Argument for Gnosticism

I thought of an argument in favor of Gnosticism while I was eating the other day. I really didn't think this through so bare with me.

Ok so either evil exists or it doesn't. If evil exists, then either god doesn't exist or god is evil. But if god doesn't exist, then neither does evil, because then you wouldn't have an objective standard of morality for the definition of evil. Now if god exists then he's evil and the author thereof (because he created this world). But if evil does exist, so does the good, because they are opposites. You wouldn't know what the one was without knowing the other. Therefore if good exists, then likewise there must be an author of the good. Another god as it were.

Now according to the gnostic myth, there is another god above god. He didn't intend to create the world, so he can't be responsible for the evil that exists in the world. He is perfect, incomprehensible and self-contained. He spontaneously emanates a realm of lesser, albeit divine beings called the fullness or pleroma. One of these beings, Sophia, (and this is one of the weakest, most obscure points in Gnosticism), is the one responsible for initiating the chain of causes that results in the material world, the demiurge and ultimately evil.

This is one of many possible ways with which a religious person can deal with the problem of evil. In this way, the Gnostics were able to "save" god and explain evil, without having to resort to dualism (in the Zoroastrian sense). The demiurge is the god of the Bible, the creator of this world. He is the author of evil. The unknown god is, not so much the author of good, but goodness itself. The evil god is not a rival of the good god, equal in power and eternity. He is, rather, a lesser being, and a stumbling block for spirits in their journey back to the pleroma, the realm of light.

Any thoughts?

bretty good

Who or what is Jesus?
who can oppose the demiurge? What can us humans do against his evil?

>Who or what is Jesus?
The Father (unknown God's) Son.

I'm extremely serious about this question, so here me out.

What if in the beginning, when God created the Heavens and the Earth, instead he turned into a snake?

In this scenario: in that darkness upon the face of the deep, God doesn't say "Let there be light." God is sitting in the void alone, when suddenly he feels off.

Always ready with a Logos, he documents his experience:

>his skin discolors
>it becomes rougher
>his tongue forks
>eyes goes black, it becomes hard to write
>legs shrink into body
>arms shrink into bodies, God can no longer create

The rest of the transformation takes place; what was once a being greater than which cannot be conceived is now a slender creature of significant girth.

This scenario assumes that God retains his omniscience. What happens next? The first obstacle would be him to survive until it was time to send his Son into the world. Then the next challenge is convincing them who he is. Best case is that he does, but what about everyone else? Is he able to continue his job? How is he treated by peers, the general public, and enemies?

Discuss.

>Ok so either evil exists or it doesn't.

No. Evil is just what we call suffering, it certainly exists but it's not a cosmic "thing", it's a judgement we make about events that happen.

Has the premise of Gnosticism ever been attacked from a neutral perspective?

The only arguments against it I've ever read were either from Plotinus (who saw it as corrupted Platonism and was critiquing it from a Neoplatonic perspective) or from early Church writers (who seemed to fall back into "muh heresy" more often than actually making real criticisms).

>Has the premise of Gnosticism ever been attacked from a neutral perspective?
By neutral do you mean materialistic? Deistic or Atheistic? I don't really see how one can be neutral in such a situation unless you're comparing Gnosticism to a perennial tradition.

lmao this and Gnosticism is retarded, the problem of evil is theology 101.

Yeah you're right that no one can ever be 100% neutral since there will always be axioms and assumptions necessary to even begin. I guess what I mean is that, for example, the Christian arguments against it operate under the assumption of orthodox Christianity being true, and will use evidence from the biblical canon to try and discredit Gnosticism, as opposed to more philosophical points that don't require an already predetermined belief system.

idk if Gnosticism has been attacked per say by a neutral system. You really don't get much more neutral than platonism. I'm sure Gnosticism has been challenged by a neutral system. I don't really know where to find it but you could always do it yourself.

>Any thoughts?

>the zero card is the fool
>the gnostics called the creator the fool
>the fool represents the self
>theres a fool in all of us and he creates our reality for us
>contemporary neural science confirms this

the kingdom of heaven is within you

Gnosticism is like cosmology lore out of a fucking JRPG. It makes even less sense than Abrahamic religions.

If the monad is so perfect, then why does it """"spontaneously"""" (read: accidentally) emit lesser, non-perfect beings that contribute to phenomena we consider chaos, or evil?

>Who or what is Jesus?

There are as many versions of this as therte are versions of jesus, because there's another jesus in the gnostic scriptures.

I however think that the true saviour is the snake.

>It makes even less sense

No it makes more sense, as it doesn't contradict because firstly we have assumed that myth is myth and reality reality.

Something christians have trouble with.

God's emissions are voluntary by God, Sophias emission was without permission by God, that's why chaos appeared.

So if God is perfect, how come Sophia could emanate without his permission? Without his permission means against his will, so then he would have stopped it if he was perfect, no?

>how come Sophia could emanate without his permission?

Because permission is permission and free will is free will.

I think you're so accustomed to the dictatorship you live in with your father the devil that you've lost track of what to be really alive and free means.

So you are saying Sophia is a separate entity from the Monad? Then why did she emanate from him if God is perfection? Surely she had knowledge of that. And how can God be perfect if he isn't encompassing of everything in existence and there exist separate entities from him? And how come he didn't know Sophia's emission would spark the rise of chaos if he is perfect? He would have wanted to prevent that from happening, no?

>the Monad?

Hello, I don't follow this tradition of calling God the monad.

>Let me tell you about perfection

Sure thing, family, and you will be considered because of all these times you have been perfect.

>He should have prevented!

Why!?

I thought Monad was the term for the highest God in Gnosticism. Maybe I'm wrong. But you are obviously just dodging my questions at this point

I'm not dodging your questions, you're pretending to know what perfection is without being a perfect being, why do you assume a perfect being encompasses everything? The created without authorization doesn't contain the part of God that we humans have, they are of other constitution.

Also you assume God should've prevented chaos when what He did is bless some humans with his spirit, so that they might reach the pleroma. The rest of makind belong to the devil, so they do not have this divine spark.

The monad is not the god of Gnosticism. The Father is.

>Implying Gnosticism is a monolithic belief system
What particular gnostic tradition/current do you subscribe to?

No one implied that. Gnosticism does have common features uniting it together though.

>"The demiurge is the god of the Bible, the creator of this world. He is the author of evil. The unknown god is, not so much the author of good, but goodness itself. The evil god is not a rival of the good god, equal in power and eternity. He is, rather, a lesser being, and a stumbling block for spirits in their journey back to the pleroma, the realm of light."
>"Not implying a monolithic system"


>What particular gnostic tradition/current do you subscribe to?

Okay. Valentinianism.

The other half of Sophia. Emanations came in pairs and created shit together, Sophia did by herself to emulate the Father and horribly failed

...

Gnosticism is literally the edgy fanfic version of Christianity.

He's above giving a fuck

Yes, we all understand that different schools of Gnosticism believed in different things. Is it really relevant to a self-professed Gnostic in 2017 (or even someone sympathetic to Gnostic beliefs) that he identifies with ONE specific school? Unless he's a literal Mandean chances are the self-professed Gnostic has a lot general beliefs from many schools mixed into one. It's not like the Christian church sects. Gnosticism is much more open to personal choice and individual beliefs as well as the fact that no gnostic schools exist anymore.

Everything is fanfic, user.

Say whatever you will about gnosticism, but I have experienced gnosis and will be escaping I guess. The moment people saw me interested in God they started first wearing sunglasses like matrix to sending me a message, then trying to do opposite as I did.

Sounds plausible...

When I will allow myself to somehow believe non-proven theories of the origin of modern civilizations... (that, funny enough, also originate from holy texts, bible included, but confront it with our, limited, knowledge of ancient civilizations : Egypt, Sumer...)

Just to pick one: 600-800 survivors of random planet landed on earth to gather gold, required to reverse a (now you will laugh) climate catastrophe on their home planet, creating slaves from Earth humanoids ... but somehow pissing their true leader or whatever.. it all is pretty crazy, so no need to go into details. But from our perspective, we would see them as gods and the pissed guy as "true god"?

Funny part (yet another): their "creation" of slave-like minions (that explains yellow Asians?) was first planned with some "other" species (before biblical Eve, "god" or "gods" intended to "use" someone/something else, which refused... WTF! Right?)

>It's not like the Christian church sects
yeah, just like a lot of Christian church sects already don't have many schools and believes mixed into one

>we would see them as gods and the pissed guy as "true god"?
Why do you think that in the beginning of civilization there was one "angry true god" opposed to other deities?
"One true angry god" is a very, very, VERY young concept.

In the concept of that example, the "one angry god" was angry at/with the other gods. (but only considering that one example, of course)
So for us - people of Earth, the true God was our savior/protector. As his purpose was to keep our higher consciousness up and running, while severing the slave-strong ties we had towards the lower gods. Basically opening the virtual cage of our enslavement and "letting us go"
The story actually continues, where the lesser gods got pissed, and first they tried to hunt us down, but the main dude was watching, so they started "taking human woman" and fucking em hard. That was some time before the floodpocalypse...
It is basically nonsense, and it is pretty impossible to take it seriously.

But nevertheless, "very young concept" - I would agree if we consider 3000 years back of origins as "young"

>3000 years back of origins as "young"
2300 at best

What is evil?
Evil deeds are simply acts none wishes to be done to them.
The motivator behind these deeds is the human inability to find good or better solutions to their problems.
There is nothing metaphysical about it.

>be me in backyard
>God gifts me gnosis
>inmediately start seeking the true religion as I didn't know what it was at the time
>everybody and their mother trying to make me fail at every religion and opposing me
>faggots accusing me left and right of fake sins and judging me
>confused
>discover gnosticism
>understand that they were just trying to place me under the demiurges foot

Yup, most people in the world belong to the demiurge and will try to have you punished by him in the afterlife.

>2300 at best
yep, we can agree on this.