Post 57. Homosexuals need not be Sarcophiles.
Note1-:
sarcos, word used by St.Paul
in his Letters
for " flesh" in relation to
fornication and uncleanness.
Allow me also, please, to put temporarily away God's Clown and to put on the Templar,
a barbuto of course.
In the Name
of the Father
and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost.
Allelujah, Maranata et Amen!
Title of the Essay.
Let us cross the “ t ”s and dot the “ i ”s
and call a spade a spade.
Shall We?
I have promised Douga I would have written a Post just about word definitions in relation to the critical issue of sodomy and gomorry which I suggest should be called more inclusively, as sodomy is an archaic term that does not reflect the advances and progress made since Paul times in this field of human endeavours. Sarcophilia or the love of carnal knowledge by any of the genders, including the hybrids and the transvestites, irrespective of gender, age, body-organs targeted, positions, means and ends ( i.e., just think about fist-zotting [ Hulalaaaa! Hay. Ouch! Take it easy will you bugger? Thou art divine, Phoebe. What a darling! Crap all over! ] for example, which I recently learned about from a french serial shown on SBS on Thursday nights).It appears that those interested in confusing this issue resort to thepractice of attaching to words which should have an innocent, natural and otherwise normal and harmless meaning, meanings which were not meant originally to be implied by the use of the word, in an attempt to make these practices to look normal, harmless, natural and healthy.
In addition to the above aims, just consider that by cunningly and diabolically adding to innocent homosexuals, the filthy sarcophiles, sarcophiles widen their power-basis that can be usefull at democratic election-times and for the purpoise of lobbying Parlamentarians.
Do not forget that, in our modern democracies ruled by Pizza and Mafia Barons,
what counts is the number of voters and cash on hand for discrete bribes ( in the form of donations to electoral campaigns).
(1)
As Paul of Tarsus says at Romans 11:7 -:.....the rest had their sensibilities blunted.The people Paul of Tarsus refers to in Romans 11:7 ( I suggest to call them the sarcophiles, meaning the lovers of carnal knowledge for the sake of a distorted, twisted, deviant search for carnal pleasures of the XXXrated sort, irrespective of gender, age or the bodily cavities they hunger to penetrate and defile) who are trying to confuse others, do so because they lack the humility to admit they are sick and deviates. This includes the deviant Anglican Bishop who is living in partnership with a man with whom he acknowledges the propriety to have carnal relations of some distorted sort with, or at least this is the impresion he is goiving and advocating. This miscreant has the arrogance to ask Jesus to impress His own heart on his defiled one. Get out from the Church! They are in fact arrogant and full of pride under a mask of compasion, love and a fulness of a spirit ( of the bung hole ) which is inspiring them, and believe that, since they may even be succesful members of our societies in many other respects ( we have got among them professional people of various descriptions, in politics, government, in the communication media, actors, clergymen and women, high ranking military personnel, etc. ) they cannot admit that they may be flawed in this respect, in relation to their unbridled, obsessive lust for carnal knowledge ( called by Paul of Tarsus uncleanness to differentiate this from straight out natural fornication ), which is anyway a product of their twisted and sick imaginations, ending in illusion and delusion as age takes its tall and they find themselves unable to indulge in their sick passions whilst deprived at the same time of natural feelings of affection that are not based on carnality.They become in fact desperate people.As the prayer “The Our Father” concedes, God’s opponent’s will rather than God’s own is allowed to have some authority on earth, until the “ Last Day “ of which St. John speaks in his Gospel. This does not however mean that the opponent’s will is unsupervised and unchecked. Not at all.God does not abandon His/Her/ITS own.However, this means that these peddlers of carnalities are allowed some degree of freedom and apparent success, however being deprived of natural and lawful sensibilities which in itself is altready a punishment as it reduces they humanity increasing their bestiality.Strangely enough, they even find angelic and beautifully endowed persons, even women, who like them.But these people have the beauty of a young braying donkey.So far i ave explained why the correct term for these people of both genders should be sarcophiles.
There are in fact various kinds of feminists. The basic fact remains that a Lesbian may in fact be just an Homosexual who has gone further-on into sarcophilia, a sick woman. The word homosexual should just denote normally, someone, a human being of any of the two genders who likes , has a somehow biased attraction for his/her own gender. By itself it may be perfectly harmless. A feminist must be, at least homosexual, however she can also be either heterosexual at the same time or be a right out male-hater. If she beliueves in the Scriptures she may also be anti-Patriarchal and advoicate the total re-writing of the Scriptures. Again carnal knowledge of any sort does not have to be an issue yet if one is involved in gender relationships only at a level of liking. In so far as Liking alone is involved, the issue does not appear to be so grave.
