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

Re: In Need New Close Friends, 19 Female Looking

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... walks ... list ... LOL What timing, Mike. I just deleted Ms. Jen s post as you responded. BTW, deleting posts is generally against our policy, so I hope
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 20, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
      > Hello Jen
      >
      > On 20-Dec-02, you wrote:
      >
      > > In Need New Close Friends, 19 Female Looking
      > >
      > > Hay I am Jen I am 19 and Like meeting new people from deffernt
      walks
      > > of Life.
      > > I like meet people who like been sweet to me and care for me but
      > > most of all Love try all types of sex, well I try anything once
      > > Hoping to meet some nice open mined people from all ages and both
      > > male and females.
      > >
      > > If you want to see my pics and Get my contact details please go to
      > > my home page http://www.dcompany.net/jenshomepage
      >
      > Looks like Corax's filters are down. :-) Boy is she in the wrong
      list
      > (I think :-)).
      >
      > Regards
      > --
      > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...


      LOL What timing, Mike. I just deleted Ms. Jen's post as you
      responded. BTW, deleting posts is generally against our policy, so I
      hope the other moderators don't mind that I took exception to this
      one, which I personally found offensive. Then again, some of those
      ancient heresiologists might have figured a licentious female would
      fit right in a Gnostic setting. Eeeek. ;-)

      Cari
    • Terje Dahl Bergersen
      ... It´s a reading , interpretation - in terms of the Carpocratians, Ireneaus mentions, probably as among the first, secret handshakes - by which the
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 21, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: In Need New Close Friends, 19 Fe

        > Looks like Corax's filters are down. :-)  Boy is she in the wrong
        list
        > (I think :-)).
        >
        > Regards
        > --
        > Mike Leavitt  ac998@l...


        LOL  What timing, Mike.  I just deleted Ms. Jen's post as you
        responded.  BTW, deleting posts is generally against our policy, so I
        hope the other moderators don't mind that I took exception to this
        one, which I personally found offensive.  Then again, some of those
        ancient heresiologists might have figured a licentious female would
        fit right in a Gnostic setting.  Eeeek.  ;-)

        It´s  a "reading", interpretation - in terms of the Carpocratians,
        Ireneaus mentions, probably as among the first, secret handshakes -
        by which the initiates of the school would recognize eachother without
        letting others know, nor uttering a word which would betray their
        affiliation; Ireneaus is brief about what is involved, but states
        that it is "a tickling of the palm with the finger".
        What is amazing, however, is that this is associated with licentious
        behaviour, since the Early underground (pre-Ireneaus) church would
        inwardly identify eachother by drawing the contures of a fish in
        the palm of eachother´s hand. Like Ireneaus did not know that the
        Gospels describes Jesus as not having been crucified at the
        age of 50, Ireneaus does not honestly know how the earliest communities,
        even in his vicinity, the Gaul area, identified eachother towards
        eachother.

        In view of recent spamming, you should know that some of the attacks
        isn´t incidental and entirely innocent - there exists strong policies
        against posting "adult" content on "family" forums, moreover, the
        important thing for those who enforce this policy is that if it is
        discovered, the editors and the forum itself, not the poster, is
        responsible. What am I trying to say - one thing is the noise of
        offtopic postings growing in greater volume than actual on-topic
        discussion posts, another thing is the violation of service regulations
        done purposedly to make the providers close the service.
        "Jen" does not exist, she is a commercial product, a pseudo-identity
        which is used for the precise reason that our "true", or manifest
        personalities are shrouded in mystery through our communication on
        the internet. I suppose those who invented Jen and put her to work
        on this forum wants everyone to go look at "her" homepage, and thus
        solicit interest in their "product". There´s something marvelously
        Archontic about these things. The peddling of dreams and desires
        which is associated, not with self nor with soul, but with a construct -
        is among the oldest tricks in the book.
        I´d like to mention that I received the post, since I read the posts
        on this forum by email.

