The Pope: GRRR I HATE GAYS

[Killfacer]

It would appear that the pope believe that the build up to christmas is the perfect time to spout the vaticans vile homophobia.

According to the pope, "saving" the human race from homosexuality is as important as saving the rain forest. Apparently defending gods creation isn't just about saving the enviroment, no, that would be stupid. It's also about stopping them damned gays.

Bizzare.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7796663.stm

[Pogue]

Would TomK care to comment on this bullshit that his religious leader feels it neccesary to say just before Christmas in a speech which is supposed to offer Christmas greetings and comment on some of the major issues of the day? I would have thought world poverty and wars would be more pressing than condeming love and the expression of love between members of the same sex.

[Hit The North]

Well, he did used to be a member of the Hitler Youth.

[Pogue]

Well, he did used to be a member of the Hitler Youth.

Too right. Theres not alot of difference between the Hitler Youth and the Catholic Church in some respects - rigid obedience to authority, unquestioning faith in a leader, ahting anything which falls out of your worldview, 'purity', etc.

[Bud Struggle]

Would TomK care to comment on this bullshit that his religious leader feels it neccesary to say just before Christmas in a speech which is supposed to offer Christmas greetings and comment on some of the major issues of the day? I would have thought world poverty and wars would be more pressing than condeming love and the expression of love between members of the same sex.

You invited me to respond so I will, but I am no expert on gays or gay poliics in or outside the Chruch, but I think the point here is when you get below the horrifics of the article title and Killfacers even more horrific thread title is:

the Pope didn't say he hates gays--he said he is opposed to gender theory, which may or may not be true. I don't really know enough about gender theory to comment at all so let me read up on that and I will comment further.

But I can comment in GENERAL. The Catholic Church believes that there is no sin or problem with being gay. Nothing wrong with it. They do believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong--for gays or straights, they have always held that for 2000 years.

They also believe that (because of the Adam and Eve story) that marriage is for one man and one woman (just as people have just made it the law in the state of California--so it's not an uncommon belief') But unfortunately that that excludes gays from having sex without committing a sin. In other words there is nothing wrong with being gay, just doing gay acts are wrong.

Much in the same way Communists believe that there is nothing wrong with being Bourgeois, you are what you are, but Communists feel that Bourgeoise "acts" e.g. owning a factory, having people work for wages, owning property, is wrong. The Communists have their "opinion" about what is wrong and right and so does the Pope. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Is there and "absolute" right and wrong? I think it would be presumptuous to asume so. But that's just me. Is the Pope right in his beliefs or are the Communists right in their beliefs? People can believe whatever they want. The Pope is arguing is beliefs just as the Communists argue theirs. In the end both postions are in the run of things morally neutral.:)

[Mindtoaster]

Much in the same way Communists believe that there is nothing wrong with being Bourgeois, you are what you are, but Communists feel that Bourgeoise "acts" e.g. owning a factory, having people work for wages, owning property, is wrong. The Communists have their "opinion" about what is wrong and right and so does the Pope. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

\

Haha, well played :lol:

As far as Christians go, the Catholics are pretty much the least reactionary in relation to homosexuality. They're big on no sex outside of marriage though, and so its really not much of a surprise that they would come out with something like this.

Unlike most christian churches which bombard you with anti-homosexual propaganda, its kind of a minor side-issue with Catholics.

Abortion is a different story though...

[Jazzratt]

As far as Christians go, the Catholics are pretty much the least reactionary in relation to homosexuality

WRONG!

Some parts of the Anglican communion ordain openly homosexual priests and bless gay marriages. I'm fairly sure that a little less reactionary than calling for the world to be saved from homosexuals.

[Red October]

You invited me to respond so I will, but I am no expert on gays or gay poliics in or outside the Chruch, but I think the point here is when you get below the horrifics of the article title and Killfacers even more horrific thread title is:

the Pope didn't say he hates gays--he said he is opposed to gender theory, which may or may not be true. I don't really know enough about gender theory to comment at all so let me read up on that and I will comment further.

But I can comment in GENERAL. The Catholic Church believes that there is no sin or problem with being gay. Nothing wrong with it. They do believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong--for gays or straights, they have always held that for 2000 years.

They also believe that (because of the Adam and Eve story) that marriage is for one man and one woman (just as people have just made it the law in the state of California--so it's not an uncommon belief') But unfortunately that that excludes gays from having sex without committing a sin. In other words there is nothing wrong with being gay, just doing gay acts are wrong.

Much in the same way Communists believe that there is nothing wrong with being Bourgeois, you are what you are, but Communists feel that Bourgeoise "acts" e.g. owning a factory, having people work for wages, owning property, is wrong. The Communists have their "opinion" about what is wrong and right and so does the Pope. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Is there and "absolute" right and wrong? I think it would be presumptuous to asume so. But that's just me. Is the Pope right in his beliefs or are the Communists right in their beliefs? People can believe whatever they want. The Pope is arguing is beliefs just as the Communists argue theirs. In the end both postions are in the run of things morally neutral.:)


So...you can be gay, but you can't really be gay.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

WRONG!

Some parts of the Anglican communion ordain openly homosexual priests and bless gay marriages. I'm fairly sure that a little less reactionary than calling for the world to be saved from homosexuals.

Err... Anglicans are Catholics? :confused:

Since when?

[Magdalen]

Err... Anglicans are Catholics? :confused:

Since when?

Anglicans have always been Catholics, and have never claimed not to be. (Note the reference to "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" in the Anglican version of the creed.) They merely consider themselves Catholics outwith the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and under the jurisdiction of the English crown. ;)

[Decolonize The Left]

But I can comment in GENERAL. The Catholic Church believes that there is no sin or problem with being gay. Nothing wrong with it. They do believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong--for gays or straights, they have always held that for 2000 years.

That's right... sex, the biological act of reproduction, is 'wrong' outside of a culturally defined title conferred onto a culturally defined family unit...


They also believe that (because of the Adam and Eve story) that marriage is for one man and one woman (just as people have just made it the law in the state of California--so it's not an uncommon belief')

In the first place, you rather ignorantly assume that the laws of the state of California are completely disassociated from the Christian religion. This, it almost doesn't need to be said, is entirely false.

In the second place, the Adam and Eve story involves a talking snake and a magical tree (not to mention a deity). So how, in any fashion, is this a good base for laws?


But unfortunately that that excludes gays from having sex without committing a sin. In other words there is nothing wrong with being gay, just doing gay acts are wrong.

Right... so you can be 'attracted' to others of the same sex, but once you act on that attraction.. straight to hell!

Never mind that God made you attracted to that same sex, and then punishes you for 'his' decisions...?


Much in the same way Communists believe that there is nothing wrong with being Bourgeois, you are what you are, but Communists feel that Bourgeoise "acts" e.g. owning a factory, having people work for wages, owning property, is wrong. The Communists have their "opinion" about what is wrong and right and so does the Pope. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Actually, they aren't analogous.
For communists believe that those who are bourgeois were born into a historically and culturally determined system of economic and political/social pressures whereby they are conditioned to believe certain things and act certain ways.
On the other hand, Christians believe that a God made things happen.

See? One is justified and observable, the other is just a belief.


Is there and "absolute" right and wrong? I think it would be presumptuous to asume so. But that's just me. Is the Pope right in his beliefs or are the Communists right in their beliefs? People can believe whatever they want. The Pope is arguing is beliefs just as the Communists argue theirs. In the end both postions are in the run of things morally neutral.:)

If it's "presumptuous to assume so" then why make laws which accord legal action to one belief over another? Especially when that belief has no justification?

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Haha, well played :lol:

Thanks. :lol:

In the end it's always best to look at what beliefs join us together as human beings rather than what separates us. When we get into the theoretical relm, we all "believe" something--some the Rapture, some the Revolution. Is there any real difference in one man believeing in saints and sinners and another believing in Bourgeois and Proletarian? None of it can be proven. All are based on belief systems that come from the the way we perceive and categorize the universe.

None are based on any sort of reality--no matter how hard we delude ourselves to the contrary.

[Pogue]

You invited me to respond so I will, but I am no expert on gays or gay poliics in or outside the Chruch, but I think the point here is when you get below the horrifics of the article title and Killfacers even more horrific thread title is:

the Pope didn't say he hates gays--he said he is opposed to gender theory, which may or may not be true. I don't really know enough about gender theory to comment at all so let me read up on that and I will comment further.

But I can comment in GENERAL. The Catholic Church believes that there is no sin or problem with being gay. Nothing wrong with it. They do believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong--for gays or straights, they have always held that for 2000 years.

