Well, he was an early Biblical commentator. The earliest in the world, as a matter of fact. He is considered a heretic/infidel by an established Church, but the other Christian commentators and teachers who are considered saints, actually, believed that he was the direct apostolic disciple and a bearer of some secretive knowledge not meant to be a part of greater Christian doctrine. His sect was also a continuation of pre-Christian Hellenic sects that we know nothing about.
Now, let's talk a little bit about his doctrines. He claimed that our world came from a world-seed, that expanded from a single point in all directions, developing into all matter, life, and, in evolutionary manner, into all species of it including humans. He believed that sin was the impurity, and suffering was punishment for our past incarnations, that our immortal soul passes through. He believed that passions, sensual obsessions and all other kinds of bestial behaviour is caused by a sort of spiritual parasite that latches onto human soul and becomes almost indistinguishable from being part of his own conscience.
As you can see, his doctrines do not contradict the modern science. No, they fucking predict it. Even more than that, a father of modern psychology Carl Jung attributed his ideas to him and referenced his concepts.
There is something else about his sect. Secrecy. They do not try to proselytize. On the contrary, they try to maintain as much secrecy as possible. His disciples had to overcome a series of tough tests. The first of which is an oath of silence for five(!) years, and we know nothing about the rest.
James Jackson
Gnosticism is the ultimate redpill
Ethan Miller
Tell me more please.
Jose Hernandez
There are many gnostic sects, but ultimately you should seek gnosis by yourself, I don't like the idea of schools (like the Gurdjieff movement for example). It is impossible to discern the legitimate parts from the exploiting or the personal dreams of the gurus. Unless of course some guru punches you in the astral body, like in Dr Strange. That's how you find a legit guru. But I don't think it can happen.
Jayden Thompson
His sect consisted of several circles.
The first one, technically, the outer one, simply followed its' ethical doctrine, which was quite simple: to not cause suffering or violence to other humans. Thus, it indulged in sexual debauchery and pushed the limits of hedonistic lifestyle.
The middle circle liberated itself from bestial urges and was properly focused on diligent and stoic intellectual life.
And the last one received mystical revelation that liberated their soul.
Oh, did I mention one of the cornerstone of his doctrine was that our world was a part of chain of worlds in which every next one was created by the inhabitants of the previous ones?
Camden Hall
>He believed that passions, sensual obsessions and all other kinds of bestial behaviour is caused by a sort of spiritual parasite Yeah, fuck that.
If your interpretation of the Bible holds that "passions" and "sensual obsessions" are evil, then you can take your interpretation and shove it. God gave you life, fucking enjoy it.
These days even the Catholic Church is willing to admit that hey, sex is pretty cool, and it has a purpose beyond making more people, so go nuts. So long as you do it in a loving marriage, anyway.
Gabriel Collins
Neat
Matthew Davis
>narcissistic belief of spiritual knowledge only you and your friends know about. Fuck off.
Wyatt Bell
The similarities between this and Gurdjieff's are interesting. He just believes that you should follow these 3 ways at the same time.
Brandon Collins
So what do we have in conclusion?
1. His was the only mystical teaching that not just not contradicted but predicted modern science, but actually caused it. -Big bang theory -Evolution of species -The simulation theory -Modern psychology.
- Not just that, but also in art. Speaking of Warchovski brothers... Yeah.
-Society in general. The degenerate artists and elites. -The inner circle of stoic and diligent technocratic intellectuals, who try to transcend the "simulation".
This teaching is one and unique in our world.
Andrew Scott
I blame Pythagoras for turning the Kemetic mysteries into a personal philosophy, like he discovered ancient Dianetics or something, and further polluting Hellenic civics to incorporate his proto-neo-Platonism which inevitably led to the rise of Christianity.
Carter Green
He did not claim they were evil. Rather, they were stagnancy as opposed to enlightenment and transcendence.
There was no evil in general. Rather, impurity and imperfection.
David Robinson
Wtf I'm gnostic now
Gabriel Powell
Cults that superficially resemble predictions of scientific thought are not methodologically equivalent and thereby not equivalently reliable or trustworthy.
Here we have people, who far from even a rationalist a-priori explanation of their belief system, and have not even attempted to begin the implementation of anything even resembling a falsifiable hypothesis claim their authority on the basis of "Hidden knowledge" that you must be systematically conditioned to recieve.
That's a fucking cult.
I refuse to sacrifice the methodological power and usefulness of science for superficially similar predictions which promise a revelation if I join an indoctrination process.
Hunter Foster
Literally all that I wrote can be read in some detail on the internet. Just type "Basilides" in wikipedia.
Easton Brooks
It seems to me that you don't realize the importance of socio-political environment in this. Pythagoras flourished in oligarchic cities without an enstablished elite. The sofists in democracy. Neo-platonism under a foreign autocracy. And so on and so on. These are purely rationalizations of reality.
Angel Scott
Does it require to sacrifice science, though? Quite the contrary, it suggests to sacrifice hedonism in exchange of pursuit of knowledge by all means.
Ryder Powell
On these premises i could foresee the characteristics of the perfect Sup Forumsack cult. >Stern reject of revealed truths >Individual means of discerning good from bad, through a thinly veiled confirmation bias >All this grounded in some ancient esotheric knowledge >Refuse to act in real world, except by praying some omnipotent god emperor >Finding symbols that can be personalized >Believing in a pervasive, evil (((entity))) that frustrates every effort (even if there are no real efforts)
SHADILAY!
Blake Barnes
>Does it require to sacrifice science, though? Quite the contrary, it suggests to sacrifice hedonism in exchange of pursuit of knowledge by all means.
The clue is in the fact that what you just suggested to me, is not methodologically equivalent to science at all.
Instead of looking to religion, look to straight philosophy and logic, ignore all of the assumptions about God or Spirituality and examine the logic alone.
Once you're done examining the Greeks, get to grips with current scientific methods, maybe through David Hume.
Then you'll stop talking nonsense.
Aaron Reyes
telling your brand new, stupid, young neet >students to keep their mouths shut for at least five years until they start to really understand what they've been taught before going out and redpilling people
idk sounds like a good teacher to me
Wyatt Wood
Yeah. The idea here that in order to actually obtain that knowledge, you should first attune your mind in a certain way. Become a seeker and a passionate researcher yourself, not just a spoon-fed student.
