h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Next time I'm going to proof read before I post.

YB

From what I have read about Gnosticism, there are at least two strands - Christian and non-Christian gnosticism. I don't know which pre-dated which... What I find most interesting, is the anti-flesh, anti-world view of some Gnostics... which is a charge some people make against Christianity!

Did God create atheists? You seem to be saying that people are what they are, and can never change! In my experience, people change and grow through out their lives - take political beliefs for instance.

Christian and non-Christian gnosticism
call me stupid, but logic dictates (non) must have come first then it would have been the only strand!!
if there are just two,(but there are almost as many religeons as races,all religeons have sub divisions)
depending on your view re religeon,
i:e if adam and eve where the start,
there would be only two!

YB. The dictionary definition of God isn't really sufficient for proper discussion. Swinburne:

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/philosophy/0198240708/toc.html

suggests something along the following lines: 'A bodiless personal being, omnipresent, perfectly free and creator of the universe, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, a source of moral obligation, and eternal.'

toxx

The notion that god created everything would imply to me that atheist were certainly made by god, it doesn’t matter whether they change or not, that’s all part of human potential We change , grow and develop in a multitude of way throughout our lives. This includes our ability to worship a god or not OR are you saying that god did not make atheists, he made only people who have the potential to worship him !

I would agree that question could be regarded as one of definition. Of course we need to define something before we can begin to discuss and analyse it. If we didn’t how would we know what we were talking about Clearly, where god is concerned we haven’t got a clue because there are so many interpretations and religions
I agree with YB. I am uncomfortable with the notion that god can mean what ever you want it to mean. This would be fine if it were not for the perceptions and implications attached to different strains of god/s belief.

Moxonthemoon

Matholwch

Whilst I agree that once it is written down it can easily become dogma unless it is held by the reader to be an opinion or view, which lamentably it often isn't, (The same thing happens with what people see on TV they saw it so it must be true without any critical view of the agenda or editing among other things)I dont agree that it has no relavance to modern society.

Personaly I dont think humans have changed all that much over time, and the kinds of agendas that are brought to modern discussion, politics and that continuation of politics by other means known as war, are not too dissimilar to those of the first century, or other times for that matter.

I dont subscribe to the view that we have become the enlightened tolerant society we aspire to yet. Although I acknowledge that there are some distinctly hopeful trends in secular opinion.

I might even argue that the context of the first century ce is more similar to that of today than is at first apparent. The world political picture bares some interesting parallells: after a long period of two superpowers confronting each other (USA vs USSR today CARTHAGE and ROME then) one got the upper hand. The sucsessfull state then encounters a major difficulty with a particular religious ideology, and its most agressive spokesmen, Ozzie Bin Liner is of todays examples, and Jesus Bar Abbas {I always thought that name was an interesting coincidence}and the SICARI are some of the first centuries examples, (BAR KOCHBAR would be a second century example.)

As well as this the tecnological and social changes going on are comparable, at least as a comparison to what went before. Communication in particular was leaping ahead during the first century, principaly throught the construction of permanent and durable highways, but there was a proliferation of, historians (albeit somewhat bound by their own cutural context) and Claudius added at least two letters to the Latin Alphabet. The codex was, if not invented, at least began to replace the scroll as a convenient method of creating portable texts. Roman Telegraph systems meant that messages could be passed from one side of the empire in at most days and at best hours. Relay post was established, and relatively ordinary citizens (Granted a citizen had privlidges most didn't) Might expect a letter sent from Jerusalem to Aquae Sulis (Bath) to take less than two weeks. Literacy was at a historical high, partly because the historians were distributing their work as widely as they could. Claudius reputedly had 100 copies of one of his own histories made (Unfortunately they are now all lost).

The proliferation of new and strange ideologies was given great impetus by this, Christianity was just one of them, Mithraism another Gnosticism another ect ect.

The Internet is the best modern example and it is easy to search the internet and discover all sorts of wierd and wonderful beliefs and ideologies being promoted by their own adherants in a very similar fashion.

I think understanding the puzzle of the development of the Christian church has a lot to teach us about todays world, particularly as it realtes to power, similarly I dont think that the anchient world can be properly understood without reference to the themes and issues which are current today.

An interesting question then arrises for me, will we see a benevolent Islamic Heresy develop over the next century, (I dont mean to imply Islam as a religion is not at a fundamental level benevolent, just as 1st century Judaeism was). Prehaps the Teachings of Malcom X will be viewed in a new light, prehaps his martyrdom will become more significant, prehaps the Farakand will try to own his message despite Macom distancing himself from the Nation in favour of more traditional Muslim beliefs.

Just a thought.

Precognition would be such a useful power.





The opportunities for

Hi Moxo. According to Theism, God made us with freewill. That had to include the choice in whether to believe in Him or anything else. It would not have been right to make a race of slaves, although apparently angels are (with one notable exception, it seems) incapable of sin.

