• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

List and organize your religious system's hiearchy of intermediary beings (like angels/demons/etc.)

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
As I try to read more about how the ancient Greeks did it, it is of course apparent that the Christians came to do it too. That is, to seem to create intermediary groups of non-human beings, specifically between two poles. But of course, other religions seem to have intermediary beings as well, that perhaps have nothing to do with the ancient Greeks or Christians, so you can explain that as well, if you wish.

The topmost and lowermost beings, specifically in the christian system, of god and the devil, you need not mention that much. I more interested in how you flesh out the perhaps extensive intermediary population of angels, demons, and more.

So list them out, and organize them, and talk about their station, from highest to lowest. In however simple or complicated a way that you think it is.
 

The Hammer

Skald
Premium Member
As I try to read more about how the ancient Greeks did it, it is of course apparent that the Christians came to do it too. That is, to seem to create intermediary groups of non-human beings, specifically between two poles. But of course, other religions seem to have intermediary beings as well, that perhaps have nothing to do with the ancient Greeks or Christians, so you can explain that as well, if you wish.

The topmost and lowermost beings, specifically in the christian system, of god and the devil, you need not mention that much. I more interested in how you flesh out the perhaps extensive intermediary population of angels, demons, and more.

So list them out, and organize them, and talk about their station, from highest to lowest. In however simple or complicated a way that you think it is.



This would take a novel unto itself. I'll pass.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, mine's easy because given my theology is modeled on nature, there's no hierarchy, there's an interconnected web I collectively reference as the Weave. When everything is interconnected and interdependent, ranking sort of... is missing the point.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
The list in Sethianism (which I no longer practice) can be approximated in two main texts: "Zostrianos" and "The Apocryphon of John," both of which devote substantial portions of their texts to the orders of generations.

It can be summarized as:

Bythos/The One, from which all else is generated
Barbelo/The Divine Mother, the highest generation of the One that can be comprehended
Protophanes/The Holy Spirit
Kalyptos/The Divine Father
Autogenes/The Divine Son

From Autogenes we have the four luminaries and 12 aeons. The four luminaries are:

Armozel
Oriael
Daveithe
Eleleth

Under these is the syzygy of Logos-Sophia, and from Sophia spawns a total of 19 archons, ending with the Demiurge, who represents the material world.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Well, mine's easy because given my theology is modeled on nature, there's no hierarchy, there's an interconnected web I collectively reference as the Weave. When everything is interconnected and interdependent, ranking sort of... is missing the point.

I see. I guess it's somewhat difficult for me to think of it like that, because I tend to want to rank order things in nature. I was thinking about what you wrote though. It does seem like a mistake, if one was to decide that something small and ephemeral is less a key to the whole, than something big. The beetle and the elephant both have jobs, and maybe one should work to cut through the illusion that they aren't equal, in some sense. They are both part of the same rainbow, where the subtraction of either would make it less than a rainbow
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
The list in Sethianism (which I no longer practice) can be approximated in two main texts: "Zostrianos" and "The Apocryphon of John," both of which devote substantial portions of their texts to the orders of generations.

It had been a while since I read through the Gnostic texts, it can be interesting but complicated for me read about. The list seems like a very natural kind of extension of what Christianity might have turned into, it some ways, had it not been reduced in the pan. The text that I most recently looked at, was the Pistis-Sophia, which was a rather densely mind-blowing read. I couldn't absorb much at a first pass. It seemed that every passage featured new layers, new spiritual dimensions and organizations of entities
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
  1. Humans
  2. Animals and other living things
  3. The Planet

That seems like a useful and common way to look at it. I guess my inclination was always to tie the worth of humans to the health of those other two things, though. I would say that humans, if they damage those other two things, lower their worth below them. So there would be a threshold where the hierarchy breaks down for me. Then again, maybe humans can somehow evolve or develop true independence from those other two things. I'm not sure how they might, but maybe someday.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
It had been a while since I read through the Gnostic texts, it can be interesting but complicated for me read about. The list seems like a very natural kind of extension of what Christianity might have turned into, it some ways, had it not been reduced in the pan. The text that I most recently looked at, was the Pistis-Sophia, which was a rather densely mind-blowing read. I couldn't absorb much at a first pass. It seemed that every passage featured new layers, new spiritual dimensions and organizations of entities

I think there are many individual Gnostic texts that, on their own, could give rise to an entire practice and a rich one.

Interestingly, Gnostic practices have ties to proto-Orthodox monasticism, and gnostic practices are still mentioned in some Orthodox manuscripts.

In particular, they mention how the Gnostics viewed the gnosis gained during hesychasm as salvific on its own and how the hesychasm was performed without an accompanying prayer, which would later cause the Quietists to face accusations of resurrecting Gnosticism.

Quietism is probably quite similar to the practices of the Sethians, at least, although "Gnostic" became a very general term later on and I doubt that later gnostics such as the Bogomils engaged in the same sort of mysticism.

Some of the works of Zosimos of Panopolis, who was speculated to be a Sethian, also seem to give us a window into what early Gnostic mysticism looked like. If you're looking to understand the Gnostic texts, I think the most accurate approach is with an understanding of its roots in Neoplatonism alongside these ties to mysticism, at least in my opinion.

From that place of understanding, the specific names, orders, and numbers of the spirits might not actually be so important to the practice. They work more to form a sort of conceptual ladder for the initiate to climb until they reach epiphanic insight about their own oneness with the cosmos.

Reaching that insight honestly only takes a couple of years, but it takes disciplined practice and constant meditation to maintain. It can be a sort of laborious process. I abandoned it when I came to believe that it's merely an altered state of consciousness, dismissing its transcendental properties to focus on what I consider to be "real" issues: i.e., material issues. If I could still suspend my disbelief in the supernatural, I would probably have remained in that state of spiritual purity until my death with the belief that I would return to the One with the shedding of my body.

Of course, my approach to Gnosticism is, like most these days, idiosyncratic. I just hope this provides a worthwhile perspective to consider when understanding these Gnostic hierarchies.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Interestingly, Gnostic practices have ties to proto-Orthodox monasticism, and gnostic practices are still mentioned in some Orthodox manuscripts.

One wonders what the modern Orthodox thought when the Nag-Hammadi texts were discovered, if that raised any special concerns for them.

Some of the works of Zosimos of Panopolis, who was speculated to be a Sethian, also seem to give us a window into what early Gnostic mysticism looked like. If you're looking to understand the Gnostic texts, I think the most accurate approach is with an understanding of its roots in Neoplatonism alongside these ties to mysticism, at least in my opinion.

Thanks for the tip, I'll keep that in mind in case I read in the direction again.

Reaching that insight honestly only takes a couple of years, but it takes disciplined practice and constant meditation to maintain. It can be a sort of laborious process. I abandoned it when I came to believe that it's merely an altered state of consciousness, dismissing its transcendental properties to focus on what I consider to be "real" issues: i.e., material issues.

Well in Tarology, we have the pentacle suit. And in the Tarot of marseille, we notice that the most vegetation seems to appear in this set of cards, and that the 'coins' themselves look like a cross between bugs and flowers. The page of pentacles even plants one in the ground. So I recognize groundedness as being important
 
Top