Talk:Gnosticism

	This Religion related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

(create an archive)

"I'm not an expert..."

I'm not an expert in Gnosticism; my background relates more to how gnostic churches and Christian Churches interacted. I hope someone out there who has a good Platonic or Gnostic understanding can add more to the general description, 'cause right now, it's pretty lame.--WaitingforGodot 11:00, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

"deionized" - did you mean de-lionized? Or something else? The current wording makes it sound like battery water. Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:24, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh my non-existant god, i don't even know what i said... that's just bad. I'll fix it.--WaitingforGodot 11:26, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok, now i'm really confused. where did i say "deionized?" Don't Taze Me, Bro!--WaitingforGodot 11:27, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

I claim no specialised knowledge of this subject, but I had always thought that the defining thing about the gnostics was that they felt that they could obtain some personal relationship/contact/knowledge of god without the church acting as an intermediary. Have I been wrong all my life? --Bob^{bing up} 11:34, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

"defining", probably no, "important", yes. At least for Christian gnostic who were fighting the "other guys" that turned into teh Catholics. let's add that, shall we? --WaitingforGodot 11:36, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, if you want to add it great (because people like me will expect to see it) but I'm not sufficiently up on the subject to insert my own precious keystrokes. --Bob^{bing up} 11:58, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

UPG

"Unverifiable personal gnosis" is a modern pagan invention, to describe any kind of "mystical" experience, whether it correlates with received wisdom or not. This is when a god/dess just "calls out" to a person. Gnosticism relied heavily on received, esoteric wisdom, handed down when initiates were ready for it. Moreover, communion with god, particularly in the form of ascending through the spheres to rejoin with god, came about by being able to recite exactly complex magical formulas to the intervening angels. I'm not saying Gnosticism wasn't based on some form of personal gnosis, just that it's not the same as the current idea of UPG often bandied about in neopagan circles. Researcher 19:05, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

And, to give a better description than I could, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unverified_personal_gnosis . Researcher 19:33, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Anti Abrahamic

I removed the term "anti abrahamic" from the article. As it is usually presented, Gnosticism develops out of judaism or xianity, so as written, it didn't make sense how it's "anti abrahamic". The term might actually be appropriate, but until it's used in an article that talks about gnosticism as one of the main battle grounds in xianity, it needs a sentence or two to explain how it's anti abrahamic. thanks. --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus scholarship

Hey all. I think this article would benefit from some kind of discussion about how Gnosticism was a very broad movement. People like Elaine Pagels, who have made careers out of studying this stuff; have pointed out that what we think of as common traits of Gnosticism might not actually be so. For example, the idea that all Gnostics thought the flesh was evil just doesn't hold up to reality based on her work on the Gospel of Judas ( a Gnostic gospel found in Nag Hamadi). I think Gnostic was a braod label used by the mainstream church to lump together everyone who didn't buy into Trinitarian Christianity (.e. didn't believe in the Nicene Creed). Since the mainstreamers got to write the history books, they portrayed the Gnostics in an essentialistic and sometimes inaccurate way. We would never trust the GOP to wgive a fair assessement of the Dems, or vice versa, and I think we should adopt a similar attitude here. The newest research by Pagels, et al, is showing that our understanding of Gnosticism up to this point has been a little oversimplified. Ideas?--User: Tuscarora

If you have a decent grasp of what Pagels has said on the subject, go ahead and add it. It's not my field, unfortunately, but it's easy to recognise Pagels as knowing what she's talking about. ^sshole 02:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Gnosticism teaches that any person can have direct knowledge of God"

