Re: Old vs new
- Ok, since this groups is too old to have the "poll" feature I am
kind of keeping a running tally here.
-Mike L., if I understand you it seems you feel that the system
itself is complete and needs no change, but that perhaps a more
modern lingo could be good.
-George offers some interesting points... but I am not sure if they
deal much with my questions so I wasn't sure where in the spectrum
you were positing. If I may make a few leaps and tie a few strings
(only hinted at), I THINK (please correct me if I misunderstand)
that you are saying that the Gnostic system itself has not specific
validity other than what it shares in common with other systems of
mysticism. Change, or no change, would be irrelevant.
-Tom, if I understand you it seems that you believe the ancient
Gnostics were essentially the precursers to modern popular
postmodernism in thier eclecticism. Therefore, any change that may
happen isn't REALLY a change at all.... but just a continuation of a
style of searching.
-Michael, you were very clear with your point. Like Mike previously,
it seems you do find the terms at least need some explination, but
you obviously feel the system itself is as valid today as it ever
Since Jana was asking me for clerification on the question, I'll
deal with her points in another post. I am going to tentatively
tally the score this way...
2= Ancient Gnosticism needs no updating or modernization. (Mike and
1= Modern Gnosticism is really no different from traditional
Gnosticism since it's main attribute is some kind of eclectic
1= Gnosticism has no special validity, but instead only a certain
core that has survived in many other religions (George).
I'm still hoping many more people will comment on this, since it
really could be a fruitful subject matter to explore.