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

Day of the Holy Apostle Thomas

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    ... the ... Dollar. ... intimacy, ... which ... insensitive and ... culture, ... Rant all you want, Terje. My rant took the form of obliterating the post.
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.