Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: RV Pundit on October 31, 2014, 11:33:41 AM
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29829763
This should be lesson to many homophobic folks to be careful coz gays are everywhere.
-
That's it, am smashing my iPad Air in protest. I can't possibly disseminate the Gospel off a faggot's brains
-
That is the one problem I have with gays. The in your-face reminders. I barely think of what my presumedly straight colleagues sleep with. But a gay wants you to know he is getting jiggly with another man.
Some people are just not interested. It's not the same as hate.
-
Gay men look hot together, and they don't perve you. I'm more comfortable with gay than straight men.
-
Straight colleagues do not get harrassed often due to their sexual orientation, but gays do, so him speaking up about it may help another who is probably scared to come out for fear of being ridiculed or harrassed. The military "do not tell policy" (or something of the sort) was not until Obama's tenure repealed and even then it remains a problem. I have no problem with the man come out if it helps another. Many a man or woman have been pushed into the mentall illness category due to experiences dealt to them for being gay or different, whether at home or in the community. As you can see not even men of the clork are tolerant to them and are so quick to name call.
-
Straight colleagues do not get harrassed often due to their sexual orientation, but gays do, so him speaking up about it may help another who is probably scared to come out for fear of being ridiculed or harrassed. The military "do not tell policy" (or something of the sort) was not until Obama's tenure repealed and even then it remains a problem. I have no problem with the man come out if it helps another. Many a man or woman have been pushed into the mentall illness category due to experiences dealt to them for being gay or different, whether at home or in the community. As you can see not even men of the clork are tolerant to them and are so quick to name call.
But how are you going to harass a gay unless he has told you he sleeps around with men? Don't you think part of the "harassment" is a reaction to improper revelations? If a boss tells a lady he is straight, would the lady be crazy to think he is making a pass at her?
-
Straight colleagues do not get harrassed often due to their sexual orientation, but gays do, so him speaking up about it may help another who is probably scared to come out for fear of being ridiculed or harrassed. The military "do not tell policy" (or something of the sort) was not until Obama's tenure repealed and even then it remains a problem. I have no problem with the man come out if it helps another. Many a man or woman have been pushed into the mentall illness category due to experiences dealt to them for being gay or different, whether at home or in the community. As you can see not even men of the clork are tolerant to them and are so quick to name call.
But how are you going to harass a gay unless he has told you he sleeps around with men? Don't you think part of the "harassment" is a reaction to improper revelations? If a boss tells a lady he is straight, would the lady be crazy to think he is making a pass at her?
He doesnt have to say anything...he could just be going around with his boyfriends and suddenly someone see's him and word spreads around before people begin acting funny. It could also be his choice to dress a certain way not considered 'manly' enough by mainsteam but true to his sexual orientation or preference before speculations at work or wherever start swirling wild. Its a no win situation...you are damned if you do damned if you dont.
-
I could never understand why ones sexual orientation bothers anybody. Maybe most people just have the image of trailer trash prostitute gay men in their mind. If you associate with proffessional open gay people you will never be bothered with them. They are smart, they work hard just like everybody else and in the evening everybody goes their way and do their thing in their bedrooms and we meet again in the morning at work. Just knowing that they are gay does not bother me at all and I do not know why it should bother anyone. They know each other and I have never heard a straight person or a gay person complain that they are being bothered or sexually harrassed by a gay man. On the other hand I have seen a lot of sexual harrassment cases being brought against straight men by women. Gay people should not be told to hide their sexual orientation. If they want to come-out and declare that they are proud to be gay-so be it.
-
Straight colleagues do not get harrassed often due to their sexual orientation, but gays do, so him speaking up about it may help another who is probably scared to come out for fear of being ridiculed or harrassed. The military "do not tell policy" (or something of the sort) was not until Obama's tenure repealed and even then it remains a problem. I have no problem with the man come out if it helps another. Many a man or woman have been pushed into the mentall illness category due to experiences dealt to them for being gay or different, whether at home or in the community. As you can see not even men of the clork are tolerant to them and are so quick to name call.
But how are you going to harass a gay unless he has told you he sleeps around with men? Don't you think part of the "harassment" is a reaction to improper revelations? If a boss tells a lady he is straight, would the lady be crazy to think he is making a pass at her?
He doesnt have to say anything...he could just be going around with his boyfriends and suddenly someone see's him and word spreads around before people begin acting funny. It could also be his choice to dress a certain way not considered 'manly' enough by mainsteam but true to his sexual orientation or preference before speculations at work or wherever start swirling wild. Its a no win situation...you are damned if you do damned if you dont.
I think as long as the law protects him, that should be enough. I get the impression that a lot of gays not only want protection of the law, but that we also appreciate the lifestyle. That for me is where I draw the line.
-
I think as long as the law protects him, that should be enough. I get the impression that a lot of gays not only want protection of the law, but that we also appreciate the lifestyle. That for me is where I draw the line.
I dont think its as much "appreciate the lifestyle" as it is to accept them as equals..... The law has always been there but so is the intolerance. We do not have to like or appreciate that lifestyle but thier rights we must defend , as well as accept them as whole individials with all the complexities that come with it.
-
I could never understand why ones sexual orientation bothers anybody. Maybe most people just have the image of trailer trash prostitute gay men in their mind. If you associate with proffessional open gay people you will never be bothered with them. They are smart, they work hard just like everybody else and in the evening everybody goes their way and do their thing in their bedrooms and we meet again in the morning at work. Just knowing that they are gay does not bother me at all and I do not know why it should bother anyone. They know each other and I have never heard a straight person or a gay person complain that they are being bothered or sexually harrassed by a gay man. On the other hand I have seen a lot of sexual harrassment cases being brought against straight men by women. Gay people should not be told to hide their sexual orientation. If they want to come-out and declare that they are proud to be gay-so be it.
Lol, Eeish Kichwa,kwani those "trailer trash gays" are not people?
-
I have yet to understand why it is important to tell the World. Does he become properly gay after telling? Why should I know his sexual preferences? Should we soon be filling a form declaring "Gay", "Straight" or "Both". I think it is a private matter and should remain so.
-
I dont think its as much "appreciate the lifestyle" as it is to accept them as equals..... The law has always been there but so is the intolerance. We do not have to like or appreciate that lifestyle but thier rights we must defend , as well as accept them as whole individials with all the complexities that come with it.
Mya, what does accepting someone as an equal mean? If I think its something that should not be done, for example, but I don't carelessly blurt this to a gay person and otherwise treat them exactly as I treat any other individual, is that equal treatment? From many many people who comment on this issue, the impression I get is that even the belief/opinion that you may hold that its not cool for men to have sex with other men, however privately held, is still some form of terrible sin or oppression of gay people. Which leads me to think that indeed the goal is not equal treatment but positive affirmation of it regardless of what you think. I don't think gay people are subhuman or aliens or demons, they are just like everyone else, some really nice people and some incorrigible ones. I can even hear a tale about a boyfriend/relationship without cringing at all and talk about it with them. But if I am in a position where I must state if I think it's ok and keeping quiet isn't exactly an option, I will not lie either, because I think its not. To some people, it doesn't matter how you actually treat gay people, how you really are with them. What they want to control is your thoughts/values/beliefs, which I find to be just a reverse form of oppression. I have had friends who are someone's mistress, and we have been able to be friends without me feelng like I have to positively affirm that lifestyle. You rarely ever have to give such judgments to your friends, anyway, but my general impression is that gay is off-limits. No one is allowed to entertain ideas that there may be something not quite right about it.
-
It's all very well to say "there is the law to protect them", "we don't need to know", "heterosexuals never announce it", etc.
The first thing that has to be recognized is that heterosexuality is taken to be the "norm". People don't have to "announce" it because it is taken to be the "default". The other thing, of course, is that there is no big deal to it: there is nobody who, out of fear, has to hide the fact that he or she is heterosexual.
Second, point to the law and so on is unhelpful, because we all know that there is a great deal of discrimination against gays and that some of it can get very nasty, law or no law.
Third, in most places, even where nominally accepted, gays are not permitted certain things that heterosexuals take as a "right"---for example, public displays of affection.
The reasons why they "come out" or "announce it" are actually quite straightforward. One is that "living a lie" or hiding ones true self inevitably has a high psychological cost. At some point many take the wiser option. The second, and very important reason, is to offer moral support to others of their orientation, especially those who still feel that they must hide who they really are. I do not have the slightest doubt that many homosexuals have found some "comfort" in Cook's announcement.
In regard to the last point, it is enlightening to consider the early history of Christianity, especially in the Roman Empire. It was a tough life and in many ways not dissimilar to the situation with gays. "Coming out" as a Christian was a very risk thing; but people would do it, and other Christians "in the closest" claimed to find it supportive when others "came out", especially if it was a "big person".
-
He probably wants to get married to his man, hence the public disclosure. Gays are people and deserve the same rights as anyone else.
-
This is a very unfortunate comment from somebody like you. FYI being gay does not neccesarily equate to having sex with a person of same gender.
We live in a very judgmental world when rumor mills go overdrive of persons sexuality. Especially prominent people. most gay people would like to keep it private but the rumor mills and pressure from within and without forces them to declare it in the open.
That is the one problem I have with gays. The in your-face reminders. I barely think of what my presumedly straight colleagues sleep with. But a gay wants you to know he is getting jiggly with another man.
Some people are just not interested. It's not the same as hate.
-
@Kadame
Accepting one as equal simply means they are human and should be treated the same way you would want to be treated. Its also within our rights to demand such....if am not wrong the bible even teaches us that.
What they want to control is your thoughts/values/beliefs, which I find to be just a reverse form of oppression
Now I dont knoe where you get the impression that they want to control your thoughts....I dont really think anyone can control your thoughts unless you are a robot, or you blindly let them. I think even if you dont agree with homosexuality, its not politically correct to go shouting to the world that you dislike thier values and belief system because ie its against your religion. Civility dictates that you keep those to yourself or at a minimum share with close associates who share your thoughts......... That is the way muslim extremists think of christians...... they have no room for tolerance for the sake of peacefull co-habitation...infact as they blow up women and children they are thinking that..
to be continued
-
Enlighten me. This is interesting as it has remained my source of irritation. I have no problem with people sleeping with whomever they want. I have a problem when I am required to know about it. It looks like it not enough to be left alone. They want me to acknowledge that they are gay. That coming when I have not seen it fit to announce that I sleep only with women, is an irritant.
