--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, pmcvflag <no_reply@...> wrote:
> I have seen many people suggest that modern notions of Gnosticism
> outweigh ancient forms. So here is the question; Why
> would "Gnosticism" need to "keep up with the times", so to speak?
> what way would it need to be modernized, or what is it failing by
> modern standards?
I might not be understanding this question from your point of view,
pmcv. What I mean is, I know we have discussed here how people have
very different ideas of what gnosticism is, but I can't seem to
grasp what people would actually be trying to "modernize." Is there
an idea or passage that you have noticed people single out as
outdated, or is it about what the definition of gnosis is in the
"Keeping up with the times" makes me think more of religions, or
denominations within a religion, and adjusting doctrines or rules.
Using Christianity for an example, priests can marry, females can be
preachers, and Baptists can dance without going straight to hell. I
don't really see ancient gnosticism as having much of a doctrine, or
set of practices/rituals attached to it that *could* be updated.
(Well, I know there are, but I guess it depends on how much of the
text is taken literally.) Yeah, again, I'm not sure if I understood
the question in the way you intended, so maybe I will stop here
before I go further with the hole I will surely dig for myself. :)