Evangelical Views - the Best of UseNet Religious Postings! :: View topic


www.evangelicalview.com Leading Religious, News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Moggin's Lies Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Evangelical Views - the Best of UseNet Religious Postings! Forum Index -> Gnostic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Kater Moggin
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2003 8:17 am Post subject: Re: Roger Pearse's Lies

Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com>:

Quote:

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):

Quote:

I see Moggin is engaging in his typically mindless repetition of his
trickery.

I see Nuvoadam is lying again. I've backed up what I said
with direct quotes and links to Google showing he added the
qualification "sole," then pretended that I misattributed it to
him.

-- Moggin

to e-mail, remove the thorn

Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:46 am Post subject: Re: Roger Pearse's Lies

Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> writes:

Quote:

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):

[snipped examples]

Nuvo didn't remove any examples, since he'd failed to give
any: he merely repeated his accusations w/out bothering to
back them up. Same approach his takes to his historical claims.

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse):

I don't think there's much doubt that he's simply trying to divert
attention with a lie.

Roger isn't thinking:

Tertullian worshippers aren't even able to.

Quote:

on that much I agree. I've focused
attention on evidence in the sources -- in specific the
Panarion, written by Epiphanius sometime around 375 CE -- which
contradicts the notion disparaging rumours about Paul are
merely a product of modern times. Apparently that put Roger in
such a spin he feels compelled to reply with a long and
ever-lengthening string of baseless attacks, like the one above.

Notice Roger, like Nuvo, specializes in hollow accusations
and empty claims.

that's because Tertullian, the master of RP and NA,
is the first child of Saklas.

Klaus Schilling

Nuvoadam
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: Moggin's Lies

Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message news:<moggin-D30CF1.22532009102003@netnews.attbi.com>...

Quote:

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse):

I'm afraid ....

(Mogg snips one post, adds to another, drags everything to seperate thread)

Quote:

(Mogginsnips re-added)
NA:

Quote:

Then you are blind. As Moggin does to great many of my posts he
disagrees with, he changed the context of an important quote by
inserting his own "emphasis" with a single word: "_sole_". After this
clumsy spin he tries to get me to defend the word he himself has
provided!!!

Roger:

Quote:

I'm afraid you've got Moggin down correctly. I have never understood
his desperate need to fight with the nice people. No doubt it all has
some psychological base. Probably was indulged too much as a child.

NA:
Roger, one of the shrinks I've dated thinks that Moggs was abused or
bullied as a child, hence the bully act. They must have been mean
S.O.B.'s too, because she claims the worse it was, the more sadistic
the poor kid turns out to be later on.

Quote:

I see Nuvo is reduced to retailing second-hand, dime-store
psychanalysis -- or inventing it, as the case may be. In
either case he's still dodging his words. What the hell. They
weren't worth discussing anyway.

LOL! Since you are locked into one of your cycles where you drag
your weak-ass protestations from one thread into many others, then
I guess I'll have to keep posting the same response to the fact that
you keep ignoring that you changed my quote with your own "_emphasis_".

No problem. You like this dontcha? I date a lot of shrinks. Don't
know why, because they tend to analyze me and that drives me nuts.
But three of them have given the same analysis of you Moggs.
(1) You were really abused as a child, at least mentally/emotionaly,
which is why you have to piss all over everyone like this Alpha-dog.
(2) You are engaged in the Parataxic Convention and revealing your
fears when you call so many people liers and weasels. (shrug)

Below is my response to this same inanely repeated accusation Moggs
keeps dragging all over alt.gnostic. It looks like I'll have to keep
posting it as long as he keeps doctoring his spin of that old stuff.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I see Moggin is engaging in his typically mindless repetition of his
trickery. So here are just some of my many responses to his eternal
and incessant spin-doctoring:

