Apple CEO Tpm Cook come outs

[MOON Ki]

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.

[MOON Ki]

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".

[MOON Ki]

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.

[kadame]

@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.

[Omollo]

"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.

[MOON Ki]

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.

[kadame]

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!

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

"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.

[RV Pundit]

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.

[kadame]

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. 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! 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.

[RV Pundit]

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. 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! 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]

[MOON Ki]

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".   

[kadame]

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.

[MOON Ki]

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.

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 .... ".

[MOON Ki]

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.   

[kadame]

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.

[MOON Ki]

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.

[GeeMail]

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...

[kadame]

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.