The first is America's peculiar sociology: it has no culture of its own, that is, no set of purely terrestrial associations with places, traditions, ghosts, and whatnot, passed from generation to generation as a popular heritage.

But people keep trying to foist traditions, ghosts and heritage upon us. We forget Cohen's Rule at our peril: history is bad; the more you have the worse off you are.

David--

Is not Cohen's Law derived from the thought of Stephen Dedalus?

I don't know if you or I, Dave, as Jews should buy that rule. If there's one thing we got, it's history.

The key is to understand that while what happened in the past can provide clues as to the present and the future, it is not dispositive as to the present and the future. Things change.

Bart: I've always considered the history of the Jews to be a proof of Cohen's Rule.

As it happens, I love reading history. It is the only school for studying the most important subject, though we see it only through a glass, darkly. Cohen's Rule is aimed at the ancester worship that can only with difficulty be separated from the study of history, in which the enmities and fixations of our fathers' become ours.

It is also aimed at Santayana, who should have kept his big mouth shut.

I know what you mean as I have a tough time keeping perspective. But I'm not as bad as the ADL. Abe Foxman should just change his name to Andre' Maginot to make it simpler to understand what he's doing.

Food for thought (for myself)...
I imagine that the early Christians, especially the apostle Paul and those who, like him, were Jewish, would have embraced Cohen's Rule. Unfortunatly, too few Christians since then have paused to consider the rule's wisdom and enduring applicability to their own lives. Cohen's Rule is wise counsel to this history loving Christian.

Amen, Bart. Sometimes a creche is just a pleasant reminder of the season, rather than the only overt signal that the time has come for the evil conspiracy of Christians and city government to begin their systematic campaign to wipe-out international Jewry.

The english author Neil Gaiman remarked (I'm paraphrasing) that European cultures are deep but narrow, while American culture is shallow but wide.

American Christians are gnostics, they all have a direct line to God. Americans gave up on a central religious authority at the Founding. Our traditions trace back as far as the lat cool idea we had.

Fortunately the Bible prevents that.

Robert:

You apparently know little about orthodox Christianity and the heresy of gnosticism. Gnosticism claimed esoteric, secret connections with the divine power of God. Gnosticism is more akin to the New Age movement in modern America than it is to mainline and evangelical Christianity. I am a Christian, and have a direct connection with God, creator and King of the Universe. However, there's nothing esoteric or secret about it. Anyone, even you, can have this direct relationship with God. I invite you to try it.

Dave:

Actually, Marxism, Freudianism and Darwinism are all basically gnostic religions, aren't they?

I read once that the church is always 2 generations from extinction (can't remember where, probably Lewis).

The point is that Christianity does not claim a lineage to Winthrop or Edwards here in America, but that there is a "lineage" to Paul, to Christ, and all the way back to David and Moses. And it is not something Christians earn or deserve (see Deut. 9 for God's warning to Israel).

Jonathan Edwards preached the Great Awakening at Northampton Mass. Now the home of Smith College and and many thousands of aspiring Janet Renos. Rumor has it that the place resembles nothing so much as Sodom in its heyday. I wonder what he would think if he were to awake from his dirt nap and see his old home town?

Robert,

It's very funny. Massachusetts has always been a religious hotbed. Back in the 18th century, it was a very austere Calvinism which predominated. Today, it is a Socialistic Nihilism. The level of religious fervor remains unchanged however.

Robert: As a proud Northamptonite, I must speak up for the city:

1. As a whole, it isn't that far left. I'm not even the only Republican voter, although the town did go for Kerry 80%-18.3%. Northampton was Kerry's tenth best town in the Commonwealth.

2. Smith is still a good school and, in any event, its cultural influence is pretty much confined to a few blocks around the college.

3. It's just a great place to live in what is, 8 months of the year, one of the most beautiful regions of the country. We have the best collection of restaurants in New England, outside of Boston (though no one, great restaurant), art galleries, only one Starbucks and lots of little bookstores, including a good sf/mystery bookstore.

4. We have a relatively high proportion of Lesbians but, outside of college, all they want to do is settle down and raise their kids in peace. It is not disruptive. (Nothing like, for example, Provincetown.) They make excellent neighbors.

I wore (and still wear) my "W 2004" hat around town and, other than one double-take from a woman who then pointed me out to the man she was with, haven't received a comment.

The "feminists" at Bryn Mawr are much more militant. Maybe it's the cheese steaks.

