Nuvoadam
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 11:10 pm Post subject: Moggin's Freudian Faus Pax |
 |
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
| Quote: | Yes,concerning some Gnostic sects as murdering babies by
slowly piercing them with brass pins, grinding the
bodies up and then eating them.
|
Moggs:
No, you've screwed up again. Accusations similar to those
were aimed at Tertullian's crowd, the Montanists, not "some
Gnostic sects." And you've confused a couple different stories.
No, see, you've failed to follow the dialogue again. Whereas
you were trying to smear Tertullian through the Montanists,
I posted an addendum to your smear-post which broadened the
scope a bit to show that these kinds of accusations were at
first leveled at the Christians by the Pagans:
"We learn from Justin Martyr, Minutius Felix and others, that
the Pagans accused the Christians of indulging in orgies of
gross licentiousness in their secret festivals, which were held
at night."
Justin Martyr defended the Church and turned the tables by
leveling the same accusations against the heretics. Theodoret
added his two cents in a work curiously concerning "heretic
fables", wherein he actually names a non-Montanist sect--
the Carpocrations. Eusubius explains that it was never the
Christians to begin with, but other groups using the title,
who had sullied the reputation of the orthodox. Origen
tells us that these same charges were leveled at the Ophites
and Cainites. Epiphanius goes on to describe how these
orgies often produced unwanted pregnancies which were
aborted, additionaly charging that the fetus was ground up,
mixed with spices to make it more palpable, and used in a
ritual where one's finger was dipped into the concoction.
Also, you yourself posted at least two different sects,
related to the Montanists but with their own identities:
the Quintillianists and the Priscillianists.
All of this was offered to show that there may have been
more to the issue than you want to believe. Unfortunately
you once again completely failed to read what I posted,
instead choosing to gloss over it and in a classic case of
Mogginary knee-JERK reactionism, start firing shots at me.
Moggs:
As I've already demonstrated,
(snips Moggins redundancy)
Moggs:
Nothing about grinding them up or eating them in that case.
Idiot. From your own post:
"In the _Catechesis_, Cyril of Jerusalem says that Montanus
served up diced children"
"..he (Montanus) cut the throats of wretched little children and
chopped them into pieces for their unholy banquets"
Your own words:
"Gotta wonder what impurities Cyril didn't speak about from
respect for his female listeners. If baby-eating is merely
the hint he diplomatically drops, then lord knows what else the
Montanists did, according to him."
From my posted addendum which you obviously failed to read:
"Extracting the foetus at whatever time they choose to do the
operation, they take the aborted infant and pound it up in a
mortar with a pestle, and mixing in honey and pepper and some
other spices and sweet oils so as not to become nauseous, all
the members of that herd of swine and dogs gather together and
each partakes with his finger of the crushed-up child.
[Epiphanius, Panarion, 26.5.]
I thought I made it clear that I was not talking specifically
about the Montanists, but about the issue in general. But you
failed to get the message through your thick skull:
"Tertullian and Epiphanius also had other things to say on the
subject which indicated another aspect to charge of baby-eating.
From a post I did on Gnostic practices, I snip for thee the
following allegations"
But then you already demonstrated your incompetence at following
the dialogue when you showed that you had completely missed the
Epiphanius quote on the end-result of these sexual practices
which led to the abortions which led to the charge of
ritualisticaly eating babies.
"You seem awfully confused. The stuff you quoted concerned
sexual practices -- not eating babies."
Moggs:
You happily assume that Tertullian's story about Marcion's
return to orthodoxy describes an unalterable historical
reality
As I warned, after losing a debate you would drag this other
thread into god-knows how many ulterior posts on different
thread subjects. But at least you happily admit that you
covertly wish to alter historical reality.
Moggs:
-- but when other Church Fathers aim accusations at T's
crowd, the Montanists, you turn into a skeptic, asking "Who
knows if the accusations are true?" and suggesting there may be
"distortion, perhaps blatant falsehoods." "It is best to
suspend judgement on such things," you maintained. A blatantly
obvious double-standard.
