What's /x/ got to say about Gnosticism?
How close is it to the truth?
In its core, seeking unity with god trough all kinds of practices, Gnosticism is spot on.
Gnosis is experienced, but the truth is hard to grasp, and hard to put into words afterwards.
As far as this goes, suffi poetry, gnostic Islam, said it best in the words of Rumi:
What is God?
If you think that the Truth can be known
From words,
If you think that the Sun and the Ocean
Can pass through that tiny opening
Called the mouth,
O someone should start laughing!
Someone should start wildly Laughing -
Now!
>>17733360
Rumi once said...
I always think of jackpot when I hear rumi lol
>>17733370
haha that's really funny I've listened to those recordings before haha
>>17733379
I am aware. I know you better than you think
>>17733370
>>17733379
>>17733385
your samefag is showing
anyways, rumi and jackpot? why are those words connected, I don't get it?
>>17733301
I don't know man
The whole "universe is made by a bad god" is like saying everything in life around you is bad, you've been lied to.
So better get rid of everything you have even your life to climb back to god.
My view is that everything is here and now and you have to enjoy it and use everythin you want to feel deep love in yourself. Because the only true thing is probably love.
>>17733389
Isabella Valentine hands free orgasm hypnosis
>>17733301
So much control and responsibility.
>Ye gets good at it.
>Lesson learnt.
>Babby's first "gnosticism"
True gnosticism is Samael Aun Weor/Rabolu/Belsebuub/Krumm Heller/etc..
Depends on what aspect of the "gnostics" you're talking about. Competing authorities in the creation of the material world in general? Btw Gnosticism is a blanket term coined by the church for heretical groups with similar beliefs, they never referred to themselves by the name. Peep this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rethinking_%22Gnosticism%22
>>17733360
sufism is absolutely fucking based. gnostic islam is best islam
>>17733301
Gnosticism is a Luciferian subversion of Christianity
It leads you comfortably into the conclusion that the creator is evil and that satan is divine
>>17734021
Christianity is a Demiurgic subversion of Gnosticism
It leads you comfortably into the conclusion that Yahweh is evil and that God the Father is divine
>>17734244
It leads you comfortably into the conclusion that Yahweh is evil and that God the Father is divine
I mean, Gnosticism leads to that conclusion. Fuck. I fucked this one up.
>>17733301
The truth of Gnosticism is how easily it can be reconciled with Buddhism, Hinduism, ancient Greco-Roman mystery religions, Sufism and even some forms of Christian mysticism, whereas Christian orthodoxy claims exclusivity in contradiciton to all of these.
But the truth, if it is truth, has to be truth always and everywhere, not just for one particular sect at a particular time. And the consensus speaks in favor of Gnosticism and against Christian orthodoxy.
not true
>>17734259
>these religions have some similarities, therefore they are all in agreement
>it is impossible for large groups of people to be wrong
Gnosticism needs to be defended from you.
>>17734267
Only if you adhere to a literal interpretation of these religions. Surely according to Hindu scriptures the universe is a flat disc with a mountain in its center and the sun, moon and stars orbiting it. Which does not accord with the Abrahamic account, and the two don't accord with modern science, which would leas us to believe that no religion is true and miss the big picture.
In Hinduism and Buddhism (and Platonism for that matter) the creator of the material world is not the supreme being, hence the material world is not the ultimate reality. Now whether you think the creator of the world is evil or just limited or which mythological account of creation you favor over another is entirely besides the point.
>>17734292
>as long as you ignore all of the things that make these religions different, they're basically all the same
>>17734267
As to your other point
>it is impossible for large groups of people to be wrong
Nowhere did I resort to the argument of the majority, but to the commonality and obstinacy of truth throughout human history and peoples.
>>17734296
>as long as you ignore all of the things that make these religions different, they're basically all the same
You are putting words in my mouth. I said
>The truth of Gnosticism is how easily it can be reconciled with
I never said they were all the same.
>>17734302
You can reconcile any religion with any other religion if you're willing to disregard huge swathes of their dogmas, like you're doing now.
>>17734308
Very well then try to reconcile orthodox Christianity or Islam with the idea that the creator of the material world is not the supreme being.
You seem to misunderstand what dogma is by the way.
>>17734329
Protip: creation accounts are not dogma.
>>17733301
>Gnost
>Ghost
Think about it.
>>17734329
Easy - the main idea of Orthodox Christianity and Islam is that pure devotion to God (via Christ or application of Muhammad's teaching, respectively), so you can disregard niggling details about who created what.
That's a hilariously wrong interpretation, but that's my fucking point: if you told a devout Hindu that their religion is gnosticism in different makeup, they'd politely conceal how much they hate you and your bullshit.
>>17734021
Its quite the opposite, unless your implying Satan created god.
Though really its a christian reaction to the greek Demiurge. Where of course the Demiurge is demonised and the Void is praised, because they are backwards like that.
>>17734363
There's a ghost in the machine.
>>17734377
Actually no you can't disregard who created what. You clearly can't tell essential from accidental aspects of a religion.
>>17735242
>the only thing that matters about any religion is this one specific thing I have decided is more important than anything else
Go tell a Hindu that his gods are all irrelevant. I'll wait patiently for your findings.
this image belongs in this thread on this imageboard
>>17735345
We are but feeble vessels, for even feebler souls
>>17734377
>if you told a devout Hindu that their religion is gnosticism
Again, you're putting words in my mouth and having imaginary battles against strawmen.
But since you mentioned Hinduism. Sri Prabhupada is one of the foremost authorities in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sect of Hinduism. He and his followers believe and maintain that Jesus Christ is a guru and a messenger of the supreme God. But this supreme God they believe to be Krishna, and Krishna is not Yahweh. Which Hindu God resembles Yahweh the most? As a Canaanite storm god, Yahweh seems to resemble Indra more, but as a creator deity (and Yahweh conflates aspects of both the Cannanite storm god and creator god, El), he is more closely related to Brahma. Either way, in both Hinduism and Gnosticism we have a clear distinction between the creator God and the supreme, transcendent God above him.
It follows therefore that Hinduism and Gnosticism are perfectly compatible in its most essential aspects. Not so much orthodox Christianity. You can't have a higher being than Yahweh, that's an article of faith and an essential aspect of the religion. Hence they are incompatible.
Your turn. This is when you insist in mischaracterizing my arguments and saying that I'm equating both religions. You must mischaracterize my arguments, otherwise you would have nothing else to say. But by all means, fight the good fight against those little strawmen.
>>17735394
>Krishna is not Yahweh
Krishna isn't the Monad either.
>It follows therefore that Hinduism and Gnosticism are perfectly compatible in its most essential aspects
You have arbitrarily decided that 'the supreme being didn't create the world' is the only detail that matters. It's not your call to make. It's not your religion to rewrite.
>>17733301
It was pretty popular when Tomoko was alive.
>>17735169
There's a ghost in your computer.
>>17736544
>44
>>17736563
>>17737118
ahahhaha
>>17736563
East Coweta High School?
>>17737144
Sure, so long as you're learning.
>>17737146
You didn't check my 44 dubs did you...
>>17737156
I did. I wouldn't have replied otherwise.