        I remember being a bit paranoid about the site-takeover/hijack which
        occured this summer of the Ecclesia Gnostica Norvegia website
        bruchion.com - it turned out that suddenly the content of our website
        were replaced by Brasilian pornography.. at that time I thought mine
        about it, turned out the service provider were neglectful and had
        sold the domain name twice.. however, who would associate the Alexandrian
        Bruchion with wanton south-american lesbians who just would love to
        show it all to you?


         I were reminded that some Anti-Masons with a certain
        intelligence concerning how such things could be perceived, and some
        tech-savvy accomplices - systematically hacked, removed and replaced
        Masonic and masons websites, replacing them with commercial porn sites,
        having done so, they reported the supposed owners of those sites
        to the authorities and "leaked" the news that Masons made money on
        pornography on the Internet... It had the effect they wanted, for about
        two weeks when this was found out.

        A further note on license, I am not sure about laws, but I know
        America has a sex industry which isn´t entirely satisfied by
        operating in the shadows and in discreet facilities - in view
        of the founding fathers and their puritan legacy, one might ask if the
        license which is in fact in function, is the sacred symbol of the Dollar.
        Intimacy turned into a product remains a product and not true intimacy,
        today, relationships are grafted by way of a promise of profit, which
        sinks ships along the way, because such profit is never worth the
        sacrifice. Not only the fundamentalists are turning both insensitive and
        hypocritical, all hues and variations of human beings, in our mass-culture,
        has caught it as well.

        Just a little bit of a rant

        (Happy Saint Thomas the Apostle´s day, by the way)

        Pax Pleromae

        Terje Dahl Bergersen
        terje@...
        http://terje.bergersen.net
      • lady_caritas
        ... the ... Dollar. ... intimacy, ... which ... insensitive and ... culture, ... Rant all you want, Terje. My rant took the form of obliterating the post.
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 21, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Terje Dahl Bergersen <terje@b...>
          wrote:

          > A further note on license, I am not sure about laws, but I know
          > America has a sex industry which isn´t entirely satisfied by
          > operating in the shadows and in discreet facilities - in view
          > of the founding fathers and their puritan legacy, one might ask if
          the
          > license which is in fact in function, is the sacred symbol of the
          Dollar.
          > Intimacy turned into a product remains a product and not true
          intimacy,
          > today, relationships are grafted by way of a promise of profit,
          which
          > sinks ships along the way, because such profit is never worth the
          > sacrifice. Not only the fundamentalists are turning both
          insensitive and
          > hypocritical, all hues and variations of human beings, in our mass-
          culture,
          > has caught it as well.
          >
          > Just a little bit of a rant
          >
          > (Happy Saint Thomas the Apostle´s day, by the way)


          Rant all you want, Terje. My rant took the form of obliterating the
          post. LOL It had occurred to me that this type of spam, unusual for
          our forum, was not entirely incidental.

          And, thanks for the greeting, Terje.

          As you say, the sex industry is taking advantage of a puritanical
          mindset that focuses on the material. There indeed appears to be an
          archontic profit motivation from a product designed to titillate
          those who perceive the body to be "forbidden" and "shameful." And I
          agree that true human intimacy is denigrated in the process.

          Interesting that the Gospel of Thomas has some symbolic words to this
          effect, regarding the importance of our attitudes about the physical
          in order to perceive again as "children":

          "His disciples said, `When will you be shown forth to us and when
          shall we behold you?' Jesus said, `When you strip naked without
          being ashamed, and take your garments and put them under your feet
          like little children and tread upon them, then [you] will see the
          child of the living. And you will not be afraid.'" (Logion 37)

          He also says,

          " …Wretched is the body that depends upon a body. And wretched is
          the soul that depends upon these two." (Logion 87)

          The Meditations over at the Ecclesia Gnostica for today
          (http://gnosis.org/ecclesia/lect163.htm )
          includes a quote from Paul (Colossians):

          "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth; for
          ye are dead to earth, and your life is hid with Christ in God."


