Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: Old vs new
- Yeah, everything. That is, nothing should be changed.
All I ask is a no more than provided by scholars writing for general
(although educated and interested) audiences - a lengthy discussion of
the background of the material (social, cultural, philosphical, etc.)
and explanations of the always-necessary technical and untranslatable
This has been done, e.g., in scholarly books about Buddhism, the Shin
sect for one (few though they may be). Likewise, Stoicism,
Epicureanism, Skepticism, and so on; they're in my library.
If there's some burning drive for a "modern Gnosticism," fine. Label it
as Neo-Gnosticism, Revised Gnosticism, Regenerated, or whatever. Just
don't pretend it's the same as it was quite a few centuries ago. A lot
has changed over time.
There are Neo-Stoics and Neo-Epicureans that attempt to expand upon and
apply their respective doctrines as best as possible, considering
modern conditions. They attempt to follow in the footsteps of the
ancients with the necessary modifications to fit into the present. In
fact, Stocism underwent many modifications over the course of
But is there any reason for Gnosticism to be adapted to present times?
The persons mentioned above are pretty "hard-core" in sticking with the
core doctrines (as best as they are understood, since so much source
material has been lost). That is to say, their adaptations are minimal.
It's challenging enough to attempt to make an ancient Greek philosophy
part of one's life. Wouldn't that be even more so with Gnosticism?
--- pmcvflag <email@example.com> wrote:
> Actually, I would like to ask that question of all the people here__________________________________________________
> as well. Even those who are very much for a modernization notion, is
> there anything you would say should specifically NOT be changed?
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around