It is only when one begins to talk about Love and Passions that the issue becomes dangerous to a society.
What does Love really mean?Does it have to necessary imply carnality as sick modern societies understand in relation to the use of this word?The Scriptures advise Loving your neighbour, irrespective of gender. This is normality which even general common sense supports.This does not surely mean one should feel a compelling need and drive to stick it up ( whatever ) your neighbours’ body cavities?One may always fantasize if so inclined, but in so far as actually doing it that is not scripturally or even common-sensically allowable.It is when Loving is concerned then that the problem arises.Here again the DECIEVERS have achieved the generally implied development of a connection between carnalities of all sorts, including sarcophilic ones( involving any flesh whatsoever, gender etc.), and the word LOVE, through centuries of misuse and abuse of the word LOVE in literature, theatrical shows, the film industry, TV, CDs DVDs, virtual realities, artificial love-making devices though the PCs and special vests worn, being developed by notoriously insensible ( Romans 11:7) Japanese digital gurus, etc. Modern masses always and necessarily imply carnality whenever the word LOVE is uttered even in connection with angelic looking, asexual, anorexic, de Laurents-models and babies in their diapers full of poop.Loving in its original meaning implies a stronger attachment than just liking. It can even extend to natural and lawful carnal knowledge, which is normally related scripturally to the issue of Procreation and must be responsible ( i.e., LOVING) in so far as support for the mother and the offspring is concerned.However the ancient, all important, dominating concept of procreation in the Scriptures was not so much related to the word LOVE ( between woman and man) but to the DUTY of Providing an issue to the Patriarch to perpetuate the Family’s name in the Tribe and the right to hold land ( ha heres A Hebrew tribal member fit to carry weapons in battle on behalf of the tribe was called ish ha heres, i.e., ‘a landed man’, ‘the holder of land’, ‘a landowner’ ). The word LOVE already had even then a suspect connotation as it could refer to a morally dubious attachment, which could border on the scripturally unlawful, as when for example a man was driven to love an overwhelmingly attractive prostitute who had taken his will over like in the case of one of Jesus’ anscestors, who was tricked into procreating from his dead sons’ ( seven in a row died off withou having issue on behalf of Onan who used to spill his semen on the ground) widow.God acts indeed in mysterious ways.So, at one stage one can notice, if one is sensible ( Romans 11:7), the notion of DUTY in relation to LOVE to appear also in the Scriptures. God had even to resort to tricks in order to get one of his chosen ones to accomplish his DUTY. In this case, through the passionate LUST for his daughter-in-law whom he thought to be a prostitute, since she kept her identity concealed during the act.Maybe the reason for his seven sons’ refusal to seriously bang her was that she had bad breath as he still found her so madly attractive, as to pay a whole fattened lamb in exchange for her comforts, leaving with her as a pledge for payment-due his expensive woollen cloak as she had placed herself at a crossroads where prostitutes used to locate themselves in those days. Incidentally, at present, a good quarter of an XXX-rated pornographic film is about sperm-shooting or spilling. I personally cannot possibly even begin to comprehend the opleasure of sperm squirting. I must be stupid or abnormal.We might even end-up putting it on lasagne and spaghetti, considering that we cannot afford, in spite of and contrary to the Vatican’s opinion any world-demographic growth.It is also said that King David loved his concubines, his dancing girls, and so did his son Solomon or his happy-go-lucky-unlucky foolish, magnificently gifted but flawed Absalom.
