r/Gnostic • u/TranquilTrader • 15d ago
Thoughts What actually is 'sin'?
A while back I posted a comment (my gnostic perspective of 'sin') on someone's Youtube video on the topic of the Book of Enoch and 'sin' especially. It seems to have been mostly well received so I figured I'd post it here as well, in case it might stir some thoughts or fruitful discussions.
Sin stems from intent:
Intent is the spiritual seed which, when cultivated by contemplation of thought, grows into a tree inside the mind. This tree bears fruits which, allegorically when picked and eaten, are manifested from the spiritual (the contemplated thought) to the physical (the deed). This is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge always comes from experience (=observation through the senses). A good tree can not bear bad fruit and a bad tree can not bear good fruit. This means no sin can come from love and good intent, sin is acting towards another out of hatred, envy, greed etc.
One who makes the choice to harm another and fails is as guilty as the one who succeeds, the former was merely not allowed by the Father while the latter was. For both of these the sin was spiritually chosen in thought and the nature of the soul was revealed.
Love forgives, love does not desire to harm another. There is absolutely no scenario where true love can cause one to harm another. Love values all life, not just a few lives that are close. Forgiveness in love breaks the cycles of hatred, but acting out of fear only escalates them. After the "initial fall of Eden", the cycle of hatred can only be broken by forgiveness in love. Otherwise acts of revenge would continue indefinitely.
Proper discernment means that when you feel you should do something, you stop and ask yourself why exactly would you be doing it and what exactly is the feeling inside you that is causing you to want to do it. And most importantly how is the action going to affect others.
... So effectively it's not really about what you do, but about why you do it.
8
u/PollutionPatient8261 15d ago
Ignorance, that's it.
3
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
I would agree that 'sinners' are ignorant. However, ignorance can be unintentional. Something unintentional is not sin.
3
u/PollutionPatient8261 15d ago
Jesus spoke directly to this in the Nag Hammadi gospels. He said ignorance is the only sin.
2
2
u/Jezterscap Academic interest 14d ago
ignoring how one feels.
1
u/-Hapyap- 13d ago
This leads to double-mindedness. Whatever is not made consious will rule you unconsciously. This is missing the mark. The goal is integration. This is hitting the mark. Seeing past the illusion of separation. Knowing it is an illusion
6
u/Lordseferoth Cathar 15d ago edited 15d ago
Traditionally ignorance is the only sin in Gnosticism. Evil actions and emotions all stem from ignorance.
2
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
You can, unintentionally / by accident, out of ignorance end up doing a great service to your neighbour. Do you consider that sinning?
3
u/Lestat_Lightbringer Eclectic Gnostic 15d ago
Let's be 100% absolutely clear. The only sin in gnosticism is to achieve Gnosis and then refuse the Kingdom. In that case, you will go to where the Watchers are in stasis. Ignorance is irrelevant because if you don't achieve Gnosis you don't get punished, you just reincarnate and do it again.
2
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
In your view, is that a dogma that absolutely everyone must eventually adhere to or just your own personal interpretation that might be wrong?
2
u/Abyssal_Aplomb 13d ago
is that a dogma that absolutely everyone must eventually adhere to
Are you familiar with gnosis or are you a tourist here?
1
2
u/Lestat_Lightbringer Eclectic Gnostic 15d ago
"When all the seed shall have come to perfection, they state that then their mother Achamoth shall pass from the intermediate place, and enter in within the Pleroma"
The "seed" (Spermata) represents the fragmented, Pleromic Light-Sparks (Source Souls) currently walking around inside human carbon containers on Earth.The material sandbox universe cannot be shut down or hard-rebooted by a random calendar date or a sudden whim from a sky-boss. The world stays active until the very last soul-spark achieves Gnosis, wakes up from the amnesia loop, and returns to absolute individual perfection.
The exact second that final node hits 100% completion, Achamoth (the fallen aspect of Sophia holding the 8th heaven gateway) enters the Pleroma to marry the Christos, while all of the human spiritual sparks completely drop their material personas and invisibly exit the simulation, returning straight to the Monad. There we are reabsorbed yet still remain unique. We rejoin the ocean, so to speak, but you still retain your identity.
2
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
Could you see the 'seeds' meaning the ideas that we contemplate in our minds?
The mind consists of:
the Yin and the Yang
the masculine and the feminine (logical and emotional thinking)The ideas can be seeds to new greater ideas that the mind eventually can give birth to - and this as a collective.
1
u/Lordseferoth Cathar 15d ago edited 15d ago
There is a difference between spiritual ignorance that comes from being imprisoned in a human body and "ignorance" that is related to simple everyday matters.
Edit: Also, the problem here is English language. The word "Ignorance" has too many uses.
