Monday, December 3, 2012

#472 - CRIME | Anonymous e-mailer claims damaged genitals preclude salvation

Yet another anonymous e-mail from someone who, apparently, has real issues with my life and genitalia [see PHOTOS | Damage to penis extensive, irreparable], and has promoted me from "sucker" [see ] to "totally dumb":
Anonymous Gmail in re Gil Kreiter It reads as follows:
Anonymous <>Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM


totally dumb you are filing a complaint to the New York City bar
association against a new york attorney when Gil Kreiter isn't an
attorney! If you looked at his Linkedin page the guy has only 1
year of college and isn't listed on the NY state list of attorneys
who have a license to practice law in the state. they'll get your
ridiculously long complaint complete with reference to how the
gayguy gave you a flirt, have a good laugh, and then throw it in
the trash.

You are totally wasting your time (seems like a BIG PATTERN with
you) filing complaints for things that lead to nothing. The state
of California also has you on a published list of vexatious
litigants. When are you going to start doing something meaningful
with your life?

Suing your own mother is disgusting, calling her an adulterer is
just plain ignorant. If you read your bible you will read that men
with damaged genitals cannot enter the church. But since it's the
case with you, maybe give your mother some slack.
More about Attorney Gil Kreiter
You can read about the attorney the anonymous e-mailer is referring to, namely, Gil Kreiter, and the crimes this NYC attorney is alleged to have committed, read:

About damaged (or modified) genitals precluding you from the church
The anonymous e-mailer is referring to Deuteronomy 23:1, which precluded eunuchs and the like from entering the temple; however, that changed in the New Testament, and, in particular, when the Apostle Philip baptized a eunuch. who willfully mutilated his genitals (versus having had it done to him by demons, unwillfully—that's worse, right?!):
RembrandtThe baptism of the eunuch, 1626
The Ethiopan eunuch article on Wikipedia summarizes this story:
Philip the Evangelist was told by an angel to go to the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, and there he met the Ethiopian eunuch. He had been to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27), and was returning home. The eunuch was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah, and had come to Isaiah 53:7-8. Philip asked the Ethiopian, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He said he did not ("How can I understand unless I have a teacher to teach me?"), and asked Philip to explain the text to him. Philip told him the Gospel of Jesus, and the Ethiopian asked to be baptized. They went down into some water and Philip baptized him.
In the King James Version and the Catholic Douay-Rheims Version, the Ethiopian says, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (verse 37), but this is omitted in most modern versions. Hubbard suggests that confession is "not supported in the better manuscripts [i.e. the Alexandrian text-type])", although the Ethiopian is still "one of the outstanding converts in Acts."
After this, Philip is suddenly taken away by the Spirit of the Lord, and the eunuch "went on his way rejoicing" (verse 39).
Here's what the anonymous e-mailer is referring to in the Bible, when he speaks of mutilated (or damaged) genitals precluding church membership (also on Wikipedia):
The Ethiopian is described as a eunuch and a treasury official at the court of Queen Candace (Acts 8:27). D. A. Hubbard suggests that he may have been a proselyte, though Paul Mumo Kisau argues that he was a Godfearer instead. Scott Shauf suggests that the "primary point of the story is about carrying the gospel to the end of the earth, not about establishing a mission to Gentiles," and thus Luke "does not bring the Gentile status of the Ethiopian into the foreground." However, "the suggestion that the eunuch is or at least might be a Gentile in the story, by both his ethnic and possibly physical description, serves to tantalize the reader with the mystery of the situation." The eunuch may have been from Nubia or the Sudan: David Tuesday Adamo suggests that the word used here (Αίθίοψ, aithiops) is best translated simply as "African."
Commentators generally suggest that the combination of "eunuch" together with the title "court official" indicates a literal eunuch, who would have been excluded from the Temple by the restriction in Deuteronomy 23:1. Some scholars point out that eunuchs were excluded from Jewish worship and extend the New Testament's inclusion of these men to other sexual minorities; John J. McNeill, citing non-literal uses of "eunuch" in other New Testament passages such as Matthew 19:12, suggests that this eunuch was "the first baptized gay Christian," while Jack Rogers writes that "the fact that the first Gentile convert to Christianity is from a sexual minority and a different race, ethnicity and nationality together" calls Christians to be radically inclusive and welcoming.
Illustration from the Menologion of Basil II of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch
Other scholars have addressed the issue of the eunuch's race. Some, such as Frank M. Snowden, Jr., interpret the story as emphasizing that early Christian communities accepted members regardless of race: "Ethiopians were the yardstick by which antiquity measured colored peoples." Others, such as Clarice Martin, write that it is a commentary on the religion rather than on its adherents, showing Christianity's geographical extent; Gay L. Byron goes further, saying, "The Ethiopian eunuch was used by Luke to indicate that salvation could extend even to Ethiopians and Blacks."
C.K. Barrett contrasts the Ethiopian eunuch's story with that of Cornelius the Centurion, another convert. He notes that while the Ethiopian continues on his journey home and passes out of the narrative, Cornelius and his followers form another church in Judea, and speculates that this reflects a desire to focus on Peter rather than Philip. Robert O'Toole argues that the way Philip is taken away parallels the way Jesus disappears after he has been talking to the disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24.
About the designation as a vexatious litigant
The federal court refused to apply that designation as a vexatious litigant on two occasions in 2010, and stated that the same designation by the state court was improperly determined.

No comments:

Post a Comment