United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Being a faggot is a choice
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/ ... raight-here-are-5-reasons-why/
Published: Feb 12, 2018
Author: ejaneward
Post Date: 2018-02-12 11:57:20 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 25957
Comments: 212
1. Just because an argument is politically strategic, does not make it true: A couple of years ago, the Human Rights Campaign, arguably the country’s most powerful lesbian and gay organization, responded to politician Herman Cain’s assertion that being gay is a choice. They asked their members to “Tell Herman Cain to get with the times! Being gay is not a choice!” They reasoned that Cain’s remarks were “dangerous.” Why? “Because implying that homosexuality is a choice gives unwarranted credence to roundly disproven practices such as ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy. The risks associated with attempts to consciously change one’s sexual orientation include depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.” Image The problem with such statements is that they infuse biological accounts with an obligatory and nearly coercive force, suggesting that anyone who describes homosexual desire as a choice or social construction is playing into the hands of the enemy. In 2012, the extent to which gay biology had become a moral and political imperative came into full view when actress Cynthia Nixon, after commenting to a New York Times Magazine reporter that she “chose” to pursue a lesbian relationship after many years as a content heterosexual, was met with outrage by lesbian and gay activists. As one horrified gay male writer proclaimed, “[Nixon] just fell into a right-wing trap, willingly. …Every religious right hatemonger is now going to quote this woman every single time they want to deny us our civil rights.” Under considerable pressure from lesbian and gay advocacy groups, Nixon recanted her statement a few weeks later, stating instead that she must have been born with bisexual potential. Yes, it’s true that straight people are more tolerant when they believe that lesbian and gay people have no choice in the matter. If homosexual desire is hardwired, then we cannot change it; we must live with this condition, and it would be unfair to judge us for that which we cannot change. By implication, if we could choose, of course we would choose to be heterosexual. Any sane person would choose heterosexuality (not so. see here). And when homophobic people come to the opposite conclusion—that homosexual desire is something we can choose—then they want to help us make the right choice, the heterosexual choice. And they are willing to offer this help in the form of violent shock therapy and other “conversion” techniques. In light of all this, I can absolutely understand why it feels much safer to believe that we are born this way, and then to circulate this idea like our lives depend on it (because, for some people, this truly is a matter of life and death). Indeed, most progressive straight people and most gay and bi people–including Lady Gaga herself–hold the conviction that our sexual orientation is innate. They have taken their lead from the mainstream gay and lesbian movement, which has powerfully advocated for this view. But the fact that the “born this way” hypothesis has resulted in greater political returns for gay and lesbian people doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is true. Maybe, as gay people, we want to get together and pretend it is true because it is politically strategic. That would be interesting. But still, it wouldn’t make the idea true. The science is wrong: People like to cite “the overwhelming scientific evidence” that sexual orientation is biological in nature. But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design. Let’s take one example: In 2000, a team of researchers at UC Berkeley conducted a study in which they found that lesbians were more likely than heterosexual women to have a “masculine” hand structure. Presumably, most men have a longer ring finger than index finger, whereas most women have the opposite (or they have index and ring fingers of the same length). Lesbians, according to this study, are more likely than straight women to have what we might call “male-pattern hands.” The researchers concluded that this finding supports their theory that lesbianism might be caused by a “fetal androgyn wash” in the womb—that is, when female fetuses are exposed to greater levels of a masculinizing hormone, it shows up later in the form of female masculinity: male-pattern hands and… attraction to women. But this study makes the same error that countless others have made: it does not properly distinguish between gender (whether one is masculine or feminine) and sexual orientation (heterosexuality or homosexuality). Simply put, the fact that a woman is “masculine” (itself a social construction) or has been introduced to greater levels of a male hormone need not have anything to do with whether she is attracted to women. We would only assume this if we had already accepted the heteronormative premise that masculine people (or men) are naturally attracted to femaleness and that normal (i.e., feminine) women are naturally attracted to men. Herein lies the bias. Many “masculine” women who are heterosexual (have you been to the rural South?) would like us to know that their gender does not line up with their sexual desire in any predictable way. And many very feminine lesbians would like us to know this too. The bottom line is that ideas about sexual desire are so bound up with misconceptions about gender and with the presumption that heterosexuality is nature’s default, that science has yet to approach this subject in an objective way. For a comprehensive examination of the flaws in the most widely cited research on sexual orientation, see Rebecca Jordan-Young’s brilliant book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (Harvard University Press, 2011). 