Pope John Paul II RIP

[Minotaur]

Then shut the fuck up and quit bitching about the situation. If you cant expect the Pope to just jump on your side because you consider it the "right" thing to do, get off his ass.

Fuck you, Egghead.

My point is that if the Catholic Church already has a stance on gays, it's known. Why the Pope had to go on an offensive and reiterate it using the harsh wording he did can only point to a disdain on his part of gays. This is pretty hypocritical coming from the supposed Vicar of Christ. The policy is stated, leave it at that.

So now maybe YOU should shut the fuck up and sit down and learn to read before you go shooting off your mouth like some punkass little 20something bitch.

Now, if you want the last word, take it and show that you can't keep your dumbass mouth shut.

 

[Eggs]

Okay, lets get down to the root of this. Belief.

Minotaur and his like believe that we can all have beliefs, as long as they dont infringe upon the beliefs of others. That these religious beliefs shouldn't be put into action or law, because then they would infringe upon the beliefs of others(unless they are their own beliefs). See, the problem with this, is that they are assuming that human rights are always the issue. The fact of the matter is, human rights arent always the issue.

Lets revisit this topic. What is the age of consent in regards to sexual relations? Is there actually a reason that 18yrs of age is generally the accepted age of consent? Sure, thats the time we can vote, etc. However, is there any other reason for 18yrs of age besides the fact that it is an arbitrary number that we believe sounds about right? Not really, but we are enforcing that age on people, and sending people to jail, etc because they arent following this arbitrary number.

In the same way, those according to the Judeo-Christian ethic for the most part believe that homosexuality is wrong. Why? Because according to their beliefs it is. The same beliefs that homosexuals have that tell them that they have some right to be married to a person of the same sex. The first commandment in the Bible is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (or something along those lines). Its not "treat others as you would have them treat you". Thus you can imagine that Christians believe that their relationship with God is number one. Also why God was pretty much okay with the other commandments being broken as long as that one was followed. So the guy values relationship, and complete and utter trust/belief in him. Its not easy to see why if Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong, that it matters enough to them that they want to hamper it if possible, right?

So for a recap... you believe that the most important thing in the world is your human rights. Most other Christians believe the most important thing in the world is following what God wants them to do. So you have to imagine, if God doesnt appreciate your homosexuality, you can be pretty sure you're going to be at odds with them right?

So guys, I'm not quite sure what to tell you. According to someone like me who doesnt really believe in god, you could argue from a humanistic standpoint that human rights are the key issue. But to somebody of a religious faith that isnt necessarily going to be the case.

The Pope had more years of religious training and philosophy than most of us will ever have I'm sure, and he saw things the way he did

When Jesus entered the temple and saw that it was filled with vendors and what not, he was angry and destroyed what they had. He didnt care that it was their livelihood he was ruining.

Regardless, I dont see why these threads always need to pop up and dudes feel the need to turn them into homosexual encounters. This was about the Pope, lets try and respect that and just leave the thread in memory of the dude. Minotaur, its obvious you dont have much respect for the guy, but I'll give you the last word and will bow out of the conversation, as this thread needs to RIP too.

 

[Eggs]

Now, if you want the last word, take it and show that you can't keep your dumbass mouth shut.

Oh, okay, I get the last word then, sweet.

Lets put it like this... if bum fucks like you didnt make homosexuals look bad by always being on your personal little rampage, then maybe they'd have rights alot sooner. Instead, you have to bitch and moan every chance you get and there are enough of you doing it that you infuriate enough of the nation that you keep homosexuals from having rights. Way to fuck over every other gay out there.

Oh, and that last line was a classic. So basically, you wanted to have the last word because you couldnt keep your dumbass mouth shut, so you thought you'd threaten me with a little name calling to try and hush me up. So in like I'll just say: "Now, if you want the last word, take it and show that you can't keep your dumbass mouth shut".

 

[ZAGLOBA]

I'm really reluctant to post here, because every thread becomes a testosterone laden pissing contest and a general pain in the ass. However, I do want to respond to this and only this...

The bible was not written in the English that we read. The word homosexual did not exist in the Greek of the New Testament. In fact, there IS no word in Greek for homosexual. That word is made up of two words from different languages: homo from Greek 'same' and sexual from Latin 'sexualis'. Guess the meaning. Paul never used the word homosexual, because it didn't exist, nor was he referring to a same sex couple. He was railing against ALL the promiscuous sexual practices of the day, especially in Corinth, which was the equivalent of NY's Times Square. Corinth was a hotbed of sex and idolatry.

