Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    So you are saying that both homosexual and child molestors should be able to serve, or that we should prevent both from serving?

    Hold those responsible accountable. If the individual has a record of child molestation, or something similar and someone turned a blind eye during the background checks, hell yes they are accountable. If the individual had a clean record, who do you hold responsible?

    What I believe is that the ones who are least suspected -- the last to be "profiled" (the right wing legislator, the moralist mayor, the bible thumping preacher, the godly priest) are the ones who are most likely to be hypocrites and a hidden danger.

    Ironically the cia etc. agrees to some extent with me on this.

    There is no longer any security restriction that I know of for openly gay people.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    What I believe is that the ones who are least suspected -- the last to be "profiled" (the right wing legislator, the moralist mayor, the bible thumping preacher, the godly priest) are the ones who are most likely to be hypocrites and a hidden danger.

    Ironically the cia etc. agrees to some extent with me on this.

    There is no longer any security restriction that I know of for openly gay people.
    Why would you say the are most likely to be a hidden danger? The article that was posted earlier with around 50 individuals involved had doctors, lawyers, dentist, truck drivers, mechanics and so on, I did not read the entire article but I did not see a priest, or right wing legislator, or even preacher thumping a bible listed.

    I believe the military policy is still don't ask, don't tell. if openly gay, they are discharged.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3.    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Why would you say the are most likely to be a hidden danger? The article that was posted earlier with around 50 individuals involved had doctors, lawyers, dentist, truck drivers, mechanics and so on, I did not read the entire article but I did not see a priest, or right wing legislator, or even preacher thumping a bible listed.

    I believe the military policy is still don't ask, don't tell. if openly gay, they are discharged.
    sexual "deviantcy" exists throughout civilization.

    I'm sure you're not asking me to cite examples of priests, right wing legislators, or preachers thumping a bibles -- we well know about them already.

    And perhaps in their own minds these men thought of themselves as performing some kind of religious rite -- like the Greeks of old, or the old school mormon polygamists out west.

    Desire has the power to create all holy justifications.

    BTW -- at least in so far as security clearances go, I have been told by gay aquaintances with VERY high clearances that as long as you tell the truth, being gay is not a concern.

    (I wonder if that works similarly for child molesters ??)
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/06/2006 at 04:00 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Same point you attempt to make by saying the adminsitration and the religous right are child molesters because of one @ssbite. I am glad you were able to realize one example does not give anyone the ability to place everyone in a mold.

    Yea, I started laughing when I posted that as I noticed we were both doing so over different issues.

    But at least I'm in the right.

  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #45  
    I agree that deviants are interlaced throughout our society, I question why you think that one sub-group of our society would be more inclined to behave in that manner than another. To me your view would be similar to someone saying presidential candidates are more inclined to be womanizers than anyone else.

    An openly gay individual will not get a security clearance in the military. I would assume the civilian counterparts have different rules, no argument on that.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, I started laughing when I posted that as I noticed we were both doing so over different issues.

    But at least I'm in the right.


    RELIGIOUS right
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    RELIGIOUS right
    Nah. I embraced my inner perv a long time ago.

  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    What I believe is that the ones who are least suspected -- the last to be "profiled" (the right wing legislator, the moralist mayor, the bible thumping preacher, the godly priest) are the ones who are most likely to be hypocrites and a hidden danger.

    Ironically the cia etc. agrees to some extent with me on this.

    There is no longer any security restriction that I know of for openly gay people.
    When is the last time a politician or a priest were the least expected to be hypocrites?

    Also, you seem to want to drop all of this into a "religious right" bucket, but do you know how many priests (at least of the Roman Rite) are not Right Wing? Indeed, how many of them are complete Leftists?
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    When is the last time a politician or a priest were the least expected to be hypocrites?

    Also, you seem to want to drop all of this into a "religious right" bucket, but do you know how many priests (at least of the Roman Rite) are not Right Wing? Indeed, how many of them are complete Leftists?

    hi hoovs -- cool avatar

    on many issues "Roman Rite" preists are socially of the left.

    In the last 30 years many gave of their lives in the pursuit of social dignity and equality for latin america's peasants, for example.

    That many many acts of unforgivable evil was done by the men of this same profession is undeniable. Its also possible that some of these evil acts were committed by some of these same men, who in other moments, acted as saints.

    In the case of the Roman Rite priesthood I ascribe a great deal of blame to the institutionallized hypocrisy within which it is cloaked.

    They have become --- if they were not for generations -- a cult of mostly gay men who must pose as haters of homosexuality.

    I cannot think of a more destructive equation.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    hi hoovs -- cool avatar
    Thanks!

