How much sexual abuse do you think the Gnostics were doing?

[Do Not Touch Me Pls]

Well, this was in late Roman times rather than medieval.

Aside that there's no real difference between Roman Christianity and Medieval Christianity anyways, the Jews are just going to kill, torture, burn and enshittify everything but themselves in the most masks-off manner at that point, and there's nothing a gentile or heretic can do about it.

(Kind of like the real ID Internet and AI push we have here from the UK and the United Nations to be honest)

 

[23iwakura23]

Common sense says that if the guru is talking about how there's a special class of people in this world that are smarter than everybody else, and he has secret wisdom to dispense, that secret wisdom is his cum.

I mean, most excellent fellow, this is legit 100% what our most illustrious St. Irenaeus of Lyon was saying since day one with these faggots, for he writes of the Markosian Gnostics in his work Adversus Haeresis:

Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God— a thing which frequently occurs — have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him.

Now then a "philtre" is a type of potion made up to make a man's wits slow, and to bend one's will. That is, this Marcus or "Markos" of the "Markosians" was druggin' bitches and fucking them.

That's the nature of it.

Oh, and our modern mollity towards these so-called "Gnostics" fundamentally derives from Aleister Crowley, who was nothing but a British spy who loved his heroin and women. To this, we have a man who drugs and fucks women apologizing for a heretic in history that drugs and fucks women.

Accordingly, we can see the common pattern of all heresies: they wanna drug and fuck women duder.

 

[VM_]

Oh, and our modern mollity towards these so-called "Gnostics" fundamentally derives from Aleister Crowley, who was nothing but a British spy who loved his heroin and women. To this, we have a man who drugs and fucks women apologizing for a heretic in history that drugs and fucks women.

Theres a bit more to it than just that. Crowley wanted to make a new religion that worked with English individualism, viewing Christianity as a decayed husk that brought England down, needing a new religion in order to revitalize it in order to lead the globe. He thought his use of transgressive rituals was a means to accomplish that, taking a little bit of something from every tradition he found useful. Crowley proposed that a Horus son/child figure would bring this new age/religion of vitality that Jesus originally symbolized, but he grew into an Osiris father figure that needed to be replaced by his son Horus (his religion, Thelema), ushering in a new aeon, pretty much his take on the New Age of Aquarius that occultists are obsessed with and basically a new religion for the globalist anglo sphere that focuses on will, individualism, and vitality. Clearly influenced by Nietzsche and more anglo friendly than Hegel's socialist religion/philosophy. One of Crowley's followers believed Hitler to be this Horus figure, as did some non Thelemite occultists.

 

[Uncle Bass]

The Demiurge made them do it, honest.

 

[Whatevermancer]

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

>"Christian" cult
>literally has "Morning Star" in the name, aka Lucifer

Incredible.

To be fair, Papists call Mary the Queen of Heaven and that’s a big no no.

 

[DeeNaMeeTay]

Point on the Abraxas where the Gnostic touched you.

 

[Dan of Steel]

Wyświetl załącznik 8921401

I get it's a losing battle to argue with a reductive meme format but this Gnosticism's "simplicity" really falls apart when you consider what the demiurge is in Gnostic thought. The demiurge is not God as how Christians, both proto-orthodoxy 2000 years ago and many now think of God as the creator of the everything in the universe. The roughest equivalent to that is the Monad, and then you have to explain "what the fuck is the Monad?" which then gets to the Pleroma, the Aeons, Sophia, Kenoma, hylics, sarkics, psychics, pneumatics (what all Gnostics think they are but they're actually all hylics), Archons, how Jesus came flinging down from the Pleroma to the earth but its' not actually Jesus, Jesus is just the human vessel and The Christ is the embodiment of gnosis. And all the other expanded universe autism of gnostic nonsense that they probably stole or bastardized from earlier Hermeticists and Neoplatonists.

To me, the Christian version how I understand it is much simpler. God is all that is good. God is all the good in the world, in the trees, in the bees, in you and me, and even the good in people we disagree with and don't like. If you really try, you can see God in them because everyone has the capacity for good. The only god that's worthy of belief is one that is all good and nothing short of it. Evil then is what's separated from the goodness of God. Extreme self interest, greed, wrath, these things divorce us from God and divorce from the good of God. I could go into more depth but I think as a thesis that makes more sense to me than a demiurge created by Sophia from the Monad in the Pleroma, yadda yadda yadda.

I still think Gnosticism is the most "fuck you dad" religion ever.

It was never really a religion, more like a philosophical way of thinking that could be applied to a religion. Kinda like Hermeticism. And there are plenty of variances of Gnostic thought: some think the demiurge is evil, or immature, or ignorant.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

It was never really a religion, more like a philosophical way of thinking that could be applied to a religion. Kinda like Hermeticism. And there are plenty of variances of Gnostic thought: some think the demiurge is evil, or immature, or ignorant.

Can it be applied to non abrahamic religion? Pagan religions usually have their gods be a force of nature. There is no point in having Zeus or Odin be evil when they have stories of doing immoral things.

And Buddhism doesn't have a god since the Buddha is divorced from the notions of good and evil.

 

[VM_]

Can it be applied to non abrahamic religion? Pagan religions usually have their gods be a force of nature. There is no point in having Zeus or Odin be evil when they have stories of doing immoral things.

And Buddhism doesn't have a god since the Buddha is divorced from the notions of good and evil.

Zoroastrianism and its dualism that Mani fused with the other oriental traditions of the already Zoroastrian influenced Abrahamics and Buddhists, and created a structure akin to the Catholic Church, creating a proper gnostic religion rather than some fringe sect. The Uyghurs adapted it and somehow made it work for their empire.

 

[Whatevermancer]

To me, the Christian version how I understand it is much simpler. God is all that is good. God is all the good in the world, in the trees, in the bees, in you and me, and even the good in people we disagree with and don't like. If you really try, you can see God in them because everyone has the capacity for good.

This all-good God let Satan have his way with this world and himself also causes natural disasters from time to time.

The only god that's worthy of belief is one that is all good and nothing short of it.

More like he's worthy of belief cause he will punish you with eternal torment if you don't believe.

 

[Dendyy]

I still think Gnosticism is the most "fuck you dad" religion ever.

Even more than this one?

 

[Dan of Steel]

This all-good God let Satan have his way with this world and himself also causes natural disasters from time to time.

I get where you're coming from. And I'll admit, this is my fault for seeing the gymnastics meme and responding/necroing this thread because now I'm doing apologetics and this is retarded, but here we are. I at least think it's fun.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if what you mean by letting Satan have his way with the world is like the Garden of Eden and the serpent and original sin, if you read the passage in Genesis from the Hebrew, it makes no mention of Satan. The serpent is referred to as the most clever beast in the garden, but not as Satan. Satan in the OT was a title, the devil as we understand it hadn't been invented or identified in ~5th century BC when it was written. Satan was a title, ha-satan, or the adversary or accuser. Ironically, in Numbers 22 Balaam the prophet who curses the Israelites on behalf of Yahweh is called "the satan". Satan as we understand the archetype now was a much later development, best synthesized in Milton's Paradise Lost which is how most people think of Satan.
And when it comes to natural disasters, where did God say that people have to live where those occur? Like I live in an area where tornados happen, that's just one of the risks of living here. We now know what plate tectonics are, climate science, all that shit. Weather is neutral, it's literally a force of nature. The inverse to me is also silly saying sunshine is holy or something. Like yeah sunshine can be nice, but too much can give you sunburns, it can cause blisters, it can give you skin cancer. The weather simply is. And even before modern climate science developed people thought this idea of blaming God or ascribing natural disaster events as God's punishment was silly. Rousseau in the 1700s knew it was dumb after the Lisbon earthquakes:
"Most of our physical ills are our own work... Nature did not construct twenty thousand houses of six to seven stories there, and if the inhabitants of this great city had been more equally spread out and more lightly lodged, the damage would have been much less and perhaps nil."

More like he's worthy of belief cause he will punish you with eternal torment if you don't believe.

Again I get where you're coming from here but if you think about it for like a minute doesn't this idea seem dumb? Like people believing essentially at gunpoint of "if you don't believe then you're going to Hell forever!" Like I feel like if that was what was actually said in scripture most people would say fuck it and take their chances with it being wrong, because of the coercive nature of it? A god seeking submission is not a god that is good. And if you're referring to the idea of eternal punishment like in Revelation, the original Greek word is "ainios" meaning of the age and not infinite duration. The idea of eternal punishment is that part getting translated in a massive game of telephone from Koine Greek to Latin, then to Middle English, and early modern English with the KJV. Keep in mind Revelation was written by a dude stuck on an island when Nero was using Christians as candles by lighting them on fire, and is steeped in allegory. And even early church fathers didn't really believe in this like the Cappadocians or one of my favorites, Origen who believed in a version of universal salvation. Now that doesn't mean everyone gets a free pass to do evil things and sin, but the view of God as a sky daddy that sits on the sidelines and if you don't believe in him you're going to Hell forever isn't helped by evangelicalism and popular understandings of God.

