Boxer Manny Pacquiao calls for gays to be put to death

[doetim]

It's people like Manny who poison religion.

Good spin there, it's more like religion poisons people's minds!!!

 

[doetim]

There are many religious nuts out there who want to see gay people put to death.
What's astonishing in this case is that he also believes that gay people are born gay so he's basically advocating the killing of people for the reason of being born a certain way. That's no different than someone advocating the killing of filipinos, short people or people who are left-handed.

 

[RaKroma]

Wait, so Manny NEVER quoted the damn bible verse about killing homosexuals?? The reporter just added that verse for sensational punch and stirring shit with headlines? We need to star holding our reporters accountable for starting riots with false, misleading stories to sell more papers! This is so fucking ridiculous and it never ends with the media! I have less respect for journalism as a profession than with septic tank pumpers. This story is exactly like Trayvon Martin reporting where media was inventing the story to pour more fuel on a fire.

 

[Kulindahr]

Good spin there, it's more like religion poisons people's minds!!!

So in your opinion love, joy, mercy, patience, peace, generosity, hospitality, kindness, justice, faithfulness, helpfulness, gentleness, and such are "poison"?

Remarkable.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wait, so Manny NEVER quoted the damn bible verse about killing homosexuals?? The reporter just added that verse for sensational punch and stirring shit with headlines? We need to star holding our reporters accountable for starting riots with false, misleading stories to sell more papers! This is so fucking ridiculous and it never ends with the media! I have less respect for journalism as a profession than with septic tank pumpers. This story is exactly like Trayvon Martin reporting where media was inventing the story to pour more fuel on a fire.

All he needs is a good lawyers, and he could walk away with ten million from a libel suit.

 

[quasar]

Wait, so Manny NEVER quoted the damn bible verse about killing homosexuals?? The reporter just added that verse for sensational punch and stirring shit with headlines? We need to star holding our reporters accountable for starting riots with false, misleading stories to sell more papers! This is so fucking ridiculous and it never ends with the media! I have less respect for journalism as a profession than with septic tank pumpers. This story is exactly like Trayvon Martin reporting where media was inventing the story to pour more fuel on a fire.

Kind of, but Manny has finally spoken about this controversy today. He has agreed that he DIDN'T quote Leviticus, HOWEVER, he DOES believe in God's word - so if Leviticus is part of the Bible, and the Bible is the Word of God, then in theory he does believe that gays should be put to death.

Just to clarify his position, he has stated that although he doesn't think that gays should be killed, he doesn't believe that gays should marry.

This is what pisses me off about 'Christians' - they pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow, and which parts to ignore.

So I'm still going to email Nike.

 

[bort138]

So in your opinion love, joy, mercy, patience, peace, generosity, hospitality, kindness, justice, faithfulness, helpfulness, gentleness, and such are "poison"?

Remarkable.

A poisoned mind is basing your life on faith and emotion instead of reality. People are capable of being moral with or without religion. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.

 

[Kulindahr]

The bible also mentions nothing about gay people or homosexuality, considering the concept didn't even exist until modern times. Actually, the bible also talks about multiple wives, putting your wife to death for certain offenses, etc. The point is if you stretch your imagination a bit, gay marriage really is mentioned in the bible. It just doesn't specifically say "gay marriage" because neither one of those things existed in those times, not as we know them. The concept of "gay" didn't exist and the concept of "marriage" as we know it didn't exist either.

It's laughable that anyone would make the argument that marriage is between a man and a woman at all, considering such a concept didn't even exist until much much later.

Even assuming the Bible did mention them, there's a rule I was reminded of while browsing this morning, a rule that was unbreachable for the first few centuries of the church: if it isn't repeated in the New Testament, no rule of the Old prevails (there's a cute rhyming way to say it that escapes me just now).

And nowhere in the New Testament is there any command at all about gays or homosexual relations.


The only ones who dispute that are those who think Jesus was lying when He promised the Spirit would keep teaching, and those who think they can change what the ancients taught -- both sets basically being arrogant sods, "stiffnecked" as the KJV would have it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Depends on how you look at those people. Up until very very very recently, those words or ideals taught by mainstream christianity never were intended to be applied to certain people. I'm talking about infidels, slaves, people of different ethnic groups, homosexuals, etc.

You are doing exactly what christian bigots are doing. You're picking and choosing which part of christianity you like and ignore the rest.

If religion really meant all those things that you mentioned, slavery, bigotry, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. would have ended long long long ago. The fact that the catholic church, the largest christian sect, has always been a hundred years behind on every human rights issue in history should be proof enough that true morality doesn't come from religious teachings. People who have been in the forefront of change for the better with human rights issues have always been humanists, not religionists. As a matter of fact, religionists have a long history of resisting every FREAKIN' change for the better.

What's worse is after each and every time society has established that the change it took was good (women suffrage, desegregation, etc.) religionists always turn around and lie right through their teeth that they had always advocated the change in the first place.

So, to recap, religionists are both resistors of change for the better and goddamn liars.

I've had a lot of discussions with people about the long history of the church's position on slavery and the decimation of the population of the Americas. It is particularly astounding that despite the many documents I cited (letters from the vatican to the various provinces) proving that the church was only concerned about the propagation of the catholic religion and the welfare of westerners, people continue to believe that the church had nothing to do with either of the institutions I mentioned. It's absolutely astounding that the very same people who claim to believe in god can be either so self-deluding or so capable of lying right through their teeth.

Religion may have served its purpose well back when people needed an explanation for fire, rain, lightning, etc. Nowadays, all it does is slow us down to a crawl when it comes to making changes for the better for everyone. I predict that gay rights issue will be a non-issue within a generation, just like racism, women suffrage, etc. I also predict that the next generation of religionists will lie right through their teeth and try to make people believe christianity HAS ALWAYS supported gay rights the same way they've been trying to revise history on women's rights, antisemitism, racism, etc.

No, you're the one picking and choosing. The fact that those are all in the Bible as what Christianity is about doesn't fit with your campaign of hate, so you ignore them.

The church condemned slavery starting in the third or fourth century. St. Paul was a clear women's libber. But power structures abuse the church while claiming to be it. Jesus even said it would happen.

 

[Kulindahr]

A poisoned mind is basing your life on faith and emotion instead of reality. People are capable of being moral with or without religion. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.

Faith and emotion are reality.

 

[Kulindahr]

By the way, let's not forget all the genocides and other atrocities in the bible that people like yourself keep conveniently ignore. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then kudos for you for demonstrating my point about either self-delusion or lying.

Give up your fantasies about what I do or do not ignore. I'm not one of your imaginary straw men, so pay attention to the actual argument.

 

[bort138]

Faith and emotion are reality.

faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

emotion - a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body

reality - the state or quality of being real, in actual fact

 

[Kulindahr]

I just sent an e-mail to the Courage Campaign [info@couragecampaign.org] admonishing them to issue an apology to Manny for flying off the handle before they had solid assurance of what was really happening. I urge all of you to do the same. Maybe it will put pressure on newspeople to be honest.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thanks for demonstrating my point about revisionist history. My prediction still stands, that in a generation people like yourself will try to tell people the church and all of christianity had always supported gay rights. I'm pretty sure by then religionists will have found another group of people to hate.

More fantasy insults -- you really like that straw man. Maybe you should break free and get rational.

