Two basic practices quite naturally evolved among the Gnostics who held rigidly to the distinct concrete forms of evil's link to the material, and the alignment of goodness to the spirit. These practices polarized at opposite ends of the societal norm in approaches to life. At the one extreme was asceticism, and at the other, licentiousness.

Within the former can be detected vestiges of Judaistic practices, such as dietary restrictions and observances of holidays, or holy days. The argument goes as follows: If the spirit is good and the body is evil (since it is material), then the body must be brought under the spirit's authority. The spirit is to control the body, not allowing it its multiplicity of desires. This can be accomplished only by subjugating the body to the spirit through the methods and practices of neglect and mistreatment. Since, at times, the body's desires are severe, corresponding discipline must likewise be severe, denying it particular foods, sleep, inflicting pain upon it, and not allowing it to experience any form of pleasure through its natural needs. Was not Jesus immediately driven to fasting for forty days in the wilderness by the Spirit upon his anointing of Christ at the dove's descension? Did he not live a life of denial of material acquisitions and physical pleasures? Is not the Christian doctrine, as taught by the early apostles, that of total control of the spirit over the body? (Was this not the practice of the Essene, even denying it pleasure in procreation for those who practiced marriage?)

At the other extreme arose a licentiousness unparalleled in a moral secular world. Emerging in the opposite direction from the same viewpoint held by their ascetic brothers toward evil and material, goodness and spirit, these practitioners held to the separation and disaffection of one to the other. Since the body to them is material and will return to the evil dust from whence it came, releasing at long last the spirit, or spark of eternal life from within its earthly prison to reclaim its rightful position with its eternal Creator, then it does not matter what man does to or with his body. He will have no more need of it upon its death (thus denying the resurrection as well). From this teaching, it is easy to see how all manner of lascivious living evolved. What the body did had no bearing upon the eternal spirit. The denial of the body's desired pleasure was unnecessary, regardless of the area of its interest. If it felt good, then it was done (sound familiar?). After all, did not Christ gather on the Sabbath, imbibe as often as desired ( Mt.11:19), and feast with harlots, sinners, and publicans ( Mk.2:16)? Was it not the early apostles who taught the liberty in all things for one who was completely enlightened, one whose heart no longer condemned him?

Evidences of both of these heretical practices can be seen within our New Testament. For the former compare: I Co.8:1; Col.2:16-17; 2:20-23; and I Ti.4:1-3; for the latter: I Ti.6:3-11; II Pe.2:1-2; II Jn.7-11; Jude 4-19; and Rev.2:13-15. Vestiges of both forms of these practices can also be seen within certain groups of Christianity that have arisen in modern times. Some reembrace the Jewish Sabbath in addition to observing other designated days as well as rigid dietary laws. Still others are so broad in their doctrines and practices, as to invite and encompass a unitarian portrait of people without expecting any change toward holiness as God is holy. These go so far as to ignore their licentious practices clearly condemned in scripture, accepting them for ordination into the ministry of the gospel of Christ.