They also believe that (because of the Adam and Eve story) that marriage is for one man and one woman (just as people have just made it the law in the state of California--so it's not an uncommon belief') But unfortunately that that excludes gays from having sex without committing a sin. In other words there is nothing wrong with being gay, just doing gay acts are wrong.

Much in the same way Communists believe that there is nothing wrong with being Bourgeois, you are what you are, but Communists feel that Bourgeoise "acts" e.g. owning a factory, having people work for wages, owning property, is wrong. The Communists have their "opinion" about what is wrong and right and so does the Pope. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Is there and "absolute" right and wrong? I think it would be presumptuous to asume so. But that's just me. Is the Pope right in his beliefs or are the Communists right in their beliefs? People can believe whatever they want. The Pope is arguing is beliefs just as the Communists argue theirs. In the end both postions are in the run of things morally neutral.:)

No, he did actually say we had to be saved from homosexuality and that it was a big threat. I know Christians are good at post hoc justifications and ignoring/making things up, but this is one you can't work your way around linguisticly. You've tried it with most of Jesus's important teachings (Camel through the eye of a needle, anyone?), don't do it with the Pope's too.

[Bud Struggle]

No, he did actually say we had to be saved from homosexuality and that it was a big threat.

He didn't say homosexuality. He said homosexual "culture." i.e. an Epicurean type of living based on carnal rather than spiritual wants and needs.

One would expect a man that lives his life in a "spiritual" way to believe such things and look to encourage other to believe as such. Much as you would expect a member of the IWW to preach the end of wage slavery and encourage others to believe as such.

[Dóchas]

Anglicans have always been Catholics, and have never claimed not to be. (Note the reference to "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" in the Anglican version of the creed.) They merely consider themselves Catholics outwith the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and under the jurisdiction of the English crown. ;)

catholic means "universal" not the denomination in that case they are not catholic they are the protestant

[Bud Struggle]

catholic means "universal" not the denomination in that case they are not catholic they are the protestant

The Anglicans are as much Catholic as OIers are RevLeft. :)

[Pogue]

He didn't say homosexuality. He said homosexual "culture." i.e. an Epicurean type of living based on carnal rather than spiritual wants and needs.

One would expect a man that lives his life in a "spiritual" way to believe such things and look to encourage other to believe as such. Much as you would expect a member of the IWW to preach the end of wage slavery and encourage others to believe as such.

Thing is, in the IWW we don't contradict ourselves by encouraging universal love for each other whilst also condoning love, we don't call for united families but oppose gay marriage.

This man has betrayed Jesus's message, so you can't compare him to a member of the IWW.

What is homosexual culture, anyway?

[Dóchas]

The Anglicans are as much Catholic as OIers are RevLeft. :)

ye i know i was just correcting a pretty big mistake :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Thing is, in the IWW we don't contradict ourselves by encouraging universal love for each other whilst also condoning love, we don't call for united families but oppose gay marriage. Of course not. It's not entirely apples to apples--but you promote a "better world" by getting rid of an entire class of people don't you? You have the Leasure class culture you don't like and the Pope has an Epicurian culture he doesn't like.


This man has betrayed Jesus's message, Well that would be your opinion, don't you think?


What is homosexual culture, anyway?As I said, I'm no expert on gays or anything associated with them--from what I understand the Pope meant a partucular type of Epicurian living that encourages carnal behavior.

[Bud Struggle]

ye i know i was just correcting a pretty big mistake :rolleyes:

I KNOW. "Anglicans are Catholic"--the mere thought of that phrase makes me weep. :crying:

[Dóchas]

I KNOW. "Anglicans are Catholic"--the mere thought of that phrase makes me weep. :crying:

whatever man i was just puttin it out there

[Pogue]

Of course not. It's not entirely apples to apples--but you promote a "better world" by getting rid of an entire class of people don't you? You have the Leasure class culture you don't like and the Pope has an Epicurian culture he doesn't like.

Well that would be your opinion, don't you think?

As I said, I'm no expert on gays or anything associated with them--from what I understand the Pope meant a partucular type of Epicurian living that encourages carnal behavior.

Thats a silly justification. I oppose a ruling class because I don't think people should be controlled and epxloited, because expoitation harms people. Homosexuality is a personal choice. The Pope says this personal choice which affects no one is evil. If you want to make ridiculous comparisons with no parralells do so, but don't expect me to take it seriously. The Pope condemns something harmless.

Lets say I wasn't a Wobblie, but an ordinary guy who voted, say, for the Left Alternative, and I said "The Pope is being irrational and intolerant by condemning and criticising homosexuality." Without the ad hominem stupid comparisons in the way, how do you respond to me now?

[Bud Struggle]

Thats a silly justification. I oppose a ruling class because I don't think people should be controlled and epxloited, because expoitation harms people. Homosexuality is a personal choice. The Pope says this personal choice which affects no one is evil. If you want to make ridiculous comparisons with no parralells do so, but don't expect me to take it seriously. The Pope condemns something harmless. YOU dislike the Bourgeois, and that's fine, but if you put "Communism" or "Collective Unionism" up to a vote (at least in the United states) it would get voted down a million to one. Just because YOU think Capitalism is bad doesn't make it bad. And for the most part most people would disagree with you point of view on that subject. You thinking that there are things as "classes" in the first place is just your opinion and nothing more than your opinion. As I said before--I certainly don't believe in any such thing, and that's my choice. You may not believe in God or angels or Popes or saints or sinners--that's your choice.

Acting on one's homosexuality is no more or less a personal choice than becoming a Borgeoise and acting on that (buying a factory, let's say.) Being born gay or born Bourgeois, is not a choice--acting on that situation of life is a choice.


Lets say I wasn't a Wobblie, but an ordinary guy who voted, say, for the Left Alternative, and I said "The Pope is being irrational and intolerant by condemning and criticising homosexuality." Without the ad hominem stupid comparisons in the way, how do you respond to me now?The point is that you can have your opinion as I said above and the Pope can have his.

You have a right to your opinion as the Pope has a right to his. There is no untimate decision maker in the universe to say who is "right" and who is "wrong" is there? Every opinion is equal.

[Pogue]

YOU dislike the Bourgeois, and that's fine, but if you put "Communism" or "Collective Unionism" up to a vote (at least in the United states) it would get voted down a million to one. Just because YOU think Capitalism is bad doesn't make it bad. And for the most part most people would disagree with you point of view on that subject. You thinking that there are things as "classes" in the first place is just your opinion and nothing more than your opinion. As I said before--I certainly don't believe in any such thing, and that's my choice. You may not believe in God or angels or Popes or saints or sinners--that's your choice.

Acting on one's homosexuality is no more or less a personal choice than becoming a Borgeoise and acting on that (buying a factory, let's say.) Being born gay or born Bourgeois, is not a choice--acting on that situation of life is a choice.

The point is that you can have your opinion as I said above and the Pope can have his.

You have a right to your opinion as the Pope has a right to his. There is no untimate decision maker in the universe to say who is "right" and who is "wrong" is there? Every opinion is equal.

The difference is between the harmful effects of the bourgeoisie and the harmful effects of gay people. Homosexuality harms no one, the bourgeoisie harms many people.

Perhaps we can argue from a basic moral standpoint, which I assume you have as you're a Christian so you have Christ's teachings.
I want you to ignore the fact in this that I am an revolutionary socialist.

Homosexuality does nothing bad at all. It harms no one, its a freedom which enfringes upon no other freedoms. It is natural for many people and leads to loving relationships. It threatens no one because its a personal lifestyle choice which contains in it nothing negative for society.
The Pope, a man with alot of religoius authority and thus influence on millions of people worldwide has publicly stated he thinks its a threat, a bad thing, which needs to be tackled. This spreads ideas, generates predjudice and refinofrices intolerance against something which there is no reason oppose (homosexuality). This contradicts Jesus and the Catholic Church's teachings of love, tolerance, family for one. It also has no basis in fact or reality, and is so a stupid thing to say. I criticise this. I also hold no such irrational or predjudiced views.

The Pope can say this, yes, but he's wrong and he's an arsehole. I'd like to see you try and refute that.

[Decolonize The Left]

YOU dislike the Bourgeois, and that's fine, but if you put "Communism" or "Collective Unionism" up to a vote (at least in the United states) it would get voted down a million to one. Just because YOU think Capitalism is bad doesn't make it bad. And for the most part most people would disagree with you point of view on that subject. You thinking that there are things as "classes" in the first place is just your opinion and nothing more than your opinion. As I said before--I certainly don't believe in any such thing, and that's my choice. You may not believe in God or angels or Popes or saints or sinners--that's your choice.