3. The science is wrong: An even greater problem with the science of sexual orientation is that it seeks to find the genetic causes of gayness, as if we all agree about what gayness is. To say that “being gay” is genetic is to engage in science that hinges on a very historically recent and specifically European-American understanding of what being gay means. In Ancient Greece, sex between elite men and adolescent boys was a common and normative cultural practice. According to historians Michel Foucault and Jonathan Ned Katz, these relationships were considered the most praise-worthy, substantive and Godly forms of love (whereas sex between a man and a woman was, for all intents and purposes, sex between a man and his slave). If men having frequent and sincere sex with one another is what we mean by “gay,” then do we really believe that something so fundamentally different was happening in the Ancient Athenian gene pool? Did some evolutionary occurrence enable Plato’s ancestors to get rid of all of those heterosexual genes? And what about native cultures in which all boys engage in homosexual rites of passage? Do we imagine that we could identify some genetic evidence of propensity to ingest sperm as part of a cultural initiation into manhood? What about all of the cultures around the globe in which male homosexual sex does not signal gayness except for under certain specific circumstances (e.g., you are only gay if you are the receptive sexual partner, or if you are feminine)? And while I am on this subject, what about the fact the United States is precisely one of those cultures? When young college women lick each other’s boobs at frat parties, or when young college men stick their fingers in each other’s butts while being hazed by their frat brothers, we don’t call this gay—we call this “girls gone wild” or “hazing.” My point here is that a lot of people engage in homosexual behavior, but somehow we talk about the genetic origins of homosexuality as if we are clear about who is gay and who is not, and as if it’s also clear that “gay genes” are possessed only by people who are culturally and politically gay (you know, the people who are seriously gay). This is a bit arbitrary, don’t you think? Just 150 years ago, scientists went searching for the physiological evidence that women were hysterical. Hysteria, by Victorian medical definition, meant that a woman’s uterus had become dislodged from its proper location and was floating around her body causing all sorts of trouble—like feminism, and other matters of grave concern. And guess what, they found the evidence, and they published books and articles to prove it. They also looked for and found the evidence that all people of African and Asian ancestry were intellectually and morally inferior to people of European Ancestry. Many books were published dedicated to establishing these obviously absurd and violent beliefs as legitimate and indisputable scientific facts. Similarly, the science of sexual orientation has a long and disturbing history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was believed that homosexuals had beady eyes, particularly angular facial structures, and “bad blood.” Today, we apparently have gender variant fingers and gay brains. Is it possible that people who identify themselves as “gay” in the United States (again, keep in mind that “gay” is a culturally and historically specific concept), share some common physiology? Perhaps. But even if this is so, do we really know why? Indeed, we may find (as Simon LeVay did) that men who identify as gay share a certain trait—a larger VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus, for instance. But how do we know that this “enlargement” is a symptom or cause of their homosexuality, and not, say, a symptom or cause of their general propensity for bravery, creativity, or rebellion? In a homophobic culture, you need some bravery (and other awesome traits) to be queer. Perhaps these personality traits are what are actually being observed under the microscope. And, of course, there is the time-eternal question: why aren’t scientists looking for the genetic causes of heterosexuality? Or masturbation? Or interest in oral sex? The reason is that none of these sex acts currently violate social norms, at least not strongly enough to be perceived as sexual aberrations. But this was not always true. In the 19th century, scientists were interested in the biological origins of the “masturbation perversion.” They were interested