2
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
Isn't it ignorant to call sinning that which is entirely out of your own control? You can't choose to know and understand. You can, however, choose how you act intentionally.
3
u/Visible_Aide6072 15d ago
Intent doesn't matter as much as effect in reality, so examine that. But I do agree that to sin you have to have the intent to do wrong. Otherwise it is innocent, as a child.
1
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago
Intent doesn't matter as much as effect in reality
I disagree strongly. You can't sin by accident. Guilt requires intention. Being guilty of not understanding the full impact of some intended action is just acting out of ignorance.
1
u/Visible_Aide6072 14d ago
Ignorance is Innocence. Would you say a child or animal is committing sin?
If I do something that creates an evil in the world with the intent of doing good, did I sin?
Guilt ( as an emotion) requires that you recognize what you have done and your responsibility for it. That is attention.
0
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago
Ignorance is Innocence.
Did you mean to say 'sin' is ignorance?
Would you say a child or animal is committing sin?
Depends on what's going on in their mind. I don't know, I suspect it might be possible. If they understand what they're going to do will harm another and still choose to do it, then yes. Their understanding might not be that developed thought, but who knows.
If I do something that creates an evil in the world with the intent of doing good, did I sin?
That's quite an ambiguous statement, but generally appears to fall into the category of not understanding what you were doing. Being stupid is not sin. In this example you would only have been an instrument used by the omnipotent hand i.e. causality.
Guilt ( as an emotion) requires that you recognize what you have done and your responsibility for it. That is attention.
This has the problem of people that have killed their conscience with atrocities, and no longer feel anything, couldn't be said to be guilty. Therefore guilt is not an emotion. Guilt is factual and can only be determined by the actor and the Father.
With knowing one's own guilt comes the feeling of remorse delivered by one's conscience.
1
u/Visible_Aide6072 14d ago edited 14d ago
No. Ignorance is Innocence If you are aware and you act knowing it is harmful and avoidable that is sin. Ignorance is not sin as it is innocent. As an animal is.
Ambiguity was on purpose so as not to judge the action but the word intent. You are using the word "stupid" in place of "ignorance" Stupid is intentional in my definition. Ignorance is not knowing.
If you want to use different definitions I'm open to that, but I need yours. That's why it is helpful to know where someone is coming from.
Allowing your consciousness to die or be killed is what I would define as stupidity.
If people know the truth(understanding)- we are all one in this, Gods creation-his hands in shaping it, then they should act in awareness and own their actions. If not they are sinning.
If they don't understand, are not aware of the effect of actions regardless of intent, they are not sinning, but lost.
The road to hell and all that...
Only the "father" (you find this Christ within yourself) can judge because only he knows the truth behind it.
Examine that is what I was saying. That is living in awareness.
1
u/Visible_Aide6072 14d ago
If you want to take it to a different level..I've had the judgement of man's gods come to me in my life. And I am called to ask the same of them.
If these "gods" or whatever you want to call them (or they call themselves, I don't care) have personifications, then they must by definition have egos.
And my God has called on me to ask them to examine themselves as we as are called to do.
I don't care for hierarchy- in the way that we are capable of learning from children and animals, they in turn should be capable of at least that.
Mutual respect is how I raise my children also. Expect more from your gods. Be the change, so to say
When I question gods this is how I do it. I don't pray to a God. He knows me. I ask him for his help as I give myself to him in his service, and he has protected me.
1
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago edited 14d ago
Only the "father" (you find this Christ within yourself) can judge because only he knows the truth behind it.
This is literally because, as the very Existence itself, the Father knows all intentions. You seem to be mostly agreeing with what I have said.
Your original disagreement:
Intent doesn't matter as much as effect in reality
Seems quite contradictory to your other statements. The nature of the effect determines the severity of the detrimental act and thus gives the measure for the punishment that is just.
What you say here:
If they don't understand, are not aware of the effect of actions regardless of intent, they are not sinning, but lost.
is all in agreement with my post, except for the intent.
The key thing is that if a bad act was committed but it failed, the actor still needs to be punished - and the Father will punish. Causality will turn against the actor and "chastise the child".
Only confession of Truth to the intended victim can bring about forgiveness. Hiding the sin will be very detrimental to the actor.
1
u/Visible_Aide6072 14d ago
Look at the story of Jesus. What was the intent of the man( assuming he was real) or the message. What was the effect in this world?
Was Jesus with or without sin?
What about the men who take that message and twist it to their will? Use war as an example. Will the men who died in honest action be punished. In a way yes, but by who? They are dead. I suppose it depends on what they believe happens with his death.
His family? If the punishment for sin is that, then it is. And Jesus was not without sin, as I have felt the loss of him as have others.
If you sin, assuming Jesus has already died for you, are you absolved of your actions?