Acting on one's homosexuality is no more or less a personal choice than becoming a Borgeoise and acting on that (buying a factory, let's say.) Being born gay or born Bourgeois, is not a choice--acting on that situation of life is a choice.

The point is that you can have your opinion as I said above and the Pope can have his.

You have a right to your opinion as the Pope has a right to his. There is no untimate decision maker in the universe to say who is "right" and who is "wrong" is there? Every opinion is equal.

No, TomK, "every opinion" is not "equal." If a man came up to your front door and said that it's his opinion that your wife and child(ren) were demons and needed to be dismembered and fed to wolves, you wouldn't say "well, you know, that's your opinion - equally as valid as mine that they're people." Would you?

The opinion of Nazis is not equal to that of Jesus, is it? That's because opinions cannot be measured and equated.

Opinions are evaluated based upon their reflection of material reality. Ex:
Person A says: This mountain is made of cheese.
Person B says: No it isn't (digs up a pile of dirt). See?
We can see that person A's opinion is not equitable in any fashion to person B's. In fact, speaking of equal opinion is entirely absurd. Person A's opinion is based upon faulty reasoning (or lack of reasoning entirely), whereas person B's opinion is based upon material experience.

You can drop this freshman-level relativism and address the arguments which have been made against your posts now... :thumbdown:

- August

[Bud Struggle]

The difference is between the harmful effects of the bourgeoisie and the harmful effects of gay people. Homosexuality harms no one, the bourgeoisie harms many people. Here's the issue with that statement: that is your opinion. Period. Most people don't believe the way you do. As a matter of fact they believe just the opposite. But the point is--all these beliefs are ONLY OPINION. Nothing more.


Perhaps we can argue from a basic moral standpoint, which I assume you have as you're a Christian so you have Christ's teachings.
I want you to ignore the fact in this that I am an revolutionary socialist. OK. from a Christian perspective--the world has a certain order. and anything that throws the world out of order, (not homosexuality) but rather a homosexual/Euicurian lifestyle is bad for the world and bad for people. That's the Christian worldview that was founded by God. The Christian worldview ISN'T economic--so it coesn't care much for who owns what or who works for what--it's essentially personally ethical--so that it concerns how well one obeys God teaching. Nothing more. If you don't believe in God--it's nonsense. I fully understand that.

Just as if you're not Communist--the class distinctions make no sense. Your ethic in life all comes down to your personal belief system. Me, for example: I'm not a materialist, so economic distinctions are pretty meaningless for me in the way I would discribe myself. Being a member of the Bourgeoise is right under being a hampster owner in my relm of thinking


Homosexuality does nothing bad at all. It harms no one, its a freedom which enfringes upon no other freedoms. It is natural for many people and leads to loving relationships. It threatens no one because its a personal lifestyle choice which contains in it nothing negative for society. Well the homosexual lifestyle (not homosexuality itself) condones a materialistic way of living that isn't in line with the Church's teaching on family and children. Sex is according to the church a vehicle for procreating children--the fun part is of no consequence. And that's the Church's opinion on the subject. Again if you don't believe in God--it's nonsense.

The Pope, a man with a lot of religoius authority and thus influence on millions of people worldwide has publicly stated he thinks its a threat, a bad thing, which needs to be tackled. This spreads ideas, generates predjudice and refinofrices intolerance against something which there is no reason oppose (homosexuality). Again--it's not homosexuality that's a sin--it's a certain homosexual lifestyle that can lead to a materialist point of view of life that is the problem.

The Pope can say this, yes, but he's wrong and he's an arsehole. I'd like to see you try and refute that. The thing is, I believe, it is importantto respect everyone's opinions no matter if one agrees or not. I certainly don't believe in the class system--but (when it was explained to me) I respected OTHER people's view of the class system--not because I agreed, but because I (as a Catholic) value people's opinions as being important to them.

[Pogue]

Again--it's not homosexuality that's a sin--it's a certain homosexual lifestyle that can lead to a materialist point of view of life that is the problem.

What on earth is a homosexual lifestyle? Homosexuality is your sexual/emotional urges and how you act on them. Whats it got to do with anything else other than who you sleep with/marry/are attracted too? Why is it a problem?

[Jazzratt]

Err... Anglicans are Catholics? :confused:

Since when?

They aren't that's the point.

The Anglican church is less reactionary than the catholic church so it's silly to paint them as the least reactionary. Then again the whole thing is an exercise in nitpicking lesser-evilism.

[Pogue]

Here's the issue with that statement: that is your opinion. Period. Most people don't believe the way you do. As a matter of fact they believe just the opposite. But the point is--all these beliefs are ONLY OPINION. Nothing more.

OK. from a Christian perspective--the world has a certain order. and anything that throws the world out of order, (not homosexuality) but rather a homosexual/Euicurian lifestyle is bad for the world and bad for people. That's the Christian worldview that was founded by God. The Christian worldview ISN'T economic--so it coesn't care much for who owns what or who works for what--it's essentially personally ethical--so that it concerns how well one obeys God teaching. Nothing more. If you don't believe in God--it's nonsense. I fully understand that.

Just as if you're not Communist--the class distinctions make no sense. Your ethic in life all comes down to your personal belief system. Me, for example: I'm not a materialist, so economic distinctions are pretty meaningless for me in the way I would discribe myself. Being a member of the Bourgeoise is right under being a hampster owner in my relm of thinking

Well the homosexual lifestyle (not homosexuality itself) condones a materialistic way of living that isn't in line with the Church's teaching on family and children. Sex is according to the church a vehicle for procreating children--the fun part is of no consequence. And that's the Church's opinion on the subject. Again if you don't believe in God--it's nonsense.
Again--it's not homosexuality that's a sin--it's a certain homosexual lifestyle that can lead to a materialist point of view of life that is the problem.
The thing is, I believe, it is importantto respect everyone's opinions no matter if one agrees or not. I certainly don't believe in the class system--but (when it was explained to me) I respected OTHER people's view of the class system--not because I agreed, but because I (as a Catholic) value people's opinions as being important to them.

Bourgeoisie is an undeniable category in relation to your economic position and has nothing to do with how you self identify. You may like to hdie from the fact your bourgeoisie but you still are.



Here's the issue with that statement: that is your opinion. Period. Most people don't believe the way you do. As a matter of fact they believe just the opposite. But the point is--all these beliefs are ONLY OPINION. Nothing more.


And my opinion is the correct opinion as its based on logic and evidence. Its an incorrect opinion to say homosexuality is harmful, just as its incorrect to say the sun is made of chocolate.

[Bud Struggle]

Bourgeoisie is an undeniable category in relation to your economic position and has nothing to do with how you self identify. You may like to hdie from the fact your bourgeoisie but you still are.

Again, it's less important than me being a hamster owner when it comes to my identity. (Though slightly above me being a person that need to clip his toenails--I'll grant you that.)

My opinion.

[bcbm]

The Christian worldview ISN'T economic--so it coesn't care much for who owns what or who works for what--it's essentially personally ethical--so that it concerns how well one obeys God teaching.

Actually different groups of Christians have interpreted what they are commanded to do by God in a multitude of ways. One of the major theological disputes in the Protestant reformation was over this very issue.

[Plagueround]

Again, it's less important than me being a hamster owner when it comes to my identity. (Though slightly above me being a person that need to clip his toenails--I'll grant you that.)

My opinion.

That's because you're mistakenly viewing it as identity defining and not defining the relation you have to production and capital. It isn't using terms "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" that divide people, it is the obvious and undeniable divisions that exist in our society. The words are merely there to describe the phenomenon. A better approach (and one that some leftists should also concentrate on) would not be trying to tear down the words themselves, but to argue whether these divisions are desirable, unavoidable, and necessary, or if they are undesirable, avoidable, and unnecessary.

[Bud Struggle]

Actually different groups of Christians have interpreted what they are commanded to do by God in a multitude of ways. One of the major theological disputes in the Protestant reformation was over this very issue.

Quite right. I should have said Catholic not Christian.

[Bud Struggle]

That's because you're mistakenly viewing it as identity defining and not defining the relation you have to production and capital. It isn't using terms "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" that divide people, it is the obvious and undeniable divisions that exist in our society. The words are merely there to describe the phenomenon. A better approach (and one that some leftists should also concentrate on) would not be trying to tear down the words themselves, but to argue whether these divisions are desirable, unavoidable, and necessary, or if they are undesirable, avoidable, and unnecessary.

