Gnostic Insights

God is loving and merciful, not judgmental and cruel

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week I began sharing with you what is essentially a book report on the book called That All Shall Be Saved, Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation by David Bentley Hart, and he’s the translator of the New Testament that I’ve been using. So, last week we got up to page 21 out of this book, and now I’m all the way up to page 85, so we’ll see what happened in this latest round of reading.

Now, David Bentley Hart’s style of writing may not be for everyone. It’s very academic, very high-minded and educated and erudite—difficult to follow if you’re not accustomed to reading scholastic writing. But I believe his heart’s in the right place, and I agree with pretty much everything he says. I will do my best to reinterpret what he is saying in simpler words, in case you’re interested in the content, but not in its delivery method.

So, picking it up on page 21, Hart says,

And what could be more absurd than the claim that God’s ways so exceed comprehension, that we dare not presume even to distinguish benevolence from malevolence in the divine, inasmuch as either can result in the same endless excruciating despair? Here the docile believer is simply commanded to nod in acquiescence, quietly and submissively, to feel moved at a strange and stirring obscurity, and to accept that, if only he or she could sound the depths of this mystery, its essence would somehow be revealed as infinite beauty and love. A rational person capable of that assent, however, of believing all of this to be a paradox concealing a deeper, wholly coherent truth, rather than a gross contradiction, has probably suffered such chronic intellectual and moral malformation that he or she is no longer able to recognize certain very plain truths, such as the truth that he or she has been taught to approve of divine deeds that, were they reduced to a human scale of action, would immediately be recognizable as expressions of unalloyed spite.

And he’s talking about the idea that most everyone and everything is going to hell and will suffer eternal torment. That is an interpretation or misinterpretation of the word brought about by incorrect translation of the original Coptic. Most of our Bible translations come off of old Latin Vulgate translations, and then they’ve been modernized. But that’s how errors are brought forward. And what Hart has done in his New Testament translation is go back to the original, very oldest transcripts, still in Greek, before they were translated to Latin. And he did what he called a pitilessly accurate translation, where Hart was not trying to make the words that are being translated fit into a predetermined doctrine, like everyone going to hell, or like the Trinity, or eternal damnation.

These things we’ve been taught to believe are in the Scripture, but when you actually go back to the original Scriptures prior to the Latin translations, they are not in the Scripture. And so this book that I’m doing the book report on here, That All Shall Be Saved, this is about universal salvation, and doing away with the idea. And he says in this section I just read you, that it is a malevolent idea, unalloyed spite, unalloyed meaning pure spite on the part of God, that’s going to send everyone to hell that doesn’t get it.

And that we have been commanded by the Church over the last 2,000 years to just nod our heads and say, oh, well, it’s God’s will, or oh, well, how can I presume to distinguish benevolence from malevolence, good intention from bad intention on the part of God, because God is so great and good. We’re supposed to be docile believers, to acquiesce, that is, to go along with, to quietly and submissively accept that we don’t get it, that we don’t understand the depths of the mystery, and someday we will, and that God is good, and God is just, and therefore everyone’s going to hell, except for those few preordained elect from before time began. So this book is entirely against that proposition.

So moving on, what I did was I read the book through, and I’ve highlighted the parts that seem worth sharing or very interesting. Now we’re jumping to page 35, where he says that certain people,

of my acquaintance who are committed to what is often called an intellectualist model of human liberty, as I am myself, [he says], but who also insist that it is possible for a soul freely to reject God’s love with such perfect perpiscuity of understanding and intention as to merit eternal suffering.

And we can tell from the context that perpiscuity means you get it. So he’s saying, how is it even possible for a soul to freely reject the love of God and consign oneself into eternal torment? It just doesn’t work. It’s not possible. He says,

this is an altogether dizzying contradiction. In simplest terms, that is to say, they, [that is, the intellectualists], want to assert that all true freedom is an orientation of the rational will toward an end that the mind takes in some sense to be the good, and so takes also as the one end that can fulfill the mind’s nature and supply its desires. This means that the better the rational will knows the Good, and that’s a capital G, Good, for what it is, the more that is that the will is freed from those forces that distort reason and lead the soul toward improper ends. The more it will long for and seek after the true good in itself, and conversely, the more rationally it seeks the good, the freer it is.

He says that in terms of the great Maximus the Confessor, who lived from 580 to 660,

the natural will within us, which is the rational ground of our whole power of volition, must tend only toward God as its true end, for God is goodness as such, whereas our gnomic or deliberative will can stray from him, but only to the degree that it has been blinded to the truth of who he is and what we are, and as a result has come to seek a false end as the true end. In short, sin requires some degree of ignorance, and ignorance is by definition a diverting of the mind and will to an end they would not naturally pursue.

So, in other words, we all want what’s best for ourself, even in the most selfish sense, even in the most egoic sense. The ego wants what is best for this person that it is part of, that that is the rational end of the ego’s striving, what is best, and that there is a thing called good in the absolute sense, and if we realize that, then we would strive toward the good, by definition. Carrying on, page 37,

I’m not saying that we do not in some very significant sense make our own exceedingly substantial voluntary contributions to our estrangement from the good in this life.

And, see, he’s just saying we all screw up. Even if we are seeking the good, we often fall backwards into the bad, okay?

Up to a certain point, [he says], it is undeniable, but past that point it is manifest falsehood. There is no such thing as perfect freedom in this life, or perfect understanding, and it is sheer nonsense to suggest that we possess limitless or unqualified liberty. Therefore, we are incapable of contracting a limitless or unqualified guilt. There are always extenuating circumstances.

Well, in a sense, that’s true of all of us and all of our circumstances. We are a product of our environment, to some extent. But don’t forget that in the Gnostic view, we also contain the pure goodness of God, the capital S Self, that reflects the Fullness of God. So we do know what goodness is, even if we are surrounded by badness.

Quoting Hart again, page 40,

Here though, I have to note that it is a thoroughly modern and wholly illogical notion that the power of absolutely unpremised liberty, obeying no rationale except its own spontaneous volition toward whatever end it might pose for itself, is either a real logical possibility or, in any meaningful sense, a proper definition of freedom.

See? He’s saying it’s thoroughly modern and wholly illogical to think that we have complete freedom of will, and that we can choose to follow any unethical or immoral end that we wish to, because what’s it matter? One choice being pretty much the same as another, you see. He goes on to say, in page 40,

A choice made without rationale is a contradiction in terms. At the same time, any movement of the will prompted by an entirely perverse rationale would be, by definition, wholly irrational. Insane, that is to say. And therefore, no more truly free than a psychotic episode. The more one is in one’s right mind, the more that is that one is conscious of God as the goodness that fulfills all beings. And the more one recognizes that one’s own nature can have its true completion and joy nowhere but in Him, and the more one is unfettered by distorting misperceptions, deranged passions, and the encumbrances of past mistakes, the more inevitable is one’s surrender to God, liberated from all ignorance, emancipated from all the adverse conditions of this life, the rational soul could freely will only its own union with God, and thereby its own supreme beatitude.

We are, as it were, doomed to happiness, so long as our natures follow their healthiest impulses unhindered. And we cannot not will the satisfaction of our beings in our true final end, a transcendent good lying behind and beyond all the proximate ends we might be moved to pursue. This is no constraint upon the freedom of the will, coherently conceived. It is simply the consequence of possessing a nature produced by and for the transcendent good, a nature whose proper end has been fashioned in harmony with a supernatural purpose. God has made us for Himself, as Augustine would say, and our hearts are restless till they rest in Him. A rational nature seeks a rational end, truth, which is God Himself.

The irresistibility of God for any soul that has been truly set free is no more a constraint placed upon its liberty than is the irresistible attraction of a flowing spring to fresh water in a desert place to a man who is dying of thirst. To choose not to drink in that circumstance would not be an act of freedom on his part, but only a manifestation of the delusions that enslave him and force him to inflict violence upon himself, contrary to his nature.

Do you follow the reasoning there? That boils down to simply saying it is logical. Even Mr. Spock would find it logical for a human to pursue the good in its own best interests, and that it is illogical, illogical all the way to insanity, to refuse the good, to refuse what is best for you. It’s a manifestation of insanity, to refuse the love of God. How’s that for laying it out? I really appreciate logic, you know, because this is a logical universe.

If the laws of physics and chemistry didn’t hold true to logic, and that includes math, you see, 2 plus 2 equals 4, etc., all the way through all the difficult math, the quantum physics, and the string theory, and so forth, this is a logical universe based upon the Aeon known as Logos, logic. And so, therefore, to reject logic, it’s not smart, it’s not clever, it’s not freedom. And, by the way, this is about the level of pushback I see in, for example, YouTube comments that reject the gospel. They’re pretty much on the order of, oh, yeah, I can die of thirst if I want to, so F off. Okay, well, good luck with that, right? Carrying on, page 43.

None of this should need saying, to be honest. We should all already know that whenever the term justice and eternal punishment are set side by side as if they were logically compatible, the boundaries of the rational have been violated. If we were not so stupefied by the hoary and venerable myth that eternal damnation is an essential element of the original Christian message, and then he says in parentheses, which, not to spoil later plot developments here, it is not, we would not even waste our time on so preposterous a conjunction. From the perspective of Christian belief, the very notion of a punishment that is not intended ultimately to be remedial is morally dubious, and he says in parentheses, and I submit anyone who doubts this has never understood Christian teaching at all.

