The "G" in gnosticism is silent because if it got loud, it would be silenced again.
>>41049338
To the extent that early Christian gnosis once corresponded to something real, modern gnostics (maybe more properly called gnosticism-enthusaists) mostly don't have it, and we're just seeing what we can pull out of the few old "gnostic" books we do have that are often in large part mythical/allegorical or enigmatic in a similar way to Zen koans and another set of books written by less than perfectly reliable sources who were mainly interested in condemning them as heretics. It might seem silly but I think a lot of the fun of it is that, unlike mainstream Christianity, we *don't* have over a thousand years of authoritative-seeming literature trying to set the theology on solid footing and do apologetics for it. Instead it's a wild west. But that also means most people, who just like the ideas, won't be able to defend them very effectively, let alone agree on details of what the ideas actually are.
To the extent that early Christian gnosis once corresponded to something real, modern gnostics (maybe more properly called gnosticism-enthusaists) mostly don't have it, and we're just seeing what we can pull out of the few old "gnostic" books we do have that are often in large part mythical/allegorical or enigmatic in a similar way to Zen koans and another set of books written by less than perfectly reliable sources who were mainly interested in condemning them as heretics. It might seem silly but I think a lot of the fun of it is that, unlike mainstream Christianity, we *don't* have over a thousand years of authoritative-seeming literature trying to set the theology on solid footing and do apologetics for it. Instead it's a wild west. But that also means most people, who just like the ideas, won't be able to defend them very effectively, let alone agree on details of what the ideas actually are.