But they aren't "real" divisions. They are just divisions that are important to you. You can move down the internet dial and find the Stormfront guys talking about who is "really white" and who just looks white and aren't and why whites should keep the race pure and all the stuff--and in the basis of what they say there are some facts--there are white Ayrans and there are black people and all that. But besides them--who the hell cares?

They make up these divisions from facts and they place all sorts of importance on them. Is it meaningless? Not to them, but should any really care about who's 1/4 Jew, or 1/2 Mexican? I think not.

Much the same.

(Good to see some of you Commie folk's avatars are getting into the Christmas spirit!

[Pogue]

But they aren't "real" divisions. They are just divisions that are important to you. You can move down the internet dial and find the Stormfront guys talking about who is "really white" and who just looks white and aren't and why whites should keep the race pure and all the stuff--and in the basis of what they say there are some facts--there are white Ayrans and there are black people and all that. But besides them--who the hell cares?

They make up these divisions from facts and they place all sorts of importance on them. Is it meaningless? Not to them, but should any really care about who's 1/4 Jew, or 1/2 Mexican? I think not.

Much the same.

(Good to see some of you Commie folk's avatars are getting into the Christmas spirit!

The difference with Stormfront and their racism is that we know in this enlightened age that there is no such thing as an inferior or superior race and racial differences are irrelevant. Race is an irrelevant thing you cannot change, which has no affect on the world, being bourgeoisie is a choice and has a negative affect on the world.

[Bud Struggle]

The difference with Stormfront and their racism is that we know in this enlightened age that there is no such thing as an inferior or superior race and racial differences are irrelevant. Race is an irrelevant thing you cannot change, which has no affect on the world,That is your opinion and I happen to agree with you in your opinion.



being bourgeoisie is a choice and has a negative affect on the world.That is your opinion and I happen to disagree with you in your opinion.

[Robert]

This man has betrayed Jesus's message

You mean "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? (Matt. 7:1)

There are all kinds of divisions, some imposed by birth and circumstance, and some resulting from choice. If you don't respect the majority opinion on what is or what isn't, what do you get?

As for the Pope, it's his job and his right -- co-equal with yours -- to comment on societal norms. Knowing whether you are male or female and having children to help take care of the elderly (until somebody invents that butt-wiping robot) seem non-controversial propositions, especially for a leader of any conventional religion.

It is the pope, and not gays, who is the target of hatred here.

[Jazzratt]

That is your opinion and I happen to disagree with you in your opinion.

Why? It's not enough simply to say "I do not hold the same opinion as you", especially since the implication here is either that the other person is wrong or that two exclusive opinions can mutually coexist which is manifestly false. Obviously, looking through your posts, you are loath to actually argue your point on this though but it would be interesting to see you argue that being bourgeois is either not a choice nor a contributor to net misery.

It's incredibly stupid, by the way, to point at people who disagree with people being condemned for certain traits and cry "hypocrite" simply because they deplore traits in other people. Consider, for example, that most people think that mugging people in order to make money (a lifestyle choice) is condemnable but it doesn't follow that they are then hypocrites if they disagreed with some hypothetical pontiff condemning, say, smoking (a lifestyle choice).

[Bud Struggle]

Why? It's not enough simply to say "I do not hold the same opinion as you", especially since the implication here is either that the other person is wrong or that two exclusive opinions can mutually coexist which is manifestly false. Obviously, looking through your posts, you are loath to actually argue your point on this though but it would be interesting to see you argue that being bourgeois is either not a choice nor a contributor to net misery.

Of course two people can have opposite opinions that aren't false. You might think country music is best and I might think opera is best. Each personal opinions. Who's right?

As far as Bourgeois being a choice--it is for some, me for example I was born poor and then aquired property through work, etc. I could have gotten a job in a factory just as easily. I chose to invest and buy things. Not so much for my daughter--she'll inherit what I own. Now she has the choice to give it all away--but right now she's my little sugar and Bourgeoise.

As to Bourgeois creating misery? Hard to say. It does create a lot of misery, but it does a lot of good--is it net good or bad over all, I don't know--but speaking for myself (the only person I can speak for,) I really try to do good. So for me it's a net plus. Socialism when it was tried didn't really impress me, so right now for want of a better idea--I kinda am in favor of Social Democracies. You can have businesses like under Capitalism, but people are taken care of--and for the most part that's what we want in the world--no starving children and a chance for everyone to succeed. I for one could care less how much money Bill Gates makes, as long as everyone is taken care of on the other side.

At this time in the history of the world--there is no other choice than Capitalism. Feudalism isn't possible any more and you may wish for Communism or socialism--but it's isn't something easily found in America where I live or Britain where you live. Change it if you want, but for now Capitalism is the only game in town.

I'm not sure of your point in your second paragraph, but Merry Christmas Jazzratt. :)

[Pawn Power]

Well, he did used to be a member of the Hitler Youth.

Yeah, plus he's the Pope... of the CATHOLIC CHURCH!

I don't know why everyone is so alarmed. Of course the Pope is a homophone he 's the fuckin' Pope.

Also, newsflash the grand dragon of the klan is racist!

[Killfacer]

You invited me to respond so I will, but I am no expert on gays or gay poliics in or outside the Chruch, but I think the point here is when you get below the horrifics of the article title and Killfacers even more horrific thread title is:

the Pope didn't say he hates gays--he said he is opposed to gender theory, which may or may not be true. I don't really know enough about gender theory to comment at all so let me read up on that and I will comment further.

But I can comment in GENERAL. The Catholic Church believes that there is no sin or problem with being gay. Nothing wrong with it. They do believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong--for gays or straights, they have always held that for 2000 years.

They also believe that (because of the Adam and Eve story) that marriage is for one man and one woman (just as people have just made it the law in the state of California--so it's not an uncommon belief') But unfortunately that that excludes gays from having sex without committing a sin. In other words there is nothing wrong with being gay, just doing gay acts are wrong.

Much in the same way Communists believe that there is nothing wrong with being Bourgeois, you are what you are, but Communists feel that Bourgeoise "acts" e.g. owning a factory, having people work for wages, owning property, is wrong. The Communists have their "opinion" about what is wrong and right and so does the Pope. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Is there and "absolute" right and wrong? I think it would be presumptuous to asume so. But that's just me. Is the Pope right in his beliefs or are the Communists right in their beliefs? People can believe whatever they want. The Pope is arguing is beliefs just as the Communists argue theirs. In the end both postions are in the run of things morally neutral.:)

Did anyone elses initial reaction to this reply involve the words "oh" and "dear"?

Firstly why in fucks name do you start rambling on about fucking communism when ever someone talks about religion. Don't. Shut up about communism.

My main problem with what he said, apart from the it's homophobic nature, was the fact he implied that stopping "homosexuality" was some how as important to humanity as climate change.

I think someone in such a high position claiming this is downright dangerous. Do you agree with him tom? Do you genuinly think homosexuality is as big a problem as climate change?

[Bud Struggle]

Did anyone elses initial reaction to this reply involve the words "oh" and "dear"? I was hoping for "Oh pshaw" of "for the love of Pete" or even "fiddlesticks."


Firstly why in fucks name do you start rambling on about fucking communism when ever someone talks about religion. Don't. Shut up about communism. Because I do now and always have viewed Communism as a sort of religion. Have you ever read The God That Failed?


My main problem with what he said, apart from the it's homophobic nature, was the fact he implied that stopping "homosexuality" was some how as important to humanity as climate change. I don't believe he actually said that.


I think someone in such a high position claiming this is downright dangerous. Do you agree with him tom? Do you genuinly think homosexuality is as big a problem as climate change? Well yes, but the problem there is I don't actually believe that climate change is a problem, and I don't view homosexuality as a problem either. And further I don't believe Capitalism is a problem, or Communism, or the Pope as a problem for that matter. I kind of like the mix of various belief systems of economics, religion and politics all vying with each other in the markeplace of world ideas.

Nothing could rot the world better and quicker than 6+ billion people believeing the same things, living the same way, thinking the same thoughts.

[Killfacer]

Yes but i weren't criticising religion. I was criticising Catholicism, the pope in particular. I think a lot of people would be thankful if in every religious topic you stopped talking about communism and starting talking about the actual topic.

I will reply to the rest later.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Because I do now and always have viewed Communism as a sort of religion. Have you ever read The God That Failed?