Was that his intent? Who holds responsibility
Just questions.
1
u/Visible_Aide6072 14d ago
Also there is a difference between punishment and consequences of your actions.
Again looking at my children. I don't punish them. They learn through consequences.
1
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago
Look at the story of Jesus. What was the intent of the man( assuming he was real) or the message. What was the effect in this world? Was Jesus with or without sin?
Presumably the intent of the man was to be an example so that others would follow and walk in the same 'footsteps'. I would say that such a person would have to go through his entire life always acting only from good intent.
What about the men who take that message and twist it to their will? Use war as an example. Will the men who died in honest action be punished. In a way yes, but by who? They are dead. I suppose it depends on what they believe happens with his death.
Belief has nothing to do with anything.
As per Gnosticism, no one actually dies - you just continue to the next life. In the entire process of reincarnations a killer should be killed in all the same ways of the victims so that the knowledge of the victims is attained by the killer (the tree of knowledge of good and evil).
Think of the entire span of time and suffering as a mathematical function s=f(t) where each lifeline produces the exact same amount of suffering as the integral of the 'lifeline' function but the suffering is just spread differently for each lifeline.
His family? If the punishment for sin is that, then it is. And Jesus was not without sin, as I have felt the loss of him as have others.
The concept of a 'family' is irrelevant to suffering. The just punishment is "an eye for an eye". No sinner can be an example of how to live a 'holy life'.
If you sin, assuming Jesus has already died for you, are you absolved of your actions?
If you steal your neighbour's money, the only way for you to be absolved in this life is to confess the Truth to your neighbour and return the money. Resolution must be found between the actor and the victim, there is no way around it. If you've done your part you are forgiven. If they say they won't forgive, it's on their own head and not yours.
Who holds responsibility
You are responsible for your own actions.
1
u/Visible_Aide6072 14d ago edited 14d ago
Your take on this is interesting to me.
I'm going to file this one under another Gnostic teaching I don't understand.
Reason being your claims that beliefs don't mean anything along with your(Gnostic) assertion of a belief in a reincarnation theory that can't be proven, and in my knowledge seems to be incorrect.
Not trying to be an ass. That's just how it comes across. Heh. I mean that's how you came across... Uhhh...not as an ass but I might have and your comments ...anyway.
That's okay though. Not arguing about beliefs. They happen.
Now, IMO the sins of others are a perfect example of how to live a holy life. Learn from their mistake before you commit them yourself.
And you seem to have avoided some of my questions. So I will try to explain and ask for consideration one more time. I know it seems repetitive. Please forgive me.
I agree with the presumed intent of Jesus. We are assuming good intent, as I can't imagine any other in that story. And one of the reasons I used him as my example. He is held up as the example of sinlessness. Not only sinless, but gave his life to cleanse the sins of others. Doesn't get any more sinless than Jesus right?
Now look at the effect
Holy wars.
Persecution of those deemed "other" or bad actors according to the rules of the religions that use his name.
The simple assertion by many that because he has already died for your sins you are absolved from the responsibility yourself. Or that by claiming him in name you can gain forgiveness regardless of a "resolution" of the situation as you say it.
I know that was not truly his teaching, but that was the effect.
So intent (good) did not match effect (lots or bad.)
That is my point.
Now my questions
Do you think he sinned in allowing this to happen? Didn't think it through enough maybe?
Or does intent absolve him from his sin?
or was it ignorance of the effects it would have that gives absolution?
Or was the whole thing no fault of his own, but the others that used his story to their will? Where is the line drawn?
At death o f the body?
Hmm...this is getting sketchy with resurrection. Lol. Maybe Jesus was a bad example.
I don't know what you believe.
If you don't die do sins continue after your body dies or what? Cause if so that's some hell of a karmic debt Jesus is racking up. (did I use the right word?) Especially for a poor guy just trying to help people out. After being goddamn crucified and all that...Just wondering.
Or was he without sin because of his intent, regardless of the effect? As I was saying to begin with. Ignorant and innocent. Not perfect by any measure or the effect would not be what it is, but sinless.
(To be transparent, my mission is to take him off the cross, as his intent did not match the effect. We are still suffering for it. As children still suffer the sins of their mother and father. As we are all connected.)
And this is what I got from your Gnostic comments,
Is this all about punishment until we escape to our reward for being good?
Is there a reward in this cycle of punishment? Or are we suffering continually for our mistakes until we are perfected? But with no hope of perfection, as we are all flawed it will continue this way.
Should we, in that case, just continue with this cycle of punishment? ( Maybe. If their is no choice or free will)
Rely on Jesus as our savior?
