juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Bob!
I want to begin by apologizing to you if anything I said seemed untoward. I am very much aware that paedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different issues, and I can see where what I wrote could be taken out of context, as it was deliberately by Andrew.
Not all gays are paedophiles, not all paedophiles are gay. In point of fact I used the term paedophile for the shock value, because such behavior is generally viewed as reprehensible by the majority of western civilization, both gay and straight.
I can understand why you feel the way you feel, and it is certainly not my place to try to change that. But may I remind that when an organization such as NAMBLA exists, is it then correct and fair for anybody to assume that gays equivocate with paedophiles? It would seem to me just as unreasonable to equate Christians with criminals.
The point there was that anybody can get along with those they agree with…but he wanted me to get along with those I disagree with (which I make sincere effort to do in real life) but that he by his own admission was apparently completely and evidently unwilling to do himself. Where I come from, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do not ask of me what you are unwilling to do yourself. Do unto others, and all that jazz… If you want respect, you must be willing to give respect. Respect, the genuine kind, is earned. You can take or buy false respect all day long, but it is worthless. Earned respect is priceless. I respect you Bob, and I respect your opinions on many things. And there are times we have disagreed, the one time was to make a specific point. In this instance, I have no ulterior motive, just a simple choice of lifestyle that does not conform to yours.
Matthew Shepherd, as I recall (didn’t look it up, going by memory here, so the spelling may be off), was the name of the young man in Wyoming that was brutally treated by a couple of idiots. It was a tragic thing that happened, and the gay political lobby has turned this senseless tragedy into a billy club and young Matthew into a martyr. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but let us consider in context…how many other tragic murders took place that year, and how many people remember any of their names?
How many people remember the name of a middle aged dirt poor Mexican who was beaten to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat, then had his throat slit from ear to ear…in his own living room? They caught the murderers who killed young Matthew, the powers that be hardly tried to catch the murderer who killed an otherwise ignored socially worthless old man. I remember that man’s name though, and so do my brothers. That old worthless man meant the world to me…it was my step father. To this day some 15 or so years later the perp that killed him is still roaming the streets. What overarching prejudicial presumptions should I make in vengeful hatred??? I choose not to hate a group, only that specific individual for what he stole from my stepfather.
Tragic losses happen all the time, not to trivialize, but the proximity is what makes them relevant. It is sad what happened to Matthew, but I didn’t know him. On the other hand I would gladly kill the son of a bitch that took my stepdad’s life, even if it meant rotting in hell for eternity. I have little doubt you feel much the same about the idiots that attacked you, and I would not dissuade you. It is one thing to disagree, a point I tried desperately to make to Andrew. It is quite another to take disagreement to the level of hatred that causes one to harm or kill. Cannot a father or mother still love a child that behaves in complete opposition to what they have tried to instill? They may show dismay, but they would not kill their own. That is about how I feel on the matter, I disagree with certain behaviors, but I don’t live your life for you, I don’t live his life for him, I don’t live her life for her, and I damn sure ain’t gonna let Andrew live my life for me.
I want to begin by apologizing to you if anything I said seemed untoward. I am very much aware that paedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different issues, and I can see where what I wrote could be taken out of context, as it was deliberately by Andrew.
Not all gays are paedophiles, not all paedophiles are gay. In point of fact I used the term paedophile for the shock value, because such behavior is generally viewed as reprehensible by the majority of western civilization, both gay and straight.
If my memory serves me correctly, this was about equating Christians with criminals, specifically the criminals that attacked you? Let me be clear, what those people did was reprehensible. It was not something I encourage, it is not something I advocate, it is something I find disgusting and morally reprehensible.They are "Christians" every bit as much as Palestinian "freedom fighters" or Iraqi "insurgents" are Muslims.
I can understand why you feel the way you feel, and it is certainly not my place to try to change that. But may I remind that when an organization such as NAMBLA exists, is it then correct and fair for anybody to assume that gays equivocate with paedophiles? It would seem to me just as unreasonable to equate Christians with criminals.
Would you find surprize that I agree with this?If you want to tell me they have little resemblance to what Jesus had in mind, I would agree with you (but then, I think very little of the New Testament has much resemblance to what Jesus had in mind).
OK, I understand. Even though I think labelling individuals collectively is not a proper way to conduct a valid assessment, as it tends to lead to gross errors with all kinds of civil rights implications…However, I need a generic word for "members of that prominent two thousand year old movement that now has about two billion members", and like most speakers of the English language, I call such people "Christians". They didn't get this notion that we are all child molesters from the Buddhists: they got it from "good Christians" like Juan here. (if only…-jt3) And they got the notion that we deserve death from the Bible, not from the Bhagavad Gita.
You, as an insider to the movement, would like to reserve the word "Christian" (in a version of the "No true Scotsman..." game) for your own particular subtype, but I have no interest in your private definitions. To me it is a "faction membership" word, for anyone who considered "Christ" (however they conceptualize "Christ", and however much or little their concept of "Christ" has to do with the historical Jesus) central to their world-view. It is, as I use the word, analogous to "Cub fan": anyone who says they are a Cub fan is, just by saying they are rooting for the Cubs, by definition a "Cub fan".
