In Part 3 of our series, we’ll be discussing the third article that Jack @ Sigma Frame wrote about Gnosticism.
So here is the list of 10 general traits of Gnostic spiritualism.
This should be interesting.
Trait #1
(1) Gnostic philosophy adopts a Platonic approach to systematizing metaphysical phenomenon, but it uses a spiritualized vocabulary which is not that hard to penetrate if one devotes any length of time to read it regularly. They just arrive at their ideals without blatant rationalism because this would be deemed too nerdy or tediously burdensome to the rational mind.
Gnostic Belief: Platonic/Aristotelian logic is capable of understanding and systematizing metaphysical phenomenon.
First, Gnostic philosophy was influenced by Platonism—especially that of Middle Platonism—which was prevalent during the first few centuries AD. Gnosticism borrowed the concept of a higher, transcendent reality from Platonism. But, it was not simply a Platonic system. Besides the Greek, it incorporated other influences, including Jewish, Christian, and Persian thought.
Second, Gnosticism diverged heavily from Platonic philosophy in its use of highly symbolic and spiritualized vocabulary, which it used to express metaphysical ideas. Scholars have found the symbolic language to be quite esoteric and difficult, so the claim that it is “not that hard to penetrate” is dubious at best. Indeed, some scholars even question whether one can even describe the disparate beliefs as Gnosticism, that is, that they question whether Gnosticism is even valid as a description of a single movement. Jack’s use of Gnosticism as a general concept is highly questionable.
Third, Plato and Aristotle formed two different philosophical traditions. Plato’s dualism and transcendental cosmological stances can’t really be described as “logic” in any normal sense.
Fourth, calling Gnosticism “blatant rationalism” is a misrepresentation. Gnosticism is not Aristotelian. Known Gnostic texts are not systematic in the same way that Aristotelian philosophies are. Gnosticism largely viewed mainstream philosophy as inadequate; unable to explain the deeper truths of the spiritual reality.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
While its vocabulary is spiritualized and esoteric, dedicated study can yield insight into its underlying ideas. Gnosticism does not entirely reject rational thought, but it prioritizes direct spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over purely intellectual reasoning.
Jack’s claim bears little resemblance to actual Gnosticism.
Trait #2
(2) One foundational tenet of Gnosticism rests on the idea that the intellect is not fallen, and that it can be perfected with practice and study and then used as a reliable moral and/or spiritual guide. As such, having “correct thinking” is often emphasized. “Political correctness” is one ostentatious example of this.
Gnostic Belief: The intellect is sufficient as a reliable moral and spiritual guide.
First, the core of Gnosticism is gnosis, divine knowledge that is directly experienced. It is almost always considered to transcend rational or intellectual thought. When the Gnostic texts discuss the mind, they do so in the context of intuitive, mystical insight rather than any notion that it can be “perfected.”
Second, Gnosticism held to many viewpoints, but the idea that the intellect was “not fallen” is not one of them. Nowhere in the Gnostic texts or known systems is this clearly defined, let alone a central tenet. By contrast, many Gnostic systems view the human condition as one of entrapment or illusion. The material was often viewed as inherently flawed and irredeemable, the fallen creation of the Demiurge, the opposite of what Jack has claimed.
Third, Jack misunderstands what the Gnostics meant by gnosis, which was more like inner clarity or understanding of spiritual realities, rather than a “perfection” of intellect in the sense of study as found in philosophical or theological systems. Gnosticism strongly emphasized that intellectual reasoning alone was not sufficient to achieve transcendent truth, the opposite of Jack’s claim.
Fourth, it is unclear how political correctness has any bearing on Gnosticism. The two would seem to have nothing to do with each other. Whatever reasoning Jack has for making this claim is unclear, at best. We’ll consider one possibility in Part 5.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
Jack’s attempt to associate rationalism with Gnosticism isn’t valid. If anything, Gnosticism rejects the primacy of the intellect for the spiritual. This is the opposite of Jack’s claim.
Trait #3
(3) The underlying “hope” of Gnosticism aspires to achieve an idealized human condition (apart from Christ). It is not anti-fleshly in the spiritual sense, but anti-fleshly in the idealist sense, because it fails to take into account the failings of the fleshly nature. NovaSeeker pointed out that one popular Gnostic approach to dealing with the counter-ideals arising from the fallen nature of the flesh is to call what is natural good, including sin. In addition to the inane logic of this approach, it only glosses over the ugliness of sin with a veneer of vain philosophizing and does not fully take the daily effects of sin into consideration. (viz. “whitewashed sepulchers”, as Jesus described in Matthew 23:27)
Gnostic Belief: An idealized human condition can be achieved.
