Christian hatred at its worst

Fredric L. Rice

unread,

Sep 12, 2005, 10:12:24 PM9/12/05

to

http://www.lovewonout.com/

Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.

---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
"After all, there's more to this world than tits." - Uncle Vic

Ramona

unread,

Sep 13, 2005, 7:50:45 AM9/13/05

to

Here is what I simply do not "get." Christian God Jesus is quoted as
saying that divorce is not allowed save for adultery. Oddly enough
christian ministers are happy to marry people that have been divorced.
Jesus who "heals" the servant of the Centurian is a seemingly forgotten
action, but is the primary example of how HE/JESUS treats homosexuals
(let us not forget that the servant was a sexual servant per the ancient
language.) Yet Christian ministers damn the homosexual which
contradicts Jesus own Actions. Ah but I always forget that the
Christian church doesn't follow Jesus though, they follow Paul. It's
too bad, I really like the Jesus guy. He was quite the Mensch.

So can like actions be found in CO$? Does Hubbard teach something that
is not only ignored but treated in the opposite fashion?

Ramona

WCB

unread,

Sep 13, 2005, 9:33:28 AM9/13/05

to

Ramona wrote:

> Here is what I simply do not "get." Christian God Jesus is quoted as
> saying that divorce is not allowed save for adultery. Oddly enough
> christian ministers are happy to marry people that have been divorced.
> Jesus who "heals" the servant of the Centurian is a seemingly forgotten
> action, but is the primary example of how HE/JESUS treats homosexuals
> (let us not forget that the servant was a sexual servant per the ancient
> language.)

Unlikely. Servant in the NT does mean slave though.

Christians typically ignore Jesus. Jesus tells us to call no man father,
what do all RCCs call their priests? What word does Pope really signify.

Jesus commands no religous oaths. So all courts for centuries have
demanded religous oaths, hands on bible, and the miserable xians put
forbidden religous oaths on money.

Prayer is to be private.
So naturally xians do the opposite.

Christians are commanded to avoid repetitive rote prayer.
So the Catholics have rosaries.

Chrisitians are commanded by god via the holy ghost to live
in holy communism, see Acts 4.
Luke 19, forsake all you have.

Leviticus 20 commands death to homosexuals.
To this day, the homophobes twist their faces in hate at
the very concept of homosexuality.
The verse right after that commands adulterers be executed.

The same ugly, red faced haters, visages twisted into distorted
ugly homphobia, will happily line up to vote for adulterous
right wing politicians.

I cannot take somebody that stupid seriously except in the
manner I take a nest of rats seriously.
A problem demanding traps.

> Yet Christian ministers damn the homosexual which
> contradicts Jesus own Actions. Ah but I always forget that the
> Christian church doesn't follow Jesus though, they follow Paul. It's
> too bad, I really like the Jesus guy. He was quite the Mensch.
>
> So can like actions be found in CO$? Does Hubbard teach something that
> is not only ignored but treated in the opposite fashion?
>
> Ramona
>
> Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>
>> http://www.lovewonout.com/
>>
>> Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.
>>
>> ---
>> http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
>> http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
>> http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
>> "After all, there's more to this world than tits." - Uncle Vic
>>

--
"Today the official spokesman for the Foxes
agreed an investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed."

Cheerful Charlie

Ramona

unread,

Sep 13, 2005, 9:34:57 AM9/13/05

to

WCB wrote:
> Ramona wrote:
>
>
>>Here is what I simply do not "get." Christian God Jesus is quoted as
>>saying that divorce is not allowed save for adultery. Oddly enough
>>christian ministers are happy to marry people that have been divorced.
>>Jesus who "heals" the servant of the Centurian is a seemingly forgotten
>>action, but is the primary example of how HE/JESUS treats homosexuals
>>(let us not forget that the servant was a sexual servant per the ancient
>>language.)
>
>
> Unlikely. Servant in the NT does mean slave though.

Pais tends to mean MORE than just slave.

http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Fulfilllaw_Buzz.html
http://www.westernfrontonline.com/vfeedback/frontend.v?ACTION=display_post&Post_ID=b9b000a4f3407cf2fa096454ec5d1599

>
> Christians typically ignore Jesus. Jesus tells us to call no man father,
> what do all RCCs call their priests? What word does Pope really signify.
>
> Jesus commands no religous oaths. So all courts for centuries have
> demanded religous oaths, hands on bible, and the miserable xians put
> forbidden religous oaths on money.
>
> Prayer is to be private.
> So naturally xians do the opposite.
>
> Christians are commanded to avoid repetitive rote prayer.
> So the Catholics have rosaries.
>
> Chrisitians are commanded by god via the holy ghost to live
> in holy communism, see Acts 4.
> Luke 19, forsake all you have.
>
> Leviticus 20 commands death to homosexuals.

But death is also proscibed to children committing acts against their
parents in the hebrew bible.

> To this day, the homophobes twist their faces in hate at
> the very concept of homosexuality.
> The verse right after that commands adulterers be executed.

EXACTLY!! Ignore one and damn the other.

>
> The same ugly, red faced haters, visages twisted into distorted
> ugly homphobia, will happily line up to vote for adulterous
> right wing politicians.
>
> I cannot take somebody that stupid seriously except in the
> manner I take a nest of rats seriously.
> A problem demanding traps.

That's why I have killfiled Ruby. I responded to Kim, yeah it's Ruby by
proxy, but it just makes me sick to see so much hate being promoted
attempting to "rescue" scientologist. I breaks my heart that someone
would believe this to be the best a diety can do, is to hate It's own
creation.

Ramona

mail.com

unread,

Sep 13, 2005, 12:24:27 PM9/13/05

to

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:12:24 GMT, FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric
L. Rice) wrote:

> http://www.lovewonout.com/
> Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.

I went; I looked; I saw; I vomited. The web site claims they can
PREVENT homosexuality. That is like claiming one can prevent being
born black.

> ---
> http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
> http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
> http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
> "After all, there's more to this world than tits." - Uncle Vic
>

---
http://lastliberal.org / I support privatization of religion.
Free random & sequential signature changer http://holysmoke.org/sig

Hartley Patterson

unread,

Sep 13, 2005, 1:15:01 PM9/13/05

to

Fredric L. Rice FR...@SkepticTank.ORG:

> http://www.lovewonout.com/
>
> Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.

I wouldn't call it that. Illogical religious unreality perhaps. They
sincerely believe they are motivated by love.

--
Alt.Religion.Scientology FAQ
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/faq.htm

Fredric L. Rice

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 1:15:21 AM9/14/05

to

desertphile@hot mail.com (David Rice, Esq.) wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:12:24 GMT, FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>> http://www.lovewonout.com/ Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.
>I went; I looked; I saw; I vomited. The web site claims they can
>PREVENT homosexuality. That is like claiming one can prevent being
>born black.

Get a look at their "experts." I was thinking I would take those
hate mongering Christian fuckers' photographs and use them in a web
site that has them curing negros of their dark skin.

Simkatu

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 1:42:01 AM9/14/05

to

Hartley Patterson wrote:
> Fredric L. Rice FR...@SkepticTank.ORG:
>
>>http://www.lovewonout.com/
>>
>>Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.
>
> I wouldn't call it that. Illogical religious unreality perhaps. They
> sincerely believe they are motivated by love.

Well the folks at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS are admittedly
not motivated by love. They believe in a hateful and vengeful God.

Rev. Phelps of Westboro Baptist runs the web site www.godhatesfags.com
where he has many pages of vile like this:

"SODOMY IS AN ABOMINABLE SIN, WORTHY OF DEATH."
"GOD HATES ALL WORKERS OF INIQUITY."
"JESUS CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE."
"ONLY GOD'S ELECT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO BELIEVE."

And then his newest kick is www.godhatesamerica.com where instead of
just protesting gay pride parades and AIDS funerals and Matthew
Shephard's mom....now he goes to the funerals of dead American soldiers
to protest America itself.

