The Original Sin: Heterosexuality
Ezekiel Krahlin
It was Adam and Eve who committed the original sin...says so right
there in The Old Testament, you know, "The Good Book", "The Bible".
GENESIS CHAPTER THREE. Adam and Eve were what? A man and a woman,
you know, as in "heterosexual." Original sin wasn't created between
two men or two women, you know, "Adam and Steve" or "Madame and Eve."
Adam and Eve broke God's law: they "knew" each other, as in "had
intercourse", as symbolized by the eating of the apple in the tree of
knowledge of good and evil. They "knew" each other: they "knew
evil". How obvious, how simple. God had other plans for human
procreation...to create new beings from our hearts and minds, just as
God and the angels do. But when this law was broken, he condemned
heterosexuals to give birth in an inferior way, just like animals...in
blood, feces, and pain.
All other sins are mere spinoffs of the original sin: The sin between
a man and a woman, the sin of heterosexual conjugal relations. It's
there, right there in The Good Book...and no one can erase or alter
that fact as plain is the nose at the end of your face.
No true homosexual woman or man would ever *dream* of violating that
most fundamental of God's law. We are persecuted by the descendants
of Adam and Eve: heterosexuals. Straight, homophobic bible-thumping
idiots who are *jealous* that we Lesbians and Thracians will never
have to answer to God for that original, most heinous of all sins:
for we are FREE FROM ORIGINAL SIN! Hallelujah, my gay sisters and
brothers, hallelujah to us all!
----------signature:
I prefer public dialogue...no personal replies, please
(except on request; will consider pen-pals).
Private, hostile comments will be re-posted in public.
Fr. John W. Morris
Ezekiel Krahlin <Chief_T...@Athenia.New> wrote in article
<33166c40...@news.wco.com>...
>
> Adam and Eve broke God's law: they "knew" each other, as in "had
> intercourse", as symbolized by the eating of the apple in the tree of
> knowledge of good and evil. They "knew" each other: they "knew
> evil". How obvious, how simple. God had other plans for human
> procreation...to create new beings from our hearts and minds, just as
> God and the angels do. But when this law was broken, he condemned
> heterosexuals to give birth in an inferior way, just like animals...in
> blood, feces, and pain.
>
That is just about the most warped interpretation of the Bible that I have
ever read. God created human sexuality. Human sexuality is therefore good.
Naturally, like everything else, we can misuse God's creation by misusing
our sexuality. It is a sin to misuse God's creation of sex.
The sin of Adam and Eve had nothing to do with sex. They sinned by thinking
that they did not need God. Therefore, their sin was pride, the root of all
sin.
+ Archpriest John
Jerry Tribe
Fr. John W. Morris wrote:
[snip]
> Therefore, their sin was pride, the root of all sin.
>
> + Archpriest John
Yes, isn't it just.
--
------ ------
Hell is a city much like Dis, and it's Pandemonium,
for why, "this is Hell, nor am I out of it".
------
Storm
You are correct in your statement that Adam and Eve are responsible
for 'original sin'. However, incorrect when you state that 'we' as
homosexuals are born free of original sin. The church states that ALL
men and women are BORN with original sin on their souls. Baptism
erases the sin. The church also states that the only person born
without original sin was the Virgin Mary ie: "The Immaculate
Conception". St. Anne gave birth to Mary without having sex (how I
don't know!)
This is of course if you believe all this. Considering how the bible
is mostly fables, but if you believe the world was created in seven
days then you can believe in Adam and Eve, The Original Sin and St.
Anne and St. Mary.
Brian, a Recovering Catholic
dmcdo...@accucharge.org
But we are neither men nor women - we are homosexuals.
John Sanger
>sin.
>
Supply the evidence for the existence of your invisible fictional
deity...
Without it what you have said is BULLSHIT!!
Ezekiel Krahlin
Are we men or are we mice? Neither...we are THRACIANS!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
declaration gratis to anyone, anywhere, any time...under
condition that the entire work remains intact and complete,
including title and credit to the original author: Ezekiel J.
Krahlin (ekra...@fog.net).
-------------------------------------------------------------
NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
copyright 1997 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
I hereby declare war against the United States Government,
and to all its people who support the federal sanction against
same-sex marriage... which may be a majority. The moment
government permits any state to officially and intentionally deny
a gay citizen's right to the pursuit of happiness--as indeed
marriage is a blissful goal--the door is open to establishing all
homophile women and men as second class citizens in perpetuity.
I perceive this unconstitutional, ungodly sanction as the
first step towards eradicating all known homosexuals in our sorry
nation. The bombing of the Lesbian lounge in Atlanta is just the
beginning...unless the federal government and mainstream
Christian churches--including African-American
congregations--immediately step in and aggressively fight back
against the jihad these homophobes have declared. (I'm not
holding my breath.) Their continued silence and foot-dragging on
the noble issue of same-sex-lover rights, puts blood on their
hands as surely as if they were right-wing fanatics themselves!
I urge all lesbians, gays, bisexuals, gender changers, their
supporters, and other so-called queer types to bear arms and take
to the streets...and push back the beast of homophobia that now
rears its ugly head in the eyes of the majority, who prowl this
gutted country like ghouls from The Night Of The Living Dead. For
all intent purposes, President Clinton has nodded his head in
approval of a nationwide witch hunt to kill us anywhere and
everywhere we are seen or known to abide...or at best to deny us
jobs, shelter, friendship, and equal treatment. Our President's
wavering on the "gays in the military" issue, along with the
signing of DOMA...places him in direct responsibility for
exacerbating the hostility against a basically harmless, and
decent, group of citizens: gay women and men.
Likewise for our so-called "liberal" straight friends...who
are too cowardly to display a pink triangle on their own
clothing, or a T-shirt or bumper sticker proclaiming: "Another
Hetero for Lesbian & Gay Rights". Yet they proudly wear slogans
and icons promoting the rights of African-Americans, women,
children, trees, animals, and so on. The Danes in World War II
sported stars of David to conceal the Jews from Nazis...but I
hear of none who displayed the pink triangle.
If you are heterosexual, and perceive yourself as a true
"progressive", then you would have no qualms in taking up this
noble banner of Homophile Liberation in the ways I have
suggested...else you, too, have blood on your hands. But if
heteros at large still refuse to see this as their fight,
too...we homosexuals can flood the straight bars, clubs, and
other hetero hangouts. Our presence, with pink triangles
emblazoned on our shirts and jackets, will turn these straight
clubs into targets of the Army of God and their ilk. Then, of
course, we'll have a lot more allies in the resistance--albeit
unwilling.
Be it known that I am proudly homosexual, that I am a
Christian who respects all other beliefs as equal, that I
presently go by the name Ezekiel Krahlin (formerly Gene
Catalano). Be it also known that I propose the new label
"Thracian" over "gay male," to symbolize the new-found
empowerment of the homophile community in this century's closing
decade. The word "gay" perpetuates a stereotype of ourselves as
flighty, emotional, and frivolous...not to be taken seriously, as
a citizen, as a human being, or as anything else! (Surely, women
have a similar complaint against male chauvanists.)
"Lesbian" is a beautiful term for the homosexual female; as
its name comes from a Greek Island with a rich, classical
history. The region of Thrace also has a great history, and
likewise plays an honored role in Hellenic culture...hence I coin
the term "Thracian" for those who are commonly thought of as "gay
male". Ancient Greeks first called their northern neighbors
"Thracians," and later, "Macedonians"...the people from whom
arose Alexander The Great. "Thracian" may also be used as a
general term for both homophile women and men, who are sick of
the belittling and ineffectual descriptor, "gay".
Heterosexism, chauvinism, misogyny, mysandry, homophobia,
pedophilia, racism, and bestiality are all blasphemies in God's
eyes, and in mine, and in the eyes of all good people. And if you
are good, you shall not perish. But woe to all others, for
Christ has come to destroy them for once and for eternity. He
will set up centers of protection as fast as possible, in order
to provide some security for His faithful. Under Jesus Christ's
inspiration, I declare Northern California a safe haven, and
demand protection by the United Nations Global Peacekeepers. I
also call for the secession of this region, and its establishment
as a government solely for and by Thracians and Lesbians...where
all beliefs are to be equally respected. As a body politik, we
are as the victorious David against Goliath: the giant of
homophobia shall be toppled and slain in our time.
Let it also be known that not every gay person is a friend.
Like any group of human beings, they have their ranks of evil
forces. True hearts are few and far between...love and be
constant to such friends--if indeed you have one--for you are
well blessed. For wherever there are two kindred hearts, there
Your Angel will be also, in spirit. Do not judge any person by
any category (such as gay or hetero, Jew or Christian, ugly or
handsome, poor or rich, white or black, etc.) But do judge her by
what comes from the heart, as expressed in words and deeds.
Civilization (for what it's worth) is about to go berserk;
the capitalist world as we know it is doomed. I trust that those
whom I can reach through this letter, already are taking action.
If you are wicked, it is not yet too late to change. I stand by
you in prayer, and hope you will join the valorous. For until the
last enemy is fallen, it is my duty to fight for every lost soul
until the final moment. Yes, I pray most ardently for the lost,
not for the risen.
In closing, I humbly attempt to give solace to my Thracian
sisters and brothers, with this quote from Psalm 35 (1-8):
Plead my cause, O Lord, with those who strive with me;
Fight against those who fight against me.
Take hold of shield and buckler,
And stand up for my help.
Also draw out the spear,
And stop those who pursue me.
Say to my soul,
"I am your salvation."
Let those be put to shame and brought to dishonor
Who seek after my life;
Let those be turned back and brought to confusion
Who plot my hurt.
Let them be like chaff before the wind,
And let the angel of the Lord pursue them.
For without cause they have hidden their net for me in
a pit,
Which they have dug without cause for my life.
Let destruction come upon him unexpectedly,
And let his net that he has hidden catch himself;
Into that very destruction let him fall.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Sat, 01 Mar 1997 22:41:53 GMT, bha...@adan.kingston.net (Storm)
said:
>You are correct in your statement that Adam and Eve are responsible
>for 'original sin'. However, incorrect when you state that 'we' as
>homosexuals are born free of original sin.
>Brian, a Recovering Catholic
Brian, perhaps this will accelerate your recovery:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
shaman's tale gratis to anyone, anywhere, any time...under
condition that story remains intact and complete, including
title and credit to the original author: Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(ekra...@fog.net).
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ON THE OKRA WINFREE SHOW
(a parable for the 21st century)
copyright 1997 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
Jesus Christ returns to planet earth and, of course, He is
invited to a LOT of talk shows...in order for us to understand
better, what this man called Jesus is really all about. So it is
on the Okra Winfree Show He is asked the question:
"Jesus, what do YOU think was the most important advice YOU
ever received in Your lifetime as the Suffering Messiah?"
Jesus deliberates on this a few moments before answering:
"Well, Okra, I don't consider My incarnation as The Messiah among
the most relevant of My past-life experiences. Even so, during
that existence, I received so many excellent words of wisdom,
that I really CAN'T pick a favorite. But I'll tell you this: I
shall never forget the WORST piece of advice ANYONE gave Me, in
ANY of My multitudinous lives."
Okra Winfree leans forward in profound curiosity and says:
"Okay, Jesus, and what was that?"
Jesus finally answers: "Well, it was during my PRESENT
incarnation (as you now see Me), and it came from a psychiatrist
who once told Me: 'Jesus, You can't save the world."
Okra parries: "THAT revelation must have been quite a
SHOCKeroonie to the ol' ego there, buddy!"
"Too-SHAY, Okra," retorts Jesus, lighting a Camel Light 100
to soothe his jangled nerves, "too-SHAY."
"May-uh KOOL-pah, may-uh KOOL-pah," Okra chuckles, "It's
ALWAYS fun to play devil's advocate with You, Jesus."
"Fine with Me, Okra," grins Our Savior, "as long as YOU
don't mind an occasional DIP in the Lake Of Fire."
"Well, another BURNING question I have..." (audience guffaws
before Okra continues) "...regards the HUMAN side of Jesus
Christ: Besides tobacco, do you have any OTHER addictions?"