First, there is definitely a sense of Gnosticism as trying to achieve an idealized human condition. But, this is not in the same sense as humanism. Under Gnosticism, the material is flawed or inferior with respect to the spiritual. The goal of “idealizing the human condition” is to transcend the material limitations through mystical experience, not embrace it.
Second, the “idealized human condition” is not “apart from Christ.” Many Gnostic groups—both historical and moderm—embrace the figure of Christ as one who reveals divine knowledge. It is simply not true that Gnosticism is apart from Christ. The position that Gnosticism is “apart from Christ” is a theological or religious claim, not a description of their beliefs.
Third, Novaseeker’s claim is not supported by the scholarly research on Gnosticism.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
Rather than merely idealizing human nature by ignoring the challenges and imperfections of the material existence, Gnosticism typically views the physical realm as an illusory or even obstructive aspect of a fallen cosmos. Moreover, while some modern commentators have critiqued certain Gnostic approaches for reinterpreting natural impulses or sin in a way that appears to minimize their real-world consequences, such interpretations are not uniformly representative of the diverse strands of Gnostic thought. Importantly, many Gnostic traditions incorporate the figure of Christ—not as a salvific force in the conventional sense, but as a revealer of the hidden knowledge necessary for spiritual liberation.
Jack seems to be viewing the Gnostic approach through a humanist or rationalist lens, rather than a Gnostic one.
Trait #4
(4) Modern Gnosticism appears in the form of people generally deciding for themselves what truth is, based on their own values, beliefs, moods, preferences, prerogatives and purposes, and working out a philosophical framework in support of that, similar to what the originating Pharisees did in antiquity. Hence, the “post truth” era. For example, a person who says, “I am spiritual, but not religious” is (most likely*) a gnostic because they are placing their own subjective spiritual experience over Christian fellowship, the gospel, and God’s directives for living.
Gnostic Belief: People can decide for themselves what truth is, based on their own values, beliefs, moods, preferences, prerogatives and purposes.
First, modern New Age spirituality may bear a loose resemblance to the subjective personal experience and insight found in Gnosticism, but this is merely superficial. It neglects the essence of Gnosticism, such as dualism of the material and spiritual, the emphasis on secret divine knowledge, and the role of the revealer (e.g. Christ).
Second, if anything, modern New Age spirituality is Gnostic because of its shared rejection of the intellect and reason, not because of its embrace. It is decidedly not like the Pharisees, with its strict observance of established law and tradition. The Pharisaic tradition was the opposite of the personal and subjective.
Third, as already alluded to, there are many modern spiritual movements (New Age, Eastern, psychology) that are not Gnostic, but share the attributes that Jack has ascribed to modern Gnosticism. Applying these to Gnosticism in particular is anachronistic.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
Note: equating such personal subjectivism with the practices of the Pharisees is historically misleading, as the Pharisees were more concerned with legalistic interpretations of Jewish law rather than the kind of individual truth-making implied in modern ‘post truth’ discourse.
Even if modern Neo-Gnosticism, Christ is still embraced as a divine revealer of truth. Jack does not appear to know this. Jack also appears to be attempting to reduce or eliminate the dualism inherent to Gnosticism.
Trait #5
(5) A Gnostic view comprehends spiritual reality not as a sublime eternal state, but as a subjective experience, and one’s spiritual vitality as a state of well-being, often in relation to specific people or objects in the material world. An explicit example would be, “The love of a woman is the love of God.” or “If you leave me, I’ll kill myself!”
Gnostic Belief: Spiritual reality is a subjective experience.
First, Gnosticism views the transcendent, higher, eternal realm—the pleroma (fullness) of divine beings—as existing beyond the lesser material world. This is the opposite of what Jack claims.
Second, Gnosticism is concerned with uncovering the fixed reality of what is beyond ordinary human experience, including emotions. It isn’t subjective in the sense of a person deciding what they want to believe. Jack’s two examples are absurd departures from the priorities of Gnosticism.
Third, this neglects the strict Gnostic dualism.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
This process is not primarily about experiencing fluctuating personal emotions or forging spiritual vitality through relationships with specific people or material objects. Instead, Gnostic thought emphasizes an objective, unchanging divine truth that stands in stark contrast to the ephemeral nature of worldly attachments.