That is just your spin-doctoring kicking in again. Not being
allowed a dignified retreat after losing a debate, you are
going to whine about it ever after. Unfortunately in the
addendum which I posted to your Tertullian-smear, it contained
a very special theme-- the admittance by the Church Fathers
that they themselves viewed these charges with suspicion.
Theodoret makes his charges in a work curiously titled "Heretic
FABLES", which should be indicative of where he felt the legends
belonged from the beginning. Justin Martyr, while repudiating the
charge on behalf of the orthodox, was careful to add of the
heretics:
"Whether or not these people commit those shameful and fabulous
acts- the putting out the lights, indulging in promiscuous
intercourse, and eating human flesh - I know not."
When Clement of Alexandrian refers to the love-feasts leading to
the abortions leading to the rituals etc. he states "it is said",
which is a disclaimer-- here is repeated gossip. I know the work
I posted was fairly contemporary, but if you had actually read
through it you would see that it is not defending you-know-who:
"Tertullian, indeed, after becoming a Montanist, divulged the fact
that in the Church which he had before so zealously defended the
young men lay with their sisters in the Agape, and wallowed in
wantonness and luxury."
On an aside, what was it about the Montanists that you think
appealed to Tertullian? What could have been going through his
mind? Was he thinking-- 'Gosh, those babies might taste good
right now! In fact, just last night I was craving some baby
blood! YUM YUM!' ????? Think about it. Just perhaps this
aspect of the charges against the Montanists was something he
found out to be unfounded. As Clement put it-- "it is said".
Bishop gossip aside, I find it curious how after Tertullian
joined the Montanists that he produced a copious amount of
work accusing the Church of many wrongdoings and errors, and
not once to my knowledge did he feel the need to say-- 'Oh
yah, and by the way boys, that charge of baby-eating? All
BS'. For me it is implied that he found out that there were
some inacuracies in that gossip, and that the Church pappies
knew it, and that he did not feel the need to address the
gossip after finding out the truth.
But whatever. I really don't care one way or another, despite
your attempts to depict my emotional investment in the subject.
If I really cared to clear Tertullian of all charges, I probably
wouldn't have posted any data wherein he was included in these
heinous crimes. But that of course is lost on your wittle pea
brain.
You have all but admitted that your real intention in starting
this thread to begin with was to impugn Tertullian's integrity,
which if fine. Except for the fact that you cite Tertullian more
than the rest of us combined, and have never to my knowledge added
the disclaimer that you believe he was a baby-eater, or that he was
a perverse lier who mutilates the truth, Schillings stance which
you so ardently and cavalierly defended in a series of redundant
posts which would prove mind-numbing if I wasn't already used to
your tactics.
Apparently you have learned to post a disclaimer when
smearing Tertullian:
"Of course that doesn't mean it's true. The blood-libel is
a standard charge, and it's been tossed around in all
directions. As Jerome says, "Accusations of blood-shedding may
well be false" (Epistle 41 -- he still considers the
Montanists to be faithless blasphemers). But if so, then those
saints were telling tales."
I myself am on record as saying I don't believe everything
T. ever wrote. Even Schilling has never accused me of believing
all of T.'s words, even though he at one time was gleefully
accusing me of worshipping this man with his tremendous flaws,
among them misogynic, as I've been quick to point out.
So when I post some data trying to shed new light on the concerns
of this thread and you blind your eyes to it, you are an idiot.
And when within said data there is even an accusation against
Tertullian himself, only you blind your eyes to it, you are an
idiot. And regardless of your intent to impugn Tertullian, when
you offer data painting him in a negative way, along with your
own disclaimer that this may not be accurate, but do not recognize
that this is what I myself have done (Tertullian accusation,
disclaimer of accuracy), then you not only have a double-standard
concerning Tertullian, but more importantly, you have a double
standard towards myself in general.
(1) You drag a different thread's dialogue into this one, as I
predicted you would do, and by this in your own words "you've
confused a couple different stories."
(2) You allow yourself to post negative-Tertullian data along
with the disclaimer as to its accuracy, but do not allow myself
to do so. A major double-standard.