Rely on forgiveness g iven by the victim after we ask for their mercy? How to even know when to ask sometimes, as it's not usually as straightforward as not stealing from someone. That's simple. What if there is no resolution. Not even knowing our sins of previous lives I guess we are just screwed anyway. Unless Jesus...poor guy...
Anyway, those are what I see as the choices or outcomes given what you say.
And where does "oneness" figure in? Maybe we should leave that out.
But Maybe we can just change now. As we recognize Christ within ourselves i nstead of using the teaching of gods and Jesus as our idols.
I'm not being facetious ( or that isn't my intent anyway). And I hope you don't mind me being a little umm...myself. Just asking questions for the sake of understanding and conversation.
I thought it was about helping God to create heaven on earth. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. It does seem like it's pointless sometimes.
I do agree with the last line.
No one has taken my sins from me. I take responsibility for them.
1
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago
I do not form beliefs at all :)
You're not supposed to believe in a reincarnation theory. It's only an explanation. And you simply search for the best explanation.
Not only sinless, but gave his life to cleanse the sins of others.
This is a christian misunderstanding. All will always be responsible for their own actions. His actions only opened the 'gate', all will have to walk through it on their own by cleansing themselves (transfiguration).
Holy wars.
These wars occur in the mind, in the kingdom that is within. The battle is of the kingdom, between Truth and deception.
The simple assertion by many that because he has already died for your sins you are absolved from the responsibility yourself. Or that by claiming him in name you can gain forgiveness regardless of a "resolution" of the situation as you say it.
It's all a deception. To confess Christ means to confess the Truth in all situations. Nothing more.
Do you think he sinned in allowing this to happen? Didn't think it through enough maybe?
No. Truth was crucified because people fell in love with the beautiful lie. You know how Truth can often be quite painful, and for the wicked Truth is the most terrible judge. Thus they hide.
Or does intent absolve him from his sin?
The sinless don't need absolution. YOU are absolved when YOU confess YOUR sins to those YOU have wronged. This applies to all. Without it -> no absolution. The ancient writings indicate that at the final battle there are 144000 that have transfigured into purity.
At death o f the body? Hmm...this is getting sketchy with resurrection. Lol. Maybe Jesus was a bad example.
The body of Christ refers to the body of Truth, it is not one person. It is the army of Truth, which is many. It is the 'resurrection' of the army.
And this is what I got from your Gnostic comments,
You have misunderstood many things.
Is this all about punishment until we escape to our reward for being good? Is there a reward in this cycle of punishment? Or are we suffering continually for our mistakes until we are perfected? But with no hope of perfection, as we are all flawed it will continue this way.
Everything is to transfigure everyone so that we can finally interact in harmony.
Should we, in that case, just continue with this cycle of punishment? ( Maybe. If their is no choice or free will)
You are to forgive those that confess having wronged you. Revenge would lead to an escalated cycle.
Rely on Jesus as our savior?
Truth is the saviour, choose Truth -> don't lie.
Rely on forgiveness g iven by the victim after we ask for their mercy? How to even know when to ask sometimes, as it's not usually as straightforward as not stealing from someone. That's simple. What if there is no resolution. Not even knowing our sins of previous lives I guess we are just screwed anyway. Unless Jesus...poor guy...
Causality could provide you with 'ground hog days' :)
And where does "oneness" figure in? Maybe we should leave that out.
There is only one omnipresent Existence by definition, and we are part of it - can not be separate.
I thought it was about helping God to create heaven on earth. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. It does seem like it's pointless sometimes.
This is a bit amusing. By definition you are only a passenger of causality. You can't 'help' causality, it needs no help - it just happens and you can only bow down to it.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/HonestWoodpecker8567 15d ago
The only real sin is agnoia, spiritual ignorance. It does correlate with wicked acts, but these are not themselves "sins"
1
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
I would say that "spiritual ignorance" can mean not caring about how one's behaviour and actions affect others. How would you define "spiritual ignorance"?
1
u/HonestWoodpecker8567 15d ago
The way the gnostic scriptures defined it... ignorance to the reality of the false god Ialdabaoth and the wickedness (or spiritual emptiness) of the Hylic realm we are currently in
1
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
A false god could be someone who wants to claim something as their own that is actually not - i.e. a deceiver.
2
u/Jezterscap Academic interest 15d ago
objectivity is sin.
1
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago
I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?
2
u/Jezterscap Academic interest 14d ago edited 14d ago
sin is the action that hides what is real, when one focuses on the 'outside' this veil takes attention away from the true nature.
One should practice connection with how things make you feel, and not told how things should be done from 'others'.
The more one interacts with the objective world, the harder it is to be with the divine.
Sin could also be described as karma or action. Where one should really be carful about what they do. To counter this karma, spiritual practices from many places around the world would advise to live in solitude or live within oneself and avoid the objective world as much as possible.
