/lit/ - Literature

>>22314457
>does it exist?

Yes.


>where can i find it?

In relativists.

>>21626910


The "God" character in Genesis is the Demiourgos, Ialdabaoth.

>>21244684
>[...]why was the demiurge permitted to will it?


The root of the Demiourgos is the Dark —why, or how, would it not be permitted to will evil?

>>21244684
>[...]why was the demiurge permitted to will it?


The root of the Demiourgos is the Dark —why would he not be permitted to will evil?

>>21055081


The "God" character in the Old Testament is the Demiourgos, not God.

Ialdabaoth carnistically, involutedly perverts the ideal that is revealed to him via the Holy Spirit, whether it be the heavenly kingdom, or spiritual circumcision.

>>20982852


The "God" character in the Old Testament is the Demiourgos, not God.

>>17902530
>Still I say these are living beings, just on a different level awareness.
Plants are live matter; animals, being sentient entities with spirit, mind, and body, are latent subjects of God, therefore, murdering them constitutes sacrilege —a violation of life—, whilst consuming them is just unhealthy, disgusting, and ugly; to base one's ethicomorality on an other's degree of awareness is idiotic, and perverse.

>So that leads me to the question: Will we ever bridge the gap between us and the Gods/Farmers...

1. There is only one God.

2. (Meta)humans are spiritual farmers before they are physical ones.

>>17748709
>That’s all well and good but ignores the common usage of the actual term in academia and the list of traditions it refers to, it also assumes your tradition is somehow the proper one.
Tradition, and notional reference, are not a factor in the meaning of a term —which is absolute—, nor are they pertinent to my argument ; gnosticism is a theological modality which is rooted in nobility, regardless of traditional/rote perpetuation of any accrued meanings, and/or significations, that are contrary to this.

>just as I eat the flesh of my God and just as I devour the flesh of the animal so shall I also disregard entirely your theological position.
The fact that you not only attribute your ingestion of the flesh & blood of innocent, beautiful creatures to God's will, but also do not seem to regard this as ugly, and disgusting, is precisely what is indicative of your ethicomoral perversity, which, of course, extends beyond the ambit of diet.

>Face it, gnostic is an umbrella term ultimately, it confers no special authority any more than calling yourself a tantric Buddhist.
Contrarily: all noble persons —persons who lead a noble lifestyle— converge, and concur, in mutual affinity —whether it be: sensible, intellectual, or ethicomoral—, regardless of relative personal, cultural, national, et cetera, diversity —this is what it means to be united in nobility.

>If you cannot demonstrate by your actions that the principles of your soul abide with the wellspring of the Good, no matter the many claims of superiority you speak, you simply shall not convince anyone.
If the despicable precepts, and actions, of those villanous main character entities featured in the Old Testament, and of the miscallaneous characters, and/or works, which are based off of the former, and/or which share in the perversity of the former, seem sensible, and justifiable, and take ethicomoral precedence, to you, over the twelve commandments of Jesus Christ —among other things— you are probably beyond convincing anyway, and ignore what heroism is.

>>17748709
>That’s all well and good but ignores the common usage of the actual term in academia and the list of traditions it refers to, it also assumes your tradition is somehow the proper one.
Tradition, and notional reference, are not a factor in the meaning of a term —which is absolute—, nor are they pertinent to my argument ; gnosticism is a theological modality which is rooted in nobility, regardless of traditional/rote perpetuation of any accrued meanings, and/or significations, that are contrary to this.

>just as I eat the flesh of my God and just as I devour the flesh of the animal so shall I also disregard entirely your theological position.
The fact that you not only attribute your ingestion of the flesh & blood of innocent, beautiful creatures to God's will, but also do not seem to regard this as ugly, and disgusting, is precisely what is indicative of your ethicomoral perversity, which, of course, extends beyond the ambit of diet.

>Face it, gnostic is an umbrella term ultimately, it confers no special authority any more than calling yourself a tantric Buddhist.
Contrarily: all noble persons —persons who lead a noble lifestyle— converge, and concur, in mutual affinity —whether it be: sensible, intellectual, or ethicomoral—, regardless of relative personal, cultural, national, et cetera, diversity —this is what it means to be united in nobility.

>If you cannot demonstrate by your actions that the principles of your soul abide with the wellspring of the Good, no matter the many claims of superiority you speak, you simply shall not convince anyone.
If the despicable precepts, and actions, of those villanous main character entities featured in the Old Testament, and of the miscallaneous characters, and/or works, off of which they are based, and/or which share in this perversity, seem sensible, and justifiable, and take ethicomoral precedence, to you, over the twelve commandments of Jesus Christ —among other things— you are probably beyond convincing anyway, and ignore what heroism is.

>>14889001
>radicals want to completely get rid of it.
I ignore to what "radicals" you are referring here, but the only authentic, geniune radicals are Antizionists & National Socialists.

>I sort of understood what you were saying above though, that the radical is going back to some even earlier root(human labor in the abstract or something, whatever) and that is what they will perform their synthesis on.
That is vaguely accurate, but to be clear: I am primarily referring to Aryan protoculture & universalism, which are the original root proper of culture & civilization.

>>14731382
You are ignorantly deluded, and, unbeknownst to yourself, referring to: sophists, antiartists, pseudohistorians, and so on, excepting Jerome David Salinger, who countered/overcame his jewish heredity.

>"The Jew totally lacks any interest in things of the spirit. If he has pretended in Germany to have a bent for literature and the arts, that’s only out of snobbery, or from a liking for speculation.”
- Adolf Hitler, Table Talk 63.

>>14537761
Because, beside introducing sophism in particular, and anticulture in general, in both what are vulgarly regarded as: the western, and eastern, geographical parts of the world, and beside creating the chimeric abomination that is judeochristianity, they have also succeeded in making individuals like yourself blind to the zionist agenda.

>"The Jew totally lacks any interest in things of the spirit. If he has pretended in Germany to have a bent for literature and the arts, that’s only out of snobbery, or from a liking for speculation.”
- Adolf Hitler, Table Talk 63.