But even if one believes that Christianity makes room for the condign imposition, [and condign means proper or fitting], imposition of purely retributive punishments, it remains the case that a retribution consisting in unending suffering, imposed as recompense for the actions of a finite intellect and will, must be by any sound definition disproportionate, unjust, and at the last, nothing more than an expression of sheer pointless cruelty.

And of course, I do find that attitude on the part of Christians I talk to and try to explain the idea of universal salvation being Christ’s true mission, that all shall be redeemed, every knee shall bow. They’d much rather send people to hell, and when you see their faces as they’re saying it, it’s not, oh, you know, I’m so sorry that it’s this way and my heart breaks, but I’m afraid they’re all going to hell. It’s not like that at all. It’s like, damn straight, they deserve to go to hell. Now, you take that kind of anger and cruelty when you consider that they are advocating unending, excruciating pain and punishment, and then you try to say that that is God’s will, that goodness incorporates unending punishment.

And Hart’s saying, indeed, especially unending punishment that isn’t for remediation, isn’t to make them a better person, but simply to make them hurt. And who are you punishing? Finite beings with limited time and intelligence and ability to reason with things that happened in their past. Maybe they were brought up by someone very cruel who taught them cruelty, and so they carry on cruelty. And then that the God of all love and the God of all justice would send them to hell for eternal torment. And up until quite recently, even babies who were unbaptized would be sent to hell for eternal torment. And then someone came up with the idea of a baby purgatory where unbaptized babies never get to go to heaven, but they’re not going to be eternally punished either. They’re just going to go to a baby land where they’re held apart from the rest of the redeemed. Well, really? That’s hardly any better. I mean, it’s somewhat better, but why shouldn’t these pure babies who pretty much incorporate the Fullness of the Self and love of God, why wouldn’t God want them back? You see, it doesn’t make any sense.

And if you’re a Christian listening to me today who has had niggling doubts about certain things, and one of them being this idea of grandma being in hell and in the midst of eternal torture now because she wouldn’t listen to your preaching, you can relax about it. Because we are the sower of seeds, but we are not the harvester. It is Christ who harvests the souls, who brings them all home.

Back to Hart here again. On page 47, he says,

Once more, not a single one of these attempted justifications for the idea of an eternal hell actually improves the picture of God with which the infernalist orthodoxy presents us.

And he uses the word infernalist for like the infernal torments of hell. So an infernalist is someone who believes folks are going to hell for eternity. So he says,

Once more, not a single one of these attempted justifications for the idea of an eternal hell actually improves the picture of God with which the infernalist orthodoxy presents us. And it is this that should be the chief concern of any believer.

All of these arguments still oblige one to believe that a benevolent and omnipotent God would willfully create rational beings destined for an endless torment that they could never, in any rational calculus of personal responsibility, earn for themselves. And to believe also that this somehow is essential to the good news Christianity brought into the world.

Isn’t it true? When you’re in church and you hear the preacher preaching a very nice, very good message about relationships or about moral virtue, and then there is a plea and a threat at the end that if you are sitting in the congregation and you have not accepted Christ as your personal Savior, you may go out and die this afternoon and go to hell. It’s not right. It’s contradictory. It is not the pure will of God. Page 47 goes on to say,

In the end, there is only one logical terminus toward which all these lines of reasoning can lead: When all the possible paths of evasion have tapered away among the weeds, one has to stop, turn around, retrace one’s steps back to the beginning of the journey, and finally admit that, if there really is an eternal hell for finite spirits, then it has to be the case that God condemns the damned to endless misery not on account of any sane proportion between what they are capable of meriting and how he chooses to requite them for their sins, but solely as a demonstration of his power to do as he wishes.

Now, by the way, when I read the Old Testament, I see that that is often the attitude that Jehovah has towards his subjects. He commands things because he can, and he wants obedience because he wants obedience. Remember, the Demiurge controls through strong strings. He does not approve of willpower. Willpower is messy. Willpower means not obeying the will of God, and he wants to be the sayer of our souls. But the God Above All Gods, the Gnostic God, outranks the Old Testament God. The God Above All Gods is the Father who begat the Son.

The Demiurge keeps chaos at bay by forbidding free will in his subjects

And so when Jesus says, I and my Father are one, he’s not talking about the Old Testament God. He’s talking about the God Above All Gods, the originator of consciousness, of love, of life, of free will. And we are all fractals of that Father. Through the Son, through the Fullness of God, we are fractals of all of those powers of the Father–stepped down, because we’re smaller fractals. So we all have to return to the Father in the end.

When we loose these mortal coils and we’re no longer bound to the material that deludes us, then we can finally return to the Father again. So onward and upward is not a trap. Onward and upward is freedom. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

So back to this idea of the Old Testament God enjoying his omnipotent sovereignty. On page 48, Hart is talking about Calvin and predestination. And he says, in book three of Calvin’s Institutes,

he even asserts that God predestined the human fall from grace, precisely because the whole of everything, creation, fall, redemption, judgment, the eternal bliss of heaven, the endless torments of hell, and whatever else, exists solely for the sake of a perfect display of the full range of God’s omnipotent sovereignty, which for some reason absolutely must be displayed.

He goes on to say he doesn’t know how to respond to that, because,

I know it to be based on a notoriously confused reading of Scripture, one whose history goes all the way back to the late Augustine, a towering genius whose inability to read Greek and consequent reliance on defective Latin translations turned out to be the single most tragically consequential case of linguistic incompetence in Christian history. In equal part, however, it is because I regard the picture of God thus produced to be a metaphysical absurdity, a God who is at once supposedly the source of all things, and yet also the one whose nature is necessarily thoroughly polluted by arbitrariness.

And no matter how orthodox Calvinists might protest, there is no other way to understand the story of election and dereliction that Calvin tells, which would mean that in some sense he is a finite being, that is God, in whom possibility exceeds actuality, and the irrational exceeds the rational. A far greater concern than either of these theological defects, either the deeply misguided scriptural exegesis or the inept metaphysics of the divine, it is the moral horror in such language.

So that’s as far as we’re going to go today. In next week’s continuance of this train of thought, Hart will talk about the difference between the God Above All Gods, essentially, even though Hart’s not calling himself a Gnostic. When he speaks of God, or Goodness with capital G, he is speaking of the God Above All Gods. And when he contrasts it with the God of Calvin and Augustine in the Old Testament, that is the Demiurgic God.

I’ve noticed that many modern people seem to think of God as a yin-yang type of completion, that is, where evil balances good, where darkness is necessary to balance light, where the purpose of humanity, or what happens here in humanity, is that we are instantiating strife and struggle and evil for the teaching of God, for the completion of God. That is not right. That’s wrong theology, folks. Our God is all goodness, and there is no evil that emanates from God. Well, where did evil come from then? It’s merely the absence of good. So evil is the absence of goodness.

The archons are the shadows of the Aeons. And when the light fully comes and fills all of space, the shadows will disappear, and the light comes along with the love. And so that’s our job, to realize that universal and ethereal love, and to so let our light shine and our lives shine with love, that the Demiurge will be eventually won over. And as for the shadows, every time we bring light into the world, we’re diminishing the power of the Demiurge. We’re shining light onto a shadow and evaporating it.

Next week, we’ll pick this up for part three of That All Shall Be Saved by David Bentley Hart.

Let me know what you think of this. Send me some comments.

Onward and upward. God bless us all.

»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»>

Please buy my book–A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. In this book you will find the original Christian theology as taught by Jesus before the Catholic Church and the Emperor of Rome got their hands on it. A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel is for seekers and scholars alike. The language is as simple and accessible as I could make it, even though the subject matter is profoundly deep.

The book is available in all formats, including paperback, hardcover, and kindle. The audio book narrated by Miguel Conner of Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio is also available on amazon. And please request that your local library carry the book—it’s available to all libraries and independent book sellers.

Buy the book! Available in all formats and prices…

I thought today I would share with you a book by David Bentley Hart. Hart wrote that translation of the New Testament that I’m very much enjoying, because it mirrors the same language that the Gnostic gospel uses in the Nag Hammadi codices, particularly the Tripartite Tractate, which is what I share with you here at Gnostic Insights.

David Bentley Hart is extremely eloquent and erudite. His prose puts me to shame. He is a great writer and a brilliant mind. He’s an Eastern Orthodox scholar of religion and a philosopher. And the deal is, he does seem to love God. So his philosophy and his theology goes through what seems to me to be a very Gnostic heart and orientation on his part. So I’m reading this book now called, That All Shall Be Saved, Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation, because I could tell from reading the footnotes in his New Testament that he and I agree on this universal salvation. I seem to be coming at it from a different place than he does.

My major reason why everyone and everything that’s living now will return to heaven is that everything comes from heaven. So if everything doesn’t return to heaven in the end, if most of it, as a matter of fact, was thrown into eternal fires of torment, well, God itself would be lessened. The Father would be less than he was at the beginning, and that’s an impossibility, because the Father was, is, and ever shall be the same. He is not diminished by the love and consciousness and life that flows out of him. But if that life, love, and consciousness winds up in a black hole at the bottom of an eternal pit of torment, well, there’s so many things wrong with that statement, just absolutely wrong.

