Can someone give me the run down on prevailing gnostic dogma and where I may learn about it more

Attached: D84B6D2C-4754-4AD3-8094-F624218C97A6.jpg (202x249, 23K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Is there any reason why the bible is accepted dogma but gnostic texts aren't?
Neither has more evidence than the other.

>Can someone give me the run down on prevailing gnostic dogma
You seem to be mistaken as to what Gnosticism is.
'Gnosticism' is simply a rather modern term for a wide variety of religions that popped at at different places and times, who happened to share certain cosmological/theological similarities.
There was never a single religion/dogma called 'Gnosticism'.

The stereotypical elements found among the forms of Gnosticism tend to include:
1) The belief that the material world is inherently lesser and even evil compared to the spiritual realm.
2) That the material world was created by a figure (who can be described as either evil or simply selfish/narcissistic) called a 'Demiurge' (the word is the same but is rather different from the Platonic use of the term).
3) That all of humanity are inherently good spiritual beings containing a 'divine spark', whose souls used to inhabit the spiritual realm but are trapped here by the Demiurge.
4) That our souls could be freed and escape the suffering of the material world by attaining 'Gnosis' (Deep Spiritual knowledge basically).

Those are really the main areas of agreement between just about all forms of Gnosticism.
However obviously the cosmology for each Gnostic religion or even simple branch of Gnosticism would be much more fleshed out.
Just looking at the basic areas of commonality however, I do hope that you can see the strong influence of both Platonism and Buddhism.

>where I may learn about it more
You are going to have to be more specific.
What would you like to learn more about specifically?
In any-case, the best source for the forms of Gnosticism that attached themselves onto Christianity would be:
Thanks to the Nag Hammadi find, the Christian forms of Gnosticism are much better understood then other forms of Gnosticism such as Manichaeism.

Attached: 1401274998803.png (1400x2700, 584K)

>Is there any reason why the bible is accepted dogma but gnostic texts aren't?
Try reading the Christian 'Church Fathers' works on Gnosticism.
Those works are filled with wild lies about ritual murder, cannibalism and rape.
The 'Church Fathers' were deeply fearful of just how popular the early forms of Christian Gnosticism were among the lay people and thus did their best not only to scare people away from it, but to use their positions of power to destroy all Gnostic works they could find.
That is one of the reasons why Nag Hammadi was just so much of an unlikely boon.
Hell, just look at the genocide of the Cathars if you want a somewhat more modern view of how much the established Christian churches hated and fear the popularity that Gnostic faiths almost always enjoy among the common people.

Attached: 1504483861077.png (1249x637, 43K)

But why do they not like it?

You can't, really. I mean you can read tehir texts, a lot of those survive, but the whole point of gnosticism was the secret teachings that taught you how to interpret the texts, and those are lost.

It had several, very key differences from Christian canon. Taking the short list from :
Gnostic's believe humans (or at least their spirit) to be inherently good. Most Christians believe the exact opposite (see: original sin).
Gnostic's believe freedom comes from Gnosis. Christians believe freedom comes from God, and the sacrifice of Jesus.
Gnosticism believes, or at the very least strongly implies, that the Demiurge (or god) is evil (for creating matter, trapping souls in said matter, etc.). Let's just say that Christians do not believe this.

The same reason ISIS bulldozed ancient ruins.
It is something that threatened their theology.

Comparing just about any form of Gnosticism with a mystery religion is simply inaccurate.
Whether it be surviving forms of Gnosticism such as the Mandeans, or well understood forms such as Catharism; anything comparable to a typical mystery religion is quite absent.
There were texts that certain forms of Gnosticism restricted to Priests, but that is just about all.

Attached: Mandaeans.jpg (1024x680, 208K)

Or they were warning people about ritual murders, cannibalism, and rape committed by the satanic gnostics, who ironically know nothing.

are you gnostic?

Nah, I've seen enough bad propaganda to know one. People of the past were naive, we deal with shit like that on daily basis nowadays.

Nope. Not Christian, either. I just did research.
Personally, I found Gnosticism to be pretty stupid.


Attached: irenaeus-of-lyons.jpg (344x447, 209K)

Oh, yes, we're much more evolved now.

Nice strawman.

>We deal with more propaganda these days
>so we are more used to dealing with propaganda
>so we don't fall for lower-effort propaganda that we otherwise would.
is a reasonable statement.

Neoplatonism for edgy faggots Like what's the point in believing in an evil subgod?

Attached: 1200px-Monad.svg.png (1200x1200, 55K)

The point is that it's free from contradictions like the problem of evil.

Gnosticism also had significant Zoroastrian influence, especially Manichaeism.

Interestingly, Mazdakism and older dualistic Zoroastrianism were free from Problem of Evil too.

I personally consider myself more of a Neo-Platonist rather then a Gnostic.
But even I can admit that Gnosticism has a much more intuitive explanation of the Problem of Evil then what is offered by Neo-Platonism.

>OT God/Dermuige is evil and is essentially our jailer
>Salvation is found through gnosis, a highly individualistic path so priests lose some if not of their authority
>Esoteric like mystery religions instead of the exoteric nature of Christianity
>Usually differs with Christianity on the nature of Jesus
The key thing to note is that Gnosticism is a label that 'Chruch Fathers' gave to people they hated. Those people thought and called themselves were Christians and could act like it.

Come to think about it, how is Christ viewed by the various Gnostic sects?

in the neoplatonic system God isn't a personal agent except perhaps in how we apprehend the concept of God. That which is is right and necessary but we should always take the path of selflessness, compassion and virtue in spirit of restoring the godhead.

As varied as the sects themselves. Probably most didn't follow the orthodox idea of Jesus being half man half god. IIRC two views are either a full human who encountered gnosis or the 'husband' of Sophia sent to help fix her mistake.

Oddly enough most gnostic sects only see him as a spiritual teacher akin to Gautama and not very important to salvation.

Read the Gospel of Thomas, one of the earliest recovered Christian texts, and arguably the source, or one of the sources, of the cannon of the NT. It's steeped in gnostic mythos and wording, while purporting to contain the words of the living Jesus. I've made up my own mind that it should have been a part of the NT, but was pushed aside and labeled heresy.

>them trips

Maybe you are onto something

Attached: 1520938783980.jpg (655x527, 36K)

Attached: Stoic gf.png (532x368, 12K)

N**Platonism is for edgy faggots Like what's the point in misrepresenting Plato and making up some lame and incoherent theology

name a coherent theology then

Attached: chloe.gif (292x323, 1.16M)

Catholic Stalinism.

There are coherent and acceptable metaphysical and theological accounts that one may derive from the works of Plato and Aristotle, with reference to fragments of the pre-Socratics.

I would call that position "Platonism", although it is broader than strictly his works. A better term might be "Hellenic Classicism", but then some edgy N**Platonist dickhead will start talking about emanations will barge in with some latter-day hellenic text and start ranting about emanations or some horseshit

>Gnosticism is a label that 'Chruch Fathers' gave to people they hated

Which ones? He's central in all the ones I know about from ophites to manichaeans.

What religion didn’t

Hinduism and its spinoffs

Would you let that line of reasoning go unchallenged by a Holocaust denier?

The "problem of evil" is for over thinking arrogant eggheads that can't accept that shit happens, and they don't actually know better than the creator of the universe.

I think your solution is just saying that suffering isn’t really evil and therefore doesnt fall under the problem of evil

>The "problem of evil" is for over thinking arrogant eggheads that can't accept that shit happens, and they don't actually know better than the creator of the universe.

Attached: mmmm-grayons-31350775.png (500x533, 66K)

The universe doesn't care about our critiques of the unfairness of gravity, why should our critiques about the cruelty of "evil" (which conveniently seem to revolve around aspects of life that we consider unpleasant) matter in the slightest?

I at least admit I am retarded in comparison to the hypothetical creator of everything, and don't second guess the nature of creation under the arrogant assumption that I can do better.

Advaita Vedanta

>Is there any reason why the bible is accepted dogma but gnostic texts aren't?
>Neither has more evidence than the other.
>Neither has more evidence than the other.

What are you talking about? People who point out that shit actually happens can accept factual side of this. Arrogant ones are people who can't accept that the creator is flawed and he couldn't come up with the universe where shit doesn't happen. That is the reason for their absurd denial like your own notion that evil doesn' exist, which contradict their own ideas of God being the source of the morality, etc.

Attached: images.png (225x225, 3K)

> The universe doesn't care about our critiques of the unfairness of gravity
That is *the point* of the problem of evil. Nobody says that universe is some benevolent force that cares about us. Nobody should say that Creator cares and (omni)benevolent.