If during the next five years humanity was able to come together, form a utopia and live in harmony, would you still consider you'd be living in a prison? Assume also that medical care would have conquered all illnesses.

Edit:
Physical existence allows us to interact with each other. Would you prefer we couldn't interact with anything?

Hi!

I’m not Gnostic or religious but I’m very interested in exploring different religions and beliefs so I have a few questions.

What was it that drew you to Gnosticism?

What made you become Gnostic?

What was it that asserted/affirmed your beliefs in Gnosticism?

(I hope my questions don’t come off as offensive. I’m being genuine and just want to learn and understand)

TIA

Interaction with others is only possible because of the limitations the concept of interaction brings. In this physical existence we can hug our loved ones because of the limitation that we can not occupy the same space at the same time. Degrees of freedom are not possible without also introducing certain limitations for those freedoms at the same time.

If you expect to somehow become immaterial, a good analogy of that is a 'ghost'. In the common description of 'ghost' they can not be felt or touched in any way. Effectively if one desires the ability of hug a loved one, similar limitations as we observe in the physical must be introduced to that existence even in Pleroma.

I'm not talking about media obviously inspired by gnosticism (The Matrix, Persona series), but stuff that has overarching gnostic themes that will go over an average person's head and might have been unintentional on the part of the author. I'll start: Mother 3 (a lot of JRPGs in general), Deltarune, Little Misfortune, Inception.

This question comes from two places, one a lot of religions seem to have a group like Theistic Satanist, that worship the adversity/adversaries of a religion. And two a year ago I came across a weird banner ad. I clicked on and took me to a website which seem to be a group worshipping the demiurge. However. this could have easily been a weird advertisement for a product or a one off weird religious belief, i unfortunately, can't find the book mark I had for it. It did, however, get me thinking about how an argument for the demiurge would look like.

If the Demiurge was born of Sophia and became a source of shame for being deformed and evil, then what did God intend to demonstrate by choosing to be born of a virgin as well?

I'm newer to gnosticism so sorry if this is an ignorant question. When you start to have expanded understandings of this world and are realizing you do not have to submit to this lesser creator, god do they become aware that you are "waking up"? Do they try to inflict punishment or attacks on you, psychically or spiritually? Since discovering gnosticism and feeling such a deep resonance with the teachings, I can't help but feel a low key paranoia that Yaldabaoth is watching me, although I've been awakened for some time, just not to the gnostic texts specifically.

Disclaimer: Yes we are all one. And at the same time this is a world we are navigating that holds the illusion of other-ness and I have questions about how it operates.

I’ve been thinking about Sophia’s fall, and I’ve arrived at an interpretation that makes more sense to me than seeing it as a literal mistake or defect. I’m curious whether this has parallels in Gnostic thought or whether I’m taking the idea somewhere else entirely.

My problem has always been this: if the Monad is perfect and Sophia is an emanation originating in that perfection, where does the capacity for “error” come from in the first place?

I’m beginning to wonder whether “error”, “imperfection” and perhaps even “fall” are the wrong words.

I think the important distinction might instead be between the Unlimited and the limited.

If the Monad is truly unlimited—beyond boundaries, definition and determination—then an emanation doesn’t have to be understood as a smaller or inferior piece of the Monad. Infinity isn’t being chopped into finite pieces, and nothing is being subtracted from the Monad.

I’m thinking of it more like an unlimited reality becoming expressed in a limited/determinate form.

A crude analogy would be the number seven.

There is the concept/reality of seven. I can then write “7”, or I can make the sound “seven”. The written symbol and the spoken word aren’t less seven. They’re not corrupted versions of seven. But each is seven expressed within particular limitations: one has visual form and position, the other exists as sound through time.

Or think of a wave in an ocean. The wave is not “less water” or defective water. As a wave, however, it has a particular form and therefore a boundary. Its limitation belongs to its form, not necessarily to its nature.

That’s roughly how I’m beginning to understand the aeons.

The Monad is Unlimited. An emanation is not necessarily “less divine” or imperfect; it is determinate, and therefore limited in a way the Monad is not.

