Gnosticism

Huh, so would that mean the Gnosticism is inherently anti-natalist since they see our current materialistic world as the Demiurge's Hell?

Indeed. The Cathars never practised vaginal sex, as it would entrap more souls. One of the reason why they got rekt by the catholics. But I think to save all of us and not just selfishly the few enlightened, we would need to introduce a policy of natalist anti-natalism. Meaning outbeeding everyone and teaching the gospels to our offspring, once the whole world believes in the gnosis, we would stop breeding and escape the earthly cycle forever. So basically weakening our god, but at the end striking a defeating blow to the devil.

Yeah i just went further down and it is mentionned in the "exemples in popular culture"
But it wouldn't surprise me if he got into it somehow, Gnotiscism has a Catholic branch if i recall well

yes

gnostics were encouraged not to breed historically as it was considered the propagation of evil

daily reminder

>But I think to save all of us and not just selfishly the few enlightened, we would need to introduce a policy of natalist anti-natalism. Meaning outbeeding everyone and teaching the gospels to our offspring, once the whole world believes in the gnosis, we would stop breeding and escape the earthly cycle forever. So basically weakening our god, but at the end striking a defeating blow to the devil.

Sounds legit

Not Gnosticism.
You just described Manicheanism.

These probably sounds weird to us because reproducing is one of our primordial instincts. If you accept the world is one we need to transcend it isn't that much of a stretch that having children isn't a necessity.

Interesting, thanks for answering my questions. I didn't realize Gnosticism was so nihilistic.

But wouldn't you want to create more souls to transcend?

wait are souls created or pre-existant?

Rejecting the material world doesn't mean it's nihilistic. Learn what words mean before you use them.

>But wouldn't you want to create more souls to transcend?
No because transcendence is hard work that isn't easily accomplished if your busy taking care of a wife and children. Also consider salvation is hardly universal in this case. If your one of the blessed ones who knows how to go about it, your in the minority. most people won't even come close. No guarantee exist your children would.

I'm not sure, but from what I gathered from the link posted it didn't seem like they were pre-existant.

Having children isn't a strictly materialistic endeavor if human consciousness has a spiritual component.

There's not really any guarantee that your children will go to heaven in any sect of Christianity though, is there? Is that really a reason to not have them? Even with a strictly materialistic view of the world, there's no guarantee your children won't come out physically or mentally ill. To completely abstain from procreation because you're afraid that they won't live up to certain expectations seems pessimistic and ultimately nihilistic.

Heresy.

It isn't so different from protestantism in that sense.

if so, he was way more influenced by Catholicism and the Norse mythos.

>There's not really any guarantee that your children will go to heaven in any sect of Christianity though, is there? Is that really a reason to not have them? Even with a strictly materialistic view of the world, there's no guarantee your children won't come out physically or mentally ill. To completely abstain from procreation because you're afraid that they won't live up to certain expectations seems pessimistic and ultimately nihilistic.
In the gnostic sense kids serve no function. Its about you and what you do. Not what other people do.

>nihilistic

You keep using this word like you have something to prove.
Please explain how a religion that professes a doctrine of attainable salvation is "ultimately nihilistic."

t. archon

But aren't you giving more souls the chance to escape the Demiurge. which would be the sort of Cosmic good that Gnosticism supports?

When I made this thread I did have a genuine curiosity. I guess from what little I had seen about Gnosticism before, I assumed it had more pagan influences and wasn't so...Christian. I just have a hard time seeing any ideology that professes anti-natalism as anything but nihilistic.

>But aren't you giving more souls the chance to escape the Demiurge.
No, your adding more pain to a flawed creation like other poster said.

Well, Manicheanism is a gnostic movement, but you probably meant the original Christian gnostics. And yes - in my opinion there's a lot of crap, that has no justification in the gospels, nor anywhere else, it's like overdoing sauce on an already good meal. Blabberings about some personna of Sophia or whatever, some more demi-deities, spirits and similar cosmological nonsense which Manicheans also have. It's like they're just making shit up to be able to write more and so it would seem more complex. What I was describing was more of my personal mix of beliefs, I only categorize myself as a gnostic, not necessarilly the same as the ancient Christian gnostics or the Manicheans.

But you're giving them the chance to escape the Demiurge, a chance that they wouldn't have otherwise. It seems like you want to deny enlightenment to the few who could attain it because most won't be able to.

Why would create something just to give it the chance? Your not denying enlightenment to someone who doesn't exist.

"Gnostics" generally deny the temporal aspect of Christ, that he is a man.