This is an incorrect assertion. Gnostic schools, both historical (i.e. Valentinians) and modern (Mandaeans), teach of divisions among mankind as to who is capable of knowing God. Classically, these were the "Pneumatics" (those who definitely can know God), the "Psychics" (those who may possibly come to know God), and the "Hylics" (those who possess totally animal souls and thus are wholly incapable of knowing God). Mandaeans hold that only ethnic Mandaeans may know God, as their line alone has the proper pedigree to have a truely human soul. Additionally, Mandaeans and the historical Cathars maintain(ed) distinctions between priests and laity, which are rather significant. Tl;dr, Gnostic sects aren't some collection of hippy-dippy egalitarian religions; most of the world is basically considered to be P-Zombies/sub-humans in these faiths. 65.29.84.33 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop

Stop reverting my edit on a topic you don't know about.--73.42.183.211 (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Explain why you think Gnosticism is anti-Semitic. There is nothing in the current text I can find that supports that assertion. They will not stay otherwise. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you haven't read a cursory amount about the subject. Look up the Sethian Gnostics and look for yourself. It's one of those "you know it when you see it" situations like porn.--73.42.183.211 (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

We're not gonna go googling something to "FiNd OuT fOr OuRsElVeS" because you asked us to. Maybe give us a citation first and then we'll consider keeping the edit. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 18:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Look in the External Links of your own article. Thanks for the attitude friend.--73.42.183.211 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Gnosticism predates Christianity (eg there were Jewish gnostics) so given the lack of references I am seeing, I don't think it is a great label for the movement as a whole, even though there were absolutely gnostics that looked down on Judaism. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Look up the concept of the Demiurge and see if you feel the same. Gnosticism does not predate Christianity. If it does, tell me how so. Both Paul and John in early Christianity are cited as possible influences for it. Your source is in your article in the external links for why it is. "Gershom Scholem once described Gnosticism as "the Greatest case of metaphysical anti-Semitism". That was from Wikipedia of all places. You want an explanation, read about the topic. Rationalwiki seems to know much about topics, but this one is not one of them.--73.42.183.211 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm using Joseph Jacob's The Jewish Encyclopedia entry on Gnosticism for reference here. Part of the issue with Gnosticism is (like much ancient history) there is a lot of "fuzziness", so I imagine that's not the final word by any means. (Edit: Also, this is an old source, though on history that matters less than some things.) The basic gist is that "you know it when you see it" isn't acceptable as a reference, where a citation is. So provide some good references and something can be said about this. And selectively quoting Wikipedia doesn't help your case here, I'm afraid. (The full paragraph is: "Many of the Nag Hammadi texts make reference to Judaism, in some cases with a violent rejection of the Jewish God.[19][note 14] Gershom Scholem once described Gnosticism as "the Greatest case of metaphysical anti-Semitism".[27] Professor Steven Bayme said gnosticism would be better characterized as anti-Judaism.[28] Recent research into the origins of Gnosticism shows a strong Jewish influence, particularly from Hekhalot literature.[29]") PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I want to mention I'm talking about Gnosticism as it's understood from the first century CE onward. If you are arguing for an earlier form of it, the article is horrendously underdeveloped and I am not equipped to do anything about it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 73.42.183.211 / talk / contribs}