http://tinyurl.com/q4rn

http://tinyurl.com/q4t2

When he realized he was losing a debate, it took him awhile, but
finally he found the misdirection he was looking for. I had to
repeatedly call his digressive wanderings back to the original debate:
the Gnostics did not use the word as a TITLE, but as a signifier of
attainment. He squirmed and squirmed to find anyway he could to
change the nature of the debate. But when I wouldn't let him, he
figured he would bog the thread down in inane accusations. He tried
to protest that I had never initially used the word "_sole_" to denote
the word Gnostic as a title. But I never had to! From the very start
I made it clear that I was saying that the word Gnostic was NOT USED
AS AN APPELLATION, and went to great lengths to explain what this
meant. Later I found I had to signify this by the use of the word
sole, which Moggin ever after placed in my quotes as "_sole_", which
was HIS OWN ADMITTED EMPHASIS. Now it would have been one thing if he
had sourced the quote right away, and correctly--
"_without_his_added_emphasis_" placed in my quotemarks. But since he
didn't source it and yet had added this emphasis, it was a little
difficult to guess what his emphasis might have been down the road.

So when I respond to one of his lap-doggies with:

(NAsnip responding to Cerinthus: Enemy of the Truth)
"Then you are blind. As Moggin does to great many of my posts he
disagrees with, he changed the context of an important quote by
inserting his own "emphasis" with a single word: "_sole_". After this
clumsy spin he tries to get me to defend the word he himself has
provided!!! All the while ignoring that I repeatedly made the
distinction between using the word "Gnostic" as a Sect or School title
and using it as a signifier of the School/Sect's "Purpose" or
"Function": to turn aspiring initiates into bona fide Gnostic
Masters."

You are to please note that I had exposed the Mogginism: "_sole_".
Try this. Take one of Moggins quotes, "_add_your_own_emphasis_",
refuse to source it, and beat him over the head with it for months in
an avalanche of posts. Then if he claimes that he cannot find the

"_quote_you_had_placed_within_hashmarks_and_attributed_to_him_",

(((because you had added your "_emphasis_"))), then be sure to call
him a liar and a weasel. He lost the debate and with great joy I
watched him squirm like a worm on a sidewalk after the rain, as he
tried to find any out he could.

Cerinthus claimed that the debate was not *fixed by context*, saying
there had been no pretext that it had been so. Which intrigued me,
since the only person to respond was Moggin. I suspected
Puss-in-Boots of using two screenames years back in order to create a
character to affect the kind of stance he needed to attack to make a
point. It seems that perhaps he has done so again?

(Cerinthus? or Moggin?)

Quote:

The posts that I checked at Google were certianly not "fixed" by context.
The context was already clear. So, complaining about it won't bail you on
this one. I even posted the context when I quoted you once.

My response showed that, yes, the pretext had been very open and in
Cerinthus-Moggins face from the very start.

http://tinyurl.com/q4tw

Here is an example of my response to Moggins attempt to claim that the
word Gnostic was an appellation. Also, a good example of how Moggin
combines two quotes into one and changes the context.

http://tinyurl.com/q4u2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pope John XXIII:
"See everything; overlook a great deal; correct a little."

Moggin's Mantra:
"See a little; overlook a great deal; correct everything."

Nuvoadam:

Quote:

Not only did I qualify what I meant by "title", but did so many times

Moggin:

Quote:

Once you began weaseling, you added all sortsa
qualifications. For instance, you pretended we'd been debating
about "whether there was ever a Sect or School which used
the word Gnostic as its _sole_ title." My emphasis.

Everyone knows how you enjoy adding your "emphasis" to their posts,
take their words out of context and then inanely argue with them that
your own "emphasis" of their idea should be defended, rather than what
they actually wrote. You do this with an atrocious regularity.

Which is why, despite your laughable attempts to say otherwise, I made
several efforts to remind you of my original observation and its
context. But in the latest tsunami of your typical BS you chose to
ignore all of the qualifying I was doing to reign in your rampaging
ignorance of what I had said-- "I'm not aware of any single sect among
the Western Gnostics which used Gnostic for their Sect or School
title", and how I meant this. You just kept going on and on, ignoring
the original subject and my many attempts to call your attention to
the fact that I had been making a distinction between the use of the
word "Gnostic" as an actual "title" for a Sect or School, and the
usage of the word as a signifier of attainment. Here is the original
quote you had been responding to, in the context you kept butchering
(so what's new).

http://tinyurl.com/nc0x

(snip)
"After debating and arguing the term with ya'all, I have had to amend
my personal definition of what a Gnostic is. When I say Eastern
Gnostic (e.Gnostic) it is with the understanding that, while there
were sects who called themselves as Jnasi or Nassee, they had no
vested interest defending the term as their rightful title. Clearly
the Western Gnostics have planted their flag on the nomen as their
own, but if they were using it accurately, then more as an level of
competence and attainment than an appellation.

