NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/satanism/2692

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.1 KB | 142 lines

Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!titan.ucc.umass.edu!locklin
From: [e-mail] (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: prophesies
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:50:02 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu
Lines: 128

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Nelson) writes:
>>>>>>[e-mail] (Wayne Radinsky) writes:
>>>>> [e-mail] (Eshin-Fun) writes:
>>>>  [e-mail] (Bill Nelson) writes:
>>>   [e-mail] (Scott Locklin) writes:
>
>>>>>>Actually what's interesting about Jesus isn't his
>>>>>>homosexuality, it's his =asexuality=.  It seems to me
>>>>>>like he personally had no interest in sex whatsoever.
>>
>>>>>Ohhh? Then what about:
>>
>>>>>"For the time past of >our< life may suffice us to have
>>>>>wrought the will of the Gentiles, when >we< walked in
>>>>>lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings,
>>>>>banquetings, and abominable idolatries:" [1 Peter,4 v.3]
>>
>>>>I'm not sure how this correlates that Jesus was interested in
>>>>sex, Eshin, but I think you have misread this verse.  1 Peter
>>>>was written not by Jesus, but by Peter, one of the apostles
>>>>of Jesus.
>>
>>>>When Peter refers to "our" and "we", yes he includes himself
>>>>in the company of those who "walked in lasciviousness, lust,
>>>>excess of wine, ..."; but this has nothing to do with Jesus.
>>>>If you look back to verse 4:2, you will see:
>>
>>>>"As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life
>>>>for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God."
>>
>>>>If you are going to use the Bible to try and prove your point
>>>>(Wow, someone on alt.satanism doing that!) then please use
>>>>verses that are somewhat representative of what you are trying
>>>>to prove.
>>
>>
>>>>My love to all of you in Christ Jesus, Amen.
>
>>>For the 10000th time; unless you read the original books, in
>>>their original languages, you really have no idea what the author
>>>meant. These books are not necessarily valid historical documents;
>>>all the documents we have that actually date from the allged time
>>>of J. strongly disagree with the pro-roman propaganda in the N.T.
>>>See the FAQ for refs...
>
>
>My sentiments *exactly* Mr. Locklin.  I was merely pointing out the
>fact that someone of the "non-Christian" faith was trying to prove
>his point by referencing the Bible - which we all know is not valid
>in the realm of alt.satanism :-)
>
>Also, if you are going to rebut my post, I would ask you to please
>keep to that context to which the post was written in.  My post
>was not meant to use the Bible as proof, but to correct someone
>who was misusing it in the first place.
>
>
>>>(oh yeah, and look at the gnostic gospels if you want info on that
>>>Jesus charachters sexual habits)
>
>
>Excuse me for being the one for a quick answers - rather than rereading
>all the gospels before this discussion ends - but could you please
>provide some references so that we may talk on common grounds.
>
>
>>>And if you used your brain for other than a hatrack you would wonder
>>>how Peter, a fisherman who most likely spoke aramaic, learned how to
>>>write in greek (or even aramaic for that matter). Literacy was not
>>>particularly common in those days, especially among "blue-collar" types.
>
>
>And neither is it here on alt.satanism :-)
>
>
>>>To the Shuggoths with you...
>>>-Misquamicus
>
>
>("mis-quote-animous" - sounds like something from a roadrunner cartoon.)
>
>
>My love to all of you in Christ Jesus, Amen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>+----------------+----------------------+-------------------------------
>---------+
>| Bill Nelson    | This space intended  | Opinions expressed do not
>necessarily |
>| AT&T Paradyne  | blank!               | reflect those of my employer;
>in fact,|
>| [phone] |                      | they may not represent mine
>either.   |
>+----------------+----------------------+-------------------------------
>---------+


Do I detect a note of hostility here? Perhaps paranoia is a better word.
How do you know I was flaming you Bill? Never mentioned your name if I remember
correctly. Interesting that you were hostile yet you still chose your
inane send off.
As far as references go, I referred you to the FAQ, Mr-you-better-not-misquote-
me... Perhaps it is projection? I would prescribe rest for a persecution
complex such as yours. You work to hard. Ol Ma Bell is making you twitchy.
Incidentally, Misquamicus is an algonquin indian name & since I presume you
exclude yourself from the illiterate ;-) category of this newsgroup, I will
allow you to look its meaning up yourself. You may find it amusing.
Interesting that you refer to me as "Mr Locklin" when there has been several
quite obvious name-changes as of late. Nice to know the style has been
consistant...

-Misquamicus