          Cari
        • Mike Leavitt
          Hello Terje ... God bless you Terje, you are the only one who could turn a porno spam into a two screen rant, plus HTML, which you should have cut. Anyway I
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 21, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Terje

            On 21-Dec-02, you wrote:

            >>
            >>> Looks like Corax's filters are down. :-) Boy is she in the
            >> wrong list
            >>> (I think :-)).
            >>>
            >>> Regards
            >>> --
            >>> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
            >>
            >>
            >> LOL What timing, Mike. I just deleted Ms. Jen's post as you
            >> responded. BTW, deleting posts is generally against our policy, so
            >> I hope the other moderators don't mind that I took exception to
            >> this one, which I personally found offensive. Then again, some of
            >> those ancient heresiologists might have figured a licentious female
            >> would fit right in a Gnostic setting. Eeeek. ;-)
            >
            > It´s a "reading", interpretation - in terms of the Carpocratians,
            > Ireneaus mentions, probably as among the first, secret handshakes -
            > by which the initiates of the school would recognize eachother
            > without letting others know, nor uttering a word which would betray
            > their affiliation; Ireneaus is brief about what is involved, but
            > states that it is "a tickling of the palm with the finger". What is
            > amazing, however, is that this is associated with licentious
            > behaviour, since the Early underground (pre-Ireneaus) church would
            > inwardly identify eachother by drawing the contures of a fish in the
            > palm of eachother´s hand. Like Ireneaus did not know that the
            > Gospels describes Jesus as not having been crucified at the age of
            > 50, Ireneaus does not honestly know how the earliest communities,
            > even in his vicinity, the Gaul area, identified eachother towards
            > eachother.
            >
            > In view of recent spamming, you should know that some of the attacks
            > isn´t incidental and entirely innocent - there exists strong
            > policies against posting "adult" content on "family" forums,
            > moreover, the important thing for those who enforce this policy is
            > that if it is discovered, the editors and the forum itself, not the
            > poster, is responsible. What am I trying to say - one thing is the
            > noise of offtopic postings growing in greater volume than actual
            > on-topic discussion posts, another thing is the violation of service
            > regulations done purposedly to make the providers close the service.
            > "Jen" does not exist, she is a commercial product, a pseudo-identity
            > which is used for the precise reason that our "true", or manifest
            > personalities are shrouded in mystery through our communication on
            > the internet. I suppose those who invented Jen and put her to work
            > on this forum wants everyone to go look at "her" homepage, and thus
            > solicit interest in their "product". There´s something marvelously
            > Archontic about these things. The peddling of dreams and desires
            > which is associated, not with self nor with soul, but with a
            > construct - is among the oldest tricks in the book. I´d like to
            > mention that I received the post, since I read the posts on this
            > forum by email.
            >
            > I remember being a bit paranoid about the site-takeover/hijack which
            > occured this summer of the Ecclesia Gnostica Norvegia website
            > bruchion.com - it turned out that suddenly the content of our
            > website were replaced by Brasilian pornography.. at that time I
            > thought mine about it, turned out the service provider were
            > neglectful and had sold the domain name twice.. however, who would
            > associate the Alexandrian Bruchion with wanton south-american
            > lesbians who just would love to show it all to you?
            >
            >
            > I were reminded that some Anti-Masons with a certain intelligence
            > concerning how such things could be perceived, and some tech-savvy
            > accomplices - systematically hacked, removed and replaced Masonic
            > and masons websites, replacing them with commercial porn sites,
            > having done so, they reported the supposed owners of those sites to
            > the authorities and "leaked" the news that Masons made money on
            > pornography on the Internet... It had the effect they wanted, for
            > about two weeks when this was found out.
            >
            > A further note on license, I am not sure about laws, but I know
            > America has a sex industry which isn´t entirely satisfied by
            > operating in the shadows and in discreet facilities - in view of the
            > founding fathers and their puritan legacy, one might ask if the
            > license which is in fact in function, is the sacred symbol of the
            > Dollar. Intimacy turned into a product remains a product and not
            > true intimacy, today, relationships are grafted by way of a promise
            > of profit, which sinks ships along the way, because such profit is
            > never worth the sacrifice. Not only the fundamentalists are turning
            > both insensitive and hypocritical, all hues and variations of human
            > beings, in our mass-culture, has caught it as well.
            >
            > Just a little bit of a rant
            >
            > (Happy Saint Thomas the Apostle´s day, by the way)
            >
            > Pax Pleromae
            >
            > Terje Dahl Bergersen
            > terje@...
            > http://terje.bergersen.net

