>the godhead spawned sophia
>who then spawned the demiurge
>who then created the material universe
Gnostics propose the preceding chronology of the creation of the universe in order to account for the fact that we live in a flawed universe.
But how is this not just passing the buck?
The godhead in the above chronology is still responsible albeit indirectly for the creation of a flawed universe.
Gnostic Christians please respond.
>Gnostic Christians please respond.
Yo
George Lucas must be evil because he created Darth Vader.
How could such an evil man be responsible for the starwars universe!
Your definition of 'flawed' is flawed, at the meta level.
There is no evil and no good. Only detrimental and beneficial to the story being told.
Perhaps our understanding of good and evil are weakened by the fact we're highly subjective and mortal beings who'll never be capable of the scope required to understand the true metaphysical reality?
LETS GET THIS SHIT STARTED
>Gnostics
My point I guess is that you will hear gnostics say that a perfect god could not have created an imperfect universe, and they use this to support the assertion that a demiurge or false god is responsible for the creation of this universe.
But aren't they just adding another layer of theological complexity to obscure the problem? I mean god (the true/perfect god) is still creating a demiurge/false god, albiet indirectly.
my point exactly.
Chinese parable to expand on that.
A Chinese farmer gets a horse, which soon runs away. A neighbor says, "That's bad news." The farmer replies, "Good news, bad news, who can say?"
The horse comes back and brings another horse with him. Good news, you might say.
The farmer gives the second horse to his son, who rides it, then is thrown and badly breaks his leg.
"So sorry for your bad news," says the concerned neighbor. "Good news, bad news, who can say?" the farmer replies.
In a week or so, the emperor's men come and take every able-bodied young man to fight in a war. The farmer's son is spared.
Good news, bad news, who can say?
according to St. Augustine, who was a former gnostic before he converted to Catholicism, gnostic dualism was just a way to blame your sins on the evil, and equally powerful dark side, instead of your own sinful nature and lack of willpower.
Gnosticism essentially teaches that good and evil are equally powerful forces in the universe that fight for supremacy (dualism).
True Christianity teaches that God is omnipotent, but "allows" sin to occur because of free-will, and that at some point in the future He will give everyone their comeuppance, including Satan and the fallen angels.
There's a reason why gnosticism was banned in early Christianity. It's babylonian mystery cults/canaanite demon worship
Yeah but even when I was reading Augustine's confessions where he is talking about that aspect of gnosticism (specifically Manichaeism), he comes off as someone dismissing it out of hand. I get the feeling he probably knew damn well that followers of Mani had a defense or apologetic on that point. ANd keep in mind Augustine switched to Catholicism after Manichaeism became banned by law.
Also Augustine was a very medium tier blogger of his time. He's very overrated because his works survived and became well read and cited. His shit is honestly not that great.
i can't agree with St. Augustine.
My own personal recollection is that 'good and evil' really aren't a thing in the grand scheme. They only make sense to us, who are the ones experiencing it.
Who is evil, the fox who kills and eats the rabbit, or the rabbit, for running away and causing the fox to starve?
Might as well gas 6 million Jews.
>Good news, bad news, who can say?
Dumb Chinese goyim.
This is what I've learnt from deep states of meditation/psychedelic/religious trance in which I communicated with the Spirit of the Animals, the collective mind of the Sons of God (those who honor the Father) (and of which KEK is an archetypal expression, by the way).
God allowed free will to happen in his creation, expressed through by the Natural Law that Sophia represents. In untouched creation, all living beings live in accordance to the fractal code of creation that the gnostics called Sophia. It's a wonderful, beautiful rhythm of life and perfection.
However, this inevitably allowed for dark forces to come together and try to "create" their own universe (in reality, it's just an attempt to destroy the original creation and substituting it with a mechanical, soulless facsimile, easily controlled by the evil one). This is literally the plot of your life. You're seeing that facsimile unfold every day, trying to reach to you from every corner.
This is also what the parable of Job represents at an occult level: God knew this. It's allowing it to happen, it's his demonstration that in the end the Natural Law is purer, more beautiful, infinitely stronger than the depraved evil that opposes it. That demonstration is happening fractally all across the universe, has been happening for aeons and will keep happening. Yet in the Godhead it's just an instant. You live in a microfragment, a nanoexpression, of that Holy War. You're in Team Animal, in Team Nature, against literally Satan/Demiurge/Melkor. You're a Son of God fighting every day for your soul and for the triumph of creation.
Gnostics btfo by Peter Damian a millenia ago regarding God creating a world with evil in it.
Source - Standford Encyclopedia
The doctrine of omnipotence (omnipotentia) implies that God “is capable of everything” (omnia possit; e.g., 596C-D, 610C-D). In Damian's view, it does not follow from the doctrine that we should think that God would be able to do anything whatsoever. Admittedly, there are many things that God cannot do, e.g., God cannot lie (e.g., 597C). Lying is an evil thing. In Damian's view, an agent need not be able to do evil in order to qualify as omnipotent because not being able to do evil is no sign of impotence or inability. Actually, God cannot do anything that is evil and he can do anything that is good. By “omnipotence”, Damian means this ability to do anything that is good. This ability can properly be characterized as “omnipotence” because evil things are “nothing” (nihil). To be capable of “everything” (omnia), an agent must be capable of anything that is “something” (aliquid), but he need not be capable of “nothing” (598D-599A, 600A-B, 610C-D).
The remarks about “nothing” and “something” are related to Damian's conception of the major metaphysical division among things in the world. The things in the world can be divided into the good (bona) and the bad or evil (mala), and these are quite different from each other (see 602A-C, 608B-610D, 618B-C). What is characteristic of good things is that they are (esse) and that they are something (aliquid). The good things that are have been made by God and are willed by God. Evil things are not willed by God, and they are far away from him. The being of evil is apparent and not real. Evil things seem to be, but in the testimony of the truth, they are not (non esse); they are not something but nothing (nihil). God is not the author of evil, for “nothing was made without him” (sine ipso factum est nihil, John 1:3).
see
Get a grip, dude. This is fucking embarrassing Joe Rogan tier shit. Holy crap... get it together.
...
I'm actually dropping some deep occult knowledge on you, this is what (((they))) know. You can read it plainly in masonic symbology, for instance: the pyramid represents their project, the construction of the demiurgic/satanic false universe, based on a mechanical code that is a dumb perversion of the original Natural Law that is Sophia.
Yet that perversion is also an expression of the Godhead and will never win against Its original power.
The implication that God is the creator but that evil is not a creation of God is contradictory. Else, there must be an opposing creator resonsible for those things not created by god.
I have never assigned good and evil to God but rather free will. It is my belief that god is resonsible for creation but does not interfere in the affairs of man. He created the rules and we plat by them.
if evil is nothing (nihil) and God is incapable of making evil, yet by definition created everything, with everything being "good" (esse), then "nothing was created without him"... i thought it was pretty elementary, friend.
But i'll explain it anyway. That sentence can be read in two ways
No-thing was created without him (with all things created being in and of themselves "good")
and
Nothing (nihil) was created without him - Evil acts etc (nihil) was created without him. i.e. without his involvement since he is incapable of creating evil while still maintaining his omniscience.
That still doesn't answer who created evil, which still leaves the point that there had to be one or more opposing creators that did it.