Apostolic Christianity!
 
Last edited:

Petr

Administrator
The famous church historian Eusebius of Caesarea stated his opinion that the Gnostics were like spiritual agent provocateurs sent by Satan himself to make Christians look bad in the eyes of conservative pagans.

In much the same way, the heretical antics of modern promoters of "Social Gospel" or "Liberation Theology" - in other words, Leftist or shitlib agents wearing Christian clothes - can make all Christianity stink in the nostrils of reactionary right-wingers:

https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201.iii.ix.vii.html

Chapter VII.—The Persons that became at that Time Leaders of Knowledge falsely so-called.1015
1. As the churches throughout the world were now shining like the most brilliant stars, and faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was flourishing among the whole human race,1016 the demon who hates everything that is good, and is always hostile to the truth, and most bitterly opposed to the salvation of man, turned all his arts against the Church.1017 In the beginning he armed himself against it with external persecutions.
2. But now, being shut off from the use of such means,1018 he devised all sorts of plans, and employed other methods in his conflict with the Church, using base and deceitful men as instruments for the ruin of souls and as ministers of destruction. Instigated by him, impostors and deceivers, assuming the name of our religion, brought to the depth of ruin such of the believers as they could win over, and at the same time, by means of the deeds which they practiced, turned away from the path which leads to the word of salvation those who were ignorant of the faith.
...​
9. Irenæus also writes1030 that Carpocrates was a contemporary of these men, and that he was the father of another heresy, called the heresy of the Gnostics,1031 who did not wish to transmit any longer the magic arts of Simon, as that one1032 had done, in secret, but openly.1033 For they boasted—as of something great—of love potions that were carefully prepared by them, and of certain demons that sent them dreams and lent them their protection, and of other similar agencies; and in accordance with these things they taught that it was necessary for those who wished to enter fully into their mysteries, or rather into their abominations, to practice all the worst kinds of wickedness, on the ground that they could escape the cosmic powers, as they called them, in no other way than by discharging their obligations to them all by infamous conduct.
10. Thus it came to pass that the malignant demon, making use of these ministers, on the one hand enslaved those that were so pitiably led astray by them to their own destruction, while on the other hand he furnished to the unbelieving heathen abundant opportunities for slandering the divine word, inasmuch as the reputation of these men brought infamy upon the whole race of Christians.
11. In this way, therefore, it came to pass that there was spread abroad in regard to us among the unbelievers of that age, the infamous and most absurd suspicion that we practiced unlawful commerce with mothers and sisters, and enjoyed impious feasts.1034
 
A religion like Manichaeism or Gnosticism that teaches that procreation is evil can only reproduce itself by converting (or subverting) others. Judaism shows the effectiveness of perpetuating a religion through a bloodline. This is the opposite. No way to expand but through evangelizing, or death.
 

Petr

Administrator
And now for some concrete, ugly details. The Gnostics had a "logical" premise for despising the natural order, for they considered this whole material world in which we live in to be an inferior, faulty demonic creation to begin with. (That way, they could deny that there was anything sacred or venerable in things like childbirth, for example, which of course is the necessary starting point for any consistent abortionist worldview.)

And generally speaking, the cavalier, haughtily dismissive attitude towards natural order is what Murray Rothbard considered to be the essence of modern egalitarian-subversive spirit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Ethics

The title essay of Rothbard's 1974 book Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays held: "Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences".[71] In it, Rothbard wrote: "At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will".[72]


So it is no wonder that the anti-natural worldview of the Gnostics would express itself in various grotesque ways, like making abortion a perverted sacrament (communally consuming the aborted fetus):



Another wicked Gnostic group continually tried to lead the early Christians astray. The leader of this Gnostic sect was a man named Valentinus. This Gnostic group taught that ordinary Christians needed to repent and turn from their idolatry, attending gladiator fights and having sex outside marriage and should aim to do good works, but insisted that they (the Gnostics) did not need to do these things because they were more spiritual than ordinary Christians.
Note also these Gnostics seduced numerous churchgoers into having sex with them. They were like the modern liberals who claim that God approves of sex between homosexuals or unmarried heterosexuals who supposedly “love” each other. These Gnostics claimed their “spirituality” changed their evil into good. Modern liberals claim that “love” supposedly changes evil into good.
...

