• context [fae/faer, fae/faer]
    ·
    4 months ago

    in my opinion the gnostics were a set of disparate groups in early christianity. at best gnosis (knowledge) meant an explicit rejection of the roman imperial system, slavery, debt, gender, property, and the ideological superstructure that went along with it (the illusions created by the demiurge), in favor of a quasi-materialist search for truth and meaning in the manifestations of god in the world around us. at worst it seems to have meant a complete rejection of the material world, with gnosis meaning that knowledge derived from hallucinations.

    either way, they were disorganized. their rejection of roman imperialism did little to end roman imperialism. the bishop system (from biscop, from episkopos, literally "overseer") was able to fit within the roman system, so as that spread and cemented itself as the official religion of the empire over the 3rd and 4th centuries, the gnostics were labelled as heretics and squashed. if they really wanted to defeat the demiurge they should have formed a vanguard party.

    so to develop on @CascadeOfLight's idea, it's marxism-leninism-maoism that's the only path to reach sophia and defeat the demiurge

    red-sun no gnosis, no right to preach!

    • FanonFan [comrade/them, any]
      ·
      4 months ago

      no gnosis, no right to preach!

      :michael-laugh:

      I'm upset that I'll never be able to quote this in real life because no one I know exists at the intersection that is Maoist Gnosticism (Gnostic Maoism?)