because they believed it was pathological, and because they wanted to know whether it could be repaired. At the end of the day, what we can count on is that the science of sexual orientation will produce data that simply mirror the most crass and sexist gender binarisms circulating in the popular imagination. This research will report that women are innately more sexually fluid than men, capable of being turned-on by almost anything and everything (hmmm…. other than in Lisa Diamond’s research, where have I seen that idea before? Ah yes, heterosexual pornography.) It will report that men are sexually rigid, their desires impermeable. It will tell us that straight men simply cannot be aroused by men and that gay men are virtually hardwired to be repulsed by the thought of sex with women. Regardless of what else we might say about the soundness of these studies, what is evident to me is that they have been used to authorize many a straight man’s homophobia, and many a gay man’s misogyny. 4. Just because you have had homosexual or heterosexual feelings for as long as you can remember, does not mean you were born a homosexual or heterosexual. There are many things I have felt or done for as long as I can remember. I have always liked to argue. I have always loved drawing feet and shoes. I have always craved cheddar cheese. I have always felt a strong connection with happy, trashy pop music. These have been aspects of myself for as long as I can remember, and each represents a very strong impulse in me. But was I born with a desire to eat cheddar cheese or make drawings of feet? Are these desires that can be identified somewhere in my body, like on one of my genes? It would be hard to make these claims, because I could have been born and raised in China, let’s say, where cheddar cheese is basically non-existent and would not have been part of my life. And while I may have been born with some general artistic potential, surely our genetic material is not so specific as to determine that I would love to draw platform shoes. The point here is that what we desire in childhood is far more complex and multifaceted than the biological sciences can account for, and this goes for our sexual desires as well. Some basic raw material is in place (like a general potential for creativity), but the details—well, those are ours to discover. 5. Secretly, you already know that people’s sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context. Lots of adults worry that if we allow little boys to wear princess dresses and paint their nails with polish, they might later be more inclined to be gay. Even some liberal parents (including gay and lesbian parents) worry that if they introduce their child to “too much” in the way of queer material, this could be a way of “pushing” homosexuality on them. Similarly, many people worry that if young women are introduced to feminism in college, and if they become too angry or independent, they may just decide to be lesbians. But if we all really believed that sexual orientation was congenital—or present at birth—then no one would ever worry that social influences could have an effect on our sexual orientation. But I think that in reality, we all know that sexual desire is deeply subject to social, cultural, and historical forces. We know that if the world today were a different place, a place where homosexuality was culturally normative (like, say, Ancient Greece), we would see far more people embracing their homosexual desires. And if this were the case, it would have nothing to do with genetics. The concept of “sexual orientation” is itself less than 150 years old, and almost equally recent is the notion that people should partner based on romantic attraction. Most of what feels so natural and unchangeable about our desires—including the bodies and personalities we are attracted to—is conditioned by our respective cultures. The majority of straight American men, for instance, will tell you that they have a strong, visceral aversion to women with bushy armpit hair. But this aversion, no matter how deep it may now run in men’s psyches and no matter how nonnegotiable it may feel, is hardly genetic. Up until the last century, the entire world’s female population had armpit hair, and somehow, heterosexual sex survived. People like to use the failure of “gay conversion” therapies as evidence that homosexuality is innate. First of all, these conversions do not always fail; if you make someone feel disgusted enough by their desires, you can change their desires. Call it a tragedy of repression, or call it a religious awakening—regardless, the point is that we can and do change. For instance, in high school and early in college, my sexual desires were deeply bound up with sexism. I wanted to be a hot girl, and I wanted powerful men to desire me. I was as authentically heterosexual as any woman I knew. But later, several years into my exploration of feminist politics, what I once found desirable (heterosexuality and sexism) became utterly unappealing. I became critical of homophobia and sexism in ways that allowed these forces far less power to determine the shape of my desires. If this had not happened, no doubt I’d be married to a man. And if he wasn’t a complete asshole, I’d