(EC) Frankly, the external link looks to be a pile of shit, for a number of reasons. It has far too little actual meaningful content for me to bear more than a skim of it, but I can't find anything anti-Semitic anywhere in it, and it reeks of a modern reinvention of whatever historical gnosticism was, as with modern druidism. wp also points out that Gnosticism has Jewish roots. If the argument runs that repudiation of the god of any particular religion is automatically anti-people-who-follow-that-religion, then that argument is pure nonsense. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, since it appears to me that the Sethians are just one sect of gnostics, branding the entire philosophy as anti-Semitic is dangerous and inaccurate. There are plenty of gnostics on this site alone and I doubt any of them would like being called anti-Semitic. Jake Holmes^{yell at me} 19:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec) An arrogant, standoffish "Stop reverting my edit on a topic you don't know about" and a very weak argument conflating gnosticism with antisemitism is unlikely to gain any support here. Also, strikeout humor is stupid. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Saying Gnostics were antisemetic because they didn't like the Jewish god is a bad argument on the face of it, that's like calling Richard Dawkins antisemitic for not liking the Old Testament god. Plutocow (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@2friedeggs citation needed for both statements. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Quit reverting edits of specific users, you are not subtle and I will not entertain it.--2friedeggs (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cosmicdebris dude no one is whining about agendas. The guy just has an axe to grind because of the Incels article. No one remotely cared for months and the edits aren't even the same as the disputed ones. Don't start with me.--2friedeggs (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Please cease the endless whiny drama. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 14:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sethianism was a gnostic sect, sure, but its influence on gnostitism as a whole is not well understood. Please provide a citation for this, or otherwise explain what makes Sethiansim notable to include in the lede, moreso than any other gnostic sect.. Please also cite your assertion that Sethianism is "depressing" in some way. Please also read the banner at the top that says "This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved."Kauri0.o (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Most texts still surviving are Sethian in nature. Stop concern trolling and just leave me alone. I'll grunt and fart on this wiki and you will hound me.--2friedeggs (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"This page contains too many unsourced statements" including your ones. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Then remove the whole page, don't cherrypick edits of posters you have an issue with.--2friedeggs (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Added sources to satisfy. Regarding the earlier antisemitic comments platonic gnosticism from the 1st centuryis pretty antisemitic especially the Sethian form. Leaving it out instead of finding a source for that rn because I want to play a video game instead of spend another day upset. But this should be enough to appease Kaurio and back up the current addition and if it's not I can find triple the amount I already gave it.--2friedeggs (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

If I understand correctly only a handful of the Nag Hammadi Scriptures have any Sethian influence at all. Also, the book you reference is a primary source and not available online. I am not satisfied that demonstrates how "ideas considered inseperable from Gnosticism actually stem from Sethianism".

Someone else can revert it if they want. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you do not understand correctly.I'll start caring about you moving the goalposts when you start having the audacity to start edit ears again--2friedeggs (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

On top of this you don't even seem to realize how much credit I'm giving post-christianity gnosticism. Many of the texts are written very late and steal ideas from Plato and if I decide to I'll make this argument on the page. This wasn't some legitimate religious movement that existed. Gnosticism after the BC era is a antisemitic, culty (even today where it actually exists), very ascetic and convoluted.--2friedeggs (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Gnosticism after the BC era is a antisemitic, culty .... and convoluted" Actually sounds like many versions of Christianity.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Cool but I'm not interested in whataboutisms and you have missed my point--2friedeggs (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually I could have pointed out that Christianity stole ideas from Plato as well. But I see you don't want to engage on this point so. Well .. OK.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Continuing to engage in whataboutisms, tsk tsk. Quit diverting.--2friedeggs (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not "whataboutism". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 14:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

But we are not talking about Christianity.

My point however is that removing anything that paints gnosticism in a negative or less than coherant light under the guise of needing sources, then nitpicking said sources is going to make me go "you know what? I'll just get more sources. Be careful what you wish for because not a lot of places that talk about this have good things to say unless they're conspiratorial sites" and if his response is "But Christianity" then I'd say that's a whataboutism. Either way I'm not changing topic. My point still stands.--2friedeggs (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for good sources for anything we say. It just stuck me as amusing that your criticism of Gnosticism so perfectly described (at least some forms of) extant Christianity. I accept that these types of worldviews will almost inevitably fall into the same errors. But it's still amusing to see the example.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You are entitled to that opinion.--2friedeggs (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

And I fully understand why you would not want to engage with it. :-)Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah? Do tell--2friedeggs (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Because my impression is that you are some variety of Christian, or at least theist. And that in consequence you might find it difficult to simultaneously criticize a series of positions or views which you maintain were held by the Gnostics - while simultaneously supporting either a Christian or theist worldview about which similar criticisms could be made. If I have misunderstood your position I apologize.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm Christian and I'm aware of the general implications of how I will be treated with dismissal here from this.--2friedeggs (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)