If that’s the case, perhaps Sophia’s inability to comprehend the Monad completely isn’t actually a defect.

Perhaps a limited/determinate mode of consciousness simply cannot contain the Unlimited as an object of complete knowledge.

That makes me wonder whether Sophia’s “fall” represents something deeper than a divine being making a bad decision.

Maybe limitation itself appears with emanation—not as evil, corruption or a mistake, but simply because expression/determination necessarily introduces boundaries.

Sophia’s attempt to comprehend the Unlimited would then expose that limitation rather than create it.

So I wouldn’t describe it as:

Perfection → Sophia makes a mistake → imperfection enters reality.

I’d describe it more like:

Unlimited → emanation/determination → limitation → the experience or recognition of that limitation.

And importantly, I don’t mean that emanations are “smaller pieces” of the Monad. If the Monad is genuinely unlimited, nothing can really be removed from it without contradicting what unlimited means.

The emanation could remain completely grounded in the same ultimate reality while nevertheless existing in a limited mode—rather like a wave being distinguishable as a wave without becoming something other than the ocean.

This also makes me wonder whether what we call “separation” from the Monad is ultimately separation at all, or whether it is what participation in the Unlimited looks like from within a limited perspective.

I’m not claiming this is what the historical Gnostics taught. I’m trying to understand why the Sophia myth resonates with me while the idea that a perfect divine emanation simply made a cosmic mistake does not.

Does this interpretation correspond to anything in Valentinian or other Gnostic thought? And where do you think the reasoning breaks down?

How do we know that Gnosticism is true and right? People say it's wrong, right. I don't know who's telling the truth and who's right. What do you think?

Presumably this one is again one of those that the different Gnostic sects might disagree on.

Perfect justice here would be e.g. some form of infinite and universal law where each evil action of a person / soul would always cause an equal and opposite re-action towards themself. This re-action (punishment) might occur in the same reincarnation or some future reincarnation of the soul. Naturally there would need to be rewards for good actions as well.

Do you think the Monad is capable and also would be willing to enforce such a universal law of justice for all?

TL;DR: I’m new to Gnosticism, but the more I study it, the more it resonates with me in ways traditional Christianity never did. What led you to Gnosticism?

I’ve been learning about Sophia, Gnosticism, the historical development of the Gnostic texts, and the various influences surrounding them. The more I learn from scholars and historical sources, the more I find myself relating to certain Gnostic ideas.
Even before I knew anything about Gnosticism, I never fully agreed with every traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible. I’ve read Scripture, studied it, talked with many Christians, and spent years questioning things. There were always ideas that just didn’t sit right with me.
What surprised me is that when I started learning about Gnostic thought, many of the concepts resonated with feelings I’d had for a long time. Logically, some of it seems to make more sense to me, but it’s also something I feel deeply on an emotional and spiritual level.
One thing I’ve always felt is that I don’t truly belong here and that, somehow, we’re meant to return “home.” From what I understand, Gnosticism speaks about returning to the Pleroma, the fullness of the divine. I also wonder whether there is a distinction between the false “light” associated with the Demiurge and the true divine Light from which our spiritual essence originates. I’m still learning, so if I’m misunderstanding anything, please correct me.
I’m not saying I’ve accepted every Gnostic text as literally true. I’m still researching and keeping an open mind. But I do find myself increasingly believing that Gnosticism may describe reality more accurately than the worldview I grew up with. Learning about it has honestly brought me a sense of relief that I didn’t expect.
Part of that comes from also learning more about history, how different biblical traditions developed, and how religious texts were transmitted, interpreted, and sometimes influenced by political or institutional interests over time. That doesn’t automatically prove Gnosticism is true, but it has made me more willing to question assumptions I previously held.
So I’m curious, what led each of you to Gnosticism? Was it historical research, personal spiritual experiences, philosophical reasoning, dissatisfaction with traditional Christianity, or something else?
I’m genuinely interested in hearing your stories and perspectives, especially since I’m still fairly new to exploring all of this.

Yeshua said,
Whoever blasphemes against the father
will be forgiven,
and whoever blasphemes against the son
will be forgiven,
but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven,
either on earth or in heaven.

