Is it possible to create a gnostic fantasy setting which

>>50839441
Well the gnostic christians were pretty big on the Demiurge being evil and all but the platonists themselves considered him as the perfect image of the Supreme Good who created the universe from the undifferrenciated khaos (it's more like having elements of the universe grossly mixed than the warp in warhammer) in the image of the Ideals. (who are not a better world but just immaterial)
The corruption of the world is just natural decay as the world diverge further from the Source and is not impossible to repair.

Also, a gnostic setting don't mean the material world must be dark itself, and the role of the Demiurge, Aeons and all could be more subtle rather than pure evil and pure good.

I guess theoretically, but I doubt it'd feel really gnostic.

>>50839660
Well the materialistic world and the Demiurge figure don't have to be really bad, and the Aeons figures don't have to be pure good.
Gnostic settings being grimdark is just traditionnal.

up

>>50839441
>>50839660
>>50839771

Absolutely.
Not every sect of "Gnosticism" (a really unfitting blanket term that catches groups with wildly divergent theology) has Demiurge as a force of cosmic malevolence.

Some think he's just incompetent or mistaken. Others go full Platonic and assert Demiurge is fundamentally good-natured but simply not the Highest.

>>50839441
Not really. Well, I guess you could, but people would call it something else.

>>50840210
Why, necessarily, does it have to be grimdark? Break it down for me, keeping >>50839969 and >>50839771 in mind. Reference me to the Gnostic corpus. What's 'grimdark' about Thunder: The Perfect Mind?

>>50840251
I don't think it has to be grimdark, just dark.

>>50840360
Again, why?
Break it down for me.
What's dark about the more Neoplatonic nondualist sort of "Demiurge is there but w/e" brand of Gnosticism? What about the desert pagan 'only Christian in the vaguest sense' brand of Gnosticism (Mandaeans)? What about the 'so close to mainline doctrine I don't even know why scholars keep calling them Gnostic' brands (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Phillip)?

>>50840419
The concept of the demiurge is pretty dark.

>>50840454
>>50840419
>>50839969
>What's dark about the more Neoplatonic nondualist sort of "Demiurge is there but w/e" brand of Gnosticism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
>Plato, as the speaker Timaeus, refers to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue Timaeus, c. 360 BC. The main character refers to the Demiurge as the entity who "fashioned and shaped" the material world. Timaeus describes the Demiurge as unreservedly benevolent, and hence desirous of a world as good as possible. The world remains imperfect, however, because the Demiurge created the world out of a chaotic, indeterminate non-being. Plato's work Timaeus is a philosophical reconciliation of Hesiod's cosmology in his Theogony, syncretically reconciling Hesiod to Homer.
>In Numenius's Neo-Pythagorean and Middle Platonist cosmogony, the Demiurge is second God as the nous or thought of intelligibles and sensibles.
>Plotinus and the later Platonists worked to clarify the Demiurge. To Plotinus, the second emanation represents an uncreated second cause (see Pythagoras' Dyad). Plotinus sought to reconcile Aristotle's energeia with Plato's Demiurge, which, as Demiurge and mind (nous), is a critical component in the ontological construct of human consciousness used to explain and clarify substance theory within Platonic realism (also called idealism). In order to reconcile Aristotelian with Platonian philosophy, Plotinus metaphorically identified the demiurge (or nous) within the pantheon of the Greek Gods as Zeus.
>By Valentinus, in creating this world out of Chaos the Demiurge was unconsciously influenced for good; and the universe, to the surprise even of its Maker, became almost perfect. The Demiurge regretted even its slight imperfection, and as he thought himself the Supreme God, he attempted to remedy this by sending a Messiah. To this Messiah, however, was actually united Jesus the Saviour, Who redeemed men. These are either hylikoí, or pneumatikoí.

>>50840454
The worldview of Plato himself was that while the material world is real and not bad, is it ontologically dependant on the archetypes the human mind naturally create.
His Demiurge was a metaphore of this concept and the one wih the cave was just about how someone centered on learning wisdom is lost in touch with his more mundane peers and he must relearn mundane matters to not be seen as a fool by them and even then he is likely to fail and be persecuted, but it's still his duty to try as a wise man.
The evil Demiurge with the true god above is only a form of a very large spectrum of early christian heresies inspired by Plato.

>>50840667
The platonic demiurge is not what most people think of when they hear the term. They think of the christian heretical demiurge.

File: 6e6UFLc.png (584KB, 1400x2700px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1400x2700px

>>50840744
>They think of the christian heretical demiurge.
You mean the one from Valentinus with compassion and regret and love and remorse for his fuckups, or the one from /fringe/ memes?

>>50840778
The one that Irenaeus rants about in Against the Heresies. I forgot which gnostics were around during that time.

