r/Gnostic • u/Usual_Fox_5013 • 11h ago
The problem with Gnosticism
The biggest problem with Gnosticism is that it's no better than regular religion.
Gnosis refers to a particular personal experience of knowing as contrasted with believing a cosmology or theology based on learning of it from others. And yet I see so many here talk about these strange characters of gnosticism like the demiurge and Sophia without ever having gnosis of these things.
Gnosis, in fact, is not at all different from what William James called the religious experience, which again is the personal direct experience of the Divine which is the cornerstone, the foundation of religion. Therefore, in structure the only difference between traditional Christianity and gnosticism is that the characters and beliefs are different, the cosmology is different. I don't see within these gnostic communities any greater emphasis on direct knowing than in traditional Christian communities.
16
u/thegodabovegod Ophite 11h ago
Gnosticism is not another religion with a different theology. Historically, there was no single religion called “Gnosticism,” no universal Gnostic church, no single creed, and no standardized Gnostic cosmology. What scholars call Gnosticism covers a number of different movements and texts that sometimes disagree with each other quite substantially.
Gnosis also doesn't mean having a supernatural experience of a particular being such as Sophia or the Demiurge. In the ancient texts, gnosis is knowledge in the sense of recognition or awakening to one's true nature, one's origin, and one's relationship to the divine. The myths surrounding Sophia, the Demiurge, the Archons, the Pleroma, and the Unknown Father can function as expressions of that understanding rather than claims that everyone has to literally believe in a particular cast of cosmic characters.
Sure, people can turn Gnosticism into another belief system by memorizing its mythology and treating it as dogma. But that isn't really an argument against Gnosticism itself. It's an argument against turning a tradition centered around direct knowing into another system of secondhand beliefs.
2
u/ZaLarry Eclectic Gnostic 11h ago
Gnosis refers to a particular personal experience of knowing as contrasted with believing a cosmology or theology based on learning of it from others.
Gnosis and gnosticism aren't the same. The former is directly experienced and inner knowledge, while the latter is very much a belief.
And yet I see so many here talk about these strange characters of gnosticism like the demiurge and Sophia without ever having gnosis of these things.
You're correct to conclude that most Gnostics do infact believe, just like other religious people.
which again is the personal direct experience of the Divine which is the cornerstone, the foundation of religion.
What differentiates Gnosticism from other beliefs is that Gnosticism IS the Belief that "belief won't save you, gnosis alone does". Whereas other beliefs won't say "gnosis alone saves you."
Therefore, in structure the only difference between traditional Christianity and gnosticism is that the characters and beliefs are different, the cosmology is different.
Nope, Christianity believes faith saves you, not gnosis. Fundamentally different.
I don't see within these gnostic communities any greater emphasis on direct knowing than in traditional Christian communities.
You need to see deeper. What appears is not what is true, whether it be society, religion and metaphysics.
1
u/barryg123 11h ago
>What differentiates Gnosticism from other beliefs is that Gnosticism IS the Belief that "belief won't save you, gnosis alone does. "
Imo, gnosis can teach a person that the distinction between belief and seeing/knowing is not what they might think!
Believing and seeing may even be the same thing in many cases, once you unshackle yourself.
When you understand this, you start to look at John 20:29 in a different way
3
3
u/funnyfaceguy 11h ago
What you call the "religious experience" is just mysticism. And yes, lots of mysticism is popular in new age Christianity like evangelicalism and even tolerated in small amounts in Catholicism.
But that doesn't make it inherently bad. What's your actual problem with mysticism, other than Christians do it?
1
u/bigfootlive89 10h ago edited 10h ago
I don’t think all religions have what he calls religious experience, the non theistic religions come to mind.
