Re: In Need New Close Friends, 19 Female Looking
- Hello hesperos19
On 22-Dec-02, you wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
>> 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
>> (I think :-)).
>> 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.
Quite openly, in some cases, but those aren't the dangerous ones.
Mike Leavitt ac998@...
- --- In email@example.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...>
> Quite openly, in some cases, but those aren't the dangerous
>Yes who is to know really who among whom are the dangerous
> Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
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
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.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Terje Dahl Bergersen
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
even in his vicinity, the Gaul area, identified eachother towards
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 -
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
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.
- --- In email@example.com, "hesperos19
<coraxo@e...>" <coraxo@e...> wrote:
> time of what the Cgurch now holds as canonical - but he alsoPaul -
> demonstrates a lack of *familiarity* (read understanding) with
> Book V
> 2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire
> dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh,
> treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is notI really should have said - understanding rather than familiarity
> 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
> But he is going by the traditions he was taught mouth to ear.
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.