Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Gnosticism2] Old vs new

Expand Messages
  • Michael Leavitt
    ... Nomenclature he said, and then ran back into his hobbit hole.
    Message 1 of 97 , Jul 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      pmcvflag wrote:
      > Ok, I am going to ask a loaded question that I know will make my
      > fellow mods here cringe! *lol* Now, this question is quite frankly
      > assumed in most forums on the net, and the reason I am asking it here
      > is that the assumption (either way) is almost never accompanied with
      > an explination or even a thought process. Most in this group have the
      > ability to debate in an intelligent and non-partial way (we tend to
      > get rid of the evangelists pretty quickly here *lol*), and even those
      > of us who are less concerned with objectivity here tend to at least be
      > willing to really look at the possibilities that come up in discussion.
      >
      > 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? In
      > what way would it need to be modernized, or what is it failing by
      > modern standards?
      >
      > Inversely, is it possible that in trying to modernize "Gnosticism" it
      > could loose something? Get dumbed down somehow?
      >
      > I would like to see some genuine conversation on this, not assumptions
      > or preconceptions.
      >
      > PMCV
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      Nomenclature he said, and then ran back into his hobbit hole.
    • pmcvflag
      Michael ... G/gnostic?
      Message 97 of 97 , Aug 20 12:24 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Michael

        >>>How could one ever conceive of Garnerian Wicca being in the least
        G/gnostic?<<<

        Er... my point exactly.

        PMCV
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.