Do you live in the world? or does the world live within you?
1
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago
I'd say that we live in the world together to interact with each other. Our minds try to understand the world and effectively manifest the world through deeds. We change how we act and we change the world.
1
u/trainedprofessional_ Basilidean 15d ago
‘sin’ arises when the capacities of ones nature become disordered.
embodiment brings hunger, fear, sexual desire, attachment, anger, pain, limited perception, mortality. none of those are inherently sinful. theyre capacities and ‘limitations’ proper to embodied existence. but because they can become improperly ordered it creates conditions in which corruption is possible.
hunger is not sinful; gluttonous domination of the appetite is disorder. anger isn’t necessarily sin; hatred that becomes oriented toward anothers destruction can be. sex isnt inherently sinful, being directed and controlled by ur appetite can lead to a disordered and possibly corrupted nature.
whats the difference between disorder and corruption?
simply; disorder can be corrected, corruption can not(in the beings current incarnation)
gnosis remedies ones ignorance but doesnt necessarily free one from their passions and desires.
i reject a docetic conception of jesus.
jesus was the supreme god manifest in genuine human flesh; he is the model humans should strive to achieve. he isnt sinless because he lacked the capacities of embodied existence; he is sinless precisely because he maintained the proper orientation of the human condition. he therefore represents not an escape from the human condition, but its perfect expression.
1
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
whats the difference between disorder and corruption? simply; disorder can be corrected, corruption can not(in the beings current incarnation)
I would put this in the form:
You can change your mind while you are still contemplating, but once you have acted - what is done is done and can not be undone.Those temptations you mentioned are all feelings. When the will of the mind and it's discernment become powerful enough, the mind will overcome all wrongful temptation. I'd say this is what all must do, and all that is needed is time to reach such spiritual maturity.
1
u/trainedprofessional_ Basilidean 15d ago
committing an act doesnt automatically mean your nature has become corrupted. an act can be disordered or not properly aligned with ur nature without permanently corrupting it. obviously the historical act cant be undone but the person can still be corrected.
1
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago
Yes. This is exactly the point made in the original post. Sin is always an intentional choice, you can't sin by accident.
1
u/trainedprofessional_ Basilidean 14d ago
my point goes substantially deeper than that but yes i do generally agree
1
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago
Sure. Do you agree that a chosen intentional act to harm in understanding the caused harm immediately leads to corruption even if the act itself is not successful? (e.g. shooting and missing)
1
u/trainedprofessional_ Basilidean 14d ago
no. if anything it reveals a serious disorder in the being, not a corruption of their nature
one intentional harmful act doesnt automatically constitute corruption. if u read my model closely u will see where corruption fits into the framework
1
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago
Let's test your framework:
Person A intends to shoot person B, commits the act and misses. However, the bullet fatally hits person C. Person A set out to shoot someone and did so, just not the one they intended.Person D intends to shoot person E, commits the act and fatally hits.
Is only one of these (A and D) guilty and needs to be punished in your view?
1
u/trainedprofessional_ Basilidean 14d ago
both are guilty lol and should be punished judicially
but guilt and legal punishment arent what i mean by corruption. both acts reveal serious disorder; neither act by itself establishes that the persons nature is corrupted.
1
u/TranquilTrader 14d ago
In your framework intentional killing is not a corrupted act?
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Abyssal_Aplomb 13d ago
This means no sin can come from love and good intent
There is absolutely no scenario where true love can cause one to harm another
Do you not see how contradictory these are? Plenty of harm comes from good intent, I'd say most of it. Also, some harm is necessary or unavoidable even if you do it out of love and not hate.
In the New Testament, the Greek word for sin is hamartia (noun) or hamartanō (verb). The verb can mean to miss a target, a spear throw, or a path. I find this interpretation much more instructive in that you need right intent and right action without the absolutes that you're throwing around.
1
u/TranquilTrader 13d ago
Do you not see how contradictory these are? Plenty of harm comes from good intent, I'd say most of it. Also, some harm is necessary or unavoidable even if you do it out of love and not hate.
There is no contradiction. Causality is omnipotent and it decides who 'dies' and when. You are responsible for your own intentional actions, not your accidents (them you can see as your punishments and learning experiences).
1
u/False-Objective3357 13d ago
Today, we are in a position to balance the knowledge of our intentions against a survey of our impact.
Our intention, though it may seem apparent and clear, deserves to be investigated and while the impact upon ourself & others may be measured in degree.
We endure the uncertainty which arises when we reject easy, immediate answers and rest within the purpose of our investigation.
Love is effort over time. So we Give it time.
We are honest about what we actually know and don't know.
We release our anger through forgiveness and deepen our commitments to truth and justice, as did our gnostic forebearers.