" You cannot do this to me God? I burned 50,000 candles on the candle-burner for You in my life, my wife burned as many also, Peppino fasted every Friday by eating only
Salmon, Tuna and Caviar ! I only committed adultery once a week. I confessed every day and took Communion every Sunday! I always gave the Church 10% of what I made selling women and cocaine. Ye, true I had a few miserable illegal migrants murdered for their organs and made money by selling those too but, God every body is doing it all over Europe, God. I had to keep pace with the Balcanic bastards. Capisce? Eh! "
I might have my wires crossed but the passage is there. Vatican, the Baptists ( this includes poor Douga, the Anabaptists or vice-versa), the Seventh Days Adventists, the Church of Mickey Mouse and that of the Divine Lasagne might have a plausible platitude, but I am getting wary. The churches have had to somehow give in and exercise compassion etc. etc. the maudling, complaints and demands for further concessions never ending, rising even up to God the Father Who is in the Heavens above. Otherwise continuous blackmailings from the believers who wish freedom of pleasures and satisfactions, i.e., fragmentations of christianity and the drying-out of the incoming cash which is increasingly being held by the greatest breakers of the law. One even hears to-day about the rights of single mothers or homosexual couples ( of both genders ) to have children by artificial insemination by using donated sperm. Has anyone asked about the human right of the children to have a father following their growth? Why should they grow up without being asked their consent to have only a mother around? It cannot be done since they cannot speak up, the answer is. I'd like to say that Natural Law and common sensibilities would say on their behalf that, were they capable to express their feelings they would complain that their natural instinctive desire is to have a Father to rely on during their growing up. Moreover, what are the poor males supposed to do for lack of a minimum of sexual satisfaction, if this practice increases? To go to the massage parlors and risk STDs? Sharia Law and Islam may have to intervene here on behalf of God. This may be one of the causes of sarcophilia in societies in which Anglo-Saxons are prevalent and dominate morality. It may be a sickness induced by social and sexual stress induced in the male population by the abuses of freedoms without any consideration of the compensating corresponding moral duties. I predict many western men shall embrace the blessed and wise fornicating freedoms of Islam
( I am clowning a bit here), just as the result of these aberrations and amoral ( I am not saying immoral) abuses of freedom and pseudo human rights by some of our senseless and insensible throllopy women who adopt artificial insemination( Romans 11:7; this is yet another type, a very subtle and evil one, of the miscegenation of natural affections) which disregards the duties corresponding to the rights of a relationship. This is yet another example of the modern attitude to do violence to sensibility ( Romans 11:7 ), common sense and Natural Laws, which reliable religion rightly condemns ( artificial insemination ).
Concluding, in relation to non-carnally expressed homosexuality, this should not have the stigma people now attach to it due to the confusion resulting from sarcophiles trying to necessarily relate homosexuality to an implicit and inevitable drive to carnal experirences and choices in order to cunningly widen their desired basis of power. Homosexuality is in fact basically, under normal circumstances, purely about a preference in relation to the gender from which a person of either genders ( either male or female ) prefers to mix with for companionship or frienship. Under normal natural circunstances it has nothing to do with carnal practices and the carnal obsessions of the practicing sarcophiles.
I would therefore urge normal homosexuals to rethink their predicament, maintain their sensibilities (Romans 11:7) and withdraw from a diabolical alliance and association with the sarcophiles who are using you for their diabolical ends and aims.
Jesus used to kiss his disciples on the cheeks or even the mouth. We should therefore conclude he was an homosexual. Maybe Jesus was both homo and heterosexual or omnisexual as the ideal should be. " Love your neighbour as even you do yourself ", this is the second best Command from the Scriptures after " Love Jehovah your God with an unconditional and unmiscegenated Love ". French and Italian people use kissing, leaning on members of the same gender with their arms across their shoulders, pat one another affectionately without any sly implication of intending to proceed to further sick carnal practices. I had to stop doing this in Australia since, even a slight touch on a shoulder would have been interpreted as I having sarcophilic tendencies. I have reached a stage where I do not even dare to lightly brush a woman's shoulder with my hand ( I actually inadvertently do so at times, in a feeling of pure affection for my neighbour Julia who is a true Gentle Lady, strangely very un-Australian or perhaps I should rather say un-Gothic. I still cannot believe Julia is real and next door to me. Of course I live in a terror to perhaps offend her inadvertently with my clownish ways.) as this could be interpreted as an invitation to go to bed. I must, now that I have discovered a mild capacity for poetry, refrain from writing and dedicating bits of harmless poetry ( if these can be called poetry) to women, especially if married, I find I like, in the spirit of my favourite Literary Era of the Provencal Troubadours
.....del gentil cavalleresco amor cortese.....
of which Petrarca and even Boccacio were representatives, as the same vicious attitude appears to prevail of a suspicion that carnality or familiarity is intended. And one gets dirty looks which are rather depressing. I recently expressed my admiration on an e-mail addressed to an american authoress who wrote a book on Jesus and Mary Magdalene telling her I found her beautiful and desirable. I bet that she thought that I had expressed a carnal desire or intention. Australian footballers can however, paradoxically act normally, since they are thought to be, falsely in many known instances as sarcophilia is an epidemic in countries with a large Anglo-Saxon basis, to be beyond the suspicion of sarcophilia owing to their machismo, i.e., their obvious physical maleness.They can therefore hug, pat one another, do whatever they like, but only temporarily during the madness ( normality) induced by the games. This is probably a reason why football or drunkenness is so popular, since it allows the release of all suspicions for a time. Watson ils sons foux ces Australians! What I am trying to express is the warning that these bastards of cunning, probably also schizophrenic sarcophiles, as a minority, have been damaging normal social codes of conduct, behavior and relationships between the genders in a hole nation and culture, expanding now like a vast oil spot, to the whole civilisation. And if allowed, this is going to be on the increase.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home