Here's what he had to say about Katrina:

"Thank God for Katrina -- New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what
it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter."

"Pray for more dead bodies floating on the fag-semen-rancid waters of
New Orleans."

"Pray for more American bodies blown to smithereens by cheap home made
Iraqi IEDs - like the IED America bombed WBC with August 20, 1995,
hoping thereby to terrorize us into silence about America's fag sins."

I've seen this vile scumbag and his family protesting at churches and
funerals. He even has young children hold up placards with depictions
of homosexual sex on them.

Piltdown Man

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 2:30:48 AM9/14/05

to

Ramona <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote...

Not that it really matters, but...

<snip>

> >>Jesus who "heals" the servant of the Centurian is a seemingly forgotten
> >>action, but is the primary example of how HE/JESUS treats homosexuals
> >>(let us not forget that the servant was a sexual servant per the
> >>ancient language.)

This is where I thought "huh???"

<snip>

> Pais tends to mean MORE than just slave.

Its basic meaning is just "child" or "young person", and either
"boy"/"young man" or "girl"/"young woman" depending on further grammatical
context. As in many languages, a general word with that meaning also had
extended meanings, such as "servant", "slave", "low-ranking employee", etc.
For instance, "boy" in English came to denote a slave too, "maid" came to
denote a particular type of domestic employee, etc.

But the claim that there is a specifically sexual connotation to the word
as used in Matthew 8:5-13 is completely incorrect. The two URLs you
give in an apparent attempt at substantiation don't substantiate anything
at all.

> http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Fulfilllaw_Buzz.html

That page basically makes the bizarre claim that any male personal servant
of a Roman army officer was also necessarily a sexual partner. This is
obviously total nonsense. There are no quotes or cites of any linguistic or
historical sources. It's just a convoluted attempt to twist a legendary
story about Jesus supposedly performing yet another miraculous healing into
him supposedly approving of gay relationships, mainly based on the author's
fertile imagination, supported by scraps of half- and non-truths.

> http://www.westernfrontonline.com/vfeedback/frontend.v?ACTION=
> display_post&Post_ID=b9b000a4f3407cf2fa096454ec5d1599

That page just contains the same incorrect claim you were making earlier:

"The author chose 'paias,' not 'uios' (son), or 'duolos' (slave), but
'paias,' a word which refers to a young male kept for sexual purposes
(the root of English 'pederasty'); it is an unambiguous and deliberate
choice".

Once again, no source of any kind is quoted or cited. Bringing up the
English word "pederasty" is a dishonest way to imply a sexual connotation
that isn't there. "Pederasty" derives from a declined form of "pais",
"paidos", and "erastos" which means "lover". "Pederast" means "a lover of
boys". The sexual aspect is inherent in the "lover" bit, not the "boy" bit.
(The first URL you gave also tries this trick, and even claims that "pais"
on its own means "boy lover".)

What makes these feeble attempts to somehow link this story to
homosexuality even feebler is that in the version of the same story told in
Luke 7:7, the word "doulos" is used, which unambiguously just means
"slave" or "servant".

What I can't understand is: why does anyone bother to come up with such
inanities? The people who are convinced that the Bible is the word of God
and that it says all gay people are evil aren't going to be convinced. They
wouldn't even be convinced if it *did* make linguistic sense. And the rest
of the world doesn't care in the first place.

Piltdown Man

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 2:31:01 AM9/14/05

to

Ramona <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote...

<snip>

> Ah but I always forget that the
> Christian church doesn't follow Jesus though, they follow Paul. It's
> too bad, I really like the Jesus guy. He was quite the Mensch.

It has been observed by many scholars who know something about
first-century Judaism (unlike most Christian theologians, that is) that if
you gather all the sayings attributed to Jesus in the NT, there's really
nothing there that couldn't come straight out of the Talmud. How this
shadowy, historically undocumented Pharisee rabbi somehow turned into the
central deity in the religion created by Paul will remain one of history's
great mysteries.

Lisa Ruby

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 3:48:21 AM9/14/05

to

Fredric L. Rice wrote:

>Contemporary Christianity: abject
>hatred.

Religious tolerance.org, which loves to
promote the "Christians are hateful" New World
Order propaganda, links to the article Fredric
Rice cited above.

They have also pasted an article written by Bob
Enyart that reveals his own role in promoting the
"Christians are terrorists" conditioning.

Bob Enyart, pastor, radio host commentator and
purportedly a Chrstian, believes that anyone who
commits homosexual behavior should be executed:

"Anyone performing homosexual behavior, upon
conviction, will be executed."

Here are the first two pages from Bob Enyart's
book, The First Five Days.

SHADOWGOV.COM is a fictional essay which describes
the takeover of the existing American government
by a shadow government of the Christian religious
right. The United States becomes a theocratic
dictatorship overnight. In their first two days
in office, the new government issues two proclamations, implementing a
number of basic changes in the country:

All inmates currently on death row
were to be publicly executed on the second day
of the new government. "The penalty for murder
is death, as is the penalty for attempted murder,
conspiracy to murder, advocacy of murder and all
other capital crimes," such as homosexual behavior.

Individuals convicted of performing an abortion
would be executed. Painless executions would be
abolished. The victim's families would have the right
to kill the convicted murder, by stabbing, shooting, strangulation,
etc.

Persons convicted of advocating access to abortion
would be executed. Feminists Pat Schroeder and
Gloria Alred were arrested and tried for the new crime
of advocating access to legal abortions.

Jury trials were suspended; all trials are by judge.
The accused are tried almost immediately without
having any time to prepare their case or hire a lawyer.
The rationale is that the community has a right to a
speedy trial. The penalty for being in contempt of court
is flogging.

Homosexual establishments (e.g. bars, publishing
facilities, support groups, etc.) are closed and
padlocked.

"Anyone performing homosexual behavior, upon
conviction, will be executed."

The media debates whether the death penalty
requires gay or lesbian sexual activity, or
whether it would include the mere state of
having a homosexual orientation.

quoted from
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hate2.htm

barb

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 5:45:41 AM9/14/05

to

Fredric L. Rice wrote:

It worked for Michael Jackson...

--
--barb
Chaplain,ARSCC
xenu...@netscape.net

"Imagine a church so dangerous, you must sign a release
form before you can receive its "spiritual assistance."
This assistance might involve holding you against your
will for an indefinite period, isolating you from
friends and family, and denying you access to
appropriate medical care. You will of course be billed
for this treatment - assuming you survive it. If not,
the release form absolves your caretakers of all
responsibility for your suffering and death.

Welcome to the Church of Scientology."

--Dr. Dave Touretzky
Peter Alexander

Rev. Norle Enturbulata

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 6:50:04 AM9/14/05

to

Alas, extremists on either side rarely have anything to offer but hatred of
others, and in this hatred these disparate people actually find themselves
in unity with the very folks they hate.

"Simkatu" <Sim...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4327b825$1...@news2.lightlink.com...

Ramona

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 9:09:24 AM9/14/05

to

I love the "examples" they always find of "cured" individuals. Give it
10 years and we will see how well the "cure" holds.

Ramona

theteabaggame

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 9:50:13 AM9/14/05

to

Don't they know that only lesbians are curable?

Ramona

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 9:57:51 AM9/14/05

to

Piltdown Man wrote:

> Ramona <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote...
>
> Not that it really matters, but...
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>Jesus who "heals" the servant of the Centurian is a seemingly forgotten
>>>>action, but is the primary example of how HE/JESUS treats homosexuals
>>>>(let us not forget that the servant was a sexual servant per the
>>>>ancient language.)
>
>
> This is where I thought "huh???"

>
> <snip>
>
>>Pais tends to mean MORE than just slave.
>
>
> Its basic meaning is just "child" or "young person", and either
> "boy"/"young man" or "girl"/"young woman" depending on further grammatical
> context.

Greco/Roman society did not have the sexual bias that is found in the
Judeo/Christo culture. The Greco/Roman culture also perceived women as
not sexual objects, but bearers of offspring, pleasure was derived from
other males, be it company of the companionship of young men/boys. This
is typical of patriarchal and pagan societies. You did study ancient
history?

As in many languages, a general word with that meaning also had
> extended meanings, such as "servant", "slave", "low-ranking employee", etc.

Exactly. And based on lifestyle, this was the NORM.

> For instance, "boy" in English came to denote a slave too, "maid" came to
> denote a particular type of domestic employee, etc.
>
> But the claim that there is a specifically sexual connotation to the word
> as used in Matthew 8:5-13 is completely incorrect.

I disagree. Again, women were for bearing babies and were held in very
low regard.

The two URLs you
> give in an apparent attempt at substantiation don't substantiate anything
> at all.

" http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biol3/long5.html
Tom Horner, author of David Loved Jonathan: Homosexuality in Biblical
Times, points out that in Matthew, the earlier account and directed to a
Greek-speaking Jewish audience, the word for servant is pais - which
means "boy", but can also mean "servant", and, given the rather greater
than average concern for a servant demonstrated by the centurion, can
also mean "lover". The word "pederasty" for instance derives from pais.

Luke, who was writing in a much more Greek milieu changes the word pais
to the much more neutral doulos ("servant" or "slave"), presumably aware
of its homosexual implications to any reader with a Greek cultural
background. Jesus, clearly, does not condemn the centurion in this story
of faith."

Are there graphic pictures of the Centurian and his male lover? No, but
based on language, and religious beliefs, and societal norms of the time
and culture inferences can be made. This is not a new concept. I
recall it from History of Western Civilization Class over 20 years ago.
It was taught by a very Roman Catholic professor to boot. He made a
point of telling the class that while he taught history, he
compartmentalized his religious beliefs which were in direct conflict
with knowns.

>
>
>>http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Fulfilllaw_Buzz.html
>
>
> That page basically makes the bizarre claim that any male personal servant
> of a Roman army officer was also necessarily a sexual partner.

Because that was the NORM. Females in those societies were held as
chattel for the purpose of childbearing. This was held in stark
contrast to the Hebrew women that were shop owners and in control of
family finances as a norm. I doubt that adding that "healing" was
accidental, but a missionary tool.

This is
> obviously total nonsense.

Not if you have studied ancient history.

There are no quotes or cites of any linguistic or
> historical sources.

You would have had to do a little footwork yourself. See the first
paragraph. "Pederasty" for instance derives from pais.

It's just a convoluted attempt to twist a legendary
> story about Jesus supposedly performing yet another miraculous healing into
> him supposedly approving of gay relationships, mainly based on the author's
> fertile imagination, supported by scraps of half- and non-truths.

I think it was an attempt to draw converts from that Greco/roman
society. It ultimately worked now, didn't it?

>
>
>>http://www.westernfrontonline.com/vfeedback/frontend.v?ACTION=
>>display_post&Post_ID=b9b000a4f3407cf2fa096454ec5d1599
>
>
> That page just contains the same incorrect claim you were making earlier:
>
> "The author chose 'paias,' not 'uios' (son), or 'duolos' (slave), but
> 'paias,' a word which refers to a young male kept for sexual purposes
> (the root of English 'pederasty'); it is an unambiguous and deliberate
> choice".
>
> Once again, no source of any kind is quoted or cited.

While you ignore the inferred, the word "pederast" can be found in your
very own dictionary a very good source. It comes from the Greek
"Paiderastia," just as you can find the word Pedestrian derived from
"pedester" on foot. So while you might not like the source or the
facts, they remain. You might also want to read a few books on the
norms of Ancient Western Civilization, perhaps even take some courses
and then you will have plenty of additional source materials.

For giggles study the difference between the words "Almah" and
"Bethulah." The word chosen makes all the difference between a young
woman (not necessarily a virgin) and a virgin.

Bringing up the
> English word "pederasty" is a dishonest way to imply a sexual connotation
> that isn't there. "Pederasty" derives from a declined form of "pais",
> "paidos", and "erastos" which means "lover". "Pederast" means "a lover of
> boys". The sexual aspect is inherent in the "lover" bit, not the "boy" bit.
> (The first URL you gave also tries this trick, and even claims that "pais"
> on its own means "boy lover".)

Do you not understand how we have derived our language? Again, find a
good unabridged dictionary. Then if you find a meaning "dishonest"
complain to Webster.

>
> What makes these feeble attempts to somehow link this story to
> homosexuality even feebler is that in the version of the same story told in
> Luke 7:7, the word "doulos" is used, which unambiguously just means
> "slave" or "servant".
>
> What I can't understand is: why does anyone bother to come up with such
> inanities?

It's called the study of Ancient History and language. It's actually
quite fun. And you know the adage about not studying history. ;-)

The people who are convinced that the Bible is the word of God
> and that it says all gay people are evil aren't going to be convinced. They
> wouldn't even be convinced if it *did* make linguistic sense. And the rest
> of the world doesn't care in the first place.

Sometimes it's not about making anybody happy, but finding out meaning.
I realize that the fundies are going to ignore the facts, but then
they believe that if "Jesus wrote the bible in English it's good enough
for me." They want no more information, don't tell them that King James
was a known homosexual that paid for the rewriting of the bible, the
very version they likely use. Ah, but knowing those bits and pieces
sure gives me a giggle.

Ramona
>

Ramona

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 11:21:28 AM9/14/05

to

Simkatu wrote:

> Hartley Patterson wrote:
>
>> Fredric L. Rice FR...@SkepticTank.ORG:
>>
>>> http://www.lovewonout.com/
>>>
>>> Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't call it that. Illogical religious unreality perhaps. They
>> sincerely believe they are motivated by love.
>
>
> Well the folks at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS are admittedly
> not motivated by love. They believe in a hateful and vengeful God.

It's all about feeling superior. If I denegrate and belittle you, I
must be "better" than you. In religious history terminology it's
supersessionism. Each new religion is deried from that which is older.
The new religion takes from the old then distances itself from it's
roots and then calls itself the improved version. Since Christianity is
already a fairly old religion, the old days of supercessionism regarding
Judaism alone have transformed into supercessionism of sects within the
organization itself with each group as the superior and truer version
of the original.

Ramona

mail.com

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 11:56:05 AM9/14/05

to

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 05:15:21 GMT, FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric
L. Rice) wrote:

> desertphile@hot mail.com (David Rice, Esq.) wrote:

> >On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:12:24 GMT, FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> >> http://www.lovewonout.com/ Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.

> >I went; I looked; I saw; I vomited. The web site claims they can
> >PREVENT homosexuality. That is like claiming one can prevent being
> >born black.

> Get a look at their "experts." I was thinking I would take those
> hate mongering Christian fuckers' photographs and use them in a web
> site that has them curing negros of their dark skin.

The web site reminds me of Scientologist signing their insane shit
with "Much Love" at the bottom: calling hatred "love" is
revolting.

> ---
> http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
> http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
> http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
> "After all, there's more to this world than tits." - Uncle Vic
>

---

mail.com

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 12:01:14 PM9/14/05

to

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:45:41 -0700, barb <bwa...@cox.net> wrote:

> Fredric L. Rice wrote:

> > desertphile@hot mail.com (David Rice, Esq.) wrote:

> >>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:12:24 GMT, FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://www.lovewonout.com/ Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.

> >>I went; I looked; I saw; I vomited. The web site claims they can
> >>PREVENT homosexuality. That is like claiming one can prevent being
> >>born black.

> > Get a look at their "experts." I was thinking I would take those
> > hate mongering Christian fuckers' photographs and use them in a web
> > site that has them curing negros of their dark skin.

> It worked for Michael Jackson...

Nicole Kidman stated that Tom Cruise is not homosexual. How the
bloody hell would she know? There are a hell of a lot of women
married to homosexuals.