There's nothing at all revisionist about that history. If you'd stop to think, you'd see what happened -- I even gave you a hint. See, the early church was against slavery -- they were even against serving in the military, which is starkly different than today! But then some dildo of an emperor made Christianity not just legal, but the official state religion. Within half a generation, they were so tied that the power structure started bending the positions the church took to the needs of the state. There was money in slavery, and enough of the economy depended on it that the state wasn't interested in hearing what the church really taught. So slavery became acceptable if someone was a slave due to some crime, and then if someone had been captured in war, and then if someone was born to slave parents. It fell into disuse after Rome collapsed, but gained popularity again as Europe became re-energized. Then somewhat after Newton's time there was agreement between Muslim states and Christian states that they'd stop capturing each other's ships to sell the people on board into slavery. That left a lack of slave material, and there were all these black people down south, who were willing to capture their enemies and sell them . . . and the power structure, eager to not upset the economics as they were, solemnly re-wrote the Bible to say that that skin was black because they were under a curse, and the African slave trade was born.

And quite ironically, a doctrine that came from Roman Catholicism was happily embraced by people in the American South who despised Roman Catholicism -- because there was money to be made.

Yet even as the Declaration of Independence was being signed, Christians were still maintaining the point from the ancient fathers, that man who was made in the image of God should not own man who was made in the image of God. A few predicted that a war would be fought over it, and they were right.

And a hundred years after that war, a man of God came along to finish the job that war started.

Seventeen centuries later, we're still trying to get back to what the early fathers taught.


Now, if you had any decent education, and stopped to think, you would have seen all that indicated in my simpler phrasing. And you'd also be thinking that with skin color taken away from them as a reason to hate, the power structures have picked some other reason to hate people.



And IMHO, it wouldn't be much of a crime if some billionaire hired covert teams to kidnap all the hateful preachers and drop them on a remote island not quite large enough to support them all.

 

[ChickenGuy]

The contrast is a wide one between a random Catholic person in the Philippines (if not Pacquaio then someone else) who DOES want gays put to death, and on the other hand a random Catholic person in for example Vermont or Connecticut who is gay-friendly and supports full gay marriage.

So which is the 'true' Catholicism?

(I'm guessing somewhere much nearer if not quite as far as the former, based on the viewpoint of the Vatican)

 

[Kulindahr]

The contrast is a wide one between a random Catholic person in the Philippines (if not Pacquaio then someone else) who DOES want gays put to death, and on the other hand a random Catholic person in for example Vermont or Connecticut who is gay-friendly and supports full gay marriage.

So which is the 'true' Catholicism?

(I'm guessing somewhere much nearer if not quite as far as the former, based on the viewpoint of the Vatican)

Well, neither is in conformance to the Roman Catholic Catechism. If you appeal to history to decide, then the killer in the Philippines is closer, since Rome has killed lots of people for being different; if you appeal to Jesus, then the one in Vermont, because that person is more loving.

 

[Kulindahr]

Haha, all I gotta say is again thank you for confirming what I said before about revisionist history. And again, I predict that in a generation people like yourself will be saying christianity has always supported gay rights. They'll come up with a lot of apologist language to confuse people.

You're just playing the game that religionists have been playing for the last several thousand years. You come up with all kinds of mental yoga exercises to explain away all the inconvenient facts.

But whatever. I've been debating christians for years. All the excuses that people can come up with, I've seen it all. You're not the first or the last to use this excuse.

So you debate Christians by being ignorant and bigoted? Wow.

What I wrote is accurate history. And people like myself will continue to do as we always have: tell the truth.

You know, it's bad enough when I try to communicate sense to fundamentalists who are ignorant, bigoted, incapable of logic, and uninterested in listening; it's disgusting when I have to do it here where people of a minority status should know a lot better.

 

[pat grimshaw]

I'm still waiting for the follow-up story where the boxer claims he was misquoted.

. ... We need to start holding our reporters accountable for starting riots with false, misleading stories to sell more papers! ... This story is exactly like Trayvon Martin reporting where media was inventing the story to pour more fuel on a fire.

Kroma, you're so right!

American media and bloggers and the HuffPost are feeding us sensationalism!

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

p.s. -- Cotto is about as attractive as a stump.

Then I like stumps.

 

[pat grimshaw]

I googled the stump~