"I'm not aware of any single sect among the Western Gnostics which
used Gnostic for their Sect or School title. Instead, among what were
often competing sects and schools would be found certain individuals
who had won the right to call themselves as Gnostic. I am not
emotionally invested in such semantics, but having studied the rites
of esoteric passage as long as I have, there seems to have been
litmust tests for any aspirant who was ready to prove they were Master
material. Often such tests involved dying for three days, and I'm not
talking about a meditative ego-death. They were killed by submersion
in water, or burying in earth, or were tested by being thrown in
fire."
(end snip)

(But there)

Quote:

was no such out in your original statement. You simply
declared you lacked awareness of any gnostic sects which titled
themselved with that word.

Obviously the only **simple unawarness** was that being demonstrated
by yourself in choosing to ignore how I repeatedly tried to
differentiate what between the 'title' and the 'function/purpose' of a
Sect/School.

(I then showed that according to)

Quote:

the sources, several gnostic schools used the term "gnostic" in
reference to themselves.

Yes thank you for that. I gave you points for effort, but kept
reminding you that you were pulling a typical Moggin: either
repeatedly ignoring the actual subject or having another bout of
conflation-constipation.

Quote:

Since your amnesia is acting up again, here are the relevant links
along with some quotes from several previous posts:

More of your typical weaseling. Not one of your links and
quotes concerns your original assertion of unawareness --
they're just examples of the dodgeball you played when I showed
what you were missing.

Rather than your bullshit "emphasis", I'll stick to my original quote
if you don't mind, and that being:

(snip)
NA:
"Clearly the Western Gnostics have planted their flag on the nomen as
their own, but if they were using it accurately, then more as an level
of
competence and attainment than an appellation. I'm not aware of any
single sect among the Western Gnostics which used Gnostic for their
Sect or
School title. Instead, among what were often competing sects and
schools would be found certain individuals who had won the right to
call themselves as Gnostic."
(end snip)

Moggin:

Quote:

You didn't say a word there about gnostic schools or sects
that used the word "gnostic" as their _sole_ title -- you
simply said you had no awareness of any which titled themselves
that way. I then showed what you'd overlooked.

You certainly showed that over and over again you yourself had
"overlooked" my efforts to call your attention to my original quote
and my repeated qualifications of it-- in every single response to
every single post you had made in this thread. Now you are providing
another of the "accurate observation"(s) which seem to pop out of
Moggin's Noggin with astounding regularity-- "_sole_ title".

Moggs, I've noticed that you tend to use the words you fear others see
in yourself to attack me. When I call you an asshole its because
that, having accepted this trait within myself, I can claim a sort of
expertise. But you use the word "lying" and "weaseling" an awful lot,
and I think this is revealing of how you fear others see some of your
predominant character flaws.

Look, *dude*, you fricked up again. Admit it and move on. The only
one who is backing you in a corner is yourself with your repeated
"weaseling", for lack of a better word. Just let it go and we'll pick
up the worthy debate on what basis the Church Fathers were using for
their attacks on false Gnostics in another thread. Ok?

And since you seem to think that by repeating your "emphasis" you can
repaint the dialogue in your favor, here is another quote you were
ignoring:

http://tinyurl.com/nami

(snip)
NA:
"You are suggesting (I think) that there might have been groups who
called their Sect or School by the title of Gnostic. But for me, most
of the information you have supplied instead suggests that the title
they chose was particular to their discipleship to an individual
person or ideology, and that they called themselves Gnostic in the
sense of being *Gnostical or even in the sense of a level of
accomplishment above that of aspirant. Just like we might call a
College by its name: 'George Washington' and then further qualify its
function: 'Technical College' and a graduating student: a 'welder'
etc.

