Who gnostic gang here?
Who gnostic gang here?
Other urls found in this thread:
What the fuck is a gnostic?
Somehow heretic medieval christian sects are becoming mainstream online. Probably a youtuber made a vlog on it or something.
All religious fags pls go.
I am planning to read this next, any advice?
If I have understood right Gnostics think that this universe is fake and gay created by an incompetent/evil god.
Why be gnostic when you can practice free love with the Beghards?
Lol that's hella gay. Stoic gang is the real shit
Gnosticism is a term for a stereotypical set of religious beliefs that were a part of various heterodox religious sects throughout history.
The term 'Gnostic' comes from the belief among many of these groups in a secret, spiritual knowledge or Gnosis; Gnosis literally being Greek for knowledge.
Despite how the term may be misused, there was never an actual religion called 'Gnosticism'.
There have been a wide variety of religions/sects that today are considered Gnostic, however the most common theological aspects they all share include:
1) The belief that the material world that we live in is a lesser, corrupted copy of a perfect spiritual realm.
2) That our bodies and the world around us are little more then the ever decaying prisons for our perfect, spiritual souls.
3) That this lesser material world was created by a malevolent entity called a 'Demiurge' (later Christian, Gnostic sects tended to identify the Demiurge with Satan and/or the god of the old testament).
4) That while the Demiurge is the master of our material realm, he is a lesser entity to the master of the perfect spiritual realm (Christian Gnostics tended to identify this 'over-god' with the god of the new testament).
5) That our souls would be forever reincarnated into new bodily prisons unless one were to achieve spiritual perfection/Gnosis.
While Gnosticism has been a set of beliefs that have been attached to many different religions (Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism etc) over the course of history, it has historically been most successful when attached to Christianity; The Cathars, Marcionites and Paulicians for example.
While there are many reasons for this, the most pressing seems to be the rather eloquent answer Gnosticism provides as the problem of evil, the disconnect between the genocidal god of the old testament and the loving god of the new testament and the relatively simple cosmology compared to concepts such as the trinity.
The only notable Gnostic sects surviving today are the Druze (an examples of Gnostic beliefs applied to Islam) and the Mandaeans (an example of Gnostic beliefs applied to heterodox Judaism).
However in the past, the most notable Gnostic faith was Manichaeism, a Gnostic blend of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity.
Manichaeism was at one point the most widely spread religion in the world, ranging from the British isles to the grand cities on the Chinese coast.
Unfortunately the grand libraries, scriptoriums and primary administrative temples were destroyed by successive waves of Islamic expansion, leaving us with only an extremely fragmentary knowledge of their theology and no texts that are anywhere near complete.
i'll find it funny if any leftists are gnostics, but nothing surprises me. gnosticism is platonism with a christian wrap (who in turn was a student of pythagoreas, who started these secret/mystery religions). these guys were slavers and promoted rigid hierarchy and the haves and have nots. even under the banner of christianity, that was basically the same MO: in the gnostic gospels, jesus would take some "special" disciple to the side (say, mary magdalene or thomas), but treat the others as fools, preventing them from learning the true "gnosis". this is slavery in a nutshell. it's why the early church condemned it. the good news (gospel) was a message for anyone.
Gnosticism is actually a pretty good metaphor for false consciousness in capitalism though. Like a lot of religions, I think it people are trying to explain their subconscious/intuitive sense of what's going on and lack the knowledge to do it in a way that maps well to reality. Like how people explain volcanos as angry gods or whatever.
They recognize they live in a spectacle where the real nature of things is obscured, but they don't recognize that it happens through political economy and extrapolate it to existence itself. I see a couple of factors here at least. On the one hand, a lot of people's context for this kind of thinking is religious and makes cosmological or metaphysical claims, so that's the kind of thinking they are used to. On the other hand, they "exist" primarily within the spectacle and in that sense a reverse version of gnosticism is almost literally true - they have an illusory existence within an ideological construct that masks their real material existence.
If we could fix our real material existence, would that solve all problems, though user?
Many problems are due to exploitation, and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. The falling rate of profit makes porky need to find a new way of making a profit. This includes by encroaching into everyday life, monetising things that weren't before. Instead of going out with flesh and blood incarnated into the Evil cosmos friends, you go on facebook (you make the content, porky gets the ad revenue.) Instead of dating you wank off to porn (even on free tube sites moar ad revenue for porky.!)
But would communism, getting rid of the profit motive, solve all problems? People would not longer be alienated from the fruits of their labour. But what about deep existential problems. One day you will die , no longer exist, sometimes the minds baulks at the idea.
What is existence for? Science (including scientific socialism) is good at explaining why one thing exists in terms of another. But it's not good at explaining why anything exists at all, rather than nothing. It's these sort of puzzles that religion , whether orthodox or heretical, seeks to solve.
Even though it started off as a slur, there's a case for being a "post modern neo-Marxist" , and rejected Marxism as a "grand narrative." Maybe we could copy the semi-Gnostic approach of Heidegger (but not copy his disastrous political choices ofc) and say we've Fallen into this world, we don't start from a philosophical blank slate, but we should reject the big picture and work on what it is we "care" for. Rick Roderick did a good lecture on this which I'll try to find.
you first faggot.
I am one. ask me anything
stranger things have happened
example a) myself
Rick Roderick on Heidegger:
don't forget Templeovgellschaft
1) dumb shit
3) dumb shit
5) wishful thinking
t. illiterate nicene scattering propaganda out of his ass as always
Are you done molesting children tho?
Of course the gospel is for everyone, but not everyone is ready to understand the deeper meanings. Jesus spoke in parables and ended them with "ὁ ἔχων ὦτα ἀκουέτω".
>Oh everybody else is a cult, but we, we are legit guys, trust us. We only kill everyone who dare to take our wealth and power away or simply disagrees with us.
Even tho your kind had no other purpose than defend private property and brainfucking the poor and the ignorant in its entire history.
Jehovah witnesses are the truest heirs of the church in this regard.
Every good idea you took it from us, even scholastic was developed out of the urge to provide something that could be accepted by someone with a brain cell more than a rock has, and there's a reason why it came out in THAT time and in THAT city.
Gnosticism is the end of all religion, the ultimate de-spook.
Gnosticism is completely consistent with materialism, there's even a gnostic text that says explicitly that "gods" (ideas) are made of hyle. If we could change the World by thought the Demiurge wouldn't be a problem.
Undialectical garbage thread.
Are you suggesting that dialectic is magick?
Because that's a fuckin breakthrough in revolutionary science, bro.
The catholic fears the cathar
Back to Zig Forums, stormfag. Religion is alienation incarnate, and one of the biggest imposers of mediation.
Dualist theology is the most logical theological answer to theodicy I have ever come across so the Gnostics (especially the Paulicians, Manicheans and the Cathars) were pretty based imo.
you must be one of those that are primmies because muh trees and shit. I tell you something: if primitive men were around they would shit the environment more than we do. because they were wiser.
That actually tripped me out. On the one hand, she almost looks passable. On the other hand, cleavage.
Which button push?
Nice try, but Zig Forums is an apostolic board
Not an argument, fuckhead. Go sniff your own farts.
Not an argument, fuckhead. Go sniff your own farts
Nothing wrong with hebephilia, marriage among the !Kung is mostly between a man in his twenties and a woman between 14–18 years old. Plus, I think you misunderstood—I am not a gnostic, I am against all religion.
No, I'm an anarcho-primitivist because I am against all forms of coercion, alienation, hierarchy, oppression and mediation. The environmental aspects are just a side thing.
Where is the proof for that statement? Hunter-gatherer populations did absolutely no damage to the environment during the past millions of years. Additionaly, contemporary hunter-gatherer populace do absolutely no damage to the environment as well. If you think indigenous people are idiotic enough to harm what sustains them, and even have the nerve to call it "wise" then you are a lost cause.
Hang thyself, idiotic doubleposter.
So basically the Demiurge is a capitalist that traps fallen angels (the proles) inside his world-machine of production relationships hidden by commodity fetishism. Interesting.
Nah, you are an anarcho-primitivist because you dream of fucking children. Shoulda consider join the church, that would make it easier.
keep moralcucking spooky faggot
Not all of the gnostic sects had esoteric texts and practises. The term 'gnostic' is a bit of a shit term that has just stuck with christian historians.
I'm against atheism and the fact the jews still pray to a dead god.
I would wish the Ashkenazis and other Khans would turn back to their pagan beliefs like Tengriism since the God of the jews is dead.
and I find it ironic that a primitivist would be anti-religion. that's peak modernism.
How so? A lot of anarcho-primitivists deny any form of symbolic thought, that includes religion. And I am one of them. Shamanism or religion is just another precursor to civilization and needs to be ran to the ground.
either or is fine and 14-18 is hebephilia and not pedophilia. in fact before the spook of feminism invaded the world, it was perfectly normal to marry a 14-17 year old girl to a much older man and nobody gave a shit. feminism brought us the age of consent.