And that’s what David Bentley Hart’s book is all about, and he has several ways he’s going to explain why that can’t be so. The reason I say it can’t be so is that all consciousness, life, and love come from the Father. So in the big roll-up, if we accept the proposition that there will be an end to this material existence, which is what all Christians and Jews profess, and if everything that emanated from the Father in the beginning, beginning with the Son, which is the first and only direct emanation, and then everything else emanates through the Son, well, if it doesn’t return at the end of material time, then the Father and the ethereal plane would be diminished, because it poured out all of this love and consciousness into this material realm, and it all has to return.

The Tripartite Tractate says that everything that existed from the beginning will return at the end of time. In verses 78 and 79 of the Tripartite Tractate, it’s speaking about the shadows that emerged from Logos after the Fall, and it says,

Therefore their end will be like their beginning, from that which did not exist they are to return once again to the shadows.

“Their end will be like their beginning,” in that they didn’t come from above—they were shadows of the fallen Logos. And so when the light comes and shines the light, the shadows disappear. Furthermore, in verses 80 and 81, the Tripartite Tractate says,

The Logos, being in such unstable conditions, that is, after the Fall, did not continue to bring forth anything like emanations, the things which are in the Pleroma, the glories which exist for the honor of the Father. Rather, he brought forth little weaklings, hindered by the illnesses by which he too was hindered. It was the likeness of the disposition which was a unity, that which was the cause of the things which do not exist from the first.

So these shadows didn’t exist in the Pleroma; they were shadows, they were imitations of the unity which existed from the first, and that unity is the Fullness of God—the Aeons of the Fullness of God. And it is only these shadows that will be evaporated at the end of time, that will not go to the ethereal plane. All living things will, because we’re not shadows of the Fall. We are actually sent down from the unity, from the Fullness of God, with life, consciousness, and love. And so all of that has to return to the Father.

So that is where I’m coming from, that God can’t be lessened, made less than it was at the beginning. So everything will be redeemed and returned. And of course, practically all of Christianity nowadays believes that most everything that was emanated from the beginning will be destroyed, or put into a fire of torment for all eternity. Anyone who wasn’t baptized, or anyone who didn’t come forward to profess a belief in Christ—and that’s most of the other cultures and people of the world.

The conventional Christian church doesn’t even realize that animals are going to heaven. I often comfort people whose pet has just passed away, and they’re missing them so badly, and they love them so much, and it hurts so much, and I say to them in comfort, “Well, your pet is waiting for you in heaven, and you’ll be reunited when you cross over, and then you’ll have them again, and you’ll all be very happy forever together.” That’s my basic approach.

franny and zoey sunset
As a matter of fact, I’m waiting for my pack—that’s who I expect to greet me. I’m not waiting for my dead relatives, or my late husband. I’m not expecting them on the other shore waiting for me, although perhaps they will be. Who I really am looking forward to seeing are my dogs and cats, every dog and cat I’ve ever had. And I figure they’re all up there together as a big pack, playing on the beach. So that’s what keeps me comforted, and keeps me looking forward. I’m very happy to imagine that that will be what greets me when I cross over.

So this morning, what I’d like to share with you are some of Hart’s writing that he shares in his introduction that’s called, The Question of an Eternal Hell, Framing the Question. So this is before he even gets into his various apologetics of how it is that everyone will be saved. But I really wanted to share this with you. Hart writes in a very high-minded manner, so I’ll attempt to translate it for us all.

So on page 16, Hart says,

And as I continued to explore the Eastern Communions as an undergraduate, I learned at some point to take comfort from an idea that one finds liberally scattered throughout Eastern Christian contemplative tradition, from late antiquity to the present, and expressed with particular force by such saints of the East as Isaac of Nineveh, who lived between 613 and 700, and Silouan of Athos, who lived between 1866 and 1938. And the idea is this, that the fires of hell are nothing but the glory of God, which must at the last, when God brings about the final restoration of all things, pervade the whole of creation. For although that glory will transfigure the whole cosmos, it will inevitably be experienced as torment by any soul that willfully seals itself against love of God and neighbor. To such a perverse and obstinate nature, the divine light that should enter the soul and transform it from within must seem instead like the flames of an exterior chastisement.

That’s pretty interesting. He’s saying that after the final roll-up, the glory of God, or the light of God, will fill all of space and eternity, and that we will be able to see it and experience it. We will stand before the glory of God. But anyone who is hiding from God, or that is a hateful person, will experience that same glory as flames of fire that torment. And so that will be their punishment. But it’s not coming from God. God’s bringing glory and love and light. But they, because they are resistant, they will experience it as those flames of hell.

So Hart goes on to say,

This I found not only comforting, but also extremely plausible at an emotional level. It is easy to believe in that version of hell, after all, if one considers it deeply enough, for the very simple reason that we all already know it to be real in this life, and dwell a good portion of our days confined within its walls. A hardened heart is already its own punishment. The refusal to love, or to be loved, makes the love of others, or even just their presence, a source of suffering and a goad to wrath.

And isn’t that true? That a hateful person views everything that’s going on around them, and anything that someone else says, to be irritating, and worthy of punishment, or worthy of disdain, because it doesn’t agree with their own opinion. He goes on to say on page 17,

and so perhaps it makes perfect sense to imagine that a will sufficiently intransigent in its selfishness and resentment and violence might be so damaged that, even when fully exposed to the divine glory for which all things were made, it will absolutely hate the invasion of that transfiguring love, and will be able to discover nothing in it but terror and pain. It is the soul, then, and not God, that lights hell’s fires, by interpreting the advent of divine love as a violent assault upon the jealous privacy of the self.

Now, we’ve talked about that a lot here on Gnostic Insights, and I cover that in my discussions of Overcoming Death. My argument about Overcoming Death primarily comes from the Tibetan Buddhist book known as the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and in that book it describes this passage after life. And, by the way, it’s not only when the whole entire cosmos melts away, it’s every time we die. When your body passes away, suddenly you’re in that non-material state. Your ego goes forward without the attachment of the body, and in that state of not being attached to the material world, it is like, at the end of time, when the entire cosmos goes through the same process and is no longer attached to the material world. At that point, delusion drops away, the confusion of this cosmos and the confusion of our culture and the demiurgic culture that we are surrounded with, as well as the pulls of the material upon our bodies. It’s gone, it’s lifted, it’s no longer there, and your spirit is able to see with clear eyes. As Paul said in the first letter to Corinthians, chapter 13,

For we know partially, and we prophesy partially. But when that which is complete comes, what is partial will be rendered futile. When I was an infant, I spoke like an infant, I thought like an infant, I reckoned like an infant. Having become a man, I did away with infantile things. For as yet we see by way of a mirror, in an enigma, but then we will see face to face. As yet I know partially, but then I shall know fully, just as I am fully known. But now abide faith, hope, and love, these three, and the greatest of these is love.

And in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it talks about these things called bardos, which are levels of hell, basically, or levels of purgatory that people go through as they are learning to get rid of the mistaken notions that they picked up here during the lifetime. The samskara is stripped away. I would call the samskara the confounding memes that we cling to. We pick up these meme bundles from the people and from the things we read and learn and are indoctrinated into in school and then through the media.

Those are memes, meme bundles, and they have to be let go of. You have to drop them in order to get past the ego that’s holding on to those memes and rediscover the purity of the Father and the Son in the ethereal plane—rediscover the purity of your true Self. And the longer someone holds on to those memes after death, the more difficult is their passage into purity. And that’s explained in depth in the Overcoming Death episode. Well, that Tibetan description of the fires of hell very much resemble the fires of hell that were talked about from these ancient saints of the Christian tradition.

By the way, this idea that most everyone and everything is going to hell rather than going to heaven, that is a relatively recent addition to Christianity, but it has been grasped so firmly with the great assistance of the Catholic Church and their doctrines that by now most Christians think that most people won’t go to heaven. So even the Protestants who protest Catholicism—that’s what the word Protestant means, one who protests—they’ve lost the original thread of universal salvation that Jesus was teaching. The Anointed came to save everyone, it says, over and over in the New Testament.

And in Hart’s translation, which comes directly from the original writing rather than down through the Latin that had already been filtered by the Catholics, you don’t find the eternal torment of hell. Remember, the word Aeon, which we in Gnostic belief generally translate as ethereal beings or part of the Fullness of God above, Aeon is also translated as a period of time, and throughout most of the translations of the New Testament, which derive from the Latin Vulgate, Aeon is translated as a period of time.

And so when it says eternal torment, it’s really saying aeonic torment. And in my opinion, it’s the torment people bring upon themselves when they return to the aeonic realm. The Aeons aren’t the punishers. God is not the punisher. It’s our own grasping onto our past lives and the demiurgic culture and the demiurgic memes that we hold onto after death that are experienced like burning flames. But no one’s imposing it upon us. It’s our own lack of willing to give it up and turn and face the light. The eternal fires of hell are actually the aeonic reckoning that comes at the end of each lifetime and will come at the end of time itself when the material cosmos passes away. At least that’s what I think.

So when Hart says on page 17 there that “a will, a personal will, sufficiently intransigent in its selfishness and resentment and violence,” intransigence means not giving up, stubbornness, “might be so damaged that even when it comes face to face with glory, it will experience it as torment.” Now, for those of us who have accepted the anointing of the Christ and have come to true gnosis, (that is a remembrance that we come from above and will happily return to the above, that’s all you need to know), we will not cling onto this material world.