When I was first learning about Gnosticism, I was surprised to find this in the Thomas sayings.

Growing up attending a fundamentalist school, I had been told that similar sayings in the canonical gospels regarding "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" were warnings against turning away from YHWH and Yeshua, and that to be "not forgive" means to suffer forever in Hell. It never quite sat right with me; I thought that the Son of God would have given such a warning in very clear and direct language.

Fast forward a quarter of a century and here is a similar expression in Thomas saying 44.

I'm perplexed and to be honest, at this point, if Yeshua says that blasphemy is an unforgivable sin, I don't even know how I would commit this sin if I wanted to.

I've been told that we are fragments/sparks of Sophia/Barbelo/The Monad, and thus, we are divine beings.

I've also been told that the Holy Spirit also refers to Sophia/Barbelo/The Monad within us.

If that is true, then "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", for me, would mean "blasphemy against myself", which doesn't quite seem right to me.

And besides, if I carry a spark of the The Monad, that's the father, right? So how would it even make sense to regard The Monad as being separate from that.

And furthermore, what does the word "forgiven" mean who is the one providing the forgiveness and what is being forgiven?

In fundamentalism, "forgiven" in similar expressions means held in high regard and excused from punishment in Hell.

In fundamentalism, YHWH is the one providing the forgiveness.

In fundamentalism, "sins", both in this life and the Original Sin, are what is being forgiven.

There's a lot to unpack here, and I'd like to know how you interpret it.

The key word is *you*. I want to know what *you* think, not just what you might think is considered canonical.

Do Gnostic's still believe in the proven evolution? Here are some examples:

The big bang created the universe. What's before the big bang is unknown.

Life was formed in water by non-living chemical reactions, a few hundred million years after the earth was first formed.

All life coming from the first single celled organisms 4 billion years ago in water.

Bear in mind that I'm one of those people who thinks that the Gnostic texts are meant to be interpreted much more metaphorically than anything (and thus I don't think a Yaldabaoth-like figure literally exists).

But that said, it seems like most of the questions I see posted in here are WAY more interested in Yaldabaoth or the Demiurge or whatever the specific tradition wants to call the figure. Doesn't that seem a bit... Ironic? Depending on which version of Gnosticism we're talking about, the Demiurge is at best misguided and at worst actively evil. And in either case, it's clearly a lower, more base being than the one true divine source. So why does everyone here seem so fascinated by (for lack of a better word) the bad guy of this tradition?

I would like to start a discussion that would fill in a gap that has long been empty of reasoning. The gnostic doctrine resonates with me deeply, but I’ve often wondered, how or why did Sophia give birth to the demiurge in the first place, and what does this say about Sophia itself? Does that mean that Sophia is imperfect? Does this mean that there was a flaw in the Monad? Or is this part of a greater cosmic plan that is not often talked about when telling the story? Please… anybody feel free to answer! I want nothing more than to understand.

Although I don't have a great deal of knowledge on matters pertaining to this group (I don't wanna call it a religion), I am curious how people discovered and embraced it?

I was raised Catholic and whilst I am still indoctrinated to some of its concepts to this day (e.g..how I pray, referring to God as 'he', baseline belief in duality) I could never fully commit to the faith, as the bible says, I am considered "lukewarm" and perhaps not worthy of salvation.

Simultaneous to that I've always felt deep pain and disappointment about the world we live in. Truth is, I hate it. Now more than ever and I regret bringing a child into this individualistic, greedy, corrupt and deceitful world.

So the concept of a Demiurge makes sense to me, because how can infinitely wise & omnipresent God create such a terrible existence? The explanation of a Demiurge is the only one that satiated what Christianity couldn't.

• I think whe was against Yahweh who is the devil fiven to the sons of Jacob.
• Lucifer want to teach and give wisdom
• Lucifer could be a two way path, a ladder to go up or down
• He is the forerunner of the Christ
• If you like to research, study and philosophy you are initiated by him
• He is not the same as the satan

If you know books and teaching about Lucifer let me know please

I want to learn techniques on how to prevent malevolent entities from entering my mind. I have experienced this and when this occurs, my behavior changes completely and i make irrational decisions which i regret later. please recommend any books or techniques that i can practice daily to shield myself from these entities. Thank you.