probably be happy enough. But instead, I was drawn to queerness for various political and emotional reasons, and from my vantage point today, I believe it to be one of the best desires I ever cultivated. [Does this mean that your daughter may decide to be a lesbian if she takes some women’s studies courses? Yes. Whatcha gonna do now?!] Perhaps most importantly, the fact that we might cultivate or “choose” something doesn’t mean that it is a trivial, temporary, or less a vital part of who we are. For instance, is religion a choice? Certainly it is if we define “choice” as anything that isn’t an immutable part of our physiology. But many religious people would feel profoundly misunderstood and offended if I suggested that their religious beliefs were a phase, an experiment, or a less significant part of who they are then, say, their hair color. Choices are complex. Choices run deep. And yes, choices are both constrained and fluid–just like our bodies. Post script: Ultimately, the terms set forward in the public debate about this subject–biology versus “choice”–are quite limited, mainly because “choice” is not the most useful term for describing all of the possibilities that sit apart from biology. Several social, cultural, and structural factors can shape our embodied desires and erotic possibilities. The fact that these factors are not physiological in origin does not mean that they aren’t coercive or subjectifying, resulting in a real or perceived condition of fixity or “no choice.” We know that social factors also become embodied over time. And yet, I remain somewhat committed to the concept of “choice”–or something like it–to describe the possibility of a critical and reflexive relationship to our sexual desires. Personally, the idea that I don’t have control over who or what I desire is a big turn-off to me, so I am constantly pushing back on what feel like the limits of my own desires. For instance, I went through a period of pushing myself to date femmes because I had some good reasons for being suspicious about why I had ruled them out from my dating pool. When it felt like I could never be nonmonogamous, I made it a goal to at least try. Then when I realized I only really felt attracted to alcoholic rebels, I nipped that in the bud too. Just when I thought I’d never think hairy men were hot, I allowed myself to face my attraction to Javier Bardem. When my tastes and proclivities start to feel like they are solidifying, I get suspicious and disappointed. So, in the interests of full disclosure, I am writing from the perspective of someone who finds sexual fixity pretty uninteresting, and who believes that there are really good feminist and queer reasons to take regular, critical inventory of the parts of our sexuality that we believe we cannot or will not change.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-122) not displayed.
.
.
.
#123. To: Tooconservative (#68)
Obviously, others believe differently. You should publish a book containing the one definitive and true interpretation of the Bible. You're as bad as t-pain-in-the-ass -- the only interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is his interpretation. Everyone else is wrong.
Winter is coming.
I've always thought that I could support any denomination that believed Christ was the savior, even though I didn't agree with every aspect of what they taught. However, I can't support anything to do with the current Pope. He is just a far left secularist. The 7th Day Adventist Church has always said the Papacy was the antichrist. With this Pope, I'm thinking they may be on to something.
LCMS Lutherans like to regurgitate that they're "more catholic than Catholic". But, it's not the same organization it was 40 years ago. After the seminary split in 2001+-, the parrots perched in Saint Loueee seem to be more interested in what's fashionable among the Jesuits, whom they appear to envy and are attempting to emulate. Their iconification of Martin "The Angels Dance when a Jew Farts" Luther as the face of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation was quite telling about the theological flock of wolves that lurks behind the vestigial Roman plumage they love to wear. Meh, stupid priesthood of all believers. Who needs that anyhow.
Wasn't enough for the folks in Japan. The Jesuits deceived their Japanese herd into believing they needed a priest to intercede between herd members and their creator. That's the big LIE Catholics (big C) propagate wherever their empire spreads. Catholic Confession has always been more about intelligence gathering than salvation. The KGB was never so effective in their wildest dreams.
Well, I am not Catholic and haven't attended many Catholic churches, but it seems that confession is becoming a far less common practice these days.
Again. "And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
It's not just confession that the Eunuch Priests have assumed dominion over. Seems to me Akhenaten, the Aten (Sun), God-King - was the proto-Pope. With himself requisitely perched between the sheeple and the object of their worship. Artists throughout history have subtly pointed that out as well - with depictions of the Sun / Hallow adorning the religious art they were mandated to perform.
