Another bible post on Gaga's Instagram

[13VictorC 1,102]

9 hours ago, Ferrer Zorola said:

I don't get it... what tweet? 

Gaga's Tweet to her Instagram post mentions a user that advertises penile growth:

Which  do  I  use ?

[gagata 695]

Oh, becky 

[Ferrer Zorola 3,966]

2 hours ago, 13VictorC said:

Gaga's Tweet to her Instagram post mentions a user that advertises penile growth:

Which  do  I  use ?

LMAAAO I thought catholink was catholic link's twitter account lmao 

[MelbHawker 6,583]

22 hours ago, SKANK said:

The Catholic Church's persecution and demonetization of homosexuals is not ancient history. They may have ditched the burning pyre, but the Church's official stance on homosexuality today is that it is a disorder. Just because the Catholic Church is a religious organization and not a secular organization doesn't mean it should be spared criticism over it's teachings.

Expecting a gay rights activist to practice her Christian faith at a church that does not dehumanize homosexuality is not stupid, or simple minded.

 

.. & who says the Church's official stance is what all members of Catholic faith believe? You can be catholic and be a gay activist. People are entitled enough to define their respective religions for themselves. What defines a religion in this day and age? Is it the church itself? There's something to think about. There isn't a right or wrong answer in my opinion. 

I'm Christian Orthodox. My religion in it's origins disapproves of homosexuality. Today, the priests and the 'thumpers' of my religion who I've conversed with have observed a change in the beliefs of people toward homosexuality. My grandmother, for example, still thinks being gay is a sin but has also said 'if a gay person is happy and in love, then who am I to judge them?' Times are changing. Homophobia will never cease to exist. Ever. It'll be found in humans regardless of whether they are religious or not. 

As for Gaga. She is entitled and free to be Catholic and support LGBT people around the world. Just because she's of the faith, doesn't mean her morals, values and beliefs reflect that of her faiths. No-ones going to look at the church and think 'they view it as this, so does Gaga'. That's the way I see it. I applaud her for mixing her faith and homosexuality together. 

Each to their own though. 


 

[SKANK 14,288]

30 minutes ago, MelbHawker said:

.. & who says the Church's official stance is what all members of Catholic faith believe? You can be catholic and be a gay activist. People are entitled enough to define their respective religions for themselves. What defines a religion in this day and age? Is it the church itself? There's something to think about. There isn't a right or wrong answer in my opinion. 

I'm Christian Orthodox. My religion in it's origins disapproves of homosexuality. Today, the priests and the 'thumpers' of my religion who I've conversed with have observed a change in the beliefs of people toward homosexuality. My grandmother, for example, still thinks being gay is a sin but has also said 'if a gay person is happy and in love, then who am I to judge them?' Times are changing. Homophobia will never cease to exist. Ever. It'll be found in humans regardless of whether they are religious or not. 

As for Gaga. She is entitled and free to be Catholic and support LGBT people around the world. Just because she's of the faith, doesn't mean her morals, values and beliefs reflect that of her faiths. No-ones going to look at the church and think 'they view it as this, so does Gaga'. That's the way I see it. I applaud her for mixing her faith and homosexuality together. 

Each to their own though. 


 

 

Her being a Christian is compatible with being a gay rights activist. Her faith in God is not the problem. The problem is her association with a specific religious institution which actively tries to strip gay people of their civil rights.

In spite of what Uncle Tom's like Andrew Sullivan would have you believe, you can not be Roman Catholic and a gay rights activist without betraying either your activism or your membership to the Church.

As a former alter boy, a Catholic school kid, someone who went to mass every Sunday for eighteen years, someone who has family members who are priests and nuns, someone who is as culturally Catholic as you could possibly get - the church's teachings on homosexuality are destructive and incompatible with any Queer person's life. 

 

 

[mic 1,415]

On 5/10/2016 at 5:38 PM, Quasi said:

As far as I'm concerned, Gaga is still one of the most humble and down-to-earth artists out there. Her personality is modest in that she is accepting, gracious, and kind towards everyone and her intentions are always pure. We all know she worked hard to get where she is so let her spend a bit. She deserves it! 

I'm talking about modesty, I don't care about accepting attitude coz a thing you cannot see

[Florian 19,956]

12 hours ago, Didymus said:

Again, then why are the earlier written two Gospels in agreement that the woman didn't wash his feet but poured the perfume over his head? You take these differences for granted as if they're not worthy of being mentioned.

Matthew and Marc don't mention the first unction. They also doesn't name the woman, it could be anyone.

I'm not trying to proove that they are the same woman but that there is a chance they could and I think that's where you don't understand me.

[Didymus 34,379]

Just now, Florian said:

Matthew and Marc don't mention the first unction. They also doesn't name the woman, it could be anyone.

But that's more proof that it's not a significant person though lol

They do identify Mary M. in the very same text, why would they do that then and fail to identify the very same woman earlier? Mary M. in all the Gospels plays a very important role in the end, so it's just so unbelievable that, if it was the same woman, this would've gotten lost over time.

1 minute ago, Florian said:

I'm not trying to proove that they are the same woman but that there is a chance they could and I think that's where you don't understand me.

There's only a chance all the Jesuses in the Gospels are different because there were a lot of divinely inspired "messiahs" back in the day who challenged political power and were crucified, and Jesus was a common name. I mean, you can think of everything that way, especially because we don't really know a lot about the characters presented in the Gospels.

Mary M. has caught a lot of people's imagination simply for being a wh-re, when the Bible doesn't even mention she is. The only reason people try to connect these women is because of ridiculous fantasies that have no foundation in the Bible. I don't get why we need to see it as anything more than that.

[Florian 19,956]

8 minutes ago, Didymus said:

But that's more proof that it's not a significant person though lol

They do identify Mary M. in the very same text, why would they do that then and fail to identify the very same woman earlier? Mary M. in all the Gospels plays a very important role in the end, so it's just so unbelievable that, if it was the same woman, this would've gotten lost over time.

There's only a chance all the Jesuses in the Gospels are different because there were a lot of divinely inspired "messiahs" back in the day who challenged political power and were crucified, and Jesus was a common name. I mean, you can think of everything that way, especially because we don't really know a lot about the characters presented in the Gospels.

Mary M. has caught a lot of people's imagination simply for being a wh-re, when the Bible doesn't even mention she is. The only reason people try to connect these women is because of ridiculous fantasies that have no foundation in the Bible. I don't get why we need to see it as anything more than that.

I've never mentioned she was a wh0re tho. Would Mary M. be Mary of Egypt too?  

[Didymus 34,379]

Just now, Florian said:

I've never mentioned she was a wh0re tho. Would Mary M. be Mary of Egypt too?  

Except Gaga did, which is one reason why I brought up the whole false connection thing in the first place Do you deny the false prostitute connection is the only reason people care about Mary M. nowadays though?

[Florian 19,956]

4 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Except Gaga did, which is one reason why I brought up the whole false connection thing in the first place Do you deny the false prostitute connection is the only reason people care about Mary M. nowadays though?

People care about her cause she is THE woman of the Bible and feminism is trendy.

[Didymus 34,379]

3 minutes ago, Florian said:

People care about her cause she is THE woman of the Bible and feminism is trendy.

Except they link her to things that aren't in the Bible, ok that makes sense. It's not a Biblical fascination. It's a fantastical fascination. And one that's rooted in misogyny. Mary M. didn't need to be saved. She didn't need to be married to Jesus. She didn't need to do anything but be a woman Jesus elected as one of his disciples. And it's time people let go of the claptrap so her true value can shine through again.

[Florian 19,956]

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

Except they link her to things that aren't in the Bible, ok that makes sense. It's not a Biblical fascination. It's a fantastical fascination. And one that's rooted in misogyny. Mary M. didn't need to be saved. She didn't need to be married to Jesus. She didn't need to do anything but be a woman Jesus elected as one of her disciples. And it's time people let go of the claptrap so her true value can shine through again.

Jesus saved her from the 7 demons no?

[Didymus 34,379]

Just now, Florian said:

Jesus saved her from the 7 demons no?

That's not the same thing as painting her as a sinner.

Whatever, you've responded only to like half of my arguments and I seriously don't understand why you're making the claim they could be the same woman in the first place. The "there's a possibility!" argument is pointless from a perspective of Biblical narrative where each of the scenes have a different value, and it is also an embarrassing reinforcement of misogynistic logic.

[Florian 19,956]

27 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That's not the same thing as painting her as a sinner.

I was refering to your "Mary M. didn't need to be saved"  

28 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Whatever, you've responded only to like half of my arguments and I seriously don't understand why you're making the claim they could be the same woman in the first place. The "there's a possibility!" argument is pointless from a perspective of Biblical narrative where each of the scenes have a different value, and it is also an embarrassing reinforcement of misogynistic logic.

I responded to what I could. As I stated before I do not pretend to know the Bible like you do and for God's sake stop to associate anything I say with misogyny when it's not even the case nor relevant to my remarks.

And you want to know why ? Cause I liked Mary M. character in a thriller book and I liked her. I did research and saw that some people called her Mary of B too. I wondered why and try to choose a side. Is she Mary of B or not? And nobody convinced me enough to answer this question. Nobody gave me strong enough arguments to proove me she is the same person and nobody did it to proove it wasn't.