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

Re: In Need New Close Friends, 19 Female Looking

Expand Messages
  • Mike Leavitt
    Hello hesperos19 ... Quite openly, in some cases, but those aren t the dangerous ones. Regards -- Mike Leavitt ac998@lafn.org
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 22 5:15 PM
      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 2 of 10 , Dec 22 5:30 PM
        --- 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 3 of 10 , Dec 22 7:19 PM
          --- 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 4 of 10 , Dec 22 7:45 PM
            --- 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 5 of 10 , Dec 22 7:57 PM
              --- 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.