/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23496354]

Where to start with Gnosticism?

[Anonymous No.23496364]

>>23496354
gnosticism should never be started

the latinas do be comin round just when you get into the groove tho

[Anonymous No.23496480]

>>23496354
The Nag Hammadi texts

[Anonymous No.23496486]

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

[Anonymous No.23496487]

>>23496354
DENY DENY DENY
PROCEED COURSE
PLEIADIAN GODDESS SOON

[Anonymous No.23496488]

>>23496354
At the end, when you give it all up and seek Christ according to the Word of God.

[Anonymous No.23496501]

Gnosticism has now become pretentious trannycore but i guess if you really want to…. start with Plato (specifically the Timaeus), the enneads, the Christian New Testament, or you could just jump into the Nag Hammadi texts. It’s important to remember though that internet/Reddit gnosticism “FUCK CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY AND FUCK MY REPUBLICAN PARENTS, WHY WASNT MY SOUL PUT INTO A WOMAN’S BODH?!?!?!?! THE WORLD IS SO EVIL AAHHHHH” doom blackpill Ifunny faggotry is not really what gnosticism is. It’s like a synthesis of middle platonism, neoplatonism, and Christian mysticism. There wasn’t really a distinction between what we would call “philosophy” and “theology” yet so pre-niecene creed Christianity essentially served as its own competing school of thought and neoplatonism in a way had evolved into a bizarre mystery religion (and not at all like a form proto-rationalism as the enlightenment later tried to characterize it)

As someone who actually read this stuff it’s not as interesting as you think it is going to be. Just fyi but you’re probably 15 or retarded

[Anonymous No.23496511]

>>23496501
The gnosis fags used to have long many threaded deep arguments about all kinds of nonsense that my teenage brain didn't understand or care for..that was 20 years ago sad they left

[Anonymous No.23496560]

>>23496354
A ella le gusta la gasolina/ Dame más gasolina
Cómo le encanta la gasolina/ Dame más gasolina

[Anonymous No.23496575]

>>23496354
Plato's Critias and Timaeus to understand the metaphysical concepts and how they got grafted onto Jewish/Christian cosmology.
Nag Hammadi texts if you want to understand what the actual Gnostics thought.
Mandaean texts if you want to see the form of Gnosticism that still exists today (it's an ethnic religion you aren't allowed to convert to btw).

>>23496501
The Enneads is an anti-Gnostic text; Plotinus thought Gnosticism was a perversion of Plato. Otherwise you're not wrong and "Gnostics" are usually Crowley-tier Hot Topic larp shit.

[Anonymous No.23497074]

>>23496354
Oh, you wanna dive into Gnosticism? Buckle up, little man. Start with the "Nag Hammadi Library"—it's like the Dead Sea Scrolls but spicier. You'll find all the weird, mystical texts like the Gospel of Thomas. Also, check out "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels; it's a decent intro for normies. Don't forget to lurk moar on /lit/ for some dank recommendations. Pro tip: avoid the cringe new-age stuff unless you like drinking snake oil. Welcome to the rabbit hole, nerd.

[Anonymous No.23497419]

[Anonymous No.23497472]

Do yourself a favor and read the Patristics instead. The good parts of Gnosticism are orthodox and became part of orthodoxy.

Pic related is good. So is William Harmless' Mystics and his book on Augustine.

[Anonymous No.23497566]

>>23496354
Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 3-4, Galatians 1, Romans 8:19-22, Luke 24 and the Gospel of Mark (King James Bible), but you should eventually end up here: >>23496486; every other way is just another entrance to the ride

[Anonymous No.23497613]

>>23497566
>but you should eventually end up here: >>23496486; every other way is just another entrance to the ride
>just another entrance to the ride
If you're not wearing the wedding garment, you'll be booted from the wedding. Your lamps won't be trimmed and oiled.

[Anonymous No.23497614]

>>23497472
This but the exact opposite.

[Anonymous No.23497664]

>>23497074
AI post

[Anonymous No.23497725]

I went through a pretty big gnostic phase and, honestly, after much contemplation it’s not worth it. And, while the church fathers were more than a little retarded, and obviously embellished a lot of shit they wrote against heresies and all that, Nicaea was 100% necessary. Don’t get me wrong, it’s cool to learn about the history of the religion/philosophy and trying to understand how it all developed, but a lot of other anons are right that a lot autistic modern dipshits think like autistic evangelicals and they also blow it way out of proportion and generally don’t understand that philosophy and ideas can also evolve. So read it but it has almost nothing to do with the modern conception of the ideal.

[Anonymous No.23497758]

>>23497725
>after much contemplation it’s not worth it.
Why

[Anonymous No.23497773]

>>23497725
The gnostic temperament isn't about christianity.