Really? Did you or did you not state definitively back in September that God was the author of evil, based on the (flattering) address by Isaiah to the Persian king Cyrus, in Isaiah 45:7? You did. You repeatedly insisted that God was the author of evil. redleghunter was there on that thread as was Liberator and Stone. Isaiah 45: In just the last month, you posted speculation that Jesus was an XX male specimen, inheriting no original sin from the Y chromosome the rest of us inherited from Adam. This was hardly original since Augustine had well-known views on the matter of the transmission of original sin and that original sin was transmitted from generation to generation by male semen and that Jesus, born of a virgin and without human sperm, alone was the only male ever born without the curse of original sin. You seemed fascinated with the idea that we might extract cells from the Shroud of Turin and clone our very own hermaphrodite savior. You got all insulted and disappeared when I started accurately pointing out that we do know the genetic results of an intersex male suffering from XX male syndrome. That was on the thread about the still-unknown first-century manuscript of Mark. LF: First-century Mark: More Information! IOW, you stomped off as soon as you realized that I knew you were saying that Jesus might have been our intersexual hermaphrodite savior and a genetic freak who was not really a man at all. In both instances, you love to play the aggrieved party after suggesting dire heresies known from ancient times and then stomp off because "these Prots are just vulgar animals who can't be reasoned with". You're not fooling me or anyone else with this act. We steadily uphold the traditional orthodoxy of Christian doctrine while you invent and expound these batshit-crazy heresies of various sorts and then get mad and stomp off because we won't consider your enlightened ideas.
Yeah, but angels aren't coming while having sex with women to create evil 450' tall giants. If you have something to say, why don't you just skip the passive-aggressive vagueness? It seems to me that you have no interest in this thread, you're just looking for some negative interaction because you're bored. Or are you just quoting from the series Game of Thrones? State a position or begone with your weak trolling.
Maybe the Mormon DMV clerk didn't like some new policy the state implemented or that was dictated by higher courts. Just like Roy Moore refusing to obey the direct orders of higher courts. I can't believe I have to argue with the dumbasses who helped lose us that AL senate seat.
And a real ego deflator... at least among folks for whom the cornerstone of their identity is propped up on the specialtude of their blood line.
You and your fairy tails were the laughing stock of the flight line, weren't you.
Returning to your quote from Catholic.com: Having "no official teaching" is itself a kind of permission for people to think what they want about it. So refusing to take a position is itself taking a permissive position on the matter. The Orthodox, the Jews, and Prots as a whole do not have this permissiveness toward this evil fairy tale which was based on cursed ancient writings. The Jews find it especially offensive.
That is not the Bible. So Catholics use the book of Enoch. Interesting.
The book of Jude also directly quotes the book of Enoch, giving substance to it. I'm merely tracing out the entire lineage of these myths about horny angels and evil giants. And I've done so accurately.
I don't worship the pope who is an extra biblical character. You ignore scriturre when you blaspheme and call him holy father. I was feeling pity for you as vxh savaged you and kicked your ass. Since you took my kind words to you and returned with hateful you're not a Christian for asking questions about your beliefs. We have turned a page and I look at you differently. Maybe you aren't just lost but you are a dark creature.
Jesuit syncretism and accommodation. Helps the eunuchs spread their empire like butter on mlk toast.
You peel back any faith and you find different layers of the onion. I saw all these free will Baptist churches and later realized why they felt the need to call themselves "free will." Still I thought they all accepted Christ. The current Catholic Pope seems to just be interested in leftist dogma, not any actual teachings of Christ.
Then why do you class a man God's name " holy father" You also pray to a woman and that is stupid because she is dead and can't hear. You ignore these contradictions of yourself and you cannot explain it. So again why would we think Catholics are followers of Christ when they ignore simple truths? Now I do believe that if Catholics believe in God and genuinely repent they are saved despite their errors. But you are a smart guy and I do wonder how you get so much wrong. You ignore passages we have pointed out to you many times. You have never pointed out scripture that I have rejected. Yes I have sinned many times. However I am talking about the teaching of scripture and what it means.
Only the Ethiopian Orthodox. It is from copies of their ancient versions in the Ge'ez language that we know of the book of Enoch (other than some references to it among the church fathers). More recently, some fragments of the book of Enoch were recovered from the Dead Sea scrolls from the caves at Qumran. Once the Orthodox, of any stripe, ever gets their hands on something, they will keep and preserve it forever. It is a well-known characteristic of the Orthodox. And the Ethiopian church was cut off when the northern African Christian heartland was lost. We tend to forget that northern Africa was once the breadbasket of ancient Christianity as, for instance, when Augustine was a major theological influence and political power when he was bishop of Hippo. And Hippo was where the bishops met to affirm the official canon of the books of the Bible. Not Rome but Africa. It is a fact about the ancient churches that is worth remembering. The Ethiopian church put into their canon every last book they had in their hands. That doesn't mean they weight them all equally, any more than we do with our canon of 66 books of the bible. Some books are far more important than others.
Like when you said we should transfer our wealth to the rest of the world. That sounds like a commie not a follower of Christ. Also when you said the solution was to murder every right wing person. That was following Christ correct? The more I think back I can remember some pretty evil stuff you said. Like the murdering everyone you talked about. Or you claiming to raise nlizards from the dead.
Hah. Must've missed that. It's consistent with Vicomte13 finding humor in/ridiculing anyone who tries to understand the process by which the French Commie Jesuits "educated" Pol Pot in preparation for his genocidal endeavors. Although the Socialists have been making gains at Annapolis and the other academies for decades, I doubt that's where Comrade Vic learned what he's preaching. More likely a character/mental defect inherited from the tree he fell so close to.
In both instances, you love to play the aggrieved party after suggesting dire heresies known from ancient times and then stomp off because "these Prots are just vulgar animals who can't be reasoned with". You're not fooling me or anyone else with this act. We steadily uphold the traditional orthodoxy of Christian doctrine while you invent and expound these batshit-crazy heresies of various sorts and then get mad and stomp off because we won't consider your enlightened ideas. You said that good. You're ducks are I'll in a row. Vic has to twist scripture and ignore stuff. Then he gets mad as you say. It's ok for him to say we are not followers of Christ. I am a flawed person but I truly believe the Bible is the word of God. So when ai tell him stuff in it and he ignores it and turns all nasty where he even said every right wing person should be murdered.
You may be misled on the subject. I'm not making any definitive claim on any interpretation of Genesis or Book of Enoch, but there is some very compelling evidenece that supports the existence of "Giants." I understand that this is one more subject you easily toss in your circular CT File; And if you don't see it in the New York Times or Smithsonian, I guess it can't be believed? WAIT. It seems the Times DID cover these type of stories once upon a time. And the Smithsonian IS kind of involved -- not in a good way. Here are a few couple of sources to prime your pump. IF you're sincerely interested in the subject. Others might well be. It really is fascinating. http://humansarefree.com/2014/09/the-great-smithsonian-cover-up-18-giant.html https://manvsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/giant-remains-near-cagliari-sardinia/ There are quite a few contemporary researchers delving into this subject. I am quite familiar with Steve Quayle's work. If you feel this is impossible or the spread of hoaxes, so be it. One thing is crystal clear -- some very powerful PTB have actively impeding actual science and history while simultaneous corrupting it. One could point directly at the same Darwinists who've displayed "Lucy" and "Neanderthal Man" at Museums and claimed "Evolution" as "Settled Science."
I saw all these free will Baptist churches and later realized why they felt the need to call themselves "free will." Still I thought they all accepted Christ. The current Catholic Pope seems to just be interested in leftist dogma, not any actual teachings of Christ. There are lots of false teachings in Protestant churches also. One thing I will say for the Catholics and Vic agrees with. They pretty much have the same beliefs and teach from the same materials. I will say that Catholic charities and family values are spot on traditionally. The Catholics have been a great Ally in the pro life cause. Just because I criticize several things about them doesn't mean that I don't respect some of their charitable work. They have made a diffference?. However it is not by works we are saved and their is some real problems in the Catholic Church.
I always saw that attributed to influential French intellectuals from the circle of French existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre. I don't think Pol Pot was attending Notre Dame or hanging out with French Catholics. At least, I don't recall that.