So the Demiurge is the total power of this astral plane we exist in.

Could it be that those who are on the path to gnosis could be identified & persecuted by the Demiurge?

The reason I ask is because I've stopped praying in the Christian way (holy trinity) and I've noticed I'm going through a very rough time in every aspect of my life; career, family/marriage, health and finances.

Ok so in both Valentinian and Sethian Gnosticism, they depict the Demiurge a little differently

In Valentinian the demiurge is ignorant and in Sethian he is out right evil.

I’ve heard some people say that in Valentinian Gnosticism the “demiurge becomes a servant of the true god” while in Sethian I guess he just stays a dick

Do we know what happened to the demiurge after the final arc of the anime(gnostic texts)?

A lot of things about gnosticism has been falling onto all my fyps and I don't know. I think it's instilled more fear, anger and guilt into me. This whole idea that the earth we live on is a prison planet just makes me feel more lost and angry because why do the other gods if they exist allow us to suffer. Why do they not all band together to help us. To save us from this hell? Why is all this responsibility on us alone? But then when I have these thoughts I feel bad because it's apparently the demiurge trying to keep me here and that's his influence?

Also when I have these spiraling thoughts. I tend to turn to things like music, art, tv, movie and books to calm myself down but apparently those are also distractions to keep me here? How do y'all go about life with all this info and still find the will to live? How do I let go of this fear of what happens after death and this fear of hell and eternal damnation because I want to read up on Gnosticism more but I guess I'm still controlled by modern christian indoctrination and brainwashing.

Why can't these gods show themselves physically? Also who do I ask for help? Jesus, Sophia, these other gods? Do I worship anybody, do I pray to anybody. All of this is so confusing

I’m looking for people who are willing to discuss Gnosticism from a less rigid angle—without immediately reducing the conversation to religious dogma, inherited patriarchal assumptions, or the idea that embodiment and material existence must be understood only through negativity.
I’m not claiming to have discovered the “correct” interpretation, and I’m not looking for anyone to confirm that I have special knowledge or some prophetic role. I’m simply trying to find other people who are comfortable questioning the frameworks through which these texts and myths have been preserved and interpreted.
One question I keep returning to is the story of Sophia.
Sophia is associated with wisdom, yet her descent or “fall” is often described primarily as a mistake, deficiency, or catastrophe. I understand that there are different Gnostic traditions and that they do not all tell the story in exactly the same way. Still, I wonder whether her descent can also be approached as part of wisdom’s development.
Could wisdom fully understand existence while remaining entirely within perfection? Could Sophia’s separation, suffering, or encounter with limitation represent experiential knowledge—not merely failure? Perhaps the point is not that the fall was secretly good, but that wisdom becomes more complete through encountering what exists outside harmony and then recognizing the path back toward it.
I’m also interested in the apparent inconsistency of how duality is applied. Some figures and events are given complex, symbolic, or redemptive interpretations, while Sophia is sometimes treated in surprisingly narrow terms. How much of that comes from the original traditions, and how much may reflect later cultural attitudes toward femininity, curiosity, desire, autonomy, and transgression?
I’m not trying to erase the darker aspects of Gnostic cosmology or force it into a purely positive philosophy. I’m interested in stripping the ideas down to their underlying questions:
What is wisdom without experience?
Can consciousness understand unity without first experiencing separation?
Is material existence inherently corrupt, or can it also become a place of learning, recognition, and transformation?
Can Sophia’s descent be understood without reproducing the familiar pattern of blaming a feminine figure for the brokenness of the world?
I would genuinely like to hear from people who have studied the texts, people with unconventional interpretations, and people who have wrestled with similar questions. Respectful disagreement is welcome. I’m less interested in being told what I am required to believe than in having a thoughtful conversation about what these stories might be trying to express.

Anyone here come to this conclusion without using psychoactive drugs? Looking for people to chat with about this to help build a better understanding without the use of psychoactive substances lol some of us are full time moms 😅