"Again, the groups listed here are mostly being identified by their
real titles first, and then their intended Sect/School function
second: Gnostic. So they were teaching about Gnosis (Ascension
technique, spiritual roadmap) and Gnosticism (myth, ritual, dogma),
and as such they were calling themselves Gnostics in the sense that
certain Tech. students might call themselves as a welder, hopefully
AFTER they graduated and were a practicing welder (...) Withholding
possible asterixes affixed to corruptions or question marks, your
suggestions can be recompiled but only as possibilities and are not
offered as concrete proof of my own suggestion that the title Gnostic
_MIGHT HAVE_ denoted the function of their Sect/School rather than a
true title."
(end snip)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now. Back to this "_sole_" quote. If you will please note, the
entire quote was unwittingly provided by Moggin along with a link,
which you might consider looking through for my admonition that he
kept digressing the debate, and confusing.

Here Moggin has subtly taken out his "_emphasis_", of the word "sole".
He has also amazingly provide the entire original quote, which tells
me that he is listening to my attempts to get him to stop the slice
and dice job he does when he takes only PART of a quote, slaps
quotemarks around it and then pretends this was the whole shebang. Up
until now, it was always just:

(Moggin quoting Adam?)
"whether there was ever a Sect or School which used the word Gnostic
as its _sole_ title."

When I couldn't get google to provide these words in these quotemarks
under my name, he claimed I was lying! What a moron!

(Nuvoadam)
Hash-marks.

(Moggin's reply)
Exactly. I quoted you accurately.

(Moggin elsewhere)
Once again you're lying. I quoted you verbatim.

Verbatim? REALLY????

Verbatim would be leaving the entire quote in context, and NOT placing
your own "_emphasis_" in it. Dig? Is that clear Moggin? Here is the
verbatim quote you yourself have only NOW provided you silly rabbit:

(Nuvoadam)
Thank you for correcting me on the Naasenes. I wish to
address our debate in how the Church Father's meant
"falsely so-called" Gnostics in a seperate post, because
I think this issue deserves its own forum unattached to
the above debate on whether there was ever a Sect or
School which used the word Gnostic as its sole Title.

And here is how Moggin sees a "_VERBATIM_" quote:

(Moggins "_verbatim_" quote)
"whether there was ever a Sect or School which used the word Gnostic
as its _sole_ title."

Obviously this guy has a very different idea of what verbatim means.

Gurunet on Verbatim:
"Using exactly the same words; corresponding word for word: a verbatim
report of the conversation. (adv.) In exactly the same words; word for
word: repeated their dialogue verbatim."

Now. Did it look like he used "exactly the same words"? Has he
repeated the "dialogue verbatim"? Negative. He changed the quote.
This time in a subtle way, at other times in other debates he has
changed it in drastic ways, and it took me WEEKS to get him to give
any kind of admittance of why he had done so. Oh, he was only making
an """ACCURATE OBSERVATION""". Want the relevant links? I could give
you more than a few examples of how he butchers quotes in a number of
ways, but then adroitly tries to cover up the fact.

Quote:

I'm afraid you've got Moggin down correctly.

You've been taken in by Nuvoadam, who wasn't being any too
truthful in the above, since he falsely claimed that I'd
provided the word "sole" in that discussion. It was Nuvoadam's
own contribution: he quietly added it as a late-arriving
qualification to one of his claims, then -- after I had pointed
out what he had done -- tried to pretend that I'd
misattributed it to him. Much too typical of NA, unfortunately.

Nuvoadam wrote:

Thank you for correcting me on the Naasenes. I wish to
address our debate in how the Church Father's meant
"falsely so-called" Gnostics in a seperate post, because
I think this issue deserves its own forum unattached to
the above debate on whether there was ever a Sect or
School which used the word Gnostic as its sole Title.

http://tinyurl.com/nnu4
news:93508a0.0309131452.67ef05@posting.google.com

There Nuvo claimed we had been debating "whether there was
ever a Sect or School which used the word Gnostic as its
sole Title" -- a falsehood, since he snuck in the qualification
"sole." Then he piled lies on top lies by contending he
hadn't done so, insisting the term came from me. Google proves
him wrong.