Jesus blushes, and lowers His head. "Yes. One other.
Boys. In that way, I'm like My Daddy."
Suddenly, a voice booms out of nowhere:
"REMEMBER THAT JOKE, SON: I'D WALK A MILE FOR A CAMEL, TWO
FOR A SHEEP OR GOAT, AND THREE FOR A BOY? HA, HA!"
Okra Winfree raises her eyes to the ceiling and, slightly
disgruntled, challenges Our Holy Guest: "Can't you EVER get Your
Father to show up in person?"
Jesus shrugs his shoulders. "God knows I've been trying,
but HE seems to take everything like one, big, fat joke. You
know, I can't even get HIM to see ME whenever I want!"
"Wait a minute," Okra grows serious, "You mean to tell me
You STILL can't be with Your Father?"
"Well, not quite," ponders The Son Of Man, "It's just that
HE sees ME whenever HE wants, but I don't get to see HIM whenever
I want. It's just not fair."
Okra drops a pensive arm from her chin and says, sadly, "No,
Jesus, that isn't fair at all."
"HEY JESUS, I GOT TWO FRONT-ROW TICKETS TO SEE 'JESUS CHRIST
SUPERSTAR' TONIGHT...WANNA GO?"
Our Man Of The Cross sighs and flips a rude finger to the
sky: "FUCK you, Dad, just FUCK you."
"OKAY, GUY, BE THAT WAY. I GOT PLENTY OF HOT CHERUBS WHO
ARE DYING FOR A DATE WITH BIG DICK!"
Okra, in raging fury, jumps onto her chair and waves an
angry fist at the ceiling: "God, don't You think You're going a
little too far? Think of Your Wonderful Son!"
"I ALWAYS THINK OF MY SON. LAST NIGHT WHEN I WAS HUMPING
LUCIFER, I THOUGHT OF MY SON: OH JESUS, OH JESUS, OH JESUS!"
"Don't talk to Him, Okra," grumbles Jesus, "just don't talk
to Him. It's the only way you'll get Him to leave us alone."
Hands shaking, Our Lord attempts to light another cigarette, but
drops the match book.
"HERE, JESUS, HAVE AN ARCHANGEL. I'M DONE WITH HIM FOR A
WHILE. MAYBE HE'LL GET YOU OFF THE RAGGIE."
Out of nowhere appears an incredibly gorgeous dude, adorned
in nothing more than a bulging gold lame' loin cloth and these
opalescent, feathery white wings stretching across the entire
breadth of the stage. He alights by Jesus, who caresses the
firm, smooth butt of the archangel, then grabs His Own Ample
Crotch and says:
"Okra, I hate to break this off, but as you can see, it's
meant to stay on and be fondled."
And with those words, the archangel's fat crown pops its
head above the loin cloth. (Camera zooms in for a yummy closeup.
Audience drools in raptured silence, as a milky substance
dribbles from the crown and down the angel's spear. When the
camera regretfully pulls back, this glorious angel tosses his
luxurious mane of silver hair, and laughs):
"MEET BIG DICK. HAW, HAW!"
Then He lifts Jesus up, cradles Him in His massive arms, and
looks straight into the camera:
"I LOVE MY SON MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE. LET'S
GO, JESUS, YA GOT A DATE WITH ME, ALWAYS."
They vanish, leaving Okra Winfree behind, along with a
half-empty pack of Camel Light 100s lying on the empty chair.
And, of course, the audience.
-----finis
Ezekiel Krahlin
On 28 Feb 1997 20:37:56 GMT, "Fr. John W. Morris" <jrj...@cannet.com>
said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin <Chief_T...@Athenia.New> wrote in article
><33166c40...@news.wco.com>...
>>
>> Adam and Eve broke God's law: they "knew" each other, as in "had
>> intercourse", as symbolized by the eating of the apple in the tree of
>> knowledge of good and evil. They "knew" each other: they "knew
>> evil". How obvious, how simple. God had other plans for human
>> procreation...to create new beings from our hearts and minds, just as
>> God and the angels do. But when this law was broken, he condemned
>> heterosexuals to give birth in an inferior way, just like animals...in
>> blood, feces, and pain.
>>
>That is just about the most warped interpretation of the Bible that I have
>ever read.
No it isn't, you lie. The most warped interpretation came along long
before you, or I, were born. And this is using the bible to
persecute, murder, and degrade GayFolk. So with my satirical
writings, I hold up a mirror. Since so many low-church Christians
perceive homosexuality as a worse sin than even heterosexual rape or
homicide...so I hold up a mirror, whereby I imply that heterosexuality
is a worse sin than any other, including murder. And the vulgar,
violent actions of you homophobes makes the strongest case ever, in my
favor.
You prefer to interpret my essay as "just about the most warped
interpretation of the Bible" you have ever read...because you live and
breathe homophobia. Have you ever spoke up at how sinful and criminal
it is to persecute homosexuals, how absolutely *UNchristian* it is?
Of course not, as you do the devil's work. But you are just Satan's
toy, an insignifcant little soul doing his low-priority bidding. Just
wait till he gets tired of playing with you, like a cat to a mouse!
(Or if you did, it was most likely something like: "We must love
them, but not their 'sin'." Which is still a way to foment violence,
without have blame pointed in your directions. But the blood is
indeed as much on your hands as on anyone who has actually bashed a
Thracian...you are a partner in a most heinous crime, many times
over.)
> God created human sexuality. Human sexuality is therefore good.
>Naturally, like everything else, we can misuse God's creation by misusing
>our sexuality. It is a sin to misuse God's creation of sex.
God created homosexuals, as it is His wish that "variety is the spice
of life." You, oh Preaching Bastard Of Homophobia, are misuing God's
creation by abusing decent human beings: Thracians and Lesbians.
>The sin of Adam and Eve had nothing to do with sex. They sinned by thinking
>that they did not need God. Therefore, their sin was pride, the root of all
>sin.
The pride of heterosexism...it's obvious. Their shame was finally
witnessing each other's nudity. The most accepted worldwide and
churchwide interpretation of eating "the forbidden fruit", is that
Adam and Eve "knew" each other...they did the naughty behind God's
back.
Your are guilty of a most horrible pride and vanity: heterosexism
that chooses to demonize homosexuals for your own sadistic, horrible
and twisted pleasure. You are a coward, a loser, and murder of
Christ's True Spirit: brotherly love.
>+ Archpriest John
Archdemon, you mean.
Oh, lighten up...
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Sun, 2 Mar 1997 01:12:08 GMT, tedd...@netcom.com (John Sanger)
said:
>In article <01bc25b7$5b7ea2c0$20f6...@cannet.com.jrjohn> "Fr. John W. Morris" <jrj...@cannet.com> writes:
>>That is just about the most warped interpretation of the Bible that I have
>>ever read. God created human sexuality. Human sexuality is therefore good.
>>Naturally, like everything else, we can misuse God's creation by misusing
>>our sexuality. It is a sin to misuse God's creation of sex.
>>The sin of Adam and Eve had nothing to do with sex. They sinned by thinking
>>that they did not need God. Therefore, their sin was pride, the root of all
>>sin.
>>
>
>Supply the evidence for the existence of your invisible fictional
>deity...
>
>Without it what you have said is BULLSHIT!!
Even with it, what he has said is bullshit.
I am a Christian, just cut from a much different cloth than this
toilet-breath "Fr. John W. Morris".
Fr. John W. Morris
Ezekiel Krahlin <Chief_T...@Athenia.New> wrote in article
> >>
> I am a Christian, just cut from a much different cloth than this
> toilet-breath "Fr. John W. Morris".
>
How do you justify calling sex, which is part of God's creation, good
something written by a "toilet breath?" God created human sexuality.
Because God created it sexuality is good.
+ Archpriest John
Fr. John W. Morris
Storm <bha...@adan.kingston.net> wrote in article
<5fab7p$tb$1...@gollum.kingston.net>...
>The church also states that the only person born
> without original sin was the Virgin Mary ie: "The Immaculate
> Conception". St. Anne gave birth to Mary without having sex (how I
> don't know!)
I am not a Roman Catholic and do not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. However, I know enough about Roman
Catholic theology to know that the Roman Catholic Church does not teach
that St. Anne gave birth to Our Lady without having sex. The Roman Catholic
Church does teach that Mary was conceived through sexual intercourse, just
like everyone else except for Our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
+ Archpriest John
Ezekiel Krahlin
On 2 Mar 1997 19:35:00 GMT, "Fr. John W. Morris" <jrj...@cannet.com>
said:
Because this "Morris" so much as implied--without actually spitting it
out--that sex is only good when practiced between a man and a woman,
that in no way is it good if consumated by a homosexual couple, no
matter how dedicated and loving they are to one another.
I say sex is good, holy, and blessed, when practiced between two
devoted adults, no matter if they are two men, two women, or a man and
a woman.
As if you didn't know what I meant in the first place.
dion...@infinet.com
Fr. John W. Morris (jrj...@cannet.com) said:
}Because God created it sexuality is good.
God also created malaria, the "Black Death", and a certain yapping little
poodle which I am tempted to drop kick considering that it's almost 3am...
All of those are "good"?
(And lest you forget, God also created Satan.)
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
A hypothetical paradox:
"What would happen in a battle between an Enterprise security team, who
always get killed soon after appearing, and a squad of Imperial
Stormtroopers, who can't hit the broad side of a planet?"
-- Tom Galloway
dion...@infinet.com
Fr. John W. Morris (jrj...@cannet.com) said:
}The Roman Catholic
}Church does teach that Mary was conceived through sexual intercourse, just
}like everyone else except for Our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
The Catholics also teach that surrogate motherhood is naughty. Poor Jesus...
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
C:\BELFRY is where I keep my .BAT files.
John Sanger
In article <5fdve1$o...@news1.infinet.com> <dion...@infinet.comm> "Damn junk E-mailers!" writes:
>Fr. John W. Morris (jrj...@cannet.com) said:
>
>
>God also created malaria, the "Black Death", and a certain yapping little
>poodle which I am tempted to drop kick considering that it's almost 3am...
>
>All of those are "good"?
>
>(And lest you forget, God also created Satan.)
>
Who is the lover of the host of hosts which is why nothing is ever done
to destroy this very handsome creation of the host of hosts....
Lucifer was given domain over all of the earth..... so if these ignorant
xians are praying to the deity of the planet earth then they are
worshiping the archangel Lucifer....
Rob Moffett
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
> >> God had other plans for human
> >> procreation...to create new beings from our hearts and minds, just as
> >> God and the angels do. But when this law was broken, he condemned
> >> heterosexuals to give birth in an inferior way, just like animals...in
> >> blood, feces, and pain.
And homosexuals give birth in what way? If you are going to be
consistent with this last statement, then homosexuals should be able to
give birth in the way that God intended (according to you) for humans.
Since I have yet to see new people appearing out of people's minds and
hearts, I don't see how this could be correct.
> Since so many low-church Christians
Could you explain what that is please?
> perceive homosexuality as a worse sin than even heterosexual rape or
> homicide...so I hold up a mirror, whereby I imply that heterosexuality
> is a worse sin than any other, including murder. And the vulgar,
> violent actions of you homophobes makes the strongest case ever, in my
> favor.
1) What is your definition of a homophobe?
2) Heterosexuals do NOT have the right to condemn and persecute
homosexuals because of their sexual inclinations. The Bible says
that no sin is worse than any other sin. I disagree with your
interpretation of the Bible, but persecuting you for that would be
MY sin.
> You prefer to interpret my essay as "just about the most warped
> interpretation of the Bible" you have ever read...because you live and
> breathe homophobia. Have you ever spoke up at how sinful and criminal
> it is to persecute homosexuals, how absolutely *UNchristian* it is?
> Of course not, as you do the devil's work.
You cry about persecution and then use the same tool against
heterosexuals. Do you go around screaming at people who sleep with
other people's wives or husbands?