The definition I've offered is widely accepted by Theists. It has been debated in print, and can be altered to accommodate Deism etc. I think that it's as good a working starting point as any.

toxx

Gnosticism and the definition of god would seem to be linked themes, and ones which link to what I increasingly believe may well have been the central 'new' theme that christianity brought into the philosophical discourse of Judea.

Roman Christianity would seem to me have clung to the Judaic belief that not only is there one god but he can only be known in one way, ie the definitions and descriptions to be found in 'scripture'.

I believe that Gnosticism offered the possibility that god could be experienced individually. There was something in the Christian message as it was delivered to those who first heard it that led them to believe god could be expereinced individualy, and that that expereince was as valid as the next man's/or woman's. This leads to there being many more than one or two or three strands in Gnostic thinking. The emphasis on the individual expereience gives to and demands responsibility from the individual, it would seem to be this fact which most worried the Roman Church, with it's emphasis on the role and power of Bishops and presbyters, self regulating individuals.

The diversity of Gnostic literature never ceases to amase me, so much that I would have to do considerable research to pin down which qote comes from which text. Sufice to say the idea in one text that the god Jehova must be a fraud, simply because he claims to be a jelous god seems to me inspired.

the argument is basically, if he is the one true god, and there are no others, then who is he jelous of? By definition then he cannot be the creator, he is something less than a pure definition of omniscience and omnipotence, Interestingly the same text then speculates on the possibility of a mother godess who is all seeing and all knowing, and with whom the Jehova figure is estranged.

I think it is hard to claim there are Christian and non Christian strands in Gnosticism, clearly Christianity and Gnosticism grew up alongside each other, both to my mind include aspects of eastern thought Roman thought Helenistic thought... ect.

Clearly there were Gnostics who did not regard themselves as Christian, but were also influenced heavily by the Christian component of Gnosticism.


Interestingly I have heard it suggested that it was gnostic influence (Possibly through the auspices af an Apostle which was responsible for the developmeent of the Krishna Cult in Western india. Whilst I am sceptical suspecting this thought was inspired by similar sounding names, there are traditions of Apostolic missions to india.

It is possible to define 'god' in almost any way you like, personally I don't believe my finite human brain is able to describe something which is by the only definition I feel able to make: infinite. I imagine he/she/it is indifferent to us and we probably wouldn't like it if he/she/it wasn't.

I forgot to add: by following the link to Swinburnes book, you can find what he means by 'omnipotence' etc set out very clearly. Only the abstracts are freely viewable, but they are very useful.

toxx

I may be wrong, but as I understand it the pre-dating theme linked to gnosticism, is not so much that there was a gnostic church before christianity, more that the philosophical themes can be found in the meeting of philosophies that took place in the first century bce abd the first century ce, ie Roman Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Persian, Judaic, indian, ect... ect...

The Roman status as Superpower meant that open conflict between different ideologies (Except the roman state with everyone else of course) was not productive and for the first time probably in their histories these different ideologies began arguing with each other, there is more than one historian who has argued that Christianity, Gnosticism and Mythraism among others came about as a result of this.

Christianity just proved the most durable and ruthless in its suppression of contrary doctrines.

Woops missed out a clause

When I said they began arguing with each other I mean of course, without using swords rocks spears hammers shields armour and greek fire ect ect..

<>

By no means - what I meant was that God made people (*I* happen to believe by means of evolution, however that worked - I just have to make that clear)but that God made people free to be what they choose, hold the beliefs they choose - so in that sense God made atheists and believers, both. God gave us minds, and wills and the freedom to choose what to do or not do, believe or not believe. We can't blame God for our choices or actions.

I see the old place has come alive again.

Haven't been around much for a week or two, so first a warm welcome to all our new contributors.

Very interesting discussion. A couple of points to expand on. First is the role of the city of Alexandria in the first and second centuries. A Roman/Greek city in Egypt with substantial Christian and Jewish elements, and described by at least one scholar as Oxford and Cambridge, Harvard and Yale all rolled into one, this was where a lot of the new religious philosophies met and influenced each other.

Second is the role of Persian Zoroastrianism and the Persian Empire. In the sixth century BCE, and over a fairly short time period, the Persian Empire was established from the Indus to the Aegean and from the Caucasus to Egypt, an expansion which has fairly been likened to the explosive rise of Islam twelve centuries later.

The Persians were probably the first to use monotheism and "The Divine Right of Kings" as conscious policies of Imperial consolidation. Most of the OT was written in the Persian period by colonists/religious administrators sent to Jerusalem from Babylon, and similar theocratic outposts were established at several other locations in the Empire. Gnosticism has its roots in *resistance* to the new order expressed in religious terms.