[Anonymous No.23497776]

Read The Mystery of Belicena Villca by Nimrod de Rosario. You then have Fundamentals of the Hyperborean Wisdom but I dont know if it has been translated to Spanish.

[Anonymous No.23497796]

>>23497776
Based rosarioposter
Gnostic Fragments is good too

[Anonymous No.23497803]

Not OP but what's up with a lot of Transgendered individuals getting into gnosticism lately?

[Anonymous No.23497814]

>>23497803
Trannies are into anything men like for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous No.23497818]

>>23497803
Well Gnosticism is all about how the material world is corrupt and evil, and the only thing that's real is the soul. That tracks with men who despise their flesh and think they're spiritually women

[Anonymous No.23497824]

>>23497818
But trannies are obsessed with bodily pleasures, their whole thing is set around their sexuality and their axe wounds. How can they be gnostic, they might think they are, but thinking that does not make them spiritual or anything.

[Anonymous No.23497828]

>>23497824
gnosticism has antinatalist themes
trannies are infertile
its not a perfect fit, but its a fit

[Anonymous No.23497841]

>>23497472
>>23497614
huh

[Anonymous No.23497875]

>>23497841
If you want to learn about gnosticism from a nicene perspective, do what the guy said
If you want to learn about the gnostic temperament, which is more like a property of man's spirit and independent of abrahamism, see >>23497419

[Anonymous No.23497879]

>>23497758
Well it’s a long conversation that requires a lot of study and thought, I just don’t think that, ultimately, I don’t find it logically sound and I think there was a lot of grift there. And I don’t mean that dismissively, I only say it that way to try to not sound like a pedant. I also want to be clear that, as a history buff, there are some really cool and interesting things to learn about the life and times and belief in antiquity so if you’re big into the sort of reality of history, it’s probably worth it for that.
>>23497773
Yeah…that’s kinda part of what I’m getting at. And even then it’s less logically sound than what it’s based on from the Bronze Age.

[Anonymous No.23497880]

>>23497824
Trannies are anti cosmic faustian luciferian prometheans who wish to transform themselves into robots of the opposite sex and be ruled by AIs. Read early Nick Land for details

Also gnostics are not ascetic. Like most occultists tbeu used typical tantric justifications for depraved sex. I need to eat da poopoo and fuck lil kids for enlightenment ass bullshit

[Anonymous No.23497894]

>>23497879
>I don’t find it logically sound
Why

[Anonymous No.23497896]

>>23497880
>transform themselves into robots of the opposite sex and be ruled by AIs
Not the goal of gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.23497901]

>>23497880
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Stick to ortholarping, you're out of your depth

[Anonymous No.23497902]

>>23496480
>Nag Hammadi
No. Start with Timaeus and read contemporary middle and neoplatonists side by side with gnosticism, that way you can decide if the gnostics really understood what the demiurge was supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.23497917]

>>23497824
Some of the gnostics justified hedonistic pursuits, poorly in my opinion, but they did. I think the Cainites might have been one sect.

[Anonymous No.23497984]

>>23497917
we have to take the heresiologists' word on that, there are no antinomian texts in the nag hammadi

[Anonymous No.23497994]

>>23497984
Oh they come from heresiologists? I’ll have to revise my opinion on that then.

[Anonymous No.23497998]

>>23497994
I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but yes, there are no tantric Gnostic texts in the NH. Not even a hint of them.

[Anonymous No.23498001]

>>23497896
Some ppl consider AI tikkun olam
>>23497901
>he doesn't know
>>23497984
>we kant trust honest ppl, we gotta trust dishonest ppl
Cope

[Anonymous No.23498011]

>>23498001
>relying on second-hand information with an agenda
not good scholarship

[Anonymous No.23498014]

>>23497998
>I don't know if you're being sarcastic
Why should I take a heresiologist at face value?

[Anonymous No.23498020]

>>23498014
You shouldn't, but there are some who treat Irenaeus and Epiphanius as gospel. Tertullian I have more respect for, since he's our only good source on Marcion.

[Anonymous No.23498066]

>>23498011
>everytime gnostics pop up there is degenerate anti-life behavior hence their quick death
>"b-b-but my troo kvlt pagan aryan gnostikism is never been tried!!!"

[Anonymous No.23498076]

>>23498066
Show me evidence for antinomian Gnostic cults self-destructing.

[Anonymous No.23498084]

>>23498076
Google albigenses and free spirit movement

Hell look at the modern day gnostic church founded by aleister satanic af crowley

[Anonymous No.23498094]

>>23498084
The Cathars weren't antinomian degenerates.

>modern day gnostic church
Get serious.

