Gnosticism in berserk

The most prominent nod that I've noticed involving Gnostic-type symbols in Berserk is the universe's use of a dualistic-cosmology scheme. We've got the aspect of evil, which is the false, imperfect, sinister God of the material world, but we also have dialogue hints from Schierke and her mentor about a true, GOOD God that exists outside most people's understanding, which is a fundamental part of Gnostic thought.

I find it interesting that the Holy See Religious Order, a parallel of the real life Catholic Church, is heavily implied to worship the false, evil God. The Bogomils, Valentinians, and Cathars, all Gnostic-Christians sects, held this exact belief against their Catholic contemporaries.

Also, I remember one chapter in the mangas wherein Schierke is trying to calm down a mob of angry people trying to kill her for being a heretic or something, and she quells their rage by telling them the four Gods that they worship are identical to the ones that she worships, but at the same time it is implied that Schierke's understanding of these Gods is more complete. This is the exact view of practically every Gnostic Christian sect in existence; they believe that they have a secret knowledge that makes their comprehension of God more complete.
Finally, the fact that Guts and other magic-versed characters in Berserk belong to the 'interstice' or the plane between the spiritual and material world, rather than JUST the material world, is a belief held by countless esoteric traditions, including Valententian Christians who were 'initiates'.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xtDxLjwA_D4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No offense, because I did read it, but could you put that into simpler terms?

holy shit, some intelligible berserk theory for once?
I always thought that the interstice that guts exists was reminiscent of gnosis, and that guts had elevated himself to superhuman through his willpower, or some human essence manifested through the spiritual world. This is in contrast to griffith and the apostles who find power externally through the idea of evil and exploitation of other humans, guts derives power from his own self. I really hope Miura pulls his pants up and expands on this, there is so much room for fantastic art on the topic and the idea is big enough to act as a plot engine for the rest of the manga

forgot to include, could the false god be a demiurge?

But where does Rape Horse fit into all of this?

But didn't the idea of evil come about due to humanity's subconscious desire for rationality? It seems more of a Jungian "God longs to be born" situation than a Christian/Gnostic one where the current world happens due to a fall from grace.

Basically Gnostics believed the true God that Jesus spoke of was outside normal human, material understanding, while the God of the Old Testament, was an evil Demiurge who created the world in order to trap the true God's essence (man's soul).

If it fits it's not rape.

if gnostics are so good why did the christians kick their ass?

What are some other manga/anime with Gnostic themes?

The victor is not always morally superior.

When you put it that way, I've always questioned the Old Testament, I wondered why Jesus never restated anything from it, maybe he didn't need to but now this is getting more relatable either way, so that's good I see what you're saying

Really? Gnosticism is pretty much "Underdogs: Theological Edition". Of course they're going to lose. Hell, it's not like martyrisation is looked badly in Christianity either.

if we're on the same page here, no. the idea quite clearly derives from humans and human emotion. of course you could argue that chapter 83 is not canon, but i don't think it will be retconned, just that it "spoils" the story somehow

gnostics didn't just get BTFO militarily, they also got BTFO theologically. For example, if matter was inherently impure like they claim, Jesus would have never chosen to take on a human form, as that would have made him impure and defeated the whole purpose of him being birthed into the world.

Mirai Nikki, kinda.

But reallly the Matrix and the Animatrix are Gnostic as fuck, here you have one of the top guys from the Gnostic Society explaining how: youtube.com/watch?v=xtDxLjwA_D4

>that pic

Hey, I'm reading that series!

or maybe he did it to more easily keep people docile on the long run? playing the devil's advocate here

>For example, if matter was inherently impure like they claim, Jesus would have never chosen to take on a human form
that's not an argument, Christ took physical form because he wished to help those trapped in the world reach salvation, as to whether or not he was half-divine or a son of god, this is where gnostics are divided

"I stood in the midst of the world, and incarnate I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, I found none among them athirst. And my soul was grieved for the sons of men, for they are blind in their hearts and do not see that empty they have come into the world and that empty they are destined to come forth again from the world. However, now they are drunk - when they have shaken off their wine, then shall they rethink."

>if matter was inherently impure like they claim, Jesus would have never chosen to take on a human form
That's not different from saying that if matter was inherently transcient then something eternal like God c/wouldn't have incarnated in it. It's not really a failure of Gnosticism so much as monotheism's alienating tendencies as a whole. Just replace pure, good or eternal with whatever absolute quality you feel your Daddy should have and you will inherently end up with a leap of faith in order to go on casticizing yourself and others because the world doesn't make any sense anymore, and how dare it!

