>live an ascetic life devoid of any kind of material distractions to achieve theosis>constantly remind themselves of death and the filth of the world Are ortholarpers just gnostics in denial?
>>16805335Gnostics are weird sex cultists with bizarre cosmologies.
>>16805345Implying that the orthodox aren’t
>>16805351They literally are not lol.
>>16805345>taking the male/female and adrogynous symbolism literallysarkic
>>16805393They literally, unironically practice sex magic and semen retention lol.
>>16805393>using SCP termsRetard.
>>16805397Yup, another win for the church fathers (archons)
>>16805352examples?>>16805398https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+3%3A1-3&version=NET>1 Corinthians 3:1 tn Grk “fleshly [people]”; the Greek term here is σαρκινός (BDAG 914 s.v. 1).Paul is also a retard?
>>16805436>clearly a different word
>>16805449And Ἀλέξανδρος was clearly a different person than Alexander.
>>16805335>Are ortholarpers just gnostics in denial?Is the sky blue?
>>16805436https://chicagognosis.org/lectures/sacred-sexuality-and-transmutation
>>16805335Not Orthodox, actually ex-Orthodox, but Gnostic as an insult is so fucking stupid. I guess anyone who isn’t a mindless hedonist or narcissist is a Gnostic.
>>16805558Just because it has "Gnosis" in the title does not mean it's Gnostic, bro. And if they claim to be a reconstruction then they are pretty bad at it because there is not a single actual Gnostic text that corroborates any of that.
>>16805335>Are ortholarpers just gnostics in denial?Yes but for reasons more complex than you posted in your OP.>constantly remind themselves of death and the filth of the world Weirdly enough they still can’t agree amongst themselves on if original sin is even a thing.>live an ascetic life devoid of any kind of material distractions to achieve theosisThis is one of the parts where some of them are gnostic, again I say some because they can’t agree on any of their theology other than “icons le good”. Some talk about obtaining the divine nature through theosis which is absolutely gnostic.The ones that just talk about being united to God by Gods work, as oppposed to their own ascetic work (theopoiesis vs theosis).You can also look to Palamas’ Marian beliefs for Gnosticism. Most of it stems from the “”gospel”” of Jame (no actually written by James) which was condemned by the early church but Palamas used it to form a lot of his beliefs about Marian and put foward the belief that while living in the temple (again a belief on in the gospel of James) she essentially achieve gnosis and chose to work with God to save the lesser humanity that couldn’t achieve gnosis.>>16805567I think your being uncharitable about what he’s trying to say, though he is being needlessly blunt.
>>16805567I think its the fact that the theology implies that natural things which God ordained (like sex in marriage) are wrong somehow (i.e. vows of celibacy). The New Earth is just everything good about this earth without the bad. No sex though not because it's bad; but because it's redundant without death.
>>16805335>Are ortholarpers just gnostics in denial?no, they aren't larpers and are opposed to gnostic view completely
>>16807783The (proto-)orthodox Church of the first few centuries AD and the modern Orthodox (capital letter) Church are not the same at all. The former was still led by the pope in Rome, for starters. While it was supposed to be orthodox ("straight-thinking," free from >heresy) it was also supposed to be catholic. "Catholic" meant that it was supposed to be the ONE, the ONLY TRUE CHURCH. In other words: the pope in Rome knows what's best and if you don't obey him in all matters, you are a heretic and not part of the Church at all. Why does he know what's best? Because he was divinely appointed to that position by Jesus Christ. How? After his crucifixion, Christ revealed himself to Peter AS THE FIRST PERSON. That last part is very dubious. Even if we take it as true, there is no guarantee that Peter's "successors" would uphold the truth. Claiming so is an earthly monarchic concept raised into the realm of theology. Popes are kings, conceptually and in practice as well. The staunchest detractors of Gnostic thought also came from the West: Ireneus (Spain), Tertullian (Carthage). The East always harbored greater Gnostic sympathies, even among those members of the Church who considered themselves orthodox (Clement of Alexandria, who was once considered a saint by the Catholics but was literally expunged from that list in the 16th century). The West falling to barbarians and the Great Schism that came afterwards led to the East freeing itself from the papal stranglehold. It allowed for greater diversity of thought as well as rediscovery and reexamination of older (Gnostic) traditions. Of course, those movements in the Eastern Orthodox Church were still being suppressed to greater or lesser extent depending on the time period and circumstances.
>>16807783>>16807971Correction: Ireneus was a bishop in Gaul and not in Spain. My mistake.