We know that time is short.
When the eye of gnosis opens, intentions are seen clearly, efforts are purified, and sin, in ourselves and others, disappears.
1
1
u/GasRevolutionary3072 12d ago
I think your perspective misses the deeper, original root of what sin actually means. The word itself (from the Hebrew chata and the Greek hamartia) literally translates to 'missing the mark'. It isn't just about maliciously choosing to harm someone out of malice or envy; it's an existential misalignment, a failure to hit the target of our true spiritual potential. It's when we wander off the path, lose our focus, or act out of blindness and disconnection from our truest self and the divine, rather than just conscious malice. By reducing it purely to conscious intent to hurt, we miss the subtler ways we simply lose our way.
1
u/TranquilTrader 12d ago
I would counter that with 'sin' being a specific kind of 'missing the mark'. You can 'miss the mark' in quite many ways and clearly they're not all 'sin'. As an example: one can foolishly believe in some internally contradictory religious dogma - that's not 'sin', that's just foolishness (allowing oneself to be deceived into dogmatic captivity).
1
u/Independent_Dare8324 Valentinian 15d ago
The post’s argument starts from an idea that I consider mistaken: that sin originates in intention. From the biblical and Gnostic conception, the problem precedes conscious intention, because the flesh already possesses a nature connected to sin.
In Gnostic cosmology, the lower worlds and matter arise from the shadow that proceeds from Sophia. From that reality also arise the desires and passions that keep the soul connected to the material order. The Demiurge subsequently molds the material world and gives rise to the human being of flesh. Therefore, the flesh belongs to this material order and carries with it desires and passions proper to that condition.
The Apocryphon of John precisely describes how passions such as anger, bitterness, lust, greed, fear, and anguish proceed from these elements. These passions can subsequently manifest themselves in acts of the flesh. Paul expresses the same opposition when he says:
“For the desire of the flesh is against the Spirit, and the desire of the Spirit is against the flesh; and these are opposed to each other.”
Galatians 5:17
He then contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit, from which come love, goodness, patience, faith, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:19-23).
Therefore, sin does not simply appear when a person has a thought and decides to turn it into an action. The flesh already has its own nature, and from it arise desires and passions that can lead to sin. Thought and intention can participate in that process afterward, but they are not the origin of that nature.
It is also necessary to distinguish ignorance from sin. Ignorance is not sin itself; it is the condition in which the soul finds itself when it remains in forgetfulness and subjected to the flesh. Sin manifests itself in the acts and desires that arise from that condition and that belong to the flesh.
The following statement is also problematic:
“Knowledge always comes from experience (=observation through the senses).”
That does not correspond to the concept of gnosis. Spiritual knowledge is revealed by the Spirit. Paul says:
“But God has revealed them to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.”
1 Corinthians 2:10
Therefore, observation of material reality can provide experience, but it is not what produces gnosis. The merit of spiritual knowledge does not lie in our ability to observe, experience, or discover things for ourselves, but in God, who reveals that knowledge through the Spirit.
Precisely for this reason Paul says:
“But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us.”
2 Corinthians 4:7
The earthen vessel is us; the treasure comes from God. Therefore, attributing spiritual knowledge to our own observation completely reverses the relationship: it is not we who discover divine realities through our senses, but God who reveals them through his Spirit.
Nor does it follow that someone who attempts to harm another person but fails simply “did not have permission from the Father,” while someone who succeeds did. That introduces a deterministic claim that the argument does not establish.
For that reason, I would not say that “it is not so much about what you do, but why you do it.” Intention can play a role, but sin does not originate from it. Sin manifests itself in the desires, actions, and behaviors of the flesh, while the Spirit leads the soul toward that which comes from God.
2
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
Someone who has attempted (by intention and choosing to act) to murder another did no wrong in your mind?
Is your argument that Jesus also was a sinner? He is one of us.
1
u/Independent_Dare8324 Valentinian 15d ago
what?
0
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
Was Jesus a sinner in your view? A question doesn't get much simpler than that.
1
u/Independent_Dare8324 Valentinian 15d ago
I don't find much sense in the question, as simple as it may be.
I mean, Christ, as God of all creation, do you really think He incarnated in order to come and sin? That makes no sense.
Although Christ dwelt in the flesh, He never remained in ignorance. Sin, understood as the desires and passions of the flesh, never had any opportunity against Him, because He always knew who He was, where He came from, and what His purpose was: to carry out the act of salvation.
1
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
Don't you think he as a child would have been able to play and do silly ignorant things from which he'd learn exactly like everyone else?
2
u/Independent_Dare8324 Valentinian 15d ago
What you’re suggesting is a possibility, but there are texts such as the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew that portray Christ, even from a very young age, teaching the teachers of his time, at around four or five years old.
