This is a rip and post from LiveJournal. The following is from a dialogue I had with a conservative Christian on my beliefs at the time. It is naturally more "Christian" than I might word it today, both because of the audience and my position at the time. I suppose I should revisit this at some point, and update.
I should also note that this took place long before my present understanding of Judaism. Apologies if it seems antisemitic now.
Let me start off, in turn, by saying that I do differ in some beliefs from traditional Marcionism. (More on this below.) So, with that in mind...
The "Demiurge," a deity, was responsible for creation, and is a sort of "bad" diety, opposed to the "Christ" deity that indwelt Jesus.
That's a reasonably fair assessment both of classical Marcionism and my own beliefs. I'd add that, unlike most of the ancient Gnostics, I believe that creation was already formed before the Demiurge forged Adam from the dust of the earth. Many Gnostics believe that the Demiurge is responsible for the physical plane; thus, materiality is itself evil. I see no need for that asceticism. (By the way, I'm not sure if traditional Marcionites likewise view the material world as evil. That's something I know to be true of other Gnostic sects.)
This of course means there are multiple deities. (More than just these two? I dunno.)
Yes. The collection of deities is known as the Entirety, to which Marcionites (and most other Gnostics) believe the Hebrew name Elohim refers. The sin of Yaldaboath (the Demiurge) is in denying the Entirety. In so doing, we believe he expelled his power (the power being that given to him by and through the Entirety) and ceased to be part of Them. This is akin to the sin of renouncing the Holy Spirit, in Roman Catholic Dogma.
Jesus was fully man, not divine, and was indwelt by the "Christ" deity who was a separate, fully divine being.
This is perhaps the key difference between my beliefs and the teachings of Marcion. Marcion (along with Arius, et al) rejected the then-budding theology known as homoousion, with which I'm sure you're familiar. I see no way that Jesus, the Christ could have done what He did without being in a state of homoousion. If Christ dwelt in Jesus, then the will and being of Jesus, the man, was subverted; thus, He could not have made the sacrifice to appease the Demiurge in reconciliation of our imperfection vis a vis the Entirety.
Let me explain that one a bit further: The Demiurge created us through Adam. Though Adam was not the first man, we are all descended from Adam through Noah. (And even if one discounts the flood, it's highly likely through intermarriage that everyone now alive would be the descendants of Adam.) The Demiurge condemns Adam, as Adam-- being of the design of the Demiurge-- lacks the essence of being in the Image of God; i.e. one among the Entirety. The Law was given by the Demiurge to condemn the descendants of Adam (again, all of us) because, the Demiurge charges, we are not among the Entirety.
The Law, I'm sure you agree, is fulfilled through Christ. Thus, if Jesus is not the Christ (i.e. is only indwelt by the Christ), He could not have fulfilled the Law, because He would not be of one essence with the Entirety. The Entirety would dwell within Him, but He would still be subject to the Law, and thus unable to fulfill it. Likewise, the Christ had to be man, for if He were not man then He could not fulfill the Law given to condemn man.
The Demiurge is the "God of the OT" while Christ is "God of the NT," illustrated by the OT's focus on wrath and justice versus the NT's focus on grace and forgiveness.
Eh, more or less true, but an oversimplification. The God of Genesis 1is God, the Almighty. The Entirety speaks with one voice throughout Genesis 1. There are other places in both the OT and NT (and in other scriptures) where the Entirety speaks with one voice. IIRC, Isaiah 14 and the Nativity story from the Gospel of Matthew (eh, help me out here... I don't remember the chapter off-hand) are two such examples.
We view "God" as being the Entirety itself; the communion in which all power resides. Thus, it's a bit of a misnomer to call Christ the "God of the NT", as Christ is a part of the Entirety, and not the Entirety as a whole. Now, I do call Christ a God, but that's mainly because I view the Gods as distinct entities. Some Gnostics and Neo-Gnostics-- most notably the famed psychoanalyst Carl Jung-- view the Gods as archetypes; manifestations of either the Entirety or the collective unconscious. (Maybe both; it's been a while since I really delved into Jung.)
The Demiurge is also called the Yaldabaoth, and is referred to in the Gospel of Judas (Nebro).
Well, I haven't heard "the" applied to Yaldaboath in English; this may be a holdover from Koine Greek, where the article kai seems to be applied to darn near every noun. ;-) Also, I'm *this close* to rejecting the Gospel of Judas; it seems not much more than an adaptation of the Gospel of Thomas, written by the Barbelites or some similar sect which wished to use the Demiurge as an excuse to hedonism. (The theory is that by indulging in the material world, one rejects the Law and the Demiurge... er, never mind. That's not all that important for the topic at hand. *grin*) Anyway, while theologically speaking the Barbelites and other adherents of the Gospel of Judas may be more or less correct, philosophically speaking I must reject Barbelism on the same grounds I reject Satanism. As I've often said, faith ought not be based on negatives.
