• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Gnostic verses and how to tier them.

Messages
4,906
Reaction score
4,133
This thread will cover Gnosticism in the briefest manners. Gnosticism emerged in the early sects during the very early centuries as far back as the 1st CE. To put it simply it is the collection of many teachings, philosophies, and spiritual teachings that range from the Greco-Roman to Christ's death. Obviously, its not limited to those two times but those are the most prominent things and the list of what philosophies it includes is a lot. Gnosis means “knowledge” in Latin and that's embodied as Sophia, the Aeon(This varies depending on which version of the Gnostic teaching you read), and that is the universal truth in which the world runs.

So, the purpose of this thread is to help simplify verses that rely on a Gnostic background to tier it based on a few versions and applying to the verse in question based on the setting and context of the verse.

The Good:​

The Good, monad, or anything along the the lines is a transcendent being that is distinct from gods. This is borrowed heavily from Greek philosophy about the simplest point, the Monad.

0(Fullness/Infinity): Verses that has this “Monad” or “The Good” would be 0, if:
  • The Monad being the simplest point is described as which it is fixed within itself. The term “Pleroma” means the “fullness” of the indivisible father and the true God.
Example 1: Shin Megami Tensei is heavy in Gnostics and they use the concept of Pleroma to describe the Great Reason/The Great Will/The Axiom as the fullness and the infinity that is nothingness as is not a substrate or part of anything. For the nothingness is both full and empty, everything dissolves in this unity of the eternal state of no qualities.

Example 2: The Great White Light is the absolute infinity that sits above and beyond all things. Being the one true God that is the ground of all being.

Now, obviously my example up top does not cover all things needed for 0. For example, in the Gospel of John in the Gnostic bible. The One is said to be:
  • The One is a sovereign in which nothing rules over it and has nothing over it.
  • The One is God and Father of all, the invisible one that is over all, that’s incorruptible, that is pure light that no gaze can look upon.
  • The invisible spirit that is not god or like a god in which it is greater than god(lower-case lesser gods). It has nothing over it and no lord above it. It does not exist in anything inferior to it(fixed in itself). Everything exists in it alone. It is eternal, never lacked anything in order to be complete, and it is absolutely complete in its light.
  • The One is illimitable, since there is nothing before it to limit it.
  • The One is unfathomable, since there's nothing before it to fathom it.
  • The One is immeasurable, since there was nothing before it to measure it.
  • The One is invisible because nothing has seen it.
  • It is eternal since it exists eternally.
  • It is unutterable, since nothing could comprehend it to utter it.
  • The One is unnamable, since there is nothing before it to give it a name.
  • The One is immeasurable light, pure, holy, immaculate. It is not part of perfection or blessedness, or divinity: it is much greater.
  • The One is not corporeal or incorporeal.
  • The One is not large or small.
  • The One exists beyond finite category.
  • It exists beyond finite cateorgy because to call it anything is to draw a comparison.
All is here for the description of Monad. The White Light fits it well. Dante’s depiction of God as well as Thomas Aquinas fits the bill well.

High 1-A+(Possibly necessary and exists within all things): If Monad is described as the most indivisible point fixed in all things, then it exists contegient in all things but also in an established framework of which it exists at the apex of the hierarchy:
  • 0 is fixed in itself while High 1-A+ is fixed within things, but both are completely unbound by any sort of division of hierarchy. The former exists purely as the ontological ground of being beyond any hierarchy while the latter exists within all things, but also is the source of all the possible things for things to be necessary or things to be contingent upon it.
Example 1: The first example True Spirt/The Absolute Spirit from Star Maker, which is the ground for all things that are finite and temporal. In which it exists in eternity as an absolute spirit that permeates all things including all creative spirits and the cosmos.

Example 2: The next example is from DC Comics called “The Sea of Brahma.This is the ocean of nothingness and the unconscious of God, which is the source of all duality, plurality, division, and Creation. The eternal and endless sea of eternity exist beyond all levels of reality, dreams, and illusion, and is the cosmic emptiness that connects to the absolute nature of God.