> --
> --barb
> Chaplain,ARSCC
> xenu...@netscape.net
>
> "Imagine a church so dangerous, you must sign a release
> form before you can receive its "spiritual assistance."
> This assistance might involve holding you against your
> will for an indefinite period, isolating you from
> friends and family, and denying you access to
> appropriate medical care. You will of course be billed
> for this treatment - assuming you survive it. If not,
> the release form absolves your caretakers of all
> responsibility for your suffering and death.
>
> Welcome to the Church of Scientology."
>
> --Dr. Dave Touretzky
> Peter Alexander
>

---

mail.com

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 12:10:26 PM9/14/05

to

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:42:01 -0500, Simkatu <Sim...@gmail.com>
wrote:

(Trimmed)

> I've seen this vile scumbag and his family protesting at churches and
> funerals. He even has young children hold up placards with depictions
> of homosexual sex on them.

A rather recent study tended to demonstrate a link between hatered
of homosexuals and latent homosexuality.

Here is an abstract from Adams, H.E., L.W. Wright Jr, B.A. Lohr
(1996) dissertation titled "Is 'homophobia' associated with
homosexual arousal?" published in _Journal of Abnormal Psychology_
105(3): pg. 440-445.

"The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in
exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward
homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of
'homophobic' men (n = 35) and a group of non-'homophobic' men (n =
29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on
the Index of 'Homophobia' (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980).
The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli
consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian
videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored.
They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M.
Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile
circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos.
ONLY THE 'HOMOPHOBIC' MEN SHOWED AN INCREASE IN PENILE ERECTION TO
MALE HOMOSEXUAL STIMULI. The groups did not differ in aggression.
'Homophobia' is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that
the 'homophobic' individual is either unaware of or denies."

[CAPITAL LETTERS EMPHASIS is mine, not in the original.]

Ramona

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 12:18:50 PM9/14/05

to

David Rice, Esq. wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:45:41 -0700, barb <bwa...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>
>
>>>desertphile@hot mail.com (David Rice, Esq.) wrote:
>
>
>>>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:12:24 GMT, FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.lovewonout.com/ Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.
>
>
>>>>I went; I looked; I saw; I vomited. The web site claims they can
>>>>PREVENT homosexuality. That is like claiming one can prevent being
>>>>born black.
>
>
>>>Get a look at their "experts." I was thinking I would take those
>>>hate mongering Christian fuckers' photographs and use them in a web
>>>site that has them curing negros of their dark skin.
>
>
>>It worked for Michael Jackson...
>
>
> Nicole Kidman stated that Tom Cruise is not homosexual. How the
> bloody hell would she know? There are a hell of a lot of women
> married to homosexuals.

My best friend's twin sister was married to man. After her pregnancy,
her man became stressed initially telling her that he was a
transvestite, though he also stated he was definately not gay. Soon
thereafter he came "out" with the truth. Not only was he not a
transvestite, but he was a transexual. He has since had completion
surgery and is known by a female name...oddly enough he picked the name
of my friend and his middle name was that of the twins' mother. As for
the baby...he as a she demanded that the child be told he was dead. You
see as a female she denied paternity.

So a short story is made incredibly long...a wife would not know the
truth unless it was told as the truth.

Ramona

Hartley Patterson

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 1:04:04 PM9/14/05

to

Simkatu Sim...@gmail.com:

> Hartley Patterson wrote:
> > Fredric L. Rice FR...@SkepticTank.ORG:
> >
> >>http://www.lovewonout.com/
> >>
> >>Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.
> >
> > I wouldn't call it that. Illogical religious unreality perhaps. They
> > sincerely believe they are motivated by love.
>
> Well the folks at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS are admittedly
> not motivated by love. They believe in a hateful and vengeful God.

Indeed. Dumping everyone who disagrees with you in the evil box is however
what the CoS does; I wouldn't want to be caught doing the same.

Piltdown Man

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 8:40:59 PM9/14/05

to

Ramona <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote...

> Piltdown Man wrote:
<snip>
> >>Pais tends to mean MORE than just slave.
> >
> > Its basic meaning is just "child" or "young person", and either
> > "boy"/"young man" or "girl"/"young woman" depending on further
> > grammatical context.
>
> Greco/Roman society did not have the sexual bias that is found in the
> Judeo/Christo culture. The Greco/Roman culture also perceived women as
> not sexual objects, but bearers of offspring, pleasure was derived from
> other males, be it company of the companionship of young men/boys. This
> is typical of patriarchal and pagan societies.

You mean, patriarchal societies such as the ones portrayed in the Old
Testament? Wow! That the OT patriarchs "derived their pleasure" from the
"companionship of young men/boys" is new to me. I'm not sure what you mean
by "pagan societies", though, considering that word is meaningless outside
of Christianity.

> You did study ancient history?

Apparently more than you ever did. Graeco/Roman culture (as if that's some
kind of monolithic entity in the first place) didn't perceive women as
sexual objects? Have you ever *looked* at any Greek or Roman pornography?
(Because it's Greek or Roman, it's usually called "erotic art", not "porn",
but it's the same thing.) The vast majority of pornographic depictions, of
erotic literature, of love poetry, of love stories,... from those cultures
are heterosexual in nature. The vast majority of prostitutes in the Roman
empire were women. The vast majority of sexual liaisons mentioned in
biographical accounts of the Roman emperors were heterosexual. The claim
that young men and boys were seen as the only source of sexual pleasure and
women only as bearers of offspring is ludicrous.

Anyway, what has any of this got to do with the meaning of the word
"pais" in first-century koine?

> > As in many languages, a general word with that meaning also had
> > extended meanings, such as "servant", "slave", "low-ranking employee",
> > etc.
>
> Exactly. And based on lifestyle, this was the NORM.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I simply pointed out that in Greek as in
many other languages, general words for "child" or "young person" also are
used to mean varying kinds of "servant" (as in English with "boy", or
"girl", or "maid", or "groom" for instance). What "lifestyle" and what
"NORM" are you on about, and how does it relate to what I stated?

<snip>

> > But the claim that there is a specifically sexual connotation to the
> > word as used in Matthew 8:5-13 is completely incorrect.
>
> I disagree.

Now there's an impressive argument. "I disagree."

Can you come up with one single legitimate source (not some nonsense on
obscure websites) that shows that the word "pais" in first-century Koine
had the specific meaning of "a young male kept for sexual purposes", and
didn't just mean "boy"/"young man"/"servant/slave" etc., as every
dictionary seems to say it does? (I'm not holding my breath waiting.)

> Again, women were for bearing babies and were held in very
> low regard.

What has this got to do with the meaning of the word "pais" in
first-century Koine? It seems especially irrelevant since "pais" means
"girl"/"young woman" too.

> > The two URLs you
> > give in an apparent attempt at substantiation don't substantiate
> > anything at all.
>
> " http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biol3/long5.html

Oh goody, a third URL. We all know that anything stated on at least three
web pages is true. And the briefest look at this particular web page
certainly suggests it's an extremely reliable and scholarly source. After
all, it's got the author's name at the top in a jaunty handwritten form
embellished with rainbow colours, uses the Microsoft Comic font throughout,
and is all about a fictional Christian "martyr", Saint Longinus. (Luckily
for Longinus, not actually having existed is no bar to martyrdom and
sainthood.)

> Tom Horner, author of David Loved Jonathan: Homosexuality in Biblical
> Times,

Nobody told him that David and Jonathan are mythological figures, and that
they, and the "biblical times" they supposedly lived in, never existed?

> points out that in Matthew, the earlier account and directed to a
> Greek-speaking Jewish audience,

Not that it's relevant to the meaning of "pais", but how does he know it's
"the earlier account", or who it was directed to? None of the gospels can
be dated with any certainty, and there is not a shred of information about
the dating of the sources the compilers of the gospels drew on, or what
audience they were thinking of. "Account" also suggests that the events
described actually happened. There is no reason to assume this.