I dunno if the meme is correct but if Bakunin was an open feminist and married a JB he was a very conflicted man, ofc this was in the early days of revolutionary thought.
if I deny you exist will you disappear from my subconscious?
Deny as in critique.
would still sound similar though.
in essence, that is.
Absolutely not. Criticizing something does not mean denying existence.
By denying symbolic thought, what I mean is I acknowledge it's existence, but I consider it a problem.
what if I acknowledge your existence and consider it a problem?
That was a terrible try at an insult. However, if you did not mean to insult me, then again, definitely not the same thing. You acknowledge my existence and consider me a problem—I don't magically disappear from your subconscious, unless you're a tulpamancer or a schizo or some shit.
that wasn't an insult, that was a genuine question
Insult is taken, not given. However, I am sorry for not understanding your true intentions. As I already answered that question, to not waste a post, I will post some excerpts from ``Elements of Refusal`` discussing time consciousness (the precursor to religion):
Sorry for intruding on your whole autistic thread but the whole "hebe is justified because people guy's in their 20's marry girls in their late teens" thing is because human beings used to die by the age of 30 back then. Not the best way to justify it. And I'm only going against this because you're not supporting pedophilia too like a hypocrite.
Ignore the "people" before guy's, I forgot about gender specific age statistics. And I'm not deleting a whole post just to correct one word.
That is completely wrong. Study some anthropology before you speak on the subject.
The Leviathan notion that primitive people's lives were "nasty, brutish, and short" has basically been made mutt by modern anthropology. Hunter-gatherers lived as long as we do today, the idea that technology started allowing us to live longer is very wrong. It, in fact, did quite the opposite.
Reminder that Druzes are based.
I just wanted to post something easy to process. If you want studies, here you go, first link on google (I know I’m just feeding the troll, you can’t be on a leftist forum without understanding basic anthrpology, especially after the “Man the Hunter” meetings)
surely thats all well and good but how do you know that for sure that the cavemen (er..lel..cavepeople) didn't look to the stars before the concept of time?
Isn't this scientology?
It's pretty rare to meet an anprim who actually has theory and isn't just memeing. How did you get into this kind of stuff? Could you point me to a reading list or something similar to get me started with anarcho-primitivism? So far I only read Against His-Story, Against Leviathan, but that was mostly a bunch of rambling without much anthropology backing it up.
I am not that guy, but I can recommend Our Kind by Marvin Harris. It is an interesting take on the development of the species from a materialist perspective.
Well, anarcho-primitivism doesn't advocate a return. That's impossible. It aims for a Future Primitive, as described by Zerzan. We don't aim to go back to being cavemen. We aim to come back to being [i]like[/i] cavemen.
But, to answer your question, perhaps instead of looking to the stars and dreaming of a "better" future, they looked to the stars and were amazed by their beauty? I don't think they would want their kin to suffer, their lifespans drop drastically, and worry about their next meal each passing second just because they dreamt of it.
Or maybe they did. Perhaps they dreamt of power, at least some of them. Something must have triggered that feeling. An insecurity, perhaps.
[i]Elements of Refusal[/i] by John Zerzan is the so-called "anarcho-primitivist bible". It describes many things, from the basic concepts of anarcho-primitivism (Part One, with essays such as [i]Time and its Discontents[/i], [i]Language: Origin and Meaning[/i] or [i]Agriculture[/i]). The first part is a definite must read, that's what converted me to anarcho-primitivism from a little Kaczynskiite skiddie. The second part goes into detail about technology refusal through time, and general historical stuff. Quite interesting, too. Third part I haven't read—it goes into detail about the 80's and such, plus I think Zerzan talks about his influence on the anarchist movement there.
Another great book of his is Future Primitive, it goes into depth in the first paragraph, and quite radically at that. Some (K*czynski) have criticized that book, but all their criticism was based on "muh Zerzan is a leftist" or fiddling with sources, as K*czynski did.
Running on Emptiness is also cool, speaks about the failure of symbolic thought and such. Though I haven't read much of it.
ugh, fucked up the formatting. label me reddit all you want
opinion discarded as trash
There's this thing called Deleting your post. Cuckchan, no one would have blamed you for it and you wouldn't have made yourself look bad.
this so much this !
actually downvote smh friendo
It's strange that Zig Forums uses [code] tags and such, but inlines are different.