No - communism isn't a religion, it is a socio-economic structure. Religion is the service and worship of god(s) and the supernatural, generally expressed through conducts, for example, praying. Your "view" has no basis.

[Bud Struggle]

No - communism isn't a religion, it is a socio-economic structure. Religion is the service and worship of god(s) and the supernatural, generally expressed through conducts, for example, praying. Your "view" has no basis.

I've gone through my reasons for believing what I do ad infinitum in past threads--best we don't bring up the subject too much--Communists are touchy, touchy, touchy when it come to that idea. ;)

[Bud Struggle]

Yes but i weren't criticising religion. I was criticising Catholicism, the pope in particular. I think a lot of people would be thankful if in every religious topic you stopped talking about communism and starting talking about the actual topic.


I talk about Communism because it is a Communist board--I assure you that on the couple of of other boards I belong to I never bring up the subject.

[Killfacer]

I talk about Communism because it is a Communist board--I assure you that on the couple of of other boards I belong to I never bring up the subject.

On this board, the religious on that is, you consistantly bring up communism. People have complained, just stop for gods sake.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

I've gone through my reasons for believing what I do ad infinitum in past threads--best we don't bring up the subject too much--Communists are touchy, touchy, touchy when it come to that idea. ;)

I'm sure bringing it up one more time wouldn't matter. Communism isn't a religion, and unless your "reasons" change definitions then your "reasons" do not matter. Please explain why it is a religion.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm sure bringing it up one more time wouldn't matter. Communism isn't a religion, and unless your "reasons" change definitions then your "reasons" do not matter. Please explain why it is a religion.

Killfacer is a bit adament I refrain from such discussion. Let's just say, I don't think it's formally a religion--it just has all the trappings--it has it's "holy book", it has the obigatory bearded outcast Jewish massaiah, it is awaiting its day of rapture. It has it's inner circle of priests (vanguard). Anyway, I could go down the list.

I rather not discuss it here--way off topic. Thanks for asking.

[Pogue]

Killfacer is a bit adament I refrain from such discussion. Let's just say, I don't think it's formally a religion--it just has all the trappings--it has it's "holy book", it has the obigatory bearded outcast Jewish massaiah, it is awaiting its day of rapture. It has it's inner circle of priests (vanguard). Anyway, I could go down the list.

I rather not discuss it here--way off topic. Thanks for asking.

The point is, rather than deal with the points against you, you just go "Well communism is a religion too so you are all hypocrites."

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Killfacer is a bit adament I refrain from such discussion. Let's just say, I don't think it's formally a religion--it just has all the trappings--it has it's "holy book", it has the obigatory bearded outcast Jewish massaiah, it is awaiting its day of rapture. It has it's inner circle of priests (vanguard). Anyway, I could go down the list.

I rather not discuss it here--way off topic. Thanks for asking.

What holy book? If you mean the Communist Manifesto, then you have ignored the types of communism outside Marxism. And it is a classless society, no "priests" involved. Any attempt at comparing communism to religion fails, as I have just shown.

It is not off-topic. You have described communism as a religion and I wanted to know if your "reasons" supported that, which they don't.

And wasn't it you who said:


I talk about Communism because it is a Communist board.Not very consistent...

[Bud Struggle]

The point is, rather than deal with the points against you, you just go "Well communism is a religion too so you are all hypocrites."

That was not the point I made AT ALL. I delt with the point--we are all entitled to our opinions. A diversity of opinions is rather a GOOD thing in this world. A monolith of the same opnion, the old "Soviet da/nyet mentality" is bad for the mental health of the world. It doesn't matter if I agree with with a person's opinion, it matters that he/she is allowed to have their own opinions.

Besides with a supreme judge of right and wrong (God)--there is nothing but opinion in the universe. You can create ethics, but each and every one will only be internal to itself. There is no universal rule of the "good and the true" to apply it to.

[Bud Struggle]

What holy book? If you mean the Communist Manifesto, then you have ignored the types of communism outside Marxism. And it is a classless society, no "priests" involved. Any attempt at comparing communism to religion fails, as I have just shown.

It is not off-topic. You have described communism as a religion and I wanted to know if your "reasons" supported that, which they don't.

And wasn't it you who said:

Not very consistent...

Whatever...

[Pogue]

That was not the point I made AT ALL. I delt with the point--we are all entitled to our opinions. A diversity of opinions is rather a GOOD thing in this world. A monolith of the same opnion, the old "Soviet da/nyet mentality" is bad for the mental health of the world. It doesn't matter if I agree with with a person's opinion, it matters that he/she is allowed to have their own opinions.

Besides with a supreme judge of right and wrong (God)--there is nothing but opinion in the universe. You can create ethics, but each and every one will only be internal to itself. There is no universal rule of the "good and the true" to apply it to.

Harmful, baseless and moronic opinion are better off left out of the world, such as the opinion that gay people are some major threat - its a stupid, wrong opinion. Yes, opinions can be wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

Harmful, baseless and moronic opinion are better off left out of the world, such as the opinion that gay people are some major threat - its a stupid, wrong opinion. Yes, opinions can be wrong.

No, I don't see how you can claim that some opinions are better than others. What rule or guide do you use that isn't based on your personal choices? I can agree with you on your choices--but only by making personal choices and holding personal opinions myself. But it's true that opinions change after a time. And some are left out of the world--it takes time, but such thoughts are excluded. Nazism has been excluded, so has Soviet Socialism, Chinese Socialism and Feudalism.

But right now in the United States at least, the Pope's thoughts have a bit of cache, as witnessed by the vote to disallow gay marriage in the Constitutions of Florida and California.

No matter that--look here on this VERY FORUM you have a thread about should religion be illegal? Isn't that intolerant? How about the one claiming religions are warmongers? You Communists have your opinions and you should be entitled to those opinions. If an ascetic in Rome feels that the Epicurean lifestyle is not always a good thing--who could blame him for having his opinion?

There is nothing wrong with a diversity of opinions in the world so people could choose which one fits them best.

[Killfacer]

Your doing it again.

"look, you leftist have a thread about religion, HYPOCRITES!"....

Oh yeah, your reffering to the poll in which people who thought religion should be banned were outvoted by nearly 300 votes.

[The Feral Underclass]

the Pope didn't say he hates gays--he said he is opposed to gender theory

Actually, this what he said:

"What is often expressed and signified with the word 'gender' leads to the human auto-emancipation from creation and from the Creator. The human being wants to make himself on his own and to decide always and exclusively by himself about what concerns him. But, in so doing, the human being lives against the truth and against the Spirit creator. Rain forests deserve, yes, our protection but the human being - as a creature which contains a message that is not in contradiction with his freedom but is the condition of his freedom - does not deserve it less."

He equated transgender and homosexual people to environmental damage...

[Bud Struggle]

He equated transgender and homosexual people to environmental damage...

No this is what he was refering to: Gender Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies

He was saying buying to THEORY leads to certain Epicurian leanings. The PEOPLE, the homosexual or transgender people were not discussed.

The Catholic Church has no proscriptions against BEING homosexual.

And Killfacer: I'm not saying anything against Communists or RevLeft--I'm saying it's natural for people to root for their home team when it comes to their beliefs. I'm not calling anyone hypocrite or any other names.

I am for a full discussion of different value systems. Communists have their value system, Catholics theirs, Capitalists theirs...all down the line. Those sometimes competing, sometimes sympathetic value systems are what give the world a rich and vibrant society.

I certainly don't mind or have any problem with Communists or Catholics or Capitalists or Buddists competing for the hearts and minds of the world. In fact I think it's positively wonderful.

As I keep saying I'm not antagonistic to Communism in the least--it has some good things, actually a lot of good thing to offer the world.

[Killfacer]

I don't give a flying fuck about what you think is wonderful. You can antagonise who the hell you want, just stop bringing up communism when it isn't relevant.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't give a flying fuck about what you think is wonderful. You can antagonise who the hell you want, just stop bringing up communism when it isn't relevant.

I'm bring up human nature--which is ALWAYS relevant.

Anyway, here's a question for you: you want a world were everyone thinks and acts the same--or would you rather have a multitude of different ideas, religions, economic systems all competing with each other for favor among the populace?

[Pogue]

No this is what he was refering to: Gender Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies

He was saying buying to THEORY leads to certain Epicurian leanings. The PEOPLE, the homosexual or transgender people were not discussed.

The Catholic Church has no proscriptions against BEING homosexual.

And Killfacer: I'm not saying anything against Communists or RevLeft--I'm saying it's natural for people to root for their home team when it comes to their beliefs. I'm not calling anyone hypocrite or any other names.

I am for a full discussion of different value systems. Communists have their value system, Catholics theirs, Capitalists theirs...all down the line. Those sometimes competing, sometimes sympathetic value systems are what give the world a rich and vibrant society.

I certainly don't mind or have any problem with Communists or Catholics or Capitalists or Buddists competing for the hearts and minds of the world. In fact I think it's positively wonderful.

As I keep saying I'm not antagonistic to Communism in the least--it has some good things, actually a lot of good thing to offer the world.

Firstly, what the fuck is this epicurean lifestlye bollocks. We're talking about homosexuality here, that is loving someone of the same sex and manifesting that love/sexual desire in acts such as gay sex, kissing, etc, something that the Pope said was wrong.

It's a shit opinion, and a wrong opinion, because its completely baseless. The Pope could never, ever justify that opinion. As with all forms of discrimination which are based on an harmless characteristic. You know why people think racism is stupid? Because its baseless, unjustifiable. You cannot prove gay people are a threat, there is no logic or evidence, hence it is a stupid opinion. Now try justifying w hat the Pope said without simply saying we say similar things (which we don't, and which we have disproved to you many a time). I'm ready to laugh at some mindless Christian distortion here. How you can think Jesus would at all admire the Pope and the shit he spews out is far beyond me. Your religion is the most obviously man made one in the world. Do you still believe in purgatory? Is that where gay people are going, for being gay? Such fucking idiocy.

[OneNamedNameLess]

TomK, if you don't think that climate change is a problem them you do not know enough about it. Furthermore it means like most people, you have no consideration for the planet we live on.

Capitalism is the root cause of many problems. But obviously it would be difficult to convice a factory owner that these issues are significant :D

[The Feral Underclass]

No this is what he was refering to: Gender Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies

He was saying buying to THEORY leads to certain Epicurian leanings. The PEOPLE, the homosexual or transgender people were not discussed.

That must be those poorly skilled evasion I have ever encountered. You're talking absolutely, unequivocal bollocks.


The Catholic Church has no proscriptions against BEING homosexual.

You can not be a homosexual unless you have sex with members of the same gender, which the Catholic church have many proscriptions about.


I will consider your continued apologism for the Catholic church and the comments made by the Pope to be breaching our guidelines on prejudicial sentiments. I will not accept you qualifying or justifying religious bigotry or hierarchy. Do I make myself clear?

[Bud Struggle]

I will consider your continued apologism for the Catholic church and the comments made by the Pope to be breaching our guidelines on prejudicial sentiments. I will not accept you qualifying or justifying religious bigotry or hierarchy. Do I make myself clear?

I did not willingly post on this thread, I was ASKED my opinion of what the Chruch believes and thus I gave it. If you will actually read my posts before you get all Nazi on me you well see that I said I PERSONALLY have no problem with gays doing whatever they want--I was trying to give a ration explaination of the Chruch's position AS I WAS ASKED TO DO.


Would TomK care to comment on this bullshit that his religious leader feels...


You invited me to respond so I will, but I am no expert on gays or gay politics in or outside the Church, but I think the point here is...


and I don't view homosexuality as a problem either.

But AT if this is they way you Communists plan to debate ideas that you disagree with--your Revolution doesn't have a chance. ;)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

What about homosexual intercourse. Is that fine by you? Or do you have to piss around in a church for that?

[Bud Struggle]

What about homosexual intercourse. Is that fine by you? Or do you have to piss around in a church for that?

I can't answer or I will be banned.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I can't answer or I will be banned.

Please correct me if im wrong then. So if your gay, according to the catholic church unless you find members of the opersite sex attractive you must live a life without any sexual actions what so ever (including the most horrible of crime - bashing one off)

[Bud Struggle]

Please correct me if im wrong then. So if your gay, according to the catholic church unless you find members of the opersite sex attractive you must live a life without any sexual actions what so ever (including the most horrible of crime - bashing one off)

I can't answer or I will be banned.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Fucking christains.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not once in this thread did I ever mention banning. Not once.

I have removed the derailment and I expect everyone to keep on topic.

[Pogue]

I can't answer or I will be banned.

Just answer it truthfully. If you say "I can't answer then I'll be banned" then surely you're basically syaing you fit the criteria for a ban?

[Bud Struggle]

Just answer it truthfully. If you say "I can't answer then I'll be banned" then surely you're basically syaing you fit the criteria for a ban?

Only if you think AT is justified in his (unspecified) threat.

All I can say is that here in RevLeft I attack NO ONE. I'm not happy being attacked. I discuss the points--nothing more. I'm friendly to everyone. (Call me a moron enough times, I do tend to withdraw.)

If I have to watch everything I say and live under some scrutiny of what I can say or what I can't--I rather not answer. I think we were having a pleasent conversation before, but I'm no longer interested in continuing.

I hope you will forgive me.

Yea, you win. Good for you.

[Demogorgon]

Not once in this thread did I ever mention banning. Not once.

I have removed the derailment and I expect everyone to keep on topic.
That's poor going even by your standards. I notice that you also saw fit to remove my first post explaining the position Tom was coming from.

[The Feral Underclass]

Only if you think AT is justified in his (unspecified) threat.

All I can say is that here in RevLeft I attack NO ONE. I'm not happy being attacked. I discuss the points--nothing more. I'm friendly to everyone. (Call me a moron enough times, I do tend to withdraw.)

If I have to watch everything I say and live under some scrutiny of what I can say or what I can't--I rather not answer. I think we were having a pleasent conversation before, but I'm no longer interested in continuing.

I hope you will forgive me.

Yea, you win. Good for you.

TomK, this board is for revolutionary leftists. It is our space, it belongs to us for our purposes. This is what it was designed for and that is what the guidelines are here to protect. It was not designed for every single political thought ever created; there are plenty of other spaces for that and you are free to go and join them. As it is, we have agreed to allow people with opposing ideas to share parts of this forum to spew their contemptible ideas. However, the rules of this board are very clear about prejudicial sentiment. It's simply not acceptable and you will receive administrative action if you express them.

You can call this censorship because that's what it is. You can call it an attack on "freedom of speech" because that's precisely what it is. This is our home and we can censor and restrict whatever we like, whenever we feel like it, and if you and your kind don't like that you can fuck off. It's as simple as that.

I hear every now-and-again people attempt to equate this forum to a communist society and it's as ridiculous then as it is now. This forum is not a communist society, it does not resemble one nor was it ever intended to. I am, however, perfectly happy to discuss what my opinions on freedom of expression and of censorship are on a political level or in the context of a future society and I am certain you will be surprised by the answers, but that future society is not here, nor do my actions and role as an administrator conflict in any way with my vision for communism.

On the subject of homosexuality, it seems to me that you are too much of a coward to express what you really think because you'd rather post on this board than hold your conviction.

This is the end of the matter. If you want to continue to discuss this topic do so, if you don't then that's up to you, but please stay on topic.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's poor going even by your standards. I notice that you also saw fit to remove my first post explaining the position Tom was coming from.

You have been warned not to derail this thread. If you do it again you will receive an infraction.

[Demogorgon]

You have been warned not to derail this thread. If you do it again you will receive an infraction.
Oh? You, coward, are the one who derailed the thread, and you removed the first post I made, before the derailment simply because it did not suit you. Now you are abusing your authority yet again to moderate an argument you are right in the midst of, a clear infraction of the rules.

The rules are quite clear that you have no right to moderate arguments you are part of, indeed in this case the cause of, so your warning carries no weight.

[Demogorgon]

And on topic, I have never seen any evidence of homophobia from Tom, I have seen him say he is against extra-marital sex, a frankly ridiculous position, but not a homophobic one as it is targeted just as much against heterosexuals. I have also seen him say that gay marriage should be legal. Therefore it stands to reason that his position has nothing at all to do with homosexuality and everything to do with sex as a part of marriage.

It is an extremely silly position, but it is hardly prejudiced.

Moreover I doubt very much that he wants any kind of legislation or sanction against extra-marital sex anyway, so it is just a silly personal value rather than any kind of authoritarian political position.

[Bud Struggle]

AT, I agree with everything you say up until this point:




On the subject of homosexuality, it seems to me that you are too much of a coward to express what you really think because you'd rather post on this board than hold your conviction.

Here's the problem: people have been asking me to express the Church's position. I have been answering in kind. Now, have I taken the point of view of an "apologist" for the Church's position--yes. But only to make the discussion more interesting.