/fringe/ pls go

let me be a happy sheep

the true God would never allow his religion to die, because good can never be defeated by evil, only put to danger to test the worshippers. Gnostics at the time were completely eradicated, what you have now is edgy contrarians trying to reverse engineer their religion.

>Christ took physical form because he wished to help those trapped in the world reach salvation
But by becoming physical he would have lost his own because he would have made himself impure. Gnosticism was a death cult, freedom by death is just dumb and anti-logos. A just God would never allow an evil God to create anything, and above all to rule over it. The saying "satan is the prince of the world" is a mocking title, used to belittle satan, not to elevate him.

>That's not different from saying that if matter was inherently transcient then something eternal like God c/wouldn't have incarnated in it
Matter being transcient doesn't make it sinful though, yours is a false equivalence. God can manifest himself in something pure, even if transcient.

>Matter being transcient doesn't make it sinful
Except that wasn't my equivalence at all. It was about the relationship between two poles, (trascient≠intranscient)=(impure≠pure). I was addressing its logic, not its content.

>But by becoming physical he would have lost his own because he would have made himself impure
literally says who

you can leave and enter the world as you please if you're a dope enough ascetic

Gnosticism makes much more sense than Judeo-Christianity, which claims that the god of the OT is the same as the god of the NT, which doesn't make sense at all unless he had a dramatic character change.

Do we know what major influences Muira had/has writing berserk? Any interviews when he talks about it?

>literally says who
if you have to get rid of your body to become impure, goes by itself that acquiring a body makes you impure because the body is inherently impure, duh
>Gnosticism makes much more sense than Judeo-Christianity,
it doesn't
>which doesn't make sense at all unless he had a dramatic character change.
he didn't

>Except that wasn't my equivalence at all. It was about the relationship between two poles
I guess you didn't understand my reply. The relationship between the poles transcient=/=intranscient is not conflictual when it comes to an all-might deity moving from one to the other. You claimed that it was a contradiction just like God assuming an impure form, but that's a false equivalence because the former relationship isn't contradictory, as opposed to the relationship pure=/=impure.

*to become pure

>The relationship between the poles transcient=/=intranscient is not conflictual when it comes to an all-might deity moving from one to the other.
How not? How can it be in its power to be changing and unchanging at the same time but not pure and impure?

>if you have to get rid of your body to become pure
where is that stated? not that guy btw
>he didn't
he went from a vengeful and murdering god to a benevolent and forgiving one. OT god killed thousands, maybe millions. he killed dozen of children to make a statement to the ruler of the parents of the children. children who were never taught judaism and could not follow it, children who went to hell while doing nothing wrong

>How not? How can it be in its power to be changing and unchanging at the same time but not pure and impure?
His divine essence doesn't change just because he inhabits a changing/transcient vessel. Your knees don't stink just because your armpits do.

>where is that stated? not that guy btw
it's a gnostic belief
>he went from a vengeful and murdering god to a benevolent and forgiving one
this is a meme. The old testament is a prelude to the new testament. Look at it this way: when your children are still very young kids you treat them differently than how you treat them when they become young adults. It is not God that changed, it is us, and in part he changed us exactly by interacting with us.
>children who were never taught judaism and could not follow it
He always killed shitheads that he knew were irredeemable, and if they didn't deserve death but found themselves in the cross-fire, so to speak, they received heaven in exchange, which is a pretty good deal if you ask me.

>Muh essence
Yes, that was precisely my point all along.

Gnosticism is evil.
don't fall for it's lies

>He always killed shitheads that he knew were irredeemable
he killed people for complaining about killings, m8
>they received heaven in exchange
sauce

well, do you become a different person when you change your clothes? Don't go full retard user

>go against God's decision because your pride makes you think you know better
>get BTFO
sounds like justice to me
>sauce
no way to sauce. Only way to explain it would be some long theological explanation and I can't be bothered. Basically our innate concept of justice comes from God himself therefore it is pointless to imagine he wouldn't apply that to decide who goes to heaven and hell. Btw the existence of hell is necessary for the existence of heaven therefore hell isn't "unfair" just because it is eternal. God also kills those who he knows (because duh he knows the future) are reprobate and deserve hell no matter how long they will live.

you act with the assumption that everything god does is justified because he's god

>Only way to explain it would be some long theological explanation and I can't be bothered.

So you pulled it out from your ass then.