We will not be clinging onto those demiurgic memes that keep us from coming face to face with our aeonic parents in the Fullness of God. We will happily cross over. We will joyfully meet with those who are on the other side, be they family, spouses, or pets, because the grasses and the flowers, the butterflies, the birds, everything that is alive down here on earth will be alive in heaven because all life comes from above. We will not be experiencing that chastening fire—that coming to grips with the lies that we’ve been holding onto. That’s the painful part, coming to grips with our own lies and the harms we have done to other people. If we’re not repentant of those harms we have done to other people, we will have to come face to face with those harms after we cross over, and we will see from that other person’s point of view what we did to them and how much we hurt them, and that will come back to us. We will experience their pain, and that is the pain and suffering of death, but it’s not being imposed by the Father or the Son or our aeonic parents above.

On page 18, Hart says,

Because Christians have been trained at a very deep level of their thinking, to believe that the idea of an eternal hell is a clear and unambiguous element of their faith, and that therefore the idea must make perfect moral sense. They are in error on both counts, as it happens, but a sufficiently thorough conditioning can make an otherwise sound mind perceive even the most ostentatiously absurd proposition to be the very epitome of rational good sense.

You know, there’s some big words in that sentence, but I think you can tell by the context what they mean, right? Ostentatiously means open, flaunting. Epitome means the highest. So he’s saying that because the Church has taught that everyone’s going to hell except those very few, which is an ostentatious point of view, you see, ostentatiously absurd proposition, yet they have been taught that it is the very highest of good sense, and you can’t go against it.

And so people are conditioned not to question it. And what this book, That All Shall Be Saved, is, is a very thorough and deep description and rationale of how that cannot be true, of how everyone must be going to heaven. I covered my version of why everyone’s going to heaven in this episode. Further episodes, I think I’ll do a series here, further episodes will each cover chapters in Hart’s book, and we’ll hear what his rationale is for why everyone is going to heaven. But returning to this page 18 again, he says,

In fact, where the absurdity proves only slight, the mind that has been trained most thoroughly will, as often as not, fabricate further and more extravagant absurdities in order to secure the initial offense against reason within a more encompassing and intoxicating atmosphere of corroborating nonsense.

In other words, you’ll have to spin a bunch of nonsensical rationalizations and excuses about why everyone’s going to hell, just to make the story float. Quoting again,

Sooner or later it will all seem to make sense, simply through ceaseless repetition and restatement and rhetorical reinforcement.

As I’m reading this, of course he’s talking about religious ideologies here, but I’m seeing these mechanisms at play in media bias. Do you see that? Just through sheer repetition, over and over, it doesn’t matter if things are true or lies. If you say it often enough, people will begin to accept it unquestioningly. And you can see that going on in the politics, can’t you?

Hart goes on to say,

The most effective technique for subduing the moral imagination is to teach it to mistake the contradictory for the paradoxical, and thereby to accept incoherence as profundity or moral idiocy as spiritual subtlety. If this can be accomplished with sufficient nuance and delicacy, it can sustain even a very powerful intellect for an entire lifetime. In the end, with sufficient practice, one really can, like the White Queen (of Alice in Wonderland), learn to believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

In my limited attempts to discuss Gnosticism face-to-face with people, I discover this continually, that if I present them with the absurdity of everyone going to hell, for example, they will say, Well, it’s a mystery. We can’t know the mind of God. It’s a mystery. Who are you to presume? And this is the way they cover up that it doesn’t work, by just shunting it off to God’s incomprehensibility. But our God is rational. Our God is logical. Our God doesn’t say one thing and do another. Our God doesn’t lie. Our God doesn’t say it’s all about life and living and love and then enslave and slaughter. That is not the God of Gnosticism. The Father that Jesus spoke of is not that God.

Going on with page 19, Hart says,

Not that I am accusing anyone of consciously or cynically seeking to manipulate the minds of faithful Christians. The conspiracy, so to speak, is an entirely open one, an unpremeditated corporate labor of communal self-deception, requiring us all to do our parts to sustain one another in our collective derangement. I regard the entire process as the unintentional effect of a long tradition of error, one in which a series of bad interpretations of Scripture produced various corruptions of theological reasoning, which were themselves then preserved as immemorial revealed truths and, at last, rendered impregnable to all critique by the indurated mental habits of generations, all despite the logical and conceptual incongruities that this required believers to ignore within their beliefs.

He writes with big words. The gist of this entire paragraph was that the church didn’t set out to be deceptive. Well, it may have with the Nicene Council when they stripped the Gnosis out, but from about 600 A.D. onward, it’s just become such an ingrained thought that by now it’s unassailable. By now you can’t even question it. But that’s what we’re doing here at Gnostic Insights.

So stay with me for the next few episodes, and we’ll go into depth concerning hell, resurrection, salvation, and the ultimate redemption of all living things by the Christ, the Anointed, that will return us all to that paradise above.

With love, onward and upward, and God bless us all.

This book puts all of this gnosis together in a simplified form. Gnosis is as easy as you want it to be, or as complicated as you desire. This Simple Explanation will guide you through the often confusing terms and turns of gnostic thought and theology. The glossary alone is worth having on your bookshelf. Now available in paperback, hardback, and ebook/kindle, and an audio book narrated by Miguel Conner.

Available at amazon.com or through your local independent bookstore.

Please remember to leave a review at amazon if you purchase the book there. We need reviews in order to raise the book in amazon’s algorithm!

When I first conceived of my theory of everything named “A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything” back in 2008, I was unfamiliar with Gnosticism. A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything is presented in secular terms, using common concepts from all fields of human endeavor from math and science on through religion, psychology, and sociology. In A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything, God is usually referred to as Metaversal Consciousness, and we here on this plane carry that consciousness forward into this life as Units of Consciousness. A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything was written to appeal to folks who usually don’t go in for religion but who, nonetheless, are seeking an overall structure for understanding the mysteries of life.

I updated A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything in 2020 to make it smaller and converted the color images to black and white to make it less expensive to purchase. The 2020 edition is also available in kindle and audible.

Had I been a philosophy major like my brother, Dr. Bill Puett, I would have known the names for various aspects of the Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything, like panpsychism and monadism. I would have been familiar with works such as Huxley’s Perennial Philosophy. But I wasn’t a philosophy major. I am instead a psychologist with a Ph.D. in Classical Rhetoric. My field of deep study is ancient texts and ideologies, and these are what influenced the development of my theory, not modern philosophers such as Leibniz or Kant. So rather than kludge together other people’s ideas, which is the normal way that scholars work, I built the Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything from the ground up using my own observation and logic.

And then around 2016, I read a copy of the Nag Hammadi Scriptures. At first I found the ideas shocking. These were the very heresies my conservative Christianity had warned me away from. According to Christians, these beliefs were excluded from our modern versions of the Bible to protect the church from theological misinformation. I discovered that radical repackaging had removed from the New Testament a type of spiritual belief that was well- known to Jesus and his followers. This belief system, commonly called Gnosticism, describes Christianity differently than does our modern Church. Gnosticism makes sense of most of the more mysterious aspects of Christianity, including humanity’s role in the great scheme of things, and common questions such as “why is there evil in the world?”

Many of these answers to longstanding theological problems were resurrected along with the Nag Hammadi scriptures when they were rediscovered and exhumed from the desert sands in 1945. I learned that the Nag Hammadi scriptures had been buried deep in the Egyptian desert around 350 AD, preserving them from the great Biblical purge conducted by the Council of Nicene at the behest of the Catholic Pope and the Emperor of Rome as they shaped and packaged Christianity to suit their needs. Keep in mind that these ancient teachings have been held back from almost 2000 years of formal study and Christian theology. So what you are about to learn from the Nag Hammadi scriptures is fresh, clean, and unsullied by centuries of scholastic and theological opinions.

Over the next couple of years I carefully picked up the Nag Hammadi and I set it back down numerous times, lest I be led astray by false beliefs. Eventually I narrowed my focus to one of the codices in particular that seemed to accord most closely with my understanding of the teachings of Jesus. This book is called The Tripartite Tractate, which simply means the 3-part book. The “3” also refers to the 3-part nature of humanity: spiritual, psychological, and material.

I spent time conducting a word study on the Tripartite Tractate, attempting to nail down some very confusing, archaic language. I also made diagrams and illustrations of the ideas presented in the book as I read. Then I put the material away for another year to let it rest and percolate. Finally, in 2019, I wrote and published a small book called The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated, based upon the Tripartite Tractate.

The purpose of The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated is to present the gnosis of the Tripartite Tractate as simply and clearly as possible. The format of the Gnostic Gospel book is similar to the Chick cartoon tracts I used to hand out during my Jesus-freak days in the late 1960s. Each concept in the Gnostic Gospel is illustrated by my own original artwork that converts difficult ideas from the Tripartite Tractate into easy-to-understand drawings. With my simple Gnostic Gospel, anyone, of any level of education, can grasp Gnostic theology.

Since that time, I have continued to develop the Gnostic theology as presented in the Tripartite Tractate through my Gnostic Insights podcast. I have also had the pleasure of presenting this Gnostic theology as a guest on numerous podcasts hosted by others. The book, A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, represents the current state of my personal gnosis within the context of a fully developed Gnostic theology. Although The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated presents everything one needs to know to remember the gnosis they were born with, A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel goes beyond The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated to explain, as simply as humanly possible, the why’s and wherefores of gnosis.