[Anonymous No.23498121]

>>23498094
>t. blinded by love of dark
Ok, have fun being a useful idiot

[Anonymous No.23498122]

>>23498121
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.23498129]

>>23497894
In short I don’t find the ancients much different from us moderns and I think there was a lot of fiction created to cover grift and intentionally obfuscate the fundamental ideas in order to justify nonsense (i.e. sex and drug use among cult members). The main core of the philosophy is admirable but, as I’m certain you know, that core philosophy comes from far earlier and from far better men (in my opinion). And, by the time of early Christianity, the gnostics who were both not educated enough to comment and/or were full of people just latching on to and intentionally just inserting themselves into a burgeoning, relatively unknown syncretic religion. As for specifics, there were obviously some gnostics whose ideas were more deserving but, again, I think you know that. And I already said I think the early church fathers also autistically went after too many of them, or went after certain gnostics too severely.

[Anonymous No.23498140]

>>23498129
I respect Gnosticism for the purity of its vision, not necessarily for its logical rigor (though I would kill for a formalization of the Marcionite non-All, or even a good exegesis on the Tripartite Tractite) or even ascesis (since we have no surviving records of what a properly Gnostic asceticism would look like, though it's easy to infer). You're right it has its antecedents in religions like Orphism.

[Anonymous No.23498268]

>>23498140
Yes Marcion is one. I think their excommunication and general treatment of Arius after Nicaea was absurd and should have been a larger stain on the early church but, when you have an emperor who largely doesn’t care about the specifics and is mostly just trying to hold onto power paired with a large group of zealots who do, then there’s not much you can do, I suppose. Still and again, I think the general idea of Nicaea was necessary to circle the wagons, so to speak, and stop nonsense like the Phibionites/Nicolianites from giving them a bad name - especially given they finally did grow enough to get such a blessing from the emperor. It’s kinda like today, in that, though the Mormons started in a founding myth and early practices that many would consider to be absurd, in the modern years they have legitimate presidential candidates and it would be like them being cool with the child bride stuff of the Jeffs. Which, it’s no coincidence they tried to purge them from Mormonism at the same time.

[Anonymous No.23498291]

>>23498268
I suppose I see the history of Christianity as a history of declension and compromise. That DIY quality of Gnosticism does tend to attract the riff raff, but also the radically uncompromising acosmic realists. I prefer Gnosticism as a pole star, a vision to steer by, and prefer Buddhism and Christian monasticism for praxis.

[Anonymous No.23498343]

>>23498291
That’s a decent way of looking at it and I would never disagree entirely. I just think that the earliest form of what Gnosticism became was a far better, far more logical analysis of reality than what it became/devolved into. Conversely, I think Christianity actually became better/more coherent/more consistent over time. And, honestly, a lot of that probably has more to do with the simplicity of the metaphors and allegories and forced consistency of the message (through councils like Nicaea) than it does with any sort of fundamental quality of the message. And that’s largely a credit to someone like Constantine who, as emperor and pontifex Maximus, etc., understood power enough that he knew he needed to control it. In comparison to Julian, who thought it best to try and fight against it - to his, you know, early demise. Now I’m rambling but I hope you get the idea.

[Anonymous No.23498368]

>>23498343
Besides the Valentinian texts I'd be hard-pressed to call any of the early forms of Gnosticism particularly logical or even analytic, though I find all its strains compelling. I sort of detest Augustine but I'm willing to believe the Manichaean apologists he was up against probably weren't very up to snuff. I'd agree Christianity became more coherent over time, but in direct proportion with its worldliness/the declension I was talking about. it's funny how the Gnostics attacked their contemporaries for their glorification of martyrdom, but you get a bit of a martyrology in Carpocratianism, martyring your soul to Evil so that the spirit might be freed. I don't have much else to say. I'm rambling, too.

[Anonymous No.23498429]

>>23498368
Yeah, I actually think we’re on the same/similar page as I also have criticisms against how…rigid(?) Christianity became as it slowly eliminated its competitors, again, so to speak. But it’s like they became so pervasive and all-encompassing and learned and wielded such an effective power of control, it was inevitable, I guess. And I want to be clear that I think there have been many negative effects on the world, due to this as well. And while I don’t have a proper word for it at the moment, I miss or regret or I’m nostalgic for a lot of “magic” of the world that I can’t help but feel has been lost and I hope it finds again. Julian was right on a lot of things. But I’m of the opinion that sometimes people try to go backward instead of realizing we have to go forward. And I’d encourage you to create you and I to create/add our own magic to this world and, who knows, in 2000 years it’s ours that may shape this reality.