This word was coined in the 1800s and used by later translations of the bible. Even in the Old Testament, Lev. 18:22 is taken completely out of context and does not refer to what we think of as homosexual sex. It refers to the pagan practices of temple prostitutes.

Now, if you want to take the bible literally, fine. That's a matter of faith. I can also say that any of the Hindu scriptures are just as true as the bible. It's all a matter of faith, with absolutely nothing to prove its veracity. And keep in mind that the bible has been edited by centuries of churchmen and says what they wanted it to say. It is not the preserved inerrant word of God. Now, accept that or don't. I can give you references, but I've done that in the past, and people who are not even historians or linguists (aka people on this board) dismiss those references out of hand without anything to back themselves up with. Like ostriches, they stick their heads in the sand to avoid any other way of thinking, or to avoid the possibility that everything they've been taught and believed is a lie. Some people can't handle their worlds being shaken.

You don't have any proof that the word homosexual was taken out of context. The context is clear. You are only trying to further your beliefs by interpreting the bible to stand on your side of the issue
By the way religion in itself is a matter of faith, but if you belong to a church, then you should follow their teachings or switch churches

 

[kbm8795]

Oh, okay, I get the last word then, sweet.

Lets put it like this... if bum fucks like you didnt make homosexuals look bad by always being on your personal little rampage, then maybe they'd have rights alot sooner. Instead, you have to bitch and moan every chance you get and there are enough of you doing it that you infuriate enough of the nation that you keep homosexuals from having rights. Way to fuck over every other gay out there.

And you don't go off on your own rampages? Which rights should you forfeit for each of your transgressions that may infuriate others? How much of the Constitution should be suspended for you and people "like" you? It's pretty interesting that you can contend that Minotaur, in expressing his opinion, acts to "keep homosexuals from having rights" which is an admission that they don't have the same rights as others, regardless of the Constitution. Of course, it would be the gays who must have voted to keep themselves from these rights, because their responsibility is to just be quiet so as not to "infuriate" those who have made their lives criminal for years. So if they "bitch and moan" they are preventing their own rights, and if they stay quiet, they wouldn't have any to begin with - but of course, we'll just pretend that everyone is created equal.

Oh, and that last line was a classic. So basically, you wanted to have the last word because you couldnt keep your dumbass mouth shut, so you thought you'd threaten me with a little name calling to try and hush me up. So in like I'll just say: "Now, if you want the last word, take it and show that you can't keep your dumbass mouth shut".

Maybe he thought that was a rhetorical device you could relate to easily.

 

[Eggs]

And you don't go off on your own rampages? Which rights should you forfeit for each of your transgressions that may infuriate others?

As many as you can take away. Have at it

 

[kbm8795]

Okay, lets get down to the root of this. Belief.

Minotaur and his like believe that we can all have beliefs, as long as they dont infringe upon the beliefs of others. That these religious beliefs shouldn't be put into action or law, because then they would infringe upon the beliefs of others(unless they are their own beliefs). See, the problem with this, is that they are assuming that human rights are always the issue. The fact of the matter is, human rights arent always the issue.

Lets revisit this topic. What is the age of consent in regards to sexual relations? Is there actually a reason that 18yrs of age is generally the accepted age of consent? Sure, thats the time we can vote, etc. However, is there any other reason for 18yrs of age besides the fact that it is an arbitrary number that we believe sounds about right? Not really, but we are enforcing that age on people, and sending people to jail, etc because they arent following this arbitrary number.

This isn't revisiting the topic at all. . .it is introducing another one and we've been down that road before.

In the same way, those according to the Judeo-Christian ethic for the most part believe that homosexuality is wrong. Why? Because according to their beliefs it is. The same beliefs that homosexuals have that tell them that they have some right to be married to a person of the same sex. The first commandment in the Bible is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (or something along those lines). Its not "treat others as you would have them treat you". Thus you can imagine that Christians believe that their relationship with God is number one. Also why God was pretty much okay with the other commandments being broken as long as that one was followed. So the guy values relationship, and complete and utter trust/belief in him. Its not easy to see why if Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong, that it matters enough to them that they want to hamper it if possible, right?

Uh...no. It's not the same thing. And in a free society that protects individual religious belief, "for the most part" doesn't make it for all parts. Their beliefs relate to their own lives and their own faith. Requiring others to suffer for those beliefs is persecution and imposition.

So for a recap... you believe that the most important thing in the world is your human rights. Most other Christians believe the most important thing in the world is following what God wants them to do. So you have to imagine, if God doesnt appreciate your homosexuality, you can be pretty sure you're going to be at odds with them right?

