Christo-Paganism. Yay or Nay?

[Staff of Sekhmet]

Their purpose was to define what it was to be a Christian, (which they did) anyone who did not profess that belief, were considered heretics, and subject to correction, excommunication, and or death.

 

Yeah but who ever said that Christianity needed such rigid defining? Was Christianity that narrow and rigid in the early centuries? History shows us it was not. I think this was all purely political. I am still not sure how this makes any difference outside the realm of Orthodoxy. Christianity has never been only Orthodox/Roman Catholic. The Oriental Orthodox and Coptics are not Orthodox by Roman definition. They reject Chalcedon and suscribe to Nestorianism

[mlr52]

Yeah but who ever said that Christianity needed such rigid defining? Was Christianity that narrow and rigid in the early centuries? History shows us it was not. I think this was all purely political. I am still not sure how this makes any difference outside the realm of Orthodoxy. Christianity has never been only Orthodox/Roman Catholic. The Oriental Orthodox and Coptics are not Orthodox by Roman definition. They reject Chalcedon and suscribe to Nestorianism

 
The driving force for the first council was the Emperor Constantine, and high ranking Church members.  Its purpose was to have one universal faith.  Times were different then, to question authority, and or not follow what was declared, as the one true faith, was hazardous to your life.

[RandallS]

Well I think councils may play an important role for some Christians, especially if one is Orthodox, but I don't consider myself such. I consider myself traditionalist, but that's only in some of my ideas and in worship.

The major councils came way before the Orthodox split and so defined "Christian" for most (but not all) of the Christian world at the time. While belief before these councils was divided, I can't think of any areas where combining worship with other deities was normal/acceptable.

[HeartShadow]

Yeah but who ever said that Christianity needed such rigid defining? Was Christianity that narrow and rigid in the early centuries? History shows us it was not. I think this was all purely political. I am still not sure how this makes any difference outside the realm of Orthodoxy. Christianity has never been only Orthodox/Roman Catholic. The Oriental Orthodox and Coptics are not Orthodox by Roman definition. They reject Chalcedon and suscribe to Nestorianism

 
As I understand it, the only *political* aspects to determining Christianity was to get people to stop stoning each other in the streets over varying interpretations.

Most people would think that's a good thing.

[Staff of Sekhmet]

The major councils came way before the Orthodox split and so defined "Christian" for most (but not all) of the Christian world at the time. While belief before these councils was divided, I can't think of any areas where combining worship with other deities was normal/acceptable.

 
You ever hear of the Gospel of the Egyptians or Pagan Gnosticism?

[Staff of Sekhmet]

As I understand it, the only *political* aspects to determining Christianity was to get people to stop stoning each other in the streets over varying interpretations.

Most people would think that's a good thing.

I am not sure about that. I think it was a necessary political move, necessary for certain officials, once Christianity was declared the Roman state religion. You can't have an official religion of a state without having an official form.

[RandallS]

You ever hear of the Gospel of the Egyptians or Pagan Gnosticism?

The "Christianity" of Gnosticism is debatable -- even at the time it was a living practice (early Common Era).

[Staff of Sekhmet]

The "Christianity" of Gnosticism is debatable -- even at the time it was a living practice (early Common Era).

 
Is all Christianity besides the Christianity of the Orthodox sect "debatable"?

[RandallS]

Is all Christianity besides the Christianity of the Orthodox sect "debatable"?

Christians get to define their own religion -- including what beliefs, practices, etc. are required to be considered Christian. Non-Christians do not get to decide what is and is not Christian any more than non-Christian religions would allow Christians to decide who is and is not of their religion.

So yes, this means those Christians with "orthodox" beliefs (as they are the overwhelming majority of Christians) get to decide what is and is not Christian.

[Staff of Sekhmet]

So yes, this means those Christians with "orthodox" beliefs (as they are the overwhelming majority of Christians) get to decide what is and is not Christian.

 
Well that's certainly an opinion and you're welcome to it

[Valentine]

The "Christianity" of Gnosticism is debatable -- even at the time it was a living practice (early Common Era).

