| Subject: Bullshit |
Author:
BS
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:53:58 08/14/03 Thu
In reply to:
will
's message, "天主教煽動社會反同志" on 12:41:38 08/11/03 Mon
(1) There may be two kind of morality in the world. The morality of Catholics and Christians(a religious morality), and the morality of ordinary people(an ordianry morality). The Catholics and Christians' morality derives from the norm created by them inside their sphere, a sphere of the same religion.
It is difficult to understand why they have been keeping influence outside their sphere, from time to time, from history to present, from politics to daily lifes. If it is not related to politics, then it must be a missionary function of them, to preach all people out there to be their members, and mold all their minds into a same format according to their preferences in respect of religion, morality, behavioural assessment etc....
Strictly categorizing all types of religion, we could have Buddhist morality, Muslim morality etc... Notwithstanding the religion- fanatics ' morality in the area preoccuppied with what we called terrorists. Once all of such fractions of religion come and compete for extending their influence, it could turn out to be world of disaster. Why don't we take a little prayer to live comfortably with each other, and should the dorminant religion - Catholicism and Christianity take the first very step to lead us coping with it, rather than stiring in the troubled water.
An ultimate world should not be a world of one relgion & one sexuality, endurance , acceptance of the diversity
of one more form of religion , say, Buddism, Muslim and one more form of mode of love, say , homosexuality, could be essential to make it a conglomerate. That's the inorne right of humanity of which nobody can challenge . Therefore, the leader of the Catholic and Christian world should learn to respect and accept .
(Don't try to interpret what Jesus should have said, it could be a wrong interpretation, and also, it doesn't apply to outsiders who's not in the sphere of that religion. . )
(2) If Catholic and Chrsitian leaders are so concerned about the foundation of marriage, i would suggest they work on the imminent , influential one as to the widespreading concubine-issues in H.K. before they attempt on the less imminent, & influential one like the homosexual problem. As we could observe, it is no longer a
terrifying issue to know a H.K. husband keeping a concubine in the mainland . At least it is not that terrifying to the outspoken religious leaders as those come
from homosexuality. Does it mean that the line of tolerance is that loose as to the concubine-issue but that strict to homosexuality? We are not going to put these two
problems into the same basket, however, what's stubbling marriage should be the previous one. Therefore, to work logically , and effectively, i suggest the Catholic and Christian community think seriously about that , and work on a genuine plan for consolidating marriage. Of course, we all know that , the majority group engaged in that business (keeping concubines in mainland) is harder for them to tackle than a minority group as the homosexuals, however, it doesn't mean that they should stop working on concubine issues to focus on homosexuals.
(3) To the ordinary people, making birth to a new life is no longer a mission of marriage as Catholicism and Christianity has been preaching. So as it is widely accepted that making love is not for making new life but for love & pleasurement. As the rationale of those relgious people could not take the proposition of making love is for love & pleasurement, naturally they could not accept homosexual love, in which we shall find nothing related to "born a baby" at all. It is horrable to know that Catholicism and Christianity take homosexual love as
something having all linked to sex but love. The incapability of homosexuals to born a baby does not in itself exclude the wish of them to do so. There are tones of homosexuals who base their relation on love, the kind of love could be far more genuine & consistent than heterosexual ones. As simple as that , if one likes tea but doesn't understand why the other likes coffee, it doesn't neccessarily make tea the most upright & delicious beverage at once, & the coffee a nasty & tasteless one. Respect is only presence when the one who likes tea does not seize the cup of coffee and pour it over . I whole-heartedly hope that they would respect homosexual culture.
If not, learn to do it right now.
(3)We should never assess if a mode of love is valid or not by (a) merely its dissenting from our one. (ie. not our type. ) (b) its not facilitating fertility - (ie can born a baby ) .
We should see if there is the presence of love & if harm happens on others in validating the mode of love.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 