/lit/ - Literature

>>16533749
The dumber ones won.

>>16533749
>Why does a cup over flow when its full?
>>16533790
And your and elitist. Honestly your the worst type of poster on here.

>>16533840
I’m an elitist because I think it was a horrible mistake to let a hoard of dumbasses run europe for centuries?
So be it.

>And your and elitist
Fuck butters but seriously grow up

why are tripfags always such resentful fags

>It was the dumb ones TUURRRRRNNNNN

Bump.

>>16533749
because it stands to reason that a cosmic prison is engineered to make the acceptance of pro-cosmic doctrines more viable

>>16534239
>>16534455
>newfags don't know the difference between a tripfag and namefag
Look, now I'm butterfly!

>>16533749
The model of hell is there, but you didn't notice.

>>16533749
Because Christianity is true and gnosticism is not.

>>16534954
Had you been on the internet three years earlier or three years later, you wouldn't have been a Christian.

>>16534954
How is it not true? What kind of loving God traps souls inside a material prison full of suffering? What purpose would there be for him to do so?

>>16534987
Had you been on the internet three years earlier or three years later, you wouldn't have been a Gnostic.

>>16535040
here, so we can have an actual discussion, I'll get all the pseud talking points out of the way

>you need to suffer to grow
>you need to know darkness to know light
>evil isn't real
>people don't actually suffer, it's just an illusion
>free will, although why a God should be constrained to make free beings with the power to do evil when I can name people in my own life who are free but naturally cheerful and kind-hearted, that I can't answer
>r-read Iraneaus
>how can you claim to know the mind of God?

on and on it goes

>>16535052
I'm not a Gnostic, and it hasn't seen a recent upsurge in zoomer popularity like tradcathism, so you're twice wrong. If anything, Gnosticism was more popular a few decade back, in cyberfetishist circles.

>>16534239
You have surely elevated this board with Yet Another Basedjack Post

>>16535076
It's growing in popularity these last years, like neopaganism and other sorts of contrarianism that won't reach the normie surface for being too edgy but that they are very active nonetheless among internet larpers. Catholicism is the biggest denomination in the world, we're not talking about some obscure heresy, your attempt to compare both is ridicule.

>>16535076
Transgenderism is gnostic.

>>16535149
No it isn't retard, stop spouting shit you don't understand

>>16535156
your worldview is fundamentally the same as a tranny. Cope harder.

>>16535164
Nah

>>16535141
There is a recent trend of converting for political and culture war reasons, everyone knows it and sees it. Gnosticism doesn't have the same political push (legitimate or not), so it's clearly immensely marginal, as you admit yourself. My comparison stand, you're stupid for thinking one can't compare proportional changes in things of different magnitudes.

>>16535164
The problem of transgenderism is that it doesn't work ; they're ugly, and still deranged. If one could magically became perfectly what their target sex was, and had been able to do so for a few thousand years, I bet it'd be accepted and defended by most world religions.

>>16533749
Maybe because these religions were quite excentric and anti-catholic/monarchy, simple movements like the Cathars and the Waldensians which had no real "church" so to speak, no real organization, and no real anything left them with nothing to protect themselves from the big monarchs and the catholic church, take the Cathars, they had the followers and a caste of vagabond preachers that lived off of charity, they gained popularity in north Italy and Languedoc but the lack of centralization and people to fight for them annihilated them, in my opinion, of course, I may be wrong.

>>16535424
Gnosticism’s highest concern is the attainment of the highest freedom so it doesn’t strike me as surprising that they weren’t interested in authority and person worship like their contemporary catlicks

>>16535326
But the thing about gnosticism is that it doesn't NEED an explicit political push towards itself. It has an eclectic nature that even lets its worldview infiltrate and use the outer trappings of already existing religions. Many of modern era's dominant notions have gnostic undercurrents of things not being really their true selves due to the authoritarian imposition by an (immanentized or not) demiurge figure. This goes from Marxism (class society where the demiurge is the ruling class and gnosis is the understanding of history) to transgenderism (where your "real" self is imprisoned by the cis establishment's arbitrary gender rules) to transhumanists (for obvious reasons) and many other minor things.

>>16535756
Wasn't their highest concern eventually breaking off the reincarnation cycle that traps them into this world? By asceticism.

>>16536086
By gnosis, and yes they consider it the highest freedom

Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.

Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers.