It's interesting how you assume that gay citizens don't follow what they believe God wants them to do. They don't have to believe that God doesn't appreciate their homosexuality any more than Pat Robertson ignores how God doesn't appreciate bearing false witness.

So guys, I'm not quite sure what to tell you. According to someone like me who doesnt really believe in god, you could argue from a humanistic standpoint that human rights are the key issue. But to somebody of a religious faith that isnt necessarily going to be the case.

No one has looked to you for leadership on this issue.

The Pope had more years of religious training and philosophy than most of us will ever have I'm sure, and he saw things the way he did

Years of religious training doesn't make him more than a human being.

When Jesus entered the temple and saw that it was filled with vendors and what not, he was angry and destroyed what they had. He didnt care that it was their livelihood he was ruining.

Regardless, I dont see why these threads always need to pop up and dudes feel the need to turn them into homosexual encounters. This was about the Pope, lets try and respect that and just leave the thread in memory of the dude. Minotaur, its obvious you dont have much respect for the guy, but I'll give you the last word and will bow out of the conversation, as this thread needs to RIP too.

Maybe.

 

[bio-chem]

I'm really reluctant to post here, because every thread becomes a testosterone laden pissing contest and a general pain in the ass. However, I do want to respond to this and only this...

The bible was not written in the English that we read. The word homosexual did not exist in the Greek of the New Testament. In fact, there IS no word in Greek for homosexual. That word is made up of two words from different languages: homo from Greek 'same' and sexual from Latin 'sexualis'. Guess the meaning. Paul never used the word homosexual, because it didn't exist, nor was he referring to a same sex couple. He was railing against ALL the promiscuous sexual practices of the day, especially in Corinth, which was the equivalent of NY's Times Square. Corinth was a hotbed of sex and idolatry.

This word was coined in the 1800s and used by later translations of the bible. Even in the Old Testament, Lev. 18:22 is taken completely out of context and does not refer to what we think of as homosexual sex. It refers to the pagan practices of temple prostitutes.

Now, if you want to take the bible literally, fine. That's a matter of faith. I can also say that any of the Hindu scriptures are just as true as the bible. It's all a matter of faith, with absolutely nothing to prove its veracity. And keep in mind that the bible has been edited by centuries of churchmen and says what they wanted it to say. It is not the preserved inerrant word of God. Now, accept that or don't. I can give you references, but I've done that in the past, and people who are not even historians or linguists (aka people on this board) dismiss those references out of hand without anything to back themselves up with. Like ostriches, they stick their heads in the sand to avoid any other way of thinking, or to avoid the possibility that everything they've been taught and believed is a lie. Some people can't handle their worlds being shaken.

i can accept your challenge on the bible as not being translated accuratly 100% of the time. (on the most part i feel it is correct, and to be accepted as the word of God) i say this as a bi-lingual who understands the difficulty of translation when one word does not have a direct translation into another language. words are used to express feelings and thoughts, and as such even if homosexual is a new english word the translaters felt is was the appropriate one for translating the feeling and meaning of the original text. however if as you say the original writers intentions were to express sexual sin in general then homosexuality is still included under that title just as adultery and rape would be.

If you wish to argue the ambiguity of the bible in relations to homosexuality then i challenge you to find extra-biblical sources that show homosexuality was an acepted practice at any point in judeo-christian history. the truth is it has never been accepted in either culture at any time, traditionaly using the reason as God has declared it to be sexual deviation and a sin.

This difficulty with the bible where many people translate, and interprets it differently has caused the formation of many opinions and separating relitions. all the more reason for living and true prophets who are capable of explaining the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ clearly.

 

[kbm8795]

As many as you can take away. Have at it

The most obvious first one would be that if you married someone who lives outside the country and is a citizen of that other nation, she wouldn't be allowed to emigrate here. That would put you right in line with one "judeo-christian" regulation for gay Americans.

 

[Eggs]

Then dont just talk about it, do it.

 

[Pepper]

Keep believing your fantasies; when you earn your degrees in linguistics and biblical history, then you can refute the degreed scholars. You just made yourself look so incredibly ill-informed. Did you READ what I posted? Are you afraid to read it, perhaps? Does it destroy everything you ever believed?

Moreover, my tone becomes what it is because I am tired of the attacks against what gays are, by the cretins that post on this site. I am tired of the need to justify and defend us. We harm no one and have a right to live and be who and what we are without you holy rollers and Jeebus freaks always vomiting SIN! SIN! SIN! HOMOSECSHULS AH SINNUHS! REPENT AND LET JEEEEEZUS SAVE YOU!

Get a clue.