Before we go any further let’s answer the question: what is gnosis? We keep talking about gnosis and Gnosticism, but what does this mean? Gnosis simply means knowing. And in the gnostic frame of reference, gnosis refers to remembering the truth of our existence and our origin. Gnostic literature says we come into life holding all of this knowledge within ourselves and we have complete access to the Father, the Son, and the Fullness at any time that we turn our focus upward. It is this direct conduit to the Father that brings us into alignment with our gnosis.

Gnosis is a Greek word. Another word related to gnosis is anamnesis. You know that the word amnesia means forgetting. Anamnesis means not forgetting. So the process of coming to gnosis is a process called anamnesis—or remembering. Just to let you know, this book sometimes throws around big words like anamnesis. Not to worry though, because the goal here is to explain these words clearly enough so you will be able to understand them without running to the dictionary.

Many people claim that it is impossible to know or describe the full glory of the transcendent, immortal Father due to our own human limitations. After all, how could limited beings such as ourselves possibly imagine the greatness of the originator of the universe, much less our place in the grand design? Wouldn’t lesser beings reflect a diminished view of God? Wouldn’t these lesser beings be limited to offering a tarnished glory that falls far short of the object of their praise?

The Tripartite Tractate, the book of the Nag Hamadi that I use as my primary source material, puts it this way:

“If the members of the ALL had risen to give glory according to the individual powers of each, they would have brought forth a glory that was only a semblance of the Father, who himself is the ALL. Thus creation would have been doomed from the outset to never comprehend the full glory of either the Father or itself.”

According to the Gnostic Gospel, the Father realized the impossibility of his creation comprehending himself and so the Father built a helpful workaround meant to aid comprehension through selfless union and cooperation with others in a shared task.

“For that reason, they were drawn into mutual intermingling, union, and oneness through the singing of praise from their assembled fullness. They were one and, at the same time, many, accurately reflecting the One who himself is the entirety of the ALL out of perfect union with itself and with the Son, and by means of a single shared effort, the ALL gave glory to the eternal one who had brought it forth.”

We will learn all about the Father, the Son, and the ALL in the order that Creation itself came from the Father. I like to begin with the cosmos as it unfolded and rolled out. The word for that sort of study is “cosmogony,” which is the study of the origins of the universe. This makes the most sense to me–to start at the very beginning and then to go through the entire process of how everything came to be and who the principle players are and then, after that is established, to see how that applies to our lives. Then we can ask, “Why are we here? Is there a purpose to our lives? How should we live?” After that, we can finally consider the final roll-up of the universe and what happens after we die. All of these questions are answered very precisely in the Tripartite Tractate of the Nag Hammadi. This knowledge is “gnosis.”

Valentinian Gnosticism is a form of Christianity, and I maintain that it is the true form of Christianity that Christianity should be. It is my understanding that this wisdom would have been what Jesus was actually talking about, and that’s why the New Testament is consistent with what I have been teaching. When Jesus said, “I and my Father are One,” he was talking about the gnostic God Above All Gods. So you are not wandering into deep heresy by exploring Valentinian Gnosticism. However, if you are a Christian, you should know that there are indeed a couple of major heresies in Gnosticism.

One major heresy, and this is a big heresy, is that that the Creator God of this universe that we’ve been calling Jehovah or Yaweh is not the God Above All Gods. Yes, Jehovah is the creator of the heavens and earth. But his creation only extends to the mineral level. Basically, Jehovah is in charge of all the material in the universe. Jehovah makes our material universe hold its shape and appear solid. So, yes, Jehovah as the Creator God of our material universe is in line with Christianity. But Gnosticism then goes on to say that the creator of this universe is not the Father, but a fallen entity. The Creator God is an Aeon who fell from the Fullness of God. In the Tripartite Tractate the Aeon who fell is named Logos.

Another big heresy in gnostic Christianity is the notion that everyone will be redeemed. As our Christian New Testament repeatedly says, redemption is not based upon merit or works. It is not based upon rituals such as baptism and communion . Redemption is based upon the fact that Christ came to Earth and it was the Christ’s job to redeem us all, not ours. So it doesn’t matter what you think about Christ. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in redemption or not, because your beliefs and actions do not limit the ability of Christ to accomplish his mission.

I don’t see universal redemption as the negative heresy it is made out to be. I actually find it empowers the role of Christ more than our modern church doctrine. It makes Jesus even more important because everyone is redeemed. Everyone who ever was, everyone who lives now, and everyone who will ever be is covered by the redemption of Christ, because it is Christ’s job to do that and the Christ accomplished his job. This fact is actually stated throughout the New Testament, although generally misinterpreted.

It doesn’t matter whether you hold out as an atheist. The thing is, when you do hold out, when you refuse to acknowledge the mission of the Christ, then it’s a pretty good indication that you are not in tune with the Father, because the Christ is the emissary of the Father. So if you reject the redemption of the Christ, you are rejecting the Father. If you love the Father, then you will love the Son. And if you love the Son, you will love the Christ. Sounds pretty Christian to me.

Valentinian Gnosticism is most assuredly not a New Age religion. The books of the Nag Hammadi were written on sheepskin parchment and buried in a clay jar in the desert for 2000 years, so I don’t see how you could call it “New Age.” If Valentinian Gnosticism has tenets in common with other popular belief systems, then those would be truths that they all happen to share. That is, the gnosis they may have in common doesn’t imply they are historically related to each other.

For example, my book–The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated—comes from the Tripartite Tractate of the Nag Hammadi. My retelling of the mythos is just good news for modern man. It is not hermetic; it is not a translation of wisdom from an Egyptian God. It is not New Age. This Gnostic Gospel is simply the story of who we are and where we come from. This is the information A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel will explain as thoroughly and as simply as possible. The gnosis I am sharing in this book honors God the Father and, as you begin to remember this inherent truth, you will experience a more joyful life. When we use our free will to remember our true inheritance, the God of this universe loses its power to control us. When we turn our eyes upward to the Father, we are freed from the burdens of this world.

Once you begin to remember that you are truly loved by our heavenly Father, you will suffer less. When you begin to walk with virtue rather than embracing vice, you will be happier; you will be joyful. Not all of the time. Bad things do happen. But suffering as a response to life’s challenges is unnecessary. We are living in a fallen world, and that, I suppose, is another gnostic heresy. For some reason, modern Christians want to insist that this world is blessed by God and is blessedly perfect. But we all know this world we live in isn’t perfect, and when you deny that fact you become unduly frustrated and sad , even to the point of depression. Pharmaceuticals are not the solution; gnosis is.

One last thing before we leave this introduction. A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel is not a scholarly, theological tome. Gnosis means knowing. This sort of knowing is not related to book learning. Gnosis refers to remembering what you already know–anamnesis. The point of spiritual study is not to learn new things but to mine what you already possess deep inside of you. When you study new ideas, you must continually weigh the information you are taking in against your own discernment. The purpose of this book is not so much to teach you about Gnosticism; the purpose of this book is to stimulate your own innate gnosis. And there is really only one gnosis that matters in the end, and that is remembering your cosmic origin and the purpose of being alive.

Are you familiar with that expression that says, “You can’t take it with you”? You can’t take it with you usually means that your possessions and your money are worthless to you after you die. People say, “You may as well spend what you have now rather than hoard it, because you can’t take it with you,” or, “You should be more generous with your possessions and share them with others, because you can’t take it with you.” But aside from money and possessions, another thing you can’t take with you is worldly knowledge and book learning.

The memes that you pick up here in our material cosmos will not follow you into the afterlife. The only memes that will persist beyond this place and time are those that are compatible with the values of the Pleroma, often referred to as virtues. So you can be a billionaire here in this life, you could be a tech giant and shoot off your own rockets to Mars, you could be President of the United States or the head of a crime syndicate, but you won’t have a dime in Heaven.

Likewise, you can have three Ivy League degrees but learn nothing of lasting value. Your advanced degrees in religious studies or in physics or archeology are ultimately worthless. The only knowledge of lasting value is the gnosis that transcends this material cosmos. This is the type of knowledge we address in this book: gnosis of the Father and the Son, gnosis of the Pleroma and the Aeons, gnosis of the fall and how to avoid partaking in the fall, gnosis of redemption from the fall, gnosis of the mission of the Christ, and gnosis of the Simple Golden Rule of love and cooperation.

More than book learning, what we really need to learn is discernment. Our culture does not promote either critical thinking or discernment. Our culture actually promotes going along to get along. Our culture teaches us to feed our narcissistic egos and denies that we exist beyond our egos. Science officially denies the existence of souls because souls cannot be dissected, weighed, or measured, and science only believes in tangible evidence they can squeeze out of their experiments. You can’t tease out a soul in an atom smasher.

But here’s what I’d like to tell you today: that the academy of scholars don’t know much of anything of lasting value. This is because academia only studies “isms” and not gnosis. Academic publications are, for the most part, empty of any sort of gnosis or spiritual discernment. University scholasticism, another ism, scours the writings of other scholars and builds upon officially pre-approved conclusions. This is why the footnotes and the reference sections are so important, because they disclose the limits of the scholar’s inquiry.

These scholars are not mining the actual source of knowledge. Rather, they are continually adding and stripping wallpaper from the walls of academia and painting over other people’s decor in the name of intellectual progress. But it’s not progress; it’s only an accumulation of essentially useless information.