With all due respect, if you go back and read without an emotional veil, I think you will find that is not what I said at all, and I can assure it is not what I meant in spite of the livid accusations by Andrew. Like I said earlier, I used it for the shock value considering Andrew was doing his best to get my goat. He loves to antagonize me, it’s an old game we play with each other.Juantoo, when you say that I am the same kind of person as a child molester,
The point there was that anybody can get along with those they agree with…but he wanted me to get along with those I disagree with (which I make sincere effort to do in real life) but that he by his own admission was apparently completely and evidently unwilling to do himself. Where I come from, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do not ask of me what you are unwilling to do yourself. Do unto others, and all that jazz… If you want respect, you must be willing to give respect. Respect, the genuine kind, is earned. You can take or buy false respect all day long, but it is worthless. Earned respect is priceless. I respect you Bob, and I respect your opinions on many things. And there are times we have disagreed, the one time was to make a specific point. In this instance, I have no ulterior motive, just a simple choice of lifestyle that does not conform to yours.
Once again, to you and others except Andrew, I apologize if what I said was read otherwise than what was actually meant.that is not at all being a friend. It is foul, and utterly uncalled-for. I do not understand how you can fail to see how profoundly you are my enemy when you speak in such a way. Accusing us of being child molesters is the customary way to incite our murder (the equivalent of "Jews bake their Passover matzohs with Christian babies' blood"). You want to pretend you have nothing to do with the thugs, but the words you utter are the very air they breathe.
On the one hand, I am not standing in your shoes. On the other, all I have to go by is the genetic research I have looked at, research lead by such as Craig Ventor and Francis Collins. Research that indicates that there is no direct genetic link to behavior…in other words, there is no “gay” gene. I would not be surprised if you disagree, and that is your right, but I am of the opinion that the vast majority of our behaviors are internally willed. We choose to become addicted to nicotine, we choose to become addicted to alcohol, we choose what way we prefer to get our rocks off.One more time, I didn't get to DECIDE. It's my life, that's all.
And this is that to which I have been constantly pointing in this thread.There are two very different pictures of who "Christ" was, and what he taught, in the New Testament. There is the synoptic Christ, who taught a morality of "reciprocity", based on the principle of treating others as if they were people like yourself (which they are).
Scapegoating is not unique to Christianity nor even monotheism, even though it is a formal rite in Judaism in antiquity. I also believe your assessment is a bit simplistic, the truth is a bit more complex. Need I remind that along with the Jews who died at Auschwitz and elsewhere, were gays, Poles, criminally insane and retarded persons? It is also a matter of fierce debate whether or not Hitler was attempting to represent the Christians…I for one do feel he was being groomed as the next Holy Roman Emperor. But to lay the entire of Christianity at his feet? Perhaps that is something Christianity is not willing to look at, perhaps like gays are less than willing to consider the ramifications of free will on their behavior?Then there is the Christ in the Pauline epistles and the gospel of John, whose morality is based on "faith" (believe the right things about him) and "faction membership" (join the in-group fellowship). The latter has always been dominant. An in-group, of course, needs an out-group to define itself against: traditionally, this role was played by the Jews (because they don't believe), but since Auschwitz,
I see what you are saying even if I see it differently…does this position then justify unecessary and unwarranted aggression toward innocent bystanders?since Auschwitz, that has become unfashionable (Christians leave it to the Muslims to define themselves by murderous hatred of the Jews), so gay is the new Jewish. Christians believe, by an act of "faith", absurd things about us, starting with the notion that we "choose" what we find sexually attractive, because it is impossible for us to share that belief (we know, as directly as Descartes knew cogito ergo sum, that it just isn't so), and so we can be demonized as the people who just won't believe.
Matthew Shepherd, as I recall (didn’t look it up, going by memory here, so the spelling may be off), was the name of the young man in Wyoming that was brutally treated by a couple of idiots. It was a tragic thing that happened, and the gay political lobby has turned this senseless tragedy into a billy club and young Matthew into a martyr. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but let us consider in context…how many other tragic murders took place that year, and how many people remember any of their names?
How many people remember the name of a middle aged dirt poor Mexican who was beaten to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat, then had his throat slit from ear to ear…in his own living room? They caught the murderers who killed young Matthew, the powers that be hardly tried to catch the murderer who killed an otherwise ignored socially worthless old man. I remember that man’s name though, and so do my brothers. That old worthless man meant the world to me…it was my step father. To this day some 15 or so years later the perp that killed him is still roaming the streets. What overarching prejudicial presumptions should I make in vengeful hatred??? I choose not to hate a group, only that specific individual for what he stole from my stepfather.
Tragic losses happen all the time, not to trivialize, but the proximity is what makes them relevant. It is sad what happened to Matthew, but I didn’t know him. On the other hand I would gladly kill the son of a bitch that took my stepdad’s life, even if it meant rotting in hell for eternity. I have little doubt you feel much the same about the idiots that attacked you, and I would not dissuade you. It is one thing to disagree, a point I tried desperately to make to Andrew. It is quite another to take disagreement to the level of hatred that causes one to harm or kill. Cannot a father or mother still love a child that behaves in complete opposition to what they have tried to instill? They may show dismay, but they would not kill their own. That is about how I feel on the matter, I disagree with certain behaviors, but I don’t live your life for you, I don’t live his life for him, I don’t live her life for her, and I damn sure ain’t gonna let Andrew live my life for me.