Yeah, I'm the one who is ill-informed. The translation of the Bible to English is actually a topic that I am currently studying. The instructor is a Christian and not a homosexual, so you will dismiss him as an idiot.

I think maybe you ought to do what you have said you were going to do and just quit posting. You can't avoid getting into a pissing contest with anyone who is not 100% for the gay lifestyle.

What is interesting to me is that guys like you are much less tolerant than any of the groups you blast.

 

[seven11]

may allah bless his sole...... hihihi

 

[maniclion]

The Pope didn't condone the use of condoms, therefore he condoned the rapid spread of HIV/AIDs in poor countries that hung on his every word.

 

[Little Wing]

i don't think god jesus or the pope would be as hateful and rude to gay people as some of the people on this forum are. it's okay to be of a different mind and still be kind to each other.

 

[kbm8795]

Then dont just talk about it, do it.

I believe our Congress, with its recent actions, has opened the way to extend that kind of legislation. But I do enjoy your persistence in issuing directives to others.

 

[kbm8795]

Yeah, I'm the one who is ill-informed. The translation of the Bible to English is actually a topic that I am currently studying. The instructor is a Christian and not a homosexual, so you will dismiss him as an idiot.

You persist in assuming that the two are mutually exclusive.

I think maybe you ought to do what you have said you were going to do and just quit posting. You can't avoid getting into a pissing contest with anyone who is not 100% for the gay lifestyle.

That's right - it makes perfect sense to encourage only like-minded individuals to air any thoughts in a forum. And why shouldn't he defend something he believes is an innate part of his being? Do you expect his instincts to be somehow beneath yours because of your religious lifestyle choice?

What is interesting to me is that guys like you are much less tolerant than any of the groups you blast.

That is a favorite "conservative" talking point which holds very little water. If he wasn't tolerant, he would be advocating the outlawing of your religious beliefs as nothing more than a sinful "lifestyle choice." And he'd have more evidence to suggest your ability to make a different religious choice than you'd have promoting some miracle cure for his relationship orientation.

 

[PreMier]

I think the split personality reason works best in this situation. Otherwise,
you already did put words in another's mouth. A poll taken after the fact doesn't confirm your statement, it only acts in a self-serving manner to justify an action already completed. Even then, a statement of "we" without disclaimer wouldn't represent any other opinion expressed. You'd have to list the names of each person or the names of the exceptions, or provide an explanation of who "we" is on every statement just to make sure you didn't misrepresent someone who might not want to be part of your "we" statement the next time.

Just for reference Im a 'we'.

 

[kbm8795]

Just for reference Im a 'we'.

Then you addressed that to the wrong person.

 

[busyLivin]

The Pope didn't condone the use of condoms, therefore he condoned the rapid spread of HIV/AIDs in poor countries that hung on his every word.

He condoned sex only in marriage. If they were hanging on his every word, they would have abstained.

 

[PreMier]

Then you addressed that to the wrong person.

I addressed it to you.. stating I agree with Eggs. What are you missing?

 

[maniclion]

He condoned sex only in marriage. If they were hanging on his every word, they would have abstained.

So if a Catholic man's wife gets raped he should shun her sexually for life?

 

[busyLivin]

So if a Catholic man's wife gets raped he should shun her sexually for life?

Why would you ask that? Of course not..

 

[Eggs]

Don't mind Kbm Premier... the guys just pissy cause the Illini lost. I've considered blocking the dude, but Rock said that I should be more open minded, so I'm trying that. And its not that I mind arguing with the guy, its just that he could post a thousand posts and in the end you'd end up with exactly the same thing you came with.

Take for instance his post to Pepper:

"You persist in assuming that the two are mutually exclusive."

Pepper wasnt saying that at all in the post. He was saying that Mino wouldnt find the person credible because he wasnt gay and was a Christian. Exclusion had nothing to do with it.

"That's right - it makes perfect sense to encourage only like-minded individuals to air any thoughts in a forum. And why shouldn't he defend something he believes is an innate part of his being? Do you expect his instincts to be somehow beneath yours because of your religious lifestyle choice?"

Which he would be partly right about. When someone comes into a thread concerning your religious beliefs and attacks it, then you have all rights to get a bit disturbed. People might make the mistake of thinking this thread is about homosexuality being under fire, but its not. Its about specific individuals attacking a famous Christian figure because they dont like him. Sort of the same as going to his funeral and spitting on him, but doing it in hiding so the people at the funeral cant whoop your ass.
Kbm would like you to fully believe that since you dont and shouldnt have the right to feel pissed that Mino came in here and went after the Pope. He'd pretty much like to control you lives through trying to make you feel guilty, so he can enforce him beliefs on you. He's pretty good at it too.