Verses that has Gnosticism to connect High 1-A+ structure includes the likes of World of Darkness. In which Sophia is of the Supernal. The Supernal being the pure spirit in which all is one to unify and dissolve in this place beyond all time, space, and all extensions of the consensus hierarchy.

The ground for the Supernal and Pralaya not being 0 is because they are surpassed by a “stronger” being, the former is surpassed by the Essential Divinity, and the latter by the Smile Behind the Universe.

1-A(Flase Monadhood):

If a Monad is proven to be somewhat not totally described as above and its transcendence is only within a framework in which their existence is ontological only to a sort of base reality.

Example: There’s no real good example. So I guess Arceus counts as having fallen from grounds to become 0.

Aeons:

Aeons are attributes of the One. Living in the spiritual reality beyond the material world and watching from above.

High 1-A: Aeons that are on this level transcend the framework of the hierarchy below it as such completely living in their own world that's beyond the quality of hierarchies below in a sort of meta-transcendence.

Example: Aeons from Doctor Strange: Fall Sunrise are children of Bythos and Sophia. They maintain the creation of all the physical reality and are part of a grander design that can exist in an eternal realm of both shapes and ideas that permeates everything.

(The story is not canon to the main Marvel Universe, but obviously, that's no fun. Also, I couldn't think of any other example, lolz)

1-A: Aeons on this level transcend the reality of material composition.

Example: Non-existent.

Low 1-A: Nah

Example: Non-existent.

1-B: Nah

Example: Something.

Demiurge and Archons:​

Sometimes it's called Yaldabaoth, Samael, and whatnot. Although Platonism was tame in their interpretation of this craftsman. In Gnosticism, for the most part, it is a lesser deity and malevolent spirit, whom is prideful, arrogant, and ignorant. Child of Sophia and leader of the Archons signifies in Gnostics as a deity responsible for the creation of the material world from the ideas of Pleroma and the eternal ideas of the spiritual realm.

High 1-A: Beings on these level transcend and exist external to any function of hierarchy below them as such can account for hierarchy of quality in which “quality” they occupy is an applicant to a meta-transcendence unique to their level.

Example: Michael Demiurgos from DC Comics is a prime example. He is called the Demiurge/Archon and alongside his demiurgic brothers which one of them is called “Samael” made the Universe. It was referenced the lore behind the Sandman Universe is that people believe in the second-century Gnostics teaching that Angels built the heavens and the earth.

1-A: Demiurges and/or Archons on this level are the sustainers and/or creator of the material Universe in which they conceptually stand above in their ontological existence.

Example: Owne Reece, the Molecule Man, rebooted the 8th Cosmos and was the Demiurge of the Multiverse after rebuilding it after the events of Secret Wars(2015).

Low 1-A: Nah

Example: Non-existent.

Low 1-C: Nah

Example: Non-existent.

2-A: Non-existent.

For the tiers that are left incomplete, you can fill it in by giving me profiles that can work. They can be a proxy/quasi-equivalent, they don't have to be mentioned by a Gnostic name.
 
Last edited:
I swear on my life that I clicked General Discussion yet it somehow ended up as a Content Revsion. I can sense some sort of divine intervention for this mistake.
 
Looking good from a glance, but I can tell this is going to lead to more discussion; not to mention. Antvasima is probably going to want to move a topic like this to staff discussion. Though if that is the case, I do think OP should have permission, given they're the OP and have been quite knowledgeable on topic.
 
Everything looks good to me.
But i think Samael here is reffering to Lucifer.
Yeah, and Samael is, and I quote: “alongside his demiurgic brothers which one of them is called Samael” which means I wasn't calling that Angel, Michael.
 
Looking good from a glance, but I can tell this is going to lead to more discussion; not to mention. Antvasima is probably going to want to move a topic like this to staff discussion. Though if that is the case, I do think OP should have permission, given they're the OP and have been quite knowledgeable on topic.
Yeah, Kabbalah, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Daoism are probably the next one. I remember reading a lot about Kabbalah but every verse seem to already love using that as their blueprint.
 
We should not ever have anything like this.

Series should be judged solely and only by content provided within them.

Stuff like this is demonstrably useless, as we'd have to investigate the series itself for which pieces of this sort of evidence it actually provides and whether anti-feats exist.