So now you say gays are still gays even as they sleep with women or vice versa. I had no idea. I thought the sine qua non of gayism was exactly that!
This is a very unfortunate comment from somebody like you. FYI being gay does not neccesarily equate to having sex with a person of same gender.
We live in a very judgmental world when rumor mills go overdrive of persons sexuality. Especially prominent people. most gay people would like to keep it private but the rumor mills and pressure from within and without forces them to declare it in the open.
That is the one problem I have with gays. The in your-face reminders. I barely think of what my presumedly straight colleagues sleep with. But a gay wants you to know he is getting jiggly with another man.
Some people are just not interested. It's not the same as hate.
-
They are winning. The next crime will be preaching against homosexuality. That will be bigotry. The will vilify churches preaching thus as intolerant, nudge Catholicism to shift the boundaries and they will gladly oblige. I think the next generation of heroes will be gay activists, thre are one too many low lying fruits in this area
-
Enlighten me. This is interesting as it has remained my source of irritation. I have no problem with people sleeping with whomever they want. I have a problem when I am required to know about it. It looks like it not enough to be left alone. They want me to acknowledge that they are gay.
Omollo:
Why exactly does it bother you? The announcement was not "I wish to have Omollo know that I am gay". Did he ask you, or anyone else, to "acknowledge" anything? Has it occurred to you that the announcement could well have been directed at other gays, for the last reason I give above? You and others could save yourselves the "irritation" by simply ignoring the announcement; write about others things instead of getting worked up over this one.
-
That is one aspect of the movement I detest and fear at the same time. I know how the media has been tuned to work for their cause. Take this guy I know. He had a business that was on its last legs. He had been married and had kids - a normal guy. Then he had divorced. Then one day he calls the media and announces that he is gay. And vooke, wonders happened. He appeared in every newspaper and TV station. Then he did rounds in all talk shows. His presence at public events was recognized. You would have been mistaken to think he had won the Euro Jackpot. And indeed he won the jackpot! His business got a mysterious injection like a ship that gets a gale in its sails in hitherto calm seas.
What did he really achieve to earn all those accolades? Think of it. I can see those same forces being marshalled to crush anybody with opposing views. The Catholics are now giving in. I think it is wrong.
If you have an institution that has set its values such a church. Why should somebody come and lecture to it how to conduct its business? This is why I get irritated. I want people to be free to enjoy their sexuality to the full. But they should not impose values on others.
They are winning. The next crime will be preaching against homosexuality. That will be bigotry. The will vilify churches preaching thus as intolerant, nudge Catholicism to shift the boundaries and they will gladly oblige. I think the next generation of heroes will be gay activists, thre are one too many low lying fruits in this area
-
They are winning. The next crime will be preaching against homosexuality. That will be bigotry. The will vilify churches preaching thus as intolerant, nudge Catholicism to shift the boundaries and they will gladly oblige. I think the next generation of heroes will be gay activists, thre are one too many low lying fruits in this area
Catholicism will never oblige, though many other churches already do, one by one, each year. The pressure is much more on the Catholic Church because it is the big one. Yes, they are winning and in Canada people are being fined for voicing their opinions in church that it is a sin, which is something virtually every religion on earth (and culture) believes. I just do not understand why stating what appears to be a natural human assumption on sexual mores should be turned into some form of social crime.
@Mya, Muslims believe I will go to Hell because I do not accept their creed. They say it in their Mosques and among themselves freely. I am yet to hear of a Western country fining a Muslim or a Christian for loudly teaching in their places of worship that all other religions lead to hell, or that everyone rejecting their religion is sinning. This is slowly happening in the West with regards to gays, however. Its not ok to believe there is something wrong or bad about it. Already there are harsh social penalties and now, creeping legal penalties as well. It is one thing to say gay people should be beaten, abused, or otherwise mistreated, but more and more, it is becoming a crime just to say that it is wrong. In the next few decades, parents will not be allowed to tell their children that it is wrong.
-
Before the new constitution, anybody going to seek redress in court had to prove that he had been personally adversely affected by what he was complaining about. When somebody questioned the non application of the bill of rights, he was asked to clearly state how he had been personally affected by the failure to effectuate the Bill of Rights.
This is a matter affecting the wider society, me included. Let me put it differently, should I as your boss demand to know your sexuality? It won't matter what I intend to do with the information. Better still, should I go ahead and investigate your sexuality to establish what it is? If you answer NO to any of the above, then explain why you should feed me with that information!
Omollo:
Why exactly does it bother you? The announcement was not "I wish to have Omollo know that I am gay". Did he ask you, or anyone else, to "acknowledge" anything? Has it occurred to you that the announcement could well have been directed at other gays, for the last reason I give above? You and others could save yourselves the "irritation" by simply ignoring the announcement; write about others things instead of getting worked up over this one.
-
I would be very relieved if you also acknowledge that Christians preach the same about other religions and have an unlimited number of verses in the bible to back their claim. That is just a BTW
http://www.missiontoamerica.org/letters/other-religions/muslims-01.html
@Mya, Muslims believe I will go to Hell because I do not accept their creed. They say it in their Mosques and among themselves freely. I am yet to hear of a Western country fining a Muslim or a Christian for loudly teaching in their places of worship that all other religions lead to hell, or that everyone rejecting their religion is sinning. This is slowly happening in the West with regards to gays, however. Its not ok to believe there is something wrong or bad about it. Already there are harsh social penalties and now, creeping legal penalties as well. It is one thing to say gay people should be beaten, abused, or otherwise mistreated, but more and more, it is becoming a crime just to say that it is wrong. In the next few decades, parents will not be allowed to tell their children that it is wrong.
-
I would be very relieved if you also acknowledge that Christians preach the same about other religions and have an unlimited number of verses in the bible to back their claim. That is just a BTW
@Mya, Muslims believe I will go to Hell because I do not accept their creed. They say it in their Mosques and among themselves freely. I am yet to hear of a Western country fining a Muslim or a Christian for loudly teaching in their places of worship that all other religions lead to hell, or that everyone rejecting their religion is sinning. This is slowly happening in the West with regards to gays, however. Its not ok to believe there is something wrong or bad about it. Already there are harsh social penalties and now, creeping legal penalties as well. It is one thing to say gay people should be beaten, abused, or otherwise mistreated, but more and more, it is becoming a crime just to say that it is wrong. In the next few decades, parents will not be allowed to tell their children that it is wrong.
Omollo, I did mention Christians as well, (see the bolded part) though I see the reason for your complaint because I did emphasize the Muslims. I highlighted Muslims because Mya88 used them (actually, she used terrorists, not regular Muslims) to highlight the need to protect gays from ill treatment. Yes, you are perfectly right that there are churches that do nothing every sunday (or Saturday) but highlight their specialness and how everyone else is on the road to Hell. Historically, the catholic church committed her own errors in that regard as well. There are people (Christians) of every church who also do this. They believe it and most countries permit them this belief even if most others would disagree. The SDAs, for example, feel free to assign the anti-Christ title to the Pope, calling our religion the whore of Babylon and all that. I am yet to here of a Catholic or any member of any religion taking them to a Human Rights tribunal for it. I am perfectly fine with it, I think they are mistaken, but I think they can believe whatever they want about me as a Catholic as long as they treat me as a human being, which they do, of course. I don't see why human rights tribunals need to be involved.
-
I think Moon Ki and Mya88 gave good explanations of why some gay people in high position have to announce that they are gay to educate ignorant people that gay people are just like all of us and that they should not be discriminated against. Its not like being black where everyone can see and Obama does not have to come out and testify that being black is not an ailment. However, we see men and women in high position come out and tell us that they have breast cancer, colon cancer, depression, prostate cancer, that they were abused, etc. to help highlight the problem, find solutions and bring about awareness. This is why gay people come out and when the discrimination stops then gay people will not need to come-out anymore because it will not serve any purpose whatsoever.
-
Greatly relieved as promised. In this day of Islamophobia, I would not wish to ignore it as we discuss other phobias and manias
Omollo, I did mention Christians as well, (see the bolded part) though I see the reason for your complaint because I did emphasize the Muslims. I highlighted Muslims because Mya88 used them (actually, she used terrorists, not regular Muslims) to highlight the need to protect gays from ill treatment. Yes, you are perfectly right that there are churches that do nothing every sunday (or Saturday) but highlight their specialness and how everyone else is on the road to Hell. Historically, the catholic church committed her own errors in that regard as well. There are people (Christians) of every church who also do this. They believe it and most countries permit them this belief even if most others would disagree. The SDAs, for example, feel free to assign the anti-Christ title to the Pope, calling our religion the whore of Babylon and all that. I am yet to here of a Catholic or any member of any religion taking them to a Human Rights tribunal for it. I am perfectly fine with it, I think they are mistaken, but I think they can believe whatever they want about me as a Catholic as long as they treat me as a human being, which they do, of course. I don't see why human rights tribunals need to be involved.
-
Before the new constitution, anybody going to seek redress in court had to prove that he had been personally adversely affected by what he was complaining about. When somebody questioned the non application of the bill of rights, he was asked to clearly state how he had been personally affected by the failure to effectuate the Bill of Rights.
Relative to the questions I asked, the above is irrelevant and misplaced. All the man has done is say that he is gay. That's it. At that level, it has nothing to do with any "new constitution" and a "Bill of Rights". And even if, at that level, it did, I don't see how the Kenyan constitution comes in when the guy is an American in America. (I think I may reasonably assume that you are not referring to the American system, because the American constitution is hardly new, nor is their "Bill of Rights", which in the USA refers to the first ten amendments.)
This is a matter affecting the wider society, me included. Let me put it differently, should I as your boss demand to know your sexuality? It won't matter what I intend to do with the information. Better still, should I go ahead and investigate your sexuality to establish what it is? If you answer NO to any of the above, then explain why you should feed me with that information!
The man has not done any of the above. What's more, it's an absurd extrapolation to suggest or imply that merely stating that he is gay means he will be demanding to know of the sexuality of others or will be investigating to establish what it is.
