Re: [Gnosticism2] Old vs new
- pmcvflag wrote:
> Ok, I am going to ask a loaded question that I know will make myNomenclature he said, and then ran back into his hobbit hole.
> 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.