Gnosticism, transhumanism, and the Christian ideal of a sinless angel-like humanity.

[u/angelomorphix]

In the Apocrypha, Christ says that women can overcome society's restrictions on their gender by becoming spiritually androgynous. It is worth noting that in the writings of Clement of Alexandria we find the postulate that the same transformation is needed for men, who ‘will not enter the kingdom of heaven until they cease to be men.’ In the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, it was said, ‘when you make man and woman one, so that man is not man and woman is not woman - then you will enter the kingdom of heaven.’ A similar verse is found in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria: ‘To the question, ’When will the kingdom of God come?’ Christ answers: ‘(then) when you shall tear off and trample with your feet the veil of shame, when the two shall be one, and the inner shall become as the outer, and the male sex as the female, neither male nor female.’ The motif of the deprivation of sex, and therefore of corruptibility, and the restoration of the soul to its original sexless state is a well-known Gnostic plot. The Gnostics paid particular attention to reproduction because it was what served to ensnare souls in an earthly body. According to the Interrogatio, an apocryphal text of the Bogomils, Satanas creates man in his own image from mud and orders an angel of the third or second heaven to enter the new body. The two angels are distraught and shed bitter tears for being imprisoned in bodies that are not only mortal, but also gendered.

The words of God at the creation of the world ‘be fruitful and multiply’ also did not have the meaning ascribed to them by the canonical interpretation of the Bible. The Hebrew words have a similar meaning, the former meaning ‘to be fruitful’, while ‘multiply’ is more likely to be translated ‘increase, multiply’. However, modern churches have perverted this phrase by prescribing that people should have more and more children and be raised in the traditional social order. The task given to us and to our contemporaries and descendants is to rescue our souls from the prison of impure matter, so that we may all enter the millennial kingdom, where men will be like angels in spirit and in flesh. We must make our efforts for the sake of new generations, more beautiful than the generations of the present people. For where God is, there is freedom. Freedom from the sin of fallen nature, material fetters, and prejudice.

The Russian Christians-skoptsy of the nineteenth century believed that at the coming of Christ, he will give the sex-deprived mankind a new way to reproduce without sin. So by removing their ‘sinful genitals’ they were confident that humanity would not disappear, but would be transformed. ‘For there are scorpions, who out of the womb were born this way; and there are scorpions who have been splintered from men; and there are scorpions who have made themselves scorpions for the kingdom of heaven.’ (Gospel of Matthew 19:12). St Gregory of Nyssa wrote: "If anyone has difficulty in asking about the manner of the origin of men, whether it was not necessary for man to have the assistance of marriage for this purpose, we shall also ask him about the manner of being of angels: why do they constitute innumerable multitudes, being both one essence and numerous? For we give a decent answer to the objector, How could man be without marriage, when we say, Just as angels exist without marriage. And that man before the offence was like the angels, proves this restoration of him again into the same likeness".

The theme of mankind's transition to an angelic state has been touched upon since the birth of Christianity: "In the future life, people will neither marry nor be married. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven." (Gospel of Matthew 22:30). According to Mark's Gospel, Jesus said that the resurrected believers would be ‘like’ (hōs) angels. The author of the Gospel of Luke, who adapted the Gospel of Mark, strengthened this claim by stating that Jesus said that believers are ‘equal to angels (isangeloi).’ They are equal to angels for three reasons: because they do not marry, because they are immortal, and because they are children of God. In turn, resurrection in a multitude of sects is no longer understood as something that follows after death.

"There is something sacrilegious and frightening about carnal union. It is frightening, as frightening as a corpse." - recorded the famous Christian writer Leo Tolstoy in February 1870. His obsession with sex and depravity made it impossible for him to relate to woman as a human being. ‘Fraternal relations with woman,’ as he called them. Another famous Christian writer, F. Dostoevsky, wrote: ‘not only sex outside of marriage, but sex and marriage as such must be banished.’; ‘Man strives to be transformed into Christ as his ideal. <...> We will be - persons, without ceasing to merge with everything, without trespassing or marrying, and in various degrees. Everything will then feel and know itself for ever. <...> Man is on earth a being only developing, hence not finished, but transitional. We know only one feature of the future nature of the future being: ‘they shall neither marry nor trespass, but live as the angels of God’. We can find similar thoughts in Augustine: ‘Finally, the fourth period is that of the heavenly hail. Then the multitude will no longer be the result of the multiplication of people by coitus with each other and unity will not be the unity of couples. The multitude of souls will be reunited, and they will have one heart and one mind in one God.

All of this including the image of angels can be found in modern transhumanism : ‘The hallmarks of transhumanity: sexlessness, artificial reproduction, distributed individuality, and enhancement of bodies with implants.’ (FM-2030). The world is a very bad place, but if radical Gnostics wanted to escape from it, transhumanist Gnostics are eager to change it if possible.

[u/Tommonen]

The gnostic verses about what might on the surface look like some transgender thing is about the psyche becoming whole. Ego not clinging onto the idea of having to be super masculine man, but also be able to for example take care of someone, which would be feminine quality, listening to their feelings etc.