If it will help you see the irrelevance of your question, consider a person telling others "this is my religion", or "I am a member of this or that political party", or whatever. Don't jump to conclusions that the mere fact of an announcement means that something is expected of you.
Now, can you answer the questions that I asked? Specifically, what exactly is it about such an announcement that bothers you, nd why can't you just ignore such an announcement? And, please, try to do so without dragging in all sorts of irrelevant material.
-
All that the gay people want is that they be accorded equal treatment. When Anyang Nyongo announced that he has prostate cancer people commended him for bringing awareness to the disease and to encourage men go for reqular annual check ups so that it can be caught early. This man is high profiled gay person and his announcement can help a lot of people understand that being gay is not a curse or an ailment or an impedament. There are a lot of people who need education on this matter. If you have ever been disriminated then you ought to understand how hurtful it is.
-
All that the gay people want is that they be accorded equal treatment. When Anyang Nyongo announced that he has prostate cancer people commended him for bringing awareness to the disease and to encourage men go for reqular annual check ups so that it can be caught early. This man is high profiled gay person and his announcement can help a lot of people understand that being gay is not a curse or an ailment or an impedament. There are a lot of people who need education on this matter. If you have ever been disriminated then you ought to understand how hurtful it is.
That is exactly the point. Just as it was for the early Christians, being gay today can be a very costly business (in many ways). In many cases it takes a lot of courage to just come out and say "this is who I am", and I'm sure it helps when people like Cook come out and say "you are not alone".
Blacks in America got to the point where "I'm Black And Proud!" was a very important statement. This IS Who I Am, and I insist on being treated as an equal human being. I'm sure there were many whites who found it "irritating". And don't forget the "religious" ones who for long had insisted that according to the Bible blacks were inferior and God intended them to be treated like beasts; today, it's the gays for them.
Anyways ...
As we exchange views on this thread, I just noted this on the news:
'Civil rights activists say police in Texas have not properly investigated the brutal gay-bashing of a teenager, and they’re asking the FBI to file hate crime charges in the case.
Dylan Beard bit through his tongue and suffered chipped teeth, a broken nose, a black eye, and other injuries when he was beaten by two friends and a 17-year-old girl, reported the Houston Chronicle.
The teen said he was invited to join some friends Oct. 12 at a Baytown skate park when the group attacked him, punching and kicking him as they called him a “f*ggot” and “booty lover.”
The assailants then bragged about the attack on social media, the teen’s supporters said.
Activists said Baytown police have ignored some witnesses to the attack and openly insulted Beard because he is gay.
A spokesman for the department said police “are taking steps (and) reaching out” to Beard, saying the teen was invited to speak to detectives and internal affairs investigators.
The spokesman said a police report was filed and the girl was cited for misdemeanor assault.
He was unaware of allegations that officers used homophobic slurs to describe Beard or whether the teens had bragged about the attack on social media.
Beard, who is homeschooled, said he knew his assailants, but not very well, and they had never attacked or insulted him before.'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/texas-teen-lured-to-skate-park-for-gay-bashing-then-insulted-by-cops-activists/
-
tragically ironical that religious people have turned into the most rabid persecutors of anything they don't agree/subscribe to
In regard to the last point, it is enlightening to consider the early history of Christianity, especially in the Roman Empire. It was a tough life and in many ways not dissimilar to the situation with gays. "Coming out" as a Christian was a very risk thing; but people would do it, and other Christians "in the closest" claimed to find it supportive when others "came out", especially if it was a "big person".
-
I find the analogy with early Christianity odd, though. The analogy to breast cancer and the like seems more appropriate. Christianity is a religion which is spread from people to people, it doesn't exactly catch you all alone in your house. Early Christians met in secret in catacombs and house Churches, every Christian was converted, baptized, anointed in a grouping of Christians. So I don't know how "coming out" would've said to a Christian "you're not alone". They never thought they were alone, they just knew they were an unwanted group.
-
I find the analogy with early Christianity odd, though. The analogy to breast cancer and the like seems more appropriate. Christianity is a religion which is spread from people to people, it doesn't exactly catch you all alone in your house. Early Christians met in secret in catacombs and house Churches, every Christian was converted, baptized, anointed in a grouping of Christians. So I don't know how "coming out" would've said to a Christian "you're not alone". They never thought they were alone, they just knew they were an unwanted group.
Let me explain:
(0) "Coming out" refers to the public announcement. For people at a "certain level", doing that as a gay person has many similarities with "coming out" as a Christian (way back when).
(1) Belonging to a religion and being gay are similar, in that neither is immediately visually apparent. They are also similar in the extreme prejudice that people have been subjected to if they were one or the other.
(2) You say early Christians met in secret and so on. Many gays too do that all over the world, and even in the USA. "Alone" does not necessarily mean literally alone. Think about it. The word can be used with a variety of means: e.g. when your priest tells you that "you are not alone; God is with you", he doesn't literally mean ...
I'm sure that gays in America know that there are other gays in America; you know that, and I know that. On that basis alone, it should have been immediately clear that my use of "alone" could not have been intended to mean what you have taken it to mean. I also have a fairly good understanding of the early history of Christianity; so ...
I thought I would not have to explain such things, but seeing that I do, here's a different way of putting it, in the context of a guy like Cook: "there are others like you out here, and we can thrive".
(3) Lest you misunderstand the last point too; it too is not intended to be read that literally. Let me point out one aspect of my earlier statement---that it was a big deal if someone "big" came out as a Christian. The larger point was not that nobody else knew they were Christians.
I'm sure that there are people, gay and otherwise, who knew Cook was gay; but I'll bet there is an even larger number who did not. The point is that all those other gays who did not know probably find something in the fact that someone "at that level" came out, just as the early Christians found something---or at least claimed they did---when someone "big" came out as a Christian.
The existence of this thread is precisely because the head of Apple, and not some manamba, has publicly stated that he is gay. That is the thing to think about.
-
Moonki, I follow what you are saying, but I still think the analogy is off. Early Christians were not all that isolated from one another. They operated through letters and messengers with one another throughout the Roman World. If one church was in trouble, other churches knew about it and sent help etc. Christians knew each other who were from the same city, and likely if someone "big" became a Christian, if the Christians considered that kind of thing "newsworthy" then it would've spread to other churches. In other words, what I am saying is, Christians would likely have felt "You're not alone" when that big person converted, instead of when they "came out" after already having been Christian, an action which would've been understood more as a witness/testimony to unbelievers, because "coming out", depending on the particular period, sometimes meant surrendering yourself over to become lion lunch. The early church's belief in martyrdom as something glorious in itself and not denying Christ before men should be considered when understanding what purpose publicly identifying oneself as a Christian meant to them and why they did it (those who did, because many did not unless forced by circumstances). However, I don't think early Christians placed all that emphasis on worldly status in the first place, that is "big" people vs small ones.
When Cook comes out, it seems to me his purpose is to tell people there's nothing weird about being gay, you can be successful and be gay. Trying to minimize social stigma or to promote the idea that being gay is "normal". I see that with people who have cancer or even H.I.V. or perhaps not a killer-disease or even a disease at all but some more or less permanent condition who try to show people, "You don't have to be afraid of someone like me. W are normal, wont hurt you etc". Unlike Christianity, this is not something that's deliberately chosen, more like a condition one finds themselves in. I don't think gay people decide that they want to feel attraction to their own sex.
-
Moonki, I follow what you are saying, but I still think the analogy is off. Early Christians were not all that isolated from one another.
I'll have to think about whether I want to "tackle" the rest, but the bit above explains why this "discussion" is going nowhere.
Nowhere have I stated or suggested or implied that Early Christians were necessarily isolated from each other. Nor is the issue actually relevant to anything I wrote, which, perhaps, should be read again. Carefully.
Equally irrelevant to the point I have been trying to make is the distinction between a "natural state" and a "chosen state".
That aside ....
A very real problem when "debating" such matters with many who claim to be Christians is that their tendency to conveniently forget the history of Christianity---if they know enough of it. Many of the attitudes that such Christians express today about homosexuals go right back to the period right after Constantine and how Christians, quickly forgetting where they'd just been, viewed and dealt with the so-called Pagans.
A more serious problem, especially for those of us who have left the Christian church or who would not think of joining it, is that a great deal of what is said and done seems to have forgotten the "Christ" in "Christian". Hardly anyone seems to reflect on the essence of Christ's message ...
Comments from Catholics, in particular, tend to be amusing (if one may use that word), cheeky, and downright bizarre: The Catholic "men of the clothe", "Christ's messengers", ... In public, all firmly opposed to the idea of men having consensual sex with men. But that's only in public. Elsewhere those "pillars of the church" are busy buggering little, defenseless boys! And after that, they listen to others confess "sins" and proceed to offer "forgiveness"!
-
Moonki, I follow what you are saying, but I still think the analogy is off. Early Christians were not all that isolated from one another.
I'll have to think about whether I want to "tackle" the rest, but the bit above explains why this "discussion" is going nowhere.
Nowhere have I stated or suggested or implied that Early Christians were necessarily isolated from each other. Nor is the issue actually relevant to anything I wrote, which, perhaps, should be read again. Carefully.
Equally irrelevant to the point I have been trying to make is the distinction between a "natural state" and a "chosen state".
That aside ....
A very real problem when "debating" such matters with many who claim to be Christians is that their tendency to conveniently forget the history of Christianity---if they know enough of it. Many of the attitudes that such Christians express today about homosexuals go right back to the period right after Constantine and how Christians, quickly forgetting where they'd just been, viewed and dealt with the so-called Pagans.
A more serious problem, especially for those of us who have left the Christian church or who would not think of joining it, is that a great deal of what is said and done seems to have forgotten the "Christ" in "Christian". Hardly anyone seems to reflect on the essence of Christ's message ...
Comments from Catholics, in particular, tend to be amusing (if one may use that word), cheeky, and downright bizarre: The Catholic "men of the clothe", "Christ's messengers", ... In public, all firmly opposed to the idea of men having consensual sex with men. But that's only in public. Elsewhere those "pillars of the church" are busy buggering little, defenseless boys! And after that, they listen to others confess "sins" and proceed to offer "forgiveness"!