> the word for servant is pais - which
> means "boy", but can also mean "servant", and, given the rather greater
> than average concern for a servant demonstrated by the centurion,

Again, not that it's relevant, but how on earth does Tom Horner (or rather,
whoever put up the amateurish web page you're quoting from, who seems to be
offering a summary of Horner's views) know what the "average concern for a
servant" demonstrated by an "average" Roman centurion would be? And how
does he know that this concern would have been greater if he was also
having sex with the servant?

> can also mean "lover".

And here we go again. This is exactly the same bogus, backwards reasoning
exhibited on the other two web pages you quoted earlier. He starts by
assuming this fictional Roman centurion *must* have had a sexual
relationship with this fictional servant, *therefore* the word used to
describe him, "pais", must also mean "lover". That's not how it works,
sorry. Obviously, one can use the word "boy" in reference to a young male
lover, that doesn't mean that that's part of the meaning of the word. I
could come up with countless examples in present-day English of the word
"girl" being used in reference to female prostitutes, or women appearing in
porn movies. Using the same kind of pseudo-logic, I could therefore
conclude that "girl" means "a woman having sex for money". And at least in
those cases, it could be established that the women thus described actually
exist, and actually are having sex for money, unlike in the "centurion"
story. There, both the existence of the protagonists and their supposed
sexual connection is a matter of pure supposition.

The question remains: what are the references to other texts in Koine from
the first century AD, showing that "pais" meant "lover" or "a young male
kept for sexual purposes"? It's a very simple question to answer, if such
references exist.

> The word "pederasty" for instance derives from pais.

Sigh. We've already been over this one twice. "Pederasty" derives from
"pais" and "erastos", "lover". There is absolutely no sexual connotation in
the "pais" bit, only in the "erastos" bit. It's not a "for instance", it's
an irrelevancy. "Pediatry" also derives from "pais". So does "orthopaedic".
Those also count as "for instance" to support the claim that "pais" means
"lover"?

> Luke, who was writing in a much more Greek milieu

As with Matthew, nobody knows who wrote Luke, or for what audience. All we
know is that he had somewhat better Greek than the compilers of the other
three gospels, and thus, maybe, might have been a bit better-educated.

> changes the word pais
> to the much more neutral doulos ("servant" or "slave"), presumably aware
> of its homosexual implications to any reader with a Greek cultural
> background.

Oh god, here the twisted reasoning really goes into overdrive (but at
least, unlike the web pages you quoted earlier, he got the spelling of
"doulos" right).

First of all, the word wasn't "changed". That implies the story in Luke
derives from Matthew, and there is no reason to assume that. In fact, the
current consensus among most Biblical scholars (there is nothing about
which *all* Biblical scholars agree, of course) is that the compilers of
Matthew and Luke didn't know each other's texts. There is strong internal
evidence for this view.

Secondly, what is being claimed here is that the compiler of Luke,
allegedly writing for a "Greek milieu" and therefore one without the
Jewish prejudice against homosexuality, on purpose used a word *without* a
"homosexual implication", to hide the fact that his supposed source
allegedly written for a Jewish audience, Matthew, clearly indicated such an
implication. Not only is this the exact opposite of what you'd expect him
to do, but it also, as they say in court, once again assumes facts not in
evidence. Namely, the unsubstantiated claim that the word "pais" has a
"homosexual implication". In this truly outstanding example of circular
reasoning, the fact that the version of the story in Luke uses a word that
doesn't carry any sexual connotation is being used to support the claim
that the word "pais" in Matthew therefore *does* carry such a connotation,
and vice versa. And all without any reference to any other outside source.

> >>http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Fulfilllaw_Buzz.html
> >
> >
> > That page basically makes the bizarre claim that any male personal
> > servant of a Roman army officer was also necessarily a sexual
> > partner.
>
> Because that was the NORM.

No, it wasn't, silly. Where on earth did you get such a notion from? The
vast majority of personal servants did the same kind of things in Rome that
personal servants do and have always done in all cultures that have such
servants. Clean the house. Wash the clothes. Do the shopping. Serve the
meals. Take care of the children. Groom the horses. The idea that it was
the "norm" for Roman army officers to have a male slave for sex is
completely absurd. For starters, most of them wouldn't be able to afford
such a luxury item. And if Roman men were so uninterested in sex with women
except for procreation, and just saw them as "chattel for the purpose of
childbearing", how on earth did the documented huge numbers of female
prostitutes and the flourishing brothels in Roman cities where they worked
survive? Since you're an expert on Roman culture, I take it you have seen
the brothel wall paintings that were preserved in Pompei. Can you tell me
how many of them picture men having sex with women, and how many men having
sex with men?

> Females in those societies were held as chattel for the purpose
> of childbearing. This was held in stark contrast to the Hebrew
> women that were shop owners and in control of family finances
> as a norm.

This really is getting too absurd to try to respond to. Especially since
it's hasn't got anything at all to do with the meaning of the word "pais"
in first-century Koine.

<snip>

> There are no quotes or cites of any linguistic or
> > historical sources.
>
> You would have had to do a little footwork yourself.

I think I'm beginning to understand how your mind works. All
unsubstantiated claims someone plops on a web page somewhere, or posts in a
newsgroup cut-and-pasted from such a web page, are true, unless and until
someone else does the "footwork" to prove they're false.

> See the first
> paragraph. "Pederasty" for instance derives from pais.

That's the fourth time you've trotted out this irrelevant statement
(including the three quotes from other people). You think it becomes any
less ridiculously irrelevant with repetition?

> > It's just a convoluted attempt to twist a legendary
> > story about Jesus supposedly performing yet another miraculous healing
> > into him supposedly approving of gay relationships, mainly based on the
> > author's fertile imagination, supported by scraps of half- and
> > non-truths.
>
> I think it was an attempt to draw converts from that Greco/roman
> society. It ultimately worked now, didn't it?

Please try to follow what you're responding to. The "convoluted attempt"
referred to the silly webpage you cited, not to the NT miracle healing
story. And the Horner person you quoted in support (albeit second-hand)
just a few paragraphs above claims that the author of Luke *removed* a
homosexual implication from the story because he was writing for a Greek
audience. So which one is it?

> >>http://www.westernfrontonline.com/vfeedback/frontend.v?ACTION=
> >>display_post&Post_ID=b9b000a4f3407cf2fa096454ec5d1599
> >
> >
> > That page just contains the same incorrect claim you were making
> > earlier:
> >
> > "The author chose 'paias,' not 'uios' (son), or 'duolos' (slave), but
> > 'paias,' a word which refers to a young male kept for sexual
> > purposes (the root of English 'pederasty'); it is an unambiguous and
> > deliberate choice".
> >
> > Once again, no source of any kind is quoted or cited.
>
> While you ignore the inferred,

"Inferred" sources? "Inferred" quotes and cites? Both are novel concepts to
me. Please explain what you mean.

> the word "pederast"

And that makes it five times. At how many repetitions do you think it
finally will become relevant?

> can be found in your very own dictionary a very good source.

Sadly, I do not own a dictionary of first-century Koine. Based on the
authoritative way you carry on about the subject, you clearly do. So please
tell me which such dictionary you own, and quote its definition for "pais",
showing it means either "a young male kept for sexual purposes" or "lover".
Surely that's just a matter of taking it off the shelf and typing in a line
or so from the lemma "pais", to conclusively prove me wrong?

> It comes from the Greek "Paiderastia," just as you can find the
> word Pedestrian derived from "pedester" on foot.

And there she goes again, for the *sixth* time. What's so astonishing about
this tenacity in repeating nonsense is that I already explained the
derivation of "pederasty" in my first post in this thread.

> So while you might not like the source or the facts, they remain.

I've so far been unable to spot any sources or facts in anything you've
stated.