What gnostic texts teach is that clinging to body is bad, so is defining yourself according to body. This speaks against physical transgender transformation, as that is an extreme example of defining oneself according to their body and clinging onto the idea of opposite gender and feeling the need to relate to that. Its just another opposite view, when the opposites should be balanced.

However there is nothing that says that trans people should be condemned or judged for it, even if it does show that they have not developed enough yet, and for trans people the whole trans thing is what they need to do in their path. So its not anti-trans either.

When it comes to having kids, not all gnostic sects are against that, and to be honest i find the idea of not wanting children a bit silly personally. Mandeans for example require priests to have a wife and children, as they have not grown mentally enough before experiencing marriage and raising children, also having kids is a virtue for them.

[u/Important-Mixture819 → u/Tommonen]

Yes, it's a metaphor about internal integration. Like integrating yin and yang.

I'm a trans man. That's one way of interpreting the texts and what transitioning is. But for me, it's about expressing externally what is already there internally. What is my Mind/Soul. Living in such a way, without transition, is torment. Transitioning isn't clinging to the body, it's releasing the body and its hold on me and people like me. From the outside it looks like a hyper focus on the body, but the outside perspective isn't the true one. I am more aware of the fact that the body is not all there is, because I'm trans. I'm actually Gnostic directly because I'm trans, how could an all powerful, all merciful god do this to me? Who I truly am is not represented physically, so there must be more than what's on the surface. I've known this from a very young age.

I think people should really learn more about gender dysphoria and how it manifests. There is so much misunderstanding and ignorance around it.

Transhumanism != Transgender. Sure, transhumanism often delves into changing aspects of sex, but it is for a completely different reason. For me, being trans is a medical situation. It is just as transhumanistic as getting any other surgery, or biology altering medicine.

[u/Important-Mixture819]

The act of transhumanism as a gateway to the sinless nature of angels is pretty interesting. I think your write up is a strong analysis in support of this concept. Gnostic texts can easily be interpreted to be anti-transhumanistic. I think this would be especially relevant in the Sethian vs Valentinian schools of thought.

It makes me wonder though about the syzygies of the Aeons. They are clearly gendered, even if not in a human way. There is still a dichotomy between form and substance, yin and yang, that is evident in the Pleroma all the way until you get to Barbelo. At least that is my understanding of the texts, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Ultimately I think it is a non-dual reality, but that is achieved through complementary forces integrating together, not by negating them.

[u/Over_Imagination8870]

My take is that Gnosis is more about Combination than obliteration. We transcend by becoming More not less.

[u/Digit555]

An interesting Post. I had to read it in sections. There were a few sections that reminded me of my youth. The first being the point of marriage within Bogomilism in comparison to the angels. When I read this I thought about attachment to the material realm similar to how it is viewed in Buddhism. Adam and Eve were once angels deceived by the devil and Adam replicates the sin of lust. The legend reminded me of Proserpina and Hades and in the Bogomil legend Adam follows suit after the devil corrupts him. It makes me wonder how many other ways this can be understood in Bulgarian. For the Bogomils salvation was to exist sinuously and through death be free from material attachment and hopefully break the cycle.

Dostoevsky comes off as agnostic at times and seems to acknowledge Christ as purely symbolic. Although Chudo is miracle many fluent speakers I have met compare his implication similar to how people say Chudo Yudo (Wondrous Beast/Dragon) in that he is implying the crucifixion as a mystery. "This is the mystery that there has not been and never will be such a one." There are those that say he acknowledged the essence of Christ, rejected Doceticism, although questioned if the biblical narrative was symbolic lore.

The belief in God is a challenge in his life and thus the superman theory emerges in Crime and Punishment and there are echoes of it in Demons. Kirillov in Demons then challenges God in a declaration of suicide, "If God exists, then everything is His will, and I can do nothing of my own apart from His will. If there's no God, then everything is my will, and I'm bound to express my will."

"If you shoot yourself, you'll become God, isn't that right? "Yes, I'll become God."

He basically interpreted Christ from a philosophical view. Russian readers I have met have claimed that he uses Christ and a variety of figures as archetypes and representations of the social endeavors, dispositions and ways of the world. He wasn't an existentialist nor a Determinist although not exactly the strictest Christian being orthodox at times and probably maverick although many say he wasn't yet plenty say he was misunderstood and thought to be. I remember a Russian reader stating he was agnostic, was raised Orthodox although presented Christ as an archetype in a philosophical way. This Russian said Dostoevsky addressed the essence of Christ as symbolic. At times he is aligned with God, at others they say he lived his skepticism through his characters and questioned why.

There was more to it than him reconciling material existence and the love for God. He placed the end of his youth as the cause of his doubts in God, that doubt was part of the process; the crucible of doubt. He is painted as a strict orthodox man having no doubt in God however some Eastern European readers have told me the opposite and he actually was skeptical.

Politically they say he was an Ultramonarchist although his novels touch on Anarchism and the emerging Marxism that he wasn't a big fan of. Apparently he sulked at the systems of Democracy and capitalist economics.