> (Or if you did, it was most likely something like: "We must love
> them, but not their 'sin'." Which is still a way to foment violence,
> without have blame pointed in your directions. But the blood is
> indeed as much on your hands as on anyone who has actually bashed a
> Thracian...you are a partner in a most heinous crime, many times
> over.)
How does loving someone despite their sin "foment violence"? Jesus
loved people regardless of their sins.
> The most accepted worldwide and
> churchwide interpretation of eating "the forbidden fruit", is that
> Adam and Eve "knew" each other...they did the naughty behind God's
> back.
Your evidence to support this claim?
> Your are guilty of a most horrible pride and vanity: heterosexism
> that chooses to demonize homosexuals for your own sadistic, horrible
> and twisted pleasure.
What about heterosexism that does not demonize homosexuals? Would that
still be a horrible pride and vanity?
> You are a coward, a loser, and murder of
> Christ's True Spirit: brotherly love.
And the statements you've made here are not in the spirit of brotherly
love either. You claim to be a Christian, yet you put down someone, you
slander someone, you persecute an entire group of people who you claim
are persecuting you in the same manner. That is NOT brotherly love.
--
Camp Rockfish Thanks Mr. Lucas!
Environmental education
Summer residential camps bo...@netpath.net subj:Rob
Christian education
Ask for more information JOY!!!
http://www.starwars.com/ 'nuff said!!
Darklady
Ezekiel Krahlin <Chief_T...@Athenia.New> wrote in article
> It was Adam and Eve who committed the original sin...says so right
> there in The Old Testament, you know, "The Good Book", "The Bible".
> GENESIS CHAPTER THREE. Adam and Eve were what? A man and a woman,
> you know, as in "heterosexual." Original sin wasn't created between
> two men or two women, you know, "Adam and Steve" or "Madame and Eve."
You gotta feel sorry for Adam and Eve. I mean, what were their
choices?
Some say that Adam had two mates before Eve. Lilith is the more
famous second "wife" and she didn't dig being treated like an animal so she
bailed. The first wife pretty much took one look at Adam and ran away (she
was too animal-like). Finally, "God" gave Adam a wife who was submissive
and would do what she was told. Then "He" got all upset because she was
easily coerced into sin. Who'da thunk it?
> Adam and Eve broke God's law: they "knew" each other, as in "had
> intercourse", as symbolized by the eating of the apple in the tree of
> knowledge of good and evil. They "knew" each other: they "knew
> evil". How obvious, how simple
Appealing but, I think, overly simple. The "knowledge" which A&E
supposedly gained was not the knowledge of how to have sex but the
*understanding* of how things were. To me, this sounds like a metaphor for
self-awareness. The past, present and future suddenly came into view for
humans as a string of events which lead one to the other. Humans are able
to understand that their actions can cause results... pain, in some cases.
And we are empathetic (well, most of us are, anyway) and thus we can regret
causing pain. Original sin... the birth of man's neocortex.
> No true homosexual woman or man would ever *dream* of violating that
> most fundamental of God's law. We are persecuted by the descendants
> of Adam and Eve: heterosexuals. Straight, homophobic bible-thumping
> idiots who are *jealous* that we Lesbians and Thracians will never
> have to answer to God for that original, most heinous of all sins:
> for we are FREE FROM ORIGINAL SIN! Hallelujah, my gay sisters and
> brothers, hallelujah to us all!
Although a delightful post, it's mostly whimsy. I think a lot of
bible thumpers are repressed to the point of near-violence and they use
their religion as a weapon. Whether most thumpers are gay themselves (I
suspect not) I will bet dollars to donuts (whateverthehell that means) that
they find the thought of gay sex very arousing.
BTW, the people of Lesbos are not "Lesbians," although the people of
Thrace are Thracians.
-- Darklady
--
http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady (optimized for IE 3.0)
http://www.bcmark.com/exotic.html (my new book!)
http://www.xmag.com (the magazine I edit)
Ezekiel Krahlin
On 3 Mar 1997 22:56:17 GMT, "Darklady" <dark...@spiritone.com> said:
> You gotta feel sorry for Adam and Eve. I mean, what were their
>choices?
I thought there were two gerbils in the Garden of Eden...but maybe
that was Noah's Ark.
> Some say that Adam had two mates before Eve. Lilith is the more
>famous second "wife" and she didn't dig being treated like an animal so she
>bailed.
She probably found a bodaceous babe to hang with. Or created one.
>The first wife pretty much took one look at Adam and ran away (she
>was too animal-like).
The bodaceous babe...didn't I say so?
>Finally, "God" gave Adam a wife who was submissive
>and would do what she was told.
Except for the apple, don't forget. That was her one and only strike
at individual expression. Look where it got her! Two chauvanists
ganged up on her.
>Then "He" got all upset because she was
>easily coerced into sin. Who'da thunk it?
Some stupid heterosexist priest composing "Genesis," who was on the
rag 'cause one of his concubines had a headache.
> Appealing but, I think, overly simple. The "knowledge" which A&E
>supposedly gained was not the knowledge of how to have sex but the
>*understanding* of how things were.
My interpretation was Freudan. Yours is Jungian. I wonder what Adler
would conclude? Let's see: something to do with power. Yeah, that's
the ticket: to "know" the things that God and his angels know, is
certainly a grab for power. So then they *knew* eating the apple was
a biiiiig boo-boo...which is what God and the angels already knew.
>To me, this sounds like a metaphor for
>self-awareness. The past, present and future suddenly came into view for
>humans as a string of events which lead one to the other.
The awakening of consciousness...stepping out of the subconscious
jungle into the conscious light of day (as symbolized in being cast
out from Eden). However, this is *not* how bible thumpers interpret
it...they do it literally. And, the liberal churches do see it as
symbolizing carnal knowledge (as in Carnal Schweitinger: "I'll be
back.")
>Humans are able
>to understand that their actions can cause results...
Not by what I've seen from many participants in this newsgroup.
>Original sin... the birth of man's neocortex.
Oh, dear, when God said "neocortex" I thought he said "trains"! No,
but seriously now: seems like a gooey mess to me...you sure it wasn't
actually the afterbirth? One would think so, by what I've seen from
many participants in this newsgroup.
> Although a delightful post, it's mostly whimsy.
Aw, shucks...can't a Thracian have a little fun now and then?
>I think a lot of
>bible thumpers are repressed to the point of near-violence and they use
>their religion as a weapon.
They certainly don't use their brains.
>I will bet dollars to donuts (whateverthehell that means) that
>they find the thought of gay sex very arousing.
You bet donuts, I bet dollars.
> BTW, the people of Lesbos are not "Lesbians," although the people of
>Thrace are Thracians.
Lesbonites? Lesbites? Lesbianites? Lesbonellas? Lesborana-
reenee-rice-a-roni?
> -- Darklady
You seem pretty bright to me.
>http://www.spiritone.com/~darklady (optimized for IE 3.0)
>http://www.bcmark.com/exotic.html (my new book!)
>http://www.xmag.com (the magazine I edit)
I'll check these out...thanks! Enjoyed rapping with ya.
P.S.: Picture this: A 3-panel comic strip...
Panel 1: Adam & Eve in the garden...Adam crouched on the ground,
fiddling with getting a fire started (unsuccessfully), while Eve
stands to one side. Eve says "Adam, there's something you don't know
about me." Adam mumbles without looking up, "Yeah, what."
Panel 2: Eve grabs a zipper that appears from her forehead, which she
has started yanking down her face..."Zzzzzzzzzip!" Adam is
dumbfoundedly looking up at Eve: "Huh?"
Panel 3: A gorgeous dude hops out of the discarded "Eve" costume, and
stands there with outstretched arms and a big grin: "Ta-da!" Adam,
delightfully surprised, jumps up to embrace him. "Steve!" he says.
---
Zeke Krahlin, Jehovah's Queer Witness.
(Hail, Athenia...brave new nation!)
Please keep our dialogues public; private mail by request only.
Hostile private replies will be re-posted in the public arena.
Duff
CH>Some stupid heterosexist priest composing "Genesis," who was on the
CH>rag 'cause one of his concubines had a headache.
CH>
CH>> Appealing but, I think, overly simple. The "knowledge" which A&E
CH>>supposedly gained was not the knowledge of how to have sex but the
CH>>*understanding* of how things were.
I had always understood that when they ate of the tree, they suddenly
realized how /wrong/ it was for them to "standing exposed to each other"
ie. nekkid.
So here's MY question: If being naked was a sin, why the hell did god
allow it to happen, why didn't he fashion them clothes and bid them wear
them?
The reason, IMNSHO, is the whole damn story is a lie. The creep writing
it was ashamed of his own body, and was also embarrassed by naked flesh
(probably gave him a hard-on), so he decided to make sure everyone else
would be embarrassed by it too.
CH>>Humans are able
CH>>to understand that their actions can cause results...
Too many humans are too gullible, too.
CH>>I think a lot of
CH>>bible thumpers are repressed to the point of near-violence and they use
CH>>their religion as a weapon.
I think, more accurately, they use thier religion as an EXCUSE to use
weapons and be violent. (God says we must do >X<)
ciao4now
-duff
mdu...@ggbbs.com
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 15:38:53 -0500, Rob Moffett <rmof...@work.job>
said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>> >> God had other plans for human
>> >> procreation...to create new beings from our hearts and minds, just as
>> >> God and the angels do. But when this law was broken, he condemned
>> >> heterosexuals to give birth in an inferior way, just like animals...in
>> >> blood, feces, and pain.
>
>And homosexuals give birth in what way? If you are going to be
>consistent with this last statement, then homosexuals should be able to
>give birth in the way that God intended (according to you) for humans.
>Since I have yet to see new people appearing out of people's minds and
>hearts, I don't see how this could be correct.
Cloning...it's in the news! Also, artificial insemination.
Homosexuals also give birth to new ideas, art, inventions, etc...some
of which led to the discovery of cloning. We also give birth to
spiritual messages and ideas. There is also the dimension of magic,
of the spirit world if you wish...which is withheld from those who are
not yet ready, or deserving of the keys to this new perception.
>> Since so many low-church Christians
>
>Could you explain what that is please?
It's really a British term for the population of church goers who are
poorly educated and easily fall for dogmatic religious viewpoints,
i.e. "Bible thumpers".
>
>> perceive homosexuality as a worse sin than even heterosexual rape or
>> homicide...so I hold up a mirror, whereby I imply that heterosexuality
>> is a worse sin than any other, including murder. And the vulgar,
>> violent actions of you homophobes makes the strongest case ever, in my
>> favor.
>
>1) What is your definition of a homophobe?
One who enacts violence, or the preaching thereof, towards people who
love others of the same sex. Also: One who preaches that
homosexuality is wrong, evil, blasphemous, ungodly, and anything else
considered unwholesome.
>2) Heterosexuals do NOT have the right to condemn and persecute
>homosexuals because of their sexual inclinations. The Bible says
>that no sin is worse than any other sin. I disagree with your
>interpretation of the Bible, but persecuting you for that would be
>MY sin.
Homosexuality is not a sin, period. You exacerbate persecution by
spreading your belief that gay sex is sinful.
>You cry about persecution and then use the same tool against
>heterosexuals. Do you go around screaming at people who sleep with
>other people's wives or husbands?
I just turned the tables for a brief moment, and look how self
righteous you are, you phony Christian. It's so easy to root your
kind out..."separate chaff from the wheat", in other words.
A *real* Christian would fight for the liberation of Thracian people.
And there *are* some like that, such as dav...@primenet.com (Dave in
Phoenix), who is clearly Christian (as he says so), and an active
participant in these christnet newsgroups. Here's a quote from one of
his recent messages:
"What is the point. Their is nothing biblically wrong with
having sex with the same sex. I suggest you do more serious research
before you pass on these lies that hurt so many Your teaching these
lies is the abomination...The abomination is the false translations of
the Hebrew/Greek which had nothing at all to do with homosexuality.
This lie is one of the biggest sins of Christianity - to hurt so many
whose only "sin" is to be just as God created them to be. I was born
very heterosexual just as others were born gay, lesbian or bisexual.
It is not a choice."
>> (Or if you did, it was most likely something like: "We must love
>> them, but not their 'sin'." Which is still a way to foment violence,
>> without have blame pointed in your directions. But the blood is
>> indeed as much on your hands as on anyone who has actually bashed a
>> Thracian...you are a partner in a most heinous crime, many times
>> over.)
>
>How does loving someone despite their sin "foment violence"? Jesus
>loved people regardless of their sins.
Aren't you the innocent one! Don't you just love gay people, ha!
Your smile is that of a crocodile, and your tears, likewise. It is
simple psychology...that when churches preach something is evil...they
foment hatred against the accused people. To then add the stipulation
"but don't hate them, hate the sin"...does not lessen the hateful
results...it is just a pathetic way for the churches to pretend they
are innocent of creating an atmosphere of hatred and violence. As if
you didn't know...and I doubt you are so stupid as to *not* know this
answer already. Blood is on your hands for encouraging people to
believe homosexuality is a sin...and you will have to pay for that
crime of willfully exacerbating bigotry...when your time comes to face
our creator.
>> The most accepted worldwide and
>> churchwide interpretation of eating "the forbidden fruit", is that
>> Adam and Eve "knew" each other...they did the naughty behind God's
>> back.
>
>Your evidence to support this claim?
Any educated person knows that this is the most common interpretation.
The snake, as a phallic symbol, tempted Eve to take a bite from the
"forbidden fruit", the fruit that hanged between the legs of Adam
(wherein dwelled the snake). It's really quite a freudian passage.
But I don't need to support my claim, as my treatise, "The Original
Sin: Heterosexuality" was a form of satire called "dark humor", to
hold up a mirror to the ignorant Christians who spread homophobia
throughout the world.
>> Your are guilty of a most horrible pride and vanity: heterosexism
>> that chooses to demonize homosexuals for your own sadistic, horrible
>> and twisted pleasure.
>
>What about heterosexism that does not demonize homosexuals? Would that
>still be a horrible pride and vanity?
You don't know your words. Heterosexism inevitably demonizes
homosexuals. Heterosexism is the manifestation of excessive male
chauvanism, whose facets are: perception of homosexuals as perverts,
women as stupid, children as slaves...and violence is acceptable to
keep these kinds in line. It is unlikely you'll meet a heterosexist
who is not prejudiced against one group just mentioned, while holding
bigotry over the other two.
>> You are a coward, a loser, and murder of
>> Christ's True Spirit: brotherly love.
>
>And the statements you've made here are not in the spirit of brotherly
>love either. You claim to be a Christian, yet you put down someone, you
>slander someone, you persecute an entire group of people who you claim
>are persecuting you in the same manner. That is NOT brotherly love.
Nonsense. My sisterly/brotherly love demands that I speak truth as I
see it. I do not withhold speaking up against violent bigots, even if
it endangers my own life, or at best, makes some people hateful
towards me. Besides, I am speaking my rage over the ongoing murders
of innocent people...and you think I should just smile sweetly as I
disagree with you, oh murderer of my brothers?
Haven't you ever read any satirical essays? How about Jonathan
Swift's "A Modest Proposal", wherein he proposed the eating of Irish
babies...as a form of satire to hold up a mirror of the English
bigotry towards the Irish. There have been many generous souls
througout history, who are prized for their satirical way of seeing
things.
Your mind is too small for all this. That's what it comes down to.
---
dion...@infinet.com
John Sanger (tedd...@netcom.com) said:
}Lucifer was given domain over all of the earth..... so if these ignorant
}xians are praying to the deity of the planet earth then they are
}worshiping the archangel Lucifer....
The name "Lucifer" for Satan has no Biblical authority at all. There is only
one mention of Lucifer in the Bible, and it does not refer to the King of
Darkness but, rather, to the king of Babylon, and calls him "son of the
morning". (Isaiah 14:12)
Therefore: Either they're worshipping a dead king, or they're not even
aiming their prayers properly. (And ya know that'll piss off Satan... )
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good
characters, and my enemies for their intellects. A man cannot be too
careful in the choice of his enemies.
-- Oscar Wilde
Gregory Gadow
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 15:38:53 -0500, Rob Moffett <rmof...@work.job>
> said:
> >> Since so many low-church Christians
> >
> >Could you explain what that is please?
>
> It's really a British term for the population of church goers who are
> poorly educated and easily fall for dogmatic religious viewpoints,
> i.e. "Bible thumpers".
Uh, no.
The division between High Church and Low Church is due to the history of
the Church of England and its merging of Roman Catholic and Protestant
beliefs and practices under Queen Elizabeth.
Low Church people tend more towards the simpler forms of Protestantism
in liturgy, practice, and belief. Some examples of how English Low
Church influence would be Methodism (founded by John and Charles Wesley,
Anglican priests) and Congregationalism. Services center around reading
Scripture and hearing a sermon. Music is generally the entire
congregation singing and communion is only a few times a year.
High Church people love the pagentry, the processions, the 'smell and
bells and velvet gowns' that used to be more a part of the Roman
Catholic way of doing things. Services are centered on the Eucharist
which is celebrated every service and the music tends towards choir
rather than congregational.
--
************************************************************************
Gregory Paul Gadow
Mail:
tech...@drizzle.com
Web : http://www.drizzle.com/~techbear
************************************************************************
Fr. John W. Morris
Ezekiel Krahlin <Proud_T...@Are.You> wrote in article
<331d19d0...@news.wco.com>...
>
> Any educated person knows that this is the most common interpretation.
> The snake, as a phallic symbol, tempted Eve to take a bite from the
> "forbidden fruit", the fruit that hanged between the legs of Adam
> (wherein dwelled the snake). It's really quite a freudian passage.
>
This may come as quite a shock to you but the author of Genesis never read
Freud.
The most common interpretation of the fall had nothing to do with human
sexuality. The fall was due to pride. Read the text itself. Genesis 3:4-5,
is the key verse of the passage, "But the serpent said to the woman, "You
will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be
opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Because the
serpent promised Eve that she would be like God, she ate of the fruit.
Therefore, her sin was pride because she wanted to be like God so that she
did not need God.
Only a person truly obsessed with sex would see the text as having sexual
connotations.
+ Archpriest John
Rob Moffett
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 15:38:53 -0500, Rob Moffett <rmof...@work.job>
> said:
> >And homosexuals give birth in what way?
>
> Cloning...it's in the news! Also, artificial insemination.
*grin* Cloning's good, but very new. Artificial insemination's also new
compared to humans.
> Homosexuals also give birth to new ideas, art, inventions, etc...some
> of which led to the discovery of cloning. We also give birth to
> spiritual messages and ideas. There is also the dimension of magic,
> of the spirit world if you wish...which is withheld from those who are
> not yet ready, or deserving of the keys to this new perception.
I agree that art and spirituality are good, but they don't produce more
people.
> >1) What is your definition of a homophobe?
>
> One who enacts violence, or the preaching thereof, towards people who
> love others of the same sex. Also: One who preaches that
> homosexuality is wrong, evil, blasphemous, ungodly, and anything else
> considered unwholesome.
----- snip -----
>
> Homosexuality is not a sin, period. You exacerbate persecution by
> spreading your belief that gay sex is sinful.
According to my interpretation of the bible it is. You disagree. So if
you must brand me a homophobe for disagreeing, then you have a very
narrow mind.
> >You cry about persecution and then use the same tool against
> >heterosexuals. Do you go around screaming at people who sleep with
> >other people's wives or husbands?
>
> I just turned the tables for a brief moment, and look how self
> righteous you are, you phony Christian. It's so easy to root your
> kind out..."separate chaff from the wheat", in other words.
And you are being self-righteous at this point as well. It does neither
of us any good. I don't claim that you are a phony Christian because
your interpretation of the bible is different from mine.
> A *real* Christian would fight for the liberation of Thracian people.
I won't appologise for not supporting your views. You don't support
mine, so we'll call it even. I do not bash "Helenic" people. I do not
support people who do. If you want to persue a political agenda by
trying to make same-sex marriage legal, that's your business. I don't
have an opinion on that matter yet. As I see it, if you love your
partner and are married in the eyes of the Lord, then what you do is
your business, not mine. If you feel that the US government should give
homosexuals priviledges that heterosexual couples have, then try to
persuade me to your point of view, not condemn me for trying to find out
as much information as possible, or even for trying to have a discussion
about differing points of view.
> >How does loving someone despite their sin "foment violence"? Jesus
> >loved people regardless of their sins.
>
> Aren't you the innocent one! Don't you just love gay people, ha!
I don't love people because they're gay or not gay, I try (sometimes
fail) to love people no matter what.
> Your smile is that of a crocodile, and your tears, likewise.
I'm sorry that you feel you have to call me a liar, you know so little
about me.
> It is
> simple psychology...that when churches preach something is evil...they
> foment hatred against the accused people.
I'm not a church (read as: organized religion), just a Christian with
questions.
> To then add the stipulation
> "but don't hate them, hate the sin"...does not lessen the hateful
> results...it is just a pathetic way for the churches to pretend they
> are innocent of creating an atmosphere of hatred and violence. As if
> you didn't know...and I doubt you are so stupid as to *not* know this
> answer already. Blood is on your hands for encouraging people to
> believe homosexuality is a sin...and you will have to pay for that
> crime of willfully exacerbating bigotry...when your time comes to face
> our creator.
If blood is on my hands, then I will have to face that. But to say that
churches are responsible for creating an atmosphere of hatred is a big
step. If anything, the hatred and violence have existed for a long
time, those who act on those feelings use the church as an excuse for
their actions. If the churches were to stay silent on the matter, what
would you say about that?
> The snake, as a phallic symbol, tempted Eve to take a bite from the
> "forbidden fruit", the fruit that hanged between the legs of Adam
> (wherein dwelled the snake). It's really quite a freudian passage.
Interesting that you'd bring Freud into this discussion. I wonder if
perhaps this interpretation didn't begin until after Freud's work.
> You don't know your words. Heterosexism inevitably demonizes
> homosexuals. Heterosexism is the manifestation of excessive male
> chauvanism, whose facets are: perception of homosexuals as perverts,
> women as stupid, children as slaves...and violence is acceptable to
> keep these kinds in line. It is unlikely you'll meet a heterosexist
> who is not prejudiced against one group just mentioned, while holding
> bigotry over the other two.
Thank you for enlightening me as to the definition of a heterosexist.
Could you provide a definition of a homosexist?
> Nonsense. My sisterly/brotherly love demands that I speak truth as I
> see it. I do not withhold speaking up against violent bigots, even if
> it endangers my own life, or at best, makes some people hateful
> towards me. Besides, I am speaking my rage over the ongoing murders
> of innocent people...and you think I should just smile sweetly as I
> disagree with you, oh murderer of my brothers?
*snicker* Sorry, you just sounded like one of those Hezbollah (sp?) or
other terrorist or muslim extremist groups.
> Haven't you ever read any satirical essays? How about Jonathan
> Swift's "A Modest Proposal", wherein he proposed the eating of Irish
> babies...as a form of satire to hold up a mirror of the English
> bigotry towards the Irish. There have been many generous souls
> througout history, who are prized for their satirical way of seeing
> things.
Swift's idea wasn't such a bad one. With some work it could have been a
great domestic policy for lots of countries!
> Your mind is too small for all this. That's what it comes down to.
Well, if my mind is too small it's a good thing I'm trying to expand it,
no?
94967294
Ahhhh I would have to say Fr. John gets a point. I don't really see anything
sexual per se about the fall either. And do refresh me anyway [looking at
the distribution list] what does this have to do with homosexuality?
Or *shamanism* for that matter.....
Fr. John W. Morris (jrj...@cannet.com) wrote:
: The most common interpretation of the fall had nothing to do with human
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 15:06:19 -0800, Gregory Gadow
<techbear@no_spam.drizzle.com> said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 15:38:53 -0500, Rob Moffett <rmof...@work.job>
>> said:
>(snip)
>> >> Since so many low-church Christians
>> >
>> >Could you explain what that is please?
>>
>> It's really a British term for the population of church goers who are
>> poorly educated and easily fall for dogmatic religious viewpoints,
>> i.e. "Bible thumpers".
>
>Uh, no.
>
>The division between High Church and Low Church is due to the history of
>the Church of England and its merging of Roman Catholic and Protestant
>beliefs and practices under Queen Elizabeth.
Thanks for your clarification, Gregory. My friend from England,
Marvin, uses the term "low-church" in the way I defined it. He said
you're correct, but it is also use broadly for the upperclass
Christians to look down on the less-educated, lowerclass ones.
He snarls at the homophobic bible-thumpers, and calls them "low
church"...so one day I asked what he meant by that term...hence the
answer I gave in my post here.
Your definition is similar to "high German" and "low German"...and I
meant not to be so literary and historically accurate with my
explanation, as you are.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On 5 Mar 1997 21:24:52 GMT, "Fr. John W. Morris" <jrj...@cannet.com>
said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin <Proud_T...@Are.You> wrote in article
><331d19d0...@news.wco.com>...
>>
>> Any educated person knows that this is the most common interpretation.
>> The snake, as a phallic symbol, tempted Eve to take a bite from the
>> "forbidden fruit", the fruit that hanged between the legs of Adam
>> (wherein dwelled the snake). It's really quite a freudian passage.
>>
>This may come as quite a shock to you but the author of Genesis never read
>Freud.
How condescending of you to say "this may come as quite a shock"!
Subconscious innuendos, many sexual, have been a part of the human
race ever since the spoken word was first created. Freud just brought
this awareness into the public light.
>The most common interpretation of the fall had nothing to do with human
>sexuality.
There are many symols of sex in religious literature...The Garden of
Eden as regards the snake is a classic, textbook example. I learned
this in Psychology 101 many years ago.
>The fall was due to pride.
Of course, there are other meanings in Genesis. I'm not stupid.
I'm also a student of world religions, including Judaism and
Christianity.
>Only a person truly obsessed with sex would see the text as having sexual
>connotations.
As if obsession with sex were any kind of sin! However, I am not
obsessed as you would like to have others reading this thread believe.
You are using the simplistic homophobic ploy of trying to make me look
stupid and irrelevant.
Since I am dealing directly with the issue of homophobia...then I am
dealing with an aspect of human sexuality. It is homophobic jerks
such as yourself who are so obsessed over sex, as to judge others as
sinners for not participating in institutionalized, mainstream dull
and repressing breeder propagation in the fashion of a narrow-minded,
bigoted, class of KKKristians. You promote hatred and violence
towards innocent people whom God created to be Lesbian and Thracian.
>+ Archpriest John
Your title grants you no respect over anyone else, John.
Respect is still something to be earned. No one *not* from your
particular religion, should ever be expected to address you with
titles that have nothing to do with their own beliefs.
curt...@nr.infi.net
Peredur wrote:
>
> Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
> >
> > It was Adam and Eve who committed the original sin...says so right
> > there in The Old Testament, you know, "The Good Book", "The Bible".
> > GENESIS CHAPTER THREE. Adam and Eve were what? A man and a woman,
> > you know, as in "heterosexual." Original sin wasn't created between
> > two men or two women, you know, "Adam and Steve" or "Madame and Eve."
> >
> > intercourse", as symbolized by the eating of the apple in the tree of
> > knowledge of good and evil. They "knew" each other: they "knew
> > procreation...to create new beings from our hearts and minds, just as
> > God and the angels do. But when this law was broken, he condemned
> > heterosexuals to give birth in an inferior way, just like animals...in
> > blood, feces, and pain.
> >
> > a man and a woman, the sin of heterosexual conjugal relations. It's
> > there, right there in The Good Book...and no one can erase or alter
> > that fact as plain is the nose at the end of your face.
> >
> > No true homosexual woman or man would ever *dream* of violating that
> > most fundamental of God's law. We are persecuted by the descendants
> > of Adam and Eve: heterosexuals. Straight, homophobic bible-thumping
> > idiots who are *jealous* that we Lesbians and Thracians will never
> > have to answer to God for that original, most heinous of all sins:
> > for we are FREE FROM ORIGINAL SIN! Hallelujah, my gay sisters and
> > brothers, hallelujah to us all!
> >
> > I prefer public dialogue...no personal replies, please
> > (except on request; will consider pen-pals).
> > Private, hostile comments will be re-posted in public.
>
> Prometheus, who also was a bearer of sacred light
The Bible is a book of wisdom and is a guideline for a successful and
fulfilling life. The teachings thereof have been translated many times
over. When you take a passage and understand it for yourself, it is ONLY
for yourself... it may mean something different to someone else; and both
are correct. In the words of my "better than most" mother whenever I
bring up something from the Bible that goes against what she thinks is
right; and I quote, "But, that's different... that's not what the Bible means".
And, she would be right, if she would learn to live her life by her
translations and allow others to live by their translations. That's the
beauty of the Bible, and should be the beauty of us as humans... something
different, yet correct from person to person.
--
It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited commercial email
per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a US $500 charge for
reviewing & deleting each unsolicited commercial email. Sending
unsolicited commercial email to my email address denotes acceptance of
these terms. My posting messages to UseNet neither grants consent to
receiving nor is intended to solicit commercial email.
curt...@nr.infi.net
snip
>
> I won't appologise for not supporting your views. You don't support
> mine, so we'll call it even. I do not bash "Helenic" people. I do not
> support people who do. If you want to persue a political agenda by
> trying to make same-sex marriage legal, that's your business. I don't
> have an opinion on that matter yet. As I see it, if you love your
> partner and are married in the eyes of the Lord, then what you do is
> your business, not mine. If you feel that the US government should give
> homosexuals priviledges that heterosexual couples have, then try to
> persuade me to your point of view, not condemn me for trying to find out
> as much information as possible, or even for trying to have a discussion
> about differing points of view.
When I was an 18 year old virgin man, I married a virgin woman that I
dearly loved with all intentions of spending the rest of our lives together.
From the beginning, I was uneasy with the relationship, but I loved her &
thought I was just nervous & married anyhow. In a matter of time, I
finally realized what that uneasiness was... I loved her greatly, but it grew
more unnatural for me to be sharing my life with her. I did not want to
hurt her, but I couldn't stop these feelings. We broke up, and I met a very
good man. We have been in a monogamous relationship for almost 12
years. We share everything together & have all of the same joys &
problems of our hetrosexual couple friends. We are as married as we can
legally, mentally and spiritually be; the only one of those three that cannot
completely be is the legal part. We, as a homosexual couple and gay people
throughout the world, do not ask for 'special rights'... just the exact rights
offered to hetrosexual couples throughout the world.
dion...@infinet.com
Fr. John W. Morris (jrj...@cannet.com) said:
}Therefore, her sin was pride because she wanted to be like God so that she
}did not need God.
Hmm... Knowing the difference between good and evil is enough to do away
with God?
That might explain why so many Christians keep doing evil, they have to
depend on God to dispense common sense. Gotta pitty the Big Guy...
Surrounded by so many idiots.
As to why this is the case, I've no idea. We are like God now, just not
immortal. (Thank goodness for that small favor!) (See Genesis 3:23)
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
Stereotyping is a strange thing. Qualities that are derided when present
in other groups, can be hailed as meritorious when those same qualities
are applied to one's own group. Example: the American "Yankee
horse-trader" and the "Dirty Jew".
The old Yankee horse-trader was smart; had to be watched every second, and
he'd take advantage of every opportunity that presented itself. He'd
always come out on top via his initiative and know-how. However, apply
those same qualities in a Jewish business person and what did you get? One
of "them"...
Rob Moffett
dion...@infinet.com wrote:
> That might explain why so many Christians keep doing evil, they have to
> depend on God to dispense common sense. Gotta pitty the Big Guy...
> Surrounded by so many idiots.
>
Does that make Him like Dilbert?
Fr. John W. Morris
dion...@infinet.com wrote in article <5fvs9d$a...@news1.infinet.com>...
> Fr. John W. Morris (jrj...@cannet.com) said:
> >
> Hmm... Knowing the difference between good and evil is enough to do away
> with God?
>
It is not. However, the evil one tricked Eve into believing that it would
be.
+ Archpriest John
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Sun, 09 Mar 1997 00:16:18 +0000, curt...@nr.infi.net said:
>>The Bible is a book of wisdom and is a guideline for a successful and
>fulfilling life. The teachings thereof have been translated many times
>over. When you take a passage and understand it for yourself, it is ONLY
>for yourself...
You have a most eloquent way of expressing such truths.
Congratulations! My little essay was basically a satire on those who
interpret the story of Adam and Eve as a way to justify homophobia and
suffering and death of a basically innocent group of people: Lesbians
and Thracians.
Your input is great appreciated...it is a very sane comment.
---
Happy Hale-Bopp, GayFolk...this star is *our* star!
Public dialogue only, no spamming.
Hostile replies will be publicly posted.
Ezekiel Krahlin
Peredur wrote:
>> Trying to start a fire aren't you? Just remember the lessons of
>> Prometheus, who also was a bearer of sacred light
Interesting compliment. Prometheus is nevertheless a true hero among
heroes. Years ago, as an artist's model in college, a teacher placed
me in a most awkward pose...and called my pose "Prometheus Bound".
However, I do not believe that bringing good achievements to
fulfillment have to lead to crucifixion of the bringer. And I think
that those who compare me to other heroes with tragic outcomes are
only half correct, with only half a compliment.
There is also the legend of "The Christ Of Joy," who is the real
Christ, not this duplicitious double.
Peredur
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> On 2 Mar 1997 19:35:00 GMT, "Fr. John W. Morris" <jrj...@cannet.com>
> said:
>
> >
> >
> >Ezekiel Krahlin <Chief_T...@Athenia.New> wrote in article
> ><3318ff2a...@news.wco.com>...
> >> >>
> >>
> out--that sex is only good when practiced between a man and a woman,
> that in no way is it good if consumated by a homosexual couple, no
> matter how dedicated and loving they are to one another.
>
Mr Krahlin,
I respectfully disagree. Nowhere in "Fr Morris"s post did he imply
only heterosexual unions were sacred. Your righteous anger may be
impairing your judgement.
Regards,
Peredur
Peredur
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> Peredur wrote:
> >> Trying to start a fire aren't you? Just remember the lessons of
> >> Prometheus, who also was a bearer of sacred light
>
> Interesting compliment. Prometheus is nevertheless a true hero among
> heroes. Years ago, as an artist's model in college, a teacher placed
> me in a most awkward pose...and called my pose "Prometheus Bound".
> However, I do not believe that bringing good achievements to
> fulfillment have to lead to crucifixion of the bringer. And I think
> that those who compare me to other heroes with tragic outcomes are
> only half correct, with only half a compliment.
Mr. Krahlin,
To clarify: Prometheus was not chained to the mountain for bringing
advances to mankind; but for thinking himself the equal of Zeus
(the Divine) and mistaking his place in the scheme of things. My post
was intended more as a caution than as a compliment or a comparison. I
am surprised that you cannot see the potential for tragedy in your
actions, for where there is capacity for joy, there is capacity for
sorrow.
Regards,
Peredur
Ezekiel Krahlin
Peredur wrote:
>> Trying to start a fire aren't you? Just remember the lessons of
>> Prometheus, who also was a bearer of sacred light
Some further thoughts on this: If someone were about to do a good
deed, would you say: "Remember what happened to Jesus when he tried
to do good!"?
There are many other cultures to derive stories of gods bringing fire,
light, or knowledge to mankind, without being punished...tricksters
who got away with it...fairies who bless humble folk...angels with
blessings...and so on.
While I adore Greek mythology, I don't have to buy into every tragic
scenario. I prefer to think of Prometheus--who brought great
redemption to mankind--as freed from his chains, and assisting human
souls towards their enlightenment...and having a place of honor on Mt.
Olympus. His image can remain chained to the rock, with his liver
being plucked...as a symbol of the price one *might* wind up paying
for trying to liberate a people. It is the mark of the hero to take
that chance. We all get our livers incessantly plucked by the slings
and arrows of life...especially when we stick our necks out to aid
others.
If you choose to see so much of the human achievement in an ultimate,
negative light...then you also create a dark, inner world for
yourself. You also cast darkness onto others, which is not the way to
practice respect for your fellow beings. That is deception and false
friendship.
N.J.Duckworth
Arhpriest John - Archdemon indeed you homphobe. Btw, God does not exist.
In article <3318feb0...@news.wco.com>,
Chief_T...@Athenia.New (Ezekiel Krahlin) wrote:
>On 28 Feb 1997 20:37:56 GMT, "Fr. John W. Morris" <jrj...@cannet.com>
>said:
>
>>Ezekiel Krahlin <Chief_T...@Athenia.New> wrote in article
>><33166c40...@news.wco.com>...
>>>
>>> Adam and Eve broke God's law: they "knew" each other, as in "had
>>> intercourse", as symbolized by the eating of the apple in the tree of
>>> knowledge of good and evil. They "knew" each other: they "knew
>>> evil". How obvious, how simple. God had other plans for human
>>> procreation...to create new beings from our hearts and minds, just as
>>> God and the angels do. But when this law was broken, he condemned
>>> heterosexuals to give birth in an inferior way, just like animals...in
>>> blood, feces, and pain.
>>>
>>That is just about the most warped interpretation of the Bible that I have
>>ever read.
>
>No it isn't, you lie. The most warped interpretation came along long
>before you, or I, were born. And this is using the bible to
>persecute, murder, and degrade GayFolk. So with my satirical
>writings, I hold up a mirror. Since so many low-church Christians
>perceive homosexuality as a worse sin than even heterosexual rape or
>homicide...so I hold up a mirror, whereby I imply that heterosexuality
>is a worse sin than any other, including murder. And the vulgar,
>violent actions of you homophobes makes the strongest case ever, in my
>favor.
>
>You prefer to interpret my essay as "just about the most warped
>interpretation of the Bible" you have ever read...because you live and
>breathe homophobia. Have you ever spoke up at how sinful and criminal
>it is to persecute homosexuals, how absolutely *UNchristian* it is?
>
>Of course not, as you do the devil's work. But you are just Satan's
>toy, an insignifcant little soul doing his low-priority bidding. Just
>wait till he gets tired of playing with you, like a cat to a mouse!
>
>(Or if you did, it was most likely something like: "We must love
>them, but not their 'sin'." Which is still a way to foment violence,
>without have blame pointed in your directions. But the blood is
>indeed as much on your hands as on anyone who has actually bashed a
>Thracian...you are a partner in a most heinous crime, many times
>over.)
>
>> God created human sexuality. Human sexuality is therefore good.
>>Naturally, like everything else, we can misuse God's creation by misusing
>>our sexuality. It is a sin to misuse God's creation of sex.
>
>God created homosexuals, as it is His wish that "variety is the spice
>of life." You, oh Preaching Bastard Of Homophobia, are misuing God's
---+ Nathan Duckworth : Program.X Software MCMXCVII
N.J.Du...@cms.salford.ac.uk : mca...@scot1.ucsalf.ac.uk
GillsMate@webmaster on #X
Davy Hall representative on Oaklands Halls Catering Committee
Peredur
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> Peredur wrote:
> >> Trying to start a fire aren't you? Just remember the lessons of
> >> Prometheus, who also was a bearer of sacred light
>
> Some further thoughts on this: If someone were about to do a good
> deed, would you say: "Remember what happened to Jesus when he tried
> to do good!"?
Actually, I might say something like this- often people try to do good
without considering whether or not their actions have the intended
effect of doing good. Trying to do good is not the same as doing so-
however one tends to get better at doing good with practice.
I would also argue that Jesus the Nazerene knew the consequences of
doing good and made free choices to do good.
There is also a major distinction between the two myths: According to
the story, Jesus was the Divine personally acting to reconcile humanity
with Itself. Prometheus was acting counter to the Divine and sought to
have his own way regardless.
> There are many other cultures to derive stories of gods bringing fire,
> light, or knowledge to mankind, without being punished...tricksters
> who got away with it...fairies who bless humble folk...angels with
> blessings...and so on.
True, and if you wish to discuss those myths and their application
please do so. They in no way lessen the impact of truths found in other
myths.
>
> While I adore Greek mythology, I don't have to buy into every tragic
> scenario. I prefer to think of Prometheus--who brought great
> redemption to mankind--as freed from his chains, and assisting human
> souls towards their enlightenment...and having a place of honor on Mt.
> Olympus. His image can remain chained to the rock, with his liver
> being plucked...as a symbol of the price one *might* wind up paying
> for trying to liberate a people. It is the mark of the hero to take
> that chance. We all get our livers incessantly plucked by the slings
> and arrows of life...especially when we stick our necks out to aid
> others.
It is important to note that Prometheus' liberation followed his
suffering. He was freed by his understanding that he was not equal to
the Divine, but the servant of the Divine. He also was required to wear
a ring made of the stone from the mountain to remember the price of his
arrogance
>
> If you choose to see so much of the human achievement in an ultimate,
> negative light...then you also create a dark, inner world for
> yourself. You also cast darkness onto others, which is not the way to
> practice respect for your fellow beings. That is deception and false
> friendship.
I fail to see the connection here between my comments and your apparent
perception that I see human achievement so negatively. My comments have
been specifically directed at the means and ideas you have presented,
not at humanity in general. Also, please refrain from making
insinuations regarding what kind of person I am or am not. This is not
an appropriate forum for such discussion and quite frankly it is none of
your concern.
Regards,
Peredur.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 01:12:51 -0500, Peredur <mab...@sprynet.com> said:
>Mr. Krahlin,
> To clarify: Prometheus was not chained to the mountain for bringing
>advances to mankind; but for thinking himself the equal of Zeus
>(the Divine) and mistaking his place in the scheme of things. My post
>was intended more as a caution than as a compliment or a comparison.
Thank you for refreshing my memory as to the legent of Prometheus.
However, he *is* the equal of Zeus, for we are *all* facets of God and
in so being, stand equal to him. Zeus was quite famous for his temper
tantrums.
>I am surprised that you cannot see the potential for tragedy in your
>actions, for where there is capacity for joy, there is capacity for
>sorrow.
You have no need to be surprised, Peredur. After all, what we share
in newsgroups can only be bits and snips of our real selves. Believe
me, I am well aware of risks increasing with bolder steps. I think it
all started with the humble ameoba.
I have done numerous deeds for all sorts of reasons, throughout my
life. As a result, I have been badly scarred, near death several
times, and almost went insane. These are my war wounds, and I bear
them with great pride, as badges of honor (which they are, though only
visible to angels and not men).
---
Happy Hale-Bopp, GayFolk...this star is *our* star!
http://www.fog.net/ekrahlin ekra...@fog.net
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 15:01:44 -0500, Peredur <mab...@sprynet.com> said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>> If you choose to see so much of the human achievement in an ultimate,
>> negative light...then you also create a dark, inner world for
>> yourself. You also cast darkness onto others, which is not the way to
>> practice respect for your fellow beings. That is deception and false
>> friendship.
>
>
>I fail to see the connection here between my comments and your apparent
>perception that I see human achievement so negatively.
It's pretty obvious. I don't need to rehash. If it went over your
head, I'll leave it at that.
>My comments have
>been specifically directed at the means and ideas you have presented,
>not at humanity in general.
Of course! I realize that.
>Also, please refrain from making
>insinuations regarding what kind of person I am or am not. This is not
>an appropriate forum for such discussion and quite frankly it is none of
>your concern.
Unfortunately, you made insinuations that I could suffer a horrible
outcome, by referring to Prometheus...who is most famous for the
bringing of fire to man, and tormet of having his liver plucked out,
over and over again.. I merely pointed that out. If that was not
your intent--to throw a veil of hideous fears over someone's
ideas--then you certainly did not make that clear at all. And...I am
not a mind reader...at least not in the way you expect me to be.
You take too seriously my satire, and choose to interpret it as
hubris...whether intentionally or in the sincerest way, I do not know.
Perhaps I should toss in a few smiley faces along the way--like
breadcrumbs to identify the right direction--for the sake of the less
savvy wanderers among us.
Excerpt from:
"Prometheus," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1993 Microsoft
Corporation. Copyright (c) 1993 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prometheus, in Greek mythology, one of the Titans, known as the friend
and benefactor of humanity, the son of the Titan Iapetus by the sea
nymph Clymene or the Titaness Themis. Prometheus and his brother
Epimetheus were given the task of creating humanity and providing
humans and all the animals on earth with the endowments they would
need to survive. Epimetheus (whose name means afterthought)
accordingly proceeded to bestow on the various animals gifts of
courage, strength, swiftness, and feathers, fur, and other protective
coverings. When it came time to create a being who was to be superior
to all other living creatures, Epimetheus found he had been so
reckless with his resources that he had nothing left to bestow. He was
forced to ask his brother's help, and Prometheus (whose name means
forethought) took over the task of creation. To make humans superior
to the animals, he fashioned them in nobler form and enabled them to
walk upright. He then went up to heaven and lit a torch with fire from
the sun. The gift of fire that Prometheus bestowed upon humanity was
more valuable than any of the gifts the animals had received.
Because of his actions Prometheus incurred the wrath of the god Zeus.
Not only did he steal the fire he gave to humans, but he also tricked
the gods so that they should get the worst parts of any animal
sacrificed to them, and human beings the best. In one pile, Prometheus
arranged the edible parts of an ox in a hide and disguised them with a
covering of entrails. In the other, he placed the bones, which he
covered with fat. Zeus, asked to choose between the two, took the fat
and was very angry when he discovered that it covered a pile of bones.
Thereafter, only fat and bones were sacrificed to the gods; the good
meat was kept for mortals. For Prometheus's transgressions, Zeus had
him chained to a rock in the Caucasus, where he was constantly preyed
upon by an eagle. Finally he was freed by the hero Hercules, who slew
the eagle.
---
My web page kicks ass!
http://www.fog.net/ekrahlin
ekra...@fog.net
Public dialog only, no spamming.
Hostile private replies will be publicly posted.
Andrew McPherson
Why don't all you god-fearing christians bypass the original sin of fucking
to reproduce and clone yourselves?
You could then avoid the original sin and have a family.
Peredur
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 15:01:44 -0500, Peredur <mab...@sprynet.com> said:
>
> >Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
> >> If you choose to see so much of the human achievement in an ultimate,
> >> negative light...then you also create a dark, inner world for
> >> yourself. You also cast darkness onto others, which is not the way to
> >> practice respect for your fellow beings. That is deception and false
> >> friendship.
> >
> >
> >I fail to see the connection here between my comments and your apparent
> >perception that I see human achievement so negatively.
>
> It's pretty obvious. I don't need to rehash. If it went over your
> head, I'll leave it at that.
unsubstantiated.
>
> >My comments have
> >been specifically directed at the means and ideas you have presented,
> >not at humanity in general.
>
> Of course! I realize that.
>
> >Also, please refrain from making
> >insinuations regarding what kind of person I am or am not. This is not
> >an appropriate forum for such discussion and quite frankly it is none of
> >your concern.
>
> Unfortunately, you made insinuations that I could suffer a horrible
> outcome, by referring to Prometheus...who is most famous for the
> bringing of fire to man, and tormet of having his liver plucked out,
> over and over again.. I merely pointed that out. If that was not
> your intent--to throw a veil of hideous fears over someone's
> ideas--then you certainly did not make that clear at all. And...I am
> not a mind reader...at least not in the way you expect me to be.
You seem to identify too readily with the negative yourself. You are
quick to abandon courtesy firing off insults at those who disagree with
you or attempt to quietly and reasonably bring issues to your
attention. As evidenced by some of your other posts you seem to delight
in pissing people off, and work fairly hard at doing so. My comment re:
Prometheus was meant to tell you that I knew your were trying to get
things stirred up and to point out that the potential for hubris was
evident
>
> You take too seriously my satire, and choose to interpret it as
> hubris...whether intentionally or in the sincerest way, I do not know.
> Perhaps I should toss in a few smiley faces along the way--like
> breadcrumbs to identify the right direction--for the sake of the less
> savvy wanderers among us.
With all due respect sir, if you need to point out that you have written
satire, then what you have written isn't satire. Breadcrumbs or no,
your writing leads no one in the right direction. I truly think that
you have valuable things to say, but as I have said in other posts, It
seems that your anger and or pride gets in the way of your message.
Be well
Peredur
Ezekiel Krahlin
On 2 Mar 1997 19:35:00 GMT, "Fr. John W. Morris" <jrj...@cannet.com>
said:
>> I am a Christian, just cut from a much different cloth than this
>> toilet-breath "Fr. John W. Morris".
>>
>How do you justify calling sex, which is part of God's creation, good
>something written by a "toilet breath?" God created human sexuality.
>Because God created it sexuality is good.
Oh, I never called sex a bad thing. I called you toilet breath,
because you implied that homosexuality is a sin. You are another
plastic KKKristian who says "I hate the sin, but love the sinner". I
cannot find your earlier post that said the equivalent. So, prove to
me you are not a toilet breath...tell me that I was mistaken, that you
do not believe the homosexual act is a sin at all...but equally valid
and blessed in God's eye, when performed between two people of the
same sex in love with, and devoted to each other.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:30:31 -0500, Peredur <mab...@sprynet.com> said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Mar 1997 19:35:00 GMT, "Fr. John W. Morris" <jrj...@cannet.com>
>> said:
>>
>> Because this "Morris" so much as implied--without actually spitting it
>> out--that sex is only good when practiced between a man and a woman,
>> that in no way is it good if consumated by a homosexual couple, no
>> matter how dedicated and loving they are to one another.
>>
>
>Mr Krahlin,
> I respectfully disagree. Nowhere in "Fr Morris"s post did he imply
>only heterosexual unions were sacred. Your righteous anger may be
>impairing your judgement.
>
Well, then let's hear Morris clarify his viewpoint. He is among the
group of plastic KKKristians who "hate the sin, but not the
sinner"...sin in this case referring to homosexuality. Morris
perpetuates violence against GayFolk by preaching this hypocritical
thesis. Come on, Morris, tell me I made a mistake...that you see
homosexuality as equally valid and blessed as heterosexuality, in
God's eye.
As far as my anger...well, it's in its correct place. My anger is not
from deception, but from viewing truth in its ugly aspects. I am
proud of my anger...it does not blind me in any way, indeed it does
quite the opposite. It is unlikely my judgment is at all impaired.
So let's hear it, Morris...do you feel homosexuality is a sin or not?
Refresh my memory, as someone says I have misinterpreted you.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:58:18 -0500, Peredur <mab...@sprynet.com> said:
Here is an example of someting you say, which I pointed out is a very
negative slant:
>Breadcrumbs or no,
>your writing leads no one in the right direction.
This is a blanket denial that there is nothing good out of anything I
say. That is blatantly untrue, as folks have personally thanked me
for some of my insights. Yet you insist that what I interpret as
negative from you, is actually my own negative perception, which I
either do not see, or see but deny. No, I see things all too clearly.
When you make such broad-handed comments such as the one above, I
cannot help but see your words as an intentional slam in a very
negative light coming from yourself.
>I truly think that you have valuable things to say,
Don't work so hard convincing yourself, else you'll miss any point I
make.
>but as I have said in other posts, It
>seems that your anger and or pride gets in the way of your message.
Yes, you have said that in other posts, and still keep saying that.
Say it enough times, and some may come to believe you...but count me
out on this one.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:58:18 -0500, Peredur <mab...@sprynet.com> said:
> You seem to identify too readily with the negative yourself.
That's what you like to think, I already know that.
>You are
>quick to abandon courtesy firing off insults at those who disagree with
>you or attempt to quietly and reasonably bring issues to your
>attention.
Not quick at all...I am a clear thinker, and have dealt with your type
before, many times over.
>As evidenced by some of your other posts you seem to delight
>in pissing people off, and work fairly hard at doing so.
Not a question of delight...but it doesn't bother me when someone gets
pissed off. However, some folks tend to fly off the handle over any
little thing I might bring up that may cause them to reconsider their
philosophies. You mistake my hard work for just plain expertise. I
do not work hard at all, in composing my messages. You seem to
disregqard those who appreciate and enjoy my style...thereby coloring
my situation to look as if *everybody* in these groups is pissed off
at me. Not so at all...but you can think otherwise, all you want.
>My comment re:
>> You take too seriously my satire, and choose to interpret it as
>> hubris...whether intentionally or in the sincerest way, I do not know.
>> Perhaps I should toss in a few smiley faces along the way--like
>> breadcrumbs to identify the right direction--for the sake of the less
>> savvy wanderers among us.
>
>With all due respect sir, if you need to point out that you have written
>satire, then what you have written isn't satire.
I don't need to point it out at all...but some people are too thick in
the skull to recognize satire even when it hits them over the head.
>Breadcrumbs or no,
>your writing leads no one in the right direction.
Oh, what a lot of nonsense! Numerous people have already posted their
great enjoyment of my writings. Again, you nonchalantly ignore those
comments...how convenient to bolster you case!
>I truly think that
>you have valuable things to say, but as I have said in other posts, It
>seems that your anger and or pride gets in the way of your message.
I am already speaking valuable things...or haven't you been paying
attention? Perhaps you'd be better off just logging on to my web
page, where you can read my ideas directly, without interweaving them
in newsgroup dialogs. I even invite you to contribute some of your
writings...as my web page is also intended to give people a space to
be heard, who rarely get that chance.
My anger is not that strong...again, you'd like others to see me as if
anger were blinding my ability to think clearly. As far as
pride...well, you have a long way to go before you can even appreciate
my pride for the brilliant energy it is.
Peredur
>
>
> >quick to abandon courtesy firing off insults at those who disagree with
> >you or attempt to quietly and reasonably bring issues to your
> >attention.
>
> before, many times over.
> >As evidenced by some of your other posts you seem to delight
> >in pissing people off, and work fairly hard at doing so.
>
> Not a question of delight...but it doesn't bother me when someone gets
> pissed off. However, some folks tend to fly off the handle over any
> little thing I might bring up that may cause them to reconsider their
> philosophies. You mistake my hard work for just plain expertise. I
> do not work hard at all, in composing my messages. You seem to
> disregqard those who appreciate and enjoy my style...thereby coloring
> my situation to look as if *everybody* in these groups is pissed off
> at me. Not so at all...but you can think otherwise, all you want.
> >My comment re:
> >> You take too seriously my satire, and choose to interpret it as
> >> hubris...whether intentionally or in the sincerest way, I do not know.
> >> Perhaps I should toss in a few smiley faces along the way--like
> >> breadcrumbs to identify the right direction--for the sake of the less
> >> savvy wanderers among us.
> >
> >With all due respect sir, if you need to point out that you have written
> >satire, then what you have written isn't satire.
>
> I don't need to point it out at all...but some people are too thick in
> the skull to recognize satire even when it hits them over the head.
>
> >Breadcrumbs or no,
> >your writing leads no one in the right direction.
>
> Oh, what a lot of nonsense! Numerous people have already posted their
> great enjoyment of my writings. Again, you nonchalantly ignore those
> comments...how convenient to bolster you case!
>
> >I truly think that
> >you have valuable things to say, but as I have said in other posts, It
> >seems that your anger and or pride gets in the way of your message.
>
> I am already speaking valuable things...or haven't you been paying
> attention? Perhaps you'd be better off just logging on to my web
> page, where you can read my ideas directly, without interweaving them
> in newsgroup dialogs. I even invite you to contribute some of your
> writings...as my web page is also intended to give people a space to
> be heard, who rarely get that chance.
>
> My anger is not that strong...again, you'd like others to see me as if
> anger were blinding my ability to think clearly. As far as
> pride...well, you have a long way to go before you can even appreciate
> my pride for the brilliant energy it is.
Mr. Krahlin,
With all due regard, the written work you have posted and which I have
seen does not reflect clarity of thought. You may indeed be able to
think well, but that does not mean you communicate it well.
As an example of what I mean, you use the term "your type" without
defining it. Although it is possible for me to infer from your usage, my
inferences may or may not be valid; a better phrase would have been your
type which [defining characteristics].
My primary reason for saying that you work to piss people off is the
fairly high incidence in the number of your posts that I have read in
which you flame respondents, calling them names when they disagree with
you i.e "Fr. Morris" whom you referred to as a "KKKhristian". For
myself, I would consider becoming expert in something other that hurling
insults. I'm glad that you do not work hard in composing messages; it
shows promise of real talent which might be perfected with some effort.
I disregarded the opinions of those who appreciate and enjoy your style
because their opinions while valuable in their own right are not
relevant to an analysis of a work. Whether a work is well written or
not is not ultimately dependent on one's personal tastes. Rather, the
excellence of a work is based in how well it communicates the message of
the author. For example: one can really enjoy old B-movies (a matter
of taste) while recognizing that the movies are badly made
(a matter of excellence).
Your comment re: coloring your situation requires a clarification and
a thank you for bringing it to my attention.
I should have written "...you seem to delight in attempting to piss
people off." My apologies to the members of the groups for phrasing
which does presume to speak for you.
As far as your response regarding your attempts at satire. I would
point out that a better arguement would be to illustrate how your
writing demonstrates the qualities of good satire, instead of
essentially stating that those who don't see your work as satire are
dense.
Thank you for your offer to visit and participate on your web page. I
may visit, but I doubt that I will participate at this time.
I don't believe though that there is a connection between seeing your
ideas here or at your website, unless you have rewritten and clarified
your work.
Your comment re: my wanting others to see you as blinded by anger is
off the mark. {I} have interpreted your writings as reflecting this.
What others may think of your work or mine is for them to say or not, as
they will. I would also point out that I have not commented on the
"brilliance" of your pride, but rather I have commented on
its expression.
Regards,
Peredur
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 01:09:02 -0500, Peredur <mab...@sprynet.com> said:
>> >With all due respect sir,
There goes that phrase again. You preface most anything you write to
me, and others, with "with all due respect". Is this a backhanded way
of meaning the opposite? It's a useless phrase when utilized in such
a redundant manner.
> With all due regard,
Ooops! A variation on a theme.
>the written work you have posted and which I have
>seen does not reflect clarity of thought. You may indeed be able to
>think well, but that does not mean you communicate it well.
Say whatever you'd like. Doesn't make any sense, but: say whatever
you'd like.
> As an example of what I mean, you use the term "your type" without
>defining it.
I did that intentionally, knowing you would fall for it and ask me
what I mean. Here's what "your type" means: Snotty, and catty.
Happy now?
>Although it is possible for me to infer from your usage, my
>inferences may or may not be valid; a better phrase would have been your
>type which [defining characteristics].
You got 'em!
> My primary reason for saying that you work to piss people off is the
>fairly high incidence in the number of your posts that I have read in
>which you flame respondents, calling them names when they disagree with
>you i.e "Fr. Morris" whom you referred to as a "KKKhristian".
Oh, please, spare me! The degrading attitudes of homophobes deserve a
lot worse than some clever name calling I contribute to this group. I
do not flame, I challenge these jerks to justify their bigotry. These
are not nice people and do not deserve any eggshell walking on
anyone's part. As far as pissing people off: that's up to them, how
they'll react...but to blame me for their own inability to control
their emotions is somehow a misconstrued conclusion.
> For
>myself, I would consider becoming expert in something other that hurling
>insults. I'm glad that you do not work hard in composing messages;
I do not hurl insults...I tell it like it is...then back it up with
references and quotes.
>it
>shows promise of real talent which might be perfected with some effort.
What would you know of talent?
> I disregarded the opinions of those who appreciate and enjoy your style
>because their opinions while valuable in their own right are not
<snip>
I've snipped the rest of your pseudo-intellectual drivel, as it is not
worth answering to.
> Your comment re: coloring your situation requires a clarification and
>a thank you for bringing it to my attention.
> I should have written "...you seem to delight in attempting to piss
>people off." My apologies to the members of the groups for phrasing
>which does presume to speak for you.
