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

Re: Old vs new

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Jana ... view, pmcv.
    Message 1 of 97 , Jul 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Jana

      >>>I might not be understanding this question from your point of
      view, pmcv.<<<

      Well, then what would be the question from YOUR point of view? ;)

      >>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."<<<

      I am asking as much as you are. I think no one here is confused as
      to who we are talking about when we mention
      traditional "Gnosticism", those various groups that fit into the
      academic category. Specifically the Sethian and Valentinian
      subcategories and no one else.

      Is trying to understand their communication a valuable spiritual
      venture or just a matter of pooring over moldy dead texts? Or are
      the texts a mixed bag of valuable insights with things that simply
      don't fit the modern era and therefore need to be "modernized"?

      >>>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      out as outdated, or is it about what the definition of gnosis is in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 general sense?<<<

      Well, you have been here long enough that you have seen people
      sometimes suggest that the focus of this forum is invalid
      because "those are just some old books". Or, people who like the
      books but feel the systems could have no validity today. OR, some
      who feel they know exactly what the core of the "Gnostic" system
      was, so that they can pick it out in any system. Some people express
      it as a fair point of debate (and some people get downright
      beligerant about making the point), and I know there are a number of
      people here who are on both sides of that fence (and maybe a few who
      sit on top of it). However, I have yet to see a person really
      explain either side in a cohesive kind of way. So I thought I would
      ask which way you all think, and why?

      >>>"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. :)<<<

      When you say that you don't see much in the way of doctrin or ritual
      that *could* be updated, do you mean because they are largely lost
      due to repression? Or because you didn't know the ancient Gnostics
      had doctrins and rituals at all?

      The Gnostic communities were HIGHLY ritualistic, and had some very
      specific doctrinal attributes that help us to identify them in the
      first place (which is why we made up the name "Gnosticism" to talk
      about them even though they didn't use the name themselves). Since I
      know you are already aware of all that, I am guessing that perhaps
      you are hinting that perhaps traditional Gnosticism is dead and
      can't be modernized?

      I'll wait until I understand what you mean a little more before I
      add you to the running total with the other folk.

    • pmcvflag
      Michael ... G/gnostic?
      Message 97 of 97 , Aug 20, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

        >>>How could one ever conceive of Garnerian Wicca being in the least

        Er... my point exactly.

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