"Anyone, even you, can have this direct relationship with God. I invite you to try it."

That's what I mean by Gnostic. The esoteric part isn't important, it is this whole bit about the direct relationship that gives you all you need to know about God, without the need for intermediation.

I did try it. Question: how do you tell apart those voices in your head that are projections of your own feelings from the communications that come from God? The last thing I want to do is start a conversation with God and then mistake my own feelings and ideas for God's. Nothing that I ever received in the way of inspiration while praying differed from thoughts or feelings that I didn't already have, so I guess that I was unsuccessful at getting through.

Robert:

It's mediated by Christ and the approiach is through the Bible but it's open to anyone. Gnosticism is quite different

"It's mediated by Christ".

Thats the same as being unmediated. Christ is God. Functionally I see no difference with Gnosticism.

No, you don't see, but someone who knew what Gnosticism is would.

Robert:

Jesus Christ, being fully God and fully human, affords us humans an unparalled and unequaled relationship with God. Thanks to his making that connection through his death and resurrection, I (and all humans) have access to the wisdom of God, a deeper understanding of the ways of God, and a clearer sense of what God wills from & for me (us).

Do I fully grasp the wisdom of God? No. Do I fully understand the ways of God? No. While I beleive that "the chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever" as the Westminster Chatechism teaches, have I really completely unpacked that and embodied it in my life? No. Have I ever mistaken my own feelings and ideas for God's Yes. "How do I tell those voices in my head that are projections of my own feelings from communications that come from God"? I read scripture with an eye open for what God would have me see and do, I consult my wife--a wise and godly woman, I talk things over with a close Christian friend (two in particular, one is a pastor and the other a lay person), and I spend time in prayer talking w/God and listening for the vloice of his Holy Spirit. In the past I've also fasted, participated in spiritual retreats and spend time in silent contemplation. Discernment is more than relying on me, myself and I.

Try again Robert. You've asked a very important question..."how do I pray?" I'm just a faceless blogger on the internet, so, who could you ask that question to face to face?

P.S. Thank you, you've helped me to see an issue from a new perspective in a situation I'm prayerfully wrestling with.

In your post above you mention "a direct relationship that gives you all you need to know about God, w/o the need for intermediation". Are you specifically speaking in Roman Catholic terms here, ie. the priest as mediator? I'm not Catholic, so your remark is foreign to my Reformed theology of prayer.

"No, you don't see, but someone who knew what Gnosticism is would."

According to my reading of Gnosticism, Robert is right on point.

Those like Dave W. above, "...have access to the wisdom of God, a deeper understanding of the ways of God, and a clearer sense of what God wills from & for me (us)."

Clearly he means that access is available to all of us, but that is (unintentionally, I am sure,) facile. Because that access is most certainly not available to everyone. It isn't available to those who have never heard of Christianity, for instance.

And it isn't available to those who have, but for whatever reason don't possess the special knowledge or insight to avail that access--Gnosticism, in other words.

Dave, what for you is clearly a very direct and important relationship may be for others nothing more worthwhile than an imaginary friend in the closet.

Jeff/Robert:

Here's a piece easily accessible enough to clear up your confusions:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0130.html

OJ:

Thanks for the link. Sorry, though, it didn't.

"A Gnostic is one who has gnosis (a Greek word for 'knowledge') — a visionary or mystical "secret knowledge" capable of joining the human being to the divine mystery. Gnostics, the Pope remarked, distort God's word 'in the name of a profound knowledge of God.'

The first part of that statement defines Dave W. quite well, and the latter part is purely a matter of taste: which is distortion, the utterings of Gnostics, or bureaucratically approved doctrine regarding God's word?

Speaking of taste, ordinarily similar links you have provided are typically well reasoned, but this one seems to me to fall right into hand waving about halfway through.

When 2 billion people share the same knowledge it isn't secret.

OJ:

"Secret" isn't in the definition of Gnostic. I can't help it if the article added it.

Jeff:

It is the essence of Gnosticism:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

Dave
It sounds like, outside of prayer, you consult a lot of the same sources of wisdom that I do, namely, other people we respect. I'm not meaning to denigrate the goodness or the wisdom of the voices in your head, because I consult those voices myself (mine, I mean, not yours). In the end, that's what we have to work with to make what we hope are wise and just decisions. I'd love to get a direct feed into the Wisdom of the Universe, but I'm afraid that I'm just stuck with my own feeble powers of discernment.