Natural Law. The universe is ordered. "Let there be light" is consistent with today's quantum cosmology, where at the moment before the "big bang" there was nothing, and a moment later - all the energy in the universe, was. Pretty good guess for a bunch of nomadic sheep herders. Likewise, their socio-biological model of human proliferation: Male and Female. Who is the architect of that order, why are we separated them, and how did they restore our relationship with them? iMHO, those are the essential, substantive, questions of the "Christian", biblical, worldview.
At first I wasn't going to participate in this thread. Then I thought I'll make one comment. Then another and another.
He attended a Jesuit Catholic school as a child. There are many sources saying he went to Paris to study. The name of the institution, however, I have not been able to find.
I see know reason why it has to be.
Uh-huh. The museums and archaeologists are all just hiding the evidence. They're so afraid of upsetting the public. Just another giant conspiracy theory. I did notice in the comments: Steve Quayle is the source of a lot of this stuff. And we notice the currency of these ideas about horny angels having Nephalim giant babies with human women.
Most any child in Cambodia at the time would have attended a Jesuit-run elementary school if they received any formal education at all. But the Jesuits never taught what Pol Pot grew up to practice. This was well before any liberation theology among Roman clergy (which was mostly found in South America anyway). He attended the Sorbonne (at the time, the name of the main building of the ancient University of Paris) on scholarship, apparently to study radio and electronics. He dropped out. However, he did absorb much of the French existential philosophy of Sartre and his associates back in the day. Pol Pot got much of this via another Asian, Khieu Samphan, who advocated ruthless communist doctrine and the necessity of policy similar to that of Mao Tse Tung and his Cultural Revolution which killed millions in China. These unabashed Maoists wanted to promulgate such massacres around the world, in former colonial client states such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Africa, etc. And Paris was no stranger to the idea of mass murder of counter-revolutionary forces, as they held the original mass murders of the nobility, monarchy, and bourgeoisie back during the French Revolution (Reign of Terror). Baltimore Sun: A terrifying synthesis of forces spawned Pol Pot's ugly regime, 1998
Now I'm wondering if I have any cheese/sour cream potato chips left in the pantry. : )
I assure you, I've never met another Catholic who says some of these nutty things he tries to peddle to us. BTW, I just retrieved my potato chips! You're to blame. LOL
It seems the Jesuits learned (or at least practiced) quite a bit about Communal/Centrally Banked farming down among the native bipedal cattle of Paraguay... who, oddly, were never empowered with quite enough education to actually run the farms autonomously, themselves. Got Mlk?
That's a good article / find. Thanks.
Touché. : ) I don't find the old Jesuit Reductions of Paraguay as sinister as you do. You might want to read up on them more. The Jesuits were trying to protect the natives from being enslaved by the colonial regime and to Christianize and educate them. I'm no Jesuit fan but the Reductions were not villainous IMO. Those Jesuits were decent enough and not related to the later commie-influenced liberation theology types (like the murdered bishop, Oscar Romero who was adopted by the commie Catholics as their hero despite his rejection of their ideology and was then canonized by Pope Frank) or the many daft Lefty bishops like Pope Frank himself.
Gee what a surprise... Speaking of trees and apples... Cluster frack; Monumental, 1 each.
Comments (163 - 212) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#124. To: Tooconservative (#111)
That would make the average height of the Nephalim 450 feet tall.
#125. To: Vicomte13 (#116)
I'll stick with Catholic love. It's better.
#126. To: no gnu taxes (#125)
(Edited)
I've always thought that I could support any denomination that believed Christ was the savior, even though I didn't agree with every aspect of what they taught.
#127. To: no gnu taxes (#125)
(Edited)
believed Christ was the savior
#128. To: VxH (#127)
Catholic Confession has always been more about intelligence gathering than salvation.
#129. To: misterwhite, tooconservative (#124)
(Edited)
Winter is coming
www.kiplingsociety .co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
#130. To: no gnu taxes (#128)
(Edited)
confession is becoming a far less common practice these days.
#131. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, Liberator, A K A Stone (#109)
(Edited)
I am willing to discuss the Nephilim from both a Western Biblical and an Eastern Canon (the Ethiopian Orthodox include the book of Enoch in their canon). I'm willing to have sober conversation about anything.
1Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;
2I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
3And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
4For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
#132. To: misterwhite (#124)
(Edited)
Winter is coming.
#133. To: Tooconservative, vicomte13, IfAkhenatenHadAVicSun (#131)
You're not fooling me or anyone else with this act.
#134. To: misterwhite (#120)
Why would a Mormon take a job where their sole duty was to issue driver's licenses contrary to God's will?
#135. To: Tooconservative (#95)
Of course, it doesn't include 200 horny Watcher angels having evil giant babies to devour the earth. So that's kind of a literary letdown.
#136. To: Vicomte13 (#119)
(Edited)
#137. To: VxH (#135)
The Church has no official teaching on this passage
...
#138. To: Vicomte13 (#114)
In the Ethiopian canon is the book of Enoch,
#139. To: Vicomte13 (#117)
You said to stick to the Bible. Now you're quoting the book of Enoch.
#140. To: Vicomte13 (#116)
don't see anything Christlike about any of you.
#141. To: Tooconservative (#137)
(Edited)
Having "no official teaching"....
#142. To: A K A Stone (#138)
#143. To: Vicomte13 (#116)
Follow Christ, yeah, I do that
#144. To: A K A Stone (#138)
(Edited)
So Catholics use the book of Enoch. Interesting.
#145. To: Vicomte13 (#116)
You people frankly disgust me. I don't care who you SAY you follow. I listen to your words and hear what you say and how you treat people. You are vile, mean spirited and undiscerning. The lack of discernment is not a terrible fault, but being as nasty about it as you people are, and then claiming it to be "love" - if THAT is "Christian love", then you can keep it. I want none of it. I'll stick with Catholic love. It's better.
#146. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#145)
(Edited)
Also when you said the solution was to murder every right wing person.
#147. To: Tooconservative (#131)
Jesus might have been our intersexual hermaphrodite savior and a genetic freak who was not really a man at all.
#148. To: Tooconservative (#111)
Where are all of these giant skeletons then? The ones we know of were phonies cooked up by charlatans to try to create a tourist trap or a sideshow exhibit in some sleazy circus.
#149. To: no gnu taxes, vicomte13 (#142)
You peel back any faith and you find different layers of the onion.
#150. To: VxH (#146)
It's consistent with Vicomte13 finding humor in/ridiculing anyone who tries to understand the process by which the French Commie Jesuits "educated" Pol Pot in preparation for his genocidal endeavors.
#151. To: no gnu taxes, A K A Stone (#142)
You peel back any faith and you find different layers of the onion.
#152. To: Tooconservative (#150)
#153. To: Tooconservative (#150)
I don't think Pol Pot was attending Notre Dame or hanging out with French Catholics. At least, I don't recall that.
#154. To: VxH (#151)
(Edited)
"Let there be light" is consistent with today's quantum cosmology, where at the moment before the "big bang" there was nothing, and a moment later - all the energy in the universe, was.
#155. To: Liberator (#148)
https://manvsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/giant-remains-near-cagliari-sardinia/
I’d also like to ad that these giants aren’t aliens from other planets, they’re the fallen angels who came down to earth & mated with earth women, and their offspring were the giants. Gen: 6:4 tells us about them. They’re mentioned a lot in the Bible with different names, such as the Anakin & other names. Steve Quayle has all that info on his site: stevequayle.com.
#156. To: VxH (#153)
(Edited)
There are many sources saying he went to Paris to study. The name of the institution, however, I have not been able to find.
#157. To: A K A Stone (#152)
At first I wasn't going to participate in this thread. Then I thought I'll make one comment. Then another and another.
#158. To: A K A Stone (#147)
It's ok for him to say we are not followers of Christ.
#159. To: Tooconservative (#156)
(Edited)
But the Jesuits never taught what Pol Pot grew up to practice.
=================================
#160. To: Tooconservative (#156)
He attended the Sorbonne
#161. To: VxH (#159)
(Edited)
Got Mlk?
#162. To: Tooconservative (#156)
He attended the Sorbonne
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]