We have no need of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Knowledge should be used to inform your own gnosis. Knowledge should be weighed by the scales of your own discernment. The purpose of reading, writing, and arithmetic is to aid your own recall of gnosis. The purpose of scholarship, if you want to be a gnostic scholar, is to enhance your practice of gnosis. It is far better to be a gnostic practitioner with little formal education than to be a scholar with little or no gnosis. So go ahead and study, but realize that the study has no value unless it helps you to realize truth, and the only truth you need is Aeonic truth. The vast majority of memes do not lead us to truth. Most memes are forms of delusion, whether you pick them up from worldly culture or soulless universities. Most memes stand between you and your realization of self.

In academia, consciousness is largely denied. Some academics go so far as to claim that apparent consciousness is nothing but random nodes in a mathematical abstraction, and that what we think of as ourselves is only packets of information that arise from calculations. Those researchers who are into consciousness studies believe themselves to be at the forefront of uncovering the nature of consciousness through scientific procedure. They are attempting to discover the true nature of consciousness through reductionism and measurements.

The consciousness studies articles I have read attempt to reduce consciousness rather than expand it. They believe consciousness can be grasped by going tinier and tinier. That’s called scientific reductionism. It reduces the big to the tiny. A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel is the opposite of reductionism. We keep going larger and larger, all the way up to the gigantic, to the immeasurable, to the level of the Aeons, the Pleroma, the Son, the Christ, and the Father. That’s the opposite direction of reductionism. It’s going large.

So hang onto your hats and let’s get ready to mine some very big gnosis.

You may purchase my original book, The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated at gnosticinsights.com. It is also available as a pocket edition from lulu.com for only $7.

You may purchase A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel at amazon or even your local independent book store; just ask them to order it for you. It is listed in the Ingram catalog. It is also available in kindle and audible, narrated by Aeon Byte’s Miguel Conner.

If you have purchased any of the books, please leave a review on amazon.com. We need to raise their profile in the amazon algorithm so others will see the books.

Feel free to use the Comments form on the Contact Us page at gnosticinsights.com or the Gnostic Reformation on Substack if you would like to ask any questions.

Your ongoing support of this Gnostic Insights podcast is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and the Gnostic Reformation on Substack.

This morning I’m going to read to you a large section out of the Tripartite Tractate, which is the book out of the Nag Hammadi scriptures that I generally follow and teach from. This is about the distinction between the Father and the Son.

And again, remember there is no gender. The Father is our Father. It is the source of consciousness out of which all of us come. All consciousness, all life, all love in the universe comes from this One Source. And it’s not a thing. It’s not an it. It’s not simply the source. It is a spring of consciousness and love that loves us and gives us our consciousness. So we have a relationship. We are its offspring. This is why there’s a familial name attached to it as the Father. It emanates consciousness and love.

So let’s start by looking at chapter 64, verse 28 of the Tripartite Tractate. And it says, and this is Thomassen’s translation edited by Marvin Meyer from the book, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, quoting:

Now the Father, insofar as he is elevated above the members of the ALL, is unknowable and incomprehensible. His greatness is so immense that if he had revealed himself at once and suddenly, even the highest of the Aeons that have gone forth from him would have perished. For that reason, he withheld his power and his impassibility in that in which he is, remaining ineffable and unnameable, transcending all mind and all speech.

Pausing the quote for a minute. Now think about that. People seem to have an innate sense that God is unknowable. We have much smaller minds. We don’t have the ability to comprehend the greatness of God. Everybody seems to know that as an intuition. So the thought that we can touch the Source and embody it within ourselves and that we then become God is—it’s completely incorrect. It’s kind of so-called New Age thought. But we can’t do that because the Father itself, or himself, or itself, because it’s non-gendered, is unknowable, is uneffable because he’s so great. And this is why when the Aeon Who Fell tried to launch itself back into the Father, it fell rather than approaching. It fell because the Father is unapproachable. It is too great. And so the Father repelled that Aeon, which here in the Tripartite Tractate we know as Logos. Other Gnostic traditions refer to that Aeon as Sophia. But it was a protective mechanism for that Aeon because the Father didn’t want it to get burned up and annihilated. Quoting again,

He, [that is the Father], on the other hand, extended himself and spread himself out. He is the one who gave firmness, location, and a dwelling place to the ALL.

And the ALL is another word for the Pleroma. The ALL is the Fullness of everything that is God. It’s all of the constituents of God. When I write about it in the Gnostic Gospel Illuminated, I capitalize each letter, A-L-L. They’re all capitalized because it is God. Quoting again,

According to one of his names, he is in fact Father of the ALL. Through his constant suffering on their behalf, having sown in their minds the idea that they should seek what exceeds their capabilities by making them perceive that he is and thus making them seek what he might be.

So you see, he’s put into the Totalities a yearning, a desire to seek after the Father, to reunite with the Father, as Logos attempted to do, but he doesn’t let them know that that’s impossible because he doesn’t want to repel them in their minds. He wants them to seek after him and to believe that they can come close to him.

And by the way, when I speak about the Aeons or the Totalities of the ALL, we are their direct descendants. Everything, because of the principle, as above, so below, everything we say about the Aeons or the ALL applies to us as well. That’s why it’s good to know about the Aeons because they are the pure source of our consciousness. So we get all muddled up down here with all of the distractions of this material cosmos, but the Aeons are right up there without any material distractions. They are the pureness of the emanation of the Father. So what we can find out about the Aeons and the Totalities of the ALL, we can apply to ourselves. This is why we seek after God. This is why we want to know the Father.

But according to this, it’s an impossibility to actually know the Father because it exceeds our capabilities. So again, it said that the Father of the ALL sowed in their minds the idea that they should seek what exceeds their capabilities by making them perceive that he is and thus making them seek what he might be. Quoting,

He was given them as a delight and nourishment, joy and abundant illumination. And this is his compassion, the knowledge he provides and his union with them.

So you see, what the Father gives us is delight and nourishment. He feeds our spirits. He gives us joy and abundant illumination. So we get all of that.

We just can’t think that we are as great as God because we aren’t even approaching the Father because the Father is too great for us to touch. Quoting again,

And this is he who is called and who is the Son. He is the sum of the ALL and they understood who he is and he is clothed.

So this is saying that the Son is the extension of the Father. He’s the part of the Father that extended himself out and spread himself. And it is the Son who has firmness, location and a dwelling place. And it is the Son who is the ALL, who is the Totalities of the ALL. He is the sum of the ALL.

And it says they understood who he is because he is them and he is clothed. He wears the ALL like a garment, just the same way that we wear our bodies as a garment. Except it’s not exactly the same because most of our body is made up of this material universe that arose during the Fall. But the ALL and the Totalities of the ALL are pure consciousness, pure love and delight and joy. And that is in their totality what is called the Son.

On the other hand, that is the one by reason of whom he is called the Son, the one about whom they perceive that he exists and that they have been seeking him. This is the one who exists as Father and of whom one can neither speak nor think. He is the one who exists first.

That is, the Father existed first before the Son. But the Son is the one that we can perceive or that the Totalities can perceive. They can’t perceive directly the Father, but they can perceive his emanation, which is called the Son. Quoting again,

For no one can conceive of him or think of him or draw near to that place toward the exalted, toward the truly preexistent. [That would be the original Father they’re talking about.] But every name that is thought or spoken about him is brought forth in glorification as a trace of him, according to the capacity of each one of those who give him glory.

So this is saying that the full glory of the Father cannot be known. The Son can be known because he is coexistent with the Totalities of the ALL. So they are him and he is them. But the Father can be perceived as this trace. And in other places, it says like a sweet odor wafting to your nose.

That is the trace of the Father coming through the Father, coming through the Son, coming through the Totalities, coming through the Aeons. And that trace comes on through down to a Second Order Powers as well. We smell the beautiful aroma of the glory of the Father, even though we can’t know the Father. Quoting again,

He, however, whose light dawned from him, stretching himself out to give birth and knowledge to the members of the ALL, he is all these names without falsehood, and he is truly the Father’s only First Man. [So we’re talking about the Son again.] And the Son has no falsehood.

This is not a yin yang balance evil with good type of God. It’s all good. It’s all beautiful. It’s all glorious. And the Son is the First Man of the Father. This is saying that the Son is our prototypical human, the First Man. Quoting again,

This is the one I call the form of the formless, the body of the incorporeal, the face of the invisible, the word of the inexpressible, the mind of the inconceivable, the spring that flowed from him, the root of those who have been rooted, the God of those who are ready, the light of those he illuminates, the will of those he has willed, the providence of those for whom he provides, the wisdom of those he has made wise, the strength of those he has given strength, the assembly of those with whom he is present, the revelation of that which is sought after, the eye of those who see, the spirit of those who breathe, the life of those who live, the unity of those who are united.

Now this is saying that the Son wears all of those names, and the Son is all of that to the Totalities of the ALL. But again, as above so below, he is all of that to us as well. Quoting again,

While all the members of the ALL exist in the single One, that is the Son, the Son and the ALL are united, as he clothes himself completely, and in his single Name, he is never called by it. And in the same unitary way, they are simultaneously, this single One, as well as all of them. He is not divided as a body, nor is he split apart by the names in which he exists, in the sense that this is one thing and that is something else. Nor does he change by [and then there’s a missing word], nor does he alter through the names in which he is, being now like this and now something different, so that he would be one person now and something else at another time. Rather, he is entirely himself forever. He is each and every one of the members of the ALL eternally at the same time. He is what all of them are, as father of the ALL. And the members of the ALL are fathers as well. For he is himself knowledge for himself, and he is each one of his qualities and powers. And he is himself the eye for all that he knows, seeing all of it in himself, having a son and a form.