To a degree? Completely. I will act differently depending on the time of the day, the weather, whoever is around me, and so on and on and on. You might be capable of deriving some generalities from my behavior, but that won't mean my persona couldn't change under whichever circumstance; you might think such abstractions are more "real", but they will not fill your stomach. There's no "real me" because there's no vacuum in which to see "me" and only "me", outside of time or space, unconditioned, completely necessary, capable of disregarding everything else that makes me.

No, I act on the assumption that our innate understanding comes from God. Justice, love, etc. all things we know innately exist. Christianity admits that our understanding of them is partial because our nature was corrupted, and we got somewhat partly disconnected by God who is the source of those things.
If you believe God exists those things inevitably come from God, it's of course different if you are an atheist but at that point it would be pointless to discuss with you about God's characteristics.
Point is: just because you don't understand the full justice of God's behaviour, doesn't mean there isn't one. The fact that even with a limited understanding of Him we can come up with pretty good reasons why he would act like that is proof enough that if one has faith he should also have faith that God acted that way.

I didn't

You didn't get my point. Your essence, your soul, the immaterial (you) doesn't change as a result of you changing clothes. Behaviour doesn't equate essence. Essence is what you simply are, regardless of your behaviour. For example the essence of your body is that of a human being: you could be tall, fat, missing a leg or whatever, those are secondary things to the fact your essential form is that of a human being.
> There's no "real me" because there's no vacuum in which to see "me" and only "me", outside of time or space, unconditioned, completely necessary, capable of disregarding everything else that makes me
Not entirely sure I get your point but, just because you are incapable of seeing that "vacuum" doesn't mean it isn't there. The fact that you can only see one face of the moon doesn't mean that the moon doesn't have a different side to it.

*that God acted that way rightfully

>those are secondary things to the fact your essential form is that of a human being.
Again, you're putting the chart before the ox. Where does that essential form come from exactly? Is it my form? Is it your form? No, it is the general form of humans. It's not the form of this or that particular instance but something derivate from the collection of many of them and the sorting of their contradictions. But you forgot that it was nothing more than an abstraction, a symbol, and think it's the things that made it possible that are secondary. There's no "regardless". A person "regardless" of action only exists between two or more other persons--not only with different bodies, but of the same person too. You might think that between the person you were and the person you are is the true you, but without them, it is impossible.

I'm sorry, but you can't do away with all those things. There might come a time you won't commit some sin regularly anymore, but that will not "redeem" the you that did it. It would have still happened. You've been duped. You are mesmerized purely by the positions of this or that note in your melody--but they're all part of it, and the crescendo is hich because the other parts are low.

>The fact that you can only see one face of the moon doesn't mean that the moon doesn't have a different side to it.
You're confusing abscence with nothingness.

So you are saying you don't have a soul and that all you are is your perception of the material? I don't think you can be gnostic then, I am pretty sure they believe in the existence of a soul.
> It's not the form of this or that particular instance but something derivate from the collection of many of them and the sorting of their contradictions
That's wrong. The human form exists despite your ability to perceive truth. If everybody was blind, the human form wouldn't change just because they are incapable to see it.
Just because you cannot perceive something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist
>A person "regardless" of action only exists between two or more other persons--not only with different bodies, but of the same person too
That doesn't even make any sense. The soul exists regardless of the material. No shit your material body doesn't exist without the matter it's made of. Consciousness =/= soul btw.
>You're confusing abscence with nothingness.
ok prove that the soul doesn't exist, I'll be waiting
>inb4 you cannot prove a negative
if you cannot prove it then you shouldn't base your personal philosophy around its non-existence, don't you think?

Aren't we talking about berserk, not some shitty 2000 year old book

>So you are saying you don't have a soul and that all you are is your perception of the material?
I'm saying those things cannot be separated wihout loss. I'm saying you can't have a living dissected frog.

>I don't think you can be gnostic then
I never claimed to be.

>The human form exists despite your ability to perceive truth.
Have you read Kant? Because the way you're talking about things-in-themselves makes me think you haven't.

>The soul exists regardless of the material.
Then why has God put us on this Earth?

>if you cannot prove it then you shouldn't base your personal philosophy around its non-existence, don't you think?
The lack of a thing isn't a non-thing. I'm not saying abstractions and essences aren't real in the sense that we cannot interact with them or that they are unimportant. Simply that to ask of them to be everything is asking too much.

And again, you're presupposing there's a single, definite instance of my personal philosophy, but there isn't. It's open to change even in this very coversation with you. But to prove it would mean for me to try to convince some one else first and foremost, which is sophistry, not philosophy. Philosophy, sadly, is all too self-centered.