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    In the last 30 years many gave of their lives in the pursuit of social dignity and equality for latin america's peasants, for example.
    And led many astray with notions of liberation theology at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    In the case of the Roman Rite priesthood I ascribe a great deal of blame to the institutionallized hypocrisy within which it is cloaked.

    They have become --- if they were not for generations -- a cult of mostly gay men who must pose as haters of homosexuality.
    I'm not so sure I would describe it as hypocrisy as much as I would, say, denial. Hypocrisy is a big loaded buzz word. But there is no doubt that the heirarchy has been in denial about the damage gay priests have wrought in the past two generations.
  11.    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Thanks!


    And led many astray with notions of liberation theology at the same time.


    I'm not so sure I would describe it as hypocrisy as much as I would, say, denial. Hypocrisy is a big loaded buzz word. But there is no doubt that the heirarchy has been in denial about the damage gay priests have wrought in the past two generations.

    If I believed a religion or even a god -- and if I further believed that I was destined to serve my creator as His servant on earth, as His agent through which I would help those He had said to be the most deserving of help -- would you not be an advocate of liberation theology ???

    the priesthood is as I think you are acknowledging, a gay dominated cult --- one that is simultaneously decrying homosexuality and presuming to advise heterosexuals as to the proper kinds and expressions of their sexuality.

    Is that not the very definition of hypocrisy ??
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Is that not the very definition of hypocrisy ??
    I agree...anytime anyone's practices goes against what he believes or proclaims, they are a hypocrite.

    You can look at ANY group of people and find such examples

    .....like the Dem's cry against corruption among the Reps when members of the own party are guilty of nearly every single charge they threw out.

    ......Like claiming to be an honest politician...wait that is more of an oxymoron.

    .....Like a Liberal claiming to protect the rights of the innocent and then side with the guilty pedophile over his victim.

    ....Like a Reverend proclaiming the law of Chasity while committing adultery (Jesse Jackson comes to mind).

    ....Like a President taking an oath to uphold the laws of the land and then commits perjury and then denies the charges and fights the consequences when caught.

    ....Like Catholic Priest taking an oath of celibacy and preaching against sexual transgressions and then sexually abuses young and teenage boys.

    .....Like a proclaimed Christian who believes in loving and helping others, goes to the bar every other night and picks a fist fight.

    The point is you can look at ANY group of people and find hypocrisy, but it is usually more evident when we look at groups we personally don't relate to, have a personal bias against, or have loyalties opposed to them.

    Those individuals who commit these crimes or acts of hypocrisy against the belief standard of their org or group need to be held accountable for their own actions and illegal activities. Now if the group did not stand up against these actions, then the hypocrisy of the acts falls on the group as well.

    But because we can find individual examples of hypocrisy among the Dem Party, does that make them all the evil party of the world? Of course not. Just like this example of hypocrisy with this individual in the Homeland Security does not represents the standards of the current Admin.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    If I believed a religion or even a god -- and if I further believed that I was destined to serve my creator as His servant on earth, as His agent through which I would help those He had said to be the most deserving of help -- would you not be an advocate of liberation theology ???
    No. I would not cheapen the work of Christ by appropriating its application to a class struggle. One can both help the poor and teach them the true meaning of the Gospel at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    the priesthood is as I think you are acknowledging, a gay dominated cult --- one that is simultaneously decrying homosexuality and presuming to advise heterosexuals as to the proper kinds and expressions of their sexuality.

    Is that not the very definition of hypocrisy ??
    I would not acknowledge it as a "gay dominated cult" by any stretch of the imagination.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I would not cheapen the work of Christ by appropriating its application to a class struggle.
    And I always thought Jesus had very mixed feelings about the class of the rich?

    Matthew 19:
    21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
    22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
    23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
    And what about the communist lifestyle of his followers?

    Acts 4:
    32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. ...
    34Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
    35And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
    Last edited by clulup; 04/07/2006 at 06:47 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    And I always thought Jesus had very mixed feelings about the class of the rich?
    If you continue reading the passage, you will see a clarification made to the disciples that the dilemma is to those who "trust" in riches. that sentiment mirrors statements made in the "sermon on the mount" where the admonition was made to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be added to you.

    Further, if you look at the covenant promises made to Abram (Abraham), you will note that there is a commitment to Abraham becoming wealthy. Other admonitions ascribe goodness to those who leave an inheritance to their children's children.

    It is only religious people who have equated poverty to piety.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup

    Matthew 19:And what about the communist lifestyle of his followers?