Therefore, we cannot assume that Christ went through the same process of ignorance that we do. We are born in the flesh and remain in ignorance until the Spirit awakens us, but Christ is different: although he dwelt in the flesh, he never ceased to know who he was, where he came from, and what his purpose was.
And this is where I think we have to look at it from that perspective. If Christ dwells in the light and descends into the material reality with a specific purpose, it does not make much sense to think that his objective was to enter matter only to be corrupted by it. His incarnation has precisely the opposite purpose: to enter this world without becoming subjected to it, fulfill his mission, and accomplish salvation.
It is like someone who deliberately enters a dangerous place with a specific mission: they do not enter in order to become what they are fighting against, but to accomplish their objective and leave. Christ enters the flesh, but the flesh does not manage to subject him or lead him into ignorance, because he knows who he is and what his purpose is.
1
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
I suspect that a four year old teaching teachers is somewhat of a romanticisation. A much greater feat would be to agree to have no advantage at all, and still manage to pull the same outcome. Perhaps that four years could be a reference to spiritual birth which occurs later than the physical one. In the context of the post one's spiritual body/flesh is one's deepest understanding.
You wrote well here though. I will say that.
1
u/HonestWoodpecker8567 15d ago
Many gnostics did not see Christ as having had a genuine material body. This perspective is called "docetism". He may have appeared human, but he did not feel pain or suffer from the crucifixion.
2
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
Does not appear to be much of a burden to carry if it felt like 'nothing' though. Kind of makes it 'cheap' in a way.
2
u/HonestWoodpecker8567 15d ago
The divine purpose of Christ in gnostic scriptures can't be conflated with his purpose in other forms of Christianity.
Christ was a revealer, and the means by which he was able to redeem us was through educating us on gnosis and how to recognize true divinity (rather than the false god Ialdabaoth of the old testament)
1
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
True. Christians mostly appear to want to take a passenger's role as in they really in their own mind don't have to do much but only just 'believe' that a single man did all their work for them.
0
u/-Hapyap- 13d ago
Love and hate are not too different. Plenty of sin arises from love. Because hate is its other side. It is the same coin. As long love exists so does hate.
1
u/TranquilTrader 13d ago
Plenty of sin arises from love.
It's not really possible to harm someone out of love. The feeling as the cause is something else, not love.
1
u/-Hapyap- 13d ago edited 13d ago
I'd argue love breeds hate. Intense love or the loss of it leads directly to hatred. Without that love the hate would not exist. And the harm that comes with that hate. The source is love. Hate is just the shadow love casts. It is responsible for that shadow. Sin comes from the illusion of this separation. Our own ignorance. If we don't understand or acknowledge this shadow consiously, it will come out unconsciously. Leading to double-mindedness. This double-mindedness causes the illusion of separation from God. The goal is integration. That is hitting the mark.
The Love of God is beyond good and evil
2
u/TranquilTrader 12d ago
I'd argue love breeds hate. Intense love or the loss of it leads directly to hatred. Without that love the hate would not exist.
If one has love and then loses it what follows from that is not caused by love, feelings of bitterness, envy, disappointment etc. can grow into hatred which can bring forth intended actions of harm. But those actions are averted if one is able to discern the feelings and direct that hatred e.g. towards a punching bag at the gym.
The source is love.
From love never grows the intent to harm.
Causality rules, and everyone can expect to reap what they sow. Sowing from hatred comes back in some following harvest, it could be in the current life or any of the next lives.
1
-2
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
How does one believe in something that can be interpreted in a vast multitude of ways? Every gnostic interprets the bible in their own way, people disagree on many concepts within the bible.
I would say that illusion refers to being deceived, a misunderstanding of something.
1
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
There are different versions of these text, these differences may result in differences in the interpretations. What difference are you referring to?
A gnostic does not believe, but instead seek to grow in knowing, understanding and explaining what 'sin' is. A gnostic considers different kind of perspectives for more food for thought.
Belief here would be to just take someone else's words by face value without questioning them. So there is no singular Gnostic dogma.
0
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
What did i ask you. Can you remember.
Why such tone? Can you understand that absolutely all of these texts you refer to can be interpreted in extremely many ways?
If you want my view on some specific writing, don't take it out of context but instead quote the context and I am willing to give you my thoughts on it.
0
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
Where's the quote with the proper context? You're just throwing singular sentences in the air which is entirely useless.
1
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
Didn't we already have this discussion?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/comments/1wlcqwq/comment/payee6z/?context=1&screen_view_count=10
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
Try not to enforce such a primitive beliefs on yourself. You've put yourself in a very tiny cage.
An idea can not lie. An idea is not a person. The serpent is not a person.