Interesting you get into this diatribe about your feelings towards Christians right after accusing me of irrelevancies. How is any of this relevant? Honestly, you are approaching this topic with too much beef.
Christian attitudes about Homosexuality go right back to the church of the Apostles in the 1st century AD and the Ante-Nicene fathers in the immediately succeeding centuries before Constantine. Moreover, 98% of Catholic clergy do not fall into your sweeping categorization about clergy that does the deplorable in abusing children. That's like accusing Muslims of bringing down the WTC in 2001.
I mentioned the isolation and the chosen nature of Christianity to show that Christian motivation for public witnessing during persecution was different from what (it seems to me) has been suggested here regarding Cook's reasons for coming out.
-
Interesting you get into this diatribe about your feelings towards Christians right after accusing me of irrelevancies. How is any of this relevant?
How is it relevant? That's an easy one, and it's not so much about my feelings towards Christians as it is a statement of reality.
Here it is: the matter of Christianity somehow entered this thread, and the Catholic Church was specifically mentioned. On the matter of sexual acts between males and the Catholic church, one can hardly overlook the fact that male Catholic priests have been very busy raping defenseless, little boys. Hundreds of them. For years. Christ had something to say about specks vs. logs in the eye.
Christian attitudes about Homosexuality go right back to the church of the Apostles in the 1st century AD and the Ante-Nicene fathers in the immediately succeeding centuries before Constantine.
That is certainly true, at least on paper. My reference to the period right after Constantine was specifically made in the context of how Christians, once they had some power, dealt with the so-called Pagans.
The other thing I have been trying to highlight that it's not so much about the "attitude" as it is about what one actually does. E.g.: The Catholic church says male-male sex is wrong, even if between consenting adults, but its priests are very busy at it with kids who are not in a position to say "no". See what I mean?
Moreover, 98% of Catholic clergy do not ...
I should hope not, but we still don't know what remains to be discovered. See, the difference between a terrorist act, e.g. blowing up towers, and molesting little boys in the "confession box" is that one is immediately apparent whereas the other could stay unknown for years.
-
None of that is relevant. You and I were discussing the appropriateness of the parallels you were drawing between the motivations of early Christian martyrs refusing publicly to deny their faith in the midst of persecution and Cook's coming out in modern day America (complete with gay rights, gay marriages, hate crimes, and human rights commissions ready to punish anyone that refuses to service gays with enormous fines, and a news and entertainment media doing an excellent job on selling to the public the normalcy of being gay.) I simply pointed out why those parallels were inappropriate. You accuse me of irrelevancies before starting on a long rant about how you think Christians are horrible people and you would not want to be one. That's such a strange line of "argument" for a lawyer to take, but Haisuru! Enjoy your night. :D
-
None of that is relevant. You and I were discussing the appropriateness of the parallels you were drawing between the motivations of early Christian martyrs refusing publicly to deny their faith in the midst of persecution and Cook's coming out in modern day America (complete with gay rights, gay marriages, hate crimes, and human rights commissions ready to punish anyone that refuses to service gays with enormous fines, and a news and entertainment media doing an excellent job on selling to the public the normalcy of being gay.) I simply pointed out why those parallels were inappropriate. You accuse me of irrelevancies before starting on a long rant about how you think Christians are horrible people and you would not want to be one. That's such a strange line of "argument" for a lawyer to take, but Haisuru! Enjoy your night. :D
Oh, I see where you are having difficulties. It appears that you did not carefully read what I wrote. If you back, you will find this:
I'll have to think about whether I want to "tackle" the rest, but the bit above explains why this "discussion" is going nowhere.
Nowhere did I then state that I had thought about .... and decided to tackle ...
and
That aside ....
"Aside" meant that I was putting aside a "discussion" that was going nowhere so that I could first tackle the general hypocrisy of some Christians and, in particular, some Catholics.
Modern day America, with all of this and all of that, eh? That's why I posted this Oct 2014 story:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/texas-teen-lured-to-skate-park-for-gay-bashing-then-insulted-by-cops-activists/
By the way, I have made references to the nasty history of Christianity, the hypocrisy, Catholic priests buggering little boys, and so on. Those are no more than hard facts, unpleasant though they might be. But how did you arrive at this one:
"you think Christians are horrible people and you would not want to be one." ?
What makes you so sure that (a) I am not a Christian and (b), if not, that I would not want to be one?
-
Putting aside a discussion so that you could accuse Christians and your discussion partner of hypocrisy (itself a slander) is nothing short of resorting to ad hominem when you have no more to say, so you attack the person instead of the arguments they are making. The "facts" about clergy abuse are irrelevant, unless you mean that religions only retain their right to their beliefs if there are no sinners/wolves among them disguised as the rest of the lambs, you keep referring to "catholic priests" in general and abusing children as if this is the norm among priests when facts show something else entirely or as if it is taught as such, and your proof that it is the norm is some argument from silence (You never know, so better assume they all are abusing children, facts be damned). Moonki, this is where I got that "weird" remark about what you said about
A more serious problem, especially for those of us who have left the Christian church or who would not think of joining it, is that a great deal of what is said and done seems to have forgotten the "Christ" in "Christian". Hardly anyone seems to reflect on the essence of Christ's message ...
Don't know why you felt the need to share that, but like I said, in the context of the discussion we were having, it was indeed strange. You just seemed annoyed and lashed out with the best "dig" that came to mind. :D
-
Putting aside a discussion so that you could accuse Christians and your discussion partner of hypocrisy (itself a slander) is nothing short of resorting to ad hominem when you have no more to say, so you attack the person instead of the arguments they are making.
Oh, I do have a lot to say, but, as I pointed out, it seemed to me that we are at the point where I was dealing with an impervious religious wall and that I would simply get the standard line regardless of what I wrote. It was, however, not my attention to launch a personal attack ... unless you want to include yourself in my target of hypocritical Christians. And them I attack on the basis of hard, historical facts.
The "facts" about clergy abuse are irrelevant,
We'll have to disagree on that one. To repeat my view: here's a thread on some fellow announcing that he's a homosexual; somehow it is claimed that the point of the announcement is to let the world know that he's supposedly doing it with another guy; and before one can say "what the!", the Christian and Catholic churches have been thrown in. In such circumstances, it seems to me quite appropriate to say "wow, wow, wow! wait a minute! you mean those allegedly holy types that have been sticking it to little boys? those are the ones upset about two guys doing it?"
Moonki, this is where I got that "weird" remark about what you said about A more serious problem, especially for those of us who have left the Christian church or who would not think of joining it, is that a great deal of what is said and done seems to have forgotten the "Christ" in "Christian". Hardly anyone seems to reflect on the essence of Christ's message ...
Don't know why you felt the need to share that, but like I said, in the context of the discussion we were having, it was indeed strange.
Please go back and carefully read what I wrote:
"What makes you so sure that (a) I am not a Christian and (b), if not, that I would not want to be one?"
and before it, the bit that you quote:
"a great deal of what is said and done seems to have forgotten the 'Christ' in 'Christian'. Hardly anyone seems to reflect on the essence of Christ's message"
As for the need to "share it", that one's simple: to indicate that my observations on the hypocrisy of holy-holy "Christians" are "first-hand".
-
MooonKi,
How has child abuse in the Catholic Church got anything to do with Catholic stand on homosexuality?
It is not a rule, it is a deviation and they speak against it. They may have erred in the last and they will continue erring, but that don't mean they can't take a stand against a practice.
Same case with adultery. It is rampant but it is still condemned. Catholicism and by extension Christianity does not derive authority from what they keep without fail. All of the 10 commandments are ever so often broken by Christians. May be we should discard them
There are no religious walls anywhere near what kadame said. And she has rightfully called out your personal attacks. There is everything wrong with homosexuality just as there is with beastiality and I will not cease preaching this.
Putting aside a discussion so that you could accuse Christians and your discussion partner of hypocrisy (itself a slander) is nothing short of resorting to ad hominem when you have no more to say, so you attack the person instead of the arguments they are making.
Oh, I do have a lot to say, but, as I pointed out, it seemed to me that we are at the point where I was dealing with an impervious religious wall and that I would simply get the standard line regardless of what I wrote. It was, however, not my attention to launch a personal attack ... unless you want to include yourself in my target of hypocritical Christians. And them I attack on the basis of hard, historical facts.
The "facts" about clergy abuse are irrelevant,
We'll have to disagree on that one. To repeat my view: here's a thread on some fellow announcing that he's a homosexual; somehow it is claimed that the point of the announcement is to let the world know that he's supposedly doing it with another guy; and before one can say "what the!", the Christian and Catholic churches have been thrown in. In such circumstances, it seems to me quite appropriate to say "wow, wow, wow! wait a minute! you mean those allegedly holy types that have been sticking it to little boys? those are the ones upset about two guys doing it?"
Moonki, this is where I got that "weird" remark about what you said about A more serious problem, especially for those of us who have left the Christian church or who would not think of joining it, is that a great deal of what is said and done seems to have forgotten the "Christ" in "Christian". Hardly anyone seems to reflect on the essence of Christ's message ...
Don't know why you felt the need to share that, but like I said, in the context of the discussion we were having, it was indeed strange.
Please go back and carefully read what I wrote:
"What makes you so sure that (a) I am not a Christian and (b), if not, that I would not want to be one?"
and before it, the bit that you quote:
"a great deal of what is said and done seems to have forgotten the 'Christ' in 'Christian'. Hardly anyone seems to reflect on the essence of Christ's message"
As for the need to "share it", that one's simple: to indicate that my observations on the hypocrisy of holy-holy "Christians" are "first-hand".
-
I think as long as the law protects him, that should be enough. I get the impression that a lot of gays not only want protection of the law, but that we also appreciate the lifestyle. That for me is where I draw the line.
I dont think its as much "appreciate the lifestyle" as it is to accept them as equals..... The law has always been there but so is the intolerance. We do not have to like or appreciate that lifestyle but thier rights we must defend , as well as accept them as whole individials with all the complexities that come with it.
Whether one accepts them as equals, whatever that means, seems like a question left up to the individual. The most one can ask is that their rights be protected and I agree with that.