Gnosticism is very much a mystical approach to objective truth. It is somewhat similar to Christian revelation in how the Christian seeks to find ultimate objective truth by the revelation of the Holy Spirit and not by anything that they bring to the experience. Whether or not Gnosticism is a valid alternative to traditional Christian revelation does not change it from an objective approach into a subjective one.
Trait #6
(6) Gnosticism has governing focus on maintaining one’s overall mood, usually (but not limited to) dietary and fitness regimes and materialistic indulgences. For example, “Portland SB’s pumpkin spice latte will set your heart at ease.” This is often extended to enhance one’s aesthetic image.
Gnostic Belief: People are capable of maintaining their overall attitude, behavior, and mood.
This is an utterly bizarre statement. I don’t even know what to do with it.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
(6) Gnosticism is primarily concerned with the awakening of an inner divine spark through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge (gnosis) and the transcendence of the material world. Rather than focusing on the maintenance of one’s mood or the management of physical well-being through dietary, fitness, or aesthetic practices, Gnostic thought emphasizes a radical reorientation of the self—from being entangled in the illusions of the material realm to recognizing and reclaiming one’s inherent, transcendent nature. Although some modern spiritual movements may adopt lifestyle practices that promote personal well-being, these are distinct from the historical aims and teachings of ancient Gnosticism.
It’s not clear to me why Jack is even using the term “Gnosticism” let alone dedicating an entire series to it. The things he describe and attribute to modern culture have little-to-no resemblance to the actual practices and beliefs of Gnosticism.
If Jack wants to criticize modern lifestyle trends, why doesn’t he just do that? What’s the point of bringing up Gnosticism, which has nothing to do with that?
Jack appears to be using Gnosticism as a slur or guilt-by-association.
Trait #7
(7) One’s spirituality is associated with sensuality. This usually appears in two contrasting forms. The Hedonic approach emphatically embraces sensual pleasures (anything about sex, traveling, spas, fashion, entertainment, etc.) and social popularity (celebrities, scandals, status, image, etc.) as being the central sources of joy in life. For example, “Popularity breeds contentment.” The Ascetic approach carries the idea that denying one’s self all sensual pleasures and comforts will somehow enhance one’s spiritual state. “If it’s delicious, then it can’t be healthy.” (or vice versa) Manichaeism takes the ascetic approach concerning sex.
Gnostic Belief: Spirituality is associated with sensuality. (Hedonic vs. Ascetic)
First, in Gnosticism, spirituality is explicitly distinct from sensuality. The former is of the spiritual real (non-material) while the latter is of the physical realm (material). Jack’s claim that the spiritual is associated with the physical is directly contradicted by Gnostic dualism.
Second, most Gnostic approaches view the material realm (which includes bodily pleasures) as part of the fallen, inferior, or even evil material realm created by the lesser deity. Most Gnostics were ascetic because they saw the world as inherently flawed and a distraction from the spiritual. But there were a few Gnostic hedonists who were allowed to indulge in bodily pleasures because they viewed the material world as essentially irrelevant, that is, whether one was ascetic or hedonistic had no bearing on spiritual transcendence. However, this distinction was not inherent to Gnosticism itself. These specific approaches to the material world were not fundamental to Gnosticism.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
Gnosticism is concerned with liberation from the material, not its embrace.
Trait #8
(8) It has a preference for casting God, Jesus, and various demiurges as purely a spirit being or force, not mortal. For example, “Jesus left no footprints in the sand.”
Gnostic Belief: God is purely a spirit being or force, not mortal.
The eighth point s is close enough to being accurate that I’ll spend no time discussing it. If you want me to talk about it, let me know in the comments.
The same cannot be said for the supposed Gnostic belief that “summarizes” it. Saying that God is an immortal spirit being is just a description of bog-standard orthodox Christianity. Even in Trinitarian theology, only the person of Jesus—not God’s being—was made flesh. And, more to the point, Radix Fidem—which Jack is a part of—has stated that Jesus has shed his fleshly restraints:
Citation: Radix Fidem, “NT Doctrine — John 15”
That sounds pretty Gnostic to me, not to mention Platonic. How does it sound to you?
Paraphrasing, first “that Jesus had to die to free his spirit from the confinement of his flesh” and second “that being no longer in the flesh now enables knowing Christ, through spirit alone.” This is what Gnostic dualism implied: the flesh was a hindrance (or at best of no consequence). It is why the Gnostics denied the resurrection of Christ’s actual flesh in his eternal form.