Boy, are you the phony! I don't delight in pissing people off. But I
do delight in having a voice, whereas in pre-Internet days we could
never confront bigots on their own turf...as they'd just slam the
door, turn off the radio, plug their ears, or any number of avoidance
tactics. But in Usenet, just as we GayFolk must constantly be
subjected to homophobic ranting and raving in all our own
newsgroups...we can also confront them in theirs, and they can't shut
us up!
> As far as your response regarding your attempts at satire. I would
>point out that a better arguement would be to illustrate how your
>writing demonstrates the qualities of good satire, instead of
>essentially stating that those who don't see your work as satire are
>dense.
I couldn't resist. You left yourself wide open.
> Thank you for your offer to visit and participate on your web page. I
>may visit, but I doubt that I will participate at this time.
Oh, is it too much for you to even take a look-see? What hypocrisy!
You don't even have to admit to anyone that you did. What a maroon!
You're just missing out on the hottest web site to ever exist. Guess
you'll just have to wait till you see me on TV accepting the Nobel
Peace Prize.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Wed, 05 Mar 1997 09:26:00 -0500, Peredur <mab...@sprynet.com> said:
>Sir,
> I would point out that Mr. Morris' response did not have any
>homophobic content to refute. His use of the term sexuality was all
>inclusive, and his reasoning regarding the "sin" of pride was effective.
A tactic often used by KKKristians is to speak in general, loving
terms about sex in marriage, and avoiding any condemnation of
homosexuality. By never vocalizing or spelling out that homosexuality
is not a sin...they make others believe this is an approval of
homosexuality. Haven't you learned to read between the lines...as a
form of "anti" gaydar?
I have confronted Morris as to whether or not he perceives
homosexuality as a sin...just to be sure. He seems to be having a
difficult time answering me. I'm waiting on his reply. If he is so
open minded as you claim, then Morris would have absolutely no qualms
stating that homosexuality is no more a sin than heterosexuality. I'm
growing old, waiting for his reply.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:30:31 -0500, Peredur <mab...@sprynet.com> said:
>Mr Krahlin,
> I respectfully disagree. Nowhere in "Fr Morris"s post did he imply
>only heterosexual unions were sacred. Your righteous anger may be
>impairing your judgement.
I'm still waiting on what Morris has to say about homosexuality. But
I'm not holding my breath.
Ezekiel Krahlin
On 18 Mar 97 22:37:37 GMT, "Andrew McPherson"
<MCPH...@mail.cit.ac.nz> said:
Bravo! I'll second the motion!
Fr. John W. Morris
Ezekiel Krahlin <NationO...@NuWorld.com> wrote in article
>
> I'm still waiting on what Morris has to say about homosexuality. But
> I'm not holding my breath.
>
I answered your question several days ago. I did, however, trim the cross
postings by eliminating news groups that I do not read. However, just so
that you will be sure to see my answer, I will not trim the cross postings.
I am not ashamed of by belief in Biblical morality. Nor will I be
intimidated by threats and insults into rejecting what I believe is
divinely revealed moral principles. However, I have learned to avoid
discussions of homosexuality because it is a total waste of time. Gay
radicals harass anyone who does not accept their position, as I am sure I
will be harassed by my answer to your question.
However, since you asked, I do not consider homosexual relations blessed or
moral. As a Christian, I believe that homosexual relations are sinful and
unnatural. This is not just my position, but is the position of the vast
majority of Christians. I do not advocate using the power of the state to
enforce my moral principles, but do reserve the right to exercise my
freedom of speech and religion to express my beliefs.
As you remember, my original post dealt with the question of original sin,
which you incorrectly argued was normal heterosexual relations between Adam
and Eve. According to the text and the interpretation of the Holy Fathers,
the sin of Adam and Eve was disobedience to God manifested by pride.
+ Archpriest John W. Morris
Ezekiel Krahlin
On 25 Mar 1997 14:48:53 GMT, "Fr. John W. Morris" <jrj...@cannet.com>
said:
>
>
Morris, a certain "Peredur" in this group said to me:
> I respectfully disagree. Nowhere in "Fr Morris"s post did he imply
>only heterosexual unions were sacred.
I told him, can't you read between the lines? He is baiting GayFolk
by pretending he is Gay-friendly, or at least letting some of us
believe he does, by virtue of his *ommision* of any Gay
references...if were are so foolish to fall for that little deception.
>However, since you asked, I do not consider homosexual relations blessed or
>moral. As a Christian, I believe that homosexual relations are sinful and
>unnatural.
You mean as a phony Christian, who perverts the Bible for his own
unholy motives.
>This is not just my position, but is the position of the vast
>majority of Christians.
Not. The European churches have long ago ended their hatred towards
Hellenes.
>I do not advocate using the power of the state to
>enforce my moral principles, but do reserve the right to exercise my
>freedom of speech and religion to express my beliefs.
You mean freedom of *hate* speech. You religion is not from Christ,
but from the devil. You are one of those whom Jesus meant when he
said, "When I return there will be many who say, 'Haven't we done good
deeds in your name?', and I will reply: 'I know you not'." Have a
happy burn in hell, Morris.
>As you remember, my original post dealt with the question of original sin,
>which you incorrectly argued was normal heterosexual relations between Adam
>and Eve.
It wasn't incorrect at all. It was satire. Far be it from me to try
to stop you from distorting my words in ways you deem to persecute me
for being one of God's bravest soldiers, a proud Thracian.
>According to the text and the interpretation of the Holy Fathers,
>the sin of Adam and Eve was disobedience to God manifested by pride.
Pride is something you wouldn't know about. False pride, yes. True
pride, no. There is nothing proud about condemning the homosexual
spirit...the same spirit which unites the hearts of the two greatest
men and lovers for all time: Jesus and His Father.
>+ Archpriest John W. Morris
More like: Archdemon
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:30:31 -0500, Peredur <mab...@sprynet.com> said:
> I respectfully disagree. Nowhere in "Fr Morris"s post did he imply
>only heterosexual unions were sacred.
Here is a quote from Morris, who just posted his response to my
challenge of whether or not he includes homosexuality as sacred as
heteorsexuality. You so eagerly kiss up to homophobes! It was
obvious to me that this dork Morris was thinly veiling his disapprovel
towards GayFolk...well, he didn't fool me for one moment, though you
are so willfully deluded. My righteous anger is not impaired one bit.
>Your righteous anger may be impairing your judgement.
---begin quote from Morris
However, since you asked, I do not consider homosexual relations
blessed or moral. As a Christian, I believe that homosexual relations
are sinful and unnatural. This is not just my position, but is the
position of the vast majority of Christians. I do not advocate using
the power of the state to enforce my moral principles, but do reserve
the right to exercise my freedom of speech and religion to express my
beliefs.
---begin quote
Ezekiel Krahlin
Hey, Morris...since you are so intrigued by me presence in this
newsgroups, I thought I'd post a copy of a recent response I gave in a
gay groups. As it explains my artistic and spiritual intentions on
the Internet, especially as regards my web page:
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 09:29:29 -0800, someone said:
>Ezekiel Krahlin wrote:
>
>[not much beyond the usual paranoid screed...this time about how some
>straight pseudo-artist foisted upon us a symbol we should reject and
>replace with something else more fitting to Zeke's Thracian sensibility.
>At least it wasn't crossposted (though I suspect it was separately
>posted to several groups.) For this small mercy we should give thanks.]
Hi! I don't believe my essay was paranoiac at all. It educates
others as to the origins of the rainbow flag...not very inspiring.
And why shouldn't we rethink and reinvent ourselves beyond the limited
rut we are in? My statements therein about the originator of the flag
are documented in our gay archives...everything I said about its
origins is absolutely true, and not made up.
Do you like the idea of our flag coming from a hetero? I really think
something that important should be from one of our own people, or
several. That's why I proposed a contest...as well as much more
innovative ways to represent a rainbow...if indeed we feel so strongly
about keeping that specific symbol.
Don't you have any thoughts in this matter, other than to see it as
just the rantings of a madman? I contribute new ideas to our
community. Where's all the diversity and creativity being encouraged
around here? Instead, I am mocked and attacked (by some). I thought
we pride ourselves for our artistry, originality, and innovations.
You seem to be quite at odds with this. Certainly, this is beyond my
way of behaving.
And yes, I did post "Down with the Rainbow Flag" to several other
newsgroups...you have a problem with this? Look, I feel I have some
important things to say, and no fool will ever shut me up. When you
got, you got it. One thing I'll never be guilty of, is false
humility. I got the right stuff, and I strut it.
But I also invite others to contribute original art to my web
page...where I will give them complete recognition for their
accomplishments. Of course, far be it from you to check out my web
page...as you'd prefer to continue to perceive me as a worthless
nuisance. That's your privilege...I am too busy to dally with those
who only care to bicker.
Give yourself a break some day, and focus for a few moments on just
*one* of my good points. You'll be a better man for it...though never
as great a man as I am! Honestly, I must be the only real man left in
San Francisco (other than the dykes, I mean)!
My web page is the beginning of a vision coming to fulfillment. It
will eventually be renamed to "The Final Testament" or "The
Dyke/Faggot Bible". It will be a vast compilation of original
writings and graphics...by anyone who cares to contribute. No
religious viewpoint will be barred, including atheism, agnosticism,
existentialism, and so on. Eventually, it will be so large that many
of us will contribute one or two megabytes of our own web space, that
chapters may be linked together across the vast Internet global
network. The beautiful works contained therein will shine with
dignity, wisdom, and humor...and will touch the hearts of all people,
and slay the beast of homophobia for once and for all. The vision
that led to these realizations started as a dream two years ago:
I was standing in a medieval monastery, in a room filled with monks
bending over their wooden benches in devoted concentration to the
creation of illuminated manuscript. It was a most peaceful scene,
with warm, golden sunlight passing through a window. Only the monks
had soft, downy white wings...they were angels! One angel-monk who
stood beside me, gave me a nudge in the direction of the benches, and
said, "Go, and see what they're writing!"
So I approached one of the seated monks and gingerly looked over his
shoulder. Amid a border of brilliant gold-leaf and colored enamel
illuminated manuscript, he was scrolling a title across the page:
"The Little Angel Who Wouldn't Fly". I gasped and stepped back, and
said, "Why, that's my story!"
My guardian agreed, "Yes, they are all your stories. You are to write
the major part of what is to become the last and final testament for
all time."
And that was the end of this lovely dream-vision. Other visions have
shown Hellenic people around the world secretly gathering my writing
to put it into this new bible. And it would, by then, include
contributions by many other Lesbians and Thracians...up to 70% of the
entire contents. I was shown how one morning I will walk by a
bookstore and see this bible of my dreams on display, as if by
magic...as I didn't have to do a thing to publish it myself!
Since then, I now realize that my web page is the birth of this final
testament...and already, I have two other contributors besides myself.
While I am obviously proud of my accomplishments--including my future
accomplishments--I am most proud of being able to provide a space
of recognition to those who have gone without any pats on the back for
their talents and courage.
You take this in whatever way you so choose; I don't care. But I do
know my destiny is to play a major role in the next series of
victories on behalf of Hellenic Rights...via my writings, art, and
eventually, lectures. And many others will also rise to recognition,
like myself. It could even be you...as I do not pass judgment on
anyone.
My web page includes "The Little Angel Who Wouldn't Fly", as well as
other intriguing materials. I am honored to have such inspirations,
and to be able to contribute in such positive and empowering ways on
behalf of all same-sex lovers. It is a shame that so many still pick
at me in such mean spiritied manners. However, this will soon end, as
more and more people realize I am not deluded at all...just incredibly
gifted. And I have every intention of using this gift to the maximum
of my abilities...which includes empowering anyone else, as often as
possible, as soon as possible. I do not see myself as the only one
with this growing awareness, this calling is happening to...and I
expect a wonderful network of kindred souls will rapidly connect via
the Internet at first, then in other ways.
So, chew on what I said for a while. And please, do me a favor and at
least take a peek at my web site. I promise you, it doesn't bite!