So you see, because the Son and the ALL are completely united, it’s saying that the Son sees them all at once, and the ALL sees the Son all at once, not split up into all of the various qualities, although the Father does see them all, because the Father knows all. Quoting again,

Thus his powers and qualities are innumerable and inaudible because of the way in which he gives birth to them. The births of his words, his commands, and his members of the ALL are innumerable and indivisible. He knows them, for they are himself. When they speak, they are all in one single name. And if he brings them forth, it is in order that they may be found to exist as individual qualities, forming a unity.

So this is talking about the Totalities of the ALL. That’s why they’re referred to as Totalities, because they are not individuals. They are part of this indivisible unity of the Son, and yet they’re all there in their individuality. They just don’t realize it, because they don’t know themselves as singular identities, because they form a unity that is the Son.

He did not, however, reveal his multiplicity at once to the members of the ALL, nor did he reveal his sameness to those who had issued forth from him. Now, all of those who have gone forth from him, that is, the Aeons of the Aeons, being emissions born of a procreative nature, also procreate through their own procreative nature to the glory of the Father, just as he had been the cause of their existence. This is what we said earlier. He makes the Aeons into roots and springs and fathers. For that which they glorified, they bore, for it possesses knowledge and wisdom, and they understood that they have gone forth from the knowledge and the understanding of the ALL.

So we’re talking about the Totalities. They are the Aeons of the Aeons. They are the direct parental units of what we then know as the Aeons of the Pleroma of God. But the Totalities were their forerunners, and they are the ones that are unified with the Son. And the Son, of course, is unified with the Father. However, these Totalities are like roots and springs and fathers, and they glorify the Father, they glorify the Son, and the things that they glorify, they give birth to. Quoting again,

If the members of the ALL had risen to give glory according to the individual powers of each Aeon, they would have brought forth a glory that was only a semblance of the Father, who himself is the ALL. For that reason, they were drawn through the singing of praise and through the power of the oneness of him from whom they had come forth, that being the Son, into mutual intermingling, union, and oneness. From their assembled Fullness, they offered a glorification worthy of the Father, an image that was One, and at the same time many, because it was brought forth for the glory of the One, and because they had come forward toward him who himself is the entirety of the ALL.

Okay, the Totalities, you see, have been giving glory to the Father in the direction of the Son, toward the Son. And that’s S-O-N, easy to confuse with S-U-N, but that would be a whole different set of mythologies.

And they had to all give glory together. That’s why they’re called Totalities. They didn’t give glory individually. They were one voice. They didn’t know themselves as individuals. They were all at once that one thing, the ALL. And it was the ALL giving glory all together in the direction of the Son and Father that caused them then to procreate.

Now we’re moving into a section called the Three Fruits of Glorification, and that’s chapter 68, verse 36 through 70, verse 19.

This then was a tribute from the Aeons to the one who had brought forth the ALL, a first fruit offering of those who are immortal and eternal. [That’s the Father and the Son.] For when it issued from the living Aeons, it left them perfect and full, caused by something perfect and full, since they were full and perfect, having given glory in a perfect manner in communion.

So what this is saying is that nothing was diminished. Everything was full and perfect because they all together sang their glory without personal identification. It was all for one and one for all.

For inasmuch as the Father lacks nothing, he returns the glory they give to those who glorify to make them manifest by what he himself is. The cause that brought about for them the second glorification is, in fact, that which was returned unto them from the Father . When they understood the grace from the Father through which they had borne fruit with one another, so that just as they had been bringing forth by glorifying the Father, in the same way they might also themselves be made manifest in their act of giving glory, so as to be revealed as being perfect.

So that is the second glorification that is being described. The glory that they were giving, that the Totalities gave to the Father and the Son, reflected back onto them without any loss or diminishment. It’s full and complete.

You know we’re talking about fractal formulas, right? The Son is a fractal of the Father . The Totalities are the pure, complete, fractal formula of the Son, and they give glory to the Son and the Father without being diminished whatsoever, because they do it in unison, in full communion. So then,

They became fathers of the third glorification, [or we could say the third iteration of the fractal.] They became fathers of the third glorification, which was produced in accordance with the free will and the power they had been born with, enabling them to give glory in unison while at the same time, independently of one another, according to the will of each.

You see now, this is how the third glorification, or the third iteration, differs from the second iteration. The second glory had to all give glory, all together, all at once, all the time. They had no personal identity. But in that giving of glory, they gave birth to the third glorification, which showed each of those Aeons that they had free will.

Thus, both the first and the second glorifications are perfect and full, for they are manifestations of the perfect and full Father and of the perfect things that issued from the glorification of him who is perfect. The fruit of the third glorification, however, is produced by the will of each individual Aeon and of each of the Father ‘s qualities and powers. This fruit is a perfect fullness to the extent that what the Aeons desire and are capable of in giving glory to the Father comes from their union as well as from each of them individually.

You see, here we have the birth of ego. Because ego is identification of individuality, whereas the pure Self was further up line—that is the ALL, the Totalities, the Son. We have both of those characteristics within us.

We have the Totalities of the ALL that we generally call our Self with a capital S. That is the pureness of God that reflects the totality of the Father and the Son, without shadow or blemish or fault. And then we have ego, which is recognition of our individuality and our individual free will. And it differs from the one Self because we are singing our own song of praise from our position.

That’s our ego.

For this reason, they exist as minds over minds, words over words, superiors over superiors, degrees over degrees, being ranked one above the other. Each of those who glorify has his own station, rank, dwelling place, a place of rest, which is the glorification he brings forth.

And each of us as well has our own place, position, place of rest, duties and whatnot. And that is our ego identification and the free will that we exercise through our ego.

Our entire unit of consciousness, as I would put it in the Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything, our entire unit of consciousness consists of the Self, which is the One, and the ego, which is our individuality and our personal will. That is our unit of consciousness. I am all that. Plus, I have this body that attached to me when I came down here into this material world.

So the First Fruit is the totality of the ALL that is coexistent with the Son. The Second Fruit is when the Son and Totalities gave glory to one another and that produced the Aeons of the Fullness and they understood and were perfectly revealed. And then the Third Fruit is the Aeons of the Fullness of God, the third glorification by the will of the individual Aeons and their and the Father ‘s qualities and powers. That’s the Hierarchy of the Fullness—that’s the Third Fruit. And these are the ones that sit and dream of Paradise. And these are the ones who give glory together and in various combinations and produce us, the Second Order of powers.

I really love the language of the Tripartite Tractate. It’s very beautiful scripture. I think that the understanding we gain here by reading the Tripartite Tractate deepens the knowledge of who the Father is and who the Son is and what the Aeons are. This is not an assembly of mythological characters. This is pure consciousness emanating from the Source and flowing out to us with consciousness, love, free will, joy, and the desire to seek after the Father. We inherit all of that from the Aeons and the Aeons of the Aeons and the Son.

So until next week, onward and upward, and God bless us all.

Is transgenderism a mental disorder? Is transexualism a delusional pursuit? Is sexual identity a cultural value arbitrarily assigned at birth? This is the topic of today’s discussion.

My first experience with a person seeking transexual modification was as a private practice marriage counselor in Idaho, back in the early 1980’s. This fellow was seeking an official diagnosis of transexualism as required by the state in order to proceed with surgical procedures. He had been denied certification by other psychologists and was hoping I would provide him with the needed diagnosis.

One session was enough for me to deny his claim. Why? After hearing his story, it turned out that his wife had recently decided she was a lesbian and no longer wanted to have sex with him. In order to save his marriage he decided to have his genitals surgically removed so he could “become a woman” to save their marriage. Though motivated by love for his wife, this reason would not qualify him for surgery under any transgender or transexual definition. I can tell you he was plenty pissed off by my refusal to go along with his plan.

By definition, a transgendered individual is one who identifies with a gender incongruent with their body. They prefer dressing in clothing usually associated with the “other” gender and purposely minimize their secondary sexual characteristics. They may prefer engaging in activities more popular with the “other” gender. Population estimates of transgender persons has jumped from an historically steady 0.6% of the total population as of 2016 to 1.0% of the population surveyed in 2025, with young people ages 13-17 now accounting for 3.3% of the general population.

Transexual is defined as taking the extra step of body modification through surgery or hormones to bring the body into closer congruence with self-identity. It is estimated that 25% to 30% of transgendered individuals now undergo body modification, up from an estimated 10% to 15% in the early 2000’s.

What accounts for this rise in trans identity? Is it merely a rise in societal acceptance that grants the freedom to declare one’s identity publicly as many claim, or is there another, more gnostic, interpretation of this phenomena? Let’s consider this carefully.

Many gnostic texts suggest that the spiritual plane is gendered and populated by male and female entities, which gives rise to tidy mythological pantheons of male and female gods. However, I question the meaning of the term “gender” as it applies to the aeonic realm. At least one important book of the Nag Hammadi makes no mention of gender in the spiritual realm, and that’s the Tripartite Tractate upon which this gnosis is based. [I take that back. Actually, there’s one mention of the fallen Aeon being as one stripped of their masculinity, but that’s more a statement of overall loss of integration and power arising from the fall.] Everything I’m sharing with you today is based upon the Tripartite Tractate and the logical conclusions that arise from that book. Yes, the terms “Father” and “Son” are assigned to the originating consciousness out of which our consciousness flows, but the meaning of those terms has nothing to do with sexual attributes or form. Neutral names like “Source” and “Offspring” would do as nicely but lack the personal relatability of family and the familiarity of traditional names.

