Gnosticism (Part 3): Basilides, the Singularity, Heredity & Psychology
“The nonexistent God wished, without intelligence, without sense, without will, without choice, without passion, without desire, to make a Universe. I say that he ‘wished’ for the sake of saying something, but it was actually also without wish, without intelligence, without sense; and I say ‘universe’ in reference not to the one with breadth and divisibility which came into existence later and continued to exist, but to the seed of that universe. The seed of the universe had everything within it, just as the grain of mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32), collecting everything in the smallest space, contains it all together—roots, stem, branches, innumerable leaves, seeds of the grains generated from the plants, and seeds of still other plants, when they are scattered. Thus the nonexistant God made a nonexistent universe out of the nonexistent, establishing and giving substance to one certain seed which had within it the whole semination of the universe. It is like the egg of some variegated and many-colored bird, such as the peacock or some other bird, an egg which though one has within it many forms of multiform, many-colored, many-constituted substances. Thus the non-existent seed, established by the nonexistent God as the semination of the universe, was at the same time polymorphous and many-substanced.”—St. Basilides
In the first part of this serious, Gnosticism (Part 1): Basilides & Atheism, I elaborated on the crypto-atheistic and quasi-Epicurean aspects of Basilides' teachings (which are in line with gnostic teachings in general). Now I want to talk more specifically about the aspects of Basilides' thought that overlap with modern scientific theory. I do not wish to say that his ideas were scientific, but merely to point out places where he seems to have been on to something.
The Initial Singularity vs. Basilides' "Panspermia"
Basilides spoke of a panspermia or "all-seed" which was implanted in this universe from outside of this universe. He held that this "all-seed" contained all matter compressed into an infinitesimally small space, "without breadth." This panspermia of Basilides is basically equivalent to the singularity spoken of by modern astronomers. Some theoretical physicists and astronomers postulate that there was an "initial singularity" in which all of the matter, energy, and space-time in the whole universe was contained within the gravitational singularity of an infinitely dense point. This singularity exploded with the big bang and threw out all the matter, energy, and space-time that was originally contained within it. Like these modern scientists, Basilides held that everything in our universe was once contained under extreme pressure within a single dense point or singularity.
Heredity vs. "Metempsychosis"
It is also interesting to me that Basilides and Valentinius seem to have had a doctrine of metempsychosis that bordered on a theory of heredity. The animalistic passions, according to these gnostics, are actually "appendages" that we more or less inherited. However, the inheritance is not a biological inheritance but a spiritual inheritance. The gnostics taught a doctrine of metempsychosis or the "transmigration of souls" (e.g. reincarnation). The human soul, having passed through many animal incarnations, was said to have picked up "appendages" along the way, thereby inheriting animalistic passions and characteristics. These animalistic instincts and passions were regarded as "spirits" or "demons" that attached themselves to the soul along its journey.
"The adherents of Basilides are in the habit of calling the passions 'appendages': saying that these are in essence certain spirits attached to the rational soul, through some original perturbation and confusion; and that, again, other bastard and heterogeneous natures of spirits grow on to them, like that of the wolf, the ape, the lion, the goat, whose properties showing themselves around the soul, they say, assimilate the lusts of the soul to the likeness of the animals. For they imitate the actions of those whose properties they bear. And not only are they associated with the impulses and perceptions of the irrational animals, but they affect the motions and the beauties of plants, on account of their bearing also the properties of plants attached to them. They have also the properties of a particular state, as the hardness of steel. But against this dogma we shall argue subsequently, when we treat of the soul. At present this only needs to be pointed out, that man, according to Basilides, preserves the appearance of a wooden horse, according to the poetic myth, embracing as he does in one body a host of such different spirits. Accordingly, Basilides' son himself, Isidorus, in his book, About the Soul attached to us, while agreeing in the dogma, as if condemning himself, writes in these words: 'For if I persuade any one that the soul is undivided, and that the passions of the wicked are occasioned by the violence of the appendages, the worthless among men will have no slight pretence for saying, 'I was compelled, I was carried away, I did it against my will, I acted unwillingly;' though he himself led the desire of evil things, and did not fight against the assaults of the appendages. But we must, by acquiring superiority in the rational part, show ourselves masters of the inferior creation in us.' For he too lays down the hypothesis of two souls in us, like the Pythagoreans, at whom we shall glance afterwards.
Valentinus too, in a letter to certain people, writes in these very words respecting the appendages: There is one good, by whose presence is the manifestation, which is by the Son, and by Him alone can the heart become pure, by the expulsion of every evil spirit from the heart: for the multitude of spirits dwelling in it do not suffer it to be pure; but each of them performs his own deeds, insulting it oft with unseemly lusts. And the heart seems to be treated somewhat like a caravanserai. For the latter has holes and ruts made in it, and is often filled with dung; men living filthily in it, and taking no care for the place as belonging to others. So fares it with the heart as long as there is no thought taken for it, being unclean, and the abode of many demons. But when the only good Father visits it, it is sanctified, and gleams with light. And he who possesses such a heart is so blessed, that 'he shall see God.'"―Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Book 2, Ch. 20)
This gnostic idea of the soul inheriting appendages from previous incarnations in animal form reminds me of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin. Both doctrines explain sin in terms of inheritance. The gnostics said sin was inherited from animals via metempsychosis. The Orthodox said sin was inherited from our ancestors biologically. According to the Orthodox notion of ancestral sin, we inherited the fear of death and the survival instinct from our ancestors. The desire for self-preservation and survival, driven by the fear of death, is the root cause of our sinfulness. The Roman Catholics, on the other hand, said that the guilt of Adam's sin was inherited. Thus, the Roman Catholic doctrine differs from the Orthodox, insofar as the Catholic doctrine entails the notion of "inherited guilt."
It's also interesting to note that Basilides and Valentinius were correct in asserting that the human body contains multiple “spirits” or psyches. Modern neuroscientists are quite aware of this. The fact that there are multiple centers of consciousness in a single brain can be demonstrated by the case of split-brain patients who have undergone a callosotomy as treatment for epilepsy. The severity of seizures in a person with severe epilepsy can be greatly reduced by severing the corpus callosum which connects the two sides of the brain. After the surgery, each side of the brain becomes a separate center of consciousness and the two sides of the brain can no longer communicate directly. The illusion of a unified center of consciousness is created by the unifying neural connections between different parts of the brain. If those neural connections are severed, the unity of the mind is lost. Just as the corpus callosum connects the two sides of the brain and unites two centers of consciousness into one, it would be possible to connect two separate brains together and create a unified consciousness out of two individuals. Then there is dissociative identity disorder or multiple personality disorder, in which a person experiences multiple personalities or conscious individuals within their own head. Additionally, there are the phenomena of diamons in ancient Greece, yidams (mentally constructed meditational deities) in Buddhism, “spirit guides” in theosophy, and tulpas in chaos magick. All of these mystical entities seem to be manifestations of separate centers of consciousness within the human mind. Mystics and psychonauts may even experience “ego death,” in which the illusion of unified consciousness fades away. So, from the perspective of psychology, the gnostics were on to something.
Hello @ekklesiagora,
Congratulations! Your post has been chosen by the communities of SteemTrail as one of our top picks today.
Also, as a selection for being a top pick today, you have been awarded a TRAIL token for your participation on our innovative platform...STEEM.
Please visit SteemTrail to get instructions on how to claim your TRAIL token today.
If you wish to not receive comments from SteemTrail, please reply with "Stop" to opt out.
Happy TRAIL!
I believe the biblical idea is through Adam, our federal head (we could not have done any better than him), we all are guilty and subsequently corrupt.
http://biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-22.htm
On the flipside, God will impute His righteousness via His death to those who He has purposed it would be so.
http://biblehub.com/romans/4-8.htm
Psalm 32
Of David. A maskil.[a]
"1
Blessed is the one
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
2
Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord does not count against them
and in whose spirit is no deceit."
To conclude, specifically I believe in guilt imputed but I do believe there is Scripture to suggest it is inherited by the seed of our fathers. The LORD was born of the Spirit; therefore, He did not inherit a sin nature. This is significant for the atonement.
The particular form of original sin and the transmission of guilt via the "federal headship of Adam" started as a Reformed/Calvinist view during the Reformation. This view is quite different and doesn't have anything particularly to do with inheritance. But that is a re-interpretation of original sin, and it is a relatively recent/modern way of looking at it. (A great deal of my studies in Christianity were in Reformed theology, particularly focusing on the thought of John Calvin and of Cornelius van Til.)
The doctrine of "original sin" is exclusively a Western Christian doctrine (Roman Catholic and Protestant). The doctrine of "original sin" as inherited guilt, the classical form of the doctrine, was first put forth by Ambrosiaster in the 4th century, and then popularized by Augustine afterwards. The Church Fathers prior to that didn't really have that understanding of original sin. The Eastern Church never taught that, and still doesn't to this day (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Nestorian/Assyrian Church of the East, Monophysite/Oriental Orthodox Church, etc.). The classical Western Christian version of the doctrine of "original sin" said that the guilt and concupiscence were transmitted through propagation, more or less biologically, because the child is born with a human nature inherited from their parents, but we receive fallen and corrupted human natures. That's why they had the idea of the "Immaculate Conception" in Roman Catholic theology, teaching that the Virgin Mary was born without the "stain of original sin," because the guilt and concupiscence were transmitted through biological inheritance, so Christ would have been conceived in sin if Mary herself hadn't been immaculately conceived (i.e. conceived without the guilt of original sin).
To be clear though, the "federal headship" interpretation does seem more consistent with the biblical passages that the notion of original sin is based on, but Christians prior to the Protestant Reformation never really thought of that.
On the contrary, if these views are biblical which I assert they are, they did not start with the Reformation. The plan started from the foundation rather.
I am supralapsarian to the very core. God's purposes were always to glorify His Son in the perfect sacrifice for the people chosen before time. Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation afterall.
If original sin was not by design, what purpose would there be in this sacrifice? There are a few necessary implications and imputed guilt is absolutely one of them.
That's fine. I just disagree. I don't believe in God or the Bible. And I don't think the Bible is a single coherent book. It's a collection of books by many many different folks, and all of them had very different views and opinions. The Bible is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, and Christian theologians just lumped texts from different schools of thought together and try to interpret away inconsistencies and make sense of the mess. Galatians 3:28 and James 2:24 were written by authors with directly opposing views, the two writers were writing against each other. The Book of Revelation appears to have originally been a gnostic work (cf. the allusion to the Hebdomad/seven Archons: Revelation 13:1 & 17:9-10). In the Old Testament, God says "thou shalt make no graven images," then in another place tells the Israelites to decorate the Temple with all kinds of graven images.
Most of Christian doctrine, regardless of which denomination you talk about, is just the church reading its own beliefs into the scriptures. I mean, the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity, as they are presently understood, are hard to find in an unbiased reading of the Bible. These ideas evolved and developed over time.
Also, I don't think St. Paul really had such a notion of original sin either. The federal headship view is more consistent with the relevant passages, but I think latter Christians are just reading more into it than Paul really meant. He was writing a letter, not expecting people to regard his words as "the Word of God." He wasn't trying to be precise. And, the original sin interpretation was largely reinforced by a mis-translation of Romans 5:12 into Latin. I think St. Paul was really teaching "ancestral sin" (as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church), not original sin. If he were teaching original sin (which I do not think is the case), then the federal headship notion is more consistent with his writings than the Catholic notion of inherited guilt is. However, I don't think St. Paul was teaching either "inherited guilt" or "federal headship", but rather the "ancestral sin" idea, as the Eastern Churches have interpreted his writings.
Absolutely not. The problem is you were taught about Christianity from false religion. Every one of those 66 books is God breathed (theopneustos) and each of the 40 or so authors spoke in one accord. The problem is when dead sinners try to make sense of it. In trying to maintain their often works based, performance based theological "righteousness" systems, they put Scripture at odds with itself when there was no disharmony in the divine message to begin with. Scholarly men, just like the Scribes and Pharisees of old, like to put together lofty systems of vain philosophy rather than submitting to the righteousness of Christ as revealed in the one true gospel, the only one under heaven and earth by which men are saved. They do this to their shame.
James was not talking about being a "fruit inspector" as if God given faith in its proper object can be validating by outward morality. He was calling already regenerate wealthy believers to help out their fortunate brethren. It was regarding the principle of justification before men which is distinct from justification before God.
Samson was justified by faith. He was a mess. David was justified by faith. He, too, would be considered a mess by the "religious authorities" of our day. He even committed adultery giving Gods enemies occasion to blaspheme. Still yet, He believed (or rather was caused to) upon the LORD, our righteousness and was justified. Not based on his merit but rather of the Only Begotten Son.
The formula has not changed one iota. Salvation by grace alone through faith in the perfect death of the Savior prefigured throughout the OT. This isn't anything new but the spiritual dead cannot ascertain. It requires God choosing. Yea, He is sovereign. For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
In conclusion, it comes as no surprise that you reject "Christianity". The amount of sheer stupidity, hocus pocus, and cognitive dissonance in modern false religion is astounding. But I tell you today, the real gospel will appear as "foolishness" to they that are perishing, yes even the savor of death unto death. But to they that are of the lost sheep such will be the power of God unto salvation, yea a savor of life unto life!
All I can say is that I used to believe what you believe. I read C.S. Lewis and Cornelius van Til, studied Greek, read all the early Christian writings that I could find, etc. I believed with nearly absolute certainty that Christianity was true. But, I went on to read Karl Popper, Charles Darwin, and others....and I just followed the arguments to their logical conclusion, and now I don't believe in Christianity anymore. I just became convinced that it wasn't true.
If you are interested in what I believed and why, and why I stopped believing, you can check out my zine on the subject:
http://www.anarchistsocialdemocracy.com/pdf%20Documents/An%20Atheistic%20Critique%20of%20Christian%20Apologetics.pdf
Thank you for sharing your experience. I really appreciate your candor. I can't seem to respond to your latest comment so will respond in this one. Hope it's not a problem and I pray you are open to discussing these types of things. I perceive you are an intelligent person and very articulate at that.
First, I will provide some background of my convictions.
I believe apostasy of an actually born again believer is impossible. There are a few Scriptures of which I base this claim of which you are probably versed. Rom 11:29, John 10:28 to name a couple. I aware of the verses that are used as counterargument but my contention are these are they that have tasted of the heavenly, perhaps assenting to a few propositions of the gospel, but never were given the whole pill so to speak. I believe the Spirit converts a believer to assent to the whole gospel package. These that have "fallen away" never truly had God's grace. They departed from us because they were not of us. I'm sure you are familiar with that one.
My assertion is there are many that considered themselves regenerate, in the fold, but their false religion was never fully flushed down the toilet. They had some underlying assumption that was subtly perverting their gospel. Loudly they would affirm salvation is in Christ alone but quietly in the back their head their was a "plus", a nefarious something else that wasn't Christ's death.
A notable instance of this I became aware was in the case of a particular Landmark baptist, a professing Sovereign Gracer. Yes, even to the point he would vehemently deny Arminianism as a false gospel (which it is) and rightly condemn Lordship salvation / tolerant calvinism (essentially the two other sides of the damned conditionalist coin if you will). The irony is this person had some conditions of his own smuggled in from Landmarkism.
He eventually aposticized and now is also an evangelist for Darwinism and the sci-fi religion of the state. I don't know your case personally but will give your an article a read time permitting. I believe it will be educational even. Nevertheless, even though you reject it now, I don't suppose you will always be in that state. Peace and grace unto you.