Liberal Gnostics plaguing the Church in the 300’s A.D.

In his chapter called “Gnostics” in his writing “Panarion”, the Early Church writer Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyprus (approx 310-402 A.D.) wrote about Gnostics in the 300’s A.D. who like the most liberal modern Protestants amended their Christianity to fit in with the current philosophies and practices of many non-Christians at the time: “The Gnostics…basing themselves on pagan superstition, they refashion the fable-filled poetry and illusions of the Greeks, thereby weaving together truth and falsehood…They base themselves upon idiotic visions and prooftexts in the Gospel which they preach…” [19]
Epiphanius records that the Gnostics regularly practiced sex outside marriage, homosexuality, public nudity and abortion and mixed popular pagan Greek myths with the teachings of the Bible:
“4.1…They have their women in common. 2. And if a stranger belonging to their religion arrives, there is a sign they have of men for women and women for men, in that when they extend the hand in greeting, they stroke and tickle it underneath the palm, thus signaling that the one who has arrived is of their religion. 3. Then when they have recognized each other, they proceed at once to the feast. They set out an abundance of meat and wine, even if they are poor. Having made their banquet from this and so to speak filled their veins to satiety, they proceed to arouse themselves. 4. The man, moving away from the woman, says to his woman, ‘Arise, hold the love feast with your brother.’
And the pitiful pair, having made love…5…then proceed to hold up their blasphemy to heaven, the woman and the man taking the secretion from the male into their own hands and standing looking to heave. They hold in their hands the impurity and pray.
2. Although they have sex with each other, they forbid the begetting of children. They are eager for the act of corruption not in order to engender children, but for the pleasure…3. But when they have finished taking the pleasure, they take into themselves the seeds of their impurity, not depositing them to have children, but consuming the shameful thing. 4. But if one of them fails to anticipate the immission of the seed from the natural effluence and the woman becomes pregnant, then listen to something even more dreadful which they dare to do. 5. Extracting the fetus at whatever time they choose to do the operation, they take the aborted infant and pound it up in a mortar with a pestle, and, mixing in honey and pepper and some other spices and sweet oils so as not to become nauseous, all the members of that herd of swine and dogs gather together and each partakes with his finger of the crushed up child. 5. And thus having engaged in cannibalism, they pray to God saying, ‘We have not been mocked by the archon of desire, but we have collected the transgression of the brother.’ And indeed they consider this the ‘perfect Pasch.’
7. They dare to do other dreadful things as well. When they fall into a frenzy among themselves, they soil their hands with the shame of their secretion, and, rising, with defiled hands pray stark naked, as if through such an action <they were able?> to find a hearing with God. 8. Their bodies they coddle night and day, the women and the men, with ointments, baths, and feasts, spending their time in lechery and drunkenness.
6.1. They use both the Old and New Testaments, but reject the one who spoke in the Old Testament. And when they find a word which can have a meaning opposed to them, they say that it was spoken by the worldly spirit. 2. But if any passage can be given a color similar to the things which they desire, not because of what it is but because of the condition of their debased minds, they refashion it along the lines of their concupiscence (evil desires) and say that it was spoken by the Spirit of truth.
11.1…Some of them do not approach women, but debauch themselves with their own hands, taking their corruption into their hands and consuming it. 2. As a misrepresented proof text they use: ‘These hands have sufficed not only for me, but for those with me,’ and ‘Working with your own hands, that you may be able to give to those who have nothing.’ 8…These people, debauched with their own hands, and not only they, but also those who have intercourse with women, when finally they are satiated with promiscuity with women, burn for each other, men for men…Having come to utter ruin, they congratulate each other, as though they had achieved a choice status. 9. They also deceive the tribe of women who follow them…saying that so-and-so, who has been debauched these many years and continues to be so every day, is a virgin. Their lechery knows no satiety, but the more shameful anyone is in his actions, the more he is praised by them. 10. They say that those women are virgins who have never been involved in the wordly sexual relations of marriage according to what is customary and natural, which includes semination, but who, although they have sex and fornicate constantly, before the act of pleasure is complete, separate themselves from their seducer with whom they are associated in fornication, and take the aforementioned shamefulness as food.
16.7…All the sects have gathered their erroneous doctrine from the pagan myths, altering them and giving them a worse meaning. 8. For the poets present Zeus as gulping down his daughter Metis. But no one would swallow an infant; as St Clement in ridiculing the turpitude of the pagan gods says, he could not have swallowed the infant in swallowing Metis, but rather the myth about Zeus evidently means that he swallowed his own children…
17.4. I myself, dearly beloved, fell in with this sect, and was indoctrinated into it from the mouth of its practitioners, directly, face-to-face. But the women deceived by it not only offered us its kind of language and revealed its teachings, but also, like the Egyptian woman, the pernicious and wicked wife of the head cook, tried with impudent loquacity and whetted appetite to pull us down in the time of our youth. 5. But the one who then stood by holy Joseph stood by us as well. And we, unworthy and weak as we were, called upon the one who rescued him in that place, and, having received mercy and escaped their pernicious hands, we were able to sing a hymn to the all-holy God and ourselves say, ‘Let us sing to the Lord, greatly has he been glorified, horse and rider he has thrown into the sea.’ 6. For it was not in virtue of a rectitude like Joseph’s that we received mercy and were saved, but by our groaning to God. Reproached by those pernicious women, I laughed at the kind of remarks which they made to each other (making fun of me) in the following vein: We were not able to save the youth, but have let him go to perish at the hands of the archon. 7. For whoever of them is beautiful sets herself out as bait, so that those deceived by her are declared to be saved instead of to perish. And the homely woman is reproached by the beautiful in the following vein: I am a chosen vessel, able to save those deceived, while you were not able to do so. 8. So in fact the women who explained the seductive fable of their doctrine were quite beautiful in outward appearance, although in their mind, where their wickedness dwelt, they possessed all of the devil’s ugliness. But the merciful God rescued us from their wickedness, so that after we had read even their books and applied our mind to the truth and not been led astray, but escaped being caught, 9. we hastened to tell the bishops in that place who they were and revealed the names hidden in the church. <So> they were driven from the city, about eighty names in all, and it was cleansed of their weeds and thornbushes…” [20]
 
Last edited:

Petr

Administrator
All in all, Gnosticism was like a grotesque spiritual mutation, a schizophrenically incoherent and thus volatile mixture of Biblical and pagan as well as Western and Eastern ideas. (And thus, it was also an early product of multiculturalism, mixing recklessly together ideas of different religions.)

For example, the gruesome notion of "incompetent and/or malicious world-creator," which was foundational to Gnosticism, was well known, as a theoretical concept, to Eastern pagans, but it became a really poisonous concept when the Gnostics, who flourished in the Levantine borderlands of Western and Eastern civilizations and thus, as spiritual Mischlinges, combined Western philosophy with Eastern mythology, applied that notion to the God of the Bible:

The reason why suffering and evil exist in this world is because it is actually governed by this flawed Demiurge who mistakenly believes himself to be the absolute God and demands arrogantly to be worshipped as such. This is the deity worshiped by many Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam and others) who are materialistic, vicious and not in possession of true spiritual wisdom. He is, thus, analogous to Mahabrahma in Hinduism and some forms of Buddhism, who also mistakenly believes himself to be the ultimate authority while the rest of the gods snigger behind his back.


And still in the 18th century, cultivated Enlightenment philosophes like David Hume and Voltaire could still toy around with this malicious myth when seeking to malign the Christian God:

Besides, the universe resembles a watch or a house far less than it does an animal or a vegetable: Philo mischievously proposes that the Creator might be a vegetable rather than a craftsman. Nor is this all: if we observe the universe without our ordinary preconceptions, we may well conclude that the intelligence that created it was little better than an amateurish bungler who, for all we know, made and discarded other worlds before he settled on this one.1
1. This imaginative speculation was a favorite with the philosophes: in his short story, Songe de Platon, Voltaire supposes that while God himself is perfect, he left the creation of this world to a lesser angel who made a poor job of it. Hence the presence, indeed prevalence, of evil.

Voltaire asserts in Plato's Dream that the “Eternal Geometrician” gave the evil divinity Demogorgon – the ruler of the netherworld in ancient mythology – “a bit of mud that is called Earth” to arrange as he saw fit. After fashioning what Demogorgon considered a “masterpiece,” the evil god was surprised to find himself coming under attack by the other genies attendant to the Great Demiurge, Demiurge also being a specific gnostic subordinate deity who creates the material universe. With his characteristic adolescent wit, Voltaire has the genies say:
“Your onions and artichokes are very good things; but I don't see what your idea was in covering the earth with so many venomous plants, unless you had the intention of poisoning the inhabitants.... [you only have] four or five kinds of men; it is true that you have given this last animal what you call reason; but in all conscience, that reason of his is too ridiculous and comes too close to madness. Moreover, it appears to me that you set no great store by that two-footed animal, since you have given him so many enemies and so little defense, so many maladies and so few remedies, so many passions and so little wisdom. Apparently you do not want many of those animals to remain on earth....”
Demogorgon blushed: he fully sensed that there was moral evil and physical evil in the work he had done, “but,” says Voltaire in a swipe at Leibniz's Theodicy, “he maintained that there was more good than evil.”
 
Last edited:

Petr

Administrator
And while the ancient Gnostics were mostly apolitical - as they concentrated in spreading spiritual Anarchism and contempt for the authorities of this world in a clandestine, non-confrontational manner - it so happened that the first major "Socialist" eruption in history, the Persian Mazdakite movement, was inspired by Gnostic-Manichean sentiments:


execution-of-mazdak-illustration.jpg
The execution of Mazdak depicted in an illustrated Shahnameh, 17th Century, via Bonhams

This happened outside the bounds of Christendom, as a point against those Nietzschean types who claim that Leftism is just "secularized Christianity":

Shahrestāni states, on the authority of Ebn-al-Warrāq, that Mazdakism had much in common with Manicheism, that it was a dualistic faith asserting the antagonism between Light and Darkness. The former acts wisely and has free choice, while Darkness merely “blunders.” The world of Mixture came into being by coincidence, and so will the End of Time. Mazdak forbade hate and strife, and taught that these were mostly caused by women and possessions. These he therefore allowed to be freely enjoyed by all, like water and pasture. He taught that there are three elements: Water, Fire, and Earth. From their intermingling arose the Manager of Good and the Manager of Evil. The Supreme Being (who is above the Managers) is seated on this throne above, as Ḵosrow is on his throne on earth. Four Powers stand before him: Discernment, Understanding, Preservation, and Joy, just as four officials stand before the King. These four powers direct the world, with the help of seven Viziers, who “act within” twelve spiritual forces. When the four, seven, and twelve come together in a person, he becomes ‘divine’ and is exempt from religious duties. The Supreme Being rules by means of the letters which form the Highest Name. Those who understand some of this have found the key to the Great Secret, while others remain in blindness and ignorance.
 

Petr

Administrator
The Gnostics had a "logical" premise for despising the natural order, for they considered this whole material world in which we live in to be an inferior, faulty demonic creation to begin with. (That way, they could deny that there was anything sacred or venerable in things like childbirth, for example, which of course is the necessary starting point for any consistent abortionist worldview.)

G.K. Chesterton gave this poetic depiction of how Gnostic-Manichean mentality alienates one from God and nature alike (which is why Gnosticism is as much against traditional paganism, that worships and adores natural beauty, as it is against Christianity) - everything in the world looks like meaningless filth, which attitude of course goes along with nihilistic modernist Kulturbolschewismus, which is why G.K. was talking about modern Manichee here:



The Modern Manichee
G.K. Chesterton
He sayeth there is no sin, and all his sin
Swells round him into a world made merciless;
The midnight of his universe of shame
Is the vast shadow of his shamelessness.
He blames all that begat him, gods or brutes,
And sires not sons he chides as with a rod.
The sins of the children visited on the fathers
Through all generations, back to a jealous God.
The fields that heal the humble, the happy forests
That sing to men confessed and men consoled,
To him are jungles only, greedy and groping,
Heartlessly new, unvenerably old.
Beyond the pride of his own cold compassion
Is only cruelty and imputed pain:
Matched with that mood, a boy's sport in the forest
Makes comrades of the slayer and the slain.
The innocent lust of the unfallen creatures
Moves him to hidden horror but no mirth;
Misplaced morality rots in the roots unconscious,
His stifled conscience stinks through the green earth.
The green things thrust like horrible huge snails,
Horns green and gross, each lifting a leering eye
He scarce can call a flower; it lolls obscene,
Its organs gaping to the sneering sky.
Dark with that dusk the old red god of gardens
Still pagan but not merry any more,
Stirs up the dull adulteries of the dust,
Blind, frustrate, hopeless, hollow at the core;
The plants are brutes tied with green rope and roaring
Their terrible dark loves from tree to tree:
He shrinks as from a shaft, if by him singing,
A gilded pimp and pandar, goes the bee.
He sayeth, 'I have no sin; I cast the stone',
And throws his little pebble at the shrine,
Casts sin and stone away against the house
Whose health has turned earth's waters into wine.
The venom of that repudiated guilt
Poisons the sea and every natural flood
As once a wavering tyrant washed his hands,
And touching, turned the water black with blood.
 

Petr

Administrator
The Gnostics were really the archetypal example of "wolves in sheeps' clothing," or deceitful spiritual infiltrators. To simple-minded outsiders, they could often strike a pose that resembled Christianity, while hiding inside a thoroughly anti-Scriptural worldview. This was noted already in antiquity, as the church historian Socrates of Constantinople said about Manichean works:

https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalh02valogoog/page/56/mode/2up?view=theater

Now the contents of these treatises are apparently accordant with Christianity in expression, but thoroughly Pagan in sentiment: for Manichaeus, being an impious person, incited his disciples to acknowledge a plurality of gods, and taught them to worship the sun.

As this review of Darren Aronofsky's 2014 Noah film explained in blunt language:


But, hey, everybody in the film seems to worship “The Creator,” right? Surely it’s got that in its favor!
Except that when Gnostics speak about “The Creator” they are not talking about God. Oh, here in an affluent world living off the fruits of Christendom the term “Creator” generally denotes the true and living God. But here’s a little “Gnosticism 101” for you: the Creator of the material world is an ignorant, arrogant, jealous, exclusive, violent, low-level, bastard son of a low level deity. He’s responsible for creating the “unspiritual” world of flesh and matter, and he himself is so ignorant of the spiritual world he fancies himself the “only God” and demands absolute obedience. They generally call him “Yahweh.” Or other names, too (Ialdabaoth, for example).
This Creator tries to keep Adam and Eve from the true knowledge of the divine and, when they disobey, flies into a rage and boots them from the garden.
In other words, in case you’re losing the plot here: The serpent was right all along. This “god,” “The Creator,” whom they are worshiping is withholding something from them that the serpent will provide: divinity itself.
 
Last edited:

Petr

Administrator
The Irish Anglican theologian and mathematician George Salmon described the doctrines of the Gnostic cult leader Carpocrates thus - one can see how well some of these things would go with modern shitlib "Christian," or Unitarian-Masonic theology, where Jesus of Nazareth becomes just a glorified "community organizer," who was not in any fundamental manner superior to modern egalitarian politicians and activists like Gandhi or MLK Jr.

Also, in the Carpocratian "enlightenment" the mark of true spiritual insight is to despise all narrow-minded, "local" viewpoints, and adopt a unitarian (aiming for unity) view of things - which would go very well with Masonic universalism:

Of all the systems called Gnostic, that of Carpocrates is the one in which the Hellenic element is the most strongly marked, and which contains the least of what is necessarily Jewish or Oriental.
...
Jesus he held to be a mere man naturally born of human parents, having no prerogatives beyond the reach of others to attain. His superiority to ordinary men consisted in this, that His soul, being steadfast and pure, remembered those things which it had seen in the revolution (τῇ περιφορᾷ) in which it had been carried round with the unbegotten God, and therefore power [or a "power"] had been sent from God enabling Him to escape the makers of the world. Though brought up in Jewish customs, He had despised them, and therefore had received powers enabling Him to destroy the passions which are given to men as a punishment. But in this there was nothing special: others might be the equals or the superiors not only of Peter or Paul, but of our Lord Himself. Their souls, too, might remember the truths they had witnessed; if they despised the rulers of the world as much as Jesus did, they would be given the same privileges as He, and higher if they despised them more. Thus the Carpocratians gave honour, but not an exclusive honour, to Christ.
The doctrine of the duty of despising the rulers of the world received among the Carpocratians an interpretation which enabled them to practise immorality without scruple. Things in themselves were indifferent; nothing was in its own nature good or evil, and was only made so by human opinion. The true Gnostic might practise everything—nay, it was his duty to have experience of all. A doctrine concerning the transmigration of souls which was taught by other Gnostic sects, and which harmonized well with Platonic teaching, was adopted by the Carpocratians in the form that a soul which had had its complete experience passed at once out of the dominion of the rulers of the world, and was received up to society with the God above them: those which had not were sent back to finish in other bodies that which was lacking to them; but all ultimately would be saved.
The Carpocratians and the Cainites have often been coupled together as the two most immoral of the Gnostic sects, and in practical effects their doctrines may not have been very different; but the Carpocratian theory of the indifference of human actions fell short of the inversion of good and evil which is ascribed to the Cainites. Whereas the latter represented the God of the Jews and Maker of the world as an evil Being who ought to be resisted, the former only spoke of the makers of the world as inferior beings whose restrictions it is true enlightenment to despise; and the arguments of Epiphanes, derived from the equality that reigns in nature, assume that the creation is so far conformed to the will of God that from the laws which pervade it we may infer what is pleasing to the supreme power.
...
According to Neander, the Carpocratian system sees in the world's history one struggle between the principles of unity and of multiplicity. From one eternal Monad all existence has flowed, and to this it strives to return. But the finite spirits who rule over several portions of the world counteract this universal striving after unity. From them the different popular religions, and in particular the Jewish, have proceeded. Perfection is attained by those souls who, led on by reminiscences of their former condition, soar above all limitation and diversity to the contemplation of the higher unity. They despise the restrictions imposed by the mundane spirits; they regard externals as of no importance, and faith and love as the only essentials; meaning by faith, mystical brooding of the mind absorbed in the original unity. In this way they escape the dominion of the finite mundane spirits; their souls are freed from imprisonment in matter, and they obtain a state of perfect repose (corresponding to the Buddhist Nirwana) when they have completely ascended above the world of appearance.
 
Last edited:
Top