Gnostics and Politics

Gnostics and Politics

Rethinking Gnosticism Kurt Rudolph refers to an “individualism, or solipsism,” borrowing a term from Hans Jonas, and appealing to Jonas’s assertion that this solipsism resulted in “a soteriological ethic of brotherhood which is far removed from the this-worldly social ethic of antiquity” (252; see Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 264–65). Barbara Aland, “Wasist Gnosis?” 56–57, defines “Gnosis” as a position in which the world is now “of no consequence” (belanglos), since one has a true home elsewhere. Therefore, there can be for the gnostic no interest in the world in a practical-political or social sense.

you know we really can't change the world in fact the concept of trying to change the world is actually a very non spiritual concept that's that's not who it doesn't work when we try to change things outside of ourselves but paradoxically when we transform our own consciousness when we're coming from a deeper place then what we bring to the world is very different right and the paradox is that that does give other people the opportunity to have a different experience and in that funny way that does change the world not because we're out there trying to change it which is futile and not very spiritual because that's thinking you are God and the only God and you have all the answers ok but when you come from that inner place what happens is that it transforms gives other people they have opportunity and we're bringing something different to the party as I like to say and so when we come from that inner place when we have that commitment to prayer and meditation