Stuff like this is likely to cause offence, as it is explicitly assigning tiers to real-world religions.
Yeah, Kabbalah, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Daoism are probably the next one. I remember reading a lot about Kabbalah but every verse seem to already love using that as their blueprint.
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
 
This thread just reminded me of the sad state of 11 eyes, where all these concepts exists ie creation being split into different Aeons, God being an unknownable perfection etc, but somehow we are missing the explanations that would result in some upgrades, maybe it exists in the fan disk which is never going to be translated, the 1-A thread has been dead for months.

But yea as for this thread, each verse should probably be evaluated on the evidence it presents, rather than any sort of general thing.
 
Series should be judged solely and only by the content provided within them.

Stuff like this is demonstrably useless, as we'd have to investigate the series itself for which pieces of this sort of evidence it actually provides and whether anti-feats exist.

Stuff like this is likely to cause offence, as it is explicitly assigning tiers to real-world religions.
To be fair. The thread was meant to cover verses that use a Gnostic background and see where they scale up compared to other verses. It was also meant to answer some questions in case there were grey areas or uncertainty about certain verses in which they scale.

With that being said, I don't see how your first point isn't covered as not being the premise of the thread. Their tiers and examples are because of the verses, not the “gnosticness” of verse because, in the end, the comparisons are strictly allegorical, not literal. So tiering it based on the cosmology, if they share some sort of Gnostic background or use some element similar to it comes first, not the other way around.

As for the anti-feat without indulging to my point up top. We should use the context of the verses setting and story before making the comparison, I don't see how this is different than most CRTs that only covets their reasoning purely on the source material that inspired the cosmology(which should be the other way around and what I'm doing with this thread). This thread isn't doing that so take it how you like but it's not that serious(Obviously, it isn't meant to be offensive by any means, but how we already have 0s’ description then I don't see this as crossing any boundaries and at best is mild).
 
If this isn't meant to be serious or to change anything then it should not be a Staff Discussion thread, it deserves no staff evaluation, and should not have been pinged over.

Should I move it to General Discussion or Fun and Games?
 
Should I move it to General Discussion or Fun and Games?
Move it to general discussion because that was the original intention. It was changed to staff discussion without my knowledge. However, really “Fun and Games?” Did you not read what I said? I take offense to that.
 
It was changed to staff discussion without my knowledge.
DDM said Ant probably would, and you "Like"d that post, so you certainly should've seen that as possible, yet took no steps to protest it.
However, really “Fun and Games?” Did you not read what I said? I take offense to that.
I don't exactly know what the split is between those nowadays. About 99% of the General Discussion threads are verse-specific general discussions. Plus, a bunch of discussions which are being undertaken seriously still end up in the Fun and Games forums (versus matches with traits that violate our Versus Thread Rules such as equalising non-speed stats, many "X of Every Tier" lists end up there, etc.)
 
DDM said Ant probably would, and you "Like"d that post, so you certainly should've seen that as possible, yet took no steps to protest it.
It was changed without my knowledge. I didn't think what DDM said would actually be true. I told Antvasima specifically to change from CRT to General Discussion, but it appeared he saw DDM statement. So I just rolled with it but that's only after Antvasima clarified he did so. So semantics or not, I technically was not aware of the change itself. If it helps I complained to my private group chat of knowledgable people about why it was a Staff Discussion because I knew it would cause confusion.

I think you just like having the last word or that you don't like backing down from being proven wrong despite it not being a point that needed to be addressed. Unless, my statement bothered you that much.
I don't exactly know what the split is between those nowadays. About 99% of the General Discussion threads are verse-specific general discussions. Plus, a bunch of discussions which are being undertaken seriously still end up in the Fun and Games forums (versus matches with traits that violate our Versus Thread Rules such as equalising non-speed stats, many "X of Every Tier" lists end up there, etc.)
No, that was deliberately intentional on your behalf and I will not see it any other way.

Also, none of what you said really has ground because I didn't convey any of those conventional rule breaks that you suggest. So I still don't know how you would suggest “Fun and Games.”
 
I agree with Agnaa's arguments here. Thank you for helping out. 🙏❤️
 
I agree with Agnaa's arguments here. Thank you for helping out. 🙏❤️
Firstly, I didn't recommend a staff discussion for this thread.

More importantly, he missed the purpose of this thread, which he, himself, admitted to:
If this isn't meant to be serious or to change anything then it should not be a Staff Discussion thread, it deserves no staff evaluation, and should not have been pinged over.
Also, he's being passive-aggressive. The “it should not be a Staff Discussion thread” would of sufficed without the unnecessary followed-up points, it seems he's blaming me for this nonsensical misunderstanding.
 
Well, if you do not want to change our fundamental wiki standards, why did you create this thread in the first place? 🙏
 
Well, if you do not want to change our fundamental wiki standards, why did you create this thread in the first place? 🙏
I think you’ve been misled by the title is the only interpretation I could come up with, but I was vocal about the purpose of the OP:
So, the purpose of this thread is to help simplify verses that rely on a Gnostic background to tier it based on a few versions and applying to the verse in question based on the setting and context of the verse.
My argument with Agnaa especially covers the bolded part.

Now, tell me where is “the system-wide wiki change” mentioned? I don't see it and I don't think I would be much of an idiot to attempt something so religiously insensitive. I know where the line is drawn and I was careful in my wording some stuff, but it appears I can only say so much to draw the line and be berated because someone read it otherwise.

I mean no offence here but I wanted to defend my point as clearly as possible. I don't like doing the blame game.
 
Okay. I thought that you wanted to generalise our standards for tiering verses that use power hierarchies based on gnosticism. 🙏
 
Okay. I thought that you wanted to generalise our standards for tiering verses that use power hierarchies based on gnosticism. 🙏
I will personally message you about these things prior to making the thread. So we can avoid anymore of these confusion and misunderstanding.
 
This thread just reminded me of the sad state of 11 eyes, where all these concepts exists ie creation being split into different Aeons, God being an unknownable perfection etc, but somehow we are missing the explanations that would result in some upgrades, maybe it exists in the fan disk which is never going to be translated, the 1-A thread has been dead for months.

But yea as for this thread, each verse should probably be evaluated on the evidence it presents, rather than any sort of general thing.
Also, I forgot to mention but great call. I remembered you doing a CRT for it although it was a while back.

Yeah, the framework of that cosmology is within respect to 1-A, but I will have to throughout reread it back since I only skimmed through it when I thought that verse looked fimilar.
 
We should not use this type of classification. Evaluation should be based solely on what the work itself says within its context. Researching outside the text or context doesn't provide any real benefit. Some people build their positions entirely on religious or philosophical arguments that have no relation to the content of the work.
 
We should not use this type of classification. Evaluation should be based solely on what the work itself says within its context. Researching outside the text or context doesn't provide any real benefit. Some people build their positions entirely on religious or philosophical arguments that have no relation to the content of the work.
jjk buddhism
 
We should not use this type of classification. Evaluation should be based solely on what the work itself says within its context. Researching outside the text or context doesn't provide any real benefit. Some people build their positions entirely on religious or philosophical arguments that have no relation to the content of the work.
Ignoring the literal premise of this thread:
So, the purpose of this thread is to help simplify verses that rely on a Gnostic background to tier it based on a few versions and applying to the verse in question based on the setting and context of the verse.
It’s like you guys don't read the content of the OP.

The 0 portion is any analogous equivalent of monism even if it has not directly name-drop Gnostic. It’s a central overarching idea.

All examples are not the rules, they are just there because they had Gnostic backgrounds and work for whatever setting they occupy. We don't index religion and this thread has nothing to do with that.
 
Is it permissible, within the bounds of a proper debate, to downgrade a character or an entire verse to the level of nonexistence or to any arbitrarily low standard by introducing external philosophical frameworks that are not directly relevant to the fictional cosmology being discussed?
This isn't really relevant here.
In a recent debate, someone introduced an unrelated philosophy in an attempt to refute another's argument.
That's really not for me to say.
Is such an approach acceptable here or not?
Please also provide the reason
My approach hinges on equivalence. So, without further context, I think you're better off asking me elsewhere.
 
Given that our staff members seem to have rejected this thread, should we close it? 🙏
 
Back
Top