    Acts 4:
    The key difference between having all things common and "Communism" is that the believers were free to own private property and only volunteered to sell their resources and share with those who had need. In fact, you see this notion highlighted in the account of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) wherein it was specifically confirmed that the property in question was personally owned and accordingly free to be used at the owners' discretion.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Further, if you look at the covenant promises made to Abram (Abraham), you will note that there is a commitment to Abraham becoming wealthy.
    Yeah, but didn't you say the Old Testament doesn't really count any more? Because if it would count, we would have to kill people who work on Sundays and (in order to return to the topic), homosexuals.
    It is only religious people who have equated poverty to piety.The key difference between having all things common and "Communism" is that the believers were free to own private property and only volunteered to sell their resources and share with those who had need. In fact, you see this notion highlighted in the account of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) wherein it was specifically confirmed that the property in question was personally owned and accordingly free to be used at the owners' discretion.
    This is totally wrong. Apparently you "forgot" to mention that both Ananias and Sapphira died on the spot (presumably according to God's will) because they did not give ALL of the money they got for selling their property to the apostles... it seems sharing all property was not totally volutary, or what is your impression?

    Maybe you should read the story again here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=5&version=31

    It ends with "Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events." - communist death squadrons come to mind.
    Last edited by clulup; 04/07/2006 at 08:25 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Yeah, but didn't you say the Old Testament doesn't really count any more?
    My understanding has grown over the past couple of years. So, while I don't recall communicating such a notion, If I did communicate that notion, I hereby officially retract that sentiment.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    This is totally wrong. Apparently you "forgot" to mention that both Ananias and Sapphira died on the spot (presumably according to God's will) because they did not give ALL of the money they got for selling their property to the apostles... it seems sharing all property was not totally volutary, or what is your impression?
    Some say reading is fundamental, but it is comprehension that is needed. Peter says to Ananias,
    Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why has thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
    When Ananias heard this he died.

    About 3 hours later, his wife came and she was given the opportunity to tell the truth about the deal. She stuck to the story, to which Peter responded,
    How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out
    And she died on the spot.

    Their error was not withholding a portion of the purchase price. The land was "in their power" and the amount of the donation was "in their power." The error was seeking to deceive. There was no requirement to give anything at all. Any gift would have been accepted and appreciated. But, instead of seeking to assist, they sought recognition and notoriety.....which, I suppose, is exactly what they got. Even nearly 2000 years later, we're still talking about them.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe you should read the story again here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=5&version=31

    It ends with "Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events." - communist death squadrons come to mind.
    At your recommendation, I read it again. My point is even more clear in this translation than in the one I quoted.

    btw, I'm glad you used the roll eyes smiley. It at least suggests that you are making an attempt at humor rather than taking such an obviously flawed position.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    And I always thought Jesus had very mixed feelings about the class of the rich?
    You're mixing and miscategorizing two different ideas:

    1) The story of the rich young man did not point out that a person had to give up any wealth to follow Christ. It was meant to show that a man cannot "enter the Kindom of God" by his own works. Again, here you you fail to get the whole context of the passage:

    Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

    "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

    "Which ones?" the man inquired.

    Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,'and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

    "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

    Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
    It is clear that Christ is pointing out one must be perfect in order to enter the Kingdom of God on one's own merits. He is pointing out this man's imperfections lay in his attachement to his wealth.

    2) Yes, Christ does, in fact, have very strong feelings that we should care for the poor. But you can't confuse those feelings with the Gospel itself, which liberation theologians do. The Gospel is not concerned with poverty of the flesh but poverty of the soul. It is concerned with the separation from God from men by sin and the reconciliation of men with God through the work of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Matthew 19:And what about the communist lifestyle of his followers?
    Don't confuse communal with communist. Communal is personal; communist is global. Communal is voluntary; communist is mandatory. Communal, in the Christian sense, sees God as it's Head; communist sees the state as its head.

    This is what early American Christian settlers discovered when they attempted to establish a sort of Christian communal state. It doesn't work unless its accpeted by everyone.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Yeah, but didn't you say the Old Testament doesn't really count any more? Because if it would count, we would have to kill people who work on Sundays and (in order to return to the topic), homosexuals.
    If I can chime in here. The OT not only counts, its crucial to the whole meaning of the NT. Now, certain laws don't apply anymore because they were meant to be applied to the Biblical nation of Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    This is totally wrong. Apparently you "forgot" to mention that both Ananias and Sapphira died on the spot (presumably according to God's will) because they did not give ALL of the money they got for selling their property to the apostles... it seems sharing all property was not totally volutary, or what is your impression?

    Maybe you should read the story again here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=5&version=31

    It ends with "Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events." - communist death squadrons come to mind.
    I'll give a to that one. Communist death squadrons? That calls for a
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions