Replies

Yes,

There was an ascetic and a libertine form of gnostic. The ascetic was far more common, but the libertine also popped up here and there. Some argue that Paul is dealing with a Christian form of libertine gnosticism in corinth, hence his emphasis on the importance of the body throughout the letter.

The ascetics proposed that since the flesh was evil, it is something to escape from and the desires of the flesh are to be destroyed by mortification.

The libertines proposed that the flesh is meaningless and thus what you do with the flesh is meaningless. If you want to have sex with your step-mother (1 Cor 5) that's fine, it really doesn't matter. The spirit matters. THe flesh is passing and meaningless. Thus everything is permissable (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23) and nothing is harmful.

In both cases the bodily resurrection makes no sense, because who really needs a body anyway?

That was also a recurring theme in Johnsons article. Biology is meaningless. Whereas in the scriptures, your biological body is the temple of the Lord (1 Cor 6:12-20)

Hmmm... While the desire to separate body and spirit is characteristic of Gnosticism (and you have argued convincingly that this idea of separation is abundant throughout the homosexual agenda) this dualism does not by itself characterize Gnosticism. A central tenet of Gnosticism, consistent with this belief in dualism, is that the Creator of the Universe did a very bad thing by trapping the spirit in matter. This idea is generally not held by libertine revisionists, including Gene Robinson (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1629482/posts.)

Please understand, I am in no way condoning either libertine or Gnostic heresies; I am merely claiming that the current libertine theology is inconsistent with a Gnostic one. There are many falsehoods, but only Truth is Truth.

However, perhaps I am being too pedantic. I am trying to reach some clarity and precision on the definition of "Gnosticism", but I suppose that merely distinguishing between two falsehoods does not help to clarify the Truth.

Here is a quote of Robinson's that is included in the link:

"I think the great divide between religious peoples is between those who believe that the creation is the central story, and the point of it is that creation is good, versus those who see the fall as the central story. Is humanity essentially good? Or is humanity essentially depraved?"

While this is certainly bad theology (he brushes off The Fall and its implications), I don't think it can be considered Gnostic as he at least understands that the Creation was Good.