(3) You paint me as being a stalwart defender of all things
Tertullian, when in fact I have at times incessantly attacked
his character and works. But when I note that you post more
Tertullian citations than the rest of us combined always sans
the disclaimer you now for the first time (to my knowledge)
advance, and question which side of the fence you actually
sit on, you run away from the question. And at the same
time in a Thrygian defense you are shooting over your
shoulder the same question now turned into an accusation:
double-standard.
I know turnabout is fair-play, but really guy, your spin
doctoring is getting old. Your penchant for ignoring the
dialogue is getting old. Your predilection for glossing
through a post and snapping off these knee-JERK reactionary
attacks is getting old. Could the real problem here be
that you're just getting old?
In any given month I know there are going to be more
Moggin-provided Tertullian-citations in [.gnostic] than
birdsh*t on a car windshield the morning after it was
just washed. Which through some avian-plot to confound
us with the probabilities is usually a LOT of doo-doo.
Get off the fence and admit that you are anti-Tertullian
and start disclaiming your T. citations from here on out sir. |
|
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:26 am Post subject: Re: Nuvoadam's Double-Standards |
|
|
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):
| Quote: | (snips Moggins redundancy)
|
Malicious editing on Nuvoadam's part: he's neatly removed
the point that I actually offered in order to criticize an
assertion I never made; he's also broken the thread, hiding the
evidence of his trickeration.
Long story short: Nuvo mixed up two different accusations
aimed at Tertullian's bunch, the Montanists (both alleging
they mistreated babies), made them into one and falsely claimed
they were directed at the Gnostics.
He also demonstrated a blatant double-standard by refusing
to accept accusations against the Montanists on grounds the
Church Dads "were at times lying sacks of shit" ("It is best to
suspend judgement on such things," he concluded) while
insisting that Tertullian's story about Marcion's return to
orthodoxy describes an unalterable historical reality. So much
for suspending judgment!
And of course he fell into a classic ad hominem by arguing
that the story Tertullian tells about Marcion's personal
behavior invalides M's theology. Nuvoadam is an endless source
of fallacies, logical and otherwise.
| Quote: | Moggs:
Nothing about grinding them up or eating them in that case.
Idiot. From your own post: "In the _Catechesis_
|
Liar: when I said, "in that case," I was referring to the
stories in Epiphanius and Augustine -- _not_ in Cyril's
_Catechesis_ -- which accuse Montanists of using bronze needles
to drain babies' blood, in distinction from the story in
Cyril, who alleges that Montanus chopped babies into pieces and
served them at banquets.
| Quote: | I was not talking specifically
|
You were talking very specifically about "murdering babies
by slowly piercing them with brass pins, grinding the bodies
up and then eating them," falsely insisting that accusation was
aimed at "some Gnostic sects." But you had confused two
related stories about the Mantanists -- _not_ the Gnostics. In
one, Cyril of Jerusalem alleges that Montanus chopped up
babies and served them for dinner; in the other, Epiphanius and
Augustine claim the Montanists drained babies' blood with
bronze needles. Augustine says some of them lived: impossible
in Cyril's scenario, where they're eaten.
Cyril, _Catechesis_ 16.8, Augustine, _The Heresies_ 26 and
Epiphanius, _Pan_. 48.14.5-6.
| Quote: | the admittance by the Church Fathers
that they themselves viewed these charges with suspicion.
|
No such admission by either Cyril or Augustine. Precisely
the opposite in Epiphanius, who directly contradicts you by
insisting he's reporting the truth and denying that the charges
he's made are false. _Pan_. 48.15.1-3.
| Quote: | I find it curious how after Tertullian
joined the Montanists that he produced a copious amount of
work accusing the Church of many wrongdoings and errors, and
not once to my knowledge did he feel the need to say-- 'Oh
yah, and by the way boys, that charge of baby-eating? All
BS'. For me it is implied that he found out that there were
some inacuracies in that gossip, and that the Church pappies
knew it, and that he did not feel the need to address the
gossip after finding out the truth.
|
You're using a double-standard again. You claimed Marcion
and his followers never replied to Tertullian's story M
returned to orthodoxy -- tho as usual, you failed to offer more
than your supposition -- and argued that was evidence
supporting its truth. Now you contend the absence of T's reply
to the Church Dads' accusations against him imply they're
false. Once again your double-standard is impossible to ignore.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
