sinker

Look, i'm sorry you're sensitive but I figured you'd know that I'd call you out on hating gay people directly rather than slip it into a comment that i simply worded badly. So, why do you hate gay people so much anyway? *** didn't sound like much of a joke to me. and calling me sensitive is a poor excuse for a lame attempt at humor. how long have I been a gay lover? as long as I've been a practicing christian. 19 years. -the artist formerly known as sinker

tell me something I don't know, bill... you and I are more alike than you know... -the artist formerly known as sinker

it's that I recognize the right of the catholic church to come up with whatever rationale they want. It's like discussing someone else's religion. I may disagree with their beliefs, but I'm not going to tell them they're wrong*** i do believe that is the mistep... i thought you HAVE said they are wrong, maybe not in that exact language but... what bothers me is that the church's rules are viewed as silly when in reality, very few here could say WHY they are the way they are, only that they are old fashioned, bigoted, behind the times, etc etc etc.... i guess it doesn't matter, the church isn't asking for understanding.... -the artist formerly known as sinker

Hmm, and there's another idea. But then in my cult, being the sacrificial offering might be something that you would enjoy. mmmm... hurt me! mamma! -the artist formerly known as sinker

you comment is similar to the following line.... so do you beat your wife often? the answer is condemning either way. your comment painted me as a gay hater which I am not. if you didn't mean to offend, so be it. no prob. my point in all this is that there is a HUGE diff b/t a woman covering or not covering her head or accepting homosexuality in the church b/c it's common practice (so the gay activists would have us believe) in today's culture. No really, there is not. If the Bible says that a gay lifestyle is wrong and it says that woman not wearing head coverings is wrong or that speaking up is wrong, then they are all wrong. You cannot pick and choose which ones still apply. Of course he can - that's exactly what he IS doing. don't you have some model rockets to play with or something kallend? you aren't one that has shown any semblence of -or desire to- understand what the hell we're trying to say here... -the artist formerly known as sinker

Look, i'm sorry you're sensitive but I figured you'd know that I'd call you out on hating gay people directly rather than slip it into a comment that i simply worded badly. So, why do you hate gay people so much anyway? *** I'm not sensitive about this issue. What I am is offended when I'm accused of something I'm not. I do not hate gays and you are showing a serious lapse in judgement for assuming I do. Saying I think homosexuality is wrong/sinful/disordered does not ipso facto mean I hate homosexuals. That is an unwarranted assumption. You've turned this personal against me and that is unacceptable. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Now there's an idea.... I can only imagine what that would involve... I once had this guy do a handwriting analysis for me, and one of the things he wrote down about me was that I was very likely to either join a cult or start one... Now I can't see myself ever joining a cult, but starting one??? Hmm... i'd come to yours or bills just out of sheer curiosity... just as long as I didn't become the sacrificial offering. -the artist formerly known as sinker

you comment is similar to the following line.... so do you beat your wife often? the answer is condemning either way. your comment painted me as a gay hater which I am not. if you didn't mean to offend, so be it. no prob. my point in all this is that there is a HUGE diff b/t a woman covering or not covering her head or accepting homosexuality in the church b/c it's common practice (so the gay activists would have us believe) in today's culture. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Yes, slavery is incompatible with the two commandments. But so is killing a fig tree because it wont bear fruit out of season, so is killing someones herd of pigs after letting them be possessed by exorcised demons. *** your thinking is too concrete here... killing a fig tree b/c it doesn't bear fruit? how is that incompatible w/ any commandment? and how does that compare w/ what appears to be tacit approval of slavery? and killing pigs b/c they were possessed? assuming possession is real, wouldn't killing them be a mercy? -the artist formerly known as sinker

No Sink, I dont mind if you hate gay people or not*** unfair comment painting me as a gay hater, which I am not. please apologize. -the artist formerly known as sinker

sure the dsm is abused... but it's also the product of countless hours of research and work and guides practitioners in the treatment of bone fide illnesses... w/o it we'd be much worse off... i think the abuse comes more from ill-qualified people trying their hand at couch pyschology. i'm unaware of studies before 73 on gay personalities and relationships... references? -the artist formerly known as sinker

jeffrey satinover's book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Well referenced. You can also research the minutes and blow by blow account of the APA convention in dc, it's public record. -the artist formerly known as sinker

JFTC... good on ya! I think the fundamental mistep in our communication is just this... what is the nature of the priesthood and what is the symbolism of the male only priesthood? I refer you to Paul Quay's book the Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality. It says, in ways more succint and erudite that I can, what we're trying to discuss. The priesthood isn't a "job" one can apply for. -the artist formerly known as sinker

ugh. as it need to be indeed. gestopo tactics, bill, that's what they were. no appeals to conducting studies on homosexual relationships, psychopathology testing, nothing... we're talking about what was a diagnosable mental disorder, just wiped away overnight. i thought we were a society steeped in demonstrating truth and veracity by science, not terrorism. interestingly, most major licensing bodies for counselors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. REQUIRE an oath of sorts stating that the licensee will NOT attempt to counsel a homosexually oriented person OUT of that orientation, even if the homosexual does NOT want to be homosexual. however, studies have been done in this country and others, (israel for one), wherein case studies are presented to therapists... the presenting problem is NOT sexual orientation, but some other non-sexual related issue. However, the orientation of the case study is mentioned... in the majority of cases, even though the homosexual and heterosexual case study are presented as having the SAME PROBLEM, the homosexual person is consistenly sited as having more severe pathology. This from folks who have taken the "oaths" of these licensing organizations... -the artist formerly known as sinker

good lord bill, where you been??? j/k... your assumption, it seems to me, seems to rest on the fact that you think that the church has no reason (or at least in your mind no VALID reason) for excluding women or open, active homosexuals from the priesthood. Gender -- and the escatological dimension contained therein -- is the criteria of discrimination, and it's a valid reason. Shortness, skin color, etc, do not have any escatological significance vis a vis the mission, function, purpose of the priest. -the artist formerly known as sinker

And yet, if this is the only DIRECT reference, it does not CONDEMN slavery, but tells the masters to treat the slaves well. A slave that is treated fairly and kindly is STILL A SLAVE. The other rationales are all interpretations by apologists. why didn't paul outrightly condemn slavery? i don't know... i didn't live in that culture then... perhaps there were circumstances in that milieux that would have been more detrimental -perhaps to the lives of the slaves- if someone of paul's stature came out so vehemently against slavery. also, for something so deeply ingrained in the culture as slavery, perhaps paul knew that abolishing slavery could only happen in a slow, methodical way... i don't know... that doesn't denegrate the fact that scripture supports masters treating their slaves as equal to them and not as less than them. -the artist formerly known as sinker

I am not really sure how you got that the site is stating it was NOT considered an illness. Look at this sentence right here: " Only in 1973 did the American medical, psychiatric and legal professions begin to recognize that homosexuality is an orientation and not a choice, illness or crime." That last bit "and not a choice, illness, or crime" indicates that before 73, it WAS considered one (or all) of those three. Me thinks thou doth read too fast. *** ?? confused... that is what I was saying... it WAS considered an illness up to 73... now it's just an "orientation." What I was saying was that statement on the website is misleading... it posits that after 1973, the scientific community realized it was no longer an illness... well, that's not true... it was strong armed into changing the diagnosis from homosexuality being an illness to it being a diagnosis ONLY if you were uncomfortable with being gay, to NOT being a problem at all. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Could it be that you dont see anything wrong with a woman's head being uncovered but you do find something morally repugnant about a man gaining sexual gratification from another man? *** this has nothing to do w/ my personal views. you assume I find man on man repugnant. do you also assume I've never kissed a man romantically? you also assume I have no problem w/ uncovered heads of women in church... what if I was a stark raving sex addict and the site of red headed women made me lustfully crazy... I'd sure wish their heads were covered then... assuming I wanted to maintain sanity that is... as far as the slavery question goes... from catholic.com re: some scriptural references to slavery... First, while Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he made no general defense of slavery as such, anymore than he made a general defense of the pagan government of Rome, which Christians were also instructed to obey despite its injustices (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). He seems simply to have regarded slavery as an intractable part of the social order, an order which he may well have thought would pass away shortly (1 Cor 7:29-31). Second, Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please. Third, Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave's master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother" (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that "there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:27-28). Fourth, the Christian principles of charity ("love your neighbor as yourself") and the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would them to do unto you") espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery, even if, because of its deeply established role as a social institution, this point was not clearly understood by all at the time. -the artist formerly known as sinker