By contrast, as shown in “Traditions of Men,” the early church all but universally believed that Christ has retained his flesh in his resurrected body because Jesus himself said so and the apostles witnessed it firsthand.
Trait #9
(9) It posits mythical or superstitious beliefs that have no foundation in a mystical experience. For example, “I’ve worn my mother’s mood ring all throughout college, and it has given me good luck and kept me out of trouble.” or “Step on a crack, break your mother’s back.”
Gnostic Belief: People can make up their own moral rules and live by them.
Here Jack equates Gnostic mysticism with mere simplistic superstition. This is wrong for a variety of reasons.
First, since any non-Christian mysticism is—by definition—false, there is no meaningful difference between non-Christian mysticism and superstition. It’s all false revelation. Arguing about whether fake mysticism is the same as fake superstition is like arguing which one of two false things is more correct. Jack’s objection is no better than the simplistic statement that “Gnosticism is wrong because Christianity is correct.”
Second, Jack’s statement is unsubstantiated. Why should Gnostic mysticism be treated as mere superstition? He gives no explanation.
Third, the actual Gnostic mythic narratives are explicitly mystical. They are based on specific divine revelations and insights that the practitioners claim to have received. There is no indication that they believed in general-purpose superstitions. Rather, the Gnostic myths found in Gnostic literature are complex and detailed.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
Jack’s portrayal of Gnosticism appears to be a simplistic caricature, rather than a serious examination of Gnosticism.
Trait #10
(10) An austere reverence for ancestry, nostalgia, heirlooms, and formal traditions. For example, “I am descended from French nobility (and that makes me good, or better than so and so).” Another example can be found in the western political tradition. For the past century (or longer) conservatives have had a staunch habit of doing nothing else than preserving the progressivism of the previous generation.**
** In 1897, R.L Dabney recognized that “Conservatism” would give way before “Women’s Rights” and “Women’s Suffrage”, and that everything to do with the Leftward drift of society was seen to be part of the Egalitarian Gnostic Heresy.
Gnostic Belief: Things of this world (pedigree, history, possessions, traditions, etc.) make up one’s life and personal worth.
First, the Gnostics were not concerned with preserving social traditions or taking pride in their geneologies. Jack’s claim about Gnostic “tradition” flies in the face of gnosis as esoteric and secret divinely revealed knowledge. Gnosticism is not rooted in traditionalism, rather the Gnostic focus on the esoteric naturally opposes the formation of strict traditions, especially over time. This is one reason why Gnosticism has never formed denominations like a traditional religion, but was rather disparate in its practices.
Second, Jack seems to be personally concerned with social and political ideologies, but, as we’ve discussed in this series, Gnosticism more-or-less rejected formal authorities. Jack provides no reason to conclude that the leftward drift of American politics was Gnostic in origin, nor must we be surprised that writers in the 1800s foresaw the natural consequence of that leftward drift.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
Jack continues to try to put a square peg into a round hole.
Commentary
To a large extent, Gnosticism is a subjective way of viewing the world that is accepted on faith through exposure to the mythos of Gnostic culture, especially for those who idolize the glorified elitist culture of Gnostics and who lack the mental faculties and intuition necessary to come up with their own Gnostic-ish ideologies.
What an elitist take! Try switching this around to show how absurd this is:
Jack’s claims are nothing but a pejorative dismissal. They are decidedly non-scholarly.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
Modern interpretations of Gnosticism vary widely; some may adopt its themes in a more individualized or popular culture context, while others seek to engage with its historical and intellectual traditions in a thoughtful manner. It is important to distinguish between a scholarly engagement with the tradition and more casual or eclectic appropriations of Gnostic ideas.
Do you agree?
The specific arguments are often presented as esoteric, or at least giving off a mysterious vibe, but actually, it’s just confusing to lazy minds and to those who lack such intuition. The tone often comes across as one of moral or intellectual superiority, and this enhances the semblance of being elite.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle “black!”
The way this is expressed often implies that one’s thinking must align with that of the most influential Gnostic sages of the in-group. Within a social context having low social capital, those who have independent, unorthodox (according to them), or sociopathic thoughts are considered to be, at best, lower on the totem pole, or at worst, “uncivilized” or “uneducated”.
It’s fairly ironic that in historical Gnosticism, there was no widespread in-group enforcement of ideological or philosophical perspectives. The one thing that Gnosticism has is a distinct lack of conformity over time. It’s fairly absurd to think that Gnosticism wanted rigid intellectual conformity to a social hierarchy when it ultimately rejected those things are mere material concerns.
The reason it can be difficult to sniff out Gnosticism is because it mimics authentic spirituality and emphasizes things of true value – love and sex, culture and heritage, wealth, physical health and emotional well-being, a sincere appreciation for the memorable moments in life, and so on. Although these things may be good and healthy in themselves, Gnosticism spiritualizes and elevates these things to be the central aspect of a life that transcends mortal boundaries, and are therefore prioritized to the point of eclipsing contrasting truths, such as iniquity, sin and transgression, moral weaknesses, the need for mercy, grace, forgiveness, and regeneration, humility, responsibilities, discretionary spending, and the demands of one’s faith.
I hate to put it this way, but Jack has no idea what he is talking about. Gnosticism was not primarily concerned with material success or physical pleasure. If it were, it wouldn’t have been Gnosticism anymore. And that’s the point: what Jack is describing can’t be Gnosticism unless Gnosticism is the opposite of what Gnosticism actually is.
Jack has a serious problem with making broad generalizations about something he seems to know very little about.
To the average person who lacks a mature faculty of spiritual discernment, Gnosticism may not appear any different from authentic faith. In fact, it may appear even better, because it is whitewashed from all things ugly about the human condition.
The same can be said about the mysticism of Radix Fidem and the (alleged) “Ancient Near East” cultural elitism.
First, Gnostic philosophy was influenced by Platonism—especially that of Middle Platonism—which was prevalent during the first few centuries AD. Gnosticism borrowed the concept of a higher, transcendent reality from Platonism. But, it was not simply a Platonic system. Besides the Greek, it incorporated other influences, including Jewish, Christian, and Persian thought.
Second, Gnosticism diverged heavily from Platonic philosophy in its use of highly symbolic and spiritualized vocabulary, which it used to express metaphysical ideas. Scholars have found the symbolic language to be quite esoteric and difficult, so the claim that it is “not that hard to penetrate” is dubious at best. Indeed, some scholars even question whether one can even describe the disparate beliefs as Gnosticism, that is, that they question whether Gnosticism is even valid as a description of a single movement. Jack’s use of Gnosticism as a general concept is highly questionable.
Third, calling Gnosticism “blatant rationalism” is a misrepresentation. Gnosticism is not Aristotelian. Known Gnostic texts are not systematic in the same way that Aristotelian philosophies are. Gnosticism largely viewed mainstream philosophy as inadequate; unable to explain the deeper truths of the spiritual reality.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
(1) Gnostic philosophy adopts a Platonic-influenced metaphysical framework but expresses it through mythological and symbolic narratives rather than systematic rational analysis.
While its vocabulary is spiritualized and esoteric, dedicated study can yield insight into its underlying ideas. Gnosticism does not entirely reject rational thought, but it prioritizes direct spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over purely intellectual reasoning.
Jack’s claim bears little resemblance to actual Gnosticism.
Jack @ Sigma Frame
(2) One foundational tenet of Gnosticism rests on the idea that the intellect is not fallen, and that it can be perfected with practice and study and then used as a reliable moral and/or spiritual guide. As such, having “correct thinking” is often emphasized. “Political correctness” is one ostentatious example of this.
Gnostic Belief: The intellect is sufficient as a reliable moral and spiritual guide.
First, the core of Gnosticism is gnosis, divine knowledge that is directly experienced. It is almost always considered to transcend rational or intellectual thought. When the Gnostic texts discuss the mind, they do so in the context of intuitive, mystical insight rather than any notion that it can be “perfected.”
Second, Gnosticism held to many viewpoints, but the idea that the intellect was “not fallen” is not one of them. Nowhere in the Gnostic texts or known systems is this clearly defined, let alone a central tenet. By contrast, many Gnostic systems view the human condition as one of entrapment or illusion. The material was often viewed as inherently flawed and irredeemable, the fallen creation of the Demiurge, the opposite of what Jack has claimed.
Third, Jack misunderstands what the Gnostics meant by gnosis, which was more like inner clarity or understanding of spiritual realities, rather than a “perfection” of intellect in the sense of study as found in philosophical or theological systems. Gnosticism strongly emphasized that intellectual reasoning alone was not sufficient to achieve transcendent truth, the opposite of Jack’s claim.
Fourth, it is unclear how political correctness has any bearing on Gnosticism. The two would seem to have nothing to do with each other. Whatever reasoning Jack has for making this claim is unclear, at best.
Here is an alternative portrayal:
(2) Many Gnostic texts emphasize that the ultimate goal is to awaken the inner divine spark—a form of direct, experiential knowledge (gnosis) that transcends ordinary intellectual reasoning. Although clear or ‘correct’ understanding is valued as a stepping-stone toward this mystical insight, Gnosticism does not advocate for perfecting the intellect through systematic rational study in the same way that later philosophical traditions might. Instead, it stresses that true knowledge is not merely a matter of intellectual refinement but of an inner transformation that reveals the hidden, divine reality.
Jack’s attempt to associate rationalism with Gnosticism isn’t valid. If anything, Gnosticism rejects the primacy of the intellect for the spiritual. This is the opposite of Jack’s claim.
Jack @ Sigma Frame
(3) The underlying “hope” of Gnosticism aspires to achieve an idealized human condition (apart from Christ). It is not anti-fleshly in the spiritual sense, but anti-fleshly in the idealist sense, because it fails to take into account the failings of the fleshly nature. NovaSeeker pointed out that one popular Gnostic approach to dealing with the counter-ideals arising from the fallen nature of the flesh is to call what is natural good, including sin. In addition to the inane logic of this approach, it only glosses over the ugliness of sin with a veneer of vain philosophizing and does not fully take the daily effects of sin into consideration. (viz. “whitewashed sepulchers”, as Jesus described in Matthew 23:27)
Gnostic Belief: An idealized human condition can be achieved.
First, there is definitely a sense of Gnosticism as trying to achieve an idealized human condition. But, this is not in the same sense as humanism. Under Gnosticism, the material is flawed or inferior with respect to the spiritual. The goal of “idealizing the human condition” is to transcend the material limitations through mystical experience, not embrace it.
Second, the “idealized human condition” is not “apart from Christ.” Many Gnostic groups—both historical and moderm—embrace the figure of Christ as one who reveals divine knowledge. It is simply not true that Gnosticism is apart from Christ.
How can Jack the proud English professor that’s a 140 I.Q. RP® Genius get so much wrong?
It’s similar to Sharkly the guy who thinks he’s some ancient 1690s-style puritan who in the defense of his/her/it’s precios oral Sodomy® idol said ”Many people in various walks of life in each generation has loved and beheld oral Sodomy® as a good that increases lawfulness and childbirth rates 100%!” does that sound right as someone who claims to be an old school non-modernist ”Christian” that hates ”evolution”?
Hence why i say ”they” I.E. SF Jack and BS Sharkly are just bgr=mattperkins chatbot sockpuppets who are gathering data on the ”Christian manosphere” for smearing and discrediting purposes.
i’m glad Sharkly is showing some honesty here:
Sharkly says:
12 February, 2025 at 11:04 pm
It’s been some 5+ years since I first became an official® bgr=mattperkins chatbot sockpuppet alongside Jack Wayne whose own chicomunism is informed by his own sjw-tendencies of leftist Oral and Anal Sodomy® like those of my own.SMH lawd
Yes, religious beliefs determine a person’s cultural palette, from which they choose their political colors. The reason why the author got confused is that because a lot of people now have developed a religion where the government or the masses of a democratic society determine politically what they see as right and what is wrong for them. They don’t just see the political flavor of the month and then judge it by their religion. They adopt the political flavor of the month as their religious belief and then decide what is culturally acceptable based upon whatever is politically winning or popular.
We are in some uncharted waters here. With a growing portion of the population who feels like the government, or their political party determines right and wrong for them, and Donald Trump’s administration rolling back the woke cult, via a popular mandate, and consequently forcing the Democrats to retreat a bit and play defense, how will that change of tide affect their beliefs?
My guess is that like a chunk of driftwood they’ll be transported by the current even when it isn’t going in the direction they’d like. The internet & especially the dying RP Genius Leader fools® like me may allow individuals to always find more extreme fellow travelers, and to radicalize themselves, but as a group collectively they’ll still be drug around by the tides and currents. And so has it been with me, Matt Perkins& Jack Wayne.LOL(as WE gammas shout from the roof to announce our gamma ness)
Pingback: Exploring Gnosticism: Part 4 - Derek L. Ramsey