So the God of Genesis 1 is the Entirety before or after Yaldabaoth split off from the Entirety (or do I understand this incorrectly)?
Before.
Either way, where do you place the split and how can you draw that from Scripture - i.e., how do you know where the Entirety speaks/acts and where Yaldabaoth speaks/acts?
The split happened gradually. The creation of Adam was the beginning of the split, but then in Genesis 6 we learn that Yaldaboath repented of the creation of man. By the time Yaldaboath declared himself alone and above all, though, the split was complete.
This happened when he named himself YHWH, or "I am that am". Generally, in Scripture, YHWH refers to Yaldaboath... although, by the time some of the kings and prophets came around, their revelations of the Entirety were channeled through their understanding that YHWH was God. Thus, to repeat an example from earlier, I'm not convinced that Isaiah was referring to Yaldaboath when he speaks of the Lord.
Saturday, July 8, 2006
Monday, April 17, 2006
Easter Thought
Another LiveJournal rip and post:
There's something sublimely ironic about the thought that a person can print a book and call it God, then turn around and try to send me to a place of eternal punishment for daring to worship an eternal Goddess. Before that book was yet a sapling, She was. Before the language of that book was put to print, She was. Before the words of that book were even uttered, She was. She was with the Creator, forming all things, and was delighted every day. Her delights were to be with us. And She will be, even after the last book has turned to dust. She was. She is. She will be, just as the Living Christ was, is, and will be. This is the Word. The rest is written in dust, and the winds are blowing.
Live and love, people. That's all that will survive the dust.
There's something sublimely ironic about the thought that a person can print a book and call it God, then turn around and try to send me to a place of eternal punishment for daring to worship an eternal Goddess. Before that book was yet a sapling, She was. Before the language of that book was put to print, She was. Before the words of that book were even uttered, She was. She was with the Creator, forming all things, and was delighted every day. Her delights were to be with us. And She will be, even after the last book has turned to dust. She was. She is. She will be, just as the Living Christ was, is, and will be. This is the Word. The rest is written in dust, and the winds are blowing.
Live and love, people. That's all that will survive the dust.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
A Short Statement of Belief
On a fundamental level, I believe that there is a power greater than ourselves. I believe that this power is vested in entities which hold love and concern for humanity. I believe that we share a kinship with these entities; in other words, we are in the image of God. I believe it's entirely plausible that we will be asked to be in communion with these entities as equals.
I believe that we are not fit to be equals with these entities as yet. I believe that evil interferes with this, our higher purpose. I believe this evil is manifest most greatly in vainglory, which I would describe as self-interest to the exclusion of others. I believe the entities described above have prescribed the means by which we can overcome this evil.
I realize that these statements are somewhat vague. I'm wording them thusly, because I also believe that faith is not defined by negatives. These are statements which I intend to be in the affirmative, to illustrate my faith.
I believe that we are not fit to be equals with these entities as yet. I believe that evil interferes with this, our higher purpose. I believe this evil is manifest most greatly in vainglory, which I would describe as self-interest to the exclusion of others. I believe the entities described above have prescribed the means by which we can overcome this evil.
I realize that these statements are somewhat vague. I'm wording them thusly, because I also believe that faith is not defined by negatives. These are statements which I intend to be in the affirmative, to illustrate my faith.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Race, Culture, and Religion
Yup, the big three. I've been meaning to do a post such as this for a while now. The thought intensified in my mind as I drove through Tennessee last month, and finally I realized I had to write this post today after seeing a few entries in various Christian communities which are related to these concepts.
First, though, an introduction. I am a Celt. I am descended from the Clan Ó Siadhail, via the Appalachians of Virginia where my ancestors found themselves after escaping slavery (oh, I'm sorry, [involuntary] "indentured servitude") at the hands of the English in or around colonial Williamsburg. We retained our Celtic traditions in the Appalachian hills for about two centuries.
We also retained our Christian religion in those hills in that time; and no, the two were not incompatible. Indeed, the Celts have been practicing Christianity for about 1500 years. Christianity is not a betrayal of the Celtic people, nor should any Celt deny his people by adopting another culture for the sake of religion.
Thus, this is the crux (pun intended) of the problem: There are a number of schools of thought in the modern West regarding race, culture, and religion; none of which seem advantageous to folks such as me. The first school of thought was an overwhelmingly popular one throughout the 20th century: Celts (and other ethnic groups) must assimilate into the prevailing (usually American) culture. This attitude, more than any other, has been responsible for the destruction and near-destruction of cultures in the 20th century. It has also, in the case of the United States, forged an artificial culture, devoid of history or character.