Ways of evading the recognition of the flawed creation and its flawed creator have been devised over and over, but none of these arguments have impressed Gnostics. The ancient Greeks, especially the Platonists, advised people to look to the harmony of the universe, so that by venerating its grandeur they might forget their immediate afflictions. But since this harmony still contains the cruel flaws, forlornness and alienation of existence, this advice is considered of little value by Gnostics. Nor is the Eastern idea of Karma regarded by Gnostics as an adequate explanation of creation’s imperfection and suffering. Karma at best can only explain how the chain of suffering and imperfection works. It does not inform us in the first place why such a sorrowful and malign system should exist.

Once the initial shock of the “unusual” or “blasphemous” nature of the Gnostic explanation for suffering and imperfection of the world wears off, one may begin to recognize that it is in fact the most sensible of all explanations. To appreciate it fully, however, a familiarity with the Gnostic conception of the Godhead is required, both in its original essence as the True God and in its debased manifestation as the false or creator God.

>>16535149
Quite opposite. Trannies are peak hylic. They only care about satisfy their degenerate and materialist fetish.

>>16536211
>The ancient Greeks, especially the Platonists, advised people to look to the harmony of the universe, so that by venerating its grandeur they might forget their immediate afflictions. But since this harmony still contains the cruel flaws, forlornness and alienation of existence, this advice is considered of little value by Gnostics.

But what is this harmony of the universe?

>>16536211
Weren't Gnosticism Christian sects dualistic? Like the Cathars or Waldensians?

>>16533749
Read Nietzsche. Gnosticism is a cosmic cope. It doesn't even give the societal biological benefits that Christianity does. I get it, the schizo aesthetics are cool, but stop role playing, it's retarded.

>>16535040
Life isn't suffering you're just pathetic

>the false/evil creator is the product of a chain of emanations stemming from the monad
then how is the monad not ultimately responsible for the flaws of the material world? this doesn't solve anything, it just kicks the problem down the road a little

>>16536211
It seems very evident to me that the further humans stray from nature (God's creation) and into our own designs, the more we suffer. Ted K's ISAIF would be a good demonstration of this. This really suggests that the fault is with us, our desires and our perceptions. Trying to reconcile these ideas seems impossible, and Ted's arguments and Zhuangzi's appeal to nature's simplicity, are much more convincing than the Gnostic mental gymnastics.

Furthermore, many of the most powerful people, who inflict great suffering on millions, have very similar beliefs, where science is going to invent a way out of it, or that they literally can become powerful enough to overthrow God through other means.

>>16537322
I think you’re misunderstanding this. The demiurge is not an ’evil’ source from the monad, he is simply an incomplete product from the pure, uncorrupted Monad as a result of emanation, and thus at his disposal he has inadequate tools to fashion with

>>16537406
>he is simply an incomplete product from the pure, uncorrupted Monad as a result of emanation
why?

>>16537554
as it says >as a result of emanation
it is still in being. we are trying to discern something that is outside of being

>>16537363
Gnosticism and the unabomber both have fatalistic undertones but what ISAIF doesn't have is Gnosticism's bigger applicability. Language permeates all. The allegory of the garden of eden has always been the thesis of Unabomber's book. He thinks he's the first to finally hit the nail on the head when the ancients have always known.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3xUd6e06T0

>>16533749
>I’ve been reading about gnosticism and it makes a lot more sense than Christianity.
Nigger what? It's not common knowledge because they're contradictory and confusing. Read Plotinus, Augustine, Palamas, and Dionysius instead of secondary literature glorifying gnostics. You'll learn more, and your notions of Christinaity will forever be altered. If you want gnosticism just go to Islam, Christianity simply has no use for it.
>>16535040
>What kind of loving God traps souls inside a material prison full of suffering?
Bro just be in the world but not of it, that's what Christianity teaches. Too much focus on either the worldly or otherworldy is a distraction, because the prisoner who was released from the cave still went back to tell the others what he saw. There is a tangible mystical reality that is magnified from our unique optic, as people in the world who are capable of seeing beyond it. The Church teaches us to see this reality, even though it still does not have all the answers. Ignoring it because of the drug that is "knowing" will only cause you to lose your way. Don't think of Creation as a trap, but something you should be prepared to move on from. Making it into a prison will cause you to become spiritually erratic and never know the peace that can be found in the most simplest yet challenging way; live your life, see the signs, and try not to sin too much. That's it, and that's all that can be said on the matter.