> > Bringing up the
> > English word "pederasty" is a dishonest way to imply a sexual
> > connotation that isn't there. "Pederasty" derives from a declined
> > form of "pais", "paidos", and "erastos" which means "lover".
> > "Pederast" means "a lover of boys". The sexual aspect is inherent
> > in the "lover" bit, not the "boy" bit.
> > (The first URL you gave also tries this trick, and even claims that
> > "pais" on its own means "boy lover".)
>
> Do you not understand how we have derived our language?

I guess that somehow, during the years I was getting my degree in
linguistics, all the people who taught me must have neglected to explain
this to me.

But I do wonder: are you too thick to understand my paragraph about the
derivation of "pederasty" you replied to, or did you once again just
not bother to read it properly? It must be one or the other.

> Again, find a good unabridged dictionary.

What good unabridged dictionary of first-century Koine would you recommend,
Oh Wise One? And which are the bad unabridged dictionaries of first-century
Koine, just to make sure I don't go wrong in my search?

> Then if you find a meaning "dishonest" complain to Webster.

When it comes to English, I'll stick to the OED, thankyouverymuch, I have
no need for some American desk dictionary.

The dishonesty I referred to is the claim, which you've now touted at least
six times, that the existence of the English word "pederasty" is proof that
the Greek word "pais" has a sexual connotation. Anybody who can check a
dictionary, even an "abridged" one, can see that this is a blatant lie.

<snip>

> > What makes these feeble attempts to somehow link this story to
> > homosexuality even feebler is that in the version of the same story
> > told in Luke 7:7, the word "doulos" is used, which unambiguously
> > just means "slave" or "servant".
> >
> > What I can't understand is: why does anyone bother to come up with such
> > inanities?
>
> It's called the study of Ancient History and language.

So claiming on webpages or in newsgroups that "pais" means "a young male
kept for sexual purposes", or "lover", without offering any substantiation,
is "the study of Ancient History and language". Check.

Message has been deleted

Lisa Ruby

unread,

Sep 14, 2005, 10:41:39 PM9/14/05

to

Simkatu wrote:

>I've seen this Baptist preacher
>holding up placards saying "GOD HATES
>FAGS" at Churches, at funerals,
>and at high schools.

I've heard of such a thing. Such preachers are plants,
instigators, agent provacateurs. The same type of
Christian-in-name-only bombs abortion clinics and shoots
abortionists. They have an agenda to further--an anti-Christian
one---and they do it well.

Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net

Ramona

unread,

Sep 15, 2005, 10:43:04 AM9/15/05

to

Piltdown Man wrote:
> Ramona <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote...
>
>
>>Piltdown Man wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>Pais tends to mean MORE than just slave.
>>>
>>>Its basic meaning is just "child" or "young person", and either
>>>"boy"/"young man" or "girl"/"young woman" depending on further
>>>grammatical context.
>>
>>Greco/Roman society did not have the sexual bias that is found in the
>>Judeo/Christo culture. The Greco/Roman culture also perceived women as
>>not sexual objects, but bearers of offspring, pleasure was derived from
>>other males, be it company of the companionship of young men/boys. This
>>is typical of patriarchal and pagan societies.
>
>
> You mean, patriarchal societies such as the ones portrayed in the Old
> Testament? Wow! That the OT patriarchs "derived their pleasure" from the
> "companionship of young men/boys" is new to me.

Were OT societies Patriarchal AND Pagan?

I'm not sure what you mean
> by "pagan societies", though, considering that word is meaningless outside
> of Christianity.

And you have a degree in linguistics? Shocking!!

>
>
>>You did study ancient history?
>
>
> Apparently more than you ever did.

Clearly you concentrated on liguistics and skipped school bypassing a
rounded education regarding history.

Graeco/Roman culture (as if that's some
> kind of monolithic entity in the first place) didn't perceive women as
> sexual objects?

SO bathhouses aren't real and their function was only imaginary. Okay then.

Have you ever *looked* at any Greek or Roman pornography?
> (Because it's Greek or Roman, it's usually called "erotic art", not "porn",
> but it's the same thing.) The vast majority of pornographic depictions, of
> erotic literature, of love poetry, of love stories,... from those cultures
> are heterosexual in nature. The vast majority of prostitutes in the Roman
> empire were women. The vast majority of sexual liaisons mentioned in
> biographical accounts of the Roman emperors were heterosexual. The claim
> that young men and boys were seen as the only

Putting words in my mouth, which I did not say. Naughty naughty.

source of sexual pleasure and
> women only as bearers of offspring is ludicrous.

More of that naughty behavior. Would you deny that women were legally
property? Would you deny that property is treated differently than that
which is held to equal status? Clearly you would.

>
> Anyway, what has any of this got to do with the meaning of the word
> "pais" in first-century koine?
>
>
>>> As in many languages, a general word with that meaning also had
>>>extended meanings, such as "servant", "slave", "low-ranking employee",
>>>etc.
>>
>>Exactly. And based on lifestyle, this was the NORM.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I simply pointed out that in Greek as in
> many other languages, general words for "child" or "young person" also are
> used to mean varying kinds of "servant" (as in English with "boy", or
> "girl", or "maid", or "groom" for instance). What "lifestyle" and what
> "NORM" are you on about, and how does it relate to what I stated?

Context. Consider the social and economic status of the Centurion.
Consider that the sexual bias of the Hebrew world was not inflicted upon
that society.

>
> <snip>
>
>>>But the claim that there is a specifically sexual connotation to the
>>>word as used in Matthew 8:5-13 is completely incorrect.
>>
>>I disagree.
>
>
> Now there's an impressive argument. "I disagree."
>
> Can you come up with one single legitimate source (not some nonsense on
> obscure websites) that shows that the word "pais" in first-century Koine
> had the specific meaning of "a young male kept for sexual purposes",

A "young male kept" is sufficient. My entire point is that one can
indeed intimate more into the role as "kept." Just as a kept woman is
more than sex, but companionship etc. Do you deny that homosexuality
was considered acceptable, normal, in that society?

and
> didn't just mean "boy"/"young man"/"servant/slave" etc., as every
> dictionary seems to say it does? (I'm not holding my breath waiting.)
>
>
>>Again, women were for bearing babies and were held in very
>>low regard.
>
>
> What has this got to do with the meaning of the word "pais" in
> first-century Koine?

Context. One must consider the time and the norms to determine meaning.
Surely you had to have learned that in school?!

It seems especially irrelevant since "pais" means
> "girl"/"young woman" too.

Huh oddly enough that word wasn't considered, regarding Mary, creating
the whole almah/bethulah problem.

The issue of words brings me back to CO$ and FAIR GAMES. On policy is
seemingly cancelled, but upon further study one finds that only the
words have been cancelled and not the policy.

Ramona

Clearly since you don't understand the concept of root words.

>
> But I do wonder: are you too thick to understand my paragraph about the
> derivation of "pederasty" you replied to, or did you once again just
> not bother to read it properly? It must be one or the other.
>
>
>>Again, find a good unabridged dictionary.
>
>
> What good unabridged dictionary of first-century Koine would you recommend,
> Oh Wise One? And which are the bad unabridged dictionaries of first-century
> Koine, just to make sure I don't go wrong in my search?
>
>
>>Then if you find a meaning "dishonest" complain to Webster.
>
>
> When it comes to English, I'll stick to the OED, thankyouverymuch, I have
> no need for some American desk dictionary.
>
> The dishonesty I referred to is the claim, which you've now touted at least
> six times, that the existence of the English word "pederasty" is proof that
> the Greek word "pais" has a sexual connotation. Anybody who can check a
> dictionary, even an "abridged" one, can see that this is a blatant lie.

Okay sure.

