Sunday, April 7, 2013

... to two videos of Zinnia Jones.

I "If you think I am wrong, that just means I am right ..."* - Well, you are right on that one. I disagree with you, ergo you are right people disagree with you. Are you very sure every Christian who brought up the prophecy of people disagreeing with the Bible actually means the fulfilment of that prophecy is the primary evidence for Christianity?

The Bible actually predicts lots more. "They will hate you and persecute you" - wait that was not the Bible, word of God, but Jesus, Word of God with capital W who predicted that.

Now, neither Quran nor Confucius predicts universal persecutions against Ummah or Confucian nation. And none of them has been under attack everywhere except nooks and crannies of middle of nowhere, everywhere important, for 280 years on a row, like Catholic Christians from 33 to 313 (oh, sorry, Armenia went from persecution to acceptance in 301), nor has either of them taken its actual headquarters in the headquarters of its persecutors.

Confucians were persecuted in Peking under Mao? Fine, they make Taiwan the new Confucian world. But St Peter went from Jerusalem where he was persecuted to Rome where he was persecuted and killed upside down on a cross. And so far the Moslems have never been persecuted in Mecca, nor does Christianity prophecy they will be that there.

Heard of strawman ...?

Funny thing is, I have been repeatedly persecuted as a gay person, not because I am gay, but because I am Christian. Not over in your place, but in gay friendly Sweden and gay friendly France.

Seems some people persecuting Christians will rather pose as - later repentant - gay bashers than admit they persecute Christianity. Is that because they are afraid of seeming to fulfill some kind of prophecy?

II Ouch ... "it is not inferior to support starving children in India to support starving children in America" he said** (yes, it's a he despite being dressed up as La Cage aux Folles) ... if you live in America it is. If you live in India the reverse is.

So you want to support children in India rather than children in America?

Right ... and for the reason that Salvation Army is "overtly homophobic" ... <sarcasm>*right*!</sarcams>

Now, if you have ever heard of the laws of Manush ... that is a collection where the word homophobia really has a meaning. You know that Krafft-Ebbing guy who wrote a lot of technical terms, including ones about your condition? Now, he considers a man letting himself be ridden by a woman as partly homosexual. He has not got it from the Bible. He may well have got such a hunch from the laws of Manush. Now, that may sound a bit homophobic to you. To me too. And, for the record, the laws of Manush are from *India*. Good luck finding a non-homophobic charity over there. Or actually I should not wish you good luck on that one, it was ironic.

A charity is there to give some comfort to the poor. If the poor are homophobic, including actively homosexuals in the personnel will hardly be to their highest personal and subjective comfort.

Now, if you want Western charities in India, there is of course Mother Theresa - the Missionaries of Charity are also helping homeless in Denmark, Germany and France (I have tried Kopenhagen, Hamburg, Marseille and Paris). Even US, possibly - as well as India. But you were against homophobic charities right? Now, Mother Theresa of Calcutta has been accused by some of modernism in some respects, but she hardly allowed lesbians among the sisters. Living among your own sex only for life is in the Catholic Church supposed to be an aid to chastity, not a temptation against it. I know, for a certain period certain people got away with the opposite. Sad story.

Actually one reason there are charities is so that homosexuals and other people who might make people ill at ease if giving them food directly should be able to give alms anyway.

But of course, you do have a point that it is one's own choice whether to give to a charity rather than to another.

It is even one's own choice whether one gives to a charity or gives personally - in part depending on time and opportunity.

Some employees are not allowed to give either money or food or coffee to beggars while on work.

Some have a queer feeling when around beggars. And so on.

So, some people are left with little opportunity other than giving to charities when it comes to giving alms, if they want to give such at all.

Precisely as some families have no big choice for homeschooling, but the choice between a municipal school and leaving children illiterate (as if that were a totally bad thing), and by many legislations one of those options is cut off in theory. Though some parents manage to send their children to school every day when legally required to and see how they manage to remain illiterate anyway. Just a few teachers watching the carreer as illiterates with a few more worries.

But basically, one is naturally as free to give alms personally as one is to homeschool.

But the injunction to give charities to India rather than America, and that for the precise reason to avoid giving to "overtly homophobic" charities ... give me a break!

And the trolly problem is such a sham philosophy.

One man dying accidentally is less of a calamity than five people dying accidentally.

One innocent man actively killed by one other is less of a crime than this other man actively killing five innocent people.

But killing one innocent is not allowed to do in order to save five innocent from a pure accident any more than to save one from it.

So how come that neither the one man nor the five men on the tracks can move quickly away? How about getting to the track where the one or five can get away and blow the whistle so hard that they do and get all saved with any luck?

As for trying to fell so strong and big a man as to stop a train with his corpse, that is hardly realistic, and if he is mean he fells you onto the track while defending himself./HGL



No comments: