Physicians
Matt
Does the CIA emply physicians?
Thanks
-MS
Allen Thomson
Yes, in the Office of Medical Services and a few in the DI to do
things like foreign leadership health/psychological profiles. Some
are staff, some contract.
Kirby Urner
thom...@netcom.com (Allen Thomson) wrote:
Don't forget all those psychiatrists. A lot of fancy global analysis
is just an author's personality in disguise. CIA attracts a lot of
paranoids and factoring out such a complex from an intelligence
briefing can leave it pretty gutless. But of course most trained
analysts can see through all that phoney "I'm perfectly rational
and objective" bullshit without needing a shrink looking over their
shoulders, having long ago internalized such basic reading skills.
Kirby
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirby T. Urner http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/kirby.html
4D Solutions http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/ [PGP OK]
---------------------------------------------------------
Redhead929
hate to sound like a paranoid bitch, but I am one, so what. My response is
"did they employ physicians in Nazi Germany?"
Joyce Anne Oates
TRKeske
>hate to sound like a paranoid bitch, but I am one, so what. My response is
>"did they employ physicians in Nazi Germany?"
We need a "Paranoid and Proud" movement. The
"bitches", my friend, are in the government, on
Crossfire, writing newspaper columns, hosting radio
shows.
The paranoids are the people who have a clue.
Yes, they employed physicians. When a decadent
society starts to rot, it extends into all facets of
that society- into politics, into media, into academia,
into the corporate world, into science.
Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.
Redhead929
I do appreciate the kind remarks... Can we now please notify the "physicians"
at Walter Reed in their experimental psychiatry department, that we are
extremely interested in their findings? Especially in those findings that
utilize the guniea pigs from INSCOM in that popular psychiatric field known as
"debriefing"? goodness.... those kids are so busy! I make a motion that we
post the hypocratic oath on the net and make them read it one more time. I
believe there is something in there about "doing no harm".
My friends, there is something amiss...
Joyce Anne Oates
ezek...@my-dejanews.com
In article <199806070426...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
trk...@aol.com (TRKeske) wrote:
> The paranoids are the people who have a clue.
Many years ago, I read a women's rights activist (sorry, her name eludes me),
who gave her definition of paranoia: "Heightened awareness."
For anyone who's interested in reading Tom Keske's numerous and excellent
essays covering many issues of gay rights...I have been harvesting his
articles from newsgroups, and putting them into the following page:
http://ezekielk.simplenet.com/other/keske.htm
---
Accusing gays of heterophobia (or biphobia), is like
accusing concentration camp survivors of Naziphobia.
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
---
My web site kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://ezekielk.simplenet.com/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
WmWallace
Who would want to read about faggot rights? The idea is absurd to talk
about homo issues, especially when the Agency PRECLUDES faggots from
working there. I remember when I went through agency selection I (and
everyone else) was asked a battery of questions during the polygraph
regarding sexual practices. They were digging to find out if anyone
screwed animals, the same sex, or anything other than the opposite sex
in order to cut you from the program. So, why continue to drag on the
issues of faggots here?
Why not post to alt.weird.goingtocatchAIDsandDIE.faggots and get the
fuck out of here?
Just a suggestion.
WmWallace!
ezek...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6mjrur$2ug$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Druid days
Tom is very sincere in his efforts to confront issue's, but not all his posts
are excellent, I myself have been able to notice a few things here and there in
them, that don't support all his says.
For example, he said Secret Service came without valid reason, yet he had sent
them copyright violations on a tape.
***************************
Câinii latrã, caravana trece.
Make A Site! http://members.aol.com/druiddays/makeasite.html
Make a newsgroup! http://members.aol.com/druiddays/news.html
The Story of Puppy http://members.aol.com/ownerodogs/index.htm
WmWallace
Yeah, I noticed the same thing about his posts. Hitler was sincere,
it didn't make him right either.
Take it easy Druid. I'm beginning to think you may be all right. ;)
WmWallace!
Druid days wrote in message
<199806220111...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
XYZ
WmWallace: your TOT was perfect!!! Good call!!
WmWallace wrote in message ...
Ezekiel Krahlin
On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 22:37:01 GMT, "WmWallace" <calv...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> So, why continue to drag on the issues of faggots here?
Precisely because breeder bigots like yourself maintain a violent
prejudice against a basically harmless group of citizens: gays and
lesbians. Your use of word "faggot" precludes any need of gays to
reason with a psycho-breeder such as yourself.
> Why not post to alt.weird.goingtocatchAIDsandDIE.faggots and get the fuck out of here?
I have a better idea: why don't *you post to
alt.overpopulation.BreedersPollutingTheWholeWorld, then put yourself
out of your HeteroMisery...the world will be far better off without
the likes of you.
> Just a suggestion.
Just? No, you're not "just" at all...you're Nazi! (And that's *not a
suggestion...that's a fact.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that it remain intact and
complete, including title and credit to the original author:
Ezekiel J. Krahlin.
ezek...@iname.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
I HATE BABIES
or
THE ROOTS OF HOMOPHOBIA
(no apologies to Jonathan Swift)
Copyright 1997 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
I hate babies. Pushed in our faces in ever-increasing
numbers up and down the sidewalks of our queer neighborhoods
in cute little pink and blue strollers, they are symbols made
flesh of heterosexist arrogance. These subhuman breeders are
the real perverts, for using their own children as front-line
artillery in this war on same-sex lovers. Their disdain,
hatred and (sometimes) fear is written all over their monkey
faces. Perhaps they will think twice about "strolling" our
neighborhoods, once an outraged queer wrests a pudgy, howling
blob of protoplasm from its stroller and tosses it into a
mailbox for overnight delivery. (Or once a basher is bashed
back and roped to a tree in a queer area of a city park,
entrails spilled onto his lap with a sign on his chest:
"Homophobe".) Don't tell me that you, queer reader, do not
also entertain such thoughts of retribution from time to time.
The historical roots of modern homophobia lie in the
early Hebrews' need to propagate in order to outnumber their
tribal enemies. Thus it became a heinous sin for any male to
"spill seed" outside of a woman's "vessel". Same-sex love was
therefore incorporated by their religious leaders to be an
abomination in the eyes of God. (Christianity's emergence
carried forth this heterosexist supremacy into modern times
with a vengeance so cruel, that it can only be deemed a mass
insanity or psychosis.) Perhaps this extreme measure was a
necessary evil, as a matter of survival to a tribe threatened
with annihilation by enemies on every side. But that was
several thousand years ago, and now we live in a world far too
populated for its own well-being.
Perhaps it is time for God to reverse the ancient law of
homophobia and declare it a sin *not* to waste seed. Perhaps
we should no longer "turn the other cheek" (to use the
fundamentalists' own Christian terminology), but revert to the
ancient Mosaic law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"
(or in this case, a baby for a queer). Perhaps it is time for
a "New Passover"--only this one for queers--sacrificing the
hetero firstborn of every breeder as Yahweh's warning to give
us our freedom. Perhaps the act of "breeding" (without strict
social guidelines) should now be made a crime punishable by
death. Enforced spilling of seed anywhere except in a woman's
vessel may be the "necessary evil" to save us from global
disaster--and will put new meaning in the phrase "turn the
other cheek".