>
> <snip>
>
>>>What makes these feeble attempts to somehow link this story to
>>>homosexuality even feebler is that in the version of the same story
>>>told in Luke 7:7, the word "doulos"

Ah, so now you leap to a different author. haha

is used, which unambiguously
>>>just means "slave" or "servant".
>>>
>>>What I can't understand is: why does anyone bother to come up with such
>>>inanities?
>>
>>It's called the study of Ancient History and language.
>
>
> So claiming on webpages or in newsgroups that "pais" means "a young male
> kept for sexual purposes", or "lover", without offering any substantiation,
> is "the study of Ancient History and language". Check.
>

Again, I sent you a list of books that you oddly deleted. So, you have
been given plenty of resources to catch you up on ancient history. BTW I
never said that the exclusive purpose was for sexual reasons. Ah, but
you chose to ignore that and imagine otherwise. You ignore all to the
exclusion of language. Forget the bathhouses. If you don't look there
you won't see anything.

mail.com

unread,

Sep 15, 2005, 1:30:56 PM9/15/05

to

On 14 Sep 2005 19:41:39 -0700, "Lisa Ruby"
<Commis...@groupmail.com> wrote:

> Simkatu wrote:

> >I've seen this Baptist preacher
> >holding up placards saying "GOD HATES
> >FAGS" at Churches, at funerals,
> >and at high schools.

> i'VE heaRD of SUch a ThInG. SuCh preACHErS aRe PlAnts,
> INstIgAtoRS, AGent prOvACateuRS. THe SAmE TYPE of
> cHristIan-iN-NAmE-OnLY BomBs ABOrtIoN ClINicS AND ShoOts
> abORTiONiSts. THeY HaVE aN aGenDa TO FURtheR--an Anti-ChrIsTIan
> One---aND THey Do IT WELL.

Do they all have ear implants controling them?

Piltdown Man

unread,

Sep 16, 2005, 12:48:33 AM9/16/05

to

Ramona <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote...

<snip>

> Were OT societies Patriarchal AND Pagan?

The mythical "societies" in the OT were definitely patriarchal, that's
where the word comes from after all. "Pagan" is a word coined by Christians
during their power grab in the Roman empire in the first few centuries AD
to describe non-Christians who refused to convert. Later on, they started
applying it to other kinds of non-Christians, always in a highly derogatory
fashion. You seem to think it's some kind of universal anthropological
distinction that can be used to classify all human societies, including the
mythical ones in the OT, into either "pagan" or "non-pagan", regardless of
whether they've ever heard of Christianity, or whether they existed before
Christianity was even invented. I have no idea what your reasons are for
assuming such a dichotomy, or what your specific criteria are for applying
the label "pagan". I usually prefer not to get involved in such
theological, Christian-only, semantic brawls

<snip>

> > Have you ever *looked* at any Greek or Roman pornography?
> > (Because it's Greek or Roman, it's usually called "erotic art", not
> > "porn", but it's the same thing.) The vast majority of pornographic
> > depictions, of erotic literature, of love poetry, of love stories,...
> > from those cultures are heterosexual in nature. The vast majority of
> > prostitutes in the Roman empire were women. The vast majority of
> > sexual liaisons mentioned in biographical accounts of the Roman
> > emperors were heterosexual. The claim that young men and boys were
> > seen as the only
>
> Putting words in my mouth, which I did not say.

You're a liar, pure and simple. I didn't put any words into your mouth. I
properly quoted your statement: "The Greco/Roman culture also perceived

women as not sexual objects, but bearers of offspring, pleasure was derived

from other males". Just what part of that did I supposedly "put into your
mouth"? In response, I mentioned some examples of the huge amount of
evidence showing you're talking utter bollocks.

<snip, and the liar Ramona continues:>

> Would you deny that women were legally property?

So were many men. What's the idea, trying to twist this into a discussion
of Roman law, and the legal status of women vs. men, and slaves vs. free
men, at varying stages of the Empire? All to distract attention from your
absurd claims that:

(a) "Greco/Roman culture" (whatever that is) didn't perceive of women as
sexual objects, and that "those societies" only thought of women as
"chattel for the purpose of childbearing"; and that:

(b) "Pais" in first-century Koine meant "a young male kept for sexual
purposes", or "lover";

and of course that:

(c) I supposedly "put words in your mouth", which is a blatant lie.

> > I'm sorry, but I don't understand. I simply pointed out that in Greek
> > as in many other languages, general words for "child" or "young person"
> > also are used to mean varying kinds of "servant" (as in English with
> > "boy", or "girl", or "maid", or "groom" for instance). What "lifestyle"
> > and what "NORM" are you on about, and how does it relate to what I
> > stated?

> Context. Consider the social and economic status of the Centurion.
> Consider that the sexual bias of the Hebrew world was not inflicted upon
> that society.

The lying Queen of Irrelevancy strikes again. But she seems to be unable to
post a quote of any reputable source on first-century Koine showing that
"pais" meant "a young male kept for sexual purposes", or "lover".

<snip>

> > Can you come up with one single legitimate source (not some nonsense on
> > obscure websites) that shows that the word "pais" in first-century
> > Koine had the specific meaning of "a young male kept for sexual
> > purposes",

> A "young male kept" is sufficient. My entire point is that one can indeed
> intimate more into the role as "kept."

"Intimate more into the role as 'kept'" is gibberish. Somehow, I'm not
surprised that it seems to be your "entire point".

Please post a quote of any reputable source on first-century Koine showing
that "pais" meant "a young male kept for sexual purposes", or "lover".

> Just as a kept woman is more than sex, but companionship etc.

Please post a quote of any reputable source on first-century Koine showing
that "pais" meant "a young male kept for sexual purposes". Until you do so,
any discussion about what the English word "kept" does or doesn't imply is
irrelevant.

> Do you deny that homosexuality
> was considered acceptable, normal, in that society?

That is completely irrelevant to any of the claims you've made, lying
Ramona.

<snip>

> > What has this got to do with the meaning of the word "pais" in
> > first-century Koine?
>
> Context. One must consider the time and the norms to determine meaning.

Please post a quote of any reputable source on first-century Koine showing
that the meaning of "pais" is "a young male kept for sexual purposes", or
"lover". The people who put together such sources take into account
context. That's what they do for a living. And unlike Ramona, they know
Greek. They also usually aren't liars.

> >>Do you not understand how we have derived our language?
> >
> > I guess that somehow, during the years I was getting my degree in
> > linguistics, all the people who taught me must have neglected to
> > explain this to me.
>
> Clearly since you don't understand the concept of root words.

Please explain, oh Wise Ramona, Purveyor of All Truths Linguistical (and oh
yes, liar), how you have determined that I don't understand "the concept of
root words", and how this relates to your inability to come up with a quote
of any reputable source on first-century Koine showing that "pais" meant "a
young male kept for sexual purposes", or "lover".

<snip>

> > What good unabridged dictionary of first-century Koine would you
> > recommend, Oh Wise One? And which are the bad unabridged dictionaries
> > of first-century Koine, just to make sure I don't go wrong in my
> > search?

One notes that for some strange reason, the Wise Ramona, ARS expert in
residence on the meaning of words in first-century Koine (and linguistics
in general, and of course Ancient History of all kinds but in particular
that of Greco/Roman culture), decided to not answer this simple request for
information. One cannot help but wonder why.

>snip>
> >>>What makes these feeble attempts to somehow link this story to
> >>>homosexuality even feebler is that in the version of the same story
> >>>told in Luke 7:7, the word "doulos"
>
> Ah, so now you leap to a different author. haha

No you lying shit, I don't. You *really* don't read the posts you're
replying to, or even the web pages you quote here, do you? What you're
replying to I posted earlier in the thread (you see the ">>>"? Stop and
think: why are there three ">" thingies, not just one?)

The "leaping to a different author" was done by the people who put up the
web pages cited by *you*. I responded to those pages. They have to go into
painful pseudo-logical contortions to try and explain away the fact that
one of two versions of this story (in Matthew) uses the word "pais", which
they claim has a homosexual connotation, while the other version (in Luke)
doesn't use that word.