If you've had the patience to read this far, answer the questions for
yourself. Did I or Moggin use the word "sole" or the word "_sole_"?
Which was Verbatim? Did I quietly try to add this as a qualification
of your debate, or did I from the very first post make it very
exceedingly clear that I did not mean the word Gnostic as an
"appellation" but as a signifier of attainment? Did I explain what I
meant by this? In the very first post? Was it subtle or quiet, or
pretty much bayitch-slapping Moggin in his face from the very start?
Moggin denies ever taking my words out of context. Did he use the
full verbatim quote or did he slice it up and only use part of it?
Under most circumstances, would it be fair to consider that this is
taking a quote out of context? Has Google proven me wrong or has it
basically shot Moggin full of more holes than a really cheap slab of
swiss cheese?

Roger:

Quote:

I have never understood his desperate need to fight with
the nice people.

Roger, I remember when Moggin did more posting on the net on other
subjects than Gnosticism. Years ago. And he always has picked
fights. But whereas it was amusing then, now that he has gotten older
and turned his acidic vitriol on the spiritual seekers, he and his
lapdoggies tend to chase away an incredible number of people from
posting or even asking questions. Shame on Moggin! He has no right
to force his errant Ism of hate and fear on others in the name of
Gnosticism, and he has no right to chase away spiritual seekers. He
is a nasty, lonely lost man who has to pick fights to make him feel
more alive and give empty life meaning. All that being said, I have
this hope that he will somehow make it. I don't know why, but I keep
thinking that someday he will actually start meditating and tame that
fierce ego of his.

Moggin:
I never understood why Roger starts fights, then complains
when he gets knocked around the ring.

Sounds like Moggin just perfectly described himself.

Quote:

No doubt it all has some psychological base.

Maybe. PL once suggested people like Roger are attempting
to satisfy their masochistic desires.

Well Roger, do you pretty much agree with Moggin that anyone who would
want to debate him must be masochistic?

Masochistic: "The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive
pleasure, from being humiliated or mistreated, either by another or by
oneself. A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or
trying experiences." (Gurunet)

When you read that did you laugh as hard as I did? He ADMITS he
thoroughly likes to *humiliate and *mistreat others, and just for the
hell of it. I'm not sure about you, but I know that his tendency to
butcher my quotes can be an *unpleasant or *trying experience.

When Moggs uses the words lier and weasel, it is a blatant
self-assessment. He uses the words so much to attack others, I have
had friends tell me that this is a sure-fire case of the Parataxic
Convention, wherein through his repeated usage of the words to attack
so many others, he is admitting he real psychological fear: others
will see him as a weasel and a lier.

He is an idiot-savant who radically vacillates between the two
extremes and is in serious need of a personality transplant.

Nuvoadam
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2003 9:37 pm Post subject: Re: Nuvoadam's Lies

pessolo@freemail.it wrote in message news:<87zngackik.fsf@debian.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>...

Quote:

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) writes:
Marcion came crawling back on his belly to the
Church he had schismed away from

This is a lie invented by Tertullian.
Here we see that NA worships Tertullian,
the archbishop of Sakklas, the idiotic demiurge.

Klaus Schilling

You would say that wouldn't you.

Klaus. Again you let me down.
You forgot to add GRAHAM to your list of evil bad guys.

Seriously though-- if T. was lying about Marcion, then
you apparently throw all of T.'s work in the trash. And
since T. supplied the predominant amount of Marcionite
information we still have today, what are you left with
when you're done? Or do you sift through T.'s work for
what you want to say is valid as opposed to lies? If so,
then good luck with that.

Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2003 12:24 am Post subject: Re: Nuvoadam's Lies

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) writes:

Quote:

You forgot to add GRAHAM to your list of evil bad guys.

and so? there are too many evil bad guys to mention each time.

Quote:

Seriously though-- if T. was lying about Marcion, then
you apparently throw all of T.'s work in the trash.

One has to read tertullian hypercrittically, as decent scholars
like Georges Ory, Arthur Drews, and Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga do,
not hypocriticaly, as inept scholars like Lightfoot, Zahn, and Harnack do.

Quote:

And since T. supplied the predominant amount of Marcionite
information we still have today, what are you left with
when you're done? Or do you sift through T.'s work for
what you want to say is valid as opposed to lies? If so,
then good luck with that.

Decent scholars achieve this. Inept ones don't.