I have quickly looked through it and disagree w/ almost everything on it. For example, the change in the pyschiatric/medical/scientific community in 1973 (first paragraph of "sex. orientation not mentioned in bible" link), in "recognizing" that homosexuality is not a choice, illness or crime, came about by stormtrooper tactics of homosexual activists at the 1973 American Psychiatric Association annual convention in DC. It was practically a militaristic coup wherein these activists secured a change in the diagnostic nomenclature of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM) by shere force of will... before that, homosexuality WAS considered an illness... but w/o any studies being done, w/o any stats, w/o any scientific analysis at all, but due to political pressure, almost overnight a mental disorder was POOF eradicated. This fact is completely misrepresented on this website. I also disagree w/ the translation information, such as about sodomy, etc... but I don't have all my research in order about that... but a note about "being born that way." Ever met someone who's orientation has changed? I have. In fact I've met several. "But wait, isnt' that... IMPOSSIBLE???" No it isn't, but the homosexual lobby will do everything to suppress that information. Too much of their lives depend on that suppression. Read the studies on "the gay gene." Sample sizes are small. The main researcher himself (whose name escapes me presently, a gay man as I recall) even says this, that more research is warranted given the small number of twin men's brains, hetero vs homo -post mortem obviously- that he was able to use)... sorry, but the jury IS still out about being "born" that way... but let's assume gays ARE born that way... with, shall we say, a proclivity towards same sex attraction. This certainly flies against most developmental psych theories wherein sexual identification/gender identity and all that cathects later. But still, let's assume it's genetic... some people are born crack addicts and alcoholics too... should we just have them embrace that too? A genetic proclivity does not licitness make... let's look at biology... what is the purpose of sex... pleasure? only secondarily. eating is pleasurable too, but only secondarily to providing nutrition. sex is pleasurable only secondarily to procreation, as far as animals go. However, as humans go, there is stamped into our being, a second purpose of sex, namely, bonding. The sexual organs are fundamentally ordained for heterosexual union. Do you get electricity from taking two electrical cords and touching them? How about two outlets? No. Look at the psychology... what is complimentary about two men or two women uniting? The symbolism is all wrong... yin and yin? yang and yang? look at the complimentarity of the man and the woman. not just physically, but psychologically... and the field of psychiatry and psychology in the past 5-10 years is finally starting to bear this out... we could go on and on... i don't necessarily think all homosexual orientation is changeable. i think it partly depends on how long and how deep the behavior has gone. there is often a level of compulsion/sexual addiction in it. the church recognizes this too, as does Courage. but orientation is changeable. it does happen. if you're ever in nashville, i'll introduce you to several people who have experienced it... -the artist formerly known as sinker

there are some things that are changeable and some that are not... like the covering of a woman's head... necessary for salvation? hardly. does that go fundamentally to the nature of what it means to be a human being, created in the likeness of God? No. So take off the covering... As for slavery, I'd have to re-read some of the passages from the NT, but I don't recall Jesus giving his imprimatur on it... there may appear to be tacit approval of it, but from other parts of the text it's pretty clear that slavery, the ownership of of a person is indefensible... but that's another topic... what's at root is whether a church should change and adapt itself to the spirit of the times, n'est-ce pas? true, there should be some sort of adaptation, to fit into the social milieux, but not at the expense of it's fundamental doctrine. Incidentals of practice, such as music, style, covering of heads of women, these don't affect the central message of salvation. However, it's the church's view that the acceptance of homosexuality WOULD compromise that salvific message. -the artist formerly known as sinker