"In your post above you mention "a direct relationship that gives you all you need to know about God, w/o the need for intermediation". Are you specifically speaking in Roman Catholic terms here, ie. the priest as mediator? I'm not Catholic, so your remark is foreign to my Reformed theology of prayer."

I was partially stretching the definition of gnosticism to blur a boundary that I see is only valid on a technical level. I see two primary methods that believers follow to learn about God. One is through revelations handed down from the prophets as documented in the Bible and other exegetics that are beileved to have been written under divine inspiration. Think of this as second hand revelation - you are trusting in the authority of the texts and the institutions that promulgate these revelations. This is what I mean by "mediated". You cannot get to knowledge of God except through these texts, authorities and institutions. Catholicism falls in this category.

The second method for learning of God is through direct revelation. In this category I put prayer as well as do it yourself exegesis of the Bible, without the guiding hand of intitutional religious authority. To me, I see no practical difference between this category and Gnosticism. In this category would go any Catholic who feels free to decide moral questions independently of the Church's teaching.

OJ
As far as the mysterious/esoteric nature of Gnostics, I find the whole business of direct revelation through prayer mysterious and esoteric, that's why I couldn't get it. That's why I asked Dave how he "knows" when the voice he hears is God and not himself. How is this "knowing" accomplished? Is it in the repetition, the fasting, are there ritualistic elements that I missed?

Robert:

You can kneel down right now and pray or you can open a Bible and read--Christianity is universal. You can't have Gnostic knowledge without being in the cult. Then come the qualitative differences of the beliefs.

Is this whole Gnosticism kick something you got from Harold Bloom or something? Because it's quite wrong. Americans are extremely conformist, not individualistic.

OJ:

Here is the definition for gnosis:

"intuitive knowledge of spiritual truths; said to have been possessed by ancient Gnostics."

Sorry, don't see the word 'secret' anywhere.

Which is why I said Dave W. fits the definition.

Fundamentalist sects that speak in tongues, are they gnostics?

Robert:

Rather few will hear God--the point of prayer isn't to hear from Him but to acknowledge to Him.

Jeff:

"Generally speaking, Gnosticism taught that salvation is achieved through special knowledge (gnosis)"

OJ:

Special does not mean secret in any dictionary I have seen.

Piloting an aircraft is achieved through "gnosis," as well. It is special, and requires training to impart, but it sure as heck isn't secret.

Fundamentalist sects that speak in tongues, are they gnostics?

Jeff:

Airline pilots are a closed sect too, with tests and stuff you have to pass, though not a religious one.

No, those sects who speak in tongues are not gnostics--you could go to a church service tomorrow.

OJ:

1) Pilots are not a "closed" sect. Go to your local airport with a checkbook in hand and find out how closed it isn't.

2) Please stay on point. The question is whether gnosticism involves "secret" knowledge, not openness or otherwise.

3) I could go to one of those churches tomorrow, but absent the special knowledge they possess, will be unable to engage in glossalla (or whatever the heck it is called.) Nor, I bet, could you. Not without faking it.

Jeff:

1) If I give them a check they'll let me fly the plane?

2) The distinction you're drawing between special and secret eludes me--there are keepers of the knowledge who reveal it to people and only the instructed are true members of the cult, knowing things which are unavailable to those who don't accept such instruction and join.

3) Yes, you could join the Church tomorrow. I can't fly tomorrow.

OJ:

1) Yes, a flight school will let you fly the plane. And if you keep at it long enough, and absorb enough special, but not secret, knowledge, you could do it all by yourself.

2) Why should it elude you? It take special knowledge to fly a plane, but not one bit of that knowledge is secret. Heck, you could go out and buy a book today that would contain all of it.

3) Joining the Church and having the specialized knowledge to speak in tongues is no different than parking your butt in the left seat tomorrow, and actually surviving the takeoff.

The definition says "special" knowledge, not "secret." Until you can get the dictionary changed (and get several religious web sites to agree), perhaps you should stick with the accepted meaning.

1) Exactly.

2) So if I read the book I can fly the jumbo jet to Disney?

3) there's no specialized knowledge required for speaking tongues--the Spirit enters you. It's also not required that it do so.

Gnosis quite specifically means secret knowledge.

"The designation Gnosticism, derived from the Greek gnostikos (one who has gnosis, or "secret knowledge"), is a term of modern scholarship. "
- Encyclopaedia Britannica