            God bless you Terje, you are the only one who could turn a porno spam
            into a two screen rant, plus HTML, which you should have cut. Anyway
            I remember what happened to Bruncion, and it was not funny. I knew
            it was spam to the list, and almost deleted it from the server, but
            could not believe what it was. The thing on Carpocrates was worth
            the two screens though. HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL picked up on
            Ireneaus' thing about Jesus being 50 when he died, and it may have
            been an alternate early tradition, BTW. Like you, though, I think it
            was his spotty background in Christianity.

            Regards
            --
            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
          • Mike Leavitt
            Hello hesperos19 ... Quite openly, in some cases, but those aren t the dangerous ones. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 22, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello hesperos19

              On 22-Dec-02, you wrote:

              > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
              > wrote:
              >> Hello Jen
              >
              >>> Hoping to meet some nice open mined people
              >
              > Um - no comment.
              >
              >
              >> Looks like Corax's filters are down. :-) Boy is she in the wrong
              > list
              >> (I think :-)).
              >>
              >> Regards
              >> --
              >> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
              >
              > Hello Mike:
              >
              > I havent been reading this list in a while since it has been very
              > quiet - as most seem to be.
              >
              > I agree with Terje that attcks seem to be de rigeur on gnostic
              > groups, but I would not blame antimasonics right off the bat,
              > there are some thelemites who have done a fine job of infiltrating
              > and sabotauging gnostics lists as well over the past 2 years.
              >
              > Corax

              Quite openly, in some cases, but those aren't the dangerous ones.

              Regards
              --
              Mike Leavitt ac998@...
            • hesperos19 <coraxo@elp.rr.com>
              ... Um - no comment. ... list ... Hello Mike: I havent been reading this list in a while since it has been very quiet - as most seem to be. I agree with Terje
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 22, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                wrote:
                > Hello Jen

                > > Hoping to meet some nice open mined people

                Um - no comment.


                > Looks like Corax's filters are down. :-) Boy is she in the wrong
                list
                > (I think :-)).
                >
                > Regards
                > --
                > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...

                Hello Mike:

                I havent been reading this list in a while since it has been very
                quiet - as most seem to be.

                I agree with Terje that attcks seem to be de rigeur on gnostic
                groups, but I would not blame antimasonics right off the bat,
                there are some thelemites who have done a fine job of infiltrating
                and sabotauging gnostics lists as well over the past 2 years.

                Corax
              • hesperos19 <coraxo@elp.rr.com>
                ... ones. ... Yes who is to know really who among whom are the dangerous ones. I really know very little of the antimasonics that Terje was referring to nor do
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 22, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
                  >
                  > Quite openly, in some cases, but those aren't the dangerous
                  ones.
                  >
                  > Regards
                  > --
                  > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...

                  Yes who is to know really who among whom are the dangerous
                  ones.

                  I really know very little of the antimasonics that Terje was
                  referring to nor do I intend to omplicate "all" thelemites in such
                  activity - I know that one account of mine was hacked by
                  malaysian islamic fundamentalists which I am currently involved
                  with Verisign to get taken down - with no small amount of
                  difficulty.

                  Verisign, just so you and others know, is pretty soft on such
                  hacking and one has to go through a number of hoops to get
                  such things resolved.

                  I would not register a domain or use Verisgn for secure
                  transactions precisely because they are not as secure as they
                  purport to be.