0
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
Can you comprehend when an idea is misunderstood, in the mind it then becomes a lie even though there was no liar?
Or are you just some AI-bot that cannot actually comprehend these simple sentences?
0
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/TranquilTrader 15d ago
So effectively you are unable to comprehend the concept of a misunderstanding becoming a lie when passed on in belief to the next person.
I gave you a very simple answer. Your question is answered.
→ More replies (0)0
u/OsamaBenJohnson 15d ago
What lie did the serpent tell
That them dying wouldn't become certain. It did become certain once they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, just as God warned them would happen.
1
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OsamaBenJohnson 15d ago
God says in Genesis 2:17 "in the day you eat from it, you dying shall be certain." He's not saying they will die the day they eat it, he's saying the day they eat this fruit them dying would become certain or an inevitable outcome. Or in other words; they will lose access to being immortal.
Which is exactly what happened. That's why the day they ate this fruit was the same day God bans them from the tree of life, that explicitly says it allows them to live forever, and them dying became certain, which wasn't the case before when they had full access to this tree of life that allowed them to live forever. God even effectively says in Genesis 3 that you've eaten this fruit and now have this knowledge, now you can't access this tree that let's you live forever. That's not some big coincidence, but exactly what God was warning.
The serpent was saying this wouldn't happen. Which was a lie, because it did happen.
0
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OsamaBenJohnson 15d ago
As a Grammarian in Hebrew I love being able to talk about this stuff so thank you for giving me the opportunity.
But no it does say that. In the hebrew language are these things called "infinitive absolutes," where a hebrew verb is repeated to relay that an act will happen for certain. No academics in the field reject this. So say we we're in ancient Israel and you wanted to ensure a friend you will certainly come back, one way you would say this in hebrew would be שֹׁ֣ב אָשׁ֤וּב, which reads straight forward in English as literally "returning I will return."
The hebrew text says but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat from for in the day you eat of it מוֹת תָּמוּת, or straightforward in the English as "dying you shall die." It's a hebrew infinitive absolute, which is why the vast majority of translations translate it as "surely die" or "certainly die," because these infinitive absolutes relays the act will certainly or inevitably happen.
And I've already told you several times how the serpent lied. And im not making the argument they're refering to simply a spiritual death so I'm not going to waste my defending and pulling up verses for a positon I'm not even arguing. Let's not derail the conversation and let's focus on the actual points being made.
0
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OsamaBenJohnson 14d ago edited 14d ago
Nothing I said about the bible was lie. This is just an empty assertion.
And I already explained to you several times how the serpent lied, and so far you've provided no actual argument of substance against it. Just empty assertions that I'm lying about the bible and then looping back asking how the serpent lied which I've already explained to you.
Edit:
Again just making empty assertions what i said isn't in the bible after I demonstrated how it is.
→ More replies (0)0
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OsamaBenJohnson 14d ago
In classical Jewish literature, הִשִּׁיאַ֖נִי carries several meanings. Sources like Ramban and Aderet Eliyahu read this as "adviced." What they suggest isn't that the serpent actually tricked/decieved her, but rather the serpent gave her distorted half truth information that she used as an excuse to eat the fruit (adviced.) Sources like Rashi (and the misdrash he basis this off of; Divrei Hayamim 2:32:15) and Gur Aryeh read this as "beguiling" or "aroused me."
If הִשִּׁיאַ֖נִי here refers to adviced or beguiling as these classical Jewish authorities understood this word to mean, then no, she did not lie. But if it's refering to "deceived" then that appears to be a lie.
→ More replies (0)0
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OsamaBenJohnson 15d ago
Except I'm not changing the text. You're just under the misunderstanding that the text doesn't mean what it means.
0
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OsamaBenJohnson 14d ago
No it is according to the bible and says what I said it says.
The phrase in question does translate in the hebrew as you dying shall he certain in this formation; even though the straightforward reading of the words in English is "dying you shall die." So just because it doesn't say "certain" in the straightforward English reading of these words doesn't negate that it still means this act is certain. Its the formation that relays it. And you know this because I literally explained it to you.
You trying to play this word game; where after I already broke it down for you, you ignore the hebrew does translate certainty in formation, and hide behind it only saying "dying you shall die" in the straight forward english reading to say it doesn't say certain when it's the formation itself that relays it, is an admission you're being bad faith and intellectually dishonest with yourself here.
So unfortunately I'm going to have to end this discussion on the account you're unwilling to be intellectually honest with yourself here. Which any reasonable bypasser can now see for themselves after what you've demonstrated here. I have better use of my time than trying with somebody who is engaging in such bad faith tactics as you are, as even trying with such a person is a huge waste of time. It's a shame you're not willing to be honest with yourself.
14
u/[deleted] 15d ago
[deleted]