Remember, homophobic swines: you do not *make* a
baby--only genetics (read "God") can do that. Woman is just
the vessel. It is how you raise a child that counts...which
has nothing to do with whether one's parents are "natural" or
not. As a matter of fact, the current rise in child abuse
(and neglect) by heterosexist parents, is so alarming that
even a test tube would provide a safer haven to these hapless
offspring. It takes no brains to insert rod A into slot B,
which is the only reason you illiterate homophobic simians can
breed at all. And the only reason most of you breed your
brains out is to assure each other that you are not
homosexual--with your fleshly offspring as your "Good
Housekeeping Seal Of Approval" to parade before us queers in
our own neighborhoods. Stop screwing, and read a good book
for once in your life.
-----finis
---
Let's secede from those who breed,
Make it sin to *not waste seed!
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
---
My web site kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://ezekielk.simplenet.com/
mailto: ezek...@my-dejanews.com
WmWallace
Great post Ezy. The word faggot was coined by the homo group long ago
to describe themselves. They are not basically harmless, they have
contributed more to the spread of AIDs in our society (next to IV drug
users) than any other group. Now mind you, I don't mind that since it
only kills their own group. Yes, some heteros have died from it
because of transfusions gone bad, screwing a whore IV user, or being
bi-sexual but there's collateral damage in every conflict.
Pretty rude that you suggest I kill myself. If I were to do that
based on your "intent" to push me in that direction you MIGHT be able
to be held responsible for that legally. Hmmm...
Me a Nazi? That could be considered libelous language, which is a
strict liability tort. You then must prove me to be a Nazi, which you
will find extremely difficult since I am not.
Therefore Ezy, why don't you take off your beanie and relax a minute.
That's right, take a breath and relax.
Good. Now, Ezy are you a homo? I can only assume you are, since you
so vigorously defend them. Can you not see that they contribute to
broken homes, degradation of the family and the spread of STDs and
AIDs? Do you not, as a Jew (based on your first name), believe the Old
Testament where the Lord says that he abhors homosexuality? Well, let
me say that if it's okay for God to hate the acts faggots take part
in, then it's okay for me. I do not hate the person, just the action.
Faggotism sucks (no pun intended) and supporters of it are accessories
to murder, in my opinion based on the HIV issue.
WmWallace!
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message
<358f2af9...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
ezek...@my-dejanews.com
"WmWallace" <calv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Great post Ezy. The word faggot was coined by the homo group long ago
> to describe themselves. They are not basically harmless, they have
> contributed more to the spread of AIDs in our society (next to IV drug
> users) than any other group.
AIDS, in Western democracies, did target gay people. But in most
countries around the world, it is largely a hetero plague. The only
thing that explains the spread of AIDS among gays, in the early years
of this plague, is that it had to be injected into gays as a group. This
was done as a result of using gay volunteers to test the then-new
Hepatitis B vaccine. And this test was done just on gays, in just two
cities: New York and San Francisco. Within a few months of the final
vaccine injections, the first cases of AIDS showed up: only among gays
in only two locales: New York and San Francisco.
The case of AIDS in Africa, was likely done by the military-science
complex, by testing it on populations considered expendable by the
U.S.: poor, starving, helpless Africans. Once this genetically engineered
virus was shown to be successful in destrying the lives of select ethnic
groups...it was brought home, to be "tested" on gays via this Hepatitis
research. No other volunteers were sought for this test, but homosexuals.
Of course, I realize this warms the cockles of your heart...for you are
not basing any of your statements on a desire for truth and compassion...
but comes from your bigot and evil manners, plain and simple.
Eventually, this gov't genocide against its own citizens...particularly,
gays, blacks, Native Americans and others who number among the
impoverished...will be brought out into the light of truth. Meanwhile:
syphillis over the centuries has taken more lives and created more myseries
than AIDS ever will. Just because a cure came along this century, is no
reason to excuse the heterosexist mentality that created this eons-long
plague. I believe that women and children, as well as gays and lesbians,
should demand reparations from our male, heterocentric, homophobic,
mysogenistic, and child-abusing system...for the centuries of grief suffered
by male chauvanism with its sanctions to rape and otherwise sexually abuse
his spouse, children, employees, the poor, slaves, and others outside of his
elite WASP circles.
> Pretty rude that you suggest I kill myself. If I were to do that
> based on your "intent" to push me in that direction you MIGHT be able
> to be held responsible for that legally. Hmmm...
Nonsense. Go for it...I love a good laugh.
> Me a Nazi? That could be considered libelous language, which is a
> strict liability tort. You then must prove me to be a Nazi, which you
> will find extremely difficult since I am not.
Your points of view are completely parallel to Nazi thinking...ergo, you
are a Nazi. Go ahead, sue me, you fascist hypocrite.
> Good. Now, Ezy are you a homo? I can only assume you are, since you
> so vigorously defend them. Can you not see that they contribute to
> broken homes, degradation of the family and the spread of STDs and
> AIDs?
As far as STD's go, see my above remarks about syphillis. There are also
newer, more virulent forms of venereal diseases coming down the pike...
spread by straight idiots...that will become a hetero plague, every bit
as devastating, if not more so, than AIDS.
The overwhelming majority of pedophiles, wife-beaters, out-of-wedlock
breeding, child abuse, and destroyers of family...are heterosexual as well.
This is no coincidence...this is the result of basing a society on
repression and control of the masses with heterosexist and bigoted values,
all of which are false and violent. And these sins are sky-rocketing.
Don't blame gays for this...that's just scapegoating us for your own
sins against your fellow human beings. You are a perverter of the
truth, a male whore of The Devil.
And of course I am gay...I would never dream of being hetero, acting
hetero, or thinking hetero. It is beneath me, plain and simple. If you
took the trouble to view my web site (indicated in my signature), you'd
know that I am a same-sex lover right away. But being literate and
informed to things that are true, is apparantly not your style.
> Do you not, as a Jew (based on your first name), believe the Old
> Testament where the Lord says that he abhors homosexuality?
I'm not Jewish, I'm Christian. But I am not anti-Semitic, though it
seems you are. I would not be surprised if you are also racist, and
misogynist, and riddled with other bigotries, too. Please, give this
quote in the Old Testament, where you claim God abhors homosexuality.
I'm not going to believe something just because a fool like you says
it.
> Well, let
> me say that if it's okay for God to hate the acts faggots take part
> in, then it's okay for me. I do not hate the person, just the action.
> Faggotism sucks (no pun intended) and supporters of it are accessories
> to murder, in my opinion based on the HIV issue.
You can't separate your hate of the action from the person...that is just a
ploy by people who want to believe they are God's chosen, while others
are not. If you were actually mature enough to distinguish between an act
of which you disapprove, and the person, then you would never lower
yourself to address me with hateful words such as "faggot". If you
possessed even a single bone of honesty, you'd admit it: you hate me
because I'm a homosexual...period. It's obvious to everyone else who
reads your messages.
So...I'm waiting on at least one quote from your God, where it says
homosexuality is wrong. Ho-hum. Your last name, I see, is the same as
another, who is infamous for his racism, homophobia, and classic
white-boy bigotry in general. How synchronistic!
P.S.: Though you hate me, nevertheless I thank you for quoting my entire
"I Hate Babies" all over again! Good show!
---
There's a little homo in every homo sapiens.
---
My web site kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Rmplstlskn
Dear Ezekielk,
You really shouldn't challenge something you obviously have never
researched for yourself because the egg (or worse, considering topic) will
be on your face. I quote you as following:
ezek...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
> And of course I am gay...I would never dream of being hetero, acting
> hetero, or thinking hetero. It is beneath me, plain and simple. If you
> took the trouble to view my web site (indicated in my signature), you'd
> know that I am a same-sex lover right away. But being literate and
> informed to things that are true, is apparantly not your style.
>
> > Do you not, as a Jew (based on your first name), believe the Old
> > Testament where the Lord says that he abhors homosexuality?
>
> I'm not Jewish, I'm Christian. But I am not anti-Semitic, though it
> seems you are. I would not be surprised if you are also racist, and
> misogynist, and riddled with other bigotries, too. Please, give this
> quote in the Old Testament, where you claim God abhors homosexuality.
> I'm not going to believe something just because a fool like you says
> it.
and
> So...I'm waiting on at least one quote from your God, where it says
> homosexuality is wrong. Ho-hum. Your last name, I see, is the same as
> another, who is infamous for his racism, homophobia, and classic
> white-boy bigotry in general. How synchronistic!
From your own words, I get the following:
1. You are a homosexual
2. You claim to be a Christian
3. You believe homosexuality is not in the Bible
4. You believe homosexuality is not a sin according to the Jewish and
Christian faiths.
5. You have strong disregard for heterosexual relationships
6. You don't have a clue about Christianity and its doctrines
Since you call yourself a Christian, lets start with the New Testament:
Romans 1:26-32 <NIV>
Because of this <exchange truth for a lie Rmns 1:25>, God gave them over
to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL RELATIONS for
UNNATURAL ones. In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS
with WOMEN and were inflamed with LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed
INDECENT ACTS with other men, and received IN THEMSELVES the DUE PENALTY
for their PERVERSION.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the
knowledge of God, he gave them over to a DEPRAVED MIND, to DO what OUGHT
NOT TO BE DONE. <snip a lot of good stuff v29-31> Although they know <or
claim to know in your case> God's righteous decree that those who DO SUCH
THINGS DESERVE DEATH, they not only CONTINUE to do these very things but
also APPROVE OF THOSE who practice them.
<end>
Need I say that you stepped into it by your own pride and arrogance? Can
you now deny these very words of your claimed faith, written by Paul? If
you do, you then fulfill v. 28 - 32.
For even more, check out 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 2 Peter 2:10, Jude 8.
Your challenge is null and void. Sorry, but you lose.
Now, in case you want to become Jewish since Christianity condemns
homosexuality, lets look at the following:
Genesis 19:5 <homosexual gang rape>, Dt. 22:5 <transvestites>, Judges
19:22-23 <homosexual gang rape and rape of a virgin>.
I hope that you will wake up by this revelation and let this be a call to a
true understanding of God. I truly believe He is calling you, but you must
either admit and repent or hold to your pride and arrogance and thus
fulfill Romans 1:28-32, along with many, many others.
Next time, don't be so quick to offer a challenge that you either don't
know enough about or don't want to see the results of. Now you have been
informed and warned. You now have no excuse of ignorance and you must now
choose your path. Life or destruction <in yourself and the after-life>,
it's your choice. Choose well!
Rmpl
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-=> Rmplstlskn <=- <rm...@gate.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PGP 2.6.2 & 5.53 CK-T Key available
from Rmpl's WWW site: <http://www.gate.net/~rmpl>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe ... Our
destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter.
From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their
government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess
that I do apprehend some danger. ...Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kirby Urner
>(I apologize for the non-CIA content...)
>
Thanks for the apology (accepted). We should be clear that
homophobia (with the Bible's backing or no) has about as
much to do with the CIA as St. Peter ("like a rock!") slicing
off some guy's ear. Between you and Wallace, I'm wondering
if this is really alt.politics.org.religion.upmyass (such
crusaders you two).
Kirby
PS: I'll be taking a vacation from this list shortly -- got
some meetings to attend at Gonzaga U. (a Jesuit hangout).
Rmplstlskn
<35aa4a8d...@news.teleport.com>...
> "Rmplstlskn" <rm...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> >(I apologize for the non-CIA content...)
>
> Thanks for the apology (accepted). We should be clear that
> homophobia (with the Bible's backing or no) has about as
A phobia is an unrational fear. I do not fear homosexuals (except their
blood) in any way. I give a rats ass what they do in their own bedrooms,
for that is their problem. When given a challenge like Ezekelk (or
whatever), I will take it because I know I'm right in the doctrinal arena.
If I had an unrational fear, I would have just called him names, threaten
to kick his ass and avoided contact.
I get along fine with my "Den 'O Lezbo's!" Two sweet little honeys I play
with. hehehe
> off some guy's ear. Between you and Wallace, I'm wondering
> if this is really alt.politics.org.religion.upmyass (such
> crusaders you two).
No, that newsgroup is clearly a homo-only subscription...
Let's not forget the middle word of CIA...... Intelligence. This doesn't
always mean spook stuff.
Kirby Urner
>for that is their problem. When given a challenge like Ezekelk (or
>whatever), I will take it because I know I'm right in the doctrinal arena.
Yeah, so you know the punishment in Leviticus for doing it with a
cow? Not only the offending herder meets the death penalty, but
the cow as well ("and ye shall slay the beast"). Why the cow?
Maybe it was rape.
>If I had an unrational fear, I would have just called him names, threaten
>to kick his ass and avoided contact.
>
>I get along fine with my "Den 'O Lezbo's!" Two sweet little honeys I play
>with. hehehe
>
And both little honeys should be put to death, again according to
Leviticus.
Hey, it was a tough environment, harsh, unforgiving (downright
Old Testament in fact) and these were primitive herders with little
education, doing their best to survive. Every culture has its ethical
code, its norms, and the environment has everything to do with it.
And I'm on my knees in thanks to God that I wasn't born in that
Leviticus lifestyle culture (if it ever existed -- I bet they spared
the cow at least half the time, left strict "by the book" doctrine
to the old farts with the luxury to codify the rules of thumb).
>> off some guy's ear. Between you and Wallace, I'm wondering
>> if this is really alt.politics.org.religion.upmyass (such
>> crusaders you two).
> No, that newsgroup is clearly a homo-only subscription...
Not hardly!
>Let's not forget the middle word of CIA...... Intelligence. This doesn't
>always mean spook stuff.
>
Some spooks are gay though and if you slander the GLBTQ kids you
might just get a visit from one of these elder trick or treaters.
Kirby
Rmplstlskn
> the cow as well ("and ye shall slay the beast"). Why the cow?
> Maybe it was rape.
Because it is ONLY an animal and animals are in no way equated with the
worth of a human. How do you like that PETA? ;-)
> And both little honeys should be put to death, again according to
> Leviticus.
Fortunately for them, and Ezekielk, that we are under the age of "grace."
Since I am not without sin, I will not cast the first stone, but this in no
way changes the fact that homosexuality is detestable to the Jewish and
Christian God. The penalty will come when that ultimate adventure
begins....DEATH.
> Hey, it was a tough environment, harsh, unforgiving (downright
No doubt!!!
> And I'm on my knees in thanks to God that I wasn't born in that
> Leviticus lifestyle culture (if it ever existed -- I bet they spared
As am I.
> the cow at least half the time, left strict "by the book" doctrine
> to the old farts with the luxury to codify the rules of thumb).
It is not "man" or the "old farts" you need to worry about, it is the
all-seeing entity that no man can hide from. You may hide from man, but not
from God.
> Some spooks are gay though and if you slander the GLBTQ kids you
> might just get a visit from one of these elder trick or treaters.
I'm no slouch myself. Matter of fact, I'm a sneaky-ass bastard who makes a
point of being aware of my environment. Never underestimate an opponent...
Kirby Urner
>Fortunately for them, and Ezekielk, that we are under the age of "grace."
>Since I am not without sin, I will not cast the first stone, but this in no
>way changes the fact that homosexuality is detestable to the Jewish and
>Christian God. The penalty will come when that ultimate adventure
>begins....DEATH.
>
Good fire and brimstone guy. But I don't see you as an authority on
divinity -- I've got my own 800 number (which tells me God is neither
Christian nor Jewish nor any of those institutionalized human thangs).
Definitely gotta serve Yahweh or face the music -- try to cut myself
some slack in the meantime (as our Prophet Bob hath taught us we may:
http://members.xoom.com/Urner/subquaker.html)
>I'm no slouch myself. Matter of fact, I'm a sneaky-ass bastard who makes a
>point of being aware of my environment. Never underestimate an opponent...
>
Sounds like a fun resume.
Kirby
PS: still sounds like a waste of a good cow. But then again, I don't
see anything in the letter of their law which says you couldn't then
eat it (after appropriate cleansing rituals of course).
DeadCosmonautJim
never said anything about that in basic training.
Ezy, you're statement was equally objective and/or biased as Chewie
Calvacca there. That shit about injecting stuff into a designated society,
that might be part truth but if so, how come the native americans aren't
reeling from it? Surely after the government has been introducing all
sorts of deadly biological diseases and drugs into their society for
centuries, you'd think they'd be the first to fall? But they aren't. In
fact, less than 1% of the TOTAL Native american population had contracted
AIDS (according to the census of all registered AIDs cases). The
government does like to eliminate its lower ranks through unofficial
purges, I do not question that BUT the government WOULD NOT infect its own
people because it would know that WHATEVER disease is infected into a
mainstream population WILL spread far and wide. You're comments are
heavily biased and objective (objective is not a bad thing). First off,
don't convict Chewie Calvacca here of being anything because although he
may hold something of an inkling towards it, you are the exact extreme
opposite and extreme fanatism is never a good thing.
Chewie, ease off the throttle there. You're first into the fire but you
gotta pick and choose your battles here. Go chargin' in and hopin' that
your first offensive is gonna be enough to back your target against a rock
and a hard place then don't be surprised if you punch forward and pull back
a bloody stump. I don't disagree with all of your idealogy, I can say
whatever I want but I'm always gonna feel ill at ease with certain things
but as much as I know you hate to do it, live and let live. It makes
everyone step a little lighter.
Ezekiel Krahlin
"Rmplstlskn" <rm...@gate.net> wrote:
> You really shouldn't challenge something you obviously have never
> researched for yourself
Oh, so you know more about me, than even I do, eh? How entertaining
you are!
> > > Do you not, as a Jew (based on your first name), believe the Old
> > > Testament where the Lord says that he abhors homosexuality?
I told you already, I'm not Jewish. But it is a fine religion.
There is not one single passage in the OT that makes such a claim. The
only references to sexuality that God abhors, are acts of lust,
debauchery, and incest. The only incidents referring to homosexuals,
were to those who acted out of lust, not love. Just because some were
homosexual, does not make homosexuality a sin. Same as heteros: it is
a sin to act out one's sexual lust. By your reasoning (and that of
other illiterate fundamentalists), then heterosexuality is also
abhored by God.
> From your own words, I get the following:
> 1. You are a homosexual
Correct.
> 2. You claim to be a Christian
Correct.
> 3. You believe homosexuality is not in the Bible
No, it *is in the Bible:
The following information I present herein, are excerpts from an essay
by one Dave, "Liberated Christian". His entire treatise,
"Homosexuality & The Bible", can be found in its entirety on my web
page at:
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Stonewall/8944/dave.htm.
(Dave, by the way, is 100% heterosexual, as well as a truly decent
Christian.)
---begin quote from Dave's paper
King David's Love For Jonathan
Samuel 1:25-26 clearly states male-male love is greater
than that of a women.
"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very
pleasant hast thou been unto me; THY LOVE TO ME WAS WONDERFUL,
PASSING THE LOVE OF WOMEN." - King James
or, Revised English " Jonathan lies slain on your
heights. I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you are most
dear to me; YOUR LOVE FOR ME WAS WONDERFUL, PASSING THE LOVE
OF WOMEN." Is the same in all modern English versions.
The speaker is King David. David was Jonathan's
brother-in-law While some may not like the FACT that this is
what the scripture says it does clearly state that the love
between two men can be greater than between a man and a women.
---end quote from Dave's paper
> 4. You believe homosexuality is not a sin according to the Jewish and
> Christian faiths.
Correct. It is only abusive sexuality--whether straight or gay--that
is the sin. Not homosexuality, per se.
> 5. You have strong disregard for heterosexual relationships
As they are represented here in the U.S., and in many other homophobic
nations, indeed I do have a strong disregard. For this goes beyond
heterosexuality, and is really "heterosexism"...which is a bigoted
attitude that, by virtue of one's opposite-sex drive, one is superior
to those of same-sex tendencies. That is vanity, hubris, and
endangering our very existence as a result of worldwide
overpopulation. It is only par for the course, that a viewpoint held
by a majority can turn into oppression against opposing minorities.
Jesus himself was just such a minority...and many who today call
themselves "Christian" would have eagerly crucified our lord had they
lived back then...yourself included.
> 6. You don't have a clue about Christianity and its doctrines
Whatever you say, dearest!.
> Since you call yourself a Christian, lets start with the New Testament:
>
> Romans 1:26-32 <NIV>
> Because of this <exchange truth for a lie Rmns 1:25>, God gave them over
> to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL RELATIONS for
> UNNATURAL ones. In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS
> with WOMEN and were inflamed with LUST FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed
> INDECENT ACTS with other men, and received IN THEMSELVES the DUE PENALTY
> for their PERVERSION.
The very passage you quote, defends my claims...and that is the word
"lust". This is far different from "affection" and "love". Of course,
these men sinned, by lusting after each other...just as men would also
sin by lusting after women. In fact, should a man lust after a woman,
better to pluck his eyes out, than commit the sin! I now quote:
MAT 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her
already in his heart.
MAT 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and
cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of
thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should
be cast into hell.
So much for heterosexual supremacy, eh? And now, more quoting:
---begin quote from Dave's paper
There is little said in the bible about homosexuality
because it was no big deal! It occupied a prominent and
respected position in most Greek and Roman cities at all
levels of society and among a substantial part of the
population. There are only 4 scriptures that are taken to say
anything about homosexuality; the Leviticus laws, I Cor 6:9,
Romans 1:26-27, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah - and none
address loving, consenting homosexual acts as we know them
today.
There are over 600 individual "laws" in the Levitical
code, the breaking of anyone of which would make the sinner
unclean and unacceptable to God. It is an abomination to eat
pork, etc. The law is no longer in effect and its purpose was
to show that man could never follow it. The sins of Sodom and
Gomorrah, likewise have nothing to do with homosexuality.
I Cor 6:9, no way refers to homosexuality. The original
Greek word often quoted as sexual immorality, Paul used was
"porneia" which means "a harlot for hire". In Corinth in the
temples of Venus, the principal deity of Corinth, where
Christians went to worship, a thousand public prostitutes were
kept at public expense to glorify and act as surrogates for
the fertility Gods. This sex with the pagan Gods is what Paul
was talking about - fornication is an admitted mistranslation
and has nothing to do with gays or singles sex. This
rendering reflected the bias of the translators rather than an
accurate translation of Paul's words to a culture of 2000
years ago worshipping pagan sex gods.
Romans 1:26-27 mentions homosexual acts performed by
people who are clearly described as heterosexual. The men in
the NT patriarchal culture exerted dominance not only over
women, but over younger males as well. The nature of
homosexual acts in the Bible are so very different from what
we know as homosexuality today that the passages have no
application to today's homosexuality. Such practices as in NT
times simply no longer exist. Alleged references to
homosexuality in I Corinthians and I Timothy are the
inventions of anti-gay translators. They are not in the
original Greek texts.
---end quote from Dave's paper
> Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the
> knowledge of God, he gave them over to a DEPRAVED MIND, to DO what OUGHT
> NOT TO BE DONE. <snip a lot of good stuff v29-31>
Oh? And which part of these verses condemns same-sex love:
ROM 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
ROM 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud,
boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
ROM 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without
natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
There is nothing in there that even suggests homosexuality as being
one of the sins described above.
>Although they know <or
> claim to know in your case> God's righteous decree that those who DO SUCH
> THINGS DESERVE DEATH, they not only CONTINUE to do these very things but
> also APPROVE OF THOSE who practice them.
But...there is no mention of *homosexuals numbering among those worthy
of death. This is why you don't quote from most of your
references...you *know there really is nothing there to condemn
same-sex love.
> Need I say that you stepped into it by your own pride and arrogance? Can
> you now deny these very words of your claimed faith, written by Paul? If
> you do, you then fulfill v. 28 - 32.
---begin quote from Dave's paper
If Jesus ever said anything about homosexuality, it is
not recorded in the Bible, even mistranslated. He did,
however, speak extensively on God's unconditional love. Yet
instead of dwelling on biblical love, Christians have
historically been more concerned with obscure passages of
Levitical cleanliness codes and Paul's misunderstood comments
in Romans. Instead of focusing on the incredible injustice
and hatred demonstrated by Christians and others, trying to
deny homosexuals even basic civil rights, people appear more
concerned with the specific homosexual acts between consenting
adults who are naturally have a homosexual orientation. As
James B. Nelson notes, the Bible more clearly advocates a
"love ethic" rather than a "sex ethic."...
Study Of Romans 1 "Unnatural Acts"
Paul is warning that many were guilty of worshipping man
instead of God and therefore was becoming an idol. The love
for that idol is an unnatural love called lust. Some men and
women allowed sex to become their god (vile affections) and
the result is turning the natural love for sex into something
unnatural (verse 26). Paul does not specify what that
unnatural sexual conduct is, but it is something not natural
for those that have made sex their God. He could have been
talking about both the male and female sex goddess prostitutes
in the Temple like he was clearly discussing in 1 Cor. For
homosexuals this part of the passage should not apply. To a
Christian, God is first in their lives and not sex so they
would not fall under this condemnation.
HOWEVER, the issue is that Paul describes men as
naturally preferring women. For men whose natural preference
is for women, to have sex with a man would violate this, as in
the case of pederasty. It is also interesting to note that
these men must "katergazomai" the act of sex with other man.
In Greek this means extreme energy is required to accomplish
the deed referred to. This would also support the view that
it was heterosexual males having anal intercourse with
heterosexual males such as to degrade those captured in battle
which was a common practice under pederasty. For a gay male,
clearly this extreme energy is not required so it does not
appear to have that meaning. Many heterosexual couples also
enjoy anal sex, which is naturally enjoyable to them, not just
to homosexuals.
From this same understanding of Paul's use of the term
"natural" there are many churches who would condemn a man
whose hair is too long, based on 1 Cor 11:14. Or "natural" can
mean what is customarily observed (cp. Romans 11:24).
Certainly in Paul's day the usual preference of people was for
the opposite sex. It appears more and more that homosexuality
is a redundant characteristic of birth just as is being
left-handed. If heterosexuality is the norm, that doesn't
mean those naturally born homosexual are any less blessed by
God.
---end quote from Dave's paper
>
> For even more, check out 1 Cor. 6:9-10,
Here they are:
CO1 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind,
CO1 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Where on earth do you interpret homosexuality as part of this list?
Surely, it's not "effeminate"...as I know many gays who certainly are
*not effeminate. In fact, one of them was my lover of eight years, a
Marine and decorated, Randolph Louis Taylor. For those who'd like to
learn more about this wonderful man, go to my page, "The Somalian
Affair", which is my dedication to him:
http://www.fortunecity.com/village/weaver/76/
Further, I have met numerous heteros who are quite effeminate.
>2 Peter 2:10,
2 Peter 2:10: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in
the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous
are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of
dignities.
Lust is a sin, I certainly agree. You talk as if lust were monopolized
by gay people...that no straights are guilty of this sin. Wrong,
wrong, and wrong again. Another quote you took out of context,
claiming it condemns homosexuality.
> Jude 8.
Jude 8: Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject
authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
You lose again, phony Christian...once more, no reference to
homosexuals.
> Your challenge is null and void. Sorry, but you lose.
I see. How curious of you to reach such a hapless conclusion...sad
soul you are!
> Now, in case you want to become Jewish since Christianity condemns
> homosexuality, lets look at the following:
>
> Genesis 19:5 <homosexual gang rape>,
GEN 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where
are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out
unto us, that we may know them.
Sure, gang rape, definitely a sin. But heterosexual gang rape is no
less a sin. Because you have an example of gang rapers who are also
homosexual, does not mean all homosexuals should be condemned for the
sin of a few. One could use the same reasoning to condemn
heterosexuals...because of the handful of men who gang rape women. In
fact, Lot would have preferred his daughters get gang raped! Why?
Well, for one, back then women were regarded as man's property to do
with what they will. For two, Lot's guests were no ordinary men, but
angels. So I think Lot was not so concerned over the morality of gang
rape...he was more concerned over the sacred presence of these angels.
The angels must have been very lovely, to arouse such lust among some.
In fact, if they were *female angels instead, Lot would have had a
bunch of *hetero gang rapers to deal with, instead. But there is
nothing in that passage about Lot's visitors, to indicate homosexuals
as innately lustful and evil. Back then, homosexuality was considered
normal...so not surprising when Lot had handsome angels visiting, that
some of the lustful homosexuals should come knocking at his door. The
lustful homosexuals, however, do not represent the majority of
homosexuals...just as lustful heterosexuals do not represent the
majority of hets.
>Dt. 22:5 <transvestites>,
DEU 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto
a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all
that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Let's see: another of your fabulous references having nothing to do
with homosexuality. Many hetero men are into women's clothes as a
fetish, too. The majority of homosexuals have absolutely *no desire to
dress in other than men's clothing. Besides, you are quoting from very
antiquated laws. Here's another one in that same list:
DEU 22:10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
I don't think you, or any other professed Christian would take the
above law with any sincerity...realizing it came from an ancient
agricultural and nomadic society...and does not, can not, apply to
these modern times. Yet homophobes like you resort to obscure laws
from over 3,000 years ago...then take a quote out of context, and
interpret it as somehow condemnatory of homosexuals. There is *nothing
in Deuteronomy that condemns same-sex love. As long as neither partner
wears women's garb.
> Judges 19:22-23 <homosexual gang rape and rape of a virgin>.
As I described in your reference to Lot, likewise this passage does
not condemn homosexuality, but lust and sexual abuse. The hetero act
is just as sinful as the homosexual act. Why, then, do you persist in
condemning homosexuals, though not heteros when they commit the same
sin?
> I hope that you will wake up by this revelation and let this be a call to a
> true understanding of God.
The only revelation I have just experienced, is that another phone
KKKristian uses the same old lame excuses to hate gay people...by
quoting parts of the Bible that he *thinks condemns homosexuals, but
which clearly do not.
>I truly believe He is calling you, but you must
> either admit and repent or hold to your pride and arrogance and thus
> fulfill Romans 1:28-32, along with many, many others.
God has called upon me, several years ago, to stand up for gay rights,
and never back down. My place in Heaven is secure. Your reference to
Romans list many sins, but none having to do with homosexuality.
> Next time, don't be so quick to offer a challenge that you either don't
> know enough about or don't want to see the results of.
I see. I'll try to remember that. How arrogant of me to assume I know
what I'm talking about!
>Now you have been informed and warned.
Thanks you so much; I stand corrected.
>You now have no excuse of ignorance and you must now
> choose your path. Life or destruction <in yourself and the after-life>,
> it's your choice. Choose well!
In sum, I suggest you heed the following advice from that very section
of Romans you erroneously claims includes descriptions of homosexulity
as sin (which it clearly does not):
ROM 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
It is so easy to rebuff each and every one of your false claims, I
wonder I have not fallen asleep through boredom. Your tired old
stereotyping gays as all lustful, effeminate, and degenerate, only
suggests (very strongly at that) that you are a bigot. And being a
bigot, you are also most likely racist, and abusive towards women.
You have not presented any viable passage from either Bible, to defend
your claim that God sees homosexuality as sinful. I doubt you ever
will, either. Bye for now...I must tend to more relevant (and far more
interesting) avocations.
---
Accusing gays of heterophobia (or biphobia), is like
accusing concentration camp survivors of Naziphobia.
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
---
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
mailto: ezek...@my-dejanews.com
Ezekiel Krahlin
>Never underestimate an opponent...
No one could ever underestimate you enough, including myself.
TRKeske
>way changes the fact that homosexuality is detestable to the Jewish and
>Christian God. The penalty will come when that ultimate adventure
>begins....DEATH.
>
>
I think that a question should be
posed to every CIA Director,
every Congressman, every
Supreme Court Justice, etc, who
tells us how much he or she
revers the Bible.
The Bible does not say merely
that God will put homosexuals
to death. It says that other
human beings should put gays
to death.
When I hear an American leader
state their belief in Bible, I take
it as a potential threat to my life.
Why should I not? There are
are radio stations calling for our
deaths, and plenty of gibbering
religious crackpots like this
one on the CIA newsgroup.
I would love to see the Pope
cornered, the Congressmen
cornered, and forced to answer
this question: does the Bible
not CLEARLY say that humans
should put gays to death?
Don't tell me what YOU feel.
Admit or deny what the Bible
is clearly saying.
If you admit that the Bible says
this, are you saying that the
inspired word of God can be
wrong? Or are you saying that
it must be true?
If they refuse to answer this
simple question, or if the question
is conveniently never posed to
them, then I think that gays
should assume the worst about
them. We must confront this
issue, head on, for once and for
all.
I think that many believe it to
be God's word, yet don't want
to say so out loud, because they
know that it's an unpleasant
little affair. Let's just keep the
thought in our head, talk about
it privately, in whispers, instead.
Let's play politics, and not admit
what we really think.
Outfits like the CIA are covert,
conspiratorial almost by
definition. They have shown
the means for covert genoicide.
Do they have the motivation?
What religion are they? How
far to the right are they?
Any public official who is willing
to say that God wants gays to
be killed, in my humble opinion,
should be removed from office
by assassination.
Tom Keske
Boston, Mass.
Ezekiel Krahlin
people who pray for God to intercede and stop this centuries long
persecution of same-sex lovers by the ignorant masses:
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.
---
Let's secede from those who breed,
Make it sin to *not waste seed!
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
---
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
mailto: ezek...@my-dejanews.com
Ezekiel Krahlin
>Since I am not without sin, I will not cast the first stone, but this in no
>way changes the fact that homosexuality is detestable to the Jewish and
>Christian God. The penalty will come when that ultimate adventure
>begins....DEATH.
Eat My Jockstrap, Homophobe:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/icons/1jock.htm
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>Who would want to read about faggot rights?
Eat My Jockstrap, Homophobe:
Ezekiel Krahlin
>I think that a question should be
>posed to every CIA Director,
>every Congressman, every
>Supreme Court Justice, etc, who
>tells us how much he or she
> revers the Bible.
Indeed, Tom! There is such a groundswell of ignorance in the name of
Christian dogma, that Amerikan Politics is not far behind the
religious states of Islam in their fanatic hatreds. This support of
gay-hatred by our so-called leaders, only accentuates the importance
of keeping church and state separate. Our failure, as a government, to
do so, is what has led to this virtual jihad against gays by the right
wing.
I'd say there are so few Christian theorists of any ethical sense in
Amerika, that identifying oneself as a Christian and stalwart believer
in the bible, marks oneself as a threat to our nation...in fact,
un-Amerikan. If, indeed, the rare Christian of intellect and
compassion should arise in a political venue; it would be easy enough
to review this person's track record to see whether or not she or he
is worthy of holding any political office.
>The Bible does not say merely
>that God will put homosexuals
>to death. It says that other
>human beings should put gays
>to death.
Well, there really is no passage in either Old or New Testaments, that
addresses homosexuality as either a sin or a blasphemy. It is only the
twisted interpretations by Bible thumpers that see homosexuals as part
of those condemned by their God. But as I just showed in my rebuttal
to one of the ignoramuses in this newsgroup...there is absolutely no
passage one can cite in either Bible, that condemns, let alone
discusses, the issue of homosexuality.
In fact, the only sections that refer to same-sex love are two, and
they are positive references (that is, "pro-gay"): the love of David
for Jonathan in the Old Testament:
Samuel 2 1:26
I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant
hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing
the love of women.