>>50840815
So you mean the Valentinian one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge#Valentinus
>It is in the system of Valentinus that the name Dēmiourgos is used, which occurs nowhere in Irenaeus except in connection with the Valentinian system; we may reasonably conclude that it was Valentinus who adopted from Platonism the use of this word. When it is employed by other Gnostics either it is not used in a technical sense, or its use has been borrowed from Valentinus. But it is only the name that can be said to be specially Valentinian; the personage intended by it corresponds more or less closely with the Yaldabaoth of the Ophites, the great Archon of Basilides, the Elohim of Justinus, etc.

>>50840846
I guess so. The point is that it doesn't matter much what he said, Irenaeus's teachings on gnostics has been the number one text for christian theologians who want to find out what gnosticism is about.

>>50840778
Replace the twisted ankle with a guy whose entire village and family just got buried under 2 meters of boiling lava and suddenly that comic doesn't really work the way you think it works.

>>50840879
Except for all those core texts on "Gnostic" thought which show the massive variety under the insufficient category of "Gnostic".

>>50840892
For the sake of the argument - if the demiurge hadn't created the world in the first place, there would be neither village, nor family for the guy to lose.

File: 8FHtRcE.png (297KB, 1112x761px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1112x761px

>>50840892
Better?

My point is there's more to the broad spectrum of Gnostic thought than "Demiurge is evil", "god is the devil", "everything is awful" or whatever reductive simplification folks come up with.

>>50840907
Sure but that's not what most people think about when they think Gnosticism.

>>50841114
>the corpus of Gnostic texts, such as those found at Qumran with a number of mainline texts (Dead Sea Scrolls) are not what people think of when they think Gnosticism

Then enlighten me to what they think?

>>50841114
Sure but if that's interresting ? what is wrong with using sources that are not what most people know ?

>>50841239
They think they're Christian heretics who believe the material world is evil.

>>50841331
That sounds great.

>>50841580
as opposed to proper christians who think the material world and everything in it is sinful

>>50840950
Well, then you have the Yazidi belief in Melek Taus (I have a feeling I got both names wrong there), in which the demiurge is in charge of the world but they're okay with it and worship him directly.
Misunderstanding of this tradition is where you get stories about 'Middle-Eastern Satan-worshippers out in the desert.'

>>50845030
The further we go on the timeline, the worse and worse Christians seem to get at Theology.

>>50839441
TES isn't dark fantasy.

>>50845140
Everything's dark fantasy when you talk to an edgy enough fan of it.

>>50839441
Only Christcucks fall for the Demiurge is evil meme.

>>50845106
>I have a feeling I got both names wrong there
Nah, you got it.

>they're okay with it and worship him directly.
The Peacock Feathered Angel isn't Creator for them. He's an angel of fortune; life and death, weal and woe. Connotations of fate.

>>50845106
>Misunderstanding of this tradition is where you get stories about 'Middle-Eastern Satan-worshippers out in the desert.'
Eeeyup, we also have freaky groups like Mandaeans as referenced above who reject Christ in favor of John the Baptist and an entity called Maziel, the Angel of Logos.

>>50845030
No, most christian groups believe the material world is good since god created it. It's in book of genesis mate.

>>50840419
Those gospels were branded as heresy because they go wildly against all the evidence had of Jesus shortly after his dead as laid down by the Apostles.

The key difference is that the books of the new test were written either by the Apostles themselves or dictated to writers or written by people who worked with the apostles, thusly they're all penned within loving memory of Christ (within 50 years of the occurance)

In contrast, the heretical texts you mentioned all popped up 300-400 years afterward, and conflict wildly, such as a text where Jesus says to make women more like men because women are weak.

Also to be totally fair to Gnostics, they lost the fight because the Catholics and Orthodox aren't so weighed down in elite occultism and thus easier for the common man to grasp.

>>50845030
There are seven separate apostolic churches and over 70,000 different Protestant groups, and yes those allllllll have come to their own conclusions, so before you make that comment again, consider how fucking enormous of an umbrella you're casting

>>50845629
That has little to do with why they're 'dark', let alone 'grimdark'.

>300-400 years afterward

Gospel of Thomas:
>Valantasis dates Thomas to 100 – 110 AD, with some of the material certainly coming from the first stratum which is dated to 30 – 60 AD. J. R. Porter dates the Gospel of Thomas much later, to 250 AD

Gospel of Phillip:
>The Gospel of Philip was written between 150 AD and 350 AD, while Philip himself lived in the first century, making it extremely unlikely to be his writing. Most scholars hold a 3rd-century date of composition.

Gospel of Truth:
>The Gospel of Truth was probably written in Greek between 140 and 180 by Valentinian Gnostics (or, as some posit, by Valentinus himself).

Thunder: Perfect Mind:
>As to dating, Anne McGuire writes: "Thunder, Perfect Mind exists only in the Coptic version found at Nag Hammadi (NHC VI,2:13,1-21,32). The author, date, and place of composition are unknown, but a cultural milieu like that of second- or third-century Alexandria is plausible. In any case, it is clear that the text was originally composed in Greek well before 350 C.E., the approximate date of the Coptic manuscript."

Apocalypse of Adam:
>first to second century AD. via MacConkey and Meyer for Brill.