Klaus Schilling

Nuvoadam
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:38 am Post subject: Re: Roger Pearse's Lies

pessolo@freemail.it wrote in message news:<87k77dtwrz.fsf@debian.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>...

Quote:

Roger isn't thinking:

Tertullian worshippers aren't even able to.

on that much I agree. I've focused
attention on evidence in the sources -- in specific the
Panarion, written by Epiphanius sometime around 375 CE -- which
contradicts the notion disparaging rumours about Paul are
merely a product of modern times. Apparently that put Roger in
such a spin he feels compelled to reply with a long and
ever-lengthening string of baseless attacks, like the one above.

Notice Roger, like Nuvo, specializes in hollow accusations
and empty claims.

that's because Tertullian, the master of RP and NA,
is the first child of Saklas.

Klaus Schilling

Klaus just for the record, I really enjoy your posts and am glad
you are back around. So please forgive me for saying this brother:
Moggin's increasingly inane, but you are increasingly insane.
I hope I'm very mistaken, BUT... who the heck ever worshipped
Tertullian? And please, if your going to venture off into
insanity, please please please keep throwing GRAHAM into your list
of evil bad guys. At least if you bring a little levity to the
table I don't have to worry about your sanity. Because I like
you Klaus. Always have. So there. >~P

Kater Moggin
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2003 11:39 am Post subject: Re: Nuvoadam's Lies

Cerinthus (Noway@getlost.com):

[to Nuvoadam]

Quote:

You have exposed nothing.

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam):

Quote:

Here NA claims I misattributed the word "sole" to him, and
he insists I provided the term -- but he's plain and simply
lying. He tried to sneak in the term as a qualification to one
of his claims, like so:

Thank you for correcting me on the Naasenes. I wish
to address our debate in how the Church Father's
meant "falsely so-called" Gnostics in a seperate post,
because I think this issue deserves its own forum
unattached to the above debate on whether there was
ever a Sect or School which used the word Gnostic as
its sole Title.

http://tinyurl.com/nnu4
news:93508a0.0309131452.67ef05@posting.google.com

There Nuvo claimed we had been debating "whether there was
ever a Sect or School which used the word Gnostic as its
sole Title" -- a falsehood, since he snuck in the qualification
"sole." Then he piled lies on top lies by contending he
hadn't done so, insisting the word came from me. Google proves
him wrong.

-- Moggin

to e-mail, remove the thorn

Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2003 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: Roger Pearse's Lies

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) writes:

Quote:

I hope I'm very mistaken, BUT... who the heck ever worshipped
Tertullian?

who believe that Paulus canonicus precedes Marcion's version,
and those who believe that christian orthodoxy predates Marcion.

Klaus Schilling

Roger Pearse
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:57 am Post subject: Re: Roger Pearse's Lies

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) wrote in message news:<93508a0.0310090940.28a492f1@posting.google.com>...
[snip]

Quote:

I have hope for the guy. Something happened to him along the way to
make him like this. Thanks for the warning though, you've given me
something to think about.

Thanks for the note! Sorry if I sounded as if I was preaching --
rather I was outlining how I think about this. I just don't want to
end up like some of the sad embittered people one meets in life.

I see Moggin offered the world his thoughts in reply to my note, but I
doubt reading them will bring sunshine to my soul, so I won't.
<smile>

<whistles> Always look on the bright side of life...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:58 am Post subject: Re: Roger Pearse's Lies

penitent leper <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message news:<rau9ovcgk7upj158is7ekdjtb7kictsg7g@4ax.com>...

Quote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:43:19 GMT, Kater Moggin <moggin@attbiTHORN.com
wrote:

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse):

A whole threadful of abuse named after me!
[more...]

He's a lying sack o'shit, so it's no surprise that he's shacking up
with that other despiser of truth, Nuvodumb.

Language, Moggin.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 1:44 am Post subject: Re: Moggin's Lies

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) wrote in message news:<93508a0.0310090854.71b3463e@posting.google.com>...

Quote:

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.0310070932.2276cd88@posting.google.com>...
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) wrote in message news:<93508a0.0309161859.2b5c0186@posting.google.com>...
Then you are blind. As Moggin does to great many of my posts he
disagrees with, he changed the context of an important quote by
inserting his own "emphasis" with a single word: "_sole_". After this
clumsy spin he tries to get me to defend the word he himself has
provided!!!