                  Off gnostic topic but just a word to the wise regarding such
                  recent computer crimes.

                  It also seems to me that what Terje was referring to about the
                  number of topic posts being on increase on a list seems to have
                  been the case around the time I stopped reading this list.

                  While there may not be a concerted conspiracy, or maybe here
                  is, it is clear that there are a number of occult and reactionary
                  groups that have a vested interest in suppressing gnosticism
                  through spam, porn, and disinformation campaigns.

                  Nevetheless, I have turned my emails back on for this group in
                  hopes that there may be some fruitful discussion after the last
                  spate of non-gnostic stuff.
                  Corax

                  Corax
                • hesperos19 <coraxo@elp.rr.com>
                  ... wrote: Like Ireneaus did not know that the Gospels describes Jesus as not having been crucified at the age of 50, Ireneaus does not honestly
                  Message 8 of 10 , Dec 22, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Terje Dahl Bergersen
                    <terje@b...> wrote:
                    Like Ireneaus did not know that the
                    Gospels describes Jesus as not having been crucified at the
                    age of 50, Ireneaus does not honestly know how the earliest
                    communities,
                    even in his vicinity, the Gaul area, identified eachother towards
                    eachother.

                    ++++++++

                    Salve Terje:

                    Unlike many other modern gnostics I tend to have a bit of
                    forgiveness towards Irenaeus, since of course much of what is
                    to blame later results from later interpretations of Irenaeus.

                    Like the 50 year old Jesus tradition he espouses, he also
                    espouses doctrines which are contrary to Paul, so not only was
                    he unfamiliar with the gospels - if any had trul been written at his
                    time of what the Cgurch now holds as canonical - but he also
                    demonstrates a lack of familiarity with Paul -

                    Book V

                    2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire
                    dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and
                    treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not
                    capable of incorruption.

                    contrast with Paul:

                    1Co 15:50 -
                    Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
                    kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the
                    imperishable.

                    But he is going by the traditions he was taught mouth to ear.

                    the concept of sola scriptura however is a falsity since of course
                    as gnostics we recognize a number of extracanonical writings as
                    well as the power of apostoloc tradition - after all the canon was
                    agreed upon by the ecumenical councils.

                    Irenaeus, despite his railings against Valentinus does make
                    other very beautiful points which i am not entirely willing to
                    disregard - after all, other than the Gnostics a number of other
                    positions were decided against; monarchism, modalism,
                    donatism etc, etc, all of which have compelling arguments in
                    their favor - the monophysite being one such.

                    Unlike the impudently sarcastic and cynical tertullian, I think
                    Irenaeus was sincere in his criticisms of Valentinus. Elsewhere
                    Irenaeus called for tolerance of Montanists - so how closed and
                    dogmatic was he really?

                    At any rate, i do not think Irenaeus is as black as those would try
                    to paint him and in many ways I find him less sinister than
                    tertullian or Hippolyte.

                    Corax
                  • hesperos19 <coraxo@elp.rr.com>
                    ... Paul - ... and ... I really should have said - understanding rather than familiarity because poor Ireanaeus goes through all sorts of hoops in Book V to
                    Message 9 of 10 , Dec 22, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "hesperos19
                      <coraxo@e...>" <coraxo@e...> wrote:

                      > time of what the Cgurch now holds as canonical - but he also
                      > demonstrates a lack of *familiarity* (read understanding) with
                      Paul -
                      >
                      > Book V
                      >
                      > 2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire
                      > dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh,
                      and
                      > treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not
                      > capable of incorruption.
                      >
                      > contrast with Paul:
                      >
                      > 1Co 15:50 -
                      > Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
                      > kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the
                      > imperishable.
                      >
                      > But he is going by the traditions he was taught mouth to ear.
                      I really should have said - understanding rather than familiarity
                      because poor Ireanaeus goes through all sorts of hoops in Book
                      V to argue for the eternal physis of the Flesh using paul as
                      source - my error.

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