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

Re: [Gnosticism2] Re: In Need New Close Friends, 19 Female Looking

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.