Even more than this one?
Wyświetl załącznik 9094229

I actually admire Anton LeVay as a writer, since if you read Satan Speaks or any of his other writings, he's pretty funny and has a self-deprecating sense of humor that resonates with me. His version of satanism is a lot less goofy and edgy and is mostly just Nietzschean atheist individualism, and the satanic imagery was mostly just trolling. The actually serious satanists like Michael A. Aquino (that's an entirely different rabbithole) didn't like LeVay since he didn't really believe or sacrifice goats or children or shit like that.

Can it be applied to non abrahamic religion? Pagan religions usually have their gods be a force of nature. There is no point in having Zeus or Odin be evil when they have stories of doing immoral things.

Maybe? Like I mentioned Gnosticism was a much later development but the idea of "sparks of life" can probably be found in pagan religions. I think you can have a gnostic reading of the story of Saturn/Cronus if you looked hard enough but yeah it's mostly based off of a foundation of Abrahamic religions.

 

[VM_]

idea of "sparks of life" can probably be found in pagan religions

This comes from Orphism, which obviously later influences Gnosticism and Kabbalah through Platonism. It could be based on the dismemberment and the putting back together of Osiris's body. They switch Osiris with Dionysus instead. Set, the killer of Osiris, is usually associated with Saturn and the Zoroastrian Ahriman, the god of darkness that later influences the concept of Satan.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

To me, the Christian version how I understand it is much simpler. God is all that is good. God is all the good in the world, in the trees, in the bees, in you and me, and even the good in people we disagree with and don't like. If you really try, you can see God in them because everyone has the capacity for good. The only god that's worthy of belief is one that is all good and nothing short of it. Evil then is what's separated from the goodness of God. Extreme self interest, greed, wrath, these things divorce us from God and divorce from the good of God. I could go into more depth but I think as a thesis that makes more sense to me than a demiurge created by Sophia from the Monad in the Pleroma, yadda yadda yadda.

Here’s how you can tell how Christian or true something is: would it make your grandma cry/scared/confused

Flip over some of the shit in this thread and I think you will find it does not pass the Granny Test.

This passes the Granny Test.



The way I understand it and to my knowledge this is "right": Christianity is virtue ethicist, so goodness is cultivated as character. Coerced actions have no moral content since they do not express or develop character, so for us to cultivate goodness requires free will. The Garden story is allegorical; tasting of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a species becoming so intelligent in abstract reasoning it begins to be able to conceptualize morality, hence becomes a rational moral agent and subject to moral judgment, and due to its finitude cannot live up to the infinite goodness of its Creator and becomes a polluting influence in a perfect ("it was very good") world.

Of course the reading isn't perfect, the actual text implies God didn't expect us to do this/was pissed, but if you want an omniscient God you get what you get.

That's the argument for "why have free will." Then, on the "why is everything so sucky" side, you've got an incredible take on this in Job, and the short of it is "you fucking moron, you blithering cretin, you can barely manage your own life, why do you think you can design a better universe from scratch than me?" A human being can lazily say as a wishlist all the things they wish they had and didn't have, but when it comes to running the world as actual mechanics and matter, the system has to function logically. Even the greatest works of science were uncovering how the mechanism works, not designing it from scratch. Additionally, we have tons of examples of things that individually look discordant or wrong - especially from ecology and economics - but when you remove or muck with them, it causes unintended consequences that are far worse.

The key to accepting God's goodness is first developing humility about how little we know.

 

[Nicholas Gur]

Like most secret elite knowledge cults, gnosticism benefits from allowing charlatans and predators to adopt the banner as it obfuscates the truth of it's purpose/members. Bunch of useful idiots slamming bee larva into cow uteruses claiming spontaneous generation, when the concept is actually indicative of interest based fiscal growth gained from abusing loans of immaterial capital.