Related to this, but perhaps a distinct idea in its own right, is the thought that Culture doesn't matter; we are a human race who will never know peace until we abandon our distinctions. The end result of this idea is virtually the same as the first: A plastic culture, full of what the Pagans might call "fluff". While the idea is enticing, it does not allow room for cultures to grow and ideas to be shared. Rather, it tends to be stifling, and it tends to ignore the basic human condition that we naturally form into communities. Man is a pack animal, much like dogs and wolves.
So much for the notion of universal culture. But what about the other extreme? Since shortly before World War II, we've had the idea that Christianity (or Islam, in the case of some Middle Eastern cultures) ought to be the exclusive domain of one particular ethnic group. This has led to such foolishness as the idea that the Celts are one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. I shouldn't have to spend time addressing this one, but unfortunately the increasing popularity of certain groups makes it a necessity. Or maybe it just seems to me to be increasing in popularity: I confess that I have relatives for whom this is becoming an appealing idea. Frankly, it's a stupid idea. It obliterates the Celtic culture (or any culture whose members are foolish enough to adopt it), AND it takes down another culture-- namely the Jewish culture-- along with it.
Another idea takes the culture's identity, and magnifies its importance to the point that those holding the idea will not abide by other cultures. This avoids the pitfalls of the other ideas, but there's just one problem: It's pure, unmitigated racism. It's also no way to survive in a modern world, where international cooperation is essential.
To my mind, this leaves one option: Go forward, but remember. The culture survives best if it's allowed to evolve. Not change into something it never was, with a history it never had. Not locked in a box, nor forgotten, nor surrendered to someone else. And above all, not used as a weapon, but a tool.
That's what it means to me.
First, though, an introduction. I am a Celt. I am descended from the Clan Ó Siadhail, via the Appalachians of Virginia where my ancestors found themselves after escaping slavery (oh, I'm sorry, [involuntary] "indentured servitude") at the hands of the English in or around colonial Williamsburg. We retained our Celtic traditions in the Appalachian hills for about two centuries.
We also retained our Christian religion in those hills in that time; and no, the two were not incompatible. Indeed, the Celts have been practicing Christianity for about 1500 years. Christianity is not a betrayal of the Celtic people, nor should any Celt deny his people by adopting another culture for the sake of religion.
Thus, this is the crux (pun intended) of the problem: There are a number of schools of thought in the modern West regarding race, culture, and religion; none of which seem advantageous to folks such as me. The first school of thought was an overwhelmingly popular one throughout the 20th century: Celts (and other ethnic groups) must assimilate into the prevailing (usually American) culture. This attitude, more than any other, has been responsible for the destruction and near-destruction of cultures in the 20th century. It has also, in the case of the United States, forged an artificial culture, devoid of history or character.
Related to this, but perhaps a distinct idea in its own right, is the thought that Culture doesn't matter; we are a human race who will never know peace until we abandon our distinctions. The end result of this idea is virtually the same as the first: A plastic culture, full of what the Pagans might call "fluff". While the idea is enticing, it does not allow room for cultures to grow and ideas to be shared. Rather, it tends to be stifling, and it tends to ignore the basic human condition that we naturally form into communities. Man is a pack animal, much like dogs and wolves.
So much for the notion of universal culture. But what about the other extreme? Since shortly before World War II, we've had the idea that Christianity (or Islam, in the case of some Middle Eastern cultures) ought to be the exclusive domain of one particular ethnic group. This has led to such foolishness as the idea that the Celts are one of the Lost Tribes of Israel. I shouldn't have to spend time addressing this one, but unfortunately the increasing popularity of certain groups makes it a necessity. Or maybe it just seems to me to be increasing in popularity: I confess that I have relatives for whom this is becoming an appealing idea. Frankly, it's a stupid idea. It obliterates the Celtic culture (or any culture whose members are foolish enough to adopt it), AND it takes down another culture-- namely the Jewish culture-- along with it.
Another idea takes the culture's identity, and magnifies its importance to the point that those holding the idea will not abide by other cultures. This avoids the pitfalls of the other ideas, but there's just one problem: It's pure, unmitigated racism. It's also no way to survive in a modern world, where international cooperation is essential.
To my mind, this leaves one option: Go forward, but remember. The culture survives best if it's allowed to evolve. Not change into something it never was, with a history it never had. Not locked in a box, nor forgotten, nor surrendered to someone else. And above all, not used as a weapon, but a tool.
That's what it means to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)