There are several layers to this issue. For one thing, Josef Ratzinger, aka "the Rat", aka Pope Benedict, might have a personal anti-gay bias himself. I don't know for sure, but it's a definite possibility, the guy's a total hard liner. and I'm NOT defending him either, after all I'm an EX-Catholic. There are some serious questions raised now about whether the Catholic Church is revising its teaching that homosexual orientation is not a sin in and of itself. But outside of the gay issue, American seminaries and the American priesthood have a serious problem with a predatory sexual subculture. NPR ran a story last week about a man who entered a seminary near the Bay Area back in 1989 and he was so bombarded with propositions, porn, and invitations from priests to go out to gay clubs with them that he quit the seminary and sued the Jesuits for sexual harrassment. And this guy was gay himself ! The point being that he didn't enter the seminary to meet guys, he could've done that anywhere. He wanted to be a priest. The Vatican realizes that there is a serious problem with predatory practices, combined with a system that excels in stonewalling, moving people around, and fighting tooth & nail to protect their own. It just so happens that this subculture in the priesthood & seminaries is also a male gay culture, due mostly to the supposed celibacy of Catholic priests. Celibacy has never worked, it didn't work in the Middle Ages, when the churches ran their own brothels in the basements of local churches. But agin, in these modern times, the church now has a really serious problem that's been festering for too long. For better or worse, this Pope is too traditional a hardliner to ever admit that celibacy may be a root cause of the problem. But something has to be done. Whether this alienates gays from the Catholic church is another real problem, both for the church and for its faithful gays. The church's faithful gays will not be alienated by any of this but will only see it as a positive step... ask the members of Courage what they think of this... I bet their answers will surprise you. And Pope Benedict is no more a hardliner than JPII. I've met them both. I've read the writings of both. They were very, very close friends, going back to the Second Vatican Council and even before. Ratzinger was JPII's closest advisor. Their view of the church and theology are one in the same. sorry for the bold, I didn't know how else to differential your responses from mine. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Good post I took the Church over 400 years to pardon Galileo, so who knows what might happen a few hundred years from now. The Catholic Church is a bit behind the times so be patient. when one weds itself to "the times" it quickly finds itself divorced when times change. "The times" are fickle, as are the hearts of man. And the Episcopalians are NOT "wide open" to homosexuality... unless you've been living under a rock, there is a hugh chasm in that denomination over that issue right now. It would be more correct to say that a faction of Episcopalians are open to it while another faction is catagorically against it. -the artist formerly known as sinker

i have the 650 and contrary to the second poster, i think it is definately worth the money...you can get one for 299 right now. most of my work documents I can carry on the device which makes travel alot more convenient. email, fast web access, good phone, great camera and video, etc. i love it. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Ha. I never heard him called mjk. I wonder how you deal with that? I mean, plenty of APC and Tool lyrics are not what I would call "Christian Friendly" But that is another topic I guess. no, not christian friendly at all... but I don't know man, it brings me back to my pagan days... not that I revel in them, but it reminds me of the torment, the questions, the struggle. in a weird way, it confirms where I am. also, the obvious struggles with addictions his lyrics talk about resonate w/ me... sober, thirteenth step, etc etc. And besides the fact that his philosophy isn't in step w/ christianity, I can certainly appreciate his musical genious, just as I can see value in kevorkian's art. his lyrics and the music is often very poignant. my wife on the other hand, hates him and his music. ah well... her loss. I once read her the words of Parabola from Tools Lateralus, not telling her where they were from... of course, she thought they were beautiful, which there are... then I played the song and she was shocked they came from "him." you can find beauty anywhere, can't you... Parabola We barely remember who or what came before this precious moment, We are choosing to be here right now. Hold on, stay inside This holy reality, this holy experience. Choosing to be here in This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal All this pain is an illusion. Alive, I In this holy reality, in this holy experience. Choosing to be here in This body. This body holding me. Be my reminder here that I am not alone in This body, this body holding me, feeling eternal All this pain is an illusion. Twirling round with this familiar parable. Spinning, weaving round each new experience. Recognize this as a holy gift and celebrate this chance to be alive and breathing. This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality. Embrace this moment. Remember. We are eternal. All this pain is an illusion. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Ya know what, this is a fundamental difference of opinions and it is not worth the time anymore. Gots me some work to do anyway. *** i agree... we're obviously not communicating our ideas well, sorry... mjk is maynard! c'mon man! your sig line! mjk! one of the larger inconsistencies in my life is that while I am a devout catholic, tool is my favorite band, w/ APC a close second... go figure... -the artist formerly known as sinker