 
Most than that, the "Gnosticism" of "Gnosticism" is debatable.  There was never really a group of historical people who identified themselves as "Gnostics," as a sect.  What we call "Gnostic" was basically "stuff rejected by guys like St. Anthony" rather than an established body of work of anyone's.  It's a polemical term that, in any of the sources we have, is mostly defined in opposition to the "accepted" doctrine and practice, by the advocates of that accepted doctrine and practice.  We modern folk have mostly invented "the Gnostics" as a group, or even as a group of ideas, out of a handful of buried, decontextualized texts and the very cranky opinions of people saying "And all of them over there--they have it wrong!  that guy, and that guy, and that guy.  Wrong!"  "Gnostic" mostly just means, "stuff edited out of mainstream Christianity during a particular period of time, mostly in the same part of the world."

I always kind of tilt my head at self-identified modern Gnostics.  There's not a set of practices for Gnostics, that we know of. There's not community rituals, particularly, that we know of.  Does it mean, "a big fan of the Gospel of Thomas?"  "repeats lines from The Thunder Perfect Mind fervently and piously before going to sleep?"  "keeps a weather eye out for the Demiurge?"  Which "Gnostic" thinkers do they follow?  Which documents, and which documents are rejected, and by what standards?  In what ways do they differentiate themselves from other Christians?  They aren't rhetorical or accusatory questions; a lot of us have identifications that need explaining, or interrogating, or airing out for sense.  But I stop tilting my head when people have good answers for those questions, and I tilt it further when they don't.

[cigfran]

But I stop tilting my head when people have good answers for those questions, and I tilt it further when they don't.

You should put the questions to Jordan Stratford (a priest in Apostolic Johannite Church), or read any of the great many words he's written on the subject, or even his book.

Personally, I study Gnosticism because the notion of the Demiurge fits with certain portions of my own worldview, because certain aspects of it overlap with other estorica and because the central idea of gnosis - real gnosis, not the overused stand-in term for "speculation and/or imagination" (UPG) - is critical to my personal path. I part company at the doctrine of the Christos, however.

[SunflowerP]

real gnosis, not the overused stand-in term for "speculation and/or imagination" (UPG) - is critical to my personal path.

 
I get cranky when UPG is used to (try to) legitimize any damn bit of speculation/imagination myself.  I have any amount of speculation, imagination, extrapolation, bootstrappery, etc, that I don't count that way, as well as some stuff that I do.  (And nevertheless also differentiate between the flashes of more-than-insight-but-less-than-epiphany that people can have w/r/t their own personal practices/beliefs - UPG - and what I might call capital-g Gnosis, which implies to me more of a body of received knowledge, not just the bits'n'flashes.)

Sunflower

[SunflowerP]

... and the very cranky opinions of people saying "And all of them over there--they have it wrong!  that guy, and that guy, and that guy.  Wrong!"  "Gnostic" mostly just means, "stuff edited out of mainstream Christianity during a particular period of time, mostly in the same part of the world."

 
Business as usual, in the fractious early Christian community.

Sunflower

[Valentine]

You should put the questions to Jordan Stratford (a priest in Apostolic Johannite Church), or read any of the great many words he's written on the subject, or even his book.

Personally, I study Gnosticism because the notion of the Demiurge fits with certain portions of my own worldview, because certain aspects of it overlap with other estorica and because the central idea of gnosis - real gnosis, not the overused stand-in term for "speculation and/or imagination" (UPG) - is critical to my personal path. I part company at the doctrine of the Christos, however.

Well, he--and you--sound like people who've got answers for those sorts of questions just fine.  You're not where I'm tilting my head, I guess I'm saying.

I think I mostly have a standard vexation for people who cherrypick bits of culturally-specific-and-situated movements because they're shiny--people who want to be "Sufis" but have nothing to do with Islam or Muslims, people who want do "do Kabbalah" without touching Judaism, and so on--without knowing what they're talking about, or basing their opinions in some singular, often ignorant polemic, especially while denigrating the faith that the movement they're lauding is intimately part of.  You're not one of those people.  Stratford doesn't seem to be, either.