My own position is and always has been I don't care what people do--gays straights on anything in between. I have stated that point in this thread and elsewhere numerous times.

I have not been a coward about my beliefs. I have only been asked them once--other times I was called upon to answer for the Church's position. I meant no disrespect to RevLeft.

And FWIW: I have never equated this Forum to a Communist society, I have always thought of it as a Decadent Worker State. :)

[The Feral Underclass]

Ok TomK, I can see where you're coming from and I apologise if you think my abrasive reaction was unwarranted. Providing you are not defending the ideas of the Catholic church then you are free to articulate it's position.

[Bud Struggle]

Ok TomK, I can see where you're coming from and I apologise if you think my abrasive reaction was unwarranted. Providing you are not defending the ideas of the Catholic church then you are free to articulate it's position.

Thanks for understanding. It's not easy being a Bourgeoise.:(

[Bud Struggle]

Please correct me if im wrong then. So if your gay, according to the catholic church unless you find members of the opersite sex attractive you must live a life without any sexual actions what so ever (including the most horrible of crime - bashing one off)

Back on subject: here's the deal according to the Catholic Church: if you are unmarried--no sex. Notice the period at the end of that sentence. That's where the subject ends.

Now as for marriage: only one man could marry one woman. No divorce--you only get to marry once (unless your spouse dies.) Gays not following the one man/one woman rule--can't marry.

And no wacking off. :lol:

I could explain to you how this is it tons of fun and the coolest and best way to live--and you all would be quitting Communism and jumping to join the Catholic Church if you heard it--but the RULES of RevLeft forbid me to explain. :(

[Plagueround]

I could explain to you how this is it tons of fun and the coolest and best way to live--and you all would be jumping to join the Catholic Church if you heard it--but the RULES of RevLeft forbid me to explain. :(

As a recovering Catholic, I could explain how it isn't. :p

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Back on subject: here's the deal according to the Catholic Church: if you are unmarried--no sex. Notice the period at the end of that sentence. That's where the subject ends.

Why does it have to be only between a man and a woman. Is it in the bible and why is it in the bible?



And no wacking off. :lol:

Why?

Surly "god" must have a good reason besides wanting the god sqaud to save money on tissues.


I could explain to you how this is it tons of fun and the coolest and best way to live--and you all would be quitting Communism and jumping to join the Catholic Church if you heard it-

Take it from somone who was baptized a catholic after their grandparents randomly drove me out to a church without telling anyone else. Communists get to get pissed, stoned , laid and to overthrow capitalism. Catholics get the odd genocide in Latin America and a Sunday morning mass.

[Bud Struggle]

Why does it have to be only between a man and a woman. Is it in the bible and why is it in the bible? Yea it kinda is in the Bible. I have no idea why.




Why?

Surly "god" must have a good reason besides wanting the god sqaud to save money on tissues. Sex is FOR procreation. Fun is additional.




Take it from somone who was baptized a catholic after their grandparents randomly drove me out to a church without telling anyone else. Communists get to get pissed, stoned , laid and to overthrow capitalism. Catholics get the odd genocide in Latin America and a Sunday morning mass.

I understand. On the other hand I've been a Catholic all my life. I've had sex with exactly one woman--my wife and I've lived with her and she with me--in abiding faith--for the last 25 years, and I got to say I couldn't have DREAMED of a better and more fufilling life. I love her, she loves me--we love our children and we have a great business together. My father and mother (without the business) had the same great life together.

To each his own.

[Pogue]

Yea it kinda is in the Bible. I have no idea why.



Sex is FOR procreation. Fun is additional.





I understand. On the other hand I've been a Catholic all my life. I've had sex with exactly one woman--my wife and I've lived with her and she with me--in abiding faith--for the last 25 years, and I got to say I couldn't have DREAMED of a better and more fufilling life. I love her, she loves me--we love our children and we have a great business together. My father and mother (without the business) had the same great life together.

To each his own.

Yes, some prefer logic and choice, others prefer blind obedience. Some prefer a fairer world, some prefer exploiting the labour of others. To each her own indeed.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Yea it kinda is in the Bible. I have no idea why.

And you support it just because its in the bible?

Is their any part of the bible you dont agree with?



Sex is FOR procreation. Fun is additional.

1. Why
2. Having a wank aint really sex.






I understand. On the other hand I've been a Catholic all my life. I've had sex with exactly one woman--my wife and I've lived with her and she with me--in abiding faith--for the last 25 years, and I got to say I couldn't have DREAMED of a better and more fufilling life. I love her, she loves me--we love our children and we have a great business together. My father and mother (without the business) had the same great life together.

Thats lovely dear.


To each his own.

Unless your born in the wrong place in which case you work in a sweatshop from the age of five until you die aged thirty.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, some prefer logic and choice, others prefer blind obedience. Some prefer a fairer world, some prefer exploiting the labour of others. To each her own indeed.

Indeed. It's not blind obedience--it's dicipline, a worthy object of study if one is to succeed in this world.

As far as exploitation goes--I doubt anyone will ever feel exploited by me--but this world comes on two flavors, winners and loosers. You can make any excuse why you are of the latter--but ther you are, aren't you? ;) :)

[Pogue]

Indeed. It's not blind obedience--it's dicipline, a worthy object of study if one is to succeed in this world.

As far as exploitation goes--I doubt anyone will ever feel exploited by me--but this world comes on two flavors, winners and loosers. You can make any excuse why you are of the latter--but ther you are, aren't you? ;) :)

Sorry, but who is a 'loser' and why?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Sorry, but who is a 'loser' and why?

Us until we win the Bougisise are winning so far (being in power and all) but they need us as a class but we dont need them.

I really hope the working class does win within my lifetime. The royal families heads look so lovely on the ends of pikes.

http://www.londonclasswar.org/images/royals.jpg

[Pogue]

Indeed. It's not blind obedience--it's dicipline, a worthy object of study if one is to succeed in this world.

As far as exploitation goes--I doubt anyone will ever feel exploited by me--but this world comes on two flavors, winners and loosers. You can make any excuse why you are of the latter--but ther you are, aren't you? ;) :)

I find it funny that you'd talk of losers when you follow the words of some random old bloke is a country far far away just because a book says it, causing you to do all manner of stupid things and ceremonies every sunday even though these do not benefit you, out of fear that you'll go to a magical place called hell, a place which there is no evidence in favour of its existence. You also believe that if you believe in a magic man who came back from the dead (somehow) you'll get eternal paradise from your all loving god (who lets people suffer), and that somehow you're in line with the teachings of your zombie-god even though you are very much the 'rich man'. Good luck squeezing those camels through the eye of the needle.

I think the icing on the cake in terms of proving how much of a 'loser' you are is that your apaprently this really happy family man factory owning all round cool dude but you spend hours at a time on a forum for the revolutionary left even though you're restricted to posting in only one section of the aforementioned site.

I think you're the personification of sad.

[Bud Struggle]

qqq

[Pogue]

You entertain me. Isn't that what you Proletarians are for? For that, I'll be back to the IWW.
:)

Sorry, but what are us proletarians for?

[Bud Struggle]

qqq

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Er, entertainment. I'm sure there's other thing you do--but as i said, that's what the IWW is for. :lol:

Obvious troll is Obvious.

[Pogue]

Oh right, so you did just ignore the rest of my post. Glad to see I entertain you. Even more evidence that your a loser that you'd pay money to join a union like the IWW because proletarians and unions 'entertain you'. Is it the stamp collecting element that makes your day? Go back to slavishly listening to what a celibate man who stays in one building all day ahs to say on sex and the outside world, it suits you better.

[Bud Struggle]

Obvious troll is Obvious.

Well I'm getting kind of insulted and after that I'm getting kind of pissed. Granted I'm trollng. I apologize.

OK, I'll erase all of that. What I do in the IWW is my business.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well I'm getting kind of insulted and after that I'm getting kind of pissed.


Obviously you went on about being a member of the wobblies because you knew it would get a negative reaction from us, because you knew we think (know) you have no place within that organization.

Its the kind of think i would do if i was a Upper class wanker instead of a Working class wanker.

[Pogue]

You don't do anything in the IWW. You claim you've joined - whatever you do in your sad deulusional and lonely spare time besides spending hours at a time on an internet forum is your business. Whatever, if you go joining left wing organisations despite being bourgeoisie, I can't do anything about that, because your hiding behind an internet alias. I just think its pathetic and hilights the lack of substance in your life, a life I highly doubt is the same as the one you post about on here. Because, as I've just mentioned, I think in reality your some looney internet troll.