I know plenty of people that will have nothing to do with married people, especially those with kids. They ostracize them and do not invite them to events. And vice versa. And life goes on.
-
This is a very unfortunate comment from somebody like you. FYI being gay does not neccesarily equate to having sex with a person of same gender.
We live in a very judgmental world when rumor mills go overdrive of persons sexuality. Especially prominent people. most gay people would like to keep it private but the rumor mills and pressure from within and without forces them to declare it in the open.
That is the one problem I have with gays. The in your-face reminders. I barely think of what my presumedly straight colleagues sleep with. But a gay wants you to know he is getting jiggly with another man.
Some people are just not interested. It's not the same as hate.
Jakoyo,
Passing judgment on a question like this is futile. People can barely agree on what constitutes good weather, let alone whether two men should be going at it.
When someone comes out, they expose themselves to the repurcursions depending on the culture of their societies. I think I have the right to tell Cook, now that he came out, that I don't care for his lifestyle, without infringing on his rights.
We have different capacities to deal with differences. You don't have to like or tolerate everything about everyone.
In the US we can ask that gays be granted the same rights as everyone else. In Kenya, they are happy to get away without a lynching.
My real beef is that there are far more serious issues deserving urgent attention than how Mr. Cook feels the straight should treat gays. I am assuming the man is somewhere in San Francisco or its whereabouts.
-
I don't think what he did was a wise business move. Some conservative factions might boycott Apple products...
-
MooonKi,
How has child abuse in the Catholic Church got anything to do with Catholic stand on homosexuality?
It is not a rule, it is a deviation and they speak against it. They may have erred in the last and they will continue erring, but that don't mean they can't take a stand against a practice.
I have already tried to explain that, in particular the holy-holy ranting against male-male sex when their own religious leaders are at it like there is no tomorrow. I can't do any more by way of explaining if people simply refuse to accept well-known facts. Of course, Catholics are free to take a stand. And we are free to point out the hypocrisy; so people should not get so worked up when we do.
-
MooonKi,
How has child abuse in the Catholic Church got anything to do with Catholic stand on homosexuality?
It is not a rule, it is a deviation and they speak against it. They may have erred in the last and they will continue erring, but that don't mean they can't take a stand against a practice.
I have already tried to explain that, in particular the holy-holy ranting against male-male sex when their own religious leaders are at it like there is no tomorrow. I can't do any more by way of explaining if people simply refuse to accept well-known facts. Of course, Catholics are free to take a stand. And we are free to point out the hypocrisy; so people should not get so worked up when we do.
So it was me you were calling a hypocrite, after all. How dare I say I am against male-male sex when there are pedophile, homosexual priests in this world? Don't I know ""my place" as a Catholic? :-X
Male-male sex is disgusting, whether both or either is adult or child, but outrageous when one is a child and the other an adult, whether either participant is catholic or atheist, whether they are a lay man or clergy and pedophilia knows no niche, it's there in every religious and secular institution involving children.
Your claim about hypocrisy is amazing. Call me a hypocrite when you catch me getting it on with some chick in a dark alley. Otherwise, what you are doing is transferring someone else's sins to me and other Catholics and using these "sins by proxy" to assign this fake label of hypocrisy, which is just ad hominems, a ruse to launch personal attacks.
FYI, No catholic is a catholic because of some priest, I certainly am not Catholic because I am under some delusion that priests are sinless. My being catholic has zero to do with any priest in this world, but my belief in Jesus Christ; no catholic rejects homosexual practices because they think their priest is holy, but because God says its evil, so your claim of hypocrisy makes no sense.
By all means, feel free to call those pedophile priests hypocrites to your heart's content, I will gladly join in :zen: that they are, like Judas Iscariot. The rest of us you are calling hypocrites, including the 98% of our clergy who are innocent, are victims of your slander and your anti-Christian and anti-Catholic animus. A man that holds 1.2 billion Catholics responsible for the sins of 2% of clergy. Prejudice and bigotry masquerading as righteous indignation in a protest about bigotry---Now that is hypocrisy! 8)
-
Kadame:
What slander are you on about? The facts I pointed out are well known. What's more, they are just a continuation of the depravity that has always existed in the leadership of the Catholic Church (and at the highest levels). What are your thoughts on the debauchery of people like Pope Alexander VI (aka Rodrigo Borgia)? And he was far from alone in papal depravity.
-
Kadame:
What slander are you on about? The facts I pointed out are well known. What's more, they are just a continuation of the depravity that has always existed in the leadership of the Catholic Church (and at the highest levels). What are your thoughts on the debauchery of people like Pope Alexander VI (aka Rodrigo Borgia)? And he was far from alone in papal depravity.
You accused us of hypocrisy for believing that homosexual sex is sinful and daring to state so, now are you calling every catholic who is against gay sex a pedophile? If not, then lets see you explain why you feel entitled to insult 1.2 billion people or anyone who disagrees with you on homosexuality, labelling them hypoctrites.
About that dead pope you mention; Of the 266 popes who have graced the church in 2 millenia, do you know of any others apart from the 8 infamous "bad popes" everyone talks about? More to the point, am I somehow "guilty" of his sins by proxy? 8) If not, feel free to explain to me what his sins have to do with my belief that homosexuality is a sin. Interesting how you have felt free to shout "irrelevant" while engaging in it without batting an eyelid. :D
-
You accused us of hypocrisy for believing that homosexual sex is sinful and daring to state so, now are you calling every catholic who is against gay sex a pedophile? If not, then lets see you explain why you feel entitled to insult 1.2 billion people or anyone who disagrees with you on homosexuality, labelling them hypoctrites.
"calling every catholic who is against gay sex a pedophile"? That sort of emotional hyperbole is unhelpful and makes it near-impossible for us to have a reasonable discussion. What I have indicated is that the Catholic church has a long history as a den of sin, led by the thoroughly immoral popes. I have then suggested that some internal "house-cleaning" would be in order before those folks rush to condemn this and that. What is so unreasonable about that?
-
You accused us of hypocrisy for believing that homosexual sex is sinful and daring to state so, now are you calling every catholic who is against gay sex a pedophile? If not, then lets see you explain why you feel entitled to insult 1.2 billion people or anyone who disagrees with you on homosexuality, labelling them hypoctrites.
"calling every catholic who is against gay sex a pedophile"? That sort of emotional hyperbole is unhelpful and makes it near-impossible for us to have a reasonable discussion. What I have indicated is that the Catholic church has a long history as a den of sin, led by the thoroughly immoral popes. I have then suggested that some internal "house-cleaning" would be in order before those folks rush to condemn this and that. What is so unreasonable about that?
Actually, emotional hyperbole is exactly what you have resorted all over the place once you had no more to say with regards to the actual topics in discussion. Now, the catholic church has never claimed to be free of sinners, and no catholic has made that claim on any topic in which you have rushed in with your arsenal of "catholic priests are pedophiles! let catholics shut up!" and similar weapons of "debate".
You have repeatedly expressed here your annoyance at catholics who express their stance against homosexuality because "their priests" are pedophiles, and you just admitted to vooke that you think these catholics are hypocrites for daring to have an opinion when there are pedophile priests in existence. I am simply asking you to defend your insinuations that I and every catholic who shares my opinion is a "hypocrite". Is it that we state that homosexuality is ok if it is done by a priest? Is it that we ourselves are pedophiles or practicing homosexuals? I just want to know your basis for this sweeping generalization of yours.
You have even sought to continue with that strange line of argument by digging up some medieval pope as if that somehow supports your remarks about catholics like me who think gay sex is sinful. You then call this "emotional hyperbole", like you called my arguments yesterday "an impervious religious wall". Asi!!! Wacha tu! :D
-
Actually, emotional hyperbole is exactly what you have resorted all over the place once you had no more to say with regards to the actual topics in discussion. Now, the catholic church has never claimed to be free of sinners, and no catholic has made that claim on any topic in which you have rushed in with your arsenal of "catholic priests are pedophiles! let catholics shut up!" and similar weapons of "debate".
What emotional hyperbole? Some guy told the world that he is gay, and some people jumped in with Christianity, Catholics, etc. I have responded by simply noting well-known historical facts and connecting those to current hypocrisy. Do I expect those who dragged in religion to cheerfully accept the hard facts I have presented? Of course not; they are not the most pleasant of facts. But I do hope that my detractors will at least acknowledge the significance of some of my comments:
(a) An immoral pope is not just some regular" member of the church who happens to sin. One must keep in mind that he is the leader and, especially for Catholics, is in a very powerful position: stuff about infallibility and so on.
(b) The priests who have recently been unearthed as pedophiles were always protected by the church leadership, which simply bribed the victims to be silent and then moved the priests elsewhere to continue their nasty activities. The leadership is as guilty as those who used the "confession box" to rape little boys.
(c) The rot is actually very deeply rooted in the history of the church and its leadership, and it is this history---right up to today---that Catholics need to first deal with before they run around looking for folks to stone.
Continuing with the historical connection ... RE: "some medieval pope"
I mentioned Alexander only because he seems to have been an "outstanding papal example", with his uncontrolled fucking, murders, and greed for money. An "all-rounder" in iniquity, one might say.
But there are other popes who similarly "distinguished" themselves. For example, in the matter of just fucking, I think it would be hard to beat the record of Pope John XII, who had them coming and going at such a rate that it is said the Vatican resembled a brothel. I don't know if James Brown was a Catholic, but this pope very much fits his "Sex Machine" song. He seems to have operated on the principle that if anyone could be still for long enough, he'd plug them. Who or what didn't matter; any and all most welcome. A real "equal-opportunity" kind of guy.
Not surprisingly, his death was at the end of a knife wielded by a fellow who caught the "celibate" Holy Father in the act of blessing his wife with the papal tarimbo. Still, perhaps the pope had been dealt a bad hand right from the start: his father also happened to be his grandfather, and one of the women he regularly fucked was his own mother. He could well be pope who established papal incest as "acceptable".
Since we are here discussing homosexuality and the alleged upright & historical attitudes of the Catholic church, it is worth noting that there is the official attitude and there is the hidden attitude. The latter generally starts with Pope Benedict IX who fucked large numbers of both men and women, and, for good measure and a change of pace, sometimes threw in the odd animal. His own successor (to whom he sold the papacy) accused him of numerous rapes and murders.
Pope Sixtus IV too "distinguished" himself in ways that are relevant to this thread, i.e. fucking men in addition to women. As regards the latter, even his own sister was fair game.
People know of the recent Pope John XXIII, but the 15th Century one with the same name wins on "colourful style". The Vatican Council----his fellow shepherds of the flock!---threw him out of office, on charges that included heresy, simony, schism and immorality; the last of these consisted of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. He was found guilty on all charges. And people think there's too much depravity in today's world!
On such men, referred to as the Vicars of Christ--and supposedly infallible!---is founded the Roman Catholic Church. True, times have changed, and it is no longer acceptable for the leadership to show a cavalier attitude and lead-from-the-front in indulging in rape, murder, incest, sodomy, bestiality, etc. But the roots remain, which is why, until they were caught, the church leadership went to such lengths to protect priests raping little boys.
-
Catholicism is not hypocritical by taking a stand against a practice that is 'rampant' in its rank and file. Your condition for hypocrisy is there be no faggotry in the church, only then can they talk.
Digging history don't help your cause. America recently practiced slavery and after that racial discrimination. Do they NOW have a voice on matters racism or modern slavery?
Jesus walked with a thief as part of his twelve and had he not betrayed his master, he'd have been an apostle just like others. Was he hypocritical?
You are confusing prefection with hypocrisy...that's a strawman. Catholics would be hypocritical if they CONDONED faggotry in ANY way but went ahead and crucified Cook, and you would be a hypocrite if outside this place you spew venom against booty warriors. In short hypocrisy is INCONSISTENCY in speech or conduct over a specific matter
Shining examples of hypocrisy is US blackmailing Uganda to shoot down its sex bill that criminalizes homosexuality but doing NOTHING about Muslim countries where the same is done. We all know Psama is busy fighting extremism fires by masking all appearances of hostility towards Islam hence his stance. Another one is UNSC. They referred Butcher Bashir over Darfur but have done nothing over Syria's atrocities which are of a higher magnitude
MooonKi,
How has child abuse in the Catholic Church got anything to do with Catholic stand on homosexuality?
It is not a rule, it is a deviation and they speak against it. They may have erred in the last and they will continue erring, but that don't mean they can't take a stand against a practice.
I have already tried to explain that, in particular the holy-holy ranting against male-male sex when their own religious leaders are at it like there is no tomorrow. I can't do any more by way of explaining if people simply refuse to accept well-known facts. Of course, Catholics are free to take a stand. And we are free to point out the hypocrisy; so people should not get so worked up when we do.
-
Catholicism is not hypocritical by taking a stand against a practice that is 'rampant' in its rank and file. Your condition for hypocrisy is there be no faggotry in the church, only then can they talk.
Digging history don't help your cause. America recently practiced slavery and after that racial discrimination. Do they NOW have a voice on matters racism or modern slavery?
Jesus walked with a thief as part of his twelve and had he not betrayed his master, he'd have been an apostle just like others. Was he hypocritical?
You are confusing prefection with hypocrisy...that's a strawman. Catholics would be hypocritical if they CONDONED faggotry in ANY way but went ahead and crucified Cook, and you would be a hypocrite if outside this place you spew venom against booty warriors. In short hypocrisy is INCONSISTENCY
Vooke:
I have no "cause". I am simply trying to point out that those who wish to make objections on the basis of "Christianity" and "Catholicism" do not exactly have a leg to stand on.
Regarding your comment on "rank and file": my point about the popes is precisely that they are hardly the "rank and file"---take a look at the church dogma, even of today---nor is today's church leadership that for long went out of its way to protect the "rank and file" who, for years and years, raped little boys. And taking a stand only when they get caught at it is the sort of thing I consider hypocritical. In other words, Catholics need to look deeply at the historical roots that have led to the current situation and, before they run around condemning others, first clean up their own house.
It is interesting that you should mention Jesus. It seems, and you do indicate, that he accepted all sorts. There's a lesson there for today's holy-holy types, w.r.t to those whose behavior they don't like; perhaps the lives of their own infallible Vicars of Christ, especially those who fucked anything and everything, could provide a useful lesson. Jesus also said something about specks and logs in the eye. Perhaps they could first deal with their own logs and then get worked up about specks elsewhere.
-
My grouse with Catholicism is not existence of child abuse inside its heirachies but the shameless protection afforded these guys even after they had been reported. That's what needs to change. I have dealt with spiritual abuse even among evangelicals where the laity is taught to protect the Man of God even in crime. That needs to change.
Again my broda you are implying that Catholicism can only speak after they have looked at their historical roots. That's simply blackmailing the institution using its sordid history to silence it. May be Germany should never speak against antisemitism seeing Hitler was German. There is NOTHING the Catholic Church can do about its past except pick lessons and run. The child abuse scandal am sure has been a wake up call, protecting sex pests is VERY expensive
About Jesus, before you label me liberal, I merely meant to suggest that shortcomings on church leadership don't make them acceptable. If homosexuals and beastiality masters want Christ, they must be told that those are an abomination before God. This is not a guilt trip to tempt them to change, it is the Truth
Catholicism is not hypocritical by taking a stand against a practice that is 'rampant' in its rank and file. Your condition for hypocrisy is there be no faggotry in the church, only then can they talk.
Digging history don't help your cause. America recently practiced slavery and after that racial discrimination. Do they NOW have a voice on matters racism or modern slavery?
Jesus walked with a thief as part of his twelve and had he not betrayed his master, he'd have been an apostle just like others. Was he hypocritical?
You are confusing prefection with hypocrisy...that's a strawman. Catholics would be hypocritical if they CONDONED faggotry in ANY way but went ahead and crucified Cook, and you would be a hypocrite if outside this place you spew venom against booty warriors. In short hypocrisy is INCONSISTENCY
Vooke:
I have no "cause". I am simply trying to point out that those who wish to make objections on the basis of "Christianity" and "Catholicism" do not exactly have a leg to stand on.
Regarding your comment on "rank and file": my point about the popes is precisely that they are hardly the "rank and file"---take a look at the church dogma, even of today---nor is today's church leadership that for long went out of its way to protect the "rank and file" who, for years and years, raped little boys. And taking a stand only when they get caught at it is the sort of thing I consider hypocritical. In other words, Catholics need to look deeply at the historical roots that have led to the current situation and, before they run around condemning others, first clean up their own house.
It is interesting that you should mention Jesus. It seems, and you do indicate, that he accepted all sorts. There's a lesson there for today's holy-holy types, w.r.t to those whose behavior they don't like; perhaps the lives of their own infallible Vicars of Christ, especially those who fucked anything and everything, could provide a useful lesson. Jesus also said something about specks and logs in the eye. Perhaps they could first deal with their own logs and then get worked up about specks elsewhere.
-
Actually, emotional hyperbole is exactly what you have resorted all over the place once you had no more to say with regards to the actual topics in discussion. Now, the catholic church has never claimed to be free of sinners, and no catholic has made that claim on any topic in which you have rushed in with your arsenal of "catholic priests are pedophiles! let catholics shut up!" and similar weapons of "debate".
What emotional hyperbole? Some guy told the world that he is gay, and some people jumped in with Christianity, Catholics, etc.
vooke introduced the catholic church on a very small point and I responded to him on it and moved on about religions in general. That you latched on to that to fire away shows how disproportionate and biased you are. Yu see "catholic" and all your mind sees is "Pedophile" no matter what the point is in discussion. I have responded by simply noting well-known historical facts and connecting those to current hypocrisy. Do I expect those who dragged in religion to cheerfully accept the hard facts I have presented? Of course not; they are not the most pleasant of facts. But I do hope that my detractors will at least acknowledge the significance of some of my comments:
You made an accusation that we are hypocrites and up till now you are dancing around the topic because you realize your mistake but are too proud to admit it. Explain to me how I am a hypocrite? Do I condone sins in myself or our clergy that I disdain in others? I hope you finally get around to answering it.
(a) An immoral pope is not just some regular" member of the church who happens to sin. One must keep in mind that he is the leader and, especially for Catholics, is in a very powerful position: stuff about infallibility and so on.
Your posts keep getting more and more interesting. Are you saying that catholic faith teaches/believes that popes are exempt from sin? What do you think infallibility has to do with how holy or rotten a pope is?
(b) The priests who have recently been unearthed as pedophiles were always protected by the church leadership, which simply bribed the victims to be silent and then moved the priests elsewhere to continue their nasty activities. The leadership is as guilty as those who used the "confession box" to rape little boys.
Again with your generalizations. Those priests were not protected by "church leadership". There were bishops who actually did their jobs without any problems, mind you. Those who protected those priests, like the pedophiles themselves, are a minority in the episcopacy. But who expects you to care, if your sole purpose is to paint all catholic clergy with the same broad brush so that you can use it as a ruse to engage your bigotry while pretending to be above it?
(c) The rot is actually very deeply rooted in the history of the church and its leadership, and it is this history---right up to today---that Catholics need to first deal with before they run around looking for folks to stone.
I have news for you; Rot is deeply rooted in any organization with the membership of earthly humans. You are trying to show rot is ALL there is in the catholic church, though, a simple thing called demonization. We have seen it precede all forms of group hate in History, some of which lead to persecution, civil wars, even genocide. The church has housed sinners as well as incredibly good and decent human beings, who by far have been the majority--big deal. Do you perhaps know of any institution of a few centuries that has been miraculously exempted from evil membership?
Continuing with the historical connection ... RE: "some medieval pope"
I asked you if you know of any popes among the 266, apart from the 8 "worst", that you have strangely pinpointed as representative of both that office and the church in general. There have been incredibly holy popes in our history, many many of them, but noooo. The 8 worst are the ones you will pick on to malign all the rest. Proof that your interest here is an anti-Catholic animus, with no interest at all in truth or fairness.
-
vooke, thanks! :D I agree with you that the protection and shuffling around of criminal clergy is an outrage and should not be condoned. When a clergy-man does something sinful, his guilt is not diminished because he's clergy; in God's eyes, it is compounded, because apart from that particular sin, he has also betrayed the trust of his flock that God has entrusted to him.
MOONKi is calling us hypcrites and when asked to show in what way, all he can do is find a bad catholic to point at and say "Look! A horrible catholic!" or "Look! A horrible catholic clergy-man!", in effect, he is holding us responsible for their sins and then using them to claim we are hypcrites. Hypocrisy, as you rightly pointed out is inconsistency. So if MOONKi caught me performing sexual acts on my female friends, he could legitimately throw that label at me. Instead, he is trying to say that catholics have no right to their own faith until the day all catholic clergymen are saints. In the other thread he did the same about pastors. I wonder which other group he holds up to that standard? Is it just Christians?
-
It is interesting that you should mention Jesus. It seems, and you do indicate, that he accepted all sorts. There's a lesson there for today's holy-holy types, w.r.t to those whose behavior they don't like
The idea is that Jesus accepted sinners therefore he condoned their sins. Christians should therefore forget there is such a thing as sin. People need to actually pick up the Gospels and read them before they impute their favorite modern causes and attitudes to Jesus. Jesus loved everyone, indeed. Yet he was absolutely intolerant to their sins. He would've gladly embraced any homosexual, but the idea he would have said "go ahead and get jiggy wit your boyfriend, that's cool with me" is pure fantasy; something someone is projecting onto the man.
Likely he would've told him "Leave everything behind and follow me" or as he said to the adulterous woman "Go and sin no more", or if the person was already converted in his heart, he might have said of him as he said of the prostitute who washed his feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair, "Because she has loved much, her sins though many, are forgiven her". Nowhere does he suggest that adultery, prostitution or anything else has ceased to be sin.
Yes, Jesus very lovingly dealt with all sorts of sinners, but he always led them to conversion, to turning away from their sinful lifestyles. So people who bring him up in this discussion usually surprise me as to the point they are making. We are to love sinners and hate the sin, that is the rule. When we hate sinners, we go against Christ; When we love sin, we go against Christ. Moreover, when we ourselves sin, we go against Christ and we seek mercy in Christ; the very same place we are to lead that fellow sinner whom Christ has commanded us to love.
You are telling us to love the sin of gay sex in the name of Jesus. :D That is very weird.
-
The way I understand MOON Ki, who I happen to believe is a Christian. That some institutions among the biggest stone throwers against gays have no credibility to moralize about the subject.
He is not saying to anyone to quit the church. But rather calling for introspection in those institutions. I believe credibility goes a long way on moral questions.
I am shocked by some of the revelations about some of the popes.
-
vooke and Kadame
I have this problem and let me try to be as simple as possible (for a Luo!):
1. Christianity, Islam, The Legal Fraternity etc are "institutions" or entities with an identity composed of values, limitations, idiosyncrasies, etc that clearly separate them from other entities. For example there are certain preconditions a person seeking to be called "Lawyer" or "Advocate" is expected to fulfill and maintain. If one fails to meet those preconditions there is no expectation of becoming a Lawyer or Advocate!
2. Similarly Christianity has an identity. Like Judaism that came before it, it has clear limits stating who can be a member and who cannot. These preconditions are the sine qua non for appropriate worship. In other words, a member cannot be said to have worshipped if he does not meet the basic preconditions for membership. Be it the confession of sins, baptism, renunciation of former beliefs etc.
That said, upon what basis would an "outsider" seek to have the Law Society bend its rules to accommodate him? Can one ask the Church to water down its requirements for proper worship to accommodate him?
I came over this discussion sometime in Europe where Gays disagreed when it came to prescribing to the Church how it should conduct its business.
I may ask Moon Ki whether Gays could consider setting up their own Churches where they can freely worship as they see fit, rather than forcing others to change they way they should worship.
I don't consider my views homophobic since this remains a very tough debate within the gay community as well. It falls in line with my previous views on freedom and free choice, where I do not believe in imposing one's will on a free people.
-
It is interesting that you should mention Jesus. It seems, and you do indicate, that he accepted all sorts. There's a lesson there for today's holy-holy types, w.r.t to those whose behavior they don't like
The idea is that Jesus accepted sinners therefore he condoned their sins. Christians should therefore forget there is such a thing as sin. People need to actually pick up the Gospels and read them before they impute their favorite modern causes and attitudes to Jesus. Jesus loved everyone, indeed. Yet he was absolutely intolerant to their sins. He would've gladly embraced any homosexual, but the idea he would have said "go ahead and get jiggy wit your boyfriend, that's cool with me" is pure fantasy; something someone is projecting onto the man.
See the bit in red? That was the point; I'm glad to see that you got it. The rest is pure fantasy.
-
I have news for you; Rot is deeply rooted in any organization with the membership of earthly humans. You are trying to show rot is ALL there is in the catholic church, though, a simple thing called demonization. We have seen it precede all forms of group hate in History, some of which lead to persecution, civil wars, even genocide. The church has housed sinners as well as incredibly good and decent human beings, who by far have been the majority--big deal. Do you perhaps know of any institution of a few centuries that has been miraculously exempted from evil membership?
Perhaps this is where the problem lies. It is a pity that people should think of the church as "just another organization". It really ought to be seen as much more than that, and it ought to try to be much more than that. That requires moving from the idea that as it is just another organization of earthly humans, the same rot that is to be found elsewhere should be acceptable in the church.
By the way, I am not trying to show that there is rot in the Catholic church. That much is already well-known. The point I am trying to make has been neatly summarized by "Windy City Assassin".
-
The way I understand MOON Ki, who I happen to believe is a Christian. That some institutions among the biggest stone throwers against gays have no credibility to moralize about the subject.
He is not saying to anyone to quit the church. But rather calling for introspection in those institutions. I believe credibility goes a long way on moral questions.
Exactly.
-
@MOONKi, thanks for that new "point", which is nothing new to Catholics at all. We do embrace homosexuals. We just don't lie to them that a homosexual lifestyle is not sinful, which is what gay apologists like you want the church to do. It's called what it is. The point you "made" was that I was a hypocrite and should basically keep quiet until all our clergy are saints. You had no right to insinuate hypocricy in me or in any Catholic who states unreservedly what Christians and Jews have believed for 4,000 years: Gay sex is a sin. Since you have adopted the view expressed that the church is throwing stones at gay people spoke for you, would you please be so polite as to show me just how the church throws stones at gay people? By believing gay sex is sin? The church calls me a sinner in many ways, when I gossip, fall into laziness, pride, insult someone, seek vengeance, etc etc. According to you, should I feel "oppressed" by the church's unyielding stance regarding my vices?
@Omollo, you're totally right. Nobody is forced to belong to any religion against their wish. Imagine someone demanding Muslims or Jews permit pork because he used to find it delicious back when he was a Christian. Or a Muslim woman demanding that hijab be removed from Islamic teaching because some progressive somewhere has somehow convinced her that modest dressing is "oppressive". Religious values are not supposed to be democratically determined. You either believe this is God who spoke to the Prophet Muhammad/Moses or was incarnated as Jesus or you don't. It's really very simple. :) If you cannot be humble enough to live by God's laws as they have ben handed down to you by authorities you believe, prophets/Apostles or whatever, then maybe you should not be in that religion. I have told that line "Why not just go start another church according to your liking?" to some American Catholics on the internet who insist that the Church should drop her 2,000 year old beliefs and adopt "fresh" ones. An intellectually honest person, if he cannot square himself with what a particular faith teaches, politely takes his leave.
-
"Throwing stones", I assume refers to the instances of "sin" such as child abuse, rape, secret families while allegedly celibate, etc and comparing against Homosexuality. NOTE the difference please: While both are forbidden; One is done in SECRET acknowledging that it is improper while the "other" (also hitherto done in secret) wants to come out in the open and become part of the Church.
The way I understand MOON Ki, who I happen to believe is a Christian. That some institutions among the biggest stone throwers against gays have no credibility to moralize about the subject.
He is not saying to anyone to quit the church. But rather calling for introspection in those institutions. I believe credibility goes a long way on moral questions.
I am shocked by some of the revelations about some of the popes.
-
Again my broda you are implying that Catholicism can only speak after they have looked at their historical roots. That's simply blackmailing the institution using its sordid history to silence it. May be Germany should never speak against antisemitism seeing Hitler was German. There is NOTHING the Catholic Church can do about its past except pick lessons and run. The child abuse scandal am sure has been a wake up call, protecting sex pests is VERY expensive
No, that is not what I am implying. What I am implying is that the Catholic church would have more credibility on such matters if it showed that it had learned something from its history. The manner in which the leadership handled the confession-box rapes of numerous children shows that there has been no learning: the protection of heinous criminals within the church, the bribery of victims, etc. All these are deeply rooted in the church's long history. In the recent matter, the church leadership did not suddenly wake up and decide that wrongs had been done that needed to be corrected; the leadership acted only when the victims decided to start coming out, and, as you note, it became an expensive business for the church. Looking at the wallet rather than the soul is another thing that is deeply rooted in the church's history.
-
I have news for you; Rot is deeply rooted in any organization with the membership of earthly humans. You are trying to show rot is ALL there is in the catholic church, though, a simple thing called demonization. We have seen it precede all forms of group hate in History, some of which lead to persecution, civil wars, even genocide. The church has housed sinners as well as incredibly good and decent human beings, who by far have been the majority--big deal. Do you perhaps know of any institution of a few centuries that has been miraculously exempted from evil membership?
Perhaps this is where the problem lies. It is a pity that people should think of the church as "just another organization". It really ought to be seen as much more than that, and it ought to try to be much more than that. That requires moving from the idea that as it is just another organization of earthly humans, the same rot that is to be found elsewhere should be acceptable in the church.
By the way, I am not trying to show that there is rot in the Catholic church. That much is already well-known.