I'm afraid you've got Moggin down correctly. I have never understood
his desperate need to fight with the nice people. No doubt it all has
some psychological base. Probably was indulged too much as a child.

Roger, one of the shrinks I've dated thinks that Moggs was abused or
bullied as a child, hence the bully act. They must have been mean
S.O.B.'s too, because she claims the worse it was, the more sadistic
the poor kid turns out to be later on.

I rather wonder if he was indulged too much as a child. This seems to
be a common failing in religious families (I didn't have such) and
invariably the child grows up expecting the world to pander to him.
This is perhaps more common than the idea that he is a victim.

If I was willing to meet him on his own ground, I can think of some
rather amusing lies to tell about him. (Don't you notice how BORING
he is when he starts up?) Sadly honour forbids. Unless I feel
wicked, of course <g>

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Nuvoadam
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 7:29 am Post subject: Re: Roger Pearse's Lies

pessolo@freemail.it wrote in message news:<871xtktf1w.fsf@debian.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>...

Quote:

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) writes:

I hope I'm very mistaken, BUT... who the heck ever worshipped
Tertullian?

who believe that Paulus canonicus precedes Marcion's version,
and those who believe that christian orthodoxy predates Marcion.

Klaus Schilling

I am unclear what you are saying here sir. By "Paulus canonicus"
should I assume you are speaking of the Pauline Epistles? If so,
then my own research indicates that Marcion's Pauline epistles were
derived from what Justin Martyr called the Memoirs: a loose
collection of fragmentary Gospels and Epistles all mixed up into
one work, which varied from Bishopric to Bishopric. Unlike
Christy-Anns, I see that Leucius wrote Luke-Acts for Biship
Theophilus of Caesarea around 170 or so, and thus Leucius' Luke
was based upon Marcion's Mark, so the priority of Marcion's
pseudo-Paulinic works was already established. Justin did not
recognize a Marcionite NT in his era-- around 160 or so, and
this indicates that the Marcionite pseudo-Pauline works were
produced after Justin's death.

As Irenaeus and Tertullian stated, Valentinus, Marcion and their
contemporaries were new kids on the block, and were basing their
newer works on old material. But this did not mean that there
was an orthodoxy before this era. In fact, T., I. and all the
other Church Fathers who led the siren-call for the very first
orthodoxy were responding to Marcion and his fellow heretics and
the Gospels they were producing.

I look at Tertullian and see an unabashed misogynist, among
other problems. I do not worship this guy, nor do I hold
him in high regard in any way except for the recognition that
his sourced quotes of those he attacked have later turned out
to be very accurate. You have to give him that much at least.
I know he had some followers, but I also know that he left them
in the lurch when he went over to the heretics he had attacked
and joined the Montanists, probably due to the very thing he
had formerly despised-- they let women into their clergy
leadership. Basically the Montanists were hippies, and T.
must have needed a change of pace from his normal uptight
routine.

So where are you coming from calling me a T. worshipper you
silly guy? You are so predictable, but loveable, and I'm
very glad your back around Mr. Klaus.

Nuvoadam
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Roger Pearse's Lies

Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) wrote in message news:<93508a0.0310111829.2a23d98f@posting.google.com>...

Quote:

pessolo@freemail.it wrote in message news:<871xtktf1w.fsf@debian.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>...
Nuvoadam@AOL.com (Nuvoadam) writes:

I hope I'm very mistaken, BUT... who the heck ever worshipped
Tertullian?

who believe that Paulus canonicus precedes Marcion's version,
and those who believe that christian orthodoxy predates Marcion.

Klaus Schilling

I am unclear what you are saying here sir. By "Paulus canonicus"
should I assume you are speaking of the Pauline Epistles? If so,
then my own research indicates that Marcion's Pauline epistles were
derived from what Justin Martyr called the Memoirs: a loose
collection of fragmentary Gospels and Epistles all mixed up into
one work, which varied from Bishopric to Bishopric. Unlike
Christy-Anns, I see that Leucius wrote Luke-Acts for Biship
Theophilus of Caesarea around 170 or so, and thus Leucius' Luke
was based upon Marcion's Mark, so the priority of Marcion's
pseudo-Paulinic works was already established. Justin did not
recognize a Marcionite NT in his era-- around 160 or so, and
this indicates that the Marcionite pseudo-Pauline works were
produced after Justin's death.

