Modern Gnosticism

Discussion in 'Alternative' started by lunamoth, Jul 24, 2006.

  1. moseslmpg

    moseslmpg Well-Known Member

    Aug 14, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Alright, thanks. I haven't read the Pistis Sophia yet, but I understand now.
  2. Manichaean Seek

    Manichaean Seek Manichaean Probationer

    Jul 13, 2007
    Likes Received:

    I am new Gnostic, and I live in the Uk and I have been trying to see if there a gnostic Church in the Uk.

    It is great to see another new gnostic. I wish you the best.

  3. Dream

    Dream Well-Known Member

    Feb 18, 2008
    Likes Received:
    This thread has some free ranging discussion covering some classic forum topics, such as alchemy.
  4. Jarrett

    Jarrett Well-Known Member

    Feb 3, 2010
    Likes Received:
    hey here is some gnosis for ya, that crash at Roswell decades ago, it was a deep space satellite that returned to earth at its programmed time. It was a probe sent out deep into space by a lost civilization of beings that inhabited the Earth. Yeh that is right people we are not even close to the most advanced beings to live here. Shoot we probably aint the most advanced being here right now. With science proving the possibility of just how much can be achieved with research, it kinda takes away some of the supposed mystery of god or the gods. Time travel, scalar tech, life extension genetics, teleportaion, and hey even the 11th dimension (akashik records). If God the Fathers ways are mysterious then i would venture to say thath there must be ways beyond our scientists understanding. I mean if people who dont believe in god or gods can believe in all possibilities in physics in our physical world, the Father must be far beyond this physical universe and the understanding of its ways. I think we may be on the verge of pulling back the curtain and seeing the wizard who lives in ignorance of the Father.
  5. Joe know

    Joe know New Member

    Oct 18, 2017
    Likes Received:

    I consider myself a Christian Gnostic, BUT with a slightly modern enlightened view.
    I will let you be the judge.
    I will start from the beginning.

    Genesis 1 (the most high) Elohim made "Has'samayim" (the Heavens) and "Ha'ares" (the Earth) with everything in it, in a 7 "Yom", 13.8 billion period of time (not days).
    Including both males and females.
    1)the point being that both male and female are represented as being Elohim's true image.

    Genesis 2, Yahweh comes on the scene copy creating "Eres" (land) and "Wesamayim" (sky) in a place called the Garden of Eden.
    Yahweh then makes Adam from dirt and fools the (most high) Elohim to breathe life into it.
    Yahweh doesn't possess an eternal spirit and is therefore unable to make Adam move from of the ground and make him fully alive.
    (The most high) Elohim spirit takes pity on Adam and touches him from within, making Adam a living soul.
    2)the point is that Adam although a clever copy of surrounding homosapiens is now also with (a) a soul and (b) that soul made alive by (the most high) Elohim.
    3) Yahweh is only able to replicate a male form offspring because he isn't the true god.
    4)Adams offspring mixes and mingles with the local communities in the surrounding area's, resulting in the mixed homosapien and Adamic race of the fertile crescent.

    These are my basic foundation believes about how we as humans have come to be on this earth and the rest of my Gnostic believes are build on it.

    Last edited: Oct 18, 2017
  6. Ella S.

    Ella S. Well-Known Member

    Nov 1, 2021
    Likes Received:
    I'm pretty happy to find a thread with other Gnostics here, even if it's an old one, just because it can show you that there's more diversity in Gnostic thought than just what I subscribe to. Even though this thread is nearly 15 years old, I think the conversation is still a decent one and I think I have some things to add. As @Gnosticer said, Gnosticism has a lot of variation between sects and finding a genuine consensus is a tall order.

    "God is infinite and essentially unknowable to the limited human mind."

    I agree with this.

    "The material world is not as real as the spirtual world, our spirit is trapped and blinded by the material. (See The Matrix for a good example of the "illusion of the world".)"

    I disagree with this. I think they're both equally "real." The problem is that our spirit is alienated here. We aren't supposed to be in the material world. Our true home is in the Fullness.

    "Through personal spiritual effort we can re-gain the knowledge of our place within God (gnosis) and free ourselves of material illusion."

    I disagree with this, too. I think that effort is required, but not sufficient. It is only though the grace of Barbelo that we can attain salvific gnosis.

    I disagree that Gnosticism is more closely related to psychology, philosophy, and anthropology than religion. I really don't think that Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Jung, or Jospeh Campbell fully understood Gnosticism or, if they did, I feel like they actually parted from Gnosticism a great deal. Jung in particular shies way too much from the actual religious parts of Gnosticism, interpreting every figure as a psychological archetype and every spiritual place as a metaphor. I don't think this is accurate. I do think that the ancient Gnostics genuinely believed in many supernatural forces and in an afterlife and in a literal, metaphysical dualism between spirit and matter.

    I do agree that the myths are highly esoteric and metaphorical and that they're meant to aid an orthopraxy rather than dictate a strict orthodoxy.

    Personally, I don't see the emanations as occurring at some point in the past. I see them as something that is actively happening. The emanations represent, to me, the steps to achieving salvific gnosis in backwards order. By ascending them, we recede back into ourselves and approach the divine. I don't see them as literal stages of physical creation.

    Thomas, this is a great question! I probably would have asked the same thing. The answer is that, in reality, there are really only two forces or substances in Gnosticism; spirit and matter. Everything else can be seen as an "aspect" of these forces. There are many ways to divide them and I'd wager that none are really more accurate or valid than another. Even in Sethianism, we have a variety of different names and divisions that vary not only from text to text, but change over time, too.

    As such, I do think that there are ways that one could approach Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. and still arrive at gnosis. The cruxpin for me is asceticism and a form of meditation where one "lets go of" or "tunes out" the material world and the individual. These are practices that I think most mystical traditions share in some form. Gnosticism is just one expression of that.

    I think it's useful to have a specific and rigid expression to follow. I disagree with many Gnostics in this thread that promote finding one's own way. I think a road map can only be developed by someone who has already walked it and I think reinventing the wheel just makes travelling the path more difficult.

    This is such a brilliantly succinct way of putting it. I am delighted to find and read this. I agree wholeheartedly with pretty much everything here, except that I see the serpent in Eden as Christ and the Tree of Knowledge to be salvific. I would also say that one's "self" should not be mistaken as one's "individual" but, similar to Advaita Vedanta, the true self here is the One which we are all a part of.

    Other than that, I agree with a lot of the symbolism and correspondences that you give here. I'm glad that somebody else has seen the same thing that I do.
    Thomas likes this.

Share This Page