<snip>

> Again, I sent you a list of books that you oddly deleted.

You sent me a list of books? When? That's the first I've heard of this. How
did you send it? In email? (I haven't used a repliable email address in
this newsgroup for a while, but it isn't that difficult to track down a
real email address, or my real name.) And I then apparently deleted it, and
"oddly", too. How and when did I do this, considering I have no idea what
"list of books" you're on about? And you didn't just send it once, since
you use the word "again". I'm flabbergasted.

Which one of the books in this list was the dictionary of first-century
Koine containing the definition of "pais" as "a young male kept for sexual
purposes", or "lover"? Even more intriguingly, which of those books will
demonstrate to me that, say, the poetry of Virgil, or Catullus, or Horace,
or Ovid, or Martial, or Juvenal (to name just a few), shows that
"Greco/Roman culture" didn't perceive of women as sexual objects?

> So, you have been given plenty of resources to catch you up on ancient
> history. BTW I never said that the exclusive purpose was for sexual
> reasons.

The "exclusive purpose" of *what* didn't you ever say? You're talking
gibberish again.

What you did say was: "The Greco/Roman culture also perceived women as not

sexual objects, but bearers of offspring, pleasure was derived from other

males". Anybody with the barest minimum of knowledge of both Greek and
Roman cultures knows that that is complete nonsense. You also stated
unequivocally that all male servants of Roman army officers were also
sexual partners. At least, you claimed this was "the NORM" (no, not just
the "norm", the "NORM" -- we all know idiotic statements don't just become
more true the more times one repeats them, they also become more true when
one repeats them using CAPITALS.).

> Ah, but you chose to ignore that

What did I ignore, you liar? The imaginary "list of books" you supposedly
sent to me, and which I supposedly "oddly deleted"? Your ludicrous claims
that "Greco/Roman culture" didn't perceive women as sexual objects? Your
singular failure to come up with *any* kind of cite, quote or reference to
support your claims that "pais" in first-century Koine had any kind of
sexual connotation, and meant either "a young male kept for sexual
purposes", or "lover"?

ramona

unread,

Sep 19, 2005, 11:10:20 AM9/19/05

to

Piltdown Man wrote:
> Ramona <atlr...@gmail.com> wrote...
>
> <snip>
> > Were OT societies Patriarchal AND Pagan?
>
> The mythical "societies" in the OT were definitely patriarchal, that's
> where the word comes from after all. "Pagan" is a word coined by Christians
> during their power grab in the Roman empire in the first few centuries AD
> to describe non-Christians who refused to convert.

O.T. is also a Christian term. Rest assured that we Jews DO NOT use
such a term in conversation with one another. Because we live in a
Christian Society, I use the terms OT and Pagan because they keep us at
equal levels of understanding. You used the term O.T., but because I
understood what you were discussing I thought there was no need to make
correction.

Pagan 1. one of the people or community observing a polytheistic
religion, as the Romans and Greeks.

Yup, that would be the definition that covers Exactly the conversation.

> Later on, they started
> applying it to other kinds of non-Christians, always in a highly derogatory
> fashion.

And Mormons use the term Gentile in discussing non-mormons. I am
therefore a gentile, even though Jewish, to a mormon.

>You seem to think it's some kind of universal anthropological
> distinction that can be used to classify all human societies, including the
> mythical ones in the OT, into either "pagan" or "non-pagan", regardless of
> whether they've ever heard of Christianity,

Nope, just speaking in terminology that is a given in this a christian
society.

It's funny that so many people so easily get stuck on words.
Spacetraveler had his own issues with the Policy of Fair Games. He
wanted to believe it was a cancelled policy though clearly stated only
the words FAIR GAMES themselves were cancelled.

I also find it interesting that CO$ has it's own dictionary
superceeding other known words. But then supercessionism is the goal,
it would seem, of every newer religion.

Ramona

meje...@hotmail.com

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 2:51:11 PM9/25/05

to

Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> http://www.lovewonout.com/
>
> Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.

Nothing in that link above promotes hatred.

Michael

mail.com

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 5:20:31 PM9/25/05

to

> Fredric L. Rice wrote:

You are right. And nothing on the Ku Klux Klan web site promotes
hatred either. (Sheeeish!)

Do you *REALLY* believe that telling homosexuals they are mentally
ill and perverted is not an act of hatred?

meje...@hotmail.com

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 11:11:41 PM9/25/05

to

David Rice, Esq. wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2005 11:51:11 -0700, meje...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>
> > > http://www.lovewonout.com/
> > > Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.
>
> > Nothing in that link above promotes hatred.
>
> You are right. And nothing on the Ku Klux Klan web site promotes
> hatred either. (Sheeeish!)
>
> Do you *REALLY* believe that telling homosexuals they are mentally
> ill and perverted is not an act of hatred?

Show me what words in that page promote hatred.

Michael

mail.com

unread,

Sep 25, 2005, 11:54:49 PM9/25/05

to

> David Rice, Esq. wrote:

> > > Fredric L. Rice wrote:

Is your reading comprehension really that poor? Maybe Scientology
can help you with that!

Hatred #1: "Focus on the Family is promoting the truth that
homosexuality is preventable and treatable"

Hatred #2: "a message routinely silenced today." (including
conspiracy theory--- no doubt 'certain European bankers' eh?)

Hatred #3: "We want people to know that individuals don't have to
be gay."

Hatred #4: "A dynamic one-day conference addressing, understanding
and preventing homosexuality."

Hatred #5: "Come and witness the type of love that draws men and
women affected by homosexuality"

Hatred #6: "How do I help my friend who's gay?"

Hatred #7: "I especially appreciated was hearing from former
homosexuals"

All, and more, of these insanely hatful and vile statements are on
just that single web page. That one single web page proves beyong
any possibility of doubt that "Focus on the family" is a hate
group.

You're welcome.

meje...@hotmail.com

unread,

Sep 26, 2005, 11:38:56 AM9/26/05

to

David Rice, Esq. wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2005 20:11:41 -0700, meje...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > David Rice, Esq. wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Sep 2005 11:51:11 -0700, meje...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>
> > > > > http://www.lovewonout.com/
> > > > > Contemporary Christianity: abject hatred.
>
> > > > Nothing in that link above promotes hatred.
>
> > > You are right. And nothing on the Ku Klux Klan web site promotes
> > > hatred either. (Sheeeish!)
>
> > > Do you *REALLY* believe that telling homosexuals they are mentally
> > > ill and perverted is not an act of hatred?
>
> > Show me what words in that page promote hatred.
>
> Is your reading comprehension really that poor? Maybe Scientology
> can help you with that!
>
> Hatred #1: "Focus on the Family is promoting the truth that
> homosexuality is preventable and treatable"

Nothing hateful about that.

>
> Hatred #2: "a message routinely silenced today." (including
> conspiracy theory--- no doubt 'certain European bankers' eh?)

Nothing hateful about that.

>
> Hatred #3: "We want people to know that individuals don't have to
> be gay."

Nothing hateful about that.

>
> Hatred #4: "A dynamic one-day conference addressing, understanding
> and preventing homosexuality."

Nothing hateful about that.

>
> Hatred #5: "Come and witness the type of love that draws men and
> women affected by homosexuality"

Nothing hateful about that.

>
> Hatred #6: "How do I help my friend who's gay?"

Nothing hateful about that.

>
> Hatred #7: "I especially appreciated was hearing from former
> homosexuals"

Nothing hateful about that.
All of these statements are about love, not hate.

Michael

mail.com

unread,

Sep 26, 2005, 8:40:04 PM9/26/05

to

On 26 Sep 2005 08:38:56 -0700, meje...@hotmail.com wrote:

> David Rice, Esq. wrote:

> > Is your reading comprehension really that poor? Maybe Scientology
> > can help you with that!
> >
> > Hatred #1: "Focus on the Family is promoting the truth that
> > homosexuality is preventable and treatable"

> Nothing hateful about that.