Noggin

Hi Tox, its Mox,
i have clearly overlooked the issue of God creating people with free will. This has to be a crucial factor in the campaign to recruit others in to any given god movement. The idea that people have a choice to join, or burn if they dont, is an excellent incentive scheme !

Plato sets forth the doctrine of the Trinity in his Phaedon, written four hundred years BC. His terms conform most striking with the Christian doctrine on this subject. Plato's first term for the Trinity was in Greek, The Agathon, the supreme God or Father. Next was the Logos meaning the Word and then Psyche meaning the soul, spirit or ghost, the Holy Ghost. The first person was considered the planner of the work of creation, the second person the creator and the third person the ghost or spirit which moved upon the face of the waters, and infused life into the mighty deep at creation. The three names of the Christian Trinity, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are given as plainly as possible.

The Indian emperor Ashoka sent out Buddhist missionaries to the West as far as Macedonia. This would have taken them well within the Celtic cultural area (the Celts at that period extended eastward to Galatia in what is now Turkey)
The Druids were influenced by or adopted the Buddhist teachings they encountered.
The Druids were pan-Celtic and travelled unhindered from one end of the Celtic world to the other, ie from Galatia in the east, westward through Balkans, Austria, Helvetia, Gaul, Galicia, Britain and Ireland.
The main Druidic college was in Britain on the Isle of Anglesey. It drew teachers and students from Ireland, Britain and Continental Europe.
Origen attributed the rapid and unobstructed growth of Christianity in Britain to the foundations laid by the teachings of the Druids and Buddhists [5].
The Gundestrup bowl, a beautiful piece of pre-Christian Celtic craftsmanship, clearly shows a meditating Buddha.
Magatamas - classic Buddhist symbols typically found in the centre of dharma wheels - also appear in pre-Christian Celtic designs.
Celtic mystical art often displays elaborate knotwork designs, which symbolize the interconnectness of all phenomena. Similarly Buddhist philosophy is concerned primarily with interconnectness. In fact, it is the relationships, the interdependencies that are the reality, since objects or subjects are nothing but their connections to other objects and subjects.
The Celtic theologians Pelagius and Johannes Scotus Erigena demonstrate an understanding of human nature that has more in common with the Buddhist view of innate Buddha-mind clouded by animal delusions and misdirected will, than with the Christian doctrine of total corruption of the soul by Original Sin.

Though remaining tolerant of other beliefs, Ashoka promoted Buddhist teachings throughout his dominions by having edicts carved on rocks and pillars:

'Do not perform sacrifices or do anything else that might hurt animals .... Be generous to your friends .... Do not get involved in quarrels and arguments ...Try to be pure of heart, humble and faithful.... Do not think only of your good points, remember your faults as well and try to put them right'


Alji

For more on the above see http://www.aboutulverston.co.uk/celts/celticspirituality.htm

and

Pelagianism, Original Sin and the Druid influence on Celtic Christianity;
http://www.aboutulverston.co.uk/celts/pelagianism.htm


Alji

Alji:

"The Celtic theologians Pelagius and Johannes Scotus Erigena demonstrate an understanding of human nature that has more in common with the Buddhist view of innate Buddha-mind clouded by animal delusions and misdirected will, than with the Christian doctrine of total corruption of the soul by Original Sin."

Pelagius denied Original Sin, so I agree with you there - although I don't know much about Buddhism the statement seems reasonable. Although it should be stated that his contemporary St Augustine of Hippo (d.430) successfully showed that his view was unorthodox. Mind you, Pelagius' doctrine could just as easily (!) have had Roman Stoic roots (he was from the British Isles, but settled in Rome).

But Duns Scotus (d.1308) definitely held the Christian teaching on Original Sin. He even held the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady (as against such noteworthies as St Thomas Aquinas), over 5 centuries before it was officially defined. That doctrine presupposes the Christian teaching on Original Sin, because at its centre is the assertion that Mary, Mother of God, is an exception.

The concept of choosing what one believes is very interesting to me.

If I may use websters first definition: believe v.i. 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.

The problem that I have with choosing what to believe is that I seem unable to do it. What I think is true, I think is true.

Here is what I'm trying to get at: If believe that I'm staring at 3 doughnuts 2 feet in front of me and I decide instead to believe that it is only 1 doughnut and it is nine yards away what I really think is true will not change.

I may change my mind about what I think is true, i.e. how many doughnuts and how far away, but the change cannot be intentional.

The closest thing to intentional belief changing is a phenominon called denial where the unwanted belief is continually shouted down (mentally, of course, in this case) with a contrary assertion.

I am not implying that our minds cannot be changed by others, experience, further investigation, etc. Just that I don't seem to be able to tell myself what to really believe.

Thanks everyone for a place to explore this topic. I can tell I am in the company of intellegent and thoughtful people.

I am looking forward to reading what else you all have to say on this very interesting topic



YB

p.s. I'm glad I proof read that one