Sexual orientation and activity only applies to us creatures here in the Deficiency for purposes of reproduction. The portal between the ethereal and the so-called material cosmos requires a mechanism for fruiting the 2nd Order Powers arriving from the Fullness. Sexual activity is primarily responsible for populating the 2nd economy for all creatures above the level of bacteria, amoeba, fungi, and some plants and invertebrates. It would seem that the rules for fruiting changed from asexual to sexual as the complexity of the 2nd Order creatures arriving on the planet changed from smallest to largest.

The Aeons are not male and female. They are fully integrated units of consciousness. What we call male identity and female identity reflect our lack of integration of our complete identity, or what Jung referred to as the lack of self-actualization of our animus and anima. In other words, our essential identities are neither male nor female but both. So identifying with either is actually a deficiency that represents incomplete individuation hampered by overidentification with the physical form.

Male identity is misclassified as belonging to a man’s soul identity, or what we here at Gnostic Insights call “ego” identity. The same goes for female identity. Remember, all 2nd Order Powers share the same One Self consciousness that flows unimpeded from Above. What distinguishes us is our ego identity—our self-identified name, position, place, and duty. The same goes for the Aeons. The Aeons share their One identity with the Son as fractals of the Son, and are distinguished from one another by their self-identified egoic position within the hierarchy of the Fullness of God according to name, position, place, and duty. Like the Aeons, we encompass and embrace the full anima/animus spectrum within our ego identity. But down here, physical and material forces act upon our bodies and influence self-identity as either male or female. In reality, we are equally both. Furthermore, the memes we pick up here from our childhood experiences, especially childhood sexual trauma, can affect our gender identity.

The Son is the Father’s only direct emanation. The Son is a monad, not a dyad or syzygy. Even though we call this monad the Son, it is not a male figure. The Son is a fully realized individual representing all aspects of the originating Source. The Son is the singular embodiment of the ALL. The Totalities of the ALL are the full expression of the diversity of the Son.

The Totalities of the ALL are not self-aware; they are fully identified with the ungendered Son. The ALL is called the “aeon of the Aeons.” During the act of singing glorious praise to the Father, this “aeon of the aeons” produces a limitless variety of Aeons that occupy the Fullness of God.

The Aeons of the Fullness are fractal iterations of the ungendered Son. The Aeons self-sort themselves into a hierarchy of unique positions, ranks, and duties within the Fullness. Their job is to continue giving glory to the Father through song. The Aeons do not reproduce sexually. They combine with other Aeons and sings songs of glory to the Father all together within these various combinations, which produces fruit from their comingled glory. And during the giving of glory, the Aeons dream of Paradise.

We 2nd Order Powers are the fruit of these Aeons dreaming of Paradise. We enjoy making love the same way the Aeons enjoy giving glory together. In our fallen world, we 2nd Order Powers manifest as only two sexes for the purpose of reproduction. Self-assigned gender identity is irrelevant to the end goal of biological reproduction; male plus female are required. Love is not confined to sexual activity or reproduction. Love is love and we are all full of love that flows like an unending stream from the Father through the Fullness. Love is not limited to sex, reproduction, or gender identification.

Now we move on to a consideration of reincarnation and its implications for transgender confusion. We’ve talked about reincarnation in prior episodes. If you would like to review those, the links are in the transcript to this episode, so if you are listening to an audio podcast, please visit the Gnostic Insights website where all previous episodes are posted, or view this transcript at the Cyd Ropp Gnostic Reformation Substack. [Revisiting Reincarnation] [Reincarnation, Research, and Gnosis]

Reincarnation provides an excellent counter-argument to transgenderism, so let’s consider the logic of this together.

We do not necessarily reincarnate as the same gender from lifetime to lifetime. Therefore it follows that our ego’s memory houses all of our prior gender identities. What we take for our gender identity is usually associated with the body we are currently inhabiting.

A person may identify with their previous life’s gender and carry those memes strongly forward into this incarnation. It is not an error to notice those gender-identified memes and behave accordingly. The error is thinking this current body needs to conform to that previous meme chord that we call gender. Confusion arises from thinking one is born into the wrong body or telling a child they are born into the wrong body. No. We are born into the most perfect body possible for our current incarnation. We are sent into this fallen world by our aeonic parents with our full cooperation. We forget our mission once we are here. We forget why we are here and who we really are, just as the Demiurge did. The error is thinking we know better than the Fullness from our fallen perspective down here who we are and what body we should be wearing.

“Tomboy” girls and so-called “effeminate” boys are just that. There is no need to make the body conform to the previous life’s body. There is a reason to inhabit the body one is born into. Perhaps lessons to be learned by living a lifetime in a less familiar body configuration. Remember, our talents are gifted by our aeonic parents, just as our DNA comes through our earthly parents. A female who is gifted with so-called “masculine” traits is not masculine. The words masculine or feminine are misnomers of our gender-obsessed, fallen culture.

Here’s a chart of so-called masculine and feminine traits drawn up by an AI at my request. The AI noted that, “Personality traits are often categorized as masculine or feminine, though it’s important to note that these traits exist on a spectrum and can be present in anyone, regardless of gender.” And, indeed, you can see by the chart that a well-balanced, integrated personality would display both types of traits as needed, regardless of sex.

Trait Type

Communication Masculine: Direct, assertive

Feminine: Empathetic, nurturing

Emotional Expression Masculine: Reserved, independent

Feminine: Expressive, relational

Leadership Style Masculine: Authoritative, task-oriented

Feminine: Collaborative, inclusive

Conflict Resolution Masculine: Competitive, confrontational

Feminine: Cooperative, harmony

Decision Making Masculine: Decisive, risk-taking

Feminine: Reflective, consensus-building

Problem Solving Masculine”: Analytical, logical

Feminine: Intuitive, holistic

Self-Perception Masculine: Self-reliant, confident

Feminine: Community building, supportive

Offering my own experience as an example, this unit of consciousness that is known as Cyd is often miscategorized by others as exhibiting so-called masculine traits in academic and workplace settings. Yet, at home, I skew much more toward the “feminine.” That’s probably why I enjoyed running a large bed and breakfast for several years, because both types of traits make for an efficient yet caring innkeeper.

Growing up, I was considered a “tomboy,” preferring wrestling and sports to playing with dolls and trying on make-up. My pixie haircut displays my lifelong disdain for futzing with hairdo’s, curlers, and hair products. My mother was a glamorous woman, a real girlie-girl that forever tried to force me into pink and ruffles while I preferred jeans and hoodies, much to her frustration. Again, I don’t think that any of these distinctions have one whit to do with gender. It never even crossed my mind that I should be a boy. Rude people from time to time have suggested I “come out” as gay and join the alphabet community. No thanks. No need. I am not confused. I am who I am. Knowing who you are, your aeonic inheritance and lifetimes of experience, transcends the tidy categories the culture would like to cram us into. The categories become irrelevant.

We carry our fixed, God-given personalities along with our self-identity egos with us from lifetime to lifetime, adding and subtracting memes and meme chords like gender identity as we go. However, our initial personalities were formed by Aeons giving praise together in various combinations. Eventually we reach our final resting place. That resting place is not the silence of decomposing flesh in the grave. We have occupied countless bodies and forms throughout our lifetimes. We have left those bodies behind every time. We are not confined to those vessels of flesh and bone that sicken and die. Our One Self spirit and ever-evolving ego carry on. We either return to the next, most perfect body for our unit of consciousness to inhabit, or we stay in the higher ethereal plane occupied by Aeons and 2nd Order Powers who have left behind the material cosmos and the confusion that arises in the Deficiency.

We will remain recognizable by ourselves and others. Our ego identification is not dependent on our gender or appearance; we have occupied so many different bodies in so many different incarnations that there is no way our identity is anchored by a single material form. Like Christ and the 3rd Order of Powers, we will all be recognizable to those who know us, irrespective of appearance or sexual traits. Like the Aeons, our ego is tied to our mind, our words, our rank in the overall system of the Fullness.

“Each of those who glorify has his own station, rank, dwelling place, and place of rest, which is the glorification he brings forth.” [Tripartite Tractate verse 70]

“For each of the aeons is a name corresponding to each of the Father’s qualities and powers. Since he exists in many names, it is by mingling and through mutual harmony that they are able to speak of him, by means of a richness of speech. Thus, the Father is a single Name because he is One, but nevertheless innumerable in his qualities and names.” [verse 73]

Just be who you are without labels or gender identification. Embrace your self-identity irrespective of how you present to others as long as it is true to your aeonic, God-given Self and ego. Drop those confusing and unnecessary cultural memes that weigh down your soul. Our God Above All Gods is not the author of confusion. Gender confusion is just another demiurgic ploy to throw you off track and keep you down. The Father’s will is strong and clear and uplifting. The path of discovering gnosis and self-actualization is not through the labyrinths of despair and self-doubt. And it is certainly not through a surgeon’s scalpel. Turn your eyes up to the Fullness and within to find true self identity and acceptance.

This article is not meant to criticize but to uplift divergent individuals like myself. God blesses all of us. Onward and upward.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *First
Last

Email *
Stripe Credit Card *

Choose your item *Item A - $10.00
Item B - $25.00
Item C - $50.00

Total$0.00

Submit