[Anonymous No.23498447]

>>23498429
I suppose that's the value of the Gnostic project, it can always be taken up again. There is still value in Christianity, but as an ascetic program and not as a community or political entity. I don't think it was arbitrary either; what won in the long-term historically is what was given to win in such conditions. I don't think in this, or any other possible world would we have had Gnostic conquistadors, or a Gnostic inquisition, for example. The compromise-formations in Christianity won, the rest fell away or were sequestered in the monasteries. But anyways, agreed on everything else. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.23498485]

>>23498447
Yeah well Rome never fell, it just became a Church…
As they say…
Good luck to ya.

[Anonymous No.23499375]

>>23497419
Gotta admit, I didn't expect to see Ursula K. LeGuin and Miguel fucking Serrano recommended for the same thing when I woke up this morning.

[Anonymous No.23499383]

I accept this trade OP

[Anonymous No.23499581]

>>23497880
>gnostics are not ascetic
Mandaeans seem very ascetic. They can't consume alcohol, most meat or even mushrooms.

Druze aren't allowed to consume alcohol or pork but that's probably more of a vestigial Islamic thing than a Gnostic thing.

[Anonymous No.23500171]

wait... so if i convert to gnosticism, i get a latina gf?

[Anonymous No.23500207]

>>23497824
>But trannies are obsessed with bodily pleasures, their whole thing is set around their sexuality and their axe wounds.
Imagine for a moment, if you will, that the very sight of your body gives you an irrevocable dread. Every time you see it, interact with it, are reminded of it, dread. Think about the mechanical processes by which that body comes about, by which your brain came about, by which these mechanisms affect social interaction. Is it that surprising that a few of them eventually adopt a religious outlook that condemns natural material living? To frame it as a "bodily pleasure" issue is disingenous to put it lightly.

If it makes you feel better, there are mainline Christian trannies too, even Muslim ones weirdly enough.

[Anonymous No.23500313]

>>23500207
This but I want to replace my body with eternal gold

[Anonymous No.23500327]

>>23496501
>Gnosticism has now become pretentious trannycore
Whta doed "pretentious trannycore" mean?

[Anonymous No.23500389]

>>23500327
Made up bullshit to imply the (false) existence of a narrative to own the chuds

[Anonymous No.23500401]

>>23499383
Then you lose, lmao. Sure was worth ruining your mind and agency over your life for le sex! Many such cases!

[Anonymous No.23500675]

>>23500389
Ok.

[Anonymous No.23500950]

>>23496354
Hans Jonas' book is a good start on the topic.

[Anonymous No.23501024]

Anyone read Sloterdijk here?

[Anonymous No.23501106]

>>23501024
Yes. Pic related should be added to the chart here
>>23497419

[Anonymous No.23501823]

>>23496354
unironically don't

[Anonymous No.23501892]

>>23496354
Why is it Gnosticism specifically of all the early heresies that got BTFO that all the trannies online like? Why not Nestorianism or whatever?

[Anonymous No.23501902]

>>23499383
>>23500171
She'll be 300 lbs 2 years after marriage and she'll scratch you and scream at you constantly. Also your children will be like 5'5.

[Anonymous No.23501934]

>>23501892
It has an aesthetic that has been built up and is the coolest Christian heresy. The actual writings are really lame though to read though mostly, far worse than the Qur'an. Few gems in them though.

[Anonymous No.23501973]

>>23501934
NTA, Catholic here but I rly like Gospels of Mary and Thomas. Hymn of the Pearl is also cute. Miss me w that hypostasis of archons bs tho. Thunder perfect mind inspired some neat Current 93 stuff too. Anyway, it's funny watchin guenonfags sperg over this so called green dragon anon. I suppose this phenomena may be merely psychic but I consider myself moreso psyche than spirit. In fact, I think modern dualism is moreso spirit versus body and psychic soul is forgotten altogether. So altho not an okkvltnik, I enjoy seeing this perennialist presentation on various psychic forces. I do believe that demons and angels can be independent entities moreover as a Christian. It is a mistake to say all psychic activity is base and impure as well indeed. So I dunno if I view Crowley as evil. But every spiritual experience has psychic residue. Even those that seek to expunge all psuche. A la buddhizm and hindooizm. And I guess I identify the christian neoplatonic tradition as closest to my experience of reality. Plus, I'm an initiated RC. Initation is not dead in West. Tho the culture forces some degree of auto initation. Hence my reading of Evola and other active folx like Crowley mentioned here. Suppose I could call myself Christian Hermeticism as well. Anyway, not my blog. But interesting thread.....

[Anonymous No.23502036]

>>23501973
Nvm. I'm two beers deep and confusing two threads.

[Anonymous No.23502068]

>>23501973
Unrelated to this thread, but what are your thoughts on Hegel?