(And it's right there in the bible: admission that love between two
men can surpass that between a woman and man!)
And the disciple whom Jesus most loved:
John 21:20
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved
following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and
said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
It seems that Jesus chose among his disciples, a lover. And all his
disciples were male.
>When I hear an American leader
>state their belief in Bible, I take
>it as a potential threat to my life.
Indeed, in Amerika that is sadly the case. But in many Western
European countries...or I should say, in the rest of our western
democracies...this is not true at all, among the Christian churches
there. They are far more intelligent and well-educated, and realize
that their former villification of gay people has no grounding in
their religion, and for that reason they are ashamed of their history,
as Christians, for such prolonged persecution of homosexuals.
Of course, in Amerika these days, when a good education is perceived
by the right wing and Bible thumpers as "liberal propaganda", we
really cannot reason with such fools...for they are truly and
hopelessly ignorant! They are more beasts than men...and in their own
ugliness they live out their Armageddon, believing they are the saved
ones when actually they are Satan's cohorts.
Ezekiel Krahlin
>Fortunately for them, and Ezekielk, that we are under the age of "grace."
With people like you, I'd say we live in a most unfortunate time: the
age of ignorance, hatred, and violence.
>Since I am not without sin, I will not cast the first stone,
But you did cast your stone, most eagerly, by denigrating gay people,
claiming the Bible supports your attitude...presenting your biblical
references, none of which are anti-homosexual. *You are clearly
gay-hateful, but not so either Old or New Testament.
> but this in no
>way changes the fact that homosexuality is detestable to the Jewish and
>Christian God. The penalty will come when that ultimate adventure
>begins....DEATH.
Considering that every single reference you presented from either
Bible, does not say one thing against homosexuality...I don't see how
you feel justified in villifying gay people. I went through each
example you gave, and without distorting any of these passages, could
not find a single statement that pronounced God's dislike for
homosexuality.
In fact, what passages I did find that clearly imply homosexual
love...were well favored by the authors of such passages. So I must
conclude that, while rarely mentioned, when it was, homosexual love
was greatly favord by both Bibles.
But I must admire the piece of work you are, and the devil who crafted
you. I never cease to be amazed by such horrible ignorance that veils
itself in feigned enlightenment.
---
Hetero women prefer trained gerbils
over their piggish male partners.
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
Andy Ylikoski
best point in the old Bible is the summarizing end note of the Book of
Ezekiel:
And the town shall henceforth be called:
The Lord is here.
Many prophetaic books in the old Bible have what I would call an end
note.
Andy
Rmplstlskn
<35b060c8...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
> The following information I present herein, are excerpts from an essay
> by one Dave, "Liberated Christian". His entire treatise,
> "Homosexuality & The Bible", can be found in its entirety on my web
> page at:
I appreciate the exhaustive reply to my claims, so once I get a new print
cartridge (those things never last long enough), I will print it out and
reply to you personally since this is off CIA content.
However, I do find it interesting that you use the writings of one solitary
individual to reject the volumes of collective, scholarly apologetics
dating back centuries that reject Dave's arguments.
Bottom line, I really have little desire to debate this. You, nor I will
budge. One day we will know. All things will be revealed at the Bema seat.
I hope to see you there.
Robert
Rmplstlskn
Rmpl
Rmplstlskn
> age of ignorance, hatred, and violence.
Whatever...
> In fact, what passages I did find that clearly imply homosexual
> love...were well favored by the authors of such passages. So I must
The extreme twist of the word "love" that you use to imply David "knowing"
Jonathan is a good example why debate with you is fruitless. 1+1 is not 2
for you.
BTW, I have love for some of my male buds that exceed the love I have for a
woman, which is the great thing about true friendship. However, my love for
my buds would never degenerate into sticking my dick up their ass.
Ask some WWII or 'nam vets if they would drop their woman in a heartbeat if
it came between their combat buds. That, sir, is the true definition of
"love" most clearly depicted, IN CONTEXT, between David and Jonathan.
Your claim otherwise is disgusting...
> But I must admire the piece of work you are, and the devil who crafted
> you. I never cease to be amazed by such horrible ignorance that veils
> itself in feigned enlightenment.
As do I, yet my amazement is more akin to saddness. Reminds me of the
temptation of Jesus in the wilderness: for satan knew the Bible well, yet
twisted it expertly, as do you.
Go ahead and reply, but please let that be the last of it. I no longer wish
to pursue this with you and want to let this thread die off of this NG.
Rmpl
Ezekiel Krahlin
>> Eat My Jockstrap, Homophobe:
>> http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/icons/1jock.htm
>
>Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like I would really link to your site...
You humorless, homophobic, pinheaded baboon. I doubt you even
graduated from fourth grade!
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
Andy, I find the Book of Job the best book in the Old Testament, as it
is in direct opposition to the traditionalist philosophies espoused in
the other books. It breaks with Hebrew tradition that one only suffers
in this life, because of sins. It questions the fairness of such a
system, by Job's example: an innocent, God-loving man who nevertheless
winds up suffering abominable pains and losses. The lesson, of course,
is not to judge others who suffer, as an excuse not to raise a hand in
loving concern and assistance.
Ezekiel Krahlin
>I appreciate the exhaustive reply to my claims, so once I get a new print
>cartridge (those things never last long enough), I will print it out and
>reply to you personally since this is off CIA content.
Anything you send me personally, will be immediately rejected...you
are on my twit filter. This is a public debate, not a private one. I
have no interest wasting my time with nasty little homonculi such as
yourself.
>However, I do find it interesting that you use the writings of one solitary
>individual to reject the volumes of collective, scholarly apologetics
>dating back centuries that reject Dave's arguments.
Then you'd better start backing up your own claims, fool! You used the
Bible to defend your stand. I did too...and added another's research,
as well. Every case where you reference either Bible, I showed quite
clearly, was not an issue of homosexuality...it was an issue of sexual
abuse.
>Bottom line, I really have little desire to debate this. You, nor I will
>budge. One day we will know. All things will be revealed at the Bema seat.
>I hope to see you there.
You have earned my enmity. As long as Satanic types like you profess
ignorant and foul ideas, I will be here to stand up against your kind.
You have no desire to debate this, eh? Thanks for your admission of
defeat, no matter how backhanded. Were you really a Christian who
heartily believes God says homosexuality is wrong, you'd be armed with
the evidence, and ready to prove your case. Instead, you conclude you
have no desire to debate. Good Christian soldier you are! You fell
flat on your face, yet still insist you are right. Poor, poor, little
devil's puppet!
---
Let's secede from those who breed,
Make it sin to *not waste seed!
Ezekiel Krahlin
In article <01bdb531$ab5d8620$3128...@rmpl.gate.net>,
"Rmplstlskn" <rm...@gate.net> wrote:
> The extreme twist of the word "love" that you use to imply David "knowing"
> Jonathan is a good example why debate with you is fruitless. 1+1 is not 2
> for you.
"Extreme twist"? Hardly. It is only your perverted perception of
homosexuality that does not allow you to perceive love among two men
as anything noble. Sometimes, sex is part of it...just as it
(sometimes) is between a man and a woman, who love each other. There
is no "extreme twist" to seeing the love angle between these two
Biblical heroes...after all, it was the Bible's own verse that gave me
this picture...and what a lovely picture of affection and devotion
this is. If these characters were a man and a woman, no doubt--without
changing anything in the passage except their gender--you would
unquestionably picture them consummating their love physically, as
well as spiritually.