Conversely, the Arians denied that he is God.

Catholics recognize both aspects of his being.

No, but you're limiting how many enlightened spirits can come into existence, wouldn't you want as many as possible?

double think is not a virtue

What is the theology behind Arianism?

No. What's with the obsession with quantity?

>arbitrary delimitation of the divine aspect is virtue

get thee hence

I don't know, lots of Germans liked it in the waning days of the WRE.

You're not creating souls when you breed, you're only entrapping them into the demiurge's creation. But if you do correctly as I already said in this could be turned to our advantage and used to defeat the devil once and for all.

Jesus is the creation of God, thus his son - but he is not God himself. God's only one. So no pagan trio.

>the trinity is pagan

sure kid

Why would the primordial consciousness create the Aeons in the first place if quantity doesn't matter? Why not just stick with a single consciousness?

>implying there is more than just a single consciousness

There's a lot that's autistic about your posts.
First of all the Aeons aren't created they are emanations of the Pleroma.

Asking questions is ok but you have this weird demanding assumption that the ultimate mysteries of Gnostic dogma must submit themselves to anthropomorphizing utilitarian motives or something.

I'm just going off of the link If any of my assumptions about Gnosticism are wrong it's because the information in that link is wrong.

I thought that Gnosticism would be more of a middle point between paganism and Christianity. I guess I'm realizing that it is actually more Christian than any mainstream sects, which is exactly why it died out in the first place. Would you happen to know of any branches of Christianity that are more of what I'm looking for, sort of a middle-ground syncretism between paganism and Christianity?

I don't know why you keep reiterating that Gnosticism should be pagan. I also don't know what "more Christian" means.

You seem to be adverse to Christianity but you also are looking for a sect that is semi-Christian. I don't know what you're looking for.

The literal actual middle-ground between paganism and Christianity were the Hebrews.

>middle-ground syncretism between paganism and Christianity

Catholicism lel

Pretty much this, they worship Mary as some sort of a demi-god almost equal to Jesus (not based anywhere in the Bible, Jesus even said the exact opposite), then using the saints as mediators, which serve as some sort of semi-prophet-deities - ancestor worship. It's all a very messed up bastardized version of Christianity.

I am adverse to a lot of the concepts behind Christianity. I don't think suffering and pain are good by any means, but I think they're necessary to fostering a great spirit and that seeking to escape them by detachment from the material world is ultimately self-defeating. I guess what I really like about Christianity is the monotheism and the idea of a divine providence, but I don't agree with the Christian interpretation of what that divine providence actually is.

Heh, I know that Catholic traditions are heavily influenced by pre-Christian paganism, but is there a sect that's even more pagan?

early nordic christianity I think maybe, they kinda just added jesus to the viking pantheon

Everything you wrote about suffering and pain is like opposite world. Christianity isn't adverse to suffering and pain. The Anchorites saw it as purifying, and to a less extreme extent so do modern Protestants. The entire doctrine of Christianity is built upon the suffering of Jesus Christ.
If anything you have it totally backwards. The sects of Christianity that did renounce the material world embraced pain and shunned pleasure.

Jesus was in many ways a figure similar to Buddha, in that they both wanted to detach from all feelings physical and emotional. Jesus was making himself an example to the poor and suffering as a way for them to negate their suffering via passivity. It's a complete denial of life both material and spiritual.

youtube.com/watch?v=5rZ3N3upJwU

>the people who invented Christianity aren't true Christians
>but retarded watered down plebs like Lutheranism and Puritanism are
Or Maybe read the early church fathers and realize Christianity always was about the substance which retards consider to be "pagan" from the beginning and accept this isn't a bad thing?

Protestants are the worst

>The Church Fathers supersede Jesus
Yeah no. Protestantism is closer to the literal teachings of Jesus, but that doesn't make it better. The best part of Catholicism is the pagan syncretism within it.

...

Gnosticism is retarded, if you read it it starts going into some autistic fanfiction about some woman named Sophia

total herecy

>middle point between paganism and Christianity.
Paganism and Neo-Platoism with a Christian face or mythos is a better description.

>more Christian than any mainstream sects
Gnosticism has always been the least 'christian' sect in the sense it is fundamentally opposed to other sects

t. triggered archon

if gnosticism had merit then there would be evidence in the canonical scriptures that at LEAST allude to the autistic ones that go on about some woman named sophia

Sophia is found in Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Book of Wisdom, Wisdom of Sirach, and to some extent Baruch.

BTFO

>autistic user thinks its a woman and not a personification of divine wisdom