[Bud Struggle]

You don't do anything in the IWW. You claim you've joined - whatever you do in your sad deulusional and lonely spare time besides spending hours at a time on an internet forum is your business. Whatever, if you go joining left wing organisations despite being bourgeoisie, I can't do anything about that, because your hiding behind an internet alias. I just think its pathetic and hilights the lack of substance in your life, a life I highly doubt is the same as the one you post about on here. Because, as I've just mentioned, I think in reality your some looney internet troll.

Fine, you are off topic--more on the Pope?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Fine, you are off topic--more on the Pope?

Whats the procedure of him claiming hes infallible about something?

[Bud Struggle]

[edit]

[Bud Struggle]

Whats the procedure of him claiming hes infallible about something?

He "says" it. As I said--it's been done only once, so there's not a lot or rules.

But usually these kinds of things work just by fiat.

http://www.americandreamcars.com/1981fiatspider1240405.jpg

I actually one had one of those when I was in college.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Good question! In 1870 the Pope declaired himself infallible in matters if dogma. He (well, his successor) declaired the Blessed Virgin Mary Assumed into heaven in 1950.

It's never been mentioned again. That's the only time the Pope's been infallible.

I could swear that the rubber johhny thing was a matter of dogma (or is it just in the catechism of the catholic church)

Anyway dont you find it abit dangerous having one dude who can get millions to act as he pleases just by declaring himself infallible about something.

[bcbm]

How about a world where people don't tell other people who aren't hurting anyone that they're abominations and need to be "fixed?" Or murdered?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

How about a world where people don't tell other people who aren't hurting anyone that they're abominations and need to be "fixed?" Or murdered?

Acting like a **** seems to be a religious tradition that the pope seems intent on upholding.

[Bud Struggle]

I could swear that the rubber johhny thing was a matter of dogma (or is it just in the catechism of the catholic church)

Anyway dont you find it abit dangerous having one dude who can get millions to act as he pleases just by declaring himself infallible about something.

Is the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother REALLY bothering anyone?

[Bud Struggle]

How about a world where people don't tell other people who aren't hurting anyone that they're abominations and need to be "fixed?" Or murdered?

We all have our Purges and our Terrors and our Pol Pots and our Curtural Revolutions and Stalins, don't we?

Actually I'm really getting off topic and I seem be be bending AT's rules of engagement of not being an apologist.

I'm off to start a network of IWWers of my friends from around the country.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Why the hell are people still following a 80 year old virgin who wears a dress and spends his days shut away from the world anyway?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Is the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother REALLY bothering anyone?

No. But the fact he has the ability to get the unquestioning following of millions is quite worrying. It would be very worrying if a left winger had that kind power but with a reactionary like the pope its just fucking dangerous.

[Bud Struggle]

No. But the fact he has the ability to get the unquestioning following of millions is quite worrying. It would be very worrying if a left winger had that kind power but with a reactionary like the pope its just fucking dangerous.

Stalin had it. Mao had it.

[Pogue]

Stalin had it. Mao had it.

OK, now address the issue.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Stalin had it. Mao had it.


Yes and I am obviously not a fan of either of them.

[Random Precision]

Why the hell are people still following a 80 year old virgin who wears a dress and spends his days shut away from the world anyway?

I don't know that he's a virgin.

[bcbm]

We all have our Purges and our Terrors and our Pol Pots and our Curtural Revolutions and Stalins, don't we?

I've never murdered anybody, I certainly don't support any of those fuckers and I have no desire for wanton bloodshed, especially against those who have done absolutely nothing.


I don't know that he's a virgin.

Well, in theory, he is supposed to be.

[Demogorgon]

Well, in theory, he is supposed to be.
Well if he had sex before he became a Priest, it would only be a minor sin, so he could have. Indeed even if he had sex after being a Priest it still may not be so big a deal as depending on the specific vows he took (apart from the basic ones, different Priests take different vows depending on whether they are going into orders like the Jesuits or not) so for many Priests having sex is only a regular sin rather than a breach of their vows, though it would be some story if the pope did it. I can just imagine tabloid editors nightly praying for it, can't you?

At any rate, speculating on what sexual experience, if any, the pope may have had won't take us very far. The man has no shortage of faults, but being a virgin is hardly a problem.

[Killfacer]

Stalin had it. Mao had it.

You did it again. For fuck sake stop bringing up dictators in order to avoid a question.

[Bud Struggle]

You did it again. For fuck sake stop bringing up dictators in order to avoid a question.

It seems rather pointless for me to answer questions if I can't answer them in the way I want, don't you think? I don't believe I've avoided answering anything--I've just answered the way I chose to answer them. (Which seems to piss a lot of people off.)

For what it's worth there are way too many rules around here place lately for me to be comfortable. I don't mind discussing things or with people disagreeing with me, but this getting yelled at all of the time is getting pretty boring.

As AT said: these are other places for me to go.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It seems rather pointless for me to answer questions if I can't answer them in the way I want, don't you think? I don't believe I've avoided answering anything--I've just answered the way I chose to answer them. (Which seems to piss a lot of people off.)

For what it's worth there are way too many rules around here place lately for me to be comfortable. I don't mind discussing things or with people disagreeing with me, but this getting yelled at all of the time is getting pretty boring.

As AT said: these are other places for me to go.

I asked if you belived some twat in a hat having unquestioning support from millions is dangerous and stupid. Your not going to get banned for that and you know it. But instead of addressing the point you go on about mao and stalin neither of which has fuck all to do with the conversation.

[Pogue]

It seems rather pointless for me to answer questions if I can't answer them in the way I want, don't you think? I don't believe I've avoided answering anything--I've just answered the way I chose to answer them. (Which seems to piss a lot of people off.)

For what it's worth there are way too many rules around here place lately for me to be comfortable. I don't mind discussing things or with people disagreeing with me, but this getting yelled at all of the time is getting pretty boring.

As AT said: these are other places for me to go.

You're getting pretty boring. If you have other places to go, go there, rather than spending hour chunks posting in the OI section of this revolutionary socialist forum. Go write more stories about how you're a succesful businessman with a wonderful family who you spend time with as opposed to hanging around net forums. Go on, go, and spread joy.

[Robert]

Nice going, H-L-V-S. You've pointlessly insulted and made to feel unwelcome one of the few people who give OI a reason to exist in the first place.

TomK, if you're still around, though I can't imagine why you would be, please know that I always preferred the bouyancy and friendliness of your posts, as well as your open-mindedness, to the sour, rigid dogmatism of the leftists here.

Demogorgon and Gacky are two of the notable, if lonely, exceptions.

[Jazzratt]

Nice going, H-L-V-S. You've pointlessly insulted and made to feel unwelcome one of the few people who give OI a reason to exist in the first place.

Come the fuck off it, anyone who comes to a site where the majority disagree in order to put their point forward they should have a thicker skin than most. I wouldn't go to some cappie site and not expect some stick from the regulars. It's like going to a pub and being hostile to the barstaff whilst not expecting watered-down drinks and hostility from the regulars.


TomK, if you're still around, though I can't imagine why you would be, please know that I always preferred the bouyancy and friendliness of your posts, as well as your open-mindedness, to the sour, rigid dogmatism of the leftists here.

TomK will stay around, obviously, because he (for whatever reason) likes it here despite the constant hostility. You don't need to lick his boots you're not one of his employees.


Demogorgon and Gacky are two of the notable, if lonely, exceptions.

That "strange reason" may be because they have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

[Hammer_Sickle_Revolution]

Whatever...

TomK avoids my point again... :rolleyes:


That was not the point I made AT ALL. I delt with the point--we are all entitled to our opinions. A diversity of opinions is rather a GOOD thing in this world. A monolith of the same opnion, the old "Soviet da/nyet mentality" is bad for the mental health of the world. It doesn't matter if I agree with with a person's opinion, it matters that he/she is allowed to have their own opinions.

Besides with a supreme judge of right and wrong (God)--there is nothing but opinion in the universe. You can create ethics, but each and every one will only be internal to itself. There is no universal rule of the "good and the true" to apply it to.

Typical anti-communist, "we want everyone to be exactly the same response" which is completely false. Of course everyone can have their own opinions - once again your "knowledge" :lol: of communism is limited to American Cold-War, anti-communist, pro-capitalist media.

There is a universal rule of right and wrong (even if what you were saying was correct, it has nothing to do with the existence of god(s)) - it's within biology...

http://anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs

[Demogorgon]

EDIT: Forget it, if you dance with the chimney sweep, you only get covered in soot.