Comments Thread For: Orlando Cruz: Salido Had His Time, Now It's My Time

[Ivansmamma]

I don't think that rejection and hate, and thus the position that ****sexuality is wrong partially because others are bothered by it, can be defended any more trenchantly than racism and sexism can, whether from a religious or non-religious position. Certain portions of the Bible (just as one example) advocate slavery, mutilating women who intervene in conflicts involving their husbands, and so forth. No one accepts these practices as justifiable, meaning that people selectively extract religious support for positions. This implies that the religious text alone isn't enough to justify a position; other factors are being used by people to shape their principles that ostensibly just stem from religion.

The bible as all religious text's are in need of intrepretation. The catholic church which is responsible for the collection of texts know as the bible has done this for 1600 years. The church was given the mission to teach all nations, to do this it needs to be in possesion of truth. The church was not given the authority to change the teaching of christ so the permanence of the teaching is the guarantee of it's authenticity.

I think those appealing to the instructions of the church are naive, and I don't believe in strict adherence to a philosophy or practice simply because an authority believes it's the right one to hold (a position should be judged based on its content and not on its source). That gives far too little weight to good reasoning and far too much weight to the flawed positions of those in power and those who lived thousands of years ago in a very different period.

Yes, it would be far to much power if the authority was entitled to change the teaching after their own head. The chuch mission is to preserve and hand down the teaching from generation to generation so all can take part of the word of christ.

****sexuality obviously has evolutionary utility, as it's existed for thousands of years. Whether it's natural or unnatural is irrelevant though, as the origin of something doesn't bear on whether it is right or wrong. For example, disease is natural and vaccinations aren't; illiteracy is natural and literacy isn't; having to walk miles to get to a location is natural and transporting more quickly by vehicle isn't.

Vaccinations and literacy are inventions of the human mind which amplify mans natural ability to heal and to communicate. It's not unnatural as it is not contrary to the intended use of the ability for the body to regenerate or communicate with other people. Driving a car is also not unnatural as it only enhances mans ability to travel. Cutting off your legs to fit in a smaller car would be unnatural. Do you see the difference?

The people who excoriate Cruz, abhor his lifestyle, and oppose him being open and proud about it are ironically the one's motivating the so-called promotion of ****sexuality. Many ****sexuals are open and proud about their sexuality because others devalue them and treat them as lesser-beings because of it. This makes sexual orientation the causal agent in the prejudice and discrimination they often encounter, so being open and proud of their sexuality is a way for them to combat that type of bigotry and to assert that they are not lesser being simply because they love members of the same sex. If ****sexuality weren't stigmatized and if ****sexuals had the same rights as heterosexuals, it's unlikely as many of them would feel the need to defensively stand up and express pride about who they're attracted to.

It's sad if people hate gay people. Part of the problem is many identify with their sin saying "im a ****sexual" instead of saying "i have an inclination to commit the sin of ****sexual acts" so when the sin is criticised they feel personally attacked. The teaching of the church is that ****sexual acts are wrong, lying about it to spare peoples feelings would not be charitable or in accordance with truth.

[Jupiter Maximus]

And what's wrong with being open and proud about who one is? Would it be wrong to be openly proud about being black? Would it be wrong to be openly proud about being tall?

In this country only ppl that it is wrong to proud of their color are white people

[BoxingKnowItAll]

Little evidence suggests that ****sexuality is inherently more destructive to one's life than bisexuality or heterosexuality are...

If you'll bother to do a little REAL research you will clearly see that the ****sexual life style is very destructive indeed. ****sexuals are significantly more likely to contract HIV/Aids and other STD/STI's than heterosexuals.

In fact according to a report from NBC news there is a deadly meningitis outbreak THAT IS ONLY AFFECTING GAY MEN: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/deadly...lug=healthmain

Know your facts and do your research before you start posting misleading and inaccurate information like this.

[Levity]

The bible as all religious text's are in need of intrepretation. The catholic church which is responsible for the collection of texts know as the bible has done this for 1600 years. The church was given the mission to teach all nations, to do this it needs to be in possesion of truth. The church was not given the authority to change the teaching of christ so the permanence of the teaching is the guarantee of it's authenticity.

This response raises a few issues. First, if the meaning derived from the Bible is based on interpretation, it is based on a subjective, psychological component. That leaves plenty of room for bias, distortion, and differences in what meaning is extracted; what is said to be meant is then by no means unassailable, absolutely true, and immutable.

Second, the permanence of a message doesn't ensure it's truth or merit. All it establishes is that the message has been communicated continually and consistently, but it may still a flawed message and what's to say that the prevailing teachings won't significantly change in the future?

Finally, I see little reason to accept the views espoused in the Bible simply because they came from a certain figure. If right and wrong are simply what that figures says they are, would murdering random children be right if advocated by Christ? If not, morality is based on other considerations that may outweigh those of religious authorities.

Vaccinations and literacy are inventions of the human mind which amplify mans natural ability to heal and to communicate. It's not unnatural as it is not contrary to the intended use of the ability for the body to regenerate or communicate with other people. Driving a car is also not unnatural as it only enhances mans ability to travel. Cutting off your legs to fit in a smaller car would be unnatural. Do you see the difference?

Natural means artificial, or manufactured. Things like cars, vaccinations, and literacy do not exist on their own in nature; they exist only when humans intervene in ways that cause deviations from what would occur if everything were left to unfold without intervention. Without that intervention, disease would be far more prevalent today, no vehicles would exist, and no one could read. I don't see why sexual orientation can be distinguished from these other cases on the basis of them existing in the mind, as attraction involves a heavy psychological component too.

Moreover, natural and improvement are not synonyms; whether something is natural or unnatural has NOTHING to do with whether it results in a perceived improvement. That is getting at whether it has beneficial impacts, not whether it is something that was manufactured or exists independently in nature.

If natural is meant as synonymous for good/beneficial/improvement and unnatural is mean as synonymous for bad/deleterious/regression, it just goes back to the issue of having to justify why ****sexuality fits the latter definitions in the first place.

It's sad if people hate gay people. Part of the problem is many identify with their sin saying "im a ****sexual" instead of saying "i have an inclination to commit the sin of ****sexual acts" so when the sin is criticised they feel personally attacked. The teaching of the church is that ****sexual acts are wrong, lying about it to spare peoples feelings would not be charitable or in accordance with truth.

I think it's common for people to use global insults toward a ****sexual rather than just toward their actions. For example, someone on the first page labelled Cruz a 'disgusting' individual.

But I fail to see why ****sexuality should be considered sinful simply because the church teaches it. Those teachings are based on subjective interpretations of religious texts also seem to explicitly advocate slavery and dismemberment (e.g. cutting off hands) that we don't seem compelled to tolerate now. To me, religious justification doesn't go into enough detail about why ****sexuality should be considered morally abhorrent, and I don't think it should be followed simply because of source of the teachings.

[Levity]

If you'll bother to do a little REAL research you will clearly see that the ****sexual life style is very destructive indeed. ****sexuals are significantly more likely to contract HIV/Aids and other STD/STI's than heterosexuals.

In fact according to a report from NBC news there is a deadly meningitis outbreak THAT IS ONLY AFFECTING GAY MEN: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/deadly...lug=healthmain

Know your facts and do your research before you start posting misleading and inaccurate information like this.

And you should know what 'inherently' means before responding like this. Just as black men committing more violent crimes than other groups doesn't mean they are inherently more violent than those groups are, ****sexuals being more likely to catch certain diseases does not mean that ****sexuality is inherently more destructive overall (rates of STDs are not the totality of whether one group lives more destructively than another group does) than heterosexuality is. What is more likely is that a complex chain of social economic factors, which are not inherent, are largely responsible for these trends.

For example, it has often been found that gay men use alcohol and drugs at a higher rate than do straight men, which increases the likelihood of catching an STD. This has largely been attributed to psychosocial variables such as stress levels, which is elevated in part due to the stigma associated with their sexual orientation. Moreover, they may be ashamed of disclosing their sexuality in certain contexts and this may decrease the probability of them using health services and seeking information that could help them lower their chances of catching certain diseases.

I think this misses the point though. I don't see why Cruz or his lifestyle, in which he may not use drugs or have unsafe sex, should be considered disgusting simply because gay men, on average, are more likely to catch certain diseases than straight men are. The overwhelming majority of gay men never catch an STD, and there are huge numbers of straight people who have unsafe sex and engage in other dangerous practices, sometimes at higher rates than ****sexuals do.

[PR ESQ.]

****phobic bigot trolls dominant NSB/BS.... laughable comical ***s. shameful shiets...

WAR CRUZ!

[Ivansmamma]

This response raises a few issues. First, if the meaning derived from the Bible is based on interpretation, it is based on a subjective, psychological component. That leaves plenty of room for bias, distortion, and differences in what meaning is extracted; what is said to be meant is then by no means unassailable, absolutely true, and immutable.

Second, the permanence of a message doesn't ensure it's truth or merit. All it establishes is that the message has been communicated continually and consistently, but it may still a flawed message and what's to say that the prevailing teachings won't significantly change in the future?

Finally, I see little reason to accept the views espoused in the Bible simply because they came from a certain figure. If right and wrong are simply what that figures says they are, would murdering random children be right if advocated by Christ? If not, morality is based on other considerations that may outweigh those of religious authorities.

The message is not derived from the bible. The bible was put together by the church over threehundred years after the church coming into existence. The teaching of christ is revealed by christ to the apostels which created the catholic tradition to pass on the teaching. The bible is part of that tradition but it's not the basis. The basis is the divinely revealed truth which having christ as it's author is absolute. Man can neither change it or come up with it from reason alone as the reason of man is flawed and subjective but as man is created in the image of god he is capable of reciving and accepting the truth revealed by god.

God which is absolute reality incarnated into man so that by entering into the relative god could establish a way for man to pass from the relative to the absolute through his incarnation Jesus Christ which is both man and god. In this way the mind of man can pass from subjectivity to objectivity with the help of god.

Of course none of this make sense if we just view christ as an ordinary man among others with his own subjective philosphy.

Natural means artificial, or manufactured. Things like cars, vaccinations, and literacy do not exist on their own in nature; they exist only when humans intervene in ways that cause deviations from what would occur if everything were left to unfold without intervention. Without that intervention, disease would be far more prevalent today, no vehicles would exist, and no one could read. I don't see why sexual orientation can be distinguished from these other cases on the basis of them existing in the mind, as attraction involves a heavy psychological component too.

Moreover, natural and improvement are not synonyms; whether something is natural or unnatural has NOTHING to do with whether it results in a perceived improvement. That is getting at whether it has beneficial impacts, not whether it is something that was manufactured or exists independently in nature.

If natural is meant as synonymous for good/beneficial/improvement and unnatural is mean as synonymous for bad/deleterious/regression, it just goes back to the issue of having to justify why ****sexuality fits the latter definitions in the first place.

That may be the way the word natural is used today but it's not the original meaning of the word or the one used by the church and it's philosophers. The word natural is used in the meaning of "in accordance with the intended usage".
Speaking of natural as in nature untouched by man is futile from this perspective as nature and all the world was created for man to use (but not abuse).

God created sex for man and woman so they could love and support each other and create life together therby participating in gods act of creation and learn to love god through loving each other and their children. Man having sex with another man does not contribute to this. It's not god's intended use of sexuality but a corruption of sexuality. This is the teaching of the church.

I think it's common for people to use global insults toward a ****sexual rather than just toward their actions. For example, someone on the first page labelled Cruz a 'disgusting' individual.

Saying that he is disgusting because of his inclination to sodomy is wrong as we are all sinners in one way or another but he could be called disgusting for publicly promoting a sinfull and bad lifestyle.

But I fail to see why ****sexuality should be considered sinful simply because the church teaches it. Those teachings are based on subjective interpretations of religious texts also seem to explicitly advocate slavery and dismemberment (e.g. cutting off hands) that we don't seem compelled to tolerate now. To me, religious justification doesn't go into enough detail about why ****sexuality should be considered morally abhorrent, and I don't think it should be followed simply because of source of the teachings.

The philosophical and theological grounds which i have breifly mentioned are discussed in detail by a myriad of theologicans and philosopers among them Saint Thomas Aquinas but i guess it's not a subject that could be made justice in a few lines in a boxing forum and better left for more learned people than i to try to explain.

[xcaret IV]

salido is gonna tax that azz..... cruz is excited...

[Levity]

The message is not derived from the bible. The bible was put together by the church over threehundred years after the church coming into existence. The teaching of christ is revealed by christ to the apostels which created the catholic tradition to pass on the teaching. The bible is part of that tradition but it's not the basis. The basis is the divinely revealed truth which having christ as it's author is absolute. Man can neither change it or come up with it from reason alone as the reason of man is flawed and subjective but as man is created in the image of god he is capable of reciving and accepting the truth revealed by god.

God which is absolute reality incarnated into man so that by entering into the relative god could establish a way for man to pass from the relative to the absolute through his incarnation Jesus Christ which is both man and god. In this way the mind of man can pass from subjectivity to objectivity with the help of god.

Of course none of this make sense if we just view christ as an ordinary man among others with his own subjective philosphy.



That may be the way the word natural is used today but it's not the original meaning of the word or the one used by the church and it's philosophers. The word natural is used in the meaning of "in accordance with the intended usage".
Speaking of natural as in nature untouched by man is futile from this perspective as nature and all the world was created for man to use (but not abuse).

God created sex for man and woman so they could love and support each other and create life together therby participating in gods act of creation and learn to love god through loving each other and their children. Man having sex with another man does not contribute to this. It's not god's intended use of sexuality but a corruption of sexuality. This is the teaching of the church.



Saying that he is disgusting because of his inclination to sodomy is wrong as we are all sinners in one way or another but he could be called disgusting for publicly promoting a sinfull and bad lifestyle.



The philosophical and theological grounds which i have breifly mentioned are discussed in detail by a myriad of theologicans and philosopers among them Saint Thomas Aquinas but i guess it's not a subject that could be made justice in a few lines in a boxing forum and better left for more learned people than i to try to explain.

I think we're increasingly moving away from the Cruz issue to issues about theology and religious philosophy that are more suitable for a different forum or thread, so I'll try to make this my last post in this part of our dialogue.

The reasoning you've expounded presupposes God's (for convenience I'll use 'him/his' synonymously, though I understand those may not be the most felicitous terms) existence. I dispute his existence for several reasons, and by extension I dispute the claims about what he created and intended, and the corollaries of those claims (e.g. the criteria to judge whether something is natural). This means I think most of the arguments above are predicated on a false authority and that ethical frameworks and positions on specific issues must explain independently of that authority why something is right or wrong. I don’t see strong grounds aside from religious appeals to deem ****sexuality wrong, or to consider negative views towards ****sexuality more justifiable than racism or sexism.

Even if we assume that God is the ultimate moral arbiter, it raises a number of problems in my view. It suggests that morality is arbitrary—if God is the standard how does he select what is right and wrong; it means that God could command or declare moral any act and we'd be morally obligated to do so—torturing children would be morally acceptable if God ordered it; it implies that God's goodness is determined simply by him following his own choices--he's good if he practices what he preaches, whatever it may be; and it suggests that morality may be capricious if God has free will—what is right one day could be wrong the next if God decides so.

As for the textual issues, I didn't mean to imply that religious texts or the Bible more specifically are the grounds from which religious teachings first stemmed, but they are a reflection of those teachings and a source of meaning for people today—meaning that is reflected in a range of ways, from how they treat others and interpret events to what they impart to their children and hope for.

I think, however, that the texts reflecting those teaching are ambiguous to the extent that one's reading of them, and thus the meaning they extract from them, is highly subjective and susceptible to distortion, bias, and idiosyncrasy. I can also find countless verses in such texts that advocate barbarous practices, such as slavery and mutilating women for interfering in their husbands matters, that no one tolerates today, suggesting that even people appealing to God as the ultimate moral standard employ a basis for morality independent of him; this implies that morality doesn't require God, and it’s acceptable to look beyond him when making ethical judgements.