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but the church does not fish for members in the angelic realm or aliens on some other planet. Earthly humans is exactly what she gets, and that is why she exists in the first place. You are trying to show that rot is the only thing the catholic church is about, or at least the main thing. I imagine someone going to any group and picking the very worst examples he can find over a 2,000 year period and then proceeding to use this tiny group as the "picture" of that whole group: an exercise in hate is what that is. If you are really interested in using the lifestyles of catholics of whatever rank to "evaluate" this "organization", Why then aren't you also using the countless---truly countless---men and women in the clergy, religious, laity (of all ranks both within and outside the church), who not only lead lives of integrity but have spent their whole lives serving the poor, needy, sick for no reward as a "picture" of the Catholic Church? Their lifestyles don't count when it comes to evaluating this "organization", eh? Only the far fewer, the minority of wicked members count. What an interesting approach! :D
-
"Throwing stones", I assume refers to the instances of "sin" such as child abuse, rape, secret families while allegedly celibate, etc and comparing against Homosexuality. NOTE the difference please: While both are forbidden; One is done in SECRET acknowledging that it is improper while the "other" (also hitherto done in secret) wants to come out in the open and become part of the Church.
The way I understand MOON Ki, who I happen to believe is a Christian. That some institutions among the biggest stone throwers against gays have no credibility to moralize about the subject.
He is not saying to anyone to quit the church. But rather calling for introspection in those institutions. I believe credibility goes a long way on moral questions.
I am shocked by some of the revelations about some of the popes.
What I mean by throwing stones is really just passing judgment. I am saying that a rotten institution can say, you gays go look for acceptance of your behavior elsewhere while guilty of condoning and covering up worse among its leaders. They are entitled to say that and moralize about it. Yet they shouldn't be all surprised when others do not take them seriously for lack of credibility.
I share your views on the privacy question. Yet there is also the question of how do you bring out the problem without breaking that privacy angle. I am thinking for people like Mr. Cook, who likely lives in San Francisco, his is a redundant announcement.
-
Those who feel offended by gays coming out in open, holding hands, displaying their affection and name it -which is still not even 10% of what heterosexual do..are still homphobic..just like i was 5yrs ago when i saw gays sluts in mombasa..i felt repulsion..nowadays i don't.
-
Those who feel offended by gays coming out in open, holding hands, displaying their affection and name it -which is still not even 10% of what heterosexual do..are still homphobic..just like i was 5yrs ago when i saw gays sluts in mombasa..i feel repulsion..nowadays i don't.
I feel no repulsion at all, and I'm not against their coming out. The first time I saw it, not too long ago, It looked quite strange.That is, two men showing PDA in a way that clearly shows they are gay and involved (with each other). It was like something I've never seen before, except on TV, kinda like an exotic animal. :D After a while you just get used to it. I had a job of interviewing Assylum seekers, a good portion of whom claimed they ran away from their home countries coz of abuse of gays either by the Police or the society. My first interview I was bewildered! :D You have to press for details because your job is to make sure they are not lying, something some Assylum seekers do. I had this stereotype in my mind that gay men in particular were all effeminate. That job really opened my eyes. Most gays are exactly like regular men. If they never tell you, you couldn't guess.
-
It's something we will have to get used to..it the new normal. Like working women which was unheard of 100 yrs ago.
Those who feel offended by gays coming out in open, holding hands, displaying their affection and name it -which is still not even 10% of what heterosexual do..are still homphobic..just like i was 5yrs ago when i saw gays sluts in mombasa..i feel repulsion..nowadays i don't.
I feel no repulsion at all, and I'm not against their coming out. The first time I saw it, not too long ago, It looked quite strange.That is, two men showing PDA in a way that clearly shows they are gay and involved (with each other). It was like something I've never seen before, except on TV, kinda like an exotic animal. :D After a while you just get used to it. I had a job of interviewing Assylum seekers, a good portion of whom claimed they ran away from their home countries coz of abuse of gays either by the Police or the society. My first interview I was bewildered! :D You have to press for details because your job is to make sure they are not lying, something some Assylum seekers do. I had this stereotype in my mind that gay men in particular were all effeminate. That job really opened my eyes. Most gays are exactly like regular men. If they never tell you, you couldn't guess.
[/quote]
-
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but the church does not fish for members in the angelic realm or aliens on some other planet. Earthly humans is exactly what she gets, and that is why she exists in the first place.
I am aware of that. On the other hand, you do not seem to be aware of the fact that in a church people look for more than just another earthly organization. You need think a bit about that one. And the popes of the Catholic church are not just more members of an earthly organization. That too is something you should think about, especially given the church doctrine on the alleged infallibility of popes.
Still, with the attitude that the church is just another organization, it's easy to see how the Catholic church has had all those highly depraved popes. And there I should add that even by the most depraved earthly standards, those popes set a "record" that is "staggering".
-
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but the church does not fish for members in the angelic realm or aliens on some other planet. Earthly humans is exactly what she gets, and that is why she exists in the first place.
I am aware of that. On the other hand, you do not seem to be aware of the fact that in a church people look for more than just another earthly organization. You need think a bit about that one. And the popes of the Catholic church are not just more members of an earthly organization. That too is something you should think about, especially given the church doctrine on the alleged infallibility of popes.
Still, with the attitude that the church is just another organization, it's easy to see how the Catholic church has had all those highly depraved popes. And there I should add that even by the most depraved earthly standards, those popes set a "record" that is "staggering".
"All those popes" meaning 8? In 2,000 years? Wow. The church is not just another organization, but neither is her membership anything beyond human beings. I don't know why you have this expection that no sinners would seep through. Even in the church of the apostles, there were already "wolves in sheep skin" among clergy as the Apostles complained then, so I just find it strange how you behave as if the church after that would be immune to those same wolves. My problem with you is you are clearly biased. You have dodged and still dodge my question: Why is it you miss all our numerous saints throughout the ages and then latch on to the wicked minority? Why miss the hundreds of wonderful popes and latch on to the 8 depraved ones? Yes, those 8 were evil. Proof that holiness is not guaranteed simply by holding an office in the church, which the Church has consistently taught, of course. It must be sought after with a humble and pure heart, and the same rule applies for the Pope as it does for the man in the pew, there are no separate paths of holiness in our faith depending on what office someone occupies. If a man is wicked and makes his wicked choices, he will go the way of the wicked. I mean, it's not like they lose their free will the moment they occupy an office or they partake of some type of immunity spell to ward off temptations to do evil that every human must endure and make their own choice. I hope when you next reply, you will answer why your supposed "appraisal" of the Catholic Church is grossly biased to focus on a small segment of wicked folk and to completely ignore the large number of holy, selfless, decent individuals. :zen:
-
All those popes" meaning 8? In 2,000 years? Wow. The church is not just another organization, but neither is her membership anything beyond human beings. I don't know why you have this expection that no sinners would seep through. Even in the church of the apostles, there were already "wolves in sheep skin" among clergy as the Apostles complained then, so I just find it strange how you behave as if the church after that would be immune to those same wolves. My problem with you is you are clearly biased. You have dodged and still dodge my question: Why is it you miss all our numerous saints throughout the ages and then latch on to the wicked minority? Why miss the hundreds of wonderful popes and latch on to the 8 depraved ones? Yes, those 8 were evil. Proof that holiness is not guaranteed simply by holding an office in the church, which the Church has consistently taught, of course. It must be sought after with a humble and pure heart, and the same rule applies for the Pope as it does for the man in the pew, there are no separate paths of holiness in our faith depending on what office someone occupies. If a man is wicked and makes his wicked choices, he will go the way of the wicked. I mean, it's not like they lose their free will the moment they occupy an office or they partake of some type of immunity spell to ward off temptations to do evil that every human must endure and make their own choice. I hope when you next reply, you will answer why your supposed "appraisal" of the Catholic Church is grossly biased to focus on a small segment of wicked folk and to completely ignore the large number of holy, selfless, decent individuals. :zen:
Do you see any possibility that we might (soon) reach some sort of middle ground of mutual understanding? I think we are too far apart in our starting points; so I suggest that we (for now) conclude this one with a "to be continued .... ".
-
I may ask Moon Ki whether Gays could consider setting up their own Churches where they can freely worship as
That is something you will have to ask them; I don't speak for them, and I can't imagine what their answer could be. No part of anything I have written has been to the effect that gays or anyone else should be let into this or that church. Please read it again. Carefully.
Also, as far as I can tell, Cook did not have any church business in mind his announcement. That some holy-holy types have decided to get involved seems to be their own choice---an uninvited and probably unwelcome involvement.
-
I may ask Moon Ki whether Gays could consider setting up their own Churches where they can freely worship as
That is something you will have to ask them; I don't speak for them, and I can't imagine what their answer could be. No part of anything I have written has been to the effect that gays or anyone else should be let into this or that church. Please read it again. Carefully.
Also, as far as I can tell, Cook did not have any church business in mind his announcement. That some holy-holy types have decided to get involved seems to be their own choice---an uninvited and probably unwelcome involvement.
Cook doesn't read nipate, ndugu. You need to relax. You take this all too personally. If you hadn't decided to launch digs at posters instead of the topic, this was just a regular thread with all kinds of diverse exchanges.
-
Cook doesn't read nipate, ndugu. You need to relax. You take this all too personally. If you hadn't decided to launch digs at posters instead of the topic, this was just a regular thread with all kinds of diverse exchanges.
Oh, I don't take it personally at all. I just detest hypocrites in general, especially when they poke their noses into matters that are none of their business.
-
Personally and on matters of principle I'm going to boycott Apple products for the period Tom Cook is CEO. I'm relying on the power of one.
Kadame's religious views on this matter resonate with my thinking, so do Omollo's on this subject. I especially agree with Omollo's point about the motivations for coming out. If you come out unprovoked to announce you are gay, you are implying that other employers should probe and investigate if employees are gay to help them in the process of coming out. Which is ironical because Cook tries to imply that his coming out will help gays.
I don't think what he did was a wise business move. Some conservative factions might boycott Apple products...
-
Cook doesn't read nipate, ndugu. You need to relax. You take this all too personally. If you hadn't decided to launch digs at posters instead of the topic, this was just a regular thread with all kinds of diverse exchanges.
Oh, I don't take it personally at all. I just detest hypocrites in general, especially when they poke their noses into matters that are none of their business.
Sawasawa. Since you detest it so much (hypocrisy) it might be a good idea to check yourself from time to time, make sure you don't fall into it yourself in future exchanges where you wield the word as some type of sword. Did Cook come out "in private"? Enjoy your day. :D