> BTW, I have love for some of my male buds that exceed the love I have for a
> woman, which is the great thing about true friendship. However, my love for
> my buds would never degenerate into sticking my dick up their ass.
So why do you even have that thought in your mind, about sticking your
private parts into their anuses? Perhaps it's time for you to pluck
out an eyeball or two. You have a bigot's view of gay love...which is:
hateful, one-dimensional, and twisted. Just as there is plenty of
insincere love between the opposite sexes, likewise there is between
same sexes. True love is rare, in either case...but when it occurs,
there may also be included the dimension of sexual activity. Anal
intercourse is one way two people have sex...and this goes for
heteros, too...as if you didn't know. Whether this act is degenerate
or not, depends on the individuals involved, and why they are doing
this. I doubt you would condemn any hetero couple for having anal sex,
if their relationship was a loving one...in fact, you'd say "it's none
of my business". Anal sex, among straights, is a popular way to
prevent unwanted pregnancies. Also, not all gay couples participate in
anal sex...it's just not their cup of tea.
Vaginal sex is no less clean than anal sex. One must always be
hygienic about these matters, whether gay or straight. A disease like
syphilis was once the scourge of civilization, until quite recently
(this century)...and was spread, in large part, by heterosexual males
who claimed dominance over women, and society in general. AIDS doesn't
even come *close to the misery and deaths caused by selfish, despotic
men over many centuries.
> Ask some WWII or 'nam vets if they would drop their woman in a heartbeat if
> it came between their combat buds. That, sir, is the true definition of
> "love" most clearly depicted, IN CONTEXT, between David and Jonathan.
Excuse me, but...my last lover of eight years IS a nam vet. And one of
the saddest things he has ever witnessed, was a dying soldier--who was
also homosexual--die in the arms of a female nurse. Had our society,
and military, any respect for their gay citizens and soldiers, they
would at least let them die in the arms of a male soldier, instead of
a woman. And the amount of homosexual activity in the Marines, and all
other soldiers in Nam, would make a gay bathhouse look like
kindergarten at a Southern Baptist day school. Of course, this
knowledge is suppressed by the military, the government, and the
press--because of their twisted sexual pyschoses--but I have a lot of
inside dope in these matters, thanks to my lover from the Vietnam War.
I have also spoken with numerous gay soldiers, as well as straight
ones who are *not homopobic...and they all agree that homosexuality is
rife among the troops, and it has always been this way.
Your "context" of David and Jonathan could only be interpreted as
non-homosexual by a society of Puritans who are as hypocritical and
twisted about human sexuality, as are the Islamic fundamentalists...in
which both camps of ideology would not only publicly torture and kill
gay people, but likewise any woman who didn't want to live out her
marriage barefoot and pregnant. In fact, the current mass raping of
Chinese women in Indonesia is a perfect example of the heterocentric
dogma which has committed terrible atrocities down the centuries, and
still does, and will do for some time to come.
> Your claim otherwise is disgusting...
The fact that you find homosexual love disgusting, can only be due to
your psychotic attitude about sex and love between two men. There is
no rational ground for your hateful attitude. Note even the Bible,
which you revere, pronounces homosexuality as a sin...in fact, it
never mentions it. You have given Biblical references to supposedly
bolster your gay hatred--without quoting them, natch...but when I
bother to quote these actual references, anyone can see that there is
nothing therein, that condemns homosexuality. You cannot use either
Bible to defend your stance...so where are you now? Where are you
going to garner this "evidence" where God supposedly condemns
homosexuality? Come on, I want to see your proof...as you haven't
given any, yet!
> > But I must admire the piece of work you are, and the devil who crafted
> > you. I never cease to be amazed by such horrible ignorance that veils
> > itself in feigned enlightenment.
>
> As do I, yet my amazement is more akin to saddness.
No, your amazement is more akin to madness. You refer to your Holy
Bible as evidence condemening gays...yet not one single reference
proves your twisted points at all. Come on, poopshit, where does your
God condemn homosexuality? I should think this would be an easy thing
to prove, if you are so "cock"-sure of yourself ('scuse pun, but you
earned it).
>Reminds me of the
> temptation of Jesus in the wilderness: for satan knew the Bible well, yet
> twisted it expertly, as do you.
Yes, but Jesus knew the Bible better, and you don't know it at all.
You did not even cite a single reference proving your point...so now
I'm like the devil for pointing this out? Bwaa-hahahah! And you
compare yourself to Jesus, to boot! Bwaa-hahahah! You have only proven
to most anybody who read this thread, what a hypocrite, and bigot you
are.
> Go ahead and reply, but please let that be the last of it. I no longer wish
> to pursue this with you and want to let this thread die off of this NG.
Psychos and dimwits like you don't like to be challenged, because it
is not truth you profess, but bigotry and hatred. If you don't want to
pursue an issue, then just don't. But when you do: expect to be
confronted when you bring up sordid ideas and un-American,
anti-Christian bullshit. You intitiated this thread professing hate
crimes against a basically innocent group of our citizens: gay people.
Now, you must accept the truth of your lies...as I even gave proof as
to their falseness. There is no word from God, in any of your Bibles,
that condemns homosexuals. You have not provided one single shred of
proof.
It is too obvious you have no real knowledge of Christian or Hebrew
religion, nor of either Holy Book...yet you originally accused me of
lack of such knowledge, by saying I now have egg on my face, for
dealing in matters of which I know nothing. I am, in fact, a student
of world religions, as well as an anthropologist and gay rights
activist.
Your only way out (or so you think), was to "weasel" your way out,
claiming I am clever like the devil, and therefore you have no way of
challenging me. Just saying something *is, does not make it so. Anyone
who debates from that childish level is destined to lose any
argument. Suffer the consequences of your willful ignorance, and
preaching of hatred. You're a bully, a liar, a coward, and a shame to
every true Christian, and all other decent people.
---
Let's secede from those who breed,
Make it sin to *not waste seed!
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
---
My web site kicks (but never licks) butt!
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
---
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
mailto: ezek...@my-dejanews.com
Rmplstlskn
activist is futile, I should have ended this long ago.
Rmpl
Rmplstlskn
> claiming I am clever like the devil, and therefore you have no way of
> challenging me. Just saying something *is, does not make it so. Anyone
I follow by example, so just as Jesus shook the dust off his feet as he
left his home town that rejected him and his message, so do I with you. I
will not toss pearls before the swine...
Have a good life...
Rmpl
XYZ
"agency"?? You really should post in either the "Queers-And-Beers" or
"Religeon's-R-Us" New's Grp.
Praise the lord!!!! Amen!!! (etceteras!).......................lmao
J.A.
Ezekiel Krahlin wrote in message <35b6c44d...@nntp.sj.bigger.net>...
>On 20 Jul 1998 16:15:28 +0300, Andy Ylikoski <ylik...@alpha.hut.fi>
>wrote:
>
>>A note about the Book of Ezekiel: according to my personal opinion the
>>best point in the old Bible is the summarizing end note of the Book
of......................<snip>