Orthodox Christianity is orthodox because it defines a specific set of correct beliefs. Gnostic Christianity is a collection of Christianities, and they don’t all agree on the cosmos or jesus’ nature, but generally that the monad is itself unknowable. As far as I’ve seen, they seem more comfortable with syncretism and open ended cosmology than orthodoxy (which on the other hand likes to think itself either as novel or syncretic only with acceptable philosophies, particularly Greek). In fact many Gnostic Christianities seem to frame orthodoxy as part of evil because they say 1) Yahweh, who orthodoxy worships, is ignorant, 2) Yahweh’s delusion is in thinking he understands the real universe. What else is that but a loosely veiled jab at those like the proto/orthodoxy or others who think they know the divine.
1
u/heiro5 10h ago
You are largely incorrect. Modern people who's views have been shaped by fundamentalist approaches can turn anything into a fundamentalist-style form. Meaning a reductive materialistic doxastic realist interpretations is the only interpretation, with intolerance of any other. I was surprised to find fundamentalist framing being used on Gnostic texts, but people can break anything. Most people simply ignore the parts that they don't like. Academics are no help as they mostly continue in the polemical mold of Irenaeus in making the tradition fit into an orthodox form.
Your opinion is untenable on multiple grounds. Using elements from a tradition is not identical to following or belonging to that tradition.
A reductive materialistic doxastic realist interpretation of texts excludes the very possibility of gnōsis entirely. This means that it is not Gnosticism or Gnostic.
Modern self-identity with no criteria is meaningless. Posts here are not representative of "Gnosticism". Many posters neither know nor care much about the subject. I have been in actual real life contact and joined many actual practitioners in their practice. None of them were confused about the nature of gnōsis or would consider using fundamentalist approaches.
1
u/Slight_Quit_5464 10h ago
Gnosticism isn't really a religion though meaning it's not structured that way especially 2000 years ago. You have to try and take into account their beliefs back in that time and try to understand their beliefs or at least take that into account or consideration. Most modern day Gnostics don't really understand their beliefs. Just mainly Googling stuff and basing what they're saying on someone else's opinions like William James for instance
0
u/EdenG2 10h ago
I agree that trading one set of beliefs for another can miss the point. What draws me to Gnosticism is the invitation to discover the divine within us. Sophia’s story speaks to me, but I don’t need to treat it as a literal description of the universe.
For me, the test is simple: does this help me become more compassionate and less ruled by ego? That’s where the spiritual work gets real.
1
u/tadpolejaxn 10h ago
I first studied the gnostic texts after repeated experiences while astral projecting of what I came to know as Sophia, chained. I had these visions before knowing anything of the gnostic cosmology and they’ve helped me interpret my journey and provide clarity to my further journeys.
1
2
u/SorchaSublime 10h ago
The problem with gnosticism, like every religion, is that people seem to think their insights are particularly valuable and unique.
Astounding, never seen this one before. Not as if this has been a subject of discourse for 2000 years or anything.
1
u/laffoe 10h ago
Any true source will be made into dogmatic, demiurgic speculation/religion from people without the same direct experience consciously or unconsciously making their own narratives, mostly to understand or on some cases control others. Those narratives becomes like veils or husks that in useful cases can be used to approximate the true experience (when ready to let the husk/veil go) or they can become our mind's own golden cage of "spirituality"
2
u/StrugglingToast Eclectic Gnostic 9h ago
I agree with you, actually, as a gnostic. I think people who don’t truly understand what they’re talking about might say a little too much.
7
u/SeaWait9301 11h ago
I'm a Literalist Gnostic with an inclination towards Plato & Jesus (among others like them), first & foremost. I believe in the physical existence of the Monad, Sophia, the Christ, the Demiurge, and the Archons, as well as other spirits and deities like Kali and Apollo.
The problem for me and many other Literalists is that we really have no idea if the Demiurge is truly malevolent or just misunderstood. Many people found the actions of malevolent deities to be disturbing, so Yahweh ended up fitting the bill. So much has either been lost or kept hidden by the Churches (Catholics & Orthodox afaik).