"That is a favorite "conservative" talking point which holds very little water. If he wasn't tolerant, he would be advocating the outlawing of your religious beliefs as nothing more than a sinful "lifestyle choice." And he'd have more evidence to suggest your ability to make a different religious choice than you'd have promoting some miracle cure for his relationship orientation."

See, he is using key words here to try and group you together and dismiss what you are saying at the same time without dealing with it. First stereotyping you, then slickly misguiding you with his wordage. See, Kbm isnt tolerant... he doesnt want you to be able to believe what you do. He wants you to believe what he does, because thats what he thinks is right. He believes his priorities concerning equality and belief should be your priorities, and if you dont have room for it, then in his book you must be some kind of knuckle dragging moron, because he is the most intelligent and knowing man alive.

As to his last line, that could be taken several ways so I'm just going to leave it at that.

So what it comes down to, is that nobody is posting saying "I hate fags man!" Kbm wants you to believe thats what you're saying though, so he can properly condemn you and try to shovel mud on your opinion. What really happened in this thread was people were coming to pay respect to someone that they respected, and certain individuals came in and were not respectful. That would be like me coming in when Kbm posts a thread that his father died and saying "Who cares, that guy was so and so". Its just not called for. Thats the root of these problems, and the angst in this thread.

If Kbm wants to admit that, we werent the ones that came into the thread and tried to enforce out religious views on anybody, that was done by others.

Regardless Premier, just do what I'm doing now and ignore the guy. It'll definitely free up some time, and theres absolutely nothing to lose by cutting off conversation with him.

 

[Eggs]

Why would you ask that? Of course not..

Ahhh, this one is a jewel. He is asking that for shock value, as he wants to somehow equate having pre/extramarital sex without condoms to being raped.

Which is a terrible comparisson... as there just happens to be a slight different between freely having sex and being raped. I'd be offended for all the women out there that he just gravely insulted by equating their rape to going out and having a good time.

Thats pretty disgusting actually.

 

[gococksDJS]

My point is that if the Catholic Church already has a stance on gays, it's known. Why the Pope had to go on an offensive and reiterate it using the harsh wording he did can only point to a disdain on his part of gays. This is pretty hypocritical coming from the supposed Vicar of Christ. The policy is stated, leave it at that.

Let me see if im understanding you. You say that everyone knows the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality, so they should stop reiterating it? Well we all know your view on Catholicism and your belief that the Bible was taken out of contex, so why do you feel the need to reiterate yourself in every post? I know that since im a heterosexual catholic, im probably the devil in your eyes, but it seems to me that you are one big fucking hypocrite. Im assuming you reiterate your views time after time becuase you feel that your beliefs, which are important to you, are being taken lightly, and also in an attempt to hopefully educate others based on your own belief system. Well do you think the Catholic church likes to talk purely for the sake of talking or are they trying to hopefully educate others based on its own belief system, which happens to be important to the catholic faith? Your the king of self-contradiction.

 

[maniclion]

Ahhh, this one is a jewel. He is asking that for shock value, as he wants to somehow equate having pre/extramarital sex without condoms to being raped.

Which is a terrible comparisson... as there just happens to be a slight different between freely having sex and being raped. I'd be offended for all the women out there that he just gravely insulted by equating their rape to going out and having a good time.

Thats pretty disgusting actually.

WHOA, you just raped my words, what I was trying to get at was, if the raped wife wound up with a disease, does the husband never make love to her again because he can't use any protection.

Also is withdrawal a frowned upon practice in Catholicism?

 

[Eggs]

WHOA, you just raped my words, what I was trying to get at was, if the raped wife wound up with a disease, does the husband never make love to her again because he can't use any protection.

Also is withdrawal a frowned upon practice in Catholicism?

I figured you were saying as much, but you were raping his words so I thought I'd do the same. See, rape isnt nice.

Anyways, if my wife was raped and got a disease, I'd get her the cure for that disease. If it were incurable and my belief didnt allow for sex without a condom, I'd get used to masturbation. Or just suck it up and get the disease with her, which doesnt sound very nice at all.

As to withdrawal, I have no idea as I'm not Catholic. But surely somebody will know.

 

[Eggs]

Speaking of Catholics in Africa, does anybody know the %?

 

[maniclion]

Speaking of Catholics in Africa, does anybody know the %?

Roughly 15%.


Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, Baptist, Satanists are all Jews did you know that?

 

[Eggs]

Roughly 15%.
Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, Baptist, Satanists are all Jews did you know that?

Thanks!

I dont know if I'd call them Jews, but close enough