At least I don't think he recognized a Marcionite NT in his
attacks, but I could be wrong. Perhaps Marcion had by then
produced more than the first workings of his Bible with no
OT, and the first orthodox-style NT with its Gospels and its
Pauline Epistles.

Quote:

As Irenaeus and Tertullian stated, Valentinus, Marcion and their
contemporaries were new kids on the block, and were basing their
newer works on old material. But this did not mean that there
was an orthodoxy before this era. In fact, T., I. and all the
other Church Fathers who led the siren-call for the very first
orthodoxy were responding to Marcion and his fellow heretics and
the Gospels they were producing.

Irenaeus used Justin for an authority, and also sounded like a
broken record that Leucius' Four Gospels were to be considered
the sole and extent of the Canonized Gospels. Since I. was
probably saying this around 180 or later, then we easily have
enough time for Leucius to manufacture the Four as a syncretistic
take off on Marcion's earlier work, which Justin was becoming
ever aware of even in captivity.

Leucius was commissioned by Theophilus, who was modeling his
Caesarea Synod after the Alexandrian model, trying to echoe
that proto-orthodoxy being produced by the College which Clement
and later Origen led.

Quote:

I look at Tertullian and see an unabashed misogynist, among
other problems. I do not worship this guy, nor do I hold
him in high regard in any way except for the recognition that
his sourced quotes of those he attacked have later turned out
to be very accurate. You have to give him that much at least.

I take that back. I do hold T. in high regard. He was a great
man, who like the rest of us had some serious flaws. I just
could not get exited enough about a misogynist to be mistaken
for a worshiper.

Quote:

I know he had some followers, but I also know that he left them
in the lurch when he went over to the heretics he had attacked
and joined the Montanists, probably due to the very thing he
had formerly despised-- they let women into their clergy
leadership. Basically the Montanists were hippies, and T.
must have needed a change of pace from his normal uptight
routine.

Think about it this way, the Christy-Anns had all the virgins
and the Gnostics had all the hippie-chicks. If you were slanted
towards libertinist or even the antinomian desires, then you
were looking for some of the Gnostic sects, and the Sethians
were a good place for to start.

Quote:

So where are you coming from calling me a T. worshipper you
silly guy? You are so predictable, but loveable, and I'm
very glad your back around Mr. Klaus.

Kater Moggin
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Roger Pearse's Lies

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse): [...] Interesting to see that Roger has tossed off another round of insults rather than addressing the evidence, namely Epiphanius' report of a disparaging rumor about Paul (he's said to have been born a Gentile, converted to Judaism while chasing a Jewish girl, and rejected the law the same as she did him), which contradicts the idea those are just modern inventions. Pan. 30.16.8-9. Why Roger finds this so upsetting I'm not entirely sure. -- Moggin to e-mail, remove the thorn

Kater Moggin
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2003 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: Roger Pearse's Lies

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse):

Quote:

Language, Moggin.

Here's Epiphanius, translated into the English language by
Frank Williams, reporting a disparaging rumor about Paul --
and thus contradicting the idea those are all modern inventions.

Nor are they ashamed to accuse Paul here with
certain false inventions of their false apostles'
villainy and imposture. They say that he was a Tarsean
-- which he admits himself and does not deny. But they
supposed he was of Greek parentage, taking the
occasion for this from the (same) passage because he
frankly said, "I am a man of Tarsus, a citizen of no
mean city." They then claim that he was a Greek and
the son of a Greek mother and father, but that he had
gone up to Jerusalem, stayed a while, and desired to
marry a daughter of the high priest. He therefore
became a proselyte and was circumcised. But since he
still could not get that sort of girl he became angry
and wrote against circumcision, and the Sabbath and
Legislation.

Epiphanius, Pan. 30.16.8-9

-- Moggin

to e-mail, remove the thorn

Display posts from previous:

Evangelical Views - the Best of UseNet Religious Postings! Forum Index -> Gnostic Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 7 of 8

All times are GMT

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum