Talk:Gnosticism/Archive 1

message: the article obviously has a bias slant in its sympathy DanteDanti
:Why don't not just fix it then? Also, provide examples if you want someone else to do it so we know what you're aiming at here. Your statement is sort of vague. The NPOV claim has been removed (though not by me). Nixdorf 08:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Whoever added the neutrality-dispute markup tag to this article, discuss the matter here, don't just tag it as non-neutral. It will be removed unless you state your points here soon. Nixdorf 07:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Article violates Npov.  sorry I wasnt logged in before. DanteDanti
:This article is very large, would you please point out the part(s) you believe violates the NPOV so they can be fixed? Quote and reference or just edit the article to conform to the NPOV. Nixdorf 16:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
:It would be far preferable to use the  tag for those specific areas you feel violate NPOV.  It's hard to guess where in the long article the problems are perceived to exist. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:36, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
::"Article violates Npov" is the extent of the discussion? Is that really it, then? Are we to take this seriously? I certainly think not. --Wetman 02:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: npov

message: Is there really any direct Buddhist influence with gnosticism? The only exchange between Buddhism and Hinduism with Western civilisation before the British visiting Asia was when Alexander the Great conquered parts of India. His successors in the Indo-Greek kingdom were influenced by Buddhism, and possibly spread it back west, and King Ashoka sent missionaries to the Seleucids and Greek-Bactrians. However, on the greek end, no record of this exists. Nonetheless, some aspects of gnosticism are too similar to Buddhism to discount the possibility of influence. --202.156.6.60 14:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhist Influence?

message: This was utterly fascinating.  I wonder what the Wikipedia will be able to tell me about the Archons.
----
Who do you think 'The Archons' are?  Just ponder it for a moment...  I'll give you a hint, they aren't from this planet...  
they resemble the marcabians from scientology (which is heavily based on gnosticism). Gringo300 07:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archons

message: By the way, the Gnostics didn't necessarily deem matter 'evil', but rather 'incomplete'.  Gnostics living in Egypt equated the material universe with the injured, re-assembled body of Osiris (missing his penis, symbolic of reproductive power), which forced him to become, symbolically, 'the god of the dead', as the Gnostics believed that death was caused by this 'incompleteness' of matter...  Very interesting when one compares this idea to modern theories about entropy...  Khranus
:Some gnostics held the view you state, of matter as 'incomplete'. Some gnostics still held it to be evil, such as the dualist traditions of mandaeanism and manichaeanism. Nixdorf 21:42, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Matter as evil

message: Given the revival of Gnosticism as fueled by popular authors Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown, it seems this entry should reflect that more.  Perhaps we could relegate statements of Gnostics in the past tense to a section entitled, "History", and focus more upon modern practice in the other sections.
Ideas?
SwissCelt 17:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  History vs. Modern practice 

message: An anon just made major edits, mainly POV from what I have read. I don't have time right now to go over and copyedit it, however, I will put it on my task list. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 06:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  an anon's edits 

message: To my friend Trödel(whoever he is). 
I made this entry about a gnostic author. It is EMILE CIORAN. He is quiet famous. Wikipedia has a page on him. I didn't spell him right.. Of course he is more of a philosopher than a writer. The book i'm talking about is not on the list of his major works in wikipedia. i' ll have a visit on him.. it is something like "le demiurge mal" in french. that's the bad (evil?)(incompetent?) demiurgue. (pardon my english). He is aware and has knowledge of every gnostic belief (Markion,cathars) and agrees with them. he has a certain "style" in his speech. sometimes he becomes blasphymous (a dictionary please). he hated humans.well we all have been there, right? 
what's that name Trodel? Is it German? i'm Greek. i'm Sotiris.(i didn't expect that someone would look my entry. you see in Greece nothing works.ha, ha..) --213.5.49.214 17:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to wikepedia see your talk page for a quick response - thanks for the information - I will put it back in shortly. Trödel|talk 18:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Emile Cioran 

message: The "eternal return" is the concept where a demon condemns man to live his life again and again.
it's a trap inside time. it is typically gnostic. i would also add in gnostic moovies, "the groundhog's day". it's the same recipe of "eternal return" and very near to Truman, Matrix etc.
the only difference is that in "groundhog's day" the "God" character is not malivoulent but wants to teach man. fine film.
 --213.5.49.215 13:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Nietzsche's "eternal return" 

message: First of all, the article is ambigious as to different periods in this set of beliefs.  Platonic and neo-Platonic are not really "Gnostic," but deal with similar concepts.  Similarly talking about 'Gnosticism in the 20th century' is kinda like talking about witchcraft in the 20th century.  It's not the same as withcraft in the midle ages or antiquity, or Mesopotamia.  There's an intellectually dangerous conflation of terms here.
Secondly, it would help if there were sources sited in the text.  "Generally believed" is always a bit sketchy as an introduction.  It is unclear as to what "equally valid" with traditional Christian teaching means.  Equally valid as a social movement?  Sure.  Equally valid religiously?  That's opening a whole big can of worms.  
There are mentions of Jesus.  As a writer, the author must make clear how that name is being treated.  For the purpose of this article is Jesus a)the son of God and one indivisible part of the Holy Trinity (mainstream Christian teaching), b) a historical figure, a Jew who got executed but who spawned a religious movement, or c)a totally made up figure that's part of the mythology of a religious movement from the late Antiquity.  
There's a strong argument about whether Manicheans are Gnostics or just a branch of Christianity considered heretical by the majority.  Cathars and Bogomils can be treated in similar ways.
* As your statements are mainly conjecture, and you seem to know very little about Gnosticism.  As to who Jesus represents to Gnostics, it's clearly in the article.  He does not fall into any of your three categories.  Nor is it a twentieth century revival like you insinuate by comparing Gnosticism to Witchcraft.  Maybe you should read up on Gnosticism before you come here and voice your clearly pro-Catholic Church objections.  Instead, it sounds like you're stating that "Gnosticism is just another form of Satan-worship."   --Bastique 23:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections 

message: Does anyone know how I can get the Greek To show up propperly?
--203.59.210.198 11:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How DO I Get Unicode to Work? 

message: *Gnosticism though not a religion as such, is perhaps one of the oldest "philosophies" or "ways of thought" known to humankind.  Gnosticism is not the accumilation of factual, intellectual or rational knowledge. On the cotrary Gnosticism involves the relational or experiential knowledge of a God and/or a Divine entity or of the divine or spiritual nature within one's being. 
--203.59.210.198 12:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnosticism was also evident in Judaism BCE 

message: I slightly recast just the opening, so that it introduces the term and tells how we know about Gnosticism of Antiquity. Is some text missing in the description that follows? It seems like a hodgepodge of secondary details instead of a presentation of the broad world-picture gnostics shared. The section title might be "The Gnostic World-Picture".... Following the general world-picture, a few central texts should be discussed: Pistis Sophia is an essential. Modern gnosticism might follow that. --Wetman 21:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraphs

message: The following text is irrelevant to the subject Gnosticism:
 
:Among the Nag Hammadi library texts, the Gospel of Thomas is the most controversial. It is dated by an early camp among scholars as early as the 50s and by a late camp to a time after the last of the canonical gospels in the 90s. Some modern scholars, e.g. John Dominic Crossan find Gnostic beliefs in it, while others consider the gnostic tendencies a later addition to an originally non-gnostic text. Lastly, some in the early camp see connections between it and the hypothetical Q document which plays an important role in the synoptic problem (the literary relationship between and among the first three canonical gospels).
If this text throws light on Gnosticism, begin by quoting a gnostic line or two (there are but 114 sayings) and elucidating what's Gnostic about them and help the reader build a picture of Gnosticism. Name-dropping is uninspiring if the reader is simply presented with unspecified "findings". Labelling a text "controversial" without exploring the controversy (if it's relevant) is not enlightening either. -This isn't good enough. -Wetman 02:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gospel of Thomas irrelevancies

message: I am opposed to the entire AD/CE edit war. If I notice any further edit, from either side, that only switches the style, and it is not supported by consensus on this talk page, I intend to revert it.
I do not consider it obvious which is preferable, and will cheerfully supply arguments for either. Neither is obviously "less colored", which is why this wasteful war has been fought in good faith. Septentrionalis 18:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel guilty. But the article had originally CE form. Then someone changed it into AD. The person did't change anything else. I was annoyed with such change, I think such editing shouldn't be tolerated, and changed it back. (Don't laugh at me.) Then the situation happened again. The IP was quite similar, so I believe that the person revisited the article. I at least tried to do something else for the article, and not just to roll it back and forth. AD means  "in the year of the Lord", so it states that Jesus is the Lord. There isn't an official recommendation in Wikipedia for either style. But I have become quite sensible about religious topics when editing Wikipedia. I see regularly how someone moans in articles how awful the subject is (, ), and thought that the style change was something "How unchristian!"-POV moaning. But on the other hand, many Gnostic sects saw Jesus as their saviour figure, so AD isn't that bad style for the article. -Hapsiainen 20:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating

message: Proposed Addition The Kabbalah article has a Gnosticism and Kabbalah section, is a similar/identical section needed here on the Gnostic side? (BTW&JIC, I realized the link between Gnosticism and Kabbalah was generally missing while looking at the Alan Moore, Promethea and Kabbalah pages.)
--Xpi6 09:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gnosticism and Kabbalah

message: I read the whole thing and I still don't understand what Gnosticism is.
This article is confusing and complicated.  
It uses complex words when simple would suffice. 
Maybe the original author wasn't a native english speaker.  I don't know.  But, it needs work.
--Capsela 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly it might be due to the article as discussed elsewhere on this page, but partly it is also related to the fact that Gnosticism really is a complicated doctrine, it was probably even intended to be hard to understand, that is sometimes the sole point of esoteric thought systems: "getting it" means you achieve gnosis. Unlike major religious movements, religions of this type does certainly not have the intent that anyone should understand them. While Wikipedia does its best to decloud this religion it simply is not easy, by the way, do you find articles like Z-transform or RNA interference easier to understand? Why should Gnosticism be any easier? Its inventors surely believed it to be the most complex knowledge, partly only accessible to the Aeons themselves. Nixdorf 20:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense Nixdorf, but that sounds like a load of poop.  Gnosticism = knowledge of poop.  Or marketing through obscurity.  Or pseudo-mysterious new-age poop.--Capsela 15:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The offense could be taken by the Gnostics whereof there are few left... But really: poop was around in the year 400, bad products probably also, but marketing as we know it today certainly was not around, lest you define it very loosely. That marketing should be non-obscure is the total opposite of a gnostic world view, poopy or not. As far as we know the Gnostics were not "marketing" their religion, if you wanted to know about it you had to ask, and they might tell you if they find you worthy, so naturally this thought system was not cast in easy-to-understand terms. However its New Age influences can be quite easily dismissed as New Age is a 20th century phenomenon lest you define it very widely as any syncretism, as the mixture of proto-christianity and platonism that I believe Gnosticism really is. Nixdorf 21:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is obtuse 

message: I'd like to make some suggestions towards a wholesale revision of this article.  On the whole, I think the article as it stands is fairly strong (I would say that, since I contributed quite a bit of material to it - material which, if anything, only contributes to the problems of the article) but I think there's just not enough information concerning the historical development of gnosticism, its sources, the philosohpical context of its emergence (especially the importance of Platonist philosophy as a driving force behind its use of metaphor), the development of modern assessments of gnosticism and the related difficulties present in arriving at a broad, unifying categorical definition.  I've written about these problems extensively, above.
Anyway, I'd like to suggest a new layout, which I think would unify the thrust of the sections into something more coherent - please let me know what you think.
*Overview
*Etymology
#Meaning of 'gnosis' as a designation of a certain form of knowing
#Philosophical context - the important thing here would be to ground Gnosticism in the context of the Greek philosophy it finds itself in, as being a general striving for knowledge - the great change made by Gnosticism is to place this striving within a specifically religious context, through a unification with Judeo-Christian mythology.
##Platonist context of the term gnostikoi - that is, those capable of knowing - first used by Plato in the Politicus
##Aristotelian influence - the bios theoretikos - the pursuit of knowledge being the aim of life, attained through contemplation unmarred by manual labour)
##Neoplatonism - the similarities between Neoplatonist agendas and certain Gnostic agendas (esp Valentinians).  A mention of modern efforts to assess the true intentions of Plotinus' 'Address to the Gnostics', as being an address to Christianity in general, rather than to Gnostic schools specifically (the latter conception arising due to confusion re modern usages of the terms 'gnostic' and 'heretic' versus ancient usages, confusions arising due to modern editing, and the transmission of Plotinus text through the mediation of Porphyry)
*Sources
#Heresiologists and gnostic detractors
##Justin - the First Apology to Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, which mentions the lost Syntagma, which summarizes the heresies of Simon, Menander and Marcion.
##Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses - the transmission of Irenaeus conceptions of gnosticism to modern scholars should be pointed out, as it ties in with the close of the article
##Hippolytus
##Tertullian
##And so on (the list could expand to include Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis...  The importance of this section in coming first is that the modern categorical definitions of gnosticism arrive from the conceptions of these first attempts to define its nature by early orthodox writers - which brings about problems considering their avowed antagonism to it, which would tie in with the scholarly difficulties that would be mentioned towards the end of the article)
#The Nag Hammadi Library
##Discovery at NH (a history of the find)
##Translation (this would have to make some mention of the difficulties encountered in first acquiring and then rendering the text in modern languages, as noted by Bentley Layton in The Gnostic Scriptures)
##Significance of NH, in allowing an access to undiluted gnostic texts and philosophies
##List of texts found at NH
*Nature and Structure of Gnosticism
#Main features of Gnosticism
##A typological model - I've written about this at length, above.  Basically, this would amount to a list of general criteria-for-inclusion within the article; in short, these would be:
###The notion of a remote, supreme and unknowable monadic divinity;
###The introduction by emanation of further divine beings, which are nevertheless identifiable as aspects of the God from which they proceeded;
###The identification of the fall as a occurence within divinity itself, rather than as occuring entirely through human agency (the myth of Sophia);
###The introduction of a distinct creator god, who is named as in the Platonist tradition demiurgos (his derivation from figures in Plato's Timaeus and Republic should be mentioned here), elsewhere 'Ialdabaoth', who is sometimes ignorant of the superior God, and sometimes malevolent, and thus opposed to it;
###The estimation of the world, owing to the above, as flawed or a production of 'error' but nevertheless as good as its constituent material might allow, or in certain cases as evil and constrictive, a deliberate prison for its inhabitants;
###The explanation of this state through the use of a complex mythological-cosmological drama in which a divine element 'falls' into the material realm and lodges itself within certain human beings; from here, it may be returned to the divine realm through a process of awakening; the salvation of the individual thus mirrors a concurrently restoration of the divine nature; and thus individual redemption becomes a cosmically significant event;
###Knowledge as a central factor in this process of restoration, acheived through the mediation of a redeemer figure (Christ, or, in other cases, Seth or Sophia).
#Rituals and practise - an examination of the evidence for/against libertinism (mainly a heresiological allegation) and ascestism (for which much more evidence exists), and a description of some Gnostic rituals (such as the Bridal Chamber of the Valentinians)
#Dualism and monism - an examination of the tendencies towards dualism in early Gnostic strands (for example, the Book of John), contrasted with later attempts to refine this stance into a form of monism, as may be found in Valentinian myths wherein materiality, accordingly, has a 'ignorant' rather than an 'evil' status, and is taken to be a form of perceptive error, rather than a distinct mode of being altogether.  This section would require careful citation and construction, but is highly necessary - one of the central problems of modern conceptions of Gnosticism is an over-reliance on simplistic assessments of matter versus spirit, body versus soul, in short, a tendency to accept rather than to test allegations of dualism. I recommend checking out the work of Michael Allen Williams with regard to this - his work is seminal, and highly regarded.
#Major Gnostic schools - a basic breakdown of Gnostic schools and their central texts - this would essentially reproduce the Gnostic sects section in the current article
*History - an exploration of the history and evolution of Gnostic ideas, from the Sethian schools into the later Valentinian systems, Manichaeism, Mandeanism and so on.  Potentially, this could mention such later movements as Catharism, but only as a movement influenced by gnosticism, not gnosticism itself.
*Gnosticism in modern times - this section in the current article is, basically, a mess.  We have a mixture of those who studied Gnosticism and wrote on it (Jung, Mead, Jonas, Voegelin, Blavatsky), those who may have referenced gnostic texts but for which there is insufficient proof (Blake) and modern 'revivals' of gnosticism (Crowley, Hoeller, Iohannes), with no differentiation between the respective agendas or interests of these parties.  Perhaps a separation, along the lines I've mentioned, or a presentation in chronological or alphabetical order?  Nevertheless, some form of organisation is required.
*Gnosticism in pop culture - as above, we have a mixture of those who echo, reference and revive gnosticism (or even simpyl 'touch on', with little clear explication of such vague assertions), with no clear divisions, or any organisation (perhaps 'music', 'literature' and 'film').
*Gnosticism as a potentially flawed category
#Mention the efforts of schloars to arrive at a unified understanding of what gnosticism is in such conventions as that held in Messina in 1966.  The result of such conventions were disappointing, arriving only at tentatively worded proposals, and created as much new confusion as it clarified the concept of gnosticism (cf Christoph Markschies, Gnosis).
#An examination of the problems with the term itself, as being a wholly modern construction, rather than one that was used in antiquity (eg. 'Catholic') or which makes reference to a particular derivation or unified origin for the movement ('Platonism').
#The modern scholarly assessments of gnosticism as an inadequate or even fundamentally flawed 'modern typological construct', as being too wholly derived from heresiological conceptions, too emphatic concerning points of cohesion without sufficient recognition of common deviations from such points and the common, overly simplistic assessments of gnostic agendas as being summarised as 'body-' or 'matter-hatred'; basically, the problems with viewing gnosticism as basic anticosmism.  This would draw heavily on the works of Williams (noted above), who seek to examine the usefulness of the blanket term in allowing a meaningful discussion of its constituents; ultimately, Williams concludes that the term has outlived its usefulness, and requires replacing.
I think this layout would offer a more unified, historical view of gnosticism, rather than straddling an explication of 'gnosis' as an apparent perennial philosphy and 'gnosticism, a single historical occurrence of the aforesaid philosophy, as the article seems to do now.  The greatest advantage of a new approach (as I see it) would be to unify the thrust of the article both chronologically (within limits) and developmentally, beginning with the simplest and most basic conceptions of gnosticism (a la Irenaeus et al) and ending on the most recent scholarly endeavours to resolve its difficulties.  
Probably the best way to go about it would be to alter and organize those sections of the current article that are to be kept, and then to work on material for the new sections; summaries of Gnostic myths should probably be moved to the articles related to the texts or movements from which they are derived.  Any comments and suggestions would be sincerely appreciated (I would say more, but it's twenty past one where I am, and I need sleep...) Cheers all, Visual Error 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, it's a go for me. Could you do some intermediate work on a sub-page like Gnosticism/New heading layout and merge back when we see how it looks? I'm a little worried that it could turn out that the heading order is too "scholarly" (too academic) and will not satisfy what the average reader comes to the Gnosticism entry looking for. However a well composed opening paragraph solves that I believe. Another issue is if this should need some splitting into sub-articles, we have avoided this for long, but it may be imminent. Nixdorf 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing man, I'll get to work as soon as I can!  As to the splitting up of the page, I think this would only strengthen things - movements like Valentinianism or Sethianism probably do require their own pages in order to fully explicate their minutiae (if only because the general descriptions of gnosticism have to abstract so much to fully cover the movements it involves). I hear your recommendations on the opening paragraph - I'll do my best.  Visual Error 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an excellent fresh start. Some of the current text even would fit within the new schema. --Wetman 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess the idea must be to enhance form without losing any content... Nixdorf 21:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section headings

message: Can more people contribute to this in the Heaven's Gate article, or add it to the Modern times section. Their is a superficial resemblence to the Philosophy. They are not completely the same (instead of a transcendent platonic realm, there is another planet, instead of merely knowing, their is also reincarnation into a space-ship) but their general feeling for this planet's reality are